The real enemies of reason

[T_i_B]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_hind/2007/08/the_real_enemies_of_reason_.html

But what kind of Enlightenment is Dawkins defending? His line is that are entering a new age of "endarkenment". The resurgent forces of unreason increasingly menace science and the rest of the enlightened inheritance. As Dawkins put it: "primitive darkness is coming back." In the minds of Dawkins, Colquhoun, and others, the only enemies of the Enlightenment are external to it; they are fundamentalists, spiritualists, New Age healers and so on. A great divide separates the (rational) Enlightenment from its (irrational) enemies.

As a way of making sense of current controversies about power and knowledge it is, irony of ironies, a fantasy, an example of the magical thinking its proponents claim to abhor. The enlightened tradition of free inquiry and open debate is threatened and the threat is growing in seriousness. But the most significant threats come from institutions that loudly insist on their enlightened credentials. States and corporations habitually use rational means to promote irrationality in target populations. They exploit the prestige of science to marginalise their critics. They cook up marketing strategies that sound scientific but are no more than mythmaking.

Take medicine (almost everyone in the west does, whether they need to or not). Pharmaceutical corporations endlessly claim to support scientific excellence. They spend millions portraying themselves as the defenders of science. With less fanfare they spend millions persuading us that their critics are woolly-minded Luddites. Meanwhile they, and their allies in government, downplay the risks, and exaggerate the benefits, of their products. They withhold inconvenient research data and they threaten scientists and regulators who get in their way.

The attempts by states and corporations to subvert public understanding extend far beyond medical science. The propaganda to justify the war in Iraq drew on a century of rationally conceived campaigns to manipulate the public. We were divided into target populations and fed stories designed to appeal to us. This was applied social science at its most sophisticated. It was also a successful attempt to stampede us into war. It is not helpful to see this as yet more evidence for the operations of unreasonable, faith-based thinking. They knew what they wanted to achieve and they set about it rationally.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. It seems to me that the "rational thinkers" put themselves in a box

only allowing certain thoughts/ideas to get through. Pure rational thought is all well and good, but unfortunately, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's that pesky human element to contend with. :)

I think it funny that he would call mystics and the like a part of an "endarkenment" because that is far from the truth. The core belief of mystics is that all is unity, there is no separation--no opposites. And also no coersion to "join in", as each is on his/her own path. It's more like, as long as an individual is at peace with himself on his path, he is in the right place--if he is searching because he lacks peace, I will help him by showing him many different ways to reach the same goal. And mystics are not averse to science, but applaud the breakthroughs in fields such as quantum physics, which shows there is much more to reality than we usually observe.

[greyl]

2. I like a few of the comments already given to this lame article.

Yes! Why doesn't Dawkins attack big pharma? Why doesn't he hold governments to account for starting wars? Why doesn't he cure cancer? And what about global warming - he's not making much progress there. And what's he doing to address teenage pregnancy? How come he couldn't stop the smoking ban?
Quite right, the man is clearly a fraud.

This fatuous article sounds like an extended plug for Hind's book, partly motivated by the fact that Dawkins seems to have hijacked the title for his television program. Is there a touch of jealousy here, perhaps? I note from Hind's blog that 'Controversy continues to rage...' over his book (not round here it doesn't mate) and that Dawkins is still 'getting away with this stuff.' Hmmm - is this irony or what? This tiresome argument (that Dawkins should stop picking on 'easy' targets (religion? are you kidding?) and concentrate on the real problems (as identified by me, of course) is a non sequitur. Dawkins has done a fantastic job of raising peoples' awareness of (among other things) the sheer malevolence of 'faith' based beliefs. When he's sorted that out I'm sure he'll be right behind you, Dan, getting to grips with the important stuff.

Mr. Hinds, you criticize Richard Dawkins for not taking on what appears to be your favourite target (the pharmaceutical industry), but you might ask yourself how many cures for tuberculosis were developed prior to the 19th century. I have never heard Prof. Dawkins claim that the society produced by the Enlightenment is perfect, or that all players within it will use the tools of rationalism for the benefit of all, I have only heard him claim that it is profoundly preferable to what preceded it and to what he fears may succeed it. You claim (without any evidence other than your own assertion) that fearing the end of the enlightenment from the forces of irrationality is a fantasy, however that it is under threat by the pharmaceutical industry. Countering assertion with assertion, that is simply nonsense. The pharmaceutical industry may play fast and loose to make a buck. I personally don't know if they do or don't, but even if they do it is no fundamental threat to human reason. They may misuse the tools of scientific inquiry, but they agree as to what those tools are. PT Barnum, after all, may have fleeced the fools, but he didn't believe what they said. As someone who grew up amongst religious fundamentalists I can assure you that they do not agree to what the tools of honest inquiry are, and they constitute a profound threat to human reason. Dawkins is quite right to fear their long-term influence. The pseudo-science and quackery that is his latest target contributes to an atmosphere where nonsense and sense are considered just two different but equivalent views, and therefore contributes to a general decay in society's ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
...

[bemildred]

3. Primitive darkness never left.

The fundamental issue is open-mindedness. The problem is not ignorance but all the superstitious and self-serving crap that we think we "know". The problem is a desperate need to cling to this or that fake illusion of certainty. "Reason" is just the latest in a long line of shibboleths, although the methods the term legitimately refers to do have their uses.

[irislake]

4. Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous.

Economic fundamentalism and scientific fundamentalism is as dangerous as religious fundamentalism. Any form of invincible ignorance or unreason is dangerous. Mysticism is harmless and maybe in the long run will be found to be harmonious with views of physicists.

[bemildred]

5. If you think you "know", then your mind is not open. nt