What's wrong with Dawkins?

[ethereality]

To consider the “why” resolved by answering the “how” is bad form. To ignore the “why” because it adds no value is valid. There doesn’t have to be a “why” ice melts.

You have the additional problem of explaining where the question even came from (before we discuss whether it adds useful information, which you call ‘value’). If the universe is a self-contained system with no God beyond it, and this question “why” is explicitly a religious question (which it is) asking about a God not contained by the system, from where did the question come? The only answer you can possibly have is that the question was inspired by the system and not by God, and thus ‘God’ is nothing but various compiled attributes of the universe itself, the question itself arising from some bizarre quirk of evolution with the human mind: in not assuming God you must assume something else.

But even here we have a paradox, because as we’ve just discussed, the question ‘why’ is fundamentally different from the question ‘how’; it is not asking about the universe, but about something beyond it. If there is nothing beyond the universe, how can we even perceive that there could be something beyond it? I only learned about the outside because there was a window in my nursery. I only learned about the ocean because my country has a shore. I only learned about space because our planet has an atmosphere. If we are nothing but a part of the universe, there is no way we could imagine something not also a part of it. That is, if we’re inside a sphere with infinite dimensions, how can we ever come to the idea of a border? (But that’s yet another problem for you, because it appears that there very definitely is an ‘edge’ to the universe, since the universe appears to be expanding from a single point – and we have a Catholic priest to thank for the Big Bang theory.)

Ascribing purpose to every event is senseless, surely?

Not at all. If God is real and is who Christians claim he is, then it should be encouraged to see how every event connects to him. A simple cold or an aggravated mosquito bite results from original sin’s corruption of our universe and reminds us of the glorious resurrection for which we wait in hope wherein the universe will be made new and glorified, etc. If God is first, then everything necessarily should follow afterward. To embrace ‘how’ is to embrace science; to embrace ‘why’ is to embrace the God who gave us science. (Thus theology is higher than science.)

This makes no sense. Is a ‘good’ song a ‘useful’ one?

Certainly: It soothes the nerves providing longer life, and is thus useful to an optimistic organism. However, most who admire music and call it ‘good’ are in fact admiring inherent beauty contained within it, which does not exist according to a worldview that denies anything that cannot be empirically observed. Thus many see music as a proof that God exists and reject such a worldview.

 

[Cominghome89]

Is there a counter to The God Delusion? One that rebuts Dawkins’ claims, but based on logic and evidence rather than scripture and “I can’t explain it therefore it’s God” type philosophies?

Not a direct counter, but you would like an explanation of God by logic and evidence, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

This makes no sense. Is a ‘good’ song a ‘useful’ one?

Yes, and a sacred song is especially useful in glorifying God.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

youtube.com/watch?v=PL69Z0Ru5Z0&feature=fvw

 

[edwest2]

Mr. Dawkins has simply rejected the Bible as the Word of God. On the off chance that God exists, he mentions that He would be something beyond our comprehension.

We are all, in the end, servants, including scientists. It is illogical to believe that a human embryo is not a unique human being.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

All,

I haven’t been around this forum long, but I’ve seen a few disparaging references to Dawkins. Having read “The God Delusion” and found it quite a logical read (with the caveat that it fits with my fundamental view of religion, so I’m aware I’m biased), I’d like to know exactly what it is about Dawkins that people dislike (or even in some cases, like).

Some atheists have the merit of understanding what it is they criticise. He isn’t one of them. His contempt for religion flows from every page, and what you are contemptuous of you are unlikely to take much trouble to familiarise youself with. Instead, any old caricature will do, and then he objects when he is accused of demolishing a strawman.

 

[charlieg1234]

I’m not much of a philosopher but from the discussion I would ask, Is there any “truth”? If the answer is no, then this discussion is irrelevant. If there is, then the discussion is ended when you consider someone changing their mind. Either they are determined to stand for the truth or not. For example, the case of Ms. Sonia Sotomayor, she said in 2001 that her gender and ethnicity and life experience would cause her to make better judgments than a white male without those experiences {is everyone Obama knows a narcissist?}; to quote her: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who has not lived that life,” Now during her confirmation hearings she says “I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gendered group has an advantage in sound judgment,…I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge." How can there be any kind of determinism? Of course, you could answer me, “In that person, at least, there is no truth”.

