Rowan Williams: A Question of Faith

[jack]

The night before last, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his first Holy week lecture, at Westminster Abbey, said something controversial. Well, it was partly successful, in that now I, previously mostly ignorant about him, now know something else about him other than whether or not he has the same name as a woman I once had coffee with.

Unfortunately, I don't know he was saying, because the text isn't online. (If you want essay on controversy all over the internet from famous real life person, you could read Barack Obama on his pastor saying "God damn America" in the context of racism.)

However, he was quoted in a Times article, and then all over lots of blogs, as saying "Neo Darwinism and Creationist science deserve each other." I saw it on Rob's journal here

I don't want to argue about exactly what he said about creationism, but he was anti, which has my support.

However, he said "Neo Darwinism is a questionable theology pretending to be science," and is "a pseudo science"[1] and "most problematic" to theology.

Neo-Darwinism refers to the modern accepted theory of evolution. But the article says "Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins" and "Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion."

I very strongly suspect that that definition in the article, unsupported by any convenient definitions I could find, is a description of what the speech said or implied it meant by the term.

However, many atheist and other blogs, in addition to some good analysis, saw this quote and either were pleased that he admitted that religion (or CoE religion, or theology) had problems, or lambasted him for a complete misunderstanding.

Someone made the good point that it sounded like he was positioning himself as a middle ground between creationism and "Neo-Darwinism". But it's not clear what he actually said about the other extreme.

I get the impression that he was giving the impression that Neo-Darwinism refers to "culture is subject to evolutionary forces", or includes that idea. But I don't know if the speech is talking about that *only*, or has or is trying to give the impression that the extreme of believing in evolution is thinking that "culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion", or if he meant something else entirely.

"culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion" sounds plausible as an extreme of pro-atheist pro-evolution thought, but it isn't. This theory just sounds plausible because it has evolution in it, as if scientists were overly fond of the idea they might see it where it wasn't. Anti-religion people, eg. Dawkins, (it sounds like the AoC thinks he represents the extreme), may hope for and aim for the weeding out of religion, which I think influenced this confusion. But believing evolution by natural selection has lots of evidence that it happened for life, and hoping everyone will believe that, doesn't mean that you think culture evolves in the same way nor do I know anyone saying it does (Am I wrong?).

Nor do I know whether, if the ideas were confused, if they were confused by the times journalist, or the AoC. Nor whether "culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion" as a separate false claim, or seen as part of belief in the theory of evolution. Nor whether he was confused himself, unclear, misquoted, or deliberate. But I remember the last furore, you had to read the transcript to find out.

Does anyone know in any more detail what he really did say? AFAIK the text of the speech will be online, but isn't yet.

After all, if there were a showdown between Dawkins atheists and creationists, I'd want to be on the same side as Dawkins rather than as creationists, but I'd also want to be on the same side as CoE, Buddhists, and Jews... When was the last Jewish massacre, a couple of thousand years ago? Even if you count double points for the son of God, two is an amazingly low score. I deleted this paragraph as it didn't quite fit, and was potentially offensive, but I liked the idea enough I couldn't bear to remove it completely. It doesn't represent my views (and is notably false in some places) but rather what was funniest to write, I'm afraid.

[1] How would you phrase that sentence? I want to show the first quote is continuous and lead into the the second with the same "Neo-darwinism is" as the first, but there's no more context for the second. I could say "Noun" "is X" and "...Y" using the consecutive quotes to show continuous quotation in the first, and ellipsis to show elided quotation in the second. I could say Noun is "X" and "Y", but it gives the idea he gave them equal weight, which may not be true.

Comments

(frozen)

[miriammoules.livejournal.com]

I assume we're keeping Zionism out of it?

It sounds like Williams was echoing an article called "The Atheist Delusion" that I linked to the other day.

The basic tenet is that there is a belief that Theism will be weeded out by process, something comparable to the belief that Salvation will come by God's process, without much agency on human part.

Neo Darwinism seems to have this idea of a non-God utopian end-state, without God, while Darwin himself was a theist. It also seems to have a helpless earth/helpless humans that can't influence the way things turn out.

(frozen)

[robhu.livejournal.com]

It sounds like Williams was echoing an article called "The Atheist Delusion" that I linked to the other day.
Do you have a link to that?

The basic tenet is that there is a belief that Theism will be weeded out by process, something comparable to the belief that Salvation will come by God's process, without much agency on human part.
Wow. Who believes that? I know for sure that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens don't think that, and they're the usual atheism bogeymen.

