What
does it mean to be a public intellectual? Could it merely be an intellectual
who is well known in the public domain? If one uses this premise, one must
fully understand what an intellectual is in the first place. One of the major
functions of an intellectual is to criticize the accepted thoughts, beliefs,
viewpoints, and accepted truths of a society, in order to spark debate and
instigate progress and change. This is necessary for humans, as a species, to
continue to develop and better themselves as a society. But why is it the job
of a so called intellectual to criticize society? According to Stephen
Mack, it is not only the intellectual’s duty but also “the obligation of
every citizen in a democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in
self-government are duty-bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful
institutions that would shape their lives.” So why then, do intellectuals, take
it upon themselves to criticize and be recognized as an intellectual? It is
because they are trained to be thoughtful, and criticism is part of the requisites
for their intellectual employment. So then, it is clear what the duties and
goals of an intellectual are, but what distinguishes a public intellectual from
an intellectual?
An accepted definition of
an intellectual is:
A
person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality
of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of that society,
and, by such discourse in the public sphere, he or she gains authority within
the public opinion.
This definition alludes
to the fact that an intellectual who is involved in the public sphere, gains
authority in that sphere and the public’s opinion. Further insight to the
definition of a public intellectual can be derived from the writings of Jeremy Jenning and
Anthony Kemp-Welch who argue that publicity and public perception are the
key aspects of determining the difference between an intellectual and a public
intellectual. To be considered a public intellectual, one must do more than
possess intellect and be an expert in his or her field. A public intellectual
must be able to exert influence over a wide audience who are also able to
provide high quality critique. Possessing a wide enough audience, who are able
to critique the public intellectual, allows one to gain a deeper understanding
of issues, and results in constant reevaluation of ideas. Mack
states that “intellectuals routinely lament that the American public simply
doesn't respect, follow--or even hear--what the best and the brightest of our
society is telling them.” This is certainly not true in many cases, one of them
being Richard Dawkins. He has become widely recognized as a public
intellectual, not only for his contributions to scientific discourse, but also
for his creation of an atheistic movement and his desire to teach others how to
think scientifically and rationally. In addition, he has reached a level of
fame that has enabled him to reach many individuals and influence society in
more ways than one.
Dawkins was first recognized as a public intellectual due
to his contributions to evolutionary studies. In 1976, Dawkins published his
first book The Selfish Gene, which adds to the prominent theory of natural selection by
Charles Darwin. He adds his own ideas to the theory, relating the theory more
to the natural selection within genes rather than among organisms. This book alone
has sparked countless debates and led to the creation of an entire field of
study called memetics. One of the major reasons this book acted as a catalyst
for Dawkins’ rise to prominence as a public intellectual, is the fact that “the
book was notable not just because of what it espoused but also because of its
approachable style, which made it accessible to a popular audience” (1). Having a
style which enabled a wide audience to understand and become intimate with
increased his popularity and allowed others to become involved with his work.
It allowed others to learn from him and with him, which separates him from
others who would call themselves intellectuals, only to preach words of wisdom,
without giving thought to the audience they seek to engage. In 1982, Dawkins
wrote another significant contribution to society, titled The Extended Phenotype, which proposed that phenotypes are products
of the surrounding environment in addition to genetics. Both of these works
established Dawkins as an intellectual power in the study of evolution while also
setting the stage for him to become a central figure in the raging debate
between creationism and evolution.
Dawkins’ book The
Blind Watchmaker marks a point in Dawkins’ career where he becomes more
focused on becoming an advocate for evolution in the debate against creationism.
In his book, he creates an elaborate argument against intelligent design and
creationism. The evolutionary process is broken down into multiple steps and
the idea that some aspects of existence cannot be explained, thus requiring the
notion of a higher power, is refuted. Dawkins initially engaged in countless
debates with religious creationists and after some time, decided to change his
strategy when dealing with his opponents. Dawkins states:
[Creationists]
want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the
idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists… They may not win the
argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like
there really is an argument to be had. . . . [Furthermore,] when the debate is with someone like a
Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out – they've won
the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the
oxygen of respectability.
Clearly, Dawkins believes that there is nothing to be gained by debating
with a creationist. This is due to the fact that Dawkins believes that
Creationists derive merit from being accepted as a truth, regardless of
supporting facts. To Creationists, they are accepted as a possible truth the
moment they are deemed an actual opponent worthy of debating. As a result,
Dawkins believes that debating with Creationists, using the logic of science
and fact based evidence is pointless. This has caused Dawkins to speak out
against organized religion, because of its lack of objective logic, and has
used his book The God Delusion to
argue that belief in a higher power is akin to being in a delusional state;
hence, one of his primary beliefs is that God is not necessary for humans to
live moral and happy lives. This belief has caused Dawkins to devote his
intellect and knowledge to educating the populace about the logic infallibility
of science, as well as the absurdity of religion.
