What's wrong with Dawkins?

[edwest2]

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.

A powerful what? Give me a break. This is one man’s opinion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Okay, so you don’t like him because he doesn’t think the same way as you??

And you assume I don’t like him? Why is that? I am simply pointing out that Mr. Dawkins has been given the truth and rejects it. That’s all. It is the constant teaching of the Church that we should pray for him and consider that he might be converted. That is the Church’s mission – to save souls.

I notice you had no comment about the human embryo example. Like others, Mr. Dawkins does not believe or care that a human embryo is a human embryo. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. A unique person.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

That’s a bold assertion - care to justify?

Can brains have free will?

 

[antunesaa]

No, no, no! Free will does not necessitate God! Unless you are content to use the word “god” as a metaphor for, "something we don’t [yet] understand."Utter baloney as shown above.Pascal’s wager was presumably meant tongue-in-cheek; as Dawkins himself has pointed out, a God who is more interested in a public show of belief than whether that belief is actually real, is a God that should cause theists real concern.

A purely materialistic view of the world precludes any metaphysical cogitation. So, if free will exists than it has to have a material explanation (a law) that Science can potentially grasp. (This doesn’t mean that Science actually does it, but that it has the scope to potentially do it.) But if Science can do that, free will is ascribed to a law, and therefore is not by definition free will. Free will is an inherently metaphysical concept - you have to give it up if you espouse pure materialism.

In a previous post you say that I am assuming that spiritual beings are those for which physical laws are incomplete. This to me is a necessity, for I am well aware that if I embrace atheism (and I only conceive as defensable full, materialistic atheism) all free will is lost. You can choose A or B, fine, but not both.

 

[antunesaa]

A powerful what? Give me a break. This is one man’s opinion.

Peace,
Ed

I think it’s powerful. It is not enough to convince me that rational aliens do not exist, but it convinces me that, if they exist, they should be far apart from us.

 

[antunesaa]

Easily countered by the following:

1. Given that the birth of the universe only happened once, there’s no reason to suspect that alien races are sufficiently more advanced than ourselves. We haven’t visited any planets; why should they?
2. It’s reasonable to suspect that life is statistically rare throughout the universe (for reasons that I won’t bother with now, but you can look them up). Therefore, on the assumption that the nearest life-supporting system may be hundreds of light years away, then journey time would be so long that (a) they may simply not have reached us yet, and (b) how would they stay alive long enough to make the final course corrections necessary to bring them into contact?
3. We don’t know that they haven’t (although I grant you, evidence is pretty thin on the ground once you discount all the ‘little green men’ accounts).

This is ok with me, I don’t have strong beliefs about the possibility that there are intelligent aliens. Calculations using famous formulas yield many civilizations scattered by the Universe or just one, depending on your arbitration of some variables. Who am I to contradict those numbers? I’m persuaded that if intelligent aliens do exist, they should be far, far away due to Fermi’s argument.

 

[antunesaa]

It wasn’t misleading, it was examplary. If you like, I’ll retract and replace with, “… and life form exhibiting free will…”

Fine so far. Wow, there’s a leap of logic. Why are they spiritual? Because we can’t observe them scientifically? Was gravity spiritual before Newton documented it?You’re presenting conjecture as fact. There is no evidence of a spiritual realm. Hence no reason to postulate the existence of God. It’s just a convenient concept for something we don’t understand.

I call them “spiritual”, but you can call them methaphysical, which is actually what they are by definition. You see, since we need some incompleteness of the physical laws to allow for free will, then some things cannot be explained by physical laws. They are, by definition, outside the scope of science and we cannot “observe them scientifically”. This implies that free will belongs to a metaphysical realm. This is in contradiction to materialistic atheism. God is what we call to the cause of that object (free will) in this metaphysical realm. Or perhaps the object itself…

PS: Now, this would be a fairly accurate description of the Christian God: a Free Will that can be known by reason and exists beyond time and space.

 

[edwest2]

As I’m sure you know, there is a big difference between can’t being physically unable to and can’t as in we don’t have yet have the ability.

Einstein’s theories did not have some of the empirical support needed before he died. Physicists were able to finally make the observations that supported his theory some time after his death. This does not mean that his theory was spiritual anymore than gravity was spiritual!

We cannot (are physically unable to) observe and measure the mind, the soul and/or God. We never will be able to because those things are not material and cannot be physically measured - unlike gravity.

That is why Gould argued for the existence of NOMA - non-overlapping magisteria. Science has little or nothing useful to say about morality and theology and Theology has little or nothing useful to say about the material world.

