What's wrong with Dawkins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wanstronian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
punkforchrist

Thanks for the contribution - I think I need to read up on Thomas’ works and then assess whether Dawkins has missed the point, or whether the point simply isn’t relevant to Dawkins’ assertions. Either way it’s remiss of him, of course.
 
Another excellent book that takes Dawkin’s arguments apart systematically is Why There Almost Certainly Is a God by Keith Ward. He is a philosopher, theologian and cleric who was until retirement a Regius Professor in Divinity at Oxford (in the UK this is one of the highest appointments in academia). He is also one of the professional philosophers who has asked for a public debate with Dawkins - so far refused.
 
It seems that Dawkins won’t debate philosophers on the rationale that they will use this to gain scientific legitimacy. This is not an unreasonable stance for him to take; but it has the unfortunate side effect of making him seem afraid. Perhaps he has chosen which, for him, is the lesser of two evils.

For us prurient spectators, it is a frustrating denial, whichever side you might be on!
 
He’s not, I talked about perspective. From the point of view of the individual, he feels that he’s made a decision on his own. There’s no sense that it was pre-ordained.
We are not concerned with feelings but with facts. Are you suggesting we should delude ourselves?
Of course, not, nor did I imply otherwise.
You stated that “from a scientific point of view, this to me is still more likely than just saying that God’s granted the human race an exclusion clause”. This suggests you believe a scientific explanation is preferable to a philosophical explanation even when free will is inconsistent with a scientific explanation.
Well, for a start: “What was the point? Why are we (humans) so special?”
Not only do we have free will but we are unique with our power of reason, ability to distinguish between good and evil, and our capacity for love.
 
One of the biggest problems with Dawkins is his lack of expertise in the areas of theology, philosophy, and philosophy of theology. He is an evolutionary biologist, and is at home in a laboratory. Hardly the breeding ground for an atheist manifesto. It is unclear why Dawkins suddenly started caring about atheism when he wrote this book, but the fact is, he has proved an embarrassment to both his theistic and atheistic colleagues. He attempts to dispense with traditional reasons for believing in God by dismissing them, then brings up reasons for atheism as if they had never been brought up before. The fact is, every topic in his book has been brought up elsewhere and dealt with one thousand times more competently. For more detail, I suggest reading some of these, though criticism of Dawkins is universal online and quite easy to find:

lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/10/barr-dawkins-unfortunately
That second article is very nice. In my experience, many physicists and mathematicians are deists or religious in some way, and this makes it quite clear why. I think it was Stephen Hawking who asked who or what breathed the fire into the equations that sustain the universe, or if they are just so compelling of themselves that the bring the universe into being? Dawkins seems to be almost as simple in science as he is in theology.
 
He’s not, I talked about perspective. From the point of view of the individual, he feels that he’s made a decision on his own. There’s no sense that it was pre-ordained.

"
I think this kind of biological determinism has a lot in common with Calvinism. It also states that from the point of view of human beings, we seem to have free will - it seems like WE are making the decisions. The argument is almost identical in structure so far as I can see. I wonder then if neoDarwinism is a kind of materialist Calvinism?
 
It seems that Dawkins won’t debate philosophers on the rationale that they will use this to gain scientific legitimacy. This is not an unreasonable stance for him to take; but it has the unfortunate side effect of making him seem afraid. Perhaps he has chosen which, for him, is the lesser of two evils.

For us prurient spectators, it is a frustrating denial, whichever side you might be on!
If they lose, as they clearly would if their arguments are as stupid as he lets on, I don’t see how this would be the case. It would only happen if their arguments had legitimacy.
 
You certainly implied it with your post though
Ah, now you didn’t say that before! I haven’t seen that quote, where would I find it?

Why “nasty weird”? What’s nasty about him?
I don’t have an opinion re. space aliens.God has infinite powers & our knowledge of His universe is finite.I leave the possibility open.
Re. the other comments:watch Ben Stein’s film “Expelled.” The exchange with with Mr. Dawkins sheds light on the “nastiness” & ET explanation.
(Personally, I find Mr.Dawkins creepy.Just my 2 cents.)
 
