The sad demise of a brilliant mind
In 1976, a compelling thesis was expounded by a brilliant student of Oxford whose PhD had been supervised by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen [1]. Tall, polite, handsome and articulate, Richard Dawkins gave an insight into evolution that, although well understood in scientific circles, was largely misunderstood by the general public. "The Selfish Gene" provided a model of how information encoded in tiny chunks of DNA could optimise their survival by influencing the shape and behaviour of their hosts [2]. The importance of his work was the clarity that it bought to understanding evolution as 'gene centred', rather than focusing on the survival of an organism.The work was so clearly written and the ideas so magnificently explained, that the book was an instant best-seller for Dawkins, propelling him into the exclusive sphere of science communicators that the 'man on the street' could engage with. But, inevitably, the notion of 'selfish' was seized upon by his adversaries as nonsense, since a short piece of information could not possibly have intent and thus be selfish.
Probably as a response to this misunderstanding, Dawkins wrote "The Blind Watchmaker", probably one of the best expositions of evolutionary theory today. However, Dawkins found that he had to first debunk theistic notions of design which were emerging in the US, if only to show that they had little to offer in truly understanding how speciation occurs. This was Dawkin's first clash with US fundamentalist Christianity and, I believe, the genesis of his later, rather irrational, hatred of all religion.
Further works made even deeper analysis of the way evolution worked, with an astoundingly thorough and engaging description in "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life", which channeled Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales" to provide a literary framework to to allow users to engage with biological science which is, at times, rather arduous to read. For someone like me, this was Dawkins' 'crowning glory' and should have been where he stepped back into retirement, satisfied with his contribution.
It is one thing to be a brilliant communicator for science. It is another thing to be a vocal critic of creationism, intelligent design, and religious dogma. But, when Dawkins published "The God Delusion" in 2006, paralleling the very public opinions of key atheists Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, the first hints of a decaying intellect emerged. Neither a theologist, biblical expert nor historian of religion, Dawkins cherry picked the most absurd elements of creationism and Intelligent Design to exemplify the failure of religion to explain anything (supposing that religion even had such a mission). Driven by some kind of 'religious fervor for debunking, Dawkins seemed quite oblivious to the fact that 'creation' stories emerged in every human culture and such stories simply tried to bring some coherence to the universe and were never intended as part of a mission to find 'ultimate truth'.
Not only was this work not worthy of his thorough and academically rigorous evolutionary canon, it also had colonial and imperialist undertones. English Christianity was considered benign and 'cultural' and, it seems, beyond reproach. Islam, the religion of brown people, was an "evil" threatening beyond its religious boundary, poisoning our minds. Judaism was given a free pass, with critiques of Yahweh and genocide seemingly quite independent of the Jewish population of the world. And the cruel practices of other religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, were simply ignored.
Dawkins became a celebrity atheist, able to make a living from speaking tours, buoyed by the adulation of a fan base, many located politically in the Right. His responses to religious apologists became increasing shrill and his loathing for liberal values more obvious. He adopted the hysteria of the anti-Trans movement, praising and interviewing key figures in that toxic community. For me, having observed the high point of Dawkins' career in "The Ancestor's Tale", the low point came in an interview where he articulated his opposition to Maori "Ways of Knowing", framing it as anti-scientific and an erosion of scientific processes. The arrogant colonialist was now most obvious. How dare a 'primitive' people claim to have mastered scientific methodology to come up with 'truth'.
Dawkins rejected the education policy that New Zealand implemented that meant indigenous ways of knowing would be included in the Science curriculum. Maori indigenous ways of knowing rejected the assertion that 'western science' was the only science. Dawkins casually asserted that "Western science just means science" and decried the ostracisation of a radically right-wing New Zealand Journal called The Listener in academic circles after it criticised the New Zealand curriculum. [3]
It seems breath-taking to me that someone educated at Oxford should make such a ludicrous statement. Dawkins attempted to rationalise his views by claiming that the New Zealand government was simply implementing a kind of 'woke' agenda to create more respect for Maori culture. Without a shade of irony, Dawkins states "If there is something to be learned from New Zealand folklore in the way of science then let it be taught to everybody." In Dawkin's world, skeptical critical thinking is only a function of a western inheritance of enlightenment thinking and all myth is devoid of any scientific understanding.
