Gentle my lord, sleek o'er your rugged looks; be bright and jovial among your guests to-night.

Here's how and why Michael Rea should have won his exchange with Daniel Dennett (instead of committing the technical foul of quoting him somewhat out of context.)

The crux of the problem with Dennett's position, as Rea correctly notes, is that he comes out and demands “to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.” Yet Dennett himself is highly disrespectful of religion.

Indeed, the sole function of the term 'bright', so far as I can make out, is to encode disrespect for religion into the concept formerly known as atheism. (Otherwise, why not just call yourself an atheist?) Consider the fact that, in the space of a paragraph, Dennett characterizes a 'bright' as "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view" and as a person with "an inquisitive world view". The term is obviously going to be unusably unstable and ambiguous if it turns out there are significant numbers of religious folk who are not dull and incurious; or if it turns out that there is a sizable population of intellectually complacent naturalists. Dennett obviously does not seriously countenance either possibility, which seems to me silly and blinkered. But Dennett is entitled to his opinion.

Which brings me to my second point. Rea lets Dennett get undue mileage out of significant slippage between 'respect' and 'tolerance'. Let us understand these terms in a natural enough way, according to which the demand for the former is stronger (therefore more doubtful) than the demand for the latter. Democrats and Republicans very often don't respect each other much, but they tend to tolerate each other's bare existence (except for Tom deLay, who does not as a rule tolerate the existence of Democrats.) Yes, yes, it's all rather more complicated (perhaps even the case of deLay.) Most notably, bare tolerance of views one does not per se respect is often an expression of deep respect for the person holding the views. But let's table these and other complications and stick with the generally agreeable point that there are lots of people one is morally and politically duty-bound to tolerate, whose patently idiotic views one is not in any way, shape or form bound to respect.

In his op-ed, Dennett isn't demanding mere tolerance but - this is crucial - out-and-out respect from religious folk. Atheists are tolerated as things stand, i.e. not thrown in jail, not silenced, they are allowed to vote, marry, be on juries, publish their views, run for office. Atheists just aren't much respected in lots of places, including lots of high places (a circumstance I deplore, right along with Dennett.) And atheism is ballot-box poison. This is what Dennett wants to change. Dennett is demanding respect.

So Rea's response ought therefore to have run: Dennett demands respect, not tolerance, but is only willing to extend tolerance in return, not respect. So it shouldn't be too surprising if religious folk regard this as a bad bargain, if not a 'bad joke' (as Rea puts it). Certainly, Dennett's attempt to finesse the rhetoric of political liberalism so as to generate the vague impression that anything less than this assymetrical exchange would be anti-atheist bigotry ... is a big fat fallacy.

Dennett would probably indignantly rebut the first premiss, citing the following passage from his response to Rea as evidence that he is potentially respectful: "Neither Dawkins nor I believe in God, but whereas Dawkins is convinced that belief in God, and religion in general, does far more harm than good, I have not yet made up my mind about that. I can see that a lot of good comes from believing in God, and it might still outweigh all the harm. I’m looking into this difficult question. It is an empirical question." It doesn't seem to me, however, that granting that religious folk might be 'useful idiots' - which is what this comes to, in effect - and hinting that empirical scientists ought to poke them in the lab to find out, amounts to extending them much respect.

Dennett basically sneaks around the whole problem with his position right at the start of his response: Michael Rea charges that Richard Dawkins and I “aren’t the least bit interested in mutual respect.” and are in fact guilty of the intolerance we deplore in religious people. Not so.

The proper response is: yes, you most certainly are not interested in mutual respect. No, it does not follow that you are guilty of intolerance, so it does not follow that I have to accuse you, wrongly, of intolerance. This is obviously what Rea is getting at. But along the way he pretty much does accuse Dennett of out-and-out intolerance. That's his slip. He should have stuck with accusing him of disrespect.

Comments

[Russell L. Carter]

Fair enough, I think your logic is impeccable. You did not address the public school curriculum problem though. As I read your argument, respect there implies equal time.

[jholbo]

Thanks again for commenting. Yeah, I didn't address that issue because it strikes me as quite distinct. Viscerally, I want to say it's an easy call: teach Darwinism. But intellectually I am troubled by annoying concerns about how, in a democracy, citizens are allowed to decide what gets taught in school. And citizens strictly speaking have the right to make BAD decisions about lots of stuff, perhaps up to and including adopting public school curricula containing things that are not regarded as acceptable by the experts in the field.

And pragmatically, just poking Christians in the eye - which is Dennett's bright idea for making them like him - is not going to win friends and influence people.

I actually think the most sensible option, in cases where it is not possible to teach straight Darwinism, is to insist that both be taught. (After all, if you refuse to teach creation science in such a context, angry parents and kids will think you are dogmatically refusing to engage their deeply-held beliefs.) Partisans of Darwin are sometimes too slow to embrace this option, because they think it means tipping the hat of respect to views they don't think are respectable. But actually the exercise of arguing with the proponents of some of the more ingenious creationist arguments is quite fascinating. Teaching a course on 'creation science and Darwinist responses to creation science' could give students a very creditable grounding in Darwinism. it might even be a more effective teaching method than straight exposition, due to the associated Jerry Springer-worthy mutual animosities and controversy.