We are not concerned with feelings but with facts. Are you suggesting we should delude ourselves?
I was simply clarifying in response to your previous question. You’re surely not unaware of the effect that perspective can have on the perception of events?
You stated that “from a scientific point of view, this to me is still more likely than just saying that God’s granted the human race an exclusion clause”. This suggests you believe a scientific explanation is preferable to a philosophical explanation even when free will is inconsistent with a scientific explanation.
What I said in Post #10, quite clearly I think, is that in my opinion, the scientific knowledge of how particles interact and the extrapolation of that interaction in both scale and distance, is a more likely ultimate source for the decisions we make and the actions we take, than, “God decided it was okay.” Given that our decisions are made within our brains, which are a highly complex mixture of neurones, synapses and chemicals with no incorporeal element, you can in theory boil everything that’s ever happened or will happen, down to physics and chemistry. Free will is therefore an illusion. I used the word ‘theory’ advisedly, as there is physical, extrapolatable evidence for it. The existence of God, on the other hand, is pure hypothesis and therefore by scientific definition, a weaker position.
Not only do we have free will but we are unique with our power of reason, ability to distinguish between good and evil, and our capacity for love.
Are these not just offshoots of free will? Making this nothing more than a self-supporting argument.
Anyway, us humans are not the only creatures to demonstrate these characteristics: See here. And I know my dog loves me.😉
 
What I said in Post #10, quite clearly I think, is that in my opinion, the scientific knowledge of how particles interact and the extrapolation of that interaction in both scale and distance, is a more likely ultimate source for the decisions we make and the actions we take, than, “God decided it was okay.” Given that our decisions are made within our brains, which are a highly complex mixture of neurones, synapses and chemicals with no incorporeal element, you can in theory boil everything that’s ever happened or will happen, down to physics and chemistry. Free will is therefore an illusion.
Scientists’ discovery of unpredictability, in the realm of quanta and such, seems to offer a way out of the mechanistic theory you’re proposing here. These are perfectly corporeal, and yet seem to act randomly. The free-will theorist is perfectly justified in saying that the moral agent has control over at least a few of these (otherwise) unpredictable quanta, which then allows him to have a real *free *impact on the physical world.

The free-will theorist need not make such a move, however, because God is capable of arranging the world such that the free decisions of each individual (which he foreknew anyway) correspond with the mechanistic model you’re espousing. It is **my decision **to pick up my coffee cup, even though the physical state of things a moment before I picked it up would allow for no other actions than my picking up my coffee cup.

Why is it my decision? Because God gave me free will – not the possibility of manipulating physical space *in absentia *God – but the possibility of co-creating the events that would be, at (as it were) the beginning of time. God accommodated for all our free decisions, before creating the world. Then God set the world in motion, its physics already changed in accordance with our free wills.

I hope I made myself clear here. There are other solutions from the two described above, but I fail to see any major flaws in my reasoning. The solutions don’t cover all the potential problems, but I think they provide a framework.
 
I was simply clarifying in response to your previous question. You’re surely not unaware of the effect that perspective can have on the perception of events?
Perspective does not explain free will.
What I said in Post #10, quite clearly I think, is that in my opinion, the scientific knowledge of how particles interact and the extrapolation of that interaction in both scale and distance, is a more likely ultimate source for the decisions we make and the actions we take, than, “God decided it was okay.”
You are still trapped within your mechanistic explanation of human activity which excludes “decisions we make” in favour of decisions caused by physical events.
Given that our decisions are made within our brains, which are a highly complex mixture of neurones, synapses and chemicals with no incorporeal element, you can in theory boil everything that’s ever happened or will happen, down to physics and chemistry.
That is a magnificently self-refuting hypothesis!
Free will is therefore an illusion. I used the word ‘theory’ advisedly, as there is physical, extrapolatable evidence for it.
If it is an illusion you have no control over thoughts and no guarantee that any of your conclusions are true…
The existence of God, on the other hand, is pure hypothesis and therefore by scientific definition, a weaker position.
Here we are again! You deny that you regard science as the ultimate explanation of reality but you constantly fall back on “scientific definition” and scientific theories as your starting point. How can we have a self-control if there is no self?
Not only do we have free will but we are unique with our power of reason, ability to distinguish between good and evil, and our capacity for love. Are these not just offshoots of free will?
No, they are not. They presuppose free will but free will presupposes the power of reason and the power of creative love. They are different aspects of reality which converge in the Supreme Being and reinforce the concept of Design.
Anyway, us humans are not the only creatures to demonstrate these characteristics: See here. And I know my dog loves me.😉
Your dog’s love is extremely valuable but is it **sufficient **for you?
 
