Saturday 31 July 2010

Whatever Happened To The Great Tradition?

Re-reading Maurice Cowling's Mill and Liberalism for a couple of things in the pipeline (the Introduction to the 1990 edition is an invaluable summary of what was once the New Right), I am struck by the description of Mill, together with Bertrand Russell and Matthew Arnold, as "the Great Tradition" of English atheism, as precious to atheists as the Great Tradition is to us, and comparable to anything on the Continent.

Well, that was 1963. Our Great Tradition has continued to grow. So has Continental atheism. But to whom do those who looked to Mill, Russell and Arnold now also look? Only Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I have too much regard for the latter's brother to go in with all guns blazing, and in any case he makes less noise than Dawkins, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

But Dawkins is a scientist only insofar as he is the holder of a forty-year-old doctorate. In the intervening period, he has repeatedly published essentially the same work of incompetent philosophy, theology and history. Long after his death, no one will be writing the books on him that they are still writing on Mill, Russell and Arnold.

In fact, what do serious atheist philosophers really think of Dawkins, whose adolescent readers must turn up from time to time in their seminars? A C Grayling, while also not always above cheap and crowd-pleasing shots of historical inaccuracy when writing for the Guardian, has certainly been a reader of this blog in the past. What says he, not so much about Dawkins personally, as about his work and its influence?

52 comments:

  1. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 18:03

    What indeed! I was a doctoral student of AC Grayling and we talked about your blog often. Anthony definitely reads it (at least he did then, a couple of years ago) and admires it. Your insight into how the "survival of the fittest" is a tautology was a real gem that he pointed out.

    Keep socking it the Dawkinses of the world!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got it from him, or at least from a book that he edited. It is a commonplace of the philosophy of science, as of course you know.

    Dawkins doesn't, though. He would have to read any in order to know something like that. And that would be beneath him.

    I expect that Grayling and others like him cannot stand Dawkins, Hitchens and the attention that they receive. They no doubt feel that that attention ought to be theirs. And they have a point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't worry, David. Dawkins fans are most likely to be reading for science degrees. They wouldn't have the requirements to get onto philosophy courses. A pity, because they could do with being exposed to both philosophy of religion and philosophy of science, not to mention basic epistemology.

    Dawkins would be funny in his appeals to teleology and aesthetics in the service of scientism. Would be, but isn't. There is nothing funny about his appeal to the masses and especially to the young and impressionable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nor is there anything funny about his having had professorial access to what is probably the finest university library in the world, yet refused to use it in order to educate himself in the field in which he insists on publishing. Were it not for his position at Oxford, then his books would simply fail to find a publisher.

    'Unweaving The Rainbow' is particularly bad: a book-length demolition of an argument that no one has ever made. As he would have known, if he had ever read the first thing on the subject. It is probably kindest to pass over memes, or the idea that genes can be selfish.

    But, as you say, he has a large, and largely unformed, following. Do proper atheist thinkers worry that they would be letting down their cause by publicly taking on, and undoubtedly demolishing, its most prominent advocate? They need to think a lot harder about that one. Even if, on one level, I am glad that they do not, so that all that we usually have to deal with in popular terms is Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 19:48

    Yes, Adrian, but Dawkins doesn't HAVE a scientific reputation with anyone who matters and knows the subject! He never recovered from the mauling that Mary Midgley gave him and his ridiculous idea of the selfish gene. David knows this very well and, if I may say so, has done his own sterling work in helping expose and humiliate Dawkins. The rest of the anti-God crowd pretend to be intellectuals but Hitchens got a 3rd-class degree and Aronovitch got sent down!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unfortunately, Dawkins's Chair was in the Public Understanding of Science. Outside academia itself, university records need not matter too much, and indeed a great deal of damage is done by a starry-eyed attitude to such things.

    But Dawkins is not outside academia. He is merely inactive in his field and actively incompetent in other people's. It doesn't bother me, although it must surely bother other people, that he gives atheism a bad name intellectually. But it does bother me, a non-scientist who would benefit enormously from the work of a diligent Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, that he has the same effect on science.

