Where’s Dawkins?

June 14, 2015 • 10:00 am

From the Queen’s Birthday Honours List, which confers gazillions of titles and awards to both the famous and the obscure. One name stood out to me:
 Screen Shot 2015-06-13 at 2.35.43 PM

Screen Shot 2015-06-13 at 2.35.53 PM

This is reprehensible. Does the dialogue have to be positive? And what about services to science? And seriously—Armstrong rendered services to literature?

Because Dawkins is a vociferous atheist, the multifarious services he’s rendered to both literature and science will forever go unhonored. Compare that with a less vociferous atheist, author Ian McEwan, who got his OBE in 2000.

h/t: Colin

60 thoughts on “Where’s Dawkins?”

  1. Richard is the big bad bogey man to the antediluvian British press. ‘Don’t frighten the readers.’
    But then he may have refused, which you may discreetly do.

    2. I doubt he would refuse, I don’t see that he’d have a reason to.

      But the British establishment is still *hugely* “belief in belief”.

      Atheism is still regarded as uncouth, something that is ok in private but not to be made an issue of in public.

      Religion, on the other hand, is automatically a “good thing”. That’s why any violence cannot possibly be anything to do with any religion, especially not with the “religion of peace”.

      And after all, we *still* have laws requiring kids at state schools to worship the Christian god, and schools are *still* allowed to discriminate over a family’s religious belief.

      Despite all that, about half the population is now completely non-religious.

      1. I don’t know about that. Though it might depend on where you are in the UK. Religion, by most people I meet and interact with, is considered a negative thing.

        “Atheism is still regarded as uncouth, something that is ok in private but not to be made an issue of in public.”

        The term “atheist” isn’t often used, but the position, that gods are man made, is one, again, most people I come into contact with, share, and aren’t afraid to talk about.

        1. “Atheism is still regarded as uncouth, something that is ok in private but not to be made an issue of in public.”

          I think you could substitute ‘religion’ for that, equally well. Gratuitously bringing it up marks you as some sort of exhibitionist.

          cr

    4. Charles Darwin, one of the most important scientists of all time, never got a gong because he wrote “On the Origin of Species”. There is no chance Richard has been offered a knighthood or barony, none at all. And he never will be. These things go to those who support the status quo, not to anti-religious revolutionaries.

    1. Yes, agreed. Anyone who accepts one is postponing the dissolution of the monarchy. There are worse ways of selling out of course, but sorry, it *is* a sell out for any sensible person to accept one.

      (I say this as a person who used to have to sing “God Save the Queen” every day at the start of school in Australia when it was still the national anthem…. Aged 6 I thought for a long time it was “God saved the Queen” and I always wanted to know how and when that happened and in what circumstances, but no one would tell me.)

      1. I was hopeful Australia was going to oust the monarchy when they had a referendum on doing so. I figured it might start a trend & Canada would finally do so. No such luck though.

        1. That’s one thing that Germany got right after War One (as Ms Cunk would call it)– the (highly unpopular) king refused to quit, so they simply announced his abdication to the cheering mob, and that was the end of that.

          1. Take that Kaiser Wilhelm! Too bad Daylight Saving time also didn’t get booted out along with him.

          2. Too bad all the monarchies had been thrown out since it was ALL their fault concerning the “Great War”. If only the Christmas truce ended with all the combatants killing their officers then the royals.

          3. Really, I had no idea! I wonder if we could get rid of our Prime Minister that way?

  4. The Queen is head of State AND Church. Somehow he runs afoul of one of those I’m sure…

    1. I wonder if Dawkins is an anti-monarchist. I can easily imagine him not being a fan of royalty as an institution.

      1. Royalty concerns humans birthed from then left in place by such deities to rule in their stead. I could see him reflexively against monarchy.

    1. I very much doubt he would refuse it. He would see it as an endorsement of his views by the establishment, so helping his cause.

      I’m not sure why, though we all can speculate, but Dawkins seems to antagonise even many who agree with him. I like him; I think his candour is refreshing. Unfortunately it doesn’t help with the conferring of honours system which prefers to avoid controversy.