 

[antunesaa]

There is a fatal flaw at the very root of neo-Darwinism. Dawkins claims that all our behaviour is determined by our genetic inheritance and environmental factors. In other words he rejects free will. Yet he also believes we can choose what to think and how to improve our lives…

Excellent point. Atheism implies absence of free will.

 

[antunesaa]

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. To me that raises more questions than it answers.

I think the free will issue is essentially what divides atheists and theists. But your assertion that the human race was granted an exclusion clause is obviously misleading. Any rational being (other non-human species in the Universe, for example) is granted that exclusion because reason and free will are mutually necessary. Reason is intimately related to free will. Reason is the tool you need to make free will operative. Reason implies making choices: a scientist decides that theory A is better than B because of this and that; therefore he decides to go for A if he is honest, but can go for B if it suits him better. An atheistic view denies free will (because all actions by this set of atoms we call a human being are either randomly or deterministically decided, or a mix of the two), and therefore denies reason.

My view is that you need some kind of incompleteness of the physical laws that make room for free will. This kind of incompleteness ensures that some “objects” cannot be completely described by physical laws. Those objects are the spiritual beings. So the spiritual realm and free will are necessary for each other, and of course this immediately makes the way for the existence of God.

 

[reggieM]

I I don’t deny free will, I’m merely playing Devil’s Advocate.

That is very good to see and certainly a major improvement over what rank-materialism (such as Dawkins’) would assert. This avoids the contradiction that I thought you were giving previously – and it avoids the fatal flaw as mentioned.

So, you’re on firm ground here - again, excellent. You might be correct that free-will does not necessarily prove that God created it, but I don’t think you should totally exclude that possiblitity in your investigations of the reasons and causes, etc.

 

[1holycatholic]

By this time there can be few more famous critiques of Dawkins. Written by another atheist:

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

This one from a theist and fellow scientist:

guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/evolution.religion

Here’s another famous encounter:

time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html

Is Eagleton an atheist?

 

[quami]

I think the main issue that is wrong with Dawkins view point is that he is out of his philosophical depth.

I thinks as Christians we use our surroundings, our self and how these things effects our faith. Dawkins is only interested in disproving that faith is not a congnisant entity and how this is therefore a nonissue to how we live our lives.

I have read a counter point to Dawkins God Delsuison which does a better job of explanning our argument against Dawkins

It is written by a Dominican by the name of Thomas Crean OP called A Catholic Replies to Professor Dawkins.

Fr Creans shows that “Dawkins’ criticisms are founded on misunderstandings, superficial readings, a lack of historical awareness, and not a little prejudice, Crean reveals the Professor to be a writer well out of his philosophical depth.”

For those who are interested in the Church’s position it is an excellent place to start.

Hope this helps. .

 

[buffalo]

That is very good to see and certainly a major improvement over what rank-materialism (such as Dawkins’) would assert. This avoids the contradiction that I thought you were giving previously – and it avoids the fatal flaw as mentioned.

So, you’re on firm ground here - again, excellent. You might be correct that free-will does not necessarily prove that God created it, but I don’t think you should totally exclude that possiblitity in your investigations of the reasons and causes, etc.

One thing that the lack of free will leads to is depression.

 

[geometer]

The Dawkins Delusion

 

[wanstronian]

Another atheist trying to cast every Christian into the role of a fundamentalist. The Bible is about theology, not science, and what Genesis 1 has to say about theology is valid: God as the creator and sustainer of all things.

You wouldn’y really expect to find an essay on quantum field theory in something written in the third century BC, would you now?

Wait a moment - etherality’s post criticised protestants for believing that the earth was formed in six days. I just pointed out that this is exactly what Genesis chapter 1 says, and queried whether Catholicism (etherality’s stated religion) ignored it. If I understand you correctly, you see a literal interpretation of Genesis as fundamentalism, the implication being that Catholics do not take Genesis literally.

So you could have just answered my question thus: “No you’re not missing anything, catholics don’t believe the OT should be taken literally whereas protestants do.” Instead you chose to respond with unnecessary aggression born presumably of the incorrect assumption that my question was not innocent.

