A few weeks back, Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, who teaches at the New England Conservatory in Boston, published a scathing "review" of both my book and The God Virus by Darrell Ray. I was excited ... perhaps this would be a chance to face a real opponent, one with a doctoral degree in philosophy and several books to his name!
Sadly, I was disappointed. It was a complete hack job, unworthy of such a well-educated opponent.
Hoffmann starts out with a cutesy poem, followed by three or four wandering paragraphs that question Dr. Ray's education as well as mine. Nothing like an irrelevant ad hominem attack to set the tone. Throw mud on the messenger; maybe it will stick to the message. (Just to set the record straight, I'm not a systems engineer; that's some other guy with the same name, and I never claimed to have a PhD. Darrell Ray is not a "school psychologist." Dr. Hoffmann can't even seem to get his insults right.)
It only goes downhill from there, into a wandering tangle of insults, irrelevant analogies and horrible paraphrasing of our ideas.
Darrell Ray and I corresponded about the wisdom of replying to Dr. Hoffmann's essay and we agreed it wasn't worth our time. I went back and reviewed it again today and decided it wasn't even possible – it's one of the worst mish-mashes of disconnected, wandering prose I've read in a long time. I couldn't find anything concrete (except for the ad hominem insults) to refute. How can one respond to this sort of stuff?
"Reading the dissociated conjectures of James’s book, interrupted by dubious data, surveys, informal interviews and too many personal recollections and reminiscences (called “interludes” here) about his leaving the God-meme behind, reminds me of some of the reconstructionist history I’ve had to read over the years, the kind of thing that argues that Columbus was a Jew..."Maybe I could point out that I never was "infected" with the God-meme in the first place ... nah. Just leave it alone. It will sink under its own weight.
In fact, I wouldn't even have mentioned it except that it was a first. Are we having fun yet? You bet!
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
Posts
It is an incredibly defensive review, but it's the sneering, personal, attack tone, the suggested deficient reasoning capabilities of those without college education, and overall rudeness that undermines the article.
ReplyDeleteI understand that everyone has their own views, and I feel that those views can be discussed and debated by mature adults. This is nothing but trolling, and it is unbecoming of anyone over the age of 12, regardless of position or education.
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteAs the New Kids on the Block said, "You know you're a success when you get satirized in mad." In the spirit of there's no such thing as bad publicity, I say we get some formidable criticism of you and Darrel Ray and sell some books here!
I've read your book and don't know what Hoffman means by "reconstructionist." What was he referring to?
I meant to say, "MAD," is in the magazine.
ReplyDeleteVirus? That ol’ Dennett preposterous?
ReplyDeleteWell, I happen to BE a systems engineer, and bringing all that authority to bare on this preposition (regarding anthropology, a subject my lack of training makes me as qualified as any writer or philosopher to expound upon) and call balderdash. Any validity or utility to any hypothesis lies in modeling reality, allowing reasonable predictions. Having skimmed your TOC and watched Dennett’s little video on the same topic, I would like to point out the fatal flaw in Dennett’s, (and presumably your) logic, a few facts future hypotheses should model and an alternate biological analogy that actually fits a few phenomenon seen in the real world.
Evolution progresses through competition, but religion, unlike Dennett’s model, is held at the community level, and its competition is neighboring communities. Religion has evolved through motivating its community to out compete other communities. Winners and losers alike have attributed victory to the ‘powerful god(s)’. The less powerful Greek, Roman, Viking and Aztec gods (to name just a few) were banished along with their religions for the more effective Christian variant.
Bringing all of my data manipulating powers to the task (training was good for something at least) I put together a profile of man’s history, religion as an independent variable:
2.5 MYA to 30 KYA: Up to 50,000 hominids (recent estimates) making a home of this earth as atheists, euphemistically referred to as ‘cave men’, through Africa, Middle East, and the temperate zones of Europe and Asia.
70 KYA to present: ‘Modern humans’ with spiritual or religious beliefs, but no organized religion (Animism was listed in your TOC) – Population increased to ~20 million, habitat expanded to include all land masses save Antarctica, arctic areas become inhabited. Outcompeted the ‘archaic’ hominids, be they AMH or other. Euphemistically referred to as Aboriginals.
10,000 years ago to present: Organized religion introduced, cities, states and empires built; euphemistically referred to as ‘Civilized’. Dominate the most desirable habitats, population ~ 6.5 billion and growing.
What model then might fit the actual data in the situation? Consider the bacteria in your gut which cannot live without its human host, much like a virus which also requires a host, except in this case, the ‘infected’ host thrives where the human lacking said bacteria does not. A symbiotic relationship. As for atheism, consider the communities where it thrives: prosperous and heavily socialized – plenty of parking set aside for the mobility challenged, wheelchair ramps and employment rules to protect those with ‘special needs’. Atheism looks a lot like a disability of choice – it thrives wherever disabilities are subsidized by the government. Where Big Brother looks after our needs, we are less faithful to Father.