Neo Darwinism seems to have this idea of a non-God utopian end-state, without God,
Neo-Darwinism is what is commonly referred to as evolution. It has no idea of a non-God utopian end-state at all. It's a scientific theory with mountains of evidence behind it. Saying it is atheist in any sense (more than one might say science is), or that it is about getting rid of God indicates the person using the term has no idea what they're talking about. Williams really should know better if he is going to make public statements. There really is no excuse for such ignorance from a public speaker, he should have done his research, even a 2 minute look on Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica could have prevented such a terribly gaffe (if indeed it is a gaffe).

while Darwin himself was a theist.
Whether he was an atheist or a theist is not terribly relevant with respect to the theory of evolution, as it stands or falls on the basis of the evidence, but it's quite misleading for you to say he "was a theist". In the 1800s in England virtually everyone was a Christian, and it was a requirement of university education that you were. So it's not at all surprising. Darwin may have had a real faith to begin with, but later on he rejected that faith. Here is a quote from his private biography:

"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

Here as you see, he links the newly discovered history of living things with his lack of belief, and specifically he identifies how evolution (which we now know to be true) contradicts the account given in the Bible. This is exactly what people like Dawkins are doing today, except that Christianity has mutated so that few Christians read the Bible in this way anymore (and not for theological reasons).

More on Darwin's lack of belief at Wikipedia and Christian Answers.

It also seems to have a helpless earth/helpless humans that can't influence the way things turn out.
Err, no.

[hilarityallen.livejournal.com]

I'd bet quite a bit of money that a nuanced position has been butchered by the Times.

[sphyg.livejournal.com]

Hrm, I'd be interested in reading a transcript. One of my lecturers came up with a wacky way to prove the theory of evolution, but it means analysing all proteins evah! Maybe I should make a start...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

One of my lecturers came up with a wacky way to prove the theory of evolution, but it means analysing all proteins evah!

What? What did they mean? And would that prove it more than existing evidence?

[pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)]

... said something controversial. Well, it was partly successful, in that now I, previously mostly ignorant about him, now know something else about him

... did you miss all the furore when he said something controversial a few weeks ago?

(bah. openid link sanitising is going to make a nasty mess of that sentence).

(perhaps you did. You need a larger f'list, eh??)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was not surprised that he was controversial. But although I knew there *was* a furore, what he actually *said* never actually filtered through to me, even through a party of really well informed people talking about it, just that it was not what anyone had said he had.

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

But believing evolution by natural selection has lots of evidence that it happened for life, and hoping everyone will believe that, doesn't mean that you think culture evolves in the same way nor do I know anyone saying it does (Am I wrong?).

Dennett and Dawkins (at least) certainly believe that culture follows an evolutionary process via memes (I'm reading Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" right now, which is very good). When thinking about this kind of thing you have to be very careful about precisely what you mean by evolution; in cultural evolution the memes are the replicators (genes), our minds are the vehicles (phenotypes) and the fitness criteria is of course related to the fitness of the idea represented by the meme, not how true the idea is but how good it is at replicating in the presence of other competing memes.

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

Indeed, but Dawkins notes that most religions are exceedingly good memes, so the concept that memetics as a theory believes "culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion" is at best half right.

In addition, of course, memetics is an exceedingly controversial theory which isn't tremendously popular amongst most behaviouralists. Heck, selfish gene theory isn't universally accepted either.

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

Indeed, but Dawkins notes that most religions are exceedingly good memes

Indeed - thank you! I knew there was something else I meant to add to this comment before I hit post, and that was it.

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

Wow, people really don't understand evolution. Neo-Darwinism is Darwin and Wallace's natural selection combined with our understanding of genes based on the rediscover of Mendel. Its been around since the 1930's. Dawkins is a Neo-Darwinist, and so is every other evolutionary biologist on the earth. (Ok so I won't be shocked if you find one or two counter examples) Dawkins may also hold other theroies that are not generality part of Neo-Darwinism, and relate to societies. Basicaly Dawkin is not the spokes person for Neo-Darwinism.

Anyways I have major dislike for social theroies of evolution as then tend to b excuses for people to be mean to each other.

(Also if you mean the last massacre of Jews try 1945)

[simont]

(Also if you mean the last massacre of Jews try 1945)

It seems fairly clear that Jack meant a massacre committed by Jews.

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

At which point it probably depends on which side of various arguments and counterarguments you take about various actions carried out by the Israeli army 1948-

[ravingglory.livejournal.com]

I can't make sense of that paragraph. Seems just a likely though.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Wow, people really don't understand evolution.
What's really amazing is that the *leader* of the Church of England specifically doesn't, and yet feels he understands it well enough to criticise it and call it a theology (did you see the Times article? OMG).

[hmmm-tea.livejournal.com]

The world would be in a very bad state if you needed to be an expert in something before you were allowed to criticised.

