Perhaps if they weren't so abrasive, Hitchens and Dawkins could productively challenge the specific religious practices and beliefs that foster the conditions they deplore. I'm afraid their current tack just pisses people off.
That said, I think Gray is no better. First, he repeatedly conflates science with teleology, a sophomoric mistake. Science has no normative dimension; it's a method that's strictly positive. Second, are Hitchens and Dawkins really so difficult to attack that one must distort their views to make straw men of them? I think not. Consider the following ridiculous argument, which is representative of Gray's entire essay:
John Gray wrote:He recognizes that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.
Of course religion isn't "hardwired in the species." That's not Dawkins' contention at all. Although there are genes that strongly correlate with religiosity, to assert that religion is therefore "hardwired in the species" is like suggesting Windows Vista is "hardwired" in the latest Dell desktops. Dawkins argues that religion is like a software virus; though it may boast reproductive advantages when abetted by compatible hardware it's counterproductive in every other meaningful respect. Gray's sexual analogy is utterly without merit.
Finally, Gray resorts to
argumentum ad Hitlerum. When writing about any subject that's not substantively related to totalitarianism and/or genocide, any reference to Hitler or the Nazis diminishes one's entire argument. I allow that Hitchens and Dawkins are likewise culpable, but that's no excuse.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Callum, your post is pretty sensible but I admit three reservations. (1) You accuse Pullman of falling into the teleology trap. Where did he write that the Republic of Heaven is inevitable? Where did he write that humans are the pinnacle of biological evolution, or that secular humanism is the pinnacle of cultural evolution? He may be guilty as charged, but I didn't get that impression from the books. I agree we didn't 'progress' to the current state of affairs any more than we 'progressed' in the biological sense. Argument from teleology leads one to compare the past and present in deterministic, normative terms that are indeed highly specious. (2) Accordingly, comparisons between extinct societies and present ones are exceedingly difficult to support. Context is everything. Each 'this is better' decision that one may consider a cultural departure can only be reliably judged in context. Changing conditions present new choices, none of which may be as 'good' as the ones that previously fell by the wayside. The choice today isn't whether or not secular humanism is better than Neolithic ethics, or whether or not it's the best normative system of all time. The question we face today is whether or not secular humanism is better than present alternatives under present conditions. The primeval forest is dead. If we reject secular humanism for its imperfections despite the inferiority of every practical alternative, we will have fallen victim to the
Nirvana fallacy.
Bear in mind that subjectivity is inevitable when making this sort of determination. I concede I cannot prove that secular humanism is superior to the alternatives, but nevertheless believe that to be the case. Indeed, my detractors cannot be persuaded by positive science because the terms of the argument are strictly normative. Consider the Declaration of Independence. None of the truths contained therein are actually self-evident. They are held to be self-evident to reach a conclusion the authors approved. My appreciation for that conclusion may be subjective, but that doesn't mean I can't inspire others to arrive at the same conclusion by pointing their subjective analyses toward the benefits I perceive.
(3) Your point respecting taxation can be easily turned on its head.
krebbe wrote:Other than the intervening dark ages, we've never got rid of those tax collectors and now we're completely dependent on them and society to look after us.
From whom did the tax collectors derive their authority in Imperial Rome? From whom do they derive their authority today? The distinction you seem to draw between 'society' and 'us' is unsustainable in parallel with your historical argument.
Sorry for the long post, I'm bored at work.