The free-will theorist need not make such a move, however, because God is capable of arranging the world such that the free decisions of each individual (which he foreknew anyway) correspond with the mechanistic model you’re espousing.
Well, that’s awfully convenient! In fact, that theory could almost have been invented purely to reconcile a belief in God with the reality of the universe!
Why is it my decision? Because God gave me free will – not the possibility of manipulating physical space *in absentia *God – but the possibility of co-creating the events that would be, at (as it were) the beginning of time. God accommodated for all our free decisions, before creating the world. Then God set the world in motion, its physics already changed in accordance with our free wills.

I hope I made myself clear here. There are other solutions from the two described above, but I fail to see any major flaws in my reasoning. The solutions don’t cover all the potential problems, but I think they provide a framework.
You made yourself clear, and the only flaw in your reasoning is an irrational belief in God. Illogical because there’s no evidence for his existence.

And, incidentally, you seem to have classed events that God always knew would happen - would be pre-ordained, in effect - as ‘free will’. If God created you, and knew what you would think, and altered the Universe to accommodate you, then how can this be called ‘free will’? Haven’t you just argued against your own hypothesis?
 
Perspective does not explain free will.
. Quite right. Never said it did. You’re continually missing the point.
You are still trapped within your mechanistic explanation of human activity which excludes “decisions we make” in favour of decisions caused by physical events.
The word ‘trapped’ implies I’m somewhere I’d rather not be.
That is a magnificently self-refuting hypothesis!
Is it? How so?
If it is an illusion you have no control over thoughts and no guarantee that any of your conclusions are true…
a cheap shot, but ultimately true. However, I’ve never claimed absolute knowledge.
Here we are again! You deny that you regard science as the ultimate explanation of reality but you constantly fall back on “scientific definition” and scientific theories as your starting point. How can we have a self-control if there is no self?
For a start, I’ve never said we can explain everything using science. We clearly can’t. However, that does not invalidate scientific evidence or theory.
No, they are not. They presuppose free will but free will presupposes the power of reason and the power of creative love.
Hang on - Free will presupposes reason and love, but reason and love presuppose free will? Care to explain?
They are different aspects of reality which converge in the Supreme Being and reinforce the concept of Design.
Conjecture, no basis in fact, no observable evidence. Meaningless.
Your dog’s love is extremely valuable but is it **sufficient **for you?
That’s not the point, the point is that dogs can ‘love’, which you said was a uniquely human ability.
 
p.s. You can tell America’s woken up - this site is running like a dog!😃
 
Well, that’s awfully convenient! In fact, that theory could almost have been invented purely to reconcile a belief in God with the reality of the universe!

You made yourself clear, and the only flaw in your reasoning is an irrational belief in God.
Since this is your claim, you need to prove that our belief is irrational. So far, you haven’t.
Illogical because there’s no evidence for his existence.
Just because don’t accept it, doesn’t mean there is no evidence.
{snip}
 
Since this is your claim, you need to prove that our belief is irrational. So far, you haven’t.
That’s a fair point, “irrational” was a shortcut, and doesn’t exactly define what I mean. Apologies for that. You can take my definition of “irrational” to be “baseless in any kind of observable, objective evidence.” You could maybe substitute “illogical” in the sense of, “lacking the principles of sound reasoning.”
Just because don’t accept it, doesn’t mean there is no evidence.
{snip}
Well so far, nobody’s been able to provide any. I would welcome some. Why are you keeping it to yourselves?
 
You made yourself clear, and the only flaw in your reasoning is an irrational belief in God. Illogical because there’s no evidence for his existence.
My goal was to explain why free will is not necessarily an illusion. You have acknowledged that there was no flaw in my reasoning, so I will assume that you will not, in the future, claim that free will is necessarily an illusion. This is, as it were, an obstacle to many people believing in God; I’d like to rationally remove such an obstacle.

In short, I am seeking to prove faith “not irrational”. Proving the existence of God, whether logically or empirically, is something I’m not yet presumptuous enough to try.
And, incidentally, you seem to have classed events that God always knew would happen - would be pre-ordained, in effect - as ‘free will’. If God created you, and knew what you would think, and altered the Universe to accommodate you, then how can this be called ‘free will’? Haven’t you just argued against your own hypothesis?
But you just said that He “altered the universe to accommodate [me]”. Are you not admitting, then, within my framework at least, that He altered the universe?

*Knowing *what I will do is different from *choosing *what I will do. God knows, but God does not choose. He could interfere, of course, but He continually chooses not to.
 