  6. Would Dawkins want an “honour” from the head of a church? I’d be disappointed if he ever accepted one.

    1. She is Head of State *and* head of a church, and the honours are given in her role as Head of State.

      Besides, except for a few minor categories, these are all decided on by the government nowadays, not the Queen.

    1. I expect the reason someone like Dawkins wouldn’t receive the OBE is because the monarchy and those who benefit from it don’t want to endanger their gravy train.

    2. The Queen doesn’t accept the Divine Right thing – she considers she is there to serve the people. I think she’d probably describe it as a divine duty and responsibility, rather than a right.

      The last English king who was completely into Divine Right got his head chopped off (Charles I).

      1. Indeed, the Divine Right of Kings is nothing but Popish Tyranny!

        And probably Oriental Despotism as well.

  10. I dispair at knighthoods, OBE’s you can get one for bowling a bloody cricket ball, coaching a rugby team Ok that’s a simplification but all the same Dawkins deserves an award more universal than Queenie honours, something along the lines of services to mankind.. a Noble prize equivalent if there was such a thing.

  11. Back in 2007, on his old site, Prof. Dawkins addresses a comment thread about a petition for Knighthood and it begins by answering a reader’s suggestion to sweep away the current Royal Family and make David Attenborough King:

    “Now there’s an idea I really can empathize with: Attenborough for King! As for the knighthood, how could I turn down what Sir David (and Sir Salman) saw fit to accept? The fact that the queen nominally confers it is purely incidental. For the benefit of non-British readers, there are all sorts of things the queen nominally does. She dissolves parliament and calls a general election (but if she tried to do it without being told to by the Prime Minister of the day, all hell would break loose). And after an election, she appoints the Prime Minister (but if she appointed anybody other than the winner of the election, she would precipitate the mother of all constitutional crises). The queen is really a kind of animated rubber stamp. That is one of the problems with Prince Charles: he shows signs of having ideas above his station: of wanting to be more than a rubber stamp; wanting to impose his dopey homeopathic, spirits-whispering-in-the-trees ideas on the country. If he tries that on when he is king, it could (should) be the end of the monarchy. With a bit of luck, the Queen will live to 100 like her mother, so we might not have to face that problem. Long may she live!

    Richard
    Sunday, 28 October 2007 at 3:06 AM | #79152”

    Link:http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1761-make-richard-dawkins-a-knight/comments?page=3#comment_79152

  12. Yet another reason to mistrust almost all awards. Can’t totally blame HRH, she probably gets a list shoved under her pen by pols and told to sign. I’d like to think she read Dawkins, or at least knew of him but she is mightily imbued with Church of England woo so is no doubt resistant to reason.
    A twist of the sword is Armstrong. Yuch

    1. As Queen she is nominally head of the Church of England, so it’s not quite that simple. She has surely been brainwashed, but it would also cause all sorts of constitutional problems if she were to declare herself an unbeliever.

      The Queen doesn’t nominate people for awards, and she doesn’t decide who gets them. They are given out in her name. It’s possible she’s never heard of Armstrong, which would be no loss to her knowledge.

  13. Apart from Dawkins’ contribution to science, society and culture, I can’t forget his speech attacking (ex-)Pope Ratzinger on the latter’s visit to England. Dawkins condemned for a string of offenses including the refusal to ordain women as priests “…as if a penis is a necessary tool for pastoral work.”

    3. I have a hypothesis that the male order of the Catholic Church consider the humble penis as a “God Rod” like a holy scepter which is why women cannot carry that scepter or Shepard’s crook in their old boy’s club. (I also wonder ho many choir boys tender little asses felt such god rods in their turn.

      Maybe all male members of the CC should have their male members removed as part of being priests to Pope?

    2. Oh, my. You’ve reminded me that I’ve read THREE books by KA not the two I mentioned in my post. I think I repressed the memory of this one!!! “History of God” and “Spiral Staircase” get a passing grade from me (though not much more than 3 1/2 out of 5 stars) but the Genesis commentary was just dreadful, dreadful. I had literally forgotten that I had read it.

  15. As far as I know, the authorship of multiple autobiographies is the only contribution to literature that either Dawkins or Armstrong has made.

    On interfaith dialogue, Armstrong wrote a bio of Buddha that got a middling reception, written two books on Islam that whitewash it and wrote “Fields of Blood” which is sociologically unconvincing.
    Her Charter for Compassion is OK, I suppose.