 

[wanstronian]

Without having read any of the thread beyond the first post, my problem with Dawkins is that he is an idiot. I heard such glowing things about The God Delusion that I picked it up. I was looking forward to a read that would, one way or another, bring me closer to the truth. I was ready to go wherever the arguments took me, and, while I was confident in my Catholicism, I was prepared for the possibility that the much-lauded Dawkins would say something that would convince me that atheism is true. Regardless of the outcome, I was certain that reading Dawkins would cause me to grow–toward Catholicism or away from it, but always toward the truth.

I was deeply disappointed. Never in all my years of apologetics and counter-apologetics have I read such a sloppy mish-mash of poor argumentation, weak organization, and unearned arrogance. The man may be a good evolutionary biologist, and indeed his image of “Mount Improbable” was quite usefully illustrative. But his grasp of philosphy and logic is, at best, laughable. He had no understanding of Aquinas, being utterly confounded by St. Thomas’s reasoning and, indeed, getting it at several points exactly backwards. Worse, Dawkins made it abundantly clear that he had never read past Question 2, Article 3 of the Summa! He read Q2A3, no doubt in translation, unquestioningly put it into terms that his tiny post-Aristotlean worldview could handle (making another of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ill-founded, ill-serving assumptions he so arrogantly makes throughout the book), and then skipped the next forty-two chapters (~150 articles), all of which serve to answer his key objections! (His core, constantly repeated objection is that any Creator must be unimaginably complex. “On the simplicity of God” is the very next page of the Summa! Arrrrgh!) The intellectual bankruptcy Dawkins demonstrates is akin to that of a creationist who reads only the first three pages of On the Origin of Species before condemning the whole idea of evolution as insane!

And Aquinas is but one (particularly frustrating) example. Dawkins also flubs the ontological argument, which is amazing, because, honestly, it’s not that hard to show clear weaknesses in St. Anselm’s case (even while a clear disproof is hard to come by). But instead of doing actual philosophy, Dawkins instead mocks Anselm for a few pages, vomits up a specious counter-example, and calls it a point proved! Go through that entire chapter: Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes (in passing), the baseless skewering of Anthony Flew (I don’t agree with Flew, but at least my critique of him isn’t based on insults)… for page after page after page, Dawkins shows himself to be a self-rightgeous moralizing child who couldn’t argue his way through even a reasonably rigorous undergraduate philosophy course.

Such sloppiness can’t help but spill out of that particular chapter. His attack on the efficacy of prayer was countered more than effectively by C.S. Lewis fifty years ago–and, because Lewis was responding to far more intelligent arguments at the time, Lewis’s defense goes well further. His chapter “Why there is almost certainly no God” is fatally undermined by the intellectual collapse of the preceding chapter. And his general attack on the outcomes of organized religion is flawed eight ways from Tuesday (have you read a history of the Crusades, Mr. Dawkins?). I’ll bet you’d like me to substantiate such a sweeping charge. That’s how I felt during the whole book, on the rare occasion that I could see his sweeping charges through the haze of mischaracterizations and abject silliness.

You want to be an atheist, fine. There are decent reasons for it, even if they are ultimately flawed. But, for God’s sake, be an intellectually honest atheist. Base your atheism on the arguments of someone reasonably convincing, like Bertrand Russell, or even the far superior Douglas Adams (ironic, because Adams idolized Dawkins, but nonetheless true). To do less would be treason against the intellect. Richard Dawkins is the Jack Chick of atheism.

Hope that answers your question!

EDIT: The “You” in “You want to be an atheist,” is directed generally at the world, and not at you specifically, wastronian. Didn’t want to put you on the defensive there, so I clarify.

That most definitely does answer my question, thank you!
I’d like to understand how the reasons for being atheist are flawed though.

 

[wanstronian]

You have the additional problem of explaining where the question even came from (before we discuss whether it adds useful information, which you call ‘value’). If the universe is a self-contained system with no God beyond it, and this question “why” is explicitly a religious question (which it is) asking about a God not contained by the system, from where did the question come? The only answer you can possibly have is that the question was inspired by the system and not by God, and thus ‘God’ is nothing but various compiled attributes of the universe itself, the question itself arising from some bizarre quirk of evolution with the human mind: in not assuming God you must assume something else.

