What's wrong with Dawkins?

[Cracker_Mom]

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?

I don’t assume anything re life on other planets. I do assume that even extra terrestrials would come to be from Something or Somebody, though.
Dawkins used space aliens as an explanation of how life came to be on Earth.Pretty weak.
And yes, they are weird folk everywhere.Nice weird & nasty weird.Mr. Dawkins would belong to the 2nd category, I think.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

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 taking sides here, everyone, but I think this resource might be helpful: Answering the New Atheism–Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God.

 

[mlchance]

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 it were true that that are trillions of planets, life on a planet isn’t a necessary condition for the planet; therefore, there is no good reason to assume that life on this planet isn’t a unique happening. The “tiny bit arrogant” isn’t an argument.

He most certainly does NOT base the entire book on this premise.

Sure he does. The moment Dawkins tries to engage, say, a Catholic point of view, his entire polemic collapses like the house of cards that it is. That’s what happens when one’s argument is built on a strawman. Dawkins props up a prejudiced, selective reading of texts that he lacks the expertise to adequately address. He then attacks that flawed reading while at the same time handwaving away positions that don’t jibe with his anti-religion bigotry.

Dawkins is every bit the angry, self-righteous fundamentalist that he rails against.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vz71]

It is apparent that he is not just noted as an athiest, he makes a great deal of money from hurling insult and mocking others.

So for you, the problem is that he’s making money out of atheism?

If you wish to call hurling insults and mockery atheism. Absolutely.

 

[vz71]

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?

Are there?

Last I checked, there were only a handful of known planets.

Now there may be theories concerning the existence thereof, but if someone is to claim atheism, then their faith really should go no further then what is scientifically provable. So from the Dawkins point of view, there are only as many planets as we have discovered so far.

The statistic probability for intelligent life drops sharply at that point.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t assume anything re life on other planets. I do assume that even extra terrestrials would come to be from Something or Somebody, though.
Dawkins used space aliens as an explanation of how life came to be on Earth.Pretty weak.
And yes, they are weird folk everywhere.Nice weird & nasty weird.Mr. Dawkins would belong to the 2nd category, I think.

Of course there are some who have theorized the first living microbes might have come to Earth on a comet. But really, that only pushes questions about how life began to a new location. I don’t see any reason this couldn’t be possible, or that it couldn’t be possible there is life, or even intelligent life, elsewhere. I’m surprised he included it though, it really makes no difference from a Christian perspective. But his understanding of Christianity is very shallow, so there you go. Perhaps he thought a good solid theory of abiogenisis would somehow disprove God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are there?

Last I checked, there were only a handful of known planets.

Now there may be theories concerning the existence thereof, but if someone is to claim atheism, then their faith really should go no further then what is scientifically provable. So from the Dawkins point of view, there are only as many planets as we have discovered so far.

The statistic probability for intelligent life drops sharply at that point.

OK vz71, please note that I have no love for Dawkins, and I am very much a theist. But the above reasoning just doesn’t make sense to me.

It would be outrageously bizarre if they didn’t continue to discover new planets. Science has every reason to continue to expect such discoveries. Of course, whether those planets can, or do, contain sentient life is another matter.

It is “scientifically provable” that there are more planets. The hypothesis of life on other planets is, from a purely rational standpoint, just as believable as the hypothesis that there is a God. In my book, both hypotheses are extraordinarily likely to be true – although it may take an awfully long time to prove them.

 

[tonyrey]

Regarding free will, I can see the argument. I guess if I had to choose, I’d go with option (b). As decisions are the result of synapses firing due to biochemical reactions in the brain, then assuming you could model the universe, with its infinite (name removed by moderator)uts of infinite granularity, then you probably could predict everything that will happen. Which would make free will an illusion in an absolute sense (but not from an individual perspective).

Why is the individual a privileged exception?

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.

Do you think science can explain the whole of reality? If so, how would you justify that assumption?.

To me that raises more questions than it answers.

Which questions does it raise?

 

[bostonian]

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

 

[Cracker_Mom]

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?

Forgot to mention, he reminds me of a reptile.

 

[bostonian]

I’d also add in that while Dawkins is a decent writer, a close read of his arguments reveals that many of them are botched versions of those argued by their true philosophical proponents (and opponents). Candor is good in a book like this, but no author is entitled to his own set of facts!

 

[vz71]

OK vz71, please note that I have no love for Dawkins, and I am very much a theist. But the above reasoning just doesn’t make sense to me.

It does not to me either.

What I am pointing out is that the rationale that there are really trillions of planets requires a leap of faith that the professed atheist really has no business making.

At least not without being intellectually dishonest.

 

[cerad]

Are there?

Last I checked, there were only a handful of known planets.

You might want to check again, especially if you can get some time on the Hubble telescope. Hundreds of extra-solar planets have been discovered so far.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610133557.htm

 

[vz71]

You might want to check again, especially if you can get some time on the Hubble telescope. Hundreds of extra-solar planets have been discovered so far.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610133557.htm

Relative to the ‘trillions’ described earlier in this thread…

But if you really want to argue the symantics, I stand corrected.

 

[theistgal]

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

Hi!

I have actually read several of Dawkins’ books. I think he’s more nuanced than some of his theist critics allow - there’s a tendency to “straw man” any atheist who hits the best seller list too many times.

