The Scientist and the Preacher: Disintegration v. Misintegration

[Rule of Reason Blog]

By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I think this short clip of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and recently disgraced evangelical preacher Ted Haggard is quite revealing. It shows the conflict between a philosophically disintegrated advocate of science ("we live in a world of subtle shades and not sharp black and white") and a philosophically misintegrated advocate of mysticism ("we believe the Bible is the word of God") and in my mind, makes it clear which argument is the worse cultural force.

In the clip, Haggard claims that evangelicals embrace the scientific method as a means of explaining how God created the Earth. Dawkins confronts Haggard with the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Haggard responds saying that Dawkins’ claim is just one view of many that people hold. Haggard then states that "intellectual arrogance" is the reason why those who dispute creationism have issues with people of faith.

In analyzing the material presented in the clip, I came to the conclusion that Dawkins is weak, but Haggard is vicious. Dawkins respects science (albeit with heavy dose of Humeian skepticism), but Haggard rejects science outright by reducing it to little more than the handmaiden of his faith. Haggard is the deeper philosophic threat, because he attacks the very means by which a person would crawl out of skepticism and irrationality—he attacks reason itself (and with some irony, even tries to employ skepticism to do it).

And lest we forget—it is Haggard and not Dawkins who has our President's ear.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002089.html

[ewv]

In analyzing the material presented in the clip, I came to the conclusion that Dawkins is weak, but Haggard is vicious.

Ellsworth Toohey had nothing on this guy. He is frightening to look at, let alone listen to.

Dawkins respects science (albeit with heavy dose of Humeian skepticism), ...

His overall "philosophical" outlook seems to be much like many scientists, including the great physicist Richard Feynman. Based on what they have seen of philosophy they tend, understandably, to reject it as useless. The problem is the philosophical vacuum, not Haggart.

...but Haggard rejects science outright by reducing it to little more than the handmaiden of his faith. Haggard is the deeper philosophic threat, because he attacks the very means by which a person would crawl out of skepticism and irrationality—he attacks reason itself (and with some irony, even tries to employ skepticism to do it).

Haggard is much worse because of his otherworldly dogmatism and power seeking psychology. But to be a "philosophical threat" here in reality requires that people actually follow it. He is so off the wall that it doesn't it take much for normal people to immediately reject him once they see what he is. In fact he has already self-destructed and is unimportant. It takes more than someone saying outrageous "M2" things to be threat.

And lest we forget—it is Haggard and not Dawkins who has our President's ear.

The significance is not Haggard but that Bush would waste his time on someone like this. Haggard is not setting national policy, and whatever Bush's sympathies, neither are his ideas. There is a lot more going on in Washington than this.

It is hard to assess this very interesting and revealing video because it is out of context. Is it part of a larger documentary of some kind? Dawkins seems to be interviewing Haggard rather than debating him, so it's hard to see what a more symmetrical exchange would be like.

[Ifat Glassman]

Dawkins respects science (albeit with heavy dose of Humeian skepticism), but Haggard rejects science outright by reducing it to little more than the handmaiden of his faith.

If people create only by the mercy and will of god than nobody can be better than him. And in fact, while god gave them the job of dealing with science, god put him in charge of showing the light to mankind. (you tell me who is more important?)

This Haggard guy reminds me of a close relative of mine. It is scary to try to examine this guy's psychology. And though it might not be directly related to the topic of the thread, I am still interested in phrasing my understanding / observations of the man's psychology. His motivation, his source of self confidence, his methods of attracting others.

I believe his type are motivated by the desire to believe in their own greatness. But since he does not accept "existence exists" nor reason as his guide, he becomes a second hander: people are his source of knowledge rather than whole of reality: for him objects are creations of the mind, subject to the will of man (by that I mean "if I wish it hard enough the traffic light would turn green faster"), and the only real thing is people's "souls".

He realizes that for people to believe in his greatness he has to project confidence and superiority, but in order for them to stick around he has to offer them equality (between himself and them). He offers them complete acceptance, and equal status to his own (spiritually), if they surrender to his ideas.

His self-confidence is based on the admiration of other people for him, of their trust in him, but mainly his self-confidence is generated by his desire to project it. It is like a circle: he knows that if he'll project it, a buyer will soon come who will "buy it" and allow him to believe it even more.

His devotion to god serves a double purpose: 1) only a being like a god (which is the greatest consciousness) has the power to make him the Masayach (which is what he would like to believe that he is). And 2) showing his surrender to god, says to his followers and to people : "I am in the same status as you, we are all equal. I am not patronizing you, and nobody has the right to patronize".

The last one was his method to attract people. Another one is by offering them acceptance, freedom from guilt. Dependant people are an easy pray for him.

What makes him frightening is the fact that he is so calm, and looks self confident, yet he has no means of dealing with reality if he was stranded on a desert island.

In fact I think that a desert island, or being alone in the long term are his worst enemies. He might want to be alone sometimes, because during those times it would allow him to think how great and independent he is, but if he knew that the charade has no purpose, that there are no people to impress tomorrow, he would quickly rot mentally. I don't think he would keep on praying to god anymore if he knew that there would be no more people around him, though in his everyday life he is probably sure that his belief in god is sincere.

Here is something funny he said, that I believe also demonstrates my psychological analysis of him:

I don't communicate an air of superiority because I know so much more (hahaha!!), and if you only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I know, you would be great like me

(the "hahaha" thing was added by me) Edited November 8, 2006 by ifatart

[The Wrath]

In fairness to Haggard, I think that last bit is him giving his impression of how he perceives Dawkins.

[softwareNerd]

What makes him frightening is the fact that he is so calm, and looks self confident, ...

yes, and one spots the same quality of calm in the eyes Ahmednejad and Bin Laden.

[Olex]

I would like to offer short analysis on Haggart's statement about 'intellectual arrogance.'

He seems to indicate that it is bad to state 'I know for this to be true, and I won't concede this point. Instead, I will accept whatever other point you (another person) have, and will not make myself stand above you, where by standing above I mean having another statement that I think is true, and which stands against your point.'

He also underlines how people can be wrong on points during their life, which he seems to use as a proof that nobody should be certain about their ideas.

Anyone else picked this up?

[Ifat Glassman]

yes, and one spots the same quality of calm in the eyes Ahmednejad and Bin Laden.

I'm not sure if those guys have the same motivation.

But I can talk about another guy which is a very scary dude, and I have seen making speeches quite a lot: Nasrallah.

This dude has this calm, penetrating look in his eyes. Coming from him, it is a frightening riddle.

I don't think that his source of confidence and motivation are the same like this Haggard priest.

In Nasrallah's case I think he would still believe in god and pray on a desert island as well. I think his belief is genuine.

His calm comes from having a lot of patience, from focusing on his target, which is what he sees as serving justice, and also, I believe, from genuine belief in god.

Which one do you find more scary? I don't know, I think for me it's Nasrallah.

You might ask how do I know those things, or what makes me think that Haggard is not a true believer, but Nasrallah is.

The answer is: I don't know how I do it: it's something in their eyes. I'm just good at reading people, but I don't usually have some organized "proof" that X is a believer but Y is not.

Sometimes I might even draw some accurate conclusion based on nothing more than text (as you have seen).

Maybe some day I will be able point to specific things to back up my conclusions, for now I usually can't.