Here's an e-mail exchange regarding the "why vetoed," in case you're curious. This is a long reply, and I'm a new member, so hope this doesn't break any HN taboos regarding length (does a reply to a comment affect anyone's experience of HN that's not already inside this thread?) or subject matter (I certainly don't mean to offend anyone) - but here goes:
(School Administrator)
It is an interesting piece for sure. I do have one caveat. Quakers and Episcopalians do not believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Fundamentalists believe that, but not all Christians are fundamentalists who take the Bible
literally--some folks view religion as metaphor and not as literally true. The (female) bishop of the Episcopal church has a PhD in oceanography and says that homosexuality is a gift. I would have a hard time believing that she doesn't believe in
evolution or the scientific process. Someone like Dawkins has no place to put non-fundamentalists. He, like the fundamentalists, sees the Bible as either literally true or literally non true, without any other options.
My own personal struggle is with the concrete literalists :-) I like the use of metaphor in the culture including religion and the arts--though incredibly violent and awful things have been done in the name of religion.
It is a good example of a persuasive essay though.
(my response)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. Frankly, I greatly enjoy discussion and debate around this subject area - perhaps more so than others. Spiritual self-examination is a very personal topic, and I don't mean to intrude on your private journey - I hope I didn't misinterpret your note as an invitation to respond. If I did - stop reading! :-) Also, I wasn't per se trying to initiate debate with my asking (teacher) and (other administrator) for an okay, but appreciate that it's inspired some conversation.
Regarding what you wrote, I am getting the impression that your response is aimed more at Dawkins' body of work, rather than the specific contents of this letter (which is understandable, and part of both (other recipients of original e-mail) basis for suggesting this would require a much longer period of introduction and discussion than my duties as a reader warranted, and why I've decided not to pursue this, and read something else). That said, Dawkins' letter, simplified (and with some specific examples aimed at Catholicism stripped out), is that evidence is a good reason to believe something, but tradition, authority and revelation are not. I think that's a mission-appropriate message to communicate to fourth graders, and is relevant for fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists alike to consider, but understand it is hostile to some body of thought in our world. But I wanted to be clear from your note - did I misunderstand - do you believe one of those three is a good reason to believe something? Clearly, many people in the world who do not call themselves fundamentalists do, but I think it is intellectually honest and a useful tool of introspection to approach topics of metaphysics with the same rigor as a scientist - to pose beliefs in the form of "hypothetical statements of truth," or simply hypotheses, and recognize when those hypotheses are supported by evidence, and when they are not; and when they are falsifiable, and when they are not. Many widely held beliefs that are a function of tradition, authority and revelation would benefit from being subject to this standard.
I agree that fundamentalism is a real problem, but I'm not sure if you meant to draw a parallel between Dawkins and fundamentalist / concrete literalists - and what you mean by that if you were. I've heard others make the same assertion, and it's puzzling to me. Without a doubt, he is motivated by frustration over respect accorded viewpoints in this world that claim his field of study - evolution - is wrong without any supporting evidence other than their highly selective reading of heavily edited iron-age books. His frustration leads to arguments that are not terribly sensitive to the feelings of those whose worldview is shaped by a mode of thinking he is arguing against. But insensitivity is not the same as fundamentalism - not by a long shot. I would also point out that he is not only arguing against the strawman of fundamentalism - he, Harris and Hitchens all have a pretty good idea of how to respond to non-fundamentalists - they have all engaged very openly in debate with extremely thoughtful and capable religious advocates - one of my favorites is a debate between Sam Harris and David Wolpe (a rabbi) - both sides score points, and I highly recommend it (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2329504685124044436#). I think these debates serve a useful purpose - just because a bishop is open to homosexuality and evolution shouldn't give a free pass on the basis of cultural sensitivity to other truth claims she might make. (That said, she sounds like a person I'd enjoy an evening's discussion with!)
To back up a bit, I think the credo of a scientist might be something like this "I believe that which is supported by evidence, provisionally, recognizing that contra-evidence will require me to modify those beliefs. I may believe other things as plausible or possible, but will be scrupulous in recognizing (and communicating so to others when I am also communicating those beliefs) that they are not supported by evidence, or if they are, that the evidence is not yet consistent enough, verified or elevated to the standard of acceptance of knowledgeable and skeptical experts. I may consider questions that include proposed answers that are not falsifiable, but will recognize that these answers have no basis for being elevated to a claim of truth." I believe Dawkins follows this standard meticulously, even though he clearly is read by many religious believers to consider his non-belief as being "supported by evidence." He has explicitly said, in print and in interviews, that they are not. He, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris all acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a creator entity as variously described in religious texts (and can clearly define evidence which would elevate that possibility to certainty), but also point out that those descriptions are not falsifiable, and so have no basis to be claimed true, are forms of begging the question (with the underlying question unanswered), are mutually incompatible, make other claims which are clearly falsifiable (or even internally inconsistent), and others which are implausible based on our understanding of the history involved, the incompatibility with scientific knowledge, or the presence of a more supportable alternative explanation.
I don't mean to talk you into anything, obviously, and I don't mean to be insensitive to others' beliefs. In fact, I wish Dawkins (but even more, Hitchens) would attempt sensitivity, as it would be more persuasive to the cause of reason. And there is much fertile - and overlapping - magisteria/ground to cover between Dawkins et al and non-fundamentalist believers - CS Lewis spoke about the presence of a "God shaped hole" in the heart of humanity - I think this is a very evocative phrase, and its presence has to be explained to a world which uses that hole as a basis for belief (as Lewis did). However, I think it is a serious error (and a form of intellectual appeasement) to try to diminish Dawkins arguments by claiming they are the flip-side of the same coin occupied by religious fundamentalists.
I'm sending this note to you only (no bcc's), in response to your note, but feel free to share it with (others), if you'd like them included. I am not trying to change any (school) policy positions, obviously, and have already accepted the request to choose a different reading. I welcome any response you might have!