    By contrast, in his little anthologies, Grayling shows every sign of having gone to great lengths to educate himself about science.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 20:24

    Definitely, and a lot of his insights have been gained from reading this blog, as you've been able to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  8. N. it's the other way round.

    I did have a run-in with him once about something on here, and I will no doubt have further cause to bemoan his Monty Python invocations of the Spanish Inquisition and such like.

    But Philosophy 1 and Philosophy 2 were invaluable, and I still have cause to refer to them. 'The Meaning of Things', 'The Reason of Things' and 'The Mystery of Things' are real gems. And 'Among The Dead Cities' is of the utmost importance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Birckbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 21:11

    Oh, by no means. Anthony knows enough science to recognise that Darwinian fundamentalism is bad science. Reading this blog helped him to that crucial insight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, if you say so. But I had read it in one of his books before I had ever heard the word "blog".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 21:51

    Yes, but Dawkins was destroyed years ago by Mary Midgley. Anyone who knows about biology knows this and admires Midgley's expertise. But it takes people who understand these subjects to get the word out. That's why you've done such great work in educating people through your articles and posts. Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One tries one's best. But if you are going to read either Mary Midgley or me, then read Mary Midgley. In fact, read Mary Midgley anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 22:22

    She is 60 years older than you! To have gained expertise in science, philosophy and theology at your level and be able to communicate it to "scholars" is a gift.

    ReplyDelete
  14. She didn't publish anything until she was in her fifties, saying that before then she had not known what she thought. I may be proving her point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Birkbeck Bertie31 July 2010 at 23:01

    That's my point. You're in our early 30's and are one of the most powerful intellects writing today, so that Grayling and others follow and learn. Your influence in the world of politics is massive. You've changed the zeitgeist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, if only...

    Then again, never trust anyone who claims to be conscious of a particular personal destiny or mission to, as you put it, change the Zeitgeist. Margaret Thatcher says something like that about herself in her autobiography. Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blair's will say the same but worse.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Out next month, isn't it? It is my birthday towards the back end of next month, so with any luck I won't have to pay money for the thing. It's the thought that counts. And this way, I'd own the copy that someone else might actually have been reading.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great post. I agree wholeheartedly about Dawkins. It seems his followers do tend to be young, and employ the usual "Life of Brian" arguments. What is perhaps more dangerous is the problem of "practical atheism," that is, people living life as if they really thought God did not exist (although they may profess to be religious), as opposed to professed atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are not without a sense of humour, are you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. A sense of humour is of course inseparable from a sense of proportion.

    The likes of "Birkbeck Bertie" really do believe that they are persons of the utmost importance because of their essentially bought university places and their positions on, say, student newspapers that no one of any real importance will so much as suffer in the room. (The one I have in mind, however, may be about to return to better days, if certain developments there are brought to fruition now that the rubbish has been cleared out...)

    This makes them naturally open to the fantasies and pretensions of, for example, writers on historically grand newspapers that no one any longer reads, in their own sphere an accurate description of their own organ.

    Such writers, even when now imprisoned behind a paywall in order to ensure an absolutely minimal readership, have, like them, stolen the university places that rightfully belonged to the children of the poor or the middle-earning. But, like them, they are thick. Therefore, like them, they believe that their unearned wealth and their paper qualifications prove that they are clever, a fallacy through which anyone can see who has two brain cells to rub together.

    Bring back the grammar schools in order to rid us of these people. And in order to kill off sales of Richard Dawkins's book(s).

    ReplyDelete
  22. I recall some fairly oblique references to a dispute with Grayling a few months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Water under the bridge. He gave up in the end. But, as I say, water under the bridge.

    He is not without his faults, but you should still read Philosophy 1, Philosophy 2, The Meaning of Things, The Reason of Things, The Mystery of Things, and Among The Dead Cities.