[Russell L. Carter]

But of course, equal play is the obvious "classically liberal" response. And I am classically liberal. However, I think there are two problems with this approach that prevent it from ever being a practical solution.

a) The first is pragmatic; there simply isn't enough class time to compare and contrast the myriad creation myths with the creation 'myth' that science has worked out. What you'll get is a caricature, much as the current level of science ed in the public schools is a caricature, only given the time constraints, worse.

b) The second is the problem that I wrote about indirectly on crookedtimber. And this is more insidious. The environment of the child is not discountable; it contains elements of social coercion. The child generally will not be able to use detached critical judgement, and when required to judge a competition will accede to whichever direction is pulling it at the time (rebellion or assimilation).

Given that every religion invented by humans is entirely unreliable as a model for the natural world, whereas science is an incomplete but seldomly wrong model of the natural world, is this the sort of educational strategy we wish to impose on our children in the hopes that they may improve our world behind us?

I thank you for reading the comments.

Totally weird aside: why is there no h following the c in caricature?

[Russell L. Carter]

I need to point out that my previous comment did nothing but throw rocks. I have no idea right now how to solve the logical problem of a liberal solution to Creationism "debate". Every practical solution requires coercion. As a parent, I have no problem with that.

[jholbo]

I guess the only thing I would add is that, pedagogically, you've always got to start where you students are. If you are trying to teach physics and they don't have enough math, you really have to teach them the math, even if it means you get less physics done than you planned. If you are trying to teach Darwinism and students are, for cultural/religious reasons, highly resistant to accepting what you say, you simply have to address the resistance and try to win them over. Ignoring a fundamental obstacle to successful teaching will never in fact work.

So the approach that may be the only politically viable one in certain areas - teach both - is probably also the only pedagogically viable one in those areas. So no sense in kicking against the political pricks.

[Jack]

Would the argument be the same but clearer if Dennett had asked for equal privilege rather than equal respect?

The respect Dennett is not getting is not the same as the respect he is not showing.

[jholbo]

I think the argument would be clearer and at least somewhat better ... but not the same. The respect Dennett is not getting is, in my rough estimate, equal to the respect he would refuse to give if he ever got the respect the other side has now got. So the see-saw would just tip. Which is no surprise, due to the fact that Dennett is not in fact out for mutual respect. That's not enough for him by a long shot. I don't criticize him for this. It's just not his view the other side is remotely as intellectually or ethically worthy as himself. This is a perfectly ordinary occurence in intellectual life. But this is why it is disingenuous for him to couch his complaints in terms of broad liberal arguments about tolerance. (And now I'm repeating myself.)

But seriously. You are on to something. I see what you see about the hypothetical position you envision. (It might be that Dennett would adopt such a thing, but only as a Trojan horse on the way to, by his bright lights, better things.)

[Joshua]

I can see the basis of tolerance as a quid pro quo, but respect seems to me to be something that can be demanded by appeal to principles. If a member of a minority demands respect as a human being, and a bigot demands respect for the right to raise children to believe the minority are subhuman, the joke would be that the respect ought to be reciprocal, not that the minority member is offering the bigot a bad bargain.

[arensb]

To Russell L. Carter:

I'm not sure why you think "caricature" ought to
be spelled with an h. Perhaps because it sounds
like "character."

According to www.m-w.com, "caricature" and
"character" come from different Latin words by
different paths. They're not related; they just
sound similar in English.

[Paul Geisert]

"Indeed, the sole function of the term 'bright', so far as I can make out, is to encode disrespect for religion into the concept formerly known as atheism. (Otherwise, why not just call yourself an atheist?"

John & Belle
Perhaps your "so far as I can make out" has been based on reading blogs and debates. Why not try the definitive description of "Brights" as found on our web site www.the-brights.net? First, the definition. Then the 9 principles. Then you will know why the Brights are not atheists.

The Brights' Movements provides an umbrella over all individuals who are free of the supernatural (atheists, humanists, secular humanists, skeptics, agnostics, secular jews, and so forth). There are currently many thousands of Brights in over 70 nations. We invite you to visit the Brights' web site.

Paul Geisert, Co-Director The Brights' Net

[wanderer]

Actually, dennett is a much bigger bigot than say the bigot who demands respect for the right to raise children to believe the minority are subhuman. As much as I am indisposed towards calling anyone foolish, dennett fits the bill. I cannot fathom why anyone would want him as a poster boy, given his insensibility. While tolerance/respect should ideally be reciprocral, there is very little doubt that dennett has very little of either even as he demands it as a right, as what is due to him. He proclaims that anyone who does not share his views is an idiot, assuming wisdom that no one has accorded him, has an ego trip when people celebrate his courage in supposedly breaking a taboo, makes inconsistent accusations without having any self-examination. He is just wrong in a way that hard to define.
Even if the name 'Bright' was derived genuinely without any hidden connotations, dennett's bias is little more rational than say someone's belief in 'myths'.

From the point of view of a student in Singapore, under a different culture and environment, who has only at times experienced/observed a bias against religion in general but never against atheism. Who at one point in time also observed how, in a population size of 51 Rickoids (one of the best from each state) participating in the Research Science Institute hosted by MIT annually, the atheistic point of view dominated a philosophical discussion, such that the only proponent for creationism called herself the devil's advocate. Not that they took a poll and the result came out 50:1, but that there was an agressive intellectual mob stirring themselves up, ready to sneer at anyone who would contemplate creationists.

[sandman]

Quite interesting. I would love to use a few quotes from here. Thanks :-) India Travel Guide