Rowan Williams: A Question of Faith
Mar. 19th, 2008 01:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe 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.
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.
[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.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-19 09:23 pm (UTC)At which point I can understand why someone would use neo-Darwinism to represent Dawkins' views. Although it may mean evolution as science understands it at the moment, the average lay-person is not going to use it in this sense as they'll use evolution instead. It's already associated with Dawkins and he clearly associates it with his views when he talks.
You haven't read his work, so you come to a conclusion like that. Neo-Darwinism doesn't logically lead one to say there is no creator (and I'm quite sure Dawkins would agree on that point), but it does show that certain creation myths are false (such as the Christian one).
Even, having not read Dawkins' work I would be very surprised if it did. That's not the point. The point is that Dawkins does presumably (certainly in the title at least) refute the existence of a creator.
Yes, and that's a smart position to be in. If he were to say "No hold on, the Bible says the world was created in six days" he'd get laughed out of his job, while if he said "Actually lets forget about this God thing as the explanation and just go with what science says" they'd get rid of him too. The only safe path for him to walk is a kind of middling path where you either reduce God to some kind of mysterious name for the universe and what happens in it, you hope that God can somehow be in the gaps that science hasn't yet shone its light in, or you say something largely unprovable like that you believe in directed theistic evolution.
In which case, why would he change from that stand now? It makes no logical sense for him to say what you are reading into the times quote.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 07:48 am (UTC)Look - you don't know what it means, that's fine. It's not fine for you to redefine the word. Apart from causing confusion which muddies the water and makes discussion difficult, it's damn insulting to have people from outside of a field waltz in and think as they're ignorant of the meaning they can just redefine it to be something else. No no no, you must not, please please understand this.
Even, having not read Dawkins' work I would be very surprised if it did. That's not the point. The point is that Dawkins does presumably (certainly in the title at least) refute the existence of a creator.
"Even I have no idea, I think this" what?!
The point is you're making judgements about things you haven't read and don't understand. That is quite annoying.
In which case, why would he change from that stand now? It makes no logical sense for him to say what you are reading into the times quote.
Do you know what directed theistic evolution is? If that was what he maybe had in mind then there would be no contradiction with his prior statement at all. If he wants to reduce the strength of evolution as an explanation so God needs to be involved (the superset directed theistic evolution belongs to) there would be no contradiction either. Or he could just be being inconsistent or might have changed his mind, or any number of other things.
I'm sorry this is getting rather frustrating. You don't appear to be even reading what I've written, an example, directed theistic evolution was included in the bit you even quoted and you missed it! Please, if you're not going to read and consider what I've said don't reply. I don't want to have to keep requoting things I just said to you in response to your questions.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 11:00 am (UTC)However, he is not a scientist, so you should not expect him to approach things from a scientists viewpoint.
It's not fine for you to redefine the word.
If I've understood it (maybe incorrectly) as meaning something else then obviously I might use it in that meaning. Admittedly, this may mean I have to clarify what I've said at a later date, but in this case I think the AoC makes it clear what he means when he links Neo-Darwinism to Dawkins.
The point is you're making judgements about things you haven't read and don't understand.
That is exactly what I am not doing. All I am saying is that Neo-Darwinism is often linked to Dawkins, so I can understand why someone might have used the term to discuss Dawkins' wider views.
I have read what your saying, take your point in places and disagree with it in others. There is no requirement for replies to address every single point you make (yours don't address all my points and misunderstand several in places, for example).
At the end of the day, I think I understand what your view on this is. If you don't understand mine, then look at
However, this is now going round in circles, neither of our viewpoints are changing, so unless you have something new to add to the conversation, it's probably not worth pursuing any further.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-20 11:13 am (UTC)So, if I'm not a theologian I can speak out against something and use incorrect theological terms for it? No, of course I can't.
I think the AoC makes it clear what he means when he links Neo-Darwinism to Dawkins.
I don't think he does, but even in referring to "neo-Darwinianism of Dawkins kind" he assumes that there can be a kind specific to Dawkins. If there can be it has nothing to do with god.
At the end of the day, I think I understand what your view on this is.
I understand you very well - the bit I'm annoyed about is that you're still happy to go on misusing terms. If Williams has misused the term (I don't see why we must assume he has, he is probably doing the same thing Schönborn did) then the right thing to do is to say "I apologise, I meant to say $foo", and then we can get on with things. If I misused a theological term I would do the same thing, not spend hours arguing that I "understood the term differently".