    Poor Birkbeck Bertie. Merely because he has never attracted the slightest attention from any such person and never will, he assumes that nor has or will anyone else. Money still cannot buy quite everything, and may that ever remain the case. So instead, he has to make do with Oliver Kamm. What an achievement.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Or Richard Dawkins. Even worse.

    Do I sense that not all your tutees have been, no pun intended, an unqualified success?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Birkbeck Bertie seems very respectful and admiring in his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One can only work with the material available.

    Of course, they are no more likely than Dawkins to read Philosophy 2, in which John Worrall explains, under Grayling's editorship, how and why "the survival of the fittest" (a phrase which Darwin never used) is a tautology.

    I am sure that I once saw a volume on the philosophy of religion in which the atheist position was stated by Dawkins, in a piece of anecdotage about how awful the Duke of Edinburgh was. Commissions like that must drive Grayling and others of his ilk up the wall. Rightly so.

    Perhaps they should start publishing whatever comes into their heads about genetics and molecular biology? According to those who were lectured by Dawkins a dozen or so years ago, even then his knowledge was behind that of those who had secured admission to study such matters at Oxford. Well, of course. He had spent decades becoming That Richard Dawkins Off The Telly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Still, it has given you the opportunity to recommend several good books. Birkbeck Bertie won't read them but other people might. I am definitely going to.

    ReplyDelete
  28. In addition to them and Midgley, and alongside Philosophy 1 and Philosophy 2, read Anthony Harrison-Barbet's 'Mastering Philosophy', Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy', and Durham's own David E Cooper's 'World Philosophies: An Historical Introduction'.

    But always remember, both the rational and the empirical methods have their roots in Augustinian illuminism, with all that that entails, while it was the Church that saved the Classical tradition from the advancing hordes whom She then transformed into Romans who were acknowledged as such by both their Latin-writing and their Greek-writing fellow-Romans, and who provided Fathers and Doctors of the Holy Roman Church to rank with any.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Glorious, vintage David Lindsay. We can all just see that self-important upper middle class boy, but his family probably not long removed from the gutter so very insecure, thinking he is so clever and funny while you not only reel him in but reveal your own erudition and the lightness of how you wear it. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." Except, being a true son of Christianity’s reworking of it all, you know never to take the hemlock. Never take the hemlock, Mr Lindsay. Never take the hemlock.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sure he wasn't triple bluffing you or whatever?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Absolutely certain, alas.

    Anonymous, Grayling is a leading exponent of the theory that Christianity "overthrew" Classical civilisation. So, like Boris Johnson, he needs to be asked which he would bring back of slavery, pederasty, the games, and the prerogatives of the paterfamilias.

    Actually, they are all well on the way back, anyway. De-Christianisation in action. Like the retreat from science, which only ever began in Christendom, because it only ever could.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As far as I know, the first person to point out in print the tautologous nature of "survival of the fittest" was Chesterton, in his essay "The Priest of Spring":

    http://www.online-literature.com/donne/2583/

    ReplyDelete
  33. Science lecturer2 August 2010 at 11:44

    It does seem very foolish of you to make grand declarations about science while you obviously don't know the subject. Midgley's paper is one of the classic category mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Say what you like about David Lindsay, but nobody could accuse him of being "not long removed from the gutter so very insecure". Archdeacons on one side, much-gonged colonial client class on the other, no wonder he gravitated towards the Old Labour right wing in County Durham. And no wonder he is anything but "insecure" unlike his ridiculous enemies "Birkbeck Bertie", "Break Dancing Jesus", Oliver Kamm and such trash.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You are a very bad man, Mr Lindsay. A very bad, wicked National Treasure of a man.