Surely anyone can criticise anything they disagree with, even on first appearances. That's a good way to learn more about the topic and bring it to people's attention. If you turn out to be totally wrong, then people who do know about it are sure to point this out.

I think (as a non-Christian) part of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and other religious leaders) is to share his views as (I certainly believe) they are supposed to be broadly representative of the church he leads (I'm not entirely sure they are, but that is a different issue).

[simont]

I think I'm being biased in my responses by the sinister overtones of the phrase "neo-Darwinism", which I hadn't heard before this post. For some reason the "neo-" prefix instinctively made me feel that it was probably some sort of radical offshoot of conventional Darwinism and was likely to make more extreme claims and/or have a more socially offensive agenda. I'd guess I probably got this feeling from comparing it to "neo-conservative". (And I probably got some extra feeling of social offensiveness from "neo-Nazi" as well, although neo-Nazis would have to try quite hard to be more socially offensive than the original kind.)

I'm inclined to think that anything with "neo-" on the front ought to automatically acquire a new name after about twenty years unless it has a specific good reason to keep the "neo-". (I'd let off "neolithic", for instance.) In much the same way that books with "NEW EDITION" written prominently on the cover should have it written in gradually disappearing ink.

[ptc24.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to make parallels with chemistry and atomic theory: it's a done deal that Dalton was right - in general - in that atoms do exist and are responsible for chemistry[1]. You could argue otherwise, more or less in the same way that you can argue that your cheese shop contains actual cheese and that a certain Norwegian Blue parrot is actually alive, but no-one will take you seriously. However it's also well known that a) Dalton wasn't the person to come up with an atomic theory, so one might feel inclined to contrast Daltonian atomic theory with Democritan atomic theory, and b) that Dalton got some notable things wrong, so you could have a neo-Daltonian theory which incorporates protons, neutrons, electrons, correct atomic masses but keeps the core idea.

Except we don't. A person who studies atoms is called a "chemist" or a "physicist", someone who believes in atoms is "not entirely stupid" and most people don't know who Dalton was or that he did anything other than study colour blindness. It would be really good if we could have a similar situation in biology, but alas it seems not to be.

[1] I have this quip, "A biologist who doesn't believe in evolution is about as much use as a chemist who doesn't believe in atoms". I'm not sure it's completely true, I think a continuous-matter chemist[2] is more stymied than a creationist, but to a first approximation...
[2] I'm almost disappointed that someone hasn't come up with a reason why atoms are inconsistent with Eucharistic theology (or something like that) and therefore atomic theory is a demonic plot to turn us all into atheists.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

I guess you think Trinity's New Court should be renamed too :-)

[simont]

:-)

I think I'd let that one off on the basis that it probably isn't confusing anyone very much. If it has to be renamed, I will certainly insist that New College, Oxford gets the treatment first :-)

[hmmm-tea.livejournal.com]

As you say, it's a shame the whole speech isn't accessible somewhere. Journalists aren't renouned for giving the full context, especially in an article that short and bloggers are particularly good a picking token quotes and making a big thing of them.

Rowan Williams seems particularly good at just telling us his views no matter how controversial they are (you just have to look at the whole Sharia Law thing to see that). I think it's quite good that he'll bring these issues to the attention of the population (Christian and non-Christian). It's a shame however that the other religious leaders don't do the same/get the same media coverage for it (delete as appropriate depending on which is actually the case - I don't know, but suspect it's a mixture of the two), as surely that's part of what they are their for?

He may well have unfortunately used the wrong term when refering to evangelical evolutionists as Neo-Darwinists (I must admit it's not a term I use very often), but I think the general sentiments, as portrayed in the article, seem valid.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

He may well have unfortunately used the wrong term when refering to evangelical evolutionists as Neo-Darwinists (I must admit it's not a term I use very often), but I think the general sentiments, as portrayed in the article, seem valid.
Why are you trying to change what he said? This man is an accomplished academic, let's take him at his word.

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

Hopefully the full text will appear on his website at some point which will help with the confusion (as my experience of media versions of what he says is that I'm left wondering whether the journalists attended the same lecture/sermon as me).

Speaking personally, as a Christian who has no problem with evolution as a mechanism in the world, I would understand by `neo-Darwinianism' the underlying philosophy of such people as Dawkins (who often ISTM fails to distinguish his philosophy from his science despite criticising others for making that mistake) rather than `the theory of evolution' which I would call that. This is possibly a reflection of my being more involved in the philosophical debate than the biological one. Thus I would expect that ++Rowan is coming from a similar position.

[hmmm-tea.livejournal.com]

Speaking personally, as a Christian...

I think that also sums up my thoughts on the subject, as a non-christian, much better than I was managing.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes, I thought that was very well said too.