There’s no reason that “Why” as a philosophical or religious question couldn’t have just evolved from “why” as a base question (as in, “Why did Ug throw that rock at me? I was just minding my own business.”)

But even here we have a paradox, because as we’ve just discussed, the question ‘why’ is fundamentally different from the question ‘how’; it is not asking about the universe, but about something beyond it. If there is nothing beyond the universe, how can we even perceive that there could be something beyond it? I only learned about the outside because there was a window in my nursery. I only learned about the ocean because my country has a shore. I only learned about space because our planet has an atmosphere. If we are nothing but a part of the universe, there is no way we could imagine something not also a part of it. That is, if we’re inside a sphere with infinite dimensions, how can we ever come to the idea of a border? (But that’s yet another problem for you, because it appears that there very definitely is an ‘edge’ to the universe, since the universe appears to be expanding from a single point – and we have a Catholic priest to thank for the Big Bang theory.)

I strongly suspect (but I don’t know because I wasn’t there) that initial thoughts on religion didn’t place God outside the universe for the very reason you state. But, as the human race got smarter and discovered there’s nothing below the ground but rock, and nothing above the clouds but ozone etc., God’s assumed resting place was disproved. The more we learnt about the creation and history of our universe, the further God receded until he’s where he is now - outside, and not bounded by, the universe.

Not at all. If God is real and is who Christians claim he is, then it should be encouraged to see how every event connects to him. A simple cold or an aggravated mosquito bite results from original sin’s corruption of our universe and reminds us of the glorious resurrection for which we wait in hope wherein the universe will be made new and glorified, etc. If God is first, then everything necessarily should follow afterward. To embrace ‘how’ is to embrace science; to embrace ‘why’ is to embrace the God who gave us science. (Thus theology is higher than science.)

Exactly - if. But there’s no reason to believe he is real and who Christians claim he is. It seems (to me at least) that it’s far more likely that God was invented to answer the evolution of the question “Why”, than that God invented us and gave us the ability to ask the question “Why.”)

Certainly: It soothes the nerves providing longer life, and is thus useful to an optimistic organism. .

Okay, so we’ve established (by a single example!!) that “good” and “useful” are interchangeable. Doesn’t that rebut your original assertion that “good” can only be possible with religion? If not, maybe you need to explain “good.”

However, most who admire music and call it ‘good’ are in fact admiring inherent beauty contained within it, which does not exist according to a worldview that denies anything that cannot be empirically observed.

But that statement tends to discount the progression of science. We cannot empirically observe the beauty of music yet (although there is a science to the production of music that has been exploited by many popular artists).

Thus many see music as a proof that God exists and reject such a worldview

That’s my problem. Why is “God” the answer? Why does the beauty of music prove “God”? Surely it’s just that we don’t fully understand it yet?

 

[mathematician]

Wait a moment - etherality’s post criticised protestants for believing that the earth was formed in six days. I just pointed out that this is exactly what Genesis chapter 1 says, and queried whether Catholicism (etherality’s stated religion) ignored it. If I understand you correctly, you see a literal interpretation of Genesis as fundamentalism, the implication being that Catholics do not take Genesis literally.

So you could have just answered my question thus: “No you’re not missing anything, catholics don’t believe the OT should be taken literally whereas protestants do.” Instead you chose to respond with unnecessary aggression born presumably of the incorrect assumption that my question was not innocent.

Although I am not a Catholic, I do know that the literal truth, or otherwise, of Genesis is one of the few things where the Vatican does not lay down the law. But upon the whole, most Catholics like most Protestants (at least on this side of the Atlantic) do not believe that the opening chapters of Genesis are literally true.

 

[antunesaa]

He’s weird? So what? Lots of people are weird.

The very fact that we exist is positive, irrefutable proof that the physical conditions for life are possible. (The same can’t be said for God) Given the trillions of planets in this universe, isn’t it just a tiny bit arrogant for you to assume that this one is the only one with life?