If I have a fever, I see a medical doctor; if I have questions about God I consult a theologian. Dawkins simply has not the education or expertise to comment intelligently on the existence of God and/or the value of religion. He’s a biologist. If I want to know more about evolution I might read Dawkins; if I want to know about God I’ll read McCabe or Ward or Aquinas…I wouldn’t trust them to tell me much useful about cell biology however!

NOMA saves a lot of arguments

Science has little or nothing useful to say about morality or theology? Are you joking?

See the journal Evolutionary Psychology. You haven’t read any posts here that clearly assign to mechanistic biochemistry emotions and intellect? Mind is simply an outgrowth of matter? Our randomly mutating and naturally selected genes have been constantly upgrading our mental software, and at some point, gave us a god(s)/religion(s) concept to assist in our survival. You’ve never heard that?

It is because the overlap occurs constantly, including here, that these discussions take place.

It should not surprise you to know that a global, coordinated marketing campaign for atheism is going on right now. Do you think a sign on a bus that reads “Man created God” is based on a wild guess? It’s based on the belief that our genes caused our biomechanical minds to invent god.

The O V E R L A P occurs 24/7 on all media platforms. You are an animal or just a biological robot.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mathematician]

You haven’t read any posts here that clearly assign to mechanistic biochemistry emotions and intellect? Mind is simply an outgrowth of matter.

That is an atheist’s article of faith, and faith is the right word here. No matter how closely you observe the bio-chemical processes which go on in the brain, you will only ever be observing bio-chemical processes which go on in the brain - you won’t be observing the subjective experience which makes people go “ouch” when somebody sticks a pin in them.

Bombast will get atheists nowhere.

 

[njmama]

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).

Is it his methods? Is it his writing style? His enthusiasm for atheism? Is there a problem with his conclusions? Is he ignoring some branch of science in his ruminations? Is it his propensity for the occasional inflammatory comment?

Or is it just that he doesn’t believe in God and you do? (if you do, that is)

I’m asking because I like to understand all aspects of an argument, not because I want to start a flame war!

Thanks
W

I just finished God Delusion so I thought I’d throw in my opinion. To me Dawkins is too emotional, perhaps even at the expense of his reason. His books read like any work by a religious “fanatic” who tries to blow away the clouds of mystery with their thunder, stopping at nothing to be right.

I agree with David Bentley Hart, that I’d rather read Nietzsche who at least went up against actual religion, not some straw man.

 

[Contarini]

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).

Is it his methods? Is it his writing style? His enthusiasm for atheism? Is there a problem with his conclusions? Is he ignoring some branch of science in his ruminations? Is it his propensity for the occasional inflammatory comment?

Or is it just that he doesn’t believe in God and you do? (if you do, that is)

I’m asking because I like to understand all aspects of an argument, not because I want to start a flame war!

Thanks
W

Well, obviously you can’t expect a bunch of Christians to feel too fuzzy about as aggressive an atheist as Dawkins.

However, the more serious charge against him is that he doesn’t bother to understand theology, and for that matter doesn’t even stop to define “religion.” He attacks a straw-man caricature of Western monotheism that on the one hand is way more simplistic than any actual monotheistic tradition, and on the other hand is too narrow to stand in for “religion” as a whole.

His contempt for religion makes him incapable of making a good argument against it. Now I can’t blame him in principle for despising something he finds contemptible. I would find it hard to make a serious argument against Scientology. I find it hard enough to make a serious argument against Mormonism. But I don’t set myself up as the great intellectual opponent of these traditions (if we can call Scientology a tradition). I don’t understand them well enough to do so, and in the case of Scientology I don’t want to bother. (I wouldn’t mind putting in the effort to understand Mormonism better if occasion arose–in fact I’ve tried to do so to some extent, but nowhere near enough.)

From a purely practical point of view, I think Dawkins is our friend. The only folks he’s likely to persuade to abandon Christianity are people who were looking for a reason to do so anyway. Anyone with a halfway serious interest in or knowledge of Christianity (or any other major theistic tradition) is going to see through Dawkins in a heartbeat. One student of mine wrote a paper on the “new atheism,” and I think he came out of it with a firmer belief in Christianity. This is a student very fed up with evangelicalism and open to an intelligent critique of Christianity. But he told me that he was disappointed with Dawkins et al. He expected to be a lot more challenged than he was. So one could argue that Dawkins is a good author to give to smart, sensitive, questioning young Christians to turn them off atheism.

But I care about truth, and I care about smart people like Dawkins not wasting their energies and embarrassing themselves. So I find his books sad (and of course I find them annoying, as anyone not sharing Dawkins’ virulent brand of secularism will). He could do so much better. He could be a serious opponent of Christianity, which any large and successful religion needs badly. But so far he isn’t doing a very good job of it.