That’s a fair point, “irrational” was a shortcut, and doesn’t exactly define what I mean. Apologies for that. You can take my definition of “irrational” to be “baseless in any kind of observable, objective evidence.” You could maybe substitute “illogical” in the sense of, “lacking the principles of sound reasoning.”
These excerpts from the CCC make it clear to me that my faith is far from unreasonable:
50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38
Well so far, nobody’s been able to provide any. I would welcome some. Why are you keeping it to yourselves?
No one is hiding evidence from you. It exists in the people of faith who post on this site and their ancestors in faith throughout the ages. It is also contained in your own reasoning power as suggested by CCC article 50 above.
 
Perspective does not explain free will.
Quite right. Never said it did. You’re continually missing the point.
You are simply obfuscating the issue because you cannot explain how free will can exist within a mechanistic system.
You are still trapped within your mechanistic explanation of human activity which excludes “decisions we make” in favour of decisions caused by physical events.
The word ‘trapped’ implies I’m somewhere I’d rather not be.
Do you have free will or not?
That is a magnificently self-refuting hypothesis!
Is it? How so?
“Given that our decisions are made within our brains, which are a highly complex mixture of neurones, synapses and chemicals with no incorporeal element, you can in theory boil everything that’s ever happened or will happen, down to physics and chemistry.”
Your hypothesis boils down to physics and chemistry. It is no more than physical process which is unaware of anything. How can it produce hypotheses?
If it is an illusion you have no control over thoughts and no guarantee that any of your conclusions are true.… a cheap shot, but ultimately true.
If it is true it is not cheap but valuable. If it is true you have no control over your thoughts.
However, I’ve never claimed absolute knowledge.
It’s not a question of absolute knowledge but of knowledge pure and simple - which depends on control of your thoughts.
[/Q*You deny that you regard science as the ultimate explanation of reality but you constantly fall back on “scientific definition” and scientific theories as your starting point.
For a start, I’ve never said we can explain everything using science. We clearly can’t. However, that does not invalidate scientific evidence or theory.Who said it did? How do you determine the limits of scientific theory? Or do you presume there are none?
Free will presupposes reason and love, but reason and love presuppose free will? Care to explain?
How can you choose if you cannot reason?
How can you have the power to choose if it has not been given to you by a loving Creator?
How can you love if you cannot choose to love?
How can you reason if you cannot choose what to think?
They are different aspects of reality which converge in the Supreme Being and reinforce the concept of Design.
Conjecture, no basis in fact, no observable evidence. Meaningless.
It is not conjecture but a conclusion based on the evidence of our own experience, on the fact that we can choose the best explanation and meaningful in the light of the power of reason. To assert that free will has emerged from forces which **lack **free will is sheer conjecture, with no basis in fact and a meaningless proposition like the propositions that reason has emerged from forces which **lack **reason and purpose has emerged from forces which **lack **purpose…
Your dog’s love is extremely valuable but is it sufficient for you?
That’s not the point, the point is that dogs can ‘love’, which you said was a uniquely human ability.
You are clearly unable to differentiate a dog’s love from a person’s love…
:
What I said in Post #10, quite clearly I think, is that in my opinion, the scientific knowledge of how particles interact and the extrapolation of that interaction in both scale and distance, is a more likely ultimate source for the decisions we make and the actions we take, than, “God decided it was okay.”
How can the interaction of particles be a source of decisions? How can there be self-control without a self?
 
My goal was to explain why free will is not necessarily an illusion. You have acknowledged that there was no flaw in my reasoning, so I will assume that you will not, in the future, claim that free will is necessarily an illusion. This is, as it were, an obstacle to many people believing in God; I’d like to rationally remove such an obstacle.
I didn’t acknowledge there was no flaw; on the contrary I pointed out that the only flaw was that you postulated the existence of an omnipotent being that excused the human race from being bound by the laws of physics. It may only be one flaw, but’s it’s a big one.
In short, I am seeking to prove faith “not irrational”. Proving the existence of God, whether logically or empirically, is something I’m not yet presumptuous enough to try.
Without knowing that the thing you believe in exists and without any evidence to support its existence, isn’t it irrational to believe in it? Do you believe in fairies?
But you just said that He “altered the universe to accommodate [me]”. Are you not admitting, then, within my framework at least, that He altered the universe?
No, I was pointing out that in your hypothetical framework, if he did alter the Universe to accommodate you, you’re hard pushed to then claim free will.
*Knowing *what I will do is different from *choosing *what I will do. God knows, but God does not choose. He could interfere, of course, but He continually chooses not to.
But if he knew when he created you, what choices you were going to make and altered the Universe to accommodate you, then surely you could not, ultimately, have made any other choice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top