Dawkins and Quote Mining: A Clear Example

[guacamole]

God DelusionGod Delusion

(quoted in Freeman 2002).

occultus: hidden with an added connotation of secrecy; secretum: separated or hidden, as in a secret given to only a few; and arcanushttp://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

[Doug Shaver]

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

I'll check the link when I can. Right now I'm on a network that, for reasons known only to the administrators, blocks that site.

We shall see. In the meantime, I note that whenever I hear "It rings true," it always seems to mean, "It tells me exactly what I want to hear."

[Carrikature]

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

It's sad that you couldn't just link to Augustine's Confessions, which was linked in the blog you referenced. If you read that yourself, I think you'd find your blog author is taking his own liberties with interpretation.


This isn't accurate, even in context.

To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. The seat whereof being in the appetite of knowledge, and sight being the sense chiefly used for attaining knowledge, it is in Divine language called The lust of the eyes. For, to see, belongeth properly to the eyes; yet we use this word of the other senses also, when we employ them in seeking knowledge. For we do not say, hark how it flashes, or smell how it glows, or taste how it shines, or feel how it gleams; for all these are said to be seen. And yet we say not only, see how it shineth, which the eyes alone can perceive; but also, see how it soundeth, see how it smelleth, see how it tasteth, see how hard it is. And so the general experience of the senses, as was said, is called The lust of the eyes, because the office of seeing, wherein the eyes hold the prerogative, the other senses by way of similitude take to themselves, when they make search after any knowledge.

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

The reasoning is made pretty clear further on:

For when our heart becomes the receptacle of such things, and is overcharged with throngs of this abundant vanity, then are our prayers also thereby often interrupted and distracted, and whilst in Thy presence we direct the voice of our heart to Thine ears, this so great concern is broken off by the rushing in of I know not what idle thoughts.

It's not at all about being unable to better understand our place with God, nor is it saying we are interested in the experience for the sake of experience. He's explicitly stating it as a distraction from God.

[rogue06]

God DelusionGod Delusion

(quoted in Freeman 2002).

occultus: hidden with an added connotation of secrecy; secretum: separated or hidden, as in a secret given to only a few; and arcanushttp://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

I don't recall Augustine being against scientific inquiry. It seems to go against so much he has written.

For instance in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") Augustine wrote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

This sentiment is expressed elsewhere in different ways by Augustine. Again in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

In Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Reply to Faustus the Manichaean"):

In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.

One other thing to consider is that Augustine in his Confessiones
It was for these reasons that Augustine ended up abandoning Manichaeism and embracing Christianity.

[guacamole]

It's sad that you couldn't just link to Augustine's Confessions, which was linked in the blog you referenced. If you read that yourself, I think you'd find your blog author is taking his own liberties with interpretation.

Sad? Strange. I didn't link to the Confessions because I didn't want to duplicate the blogger's work and take some credit for it--I actually wanted and am glad that you and others read his post; however, think what you wish.

As far the interpretation goes, it might be that both the author of the blog and I both are wrong about interpreting Augustine--I'm not well read in post-- classical and early medieval philosophy. It seemed to make sense given what I read of the translation. At any rate, that's not really the point here.

Regardless of whether the bogger and I are wrong, the issue is that the passage, as cited in Dawkins, Freeman, et. al., does not appear in that form in Augustine. It is a fictitious passage. Dawkins doesn't even maintain the more honest ellipses that other writers (might have?) used (again, I don't know. I don't have access to Freeman. If someone else does, feel free to provide the representative passage.). In addition, whatever the passage might mean, it isn't a clarion call against scientific inquiry-- that much is at least clear in the context from the passage about seeking out the spectacle of freaks or magical conjurations in theater. From the passage you cited:

For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by.

This isn't accurate, even in context.

To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. The seat whereof being in the appetite of knowledge, and sight being the sense chiefly used for attaining knowledge, it is in Divine language called The lust of the eyes. For, to see, belongeth properly to the eyes; yet we use this word of the other senses also, when we employ them in seeking knowledge. For we do not say, hark how it flashes, or smell how it glows, or taste how it shines, or feel how it gleams; for all these are said to be seen. And yet we say not only, see how it shineth, which the eyes alone can perceive; but also, see how it soundeth, see how it smelleth, see how it tasteth, see how hard it is. And so the general experience of the senses, as was said, is called The lust of the eyes, because the office of seeing, wherein the eyes hold the prerogative, the other senses by way of similitude take to themselves, when they make search after any knowledge.d

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

The reasoning is made pretty clear further on:

For when our heart becomes the receptacle of such things, and is overcharged with throngs of this abundant vanity, then are our prayers also thereby often interrupted and distracted, and whilst in Thy presence we direct the voice of our heart to Thine ears, this so great concern is broken off by the rushing in of I know not what idle thoughts.

It's not at all about being unable to better understand our place with God, nor is it saying we are interested in the experience for the sake of experience. He's explicitly stating it as a distraction from God.

It may not be accurate in the immediate context, but I know enough of Augustine, especially book X in the Confessions, that man's relationship to God is a central to his thought. In addition, I also have read enough of him to know that the whole of the Confessions deals with his apostasy, dalliance with other belief systems, and coming to a proper understanding of who he is to God.

Again though, you're trying to rescue Dawkins here by pointing out that I am wrong. So be it. I'm not interested in having a pissing contest with you (or anyone else, for that matter) over the interpretation of Augustine. If you look at the sloppiness or dishonesty in Dawkins's quote, you'll see that my original point--to give a rock solid example of quote mining--stands.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

I don't recall Augustine being against scientific inquiry. It seems to go against so much he has written.

For instance in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") Augustine wrote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

This sentiment is expressed elsewhere in different ways by Augustine. Again in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

In Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Reply to Faustus the Manichaean"):

In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.

One other thing to consider is that Augustine in his Confessiones
It was for these reasons that Augustine ended up abandoning Manichaeism and embracing Christianity.

Really well done!

fwiw,
guac.

[Carrikature]

Again though, you're trying to rescue Dawkins here by pointing out that I am wrong. So be it. I'm not interested in having a pissing contest with you (or anyone else, for that matter) over the interpretation of Augustine. If you look at the sloppiness or dishonesty in Dawkins's quote, you'll see that my original point--to give a rock solid example of quote mining--stands.

What are you on about, guac? I'm not trying to rescue anyone. I never said Dawkins or Freeman did it properly. However, you could have simply shown that Dawkins and Freeman did it wrong by quoting Augustine directly. That would have been more than sufficient, and wouldn't involve any blog readings or anything else. That's why I said it's sad. Better to quote Augustine directly than pull in a questionable third party.

[guacamole]

What are you on about, guac? I'm not trying to rescue anyone. I never said Dawkins or Freeman did it properly. However, you could have simply shown that Dawkins and Freeman did it wrong by quoting Augustine directly. That would have been more than sufficient, and wouldn't involve any blog readings or anything else. That's why I said it's sad. Better to quote Augustine directly than pull in a questionable third party.

I think I explained well enough that I wasn't going to take credit for someone else's work. That felt dishonest. As for what I am on about? You characterized having to click through to a blog--one click--and read the same sort of stuff I would have plagiarized had I reinvented the wheel there, as sad. Perhaps you've been internet soldiering too hard lately and have lost perspective?

Fwiw,
Guacamole