    ReplyDelete
  36. David Lindsay Tutee2 August 2010 at 17:05

    @James 00:05, the one who was "not an unqualified success" should have been a lot more grateful. He was lucky to graduate at all with his history of JCR electoral fraud. His tutor, David Lindsay of the David Lindsay Appreciation Society on Facebook, was so loyal to him that as soon as he was a postgrad and pretending to edit some pretend newspaper that not even other students take seriously, he stuck the knife in to prove he could. Thought he did, anyway. He had no knife. He still cannot get over the fact that David and everyone else dismissed the whole thing with a waive of their hands. Failed fraudulent presidential candidate, failed vindictive newspaper editor, possibly the only tutee ever to have fallen out with David Lindsay. The rest of us love him, really adore him, even set up a fan club on Facebook. Join it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Philosophy lecturer2 August 2010 at 17:22

    Science lecturer, rubbish. You don't know what you are talking about. Are you Richard Dawkins? His supposed riposte to Midgley was side-splittingly bad, as are all his forays into philosophy, i.e., everything that he ever writes. By all accounts, he lost touch with his own original discipline sometime in the 1980s, if not before. But Oxbridge Fellowships are for life, and they are so useful for nabbing that atheist spot on radio or TV. That could not go to a proper philosopher, could it? Oh no. I am not an atheist, although I am not a Christian either, but atheism deserves better than to be given a bad intellectual name by Dawkins and the saturation coverage of him. That includes his illiterate reply to Mary Midgley.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Another science lecturer2 August 2010 at 18:19

    Dawkins not only gives atheism a bad name, he gives science a bad name with his memes, his selfish genes, his arrogance eg towards Midgley, and his preference for media stardom over solid lab work. The new occupant of his Chair is much better and comes from the harder end of science.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My, you have been busy today. As have I, but that is another story.

    Arnold, unless anyone knows of an earlier instance, then quite so. GKC's "mainstream" reputation will grow in this postsecular age. Some of us intend to make sure of it.

    David Lindsay Tutee (I think I know which one - trust that you are enjoying the summer), those joining the David Lindsay Appreciation Society would of course find themselves in some very interesting company.

    Science lecturer, you still don't get it, do you? Proposing that certain biological changes have occurred, is speaking scientifically. But proposing memes, or selfishness on the part of genes, or "the survival of the fittest", is speaking philosophically. And within that, incompetently. Dawkins would know these things, the one about survival very explicitly, if he had ever bothered to read Philosophy 1 and Philosophy 2. Both edited by A C Grayling.

    Another scientist, I am not getting into you lot's feud over whether or not certain sciences are "soft". Save to say that biology's case is not helped by association, however unfair at any time in the last thirty or more years, with Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is a very confusing thread. "Birkbeck Bertie" was extremely complimentary about you and your writing, and you engaged with him for a while, and then criticised him in very strong terms for no obvious reason. Are we missing something? Did he post something rude that you have since deleted? The abrupt change of tone in the thread makes very little sense as it stands.

    ReplyDelete
  41. He was trying to be funny and to appear clever. He failed at both, more spectacularly with each time that he came back. He is now trying to post splenetic, thoroughly abusive comments, which are if anything even more amusing, but which I should not dream of putting up.

    He is not the only one. I have had one claiming to be one of my tutees (one up on last night, when they were claiming that I didn't have any), but unable to use basic Durham vocabulary correctly. Such is my critics' level.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Is he the only ever person ever to have left the David Lindsay Appreciation Society, in which case does he think that the company of Blair era neocons will do more to get him on than the company of David Cameron's philosopher-king?

    What did you ever do to him?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Presumably so.

    I have no idea. Not that it keeps me awake at night.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I assumed that Birkbeck Bertie was playing along after your first reply to him.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That is because you have never met him.

    I have enjoyed this one. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. How do these people get let into universities?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Because I have never worked in admissions.

    I think he has realised what he has done, which is why he is quite so bitter and vituperative, as his comments that I am not putting up make only too abundantly clear.

    But that is what he has done. He is just going to have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. He has betrayed David Lindsay. Don't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You can't be serious, he can't possibly have thought that you were taken in. Forget if we have ever met him, has he ever met you?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh, yes. As have a number of dogs, cats and budgerigars.

    ReplyDelete