However, I do think he does a bit of “straw manning” of his own. He insists that “religion” must take the blame for anything that it does wrong - but fails to give it credit when it does something right.

Other than that - like I said - I have enjoyed some of his books. However, IMHO Christopher Hitchens is a much better writer.

And when it comes to entertaining skeptical authors - well, I don’t think anyone’s matched Mark Twain yet.

 

[itinerant1]

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

Dawkins makes no attempt to be objective. The God Delusion reveals him as philosophically and theologically incompetent. Also, in many essays, in other works, Dawkins frequently takes cheap shots at Catholicism and Christianity. He engages in rhetorical excesses and badly flawed arguments.

On the other hand, compare the works of Michael Ruse, a well-known Darwinist and atheist. Ruse is very respectful of Christianity. I enjoy reading and I learn much about evolution from books by Michael Ruse. Concerning Dawkins, Ruse says, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.”

That is a very powerful indictment of Dawkins coming from the eminent scholar Michael Ruse. His reference to the McGraths is about their book entitled, The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.

Rather than provide my own views on Dawkins in this forum, I will recommend the McGrath’s book. One can puchase it from Amazon for only $10.88. ISBN: 083083446X

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t assume anything re life on other planets.

You certainly implied it with your post though

I do assume that even extra terrestrials would come to be from Something or Somebody, though.
Dawkins used space aliens as an explanation of how life came to be on Earth.Pretty weak.

Ah, now you didn’t say that before! I haven’t seen that quote, where would I find it?

And yes, they are weird folk everywhere.Nice weird & nasty weird.Mr. Dawkins would belong to the 2nd category, I think.

Why “nasty weird”? What’s nasty about him?

 

[wanstronian]

Even if it were true that that are trillions of planets

Do you think there aren’t? Really??

, life on a planet isn’t a necessary condition for the planet

Of course not, I never said it was. The point I made was that if life exists on one planet, then the universe supports the possibility of life; and so to assume that we’re the only planet in the universe to have the conditions to support life, and to actually have life shows arrogance - or, if you like, ignorance. It’s a perfectly valid, probability-based argument

.; therefore, there is no good reason to assume that life on this planet isn’t a unique happening.

I disagree, based on common sense.

The “tiny bit arrogant” isn’t an argument.

No, it was just an observation

Sure he does. The moment Dawkins tries to engage, say, a Catholic point of view, his entire polemic collapses like the house of cards that it is. That’s what happens when one’s argument is built on a strawman. Dawkins props up a prejudiced, selective reading of texts that he lacks the expertise to adequately address. He then attacks that flawed reading while at the same time handwaving away positions that don’t jibe with his anti-religion bigotry.

That’s not what you said before, you said he based his entire book on the premise that God is a nasty piece of work. That’s not true. But your opinion is your own, of course.

Dawkins is every bit the angry, self-righteous fundamentalist that he rails against.

I can’t argue against that, he’s certainly passionate.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi wanstronian,

I don’t have a personal axe to grind against Dawkins. He’s certainly a man of intelligence, and I think he’s a brilliant biologist. However, I don’t think he has carefully researched what Christian philosophers have argued. Regarding the cosmological argument, Dawkins writes (pp. 101-102):

“[Thomas Aquinas’ arguments] make the entirely unwarrented assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.”

What Dawkins misunderstands about Thomas’ arguments (specifically, the Second Way) is that the argument does not state that everything has a cause, but rather that every dependent entity has a cause. Imagine a house without a foundation. It would collapse. The same thing would happen if everything is dependent on something else. As it is, a first cause (one that is self-existent, and not dependent) is needed in order for dependent causes to cause anything.

Dawkins continues: “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress . . .”

Notice that Dawkins overlooks that Thomas, in the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, gives three independent arguments that there cannot be an infinite regress. If Dawkins is skeptical about the claim that there can be no infinite regress, I find it odd that he doesn’t address any of the relevant arguments.

“. . . there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness . . .”

At this point, one would expect him to address some of the many reasons that Thomas gives for coming to the conclusion that the first cause possesses divine attributes. However, Dawkins doesn’t do so, which I find unfortunate.

Finally, he writes, “To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a ‘big bang singularity’, or some other physical concept as yet unknown.”

Besides the big bang singularity being literally a point in which no physical space, time, matter or energy exists, it is clear that Dawkins misinterprets Thomas as giving an argument about the nature of time. Thomas’ first cause is not necessarily temporal in nature, but is simply first in a hierarchy of simultaneous causes. Think of the house’s foundation again. At this very moment in time, the foundation is holding up the rest of the structure. This is the kind of regress that Thomas denies can be infinite. So, the idea of a big bang singularity isn’t pertinent to the Thomistic cosmological argument, which is what Dawkins was apparently arguing against.

Again, I’m not making any claim about Dawkins as a person. I just don’t think his reasons for atheism are at all persuasive, and his take on the cosmological argument is just one issue.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

 

[wanstronian]

Why is the individual a privileged exception?

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.

Do you think science can explain the whole of reality?

Of course, not, nor did I imply otherwise.

Which questions does it raise?

Well, for a start: “What was the point? Why are we (humans) so special?”