    I’ve read two books in their entirety by each author, but only an autobio of KA and I thought it pretty good, so I guess I will grant that.

    But the Queen could surely give Dawkins an award for “Magic of Reality”, a great book on popular science for children, beautifully illustrated.

    1. What’s your definition of ‘literature’? Does it exclude non-fiction?

      Because the clarity of expression and the talent for finding an apt and felicitous phrase that are evident in all Dawkins’ books from The Selfish Gene onwards, certainly count as literature for me. It’s a damn sight more readable for entertainment than Dickens IMNSHO.

      1. I was going pretty much by what local bookstores place on on the shelves which are labeled “literature”.

        The British dictionary’s first definition is
        “written material such as poetry, novels, essays, etc, esp works of imagination characterized by excellence of style and expression ”

        The narrower definition of literature has been common since the 19th century, although in the 18th century, “literature” often referred to any written work.

        You are quite right that Dawkins is gifted in his word choices.

        1. Well, by your quoted definition, I wouldn’t class an autobiography as ‘literature’ as it’s ostensibly factual. And I wouldn’t trust local bookstores (who are notoriously prone to shelve astrology under ‘science’ or homeopathy under ‘medicine’…)

          I’d also point out that such things as advertising brochures are quite commonly called ‘literature’ (though I have to admit that, regardless of literary merit, they often contain more fiction than fact).

          Leaving aside definitions and getting to my main point, I’d strongly argue that Dawkins’ literary efforts (in which I include all his books) is characterized by excellence of style and expression, possibly more so than his autobiography.

          I’m curious as to what word would be used to describe the output of Dawkins (or Darwin, or Feynman, or Prof CC) other than as ‘literature’?

          cr

  17. At a CFI reception for Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on May 1, 2013, Dawkins was asked, “If you were offered a knighthood or the order of merit or something, would you accept it and why or why not?”

    Dawkins answered, “Yes, I think I would … I shall make no further comment.”

    The video is entitled “CFI Reception with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss,” and the question is asked at 1:06:51

  18. Because Dawkins is a vociferous atheist, the multifarious services he’s rendered to both literature and science will forever go unhonored.

    Which part of fides defensor isn’t clear. Part of Brenda’s job is to bull-headedly defend the indefensible. And she (and her sprogs) know that that is the side of tradition that they have to support in order to cling doggedly to their small remnant of power.

  19. Doesn’t seem fair to Dawkins since the Queen bestowed a knighthood on half the team that gave the British Empire “Sympathy for the Devil.” Wake me up when Her Majesty gives some satisfaction to Keith Richards in honor of his service to needles & spoons.

  20. Main reasons for being on the honours list:

    For Being on the Telly
    For Doing your Job

  21. These are empty honours, & cheap. Better off with the honours of one’s peers & of posterity.

  22. I would not assume that Richard Dawkins would want any kind of Royal recognition. Many British people, including myself, would consider it the kiss of death to have to bow before the monarchy. I admire anybody who can tell the honours committee to shove, and I trust Dawkins is one of them.

  23. They did do Salman Rushdie, maybe they’re not too politically correct after all?
    No idea what Karen Armstrong has ever done though. I guess thoroughly confusing religious people is slightly better than dogmatically certain religious people?

  24. I doubt they would have invited the other CRD. For once the bible got it right:
    Mark 6:4-6King James Version (KJV)

    4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

  26. I believe Feynman first considered politely refusing the Nobel Prize. He did refuse to be in a book on Jewish scientists.

    1. I believe Feynman first considered politely refusing the Nobel Prize. He did refuse to be in a book on Jewish scientists.
      —————-
      What a curious thing. Are you sure there isn’t more information you are leaving out? I think so.

  27. Cultural identification

    Although born to and raised by parents who were Ashkenazi, Feynman was not only an atheist,[55] but declined to be labeled Jewish. He routinely refused to be included in lists or books that classified people by race. He asked to not be included in Tina Levitan’s The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize, writing, “To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory,” and adding “… at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views, but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way ‘the chosen people’.”[11]
    —
    It would have helped if you had full information listed. Wayne Tyson

Comments are closed.