Edwin

 

[Fran65]

You haven’t read any posts here that clearly assign to mechanistic biochemistry emotions and intellect? Mind is simply an outgrowth of matter? Our randomly mutating and naturally selected genes have been constantly upgrading our mental software, and at some point, gave us a god(s)/religion(s) concept to assist in our survival. You’ve never heard that?

Hi Ed,

Sure I’ve heard of them and as a psychologist, I have both studied and taught them.

However, the fact that those theories exist does not mean that they are true! Nor do posts constitute evidence. The reality is, as has been pointed out by the mathematician () that all we are doing is measuring physiological changes and inferring (or taking on faith ) that mind is produced by matter. We don’t know that, nor has it been demonstrated.

I love your uncritical acceptance of natural selection acting on psychological processes without any evidence. Evolutionary psychology is based on making up stories to fit our observations of how people behave today. There is no empirical evidence for evolutionary psychology. There is plenty for evolution of physical characteristics, but not for psychological ones, including faith and/or religious behaviour.

In addition, evolutionary psychology is not premised on computer models of the mind either. We have successfully built some models of some processes, but this does not mean that that is how our minds actually work. Conceptualising psychological processes as software gives the illusion of more knowledge and understanding than we actually have.

Evolutionary psychology and computer science can both be used to demonstrate how people think they are using the scientific method but are actually relying on inference and faith.

 

[Fran65]

He could be a serious opponent of Christianity, which any large and successful religion needs badly. But so far he isn’t doing a very good job of it.

Absolutely. Serious challenge and discussion is essential to a healthy and strong faith - particularly one based within an institutionalised religion.

 

[Karmartia]

Obviously Richard Dawkins believes religion is a parasitic meme that is ultimately harmful to the host organism. He would prefer to substitute another parasitic meme, atheism, which he feels has better potential for establishing a symbiotic relationship with the host. After all, atheism is essentially benign isn’t it? For example, Marxists were atheists and nobody ever got hurt being a Marxist, did they? And he seems such a happy, well-adjusted fellow; so humble and diligent in establishing a scientific basis for his ideas. Who couldn’t love him?

 

[wanstronian]

You’re quite right. But free will does necessitate a metaphysical reality, something many scientific reductionists will not admit.

Metaphysical meaning, “something we do not yet understand,” yes. Metaphysical meaning “spiritual”, not necessarily.

 

[wanstronian]

If I have a fever, I see a medical doctor; if I have questions about God I consult a theologian.

Who cannot answer them other than on a hypothetical or dogmatic basis.

NOMA saves a lot of arguments

But allows religion to get away without justifying itself!

 

[wanstronian]

The original meaning of the word ‘belief’ was commitment to, loyalty to, or trust in. The word only changed its meaning to our modern understanding in the late 17th Century, after Pascal’s death. Therefore, as a 17th century philosopher, this is the way that Pascal would have understood that term. Therefore Pascal’s wager means that having accepted it the person is then committed to and trusts that God exists on the basis of the consequences of being wrong and probability - it has little to do with public behaviour. If Dawkins had done his research he would have known that…

I stand corrected on the semantics - it still adds little value to the belief, regardless of the meaning of the word.

 

[wanstronian]

Clearly, there are other factors, for example, having a self identity as an atheist and spending time arguing against the existence of God may mean that the change in belief would not happen. Its hard to imagine that particular group being open minded enough to change!

I find this statement extremely ironic!

 

[wanstronian]

And you assume I don’t like him? Why is that?

Because my original post asked what was wrong with Dawkins. I didn’t mean “don’t like” in a personal sense.

I notice you had no comment about the human embryo example. Like others, Mr. Dawkins does not believe or care that a human embryo is a human embryo. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. A unique person.

Have to confess I didn’t see the relevance. You didn’t equate it with Dawkins specifically. Unless you’re claiming that all scientists think that embryos are not human beings. If that’s the case it doesn’t warrant an response because it’s utter nonsense.

 

[wanstronian]

A purely materialistic view of the world precludes any metaphysical cogitation. So, if free will exists than it has to have a material explanation (a law) that Science can potentially grasp. (This doesn’t mean that Science actually does it, but that it has the scope to potentially do it.) But if Science can do that, free will is ascribed to a law, and therefore is not by definition free will.

Nonsense. You could potentially have laws which describe how free will comes to exist. But it wouldn’t dictate the decisions people take.

In a previous post you say that I am assuming that spiritual beings are those for which physical laws are incomplete. This to me is a necessity, for I am well aware that if I embrace atheism (and I only conceive as defensable full, materialistic atheism) all free will is lost. You can choose A or B, fine, but not both.

No, I didn’t say that - you did.