Virus? That ol’ Dennett preposterous?
ReplyDeleteWell, I happen to BE a systems engineer, and bringing all that authority to bare on this proposition (regarding anthropology, a subject my lack of training makes me as qualified as any writer or philosopher to expound upon) and call balderdash. Any validity or utility to any hypothesis lies in modeling reality, allowing reasonable predictions. Having skimmed your TOC and watched Dennett’s little video on the same topic, I would like to point out the fatal flaw in Dennett’s, (and presumably your) logic, a few facts future hypotheses should model and an alternate biological analogy that actually fits a few phenomenon seen in the real world.
Evolution progresses through competition, but religion, unlike Dennett’s model, is held at the community level, and its competition is neighboring communities. Religion has evolved through motivating its community to out compete other communities. Winners and losers alike have attributed victory to the ‘powerful god(s)’. The less powerful Greek, Roman, Viking and Aztec gods (to name just a few) were banished along with their religions for the more effective Christian variant.
Bringing all of my data manipulating powers to the task (training was good for something at least) I put together a profile of man’s history, religion as an independent variable:
2.5 MYA to 30 KYA: Up to 50,000 hominids (recent estimates) making a home of this earth as atheists, euphemistically referred to as ‘cave men’, through Africa, Middle East, and the temperate zones of Europe and Asia.
70 KYA to present: ‘Modern humans’ with spiritual or religious beliefs, but no organized religion (Animism was listed in your TOC) – Population increased to ~20 million, habitat expanded to include all land masses save Antarctica, arctic areas become inhabited. Outcompeted the ‘archaic’ hominids, be they AMH or other. Euphemistically referred to as Aboriginals.
10,000 years ago to present: Organized religion introduced, cities, states and empires built; euphemistically referred to as ‘Civilized’. Dominate the most desirable habitats, population ~ 6.5 billion and growing.
What model then might fit the actual data in the situation? Consider the bacteria in your gut which cannot live without its human host, much like a virus which also requires a host, except in this case, the ‘infected’ host thrives where the human lacking said bacteria does not. A symbiotic relationship. As for atheism, consider the communities where it thrives: prosperous and heavily socialized – plenty of parking set aside for the mobility challenged, wheelchair ramps and employment rules to protect those with ‘special needs’. Atheism looks a lot like a disability of choice – it thrives wherever disabilities are subsidized by the government. Where Big Brother looks after our needs, we are less faithful to Father.
Actually one also needs to ask if the early Hominids were Atheists. For all we know Dogs and Cats are Theists, not Atheistic.
ReplyDeleteAnd the big problem with this is that the Atheism of today is not really simply a lack of belief in a god, but comes with an accompanying belief system. Its really just a Rival Religion, an offshoot of Secular Humanism.
If Religion is a Virus, so is todays Atheist Movement, as it wants to supplant Religion with its own set of morals, it sown view on the meaning of Life, and it sown doctrines about our existence.
Its not really different.
Jonathan - I couldn't agree more. It's sad that Dr. Hoffmann can't do better. It's a poor reflection on him and his instution.
ReplyDeleteSarah - Thanks! (I loved MAD magazine when I was a kid.) I have no idea what Hoffmann meant by "reconstructionist." I think it's just another vaguely pejorative-sounding fancy term he could apply without anyone knowing what he meant.
@Zarove
ReplyDeleteThe problem with today's legal system is that is not really simply secular but comes with an accompanying belief system. It is really just a Rival Religion, an offshoot of the International Human Rights Committee.
If Religion is a Virus, so is today's legal system, as it wants to supplant Religion with its own set of morals, its own view on what is important in life and its own doctrines about the value of our existence.
If that sounds ridiculous to you then you will understand how your claims sound to those who do not start from your defensive position.
It is interesting that negative reviews of The Religion Virus and The God Virus attack the biological analogy rather than the message for which this is merely the vehicle.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite true that the analogy is not perfect and, like all analogies, breaks down in the detail. While it is true that religion thrives and is sustained by communities, it is also true that it is passed along in ways that have sufficient similarity with viral reproductive mechanisms to warrant using the biological model as an illustrious example.
If the aptness of the illustration is the main focus of the negative reviews then it is an indication that they have nothing of serious substance with which to counter the thrust of the arguments presented in these books.
The main message of these books is that religions do not behave like systems that were designed by any of the gods that are the focus of these systems. Instead, they behave like man made systems that are promulgated by imperfect culture-bound humans and are only spread by means of individuals with all the limitations of humanity. If a god were at work in either the formulation or the propagating then it has few, if any, of the properties normally attributed to supernatural beings, even the stupid and malicious ones.
If you were all powerful, all knowing, all wise, totally benevolent, extremely intelligent, multi-lingual, diligent, and emotionally mature you would do a much better job. In fact, you would do a much better job in spite of being nothing but moderately intelligent and reasonably motivated just as long as you had money. Perhaps that is what is wrong with the gods: they have no money. I guess that would be the kindest explanation for their obvious incompetence.