Thursday, June 8, 2006
Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson is a smart and decent man. A noted physicist, from his writing clearly a gentle soul, he has written quietly balanced and thoughtful articles about the largest of issues.
Dyson is contending with an especially substantial issue in this review of a book by scientist Daniel Dennett, which attempts to assess religion and its effects from a scientist's viewpoint.
Dyson shifts from nuances relating to the value of religion in its social value; he glides into current concerns about terrorism, pointing to studies that indicate that many terrorists act more to affirm their group membership than out of a commitment to their ideology. He later advocates that we “understand” the terrorists — a familiar marker often indicating that the interlocutor doesn't understand at all; Dyson advocates we understand the very ideology he says is not a principal motivation for terrorist acts, and that we appreciate the collegial motivations amongst the co-conspirators.
I believe that … If we wish to understand the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world, and if we wish to take effective measures to lessen its attraction to idealistic young people, the first and most necessary step is to understand our enemies. We must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.
What does Dyson mean by, “…idealistic young people”? Why isn't Dyson jarred into sentience as he writes what to me is the morally incoherent phrase “… courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause”? How do you respect people who want to destroy you born of a fascistic belief in their superiority? Where is the idealism and courage in that?
Dyson's belief, really a kind of genteel yearning, for drawing room discussions amongst decent people, is a wonderful fantasy, but a dangerous one in these times. Knowing our enemy is what we need to do — not understand them.