James Cook, that Yorkshire anti-authoritarian explorer, would doubtless turn in his grave. Not only did Cook respect the knowledge and understanding of Tupaia (Polynesian 'ways of knowing') but he set it above his own scientific understanding which he applied to mapping the world (some of his maps were still being used into the 20th century). It is worth reflecting that Cook conducted experiments without even knowing it was science. Noting how scurvy decimated crews on sailboats, he tested a variety of foods to see which might prevent scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency), settling on cabbage as the best option, thus preventing any scurvy on any of his trips. In order for his crew to be persuaded to eat the large volume of cabbage required to prevent scurvy, Cook insisted that all his officers and the scientists on board eat the same quantity.
Today we know that cabbage is actually not a brilliant source of Vitamin C, but, it had just enough for the purpose. Was Cook conducting science? And when Cook accepted Tupaia's directions, was he honouring 'folklore' or accepting that Tupaia had arrived at truth by other means than playing with test-tubes. Maybe, as a 'Yorky', growing up with contempt for the snob class to which Dawkins owes his success, and who were given plum positions in the Admiralty, Cook could empathise with gained their scientific knowledge through the practice of living, not by reading books.
The sheer arrogance of western science is epitomised in Dawkins. When parts of his speaking tour were cancelled and publisher reject his new work, Dawkin's lamented that he was a victim and that cancel culture was a personal affront. "It really hurt reading the emails from my publisher".
Returning to the Polynesian setting, the story of the Moai, the monolithic human figures carved by the Rapa Nui people, the native inhabitants of Easter Island (Rapa Nui), is a case in point of how western science failed and indigenous understanding prevailed. We can easily trace the journey that the Moai made from the carving at the quarries to their erection on platforms, facing out to sea. We can even intuitively grasp the notion that the people considered the Moai to have powers of protection. Like Dawkins, modern science would scoff at the 'superstition' of the people of Rapa Nui, but nothing speaks louder to those who might come across the sea intending harm than the site of huge threatening statues and the contemplation that a civilisation capable of erecting them may well have the technical means to mount a devastating defence. Little did a prospective invader know that the civilisation was in terminal decline and would not survive the ravages of disease brought by Spanish 'explorers'.
The means of transporting the Moai, some 100 tons or more and averaging 12 tons, was mysterious to the west for centuries, with speculation rife and theories abundant. Rapa Nui lore spoke of Moai that walked from quarry to platform. Laughable? Unscientific? After multiple attempts by many parties, one group of experimental historians discovered what any of us might discover trying to move huge heavy objects, such as a fridge - that objects that have a certain shape can be rocked back and forth, effectively 'walking'.
Now, the use of 'walk' is not figurative. We walk by the same physics, rocking from side to side to place the weight of the body above one side so that the other side is 'free' to rotate around a centre of gravity. The Rapa Nui, no doubt through experimentation, had arrived at this Physics and applied it, without having to publish in a 'reputable' western journal. What is more, the applied Physics required very few labourers, many of whom, no doubt, became adept at pulling on ropes at just the right moment.
Now, the colonial mind cannot bear that someone primitive could perform scientific testing and arrive at a conclusion that was fabulously effective. "No", we can hear Dawkins say, "this is not science." But, of course it is. Science conducted as it always has been conducted long before the west appropriated it and made it exclusive and reductionist and, frankly, ridiculous. Science, in all its glory, is baffled by why some water molecules choose to become 'soldiers' in laminar flow, but will flip to the anarchy of turbulent flow in an instant, in the same river flow. Complexity is beyond Dawkins' 'science'.
Make no mistake, I completely reject the adulation of Yahweh by some Christians. Yahweh was a petulant bully and genocidal maniac. When Netanyahu can quote the Hebrew bible to justify genocide, you know instinctively that the adulation of Yahweh is dangerous. I think creationism is ludicrous. I think design is not confined to human intelligence but that Intelligent Design is logically unsustainable as an explanation for anything.
But I find a deep sorrow that a man who I admired so much has declined into a Gollumesque shadow of himself, his integrity overwhelmed by populist nonsense and his consistency eroded by an endless fixation with extremist religion.
Links:
Citations:
1. Dawkins Link
2. Selfish gene Link
3. The Listener article reviewed Link