In his quest to prove
the absurdity of religion, Dawkins has become more than just a simple proponent
of atheism, he can often be found blatantly attacking religion, earning himself
an aggressive reputation among religious conservatives. For example, he makes
one statement implying
that in some instances, raising a child as a Christian could be worse than
sexual child abuse. This clearly shows how aggressive and excessively critical
Dawkins can be when attacking religion. Mack states that it is an obligation of public intellectuals as well as all
members of society to “prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that
would shape their lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play
in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling.” Despite Dawkins aggressive tactics, it is clear
that he is fulfilling his role as a public intellectual, to question the
long-established and often unquestioned institution of religion. Whether his
reasons are selfish or not, his questions enable others who encounter his work
to question these institutions as well, and make their own informed decisions. In
addition to questioning religion, Dawkins has been centrally involved in an
atheist movement, providing knowledge about atheism, and the courage to “come
out” as an atheist and wear the label of atheist proudly. He has established
the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Research and Science, which promotes scientific literacy and a secular
worldview. By doing these things, he has provided an outlet and an information
source for any who wish to learn more about his work, and has made it more
accessible thus solidifying his role as a public intellectual.
In Stephen Mack’s article “The Cleric as a Public Intellectual,” Mack posits, “American democracy has
always depended on public figures—and public intellectuals—whose work has been
animated by strong faith.” This is a problem for Richard Dawkins and can be
viewed as a problem for American public intellectuals as well. The reason can
be found in Mack’s quote of Peter Beinard:
What these (and most other) liberals are saying
is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and
there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion
influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to
ground them—as much as possible—in reason and evidence, things that are
accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise
you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you. In a diverse
democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t
be theological.
One of the most important facets of being a public intellectual is
having the ability to influence and provide wisdom that people from all walks
of life can relate to. Dawkins justifiably believes that including theological
reasoning in political discourse is absurd. The absurdity lies in the inherent
fact that one cannot criticize or argue against something that cannot be
logically fathomed, like a higher power. There is no way to logically convince
another who is not well versed in a religion, to take teachings of that
religion as fact, unless they decide to blindly follow what they are being
told. But, blindly following teachings does not promote the advancement of the human
species. Indeed, arguments for religion by religious intellectuals against
atheism appear to be one-sided. Thus, Dawkins believes that one cannot debate
with “religious intellectuals” because their arguments and logic cannot apply
to all individuals. In fact, Dawkins refuses to debate creationists and attacks
religion for these reasons. He views religion as a disruptive force which
hinders critical thought. Dawkins has also expressed his views on using
religion as a moral compass when he says:
The very idea that we
get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our
moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don’t. We shouldn’t,
because if you actually look at the bible or the Koran, and get your moral
compass from there, it’s horrible – stoning people to death, stoning people for
breaking the Sabbath. Now of course we don’t do that anymore, but the reason we
don’t do it is that we pick out those verses of the bible that we like, and
reject those verses we don’t like. What criteria do we use to pick out the good
ones and reject the bad ones? Non-biblical criteria, non-religious criteria.
The same criteria as guide any modern person in their moral compass that has
nothing to do with religion.
His words display the inherent flaw in an
argument that is often made, saying that one without religion will have no
moral compass. He makes a clear and logical argument showing that devout religious
individuals have decided which rules and teachings to follow in the Bible based
on what is acceptable in our current time period. He points out that religious
individuals today would not stone someone for breaking the Sabbath. Just like
the devout religious, a non-religious individual would not stone another to
death, because this is the moral standard of our day. Therefore, in a clear and
concise manner, he has logically argued why morality is not contingent upon
being religious.
While it may appear that Dawkins has become a religious
hating zealot, he claims that he debates against religious individuals the same
way he would scientists, with reason. However, the fact that he has begun to
refuse to debate many creationists and religious individuals, stems not from
his lack of respect for scientific discourse, but rather from his inability to
relate to religious individuals and their logic. Over the many years Dawkins
has spent advocating against religion, it seems that he might have lost his
drive to convince others to see his reason. Neil deGrasse Tyson shows this fact
when he says:
You are professor of the public understanding of
science, not professor of delivering truth to the public, and these are two
different exercises. Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here’s the facts, you are either
an idiot or you’re not.’ It’s ‘Here’s the facts, and here is a sensitivity to
your state of mind.’ And I worry that your methods, and how articulately barbed
you can be, end up simply being ineffective.
From Tyson’s statement, it is reasonable to conclude that Dawkins, has
become quick to provide what he thinks the truth is, and believes that anyone who
doesn’t accept the truth to be an idiot. Interestingly, this type of behavior
appears to be the same sort of reasoning that Dawkins has come to detest among religious
individuals. How then can Dawkins’ arguments against religion be taken
seriously when he makes the same one sided arguments as those he dismisses as
idiots? This can undoubtedly be viewed as a flaw in Dawkins’ logical reasoning,
but it does not take away from his logical prowess and intellectual
achievements over the course of his life.
Regardless of Dawkins
current methodology for addressing religion, it is clear that Dawkins is one of
the most prominent public intellectuals of our time. His expansive work and
contributions to the fields of biology and evolution are invaluable. In
addition, his criticism of religion and other fields of science, have “stirred
the pot” as Mack states, in order to further public discourse and improve our
society. It goes without saying, that Dawkins has influenced countless lives
and will be remembered as one of the greatest public intellectuals and thinkers
of our time.
Resources Used:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/26/brief-candle-in-the-dark-richard-dawkins-science-review
No comments:
Post a Comment