Even if we are not alone, chances are we will never get acquainted with aliens. Quoting from the wikipedia:

“In 1950, while working at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the physicist Enrico Fermi had a casual conversation while walking to lunch with colleagues Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller and Herbert York. The men lightly discussed a recent spate of UFO reports and an Alan Dunn cartoon[9] facetiously blaming the disappearance of municipal trashcans on marauding aliens. They then had a more serious discussion regarding the chances of humans observing faster-than-light travel of some material object within the next ten years, which Teller put at one in a million, but Fermi put closer to one in ten. The conversation shifted to other subjects, until during lunch Fermi suddenly exclaimed, “Where are they?” (alternatively, “Where is everybody?”)[10] One participant recollects that Fermi then made a series of rapid calculations using estimated figures (Fermi was known for his ability to make good estimates from first principles and minimal data, see Fermi problem.) According to this account, he then concluded that Earth should have been visited long ago and many times over.”

This is the Fermi paradox, a powerful argument against the existence of aliens.

 

[tonyrey]

I have not denied that possibility but it is highly unlikely that a high percentage of our beliefs are correct if they are all predetermined.
I don’t see why this should be true. Pre-determinism is not randomness.

It is not a question of randomness but of probability. There are a vast number of possible beliefs and an even greater number of facts. It is extremely unlikely that a particular belief corresponds to a particular fact if it is predetermined by blind processes. I have already pointed out how often instincts go astray and they are limited to a much smaller section of reality. The element of randomness which you rightly mention further increases the improbability of success. To attempt to divorce knowledge and reason from free will is a desperate manoeuvre.

In fact knowledge implies insight and understanding which a mechanical process does not possess. So there is also the problem of explaining knowledge as well as free will.
Here I disagree - there’s nothing to suggest that the chemical and physical composition of our brains is not capable of knowledge. In fact, quite the opposite. We do know things so our brains must be capable of knowledge.

It does not follow from the fact that we know things that our brains are capable of knowledge, insight and understanding. As Hume pointed out, conjunction in time and space does not prove causality. We can equally well believe that the brain is merely the means by which sense data are interpreted and thought is communicated. There is no evidence whatsoever that brains are aware that they exist. The only reason for equating thoughts with electrical currents is the assumption that all activity is ultimately physical - which remains to be proved.

Not at all. If you deny that free will exists you cannot be sure that any particular belief is true.
I would say that holds true regardless of the existence of free will. Or did you mean to say, “… any particular belief is real?”

I meant to say true but real is equally applicable!

Indeed. Gives one a headache, doesn’t it.

The truth is often painful but in this case it is reassuring to discover knowledge is not an illusion. Pre-determinism leads to total scepticism and total scepticism is self-destructive.

If determinism is correct the absence of free will tells us nothing about the existence of God. If free will exists it requires an explanation. In the absence of any other explanation it is reasonable to believe that free will has always existed. If free will has always existed it is absurd to suppose it has existed in a void. It must therefore be an attribute of Ultimate Reality.
First two sentences correct. Third, hmmmm. Do you believe that all creatures have free will?

It does not follow from the fact that free will has always existed that all creatures have free will.

Or do you deny evolution in toto?

I don’t deny evolution at all.

What do you mean by Ultimate Reality?

If you are materialist you believe the Ultimate Reality is matter. If you believe in free will you believe matter is not the Ultimate Reality because there is no evidence that matter has free will. Free will by itself cannot be the Ultimate Reality because free will implies the existence of a rational being. It is more coherent to believe the Ultimate Reality is a Rational Being with free will.

 

[antunesaa]

“they will use this to gain scientific legitimacy”

This would be incredibly arrogant from Dawkins. Philosophy has an impeccable scientific tradition over several thousand years. One could question theology if one is an atheist; but it is impossible to seriously deny that philosophy is a scientific field. I don’t see what ligitimacy do philosophers need. They have it all. It might actually be the other way around - I’m still a bit weary of a scientific field claiming it has an explanation for everything, like many neo-Darwinists now seem to believe. I am an economist and my work is essentially solving differential equations and proving fixed point theorems. My professional class is well aware of the deficiencies of economics in explaining economic systems, even if we nowadays use very complex mathematical tools. This humbleness should be the rule in every scientific field. It sometimes isn’t in certain fields.