What is wrong with Dawkins?

[stan1980]

I don't have my copy of The God Delusion here, so I can't give you a detailed exposition.

My main problems with him are that his approach to philosophy of religion is overly simplistic; he either ignorantly or deliberately chooses the weakest forms of the arguments he attempts to refute; he claims to be trying to convert people out of religion and on the next page says that religious people are statistically more likely to be stupid than atheists; and he grossly underestimates the emotional and social strains of losing one's faith.

You guys know I'm an atheist, so I'm clearly unconvinced by arguments for the existence of God. But I have also studied them at undergraduate level and I know that Dawkins doesn't approach them very well. You don't need to agree with the arguments to do them justice, but you do need to give them a charitable reading and find arguments against their strongest formulations, not the weakest or most popular ones.

I hear what you're saying, but I've heard him say himself on numerous occasions, that his target is the people on the middle ground, those that aren't sure or who hadn't really given it much thought. His approach, you'd have to agree, is quite successful for that audience.

 

[cantata]

I hear what you're saying, but I've heard him say himself on numerous occasions, that his target is the people on the middle ground, those that aren't sure or who hadn't really given it much thought. His approach, you'd have to agree, is quite successful for that audience.

I would only have to agree if I had evidence that more people who were in that middle ground read the book and swayed towards atheism rather than staying in the middle or becoming theists, Stan

And regardless of his reasons for writing it, it is intellectually dishonest to target the weakest formulations of arguments and then claim you have destroyed them in their entirety.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My only quarrel with Dawkins is his insistence that Darwinian evolution entails atheism,

He does?

despite the fact that the main architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis were devout Christians.

They were?

Apart from that, he's entitled to his opinions.

Isn't he entitled to his opinion anyway, even if you have a quarrel with them?

 

[stan1980]

I would only have to agree if I had evidence that more people who were in that middle ground read the book and swayed towards atheism rather than staying in the middle or becoming theists, Stan

I have to admit, I was thinking of people I've across who are familiar with his work who were on the middle ground. Not a great sample size, admittedly, but I wouldn't be too afraid to assume that, yes, he has been successful at least partially turning people from the middle ground towards atheism. Okay we'll never really know for certain, but I'm not going to let a little fact like that stop me from making rash statements!

And regardless of his reasons for writing it, it is intellectually dishonest to target the weakest formulations of arguments and then claim you have destroyed them in their entirety.

This is the thing, I'm sure you know better than me, but I haven't really heard anyone who has got much answer to him. Where are these people with the stronger formulation of arguments for him to tackle?

 

[truthshift]

Part of me sometimes thinks of the moderate religious people, of which there are many, and then I think there is no need to attack religion, because it is such a flawed and undefendable object anyway. It's a bit like kicking a kitten. But then I think of how people use religion to gain power, using it as a reason to start wars, how it separates people etc.

He does come across as quite sneery, but I like him, these ideas can't be attacked often or strongly enough. Religion effects all of us, and I think Dawkins does a good job of attacking it.

Yes, it seems cruel, but things must be done for the betterment of people; to at least get them to act and think on their own. Think of it as surgery: It's going to hurt a lot but it needs to be done. We just happen to be out of anesthetics. :3

Religion has caused far too much suffering and hardship for the Earth for it to be allowed to continue. It should be attacked voraciously because it is a malevolent behemoth.
______________________
There are good people that are religious, I am reminded when I look at much of my family. But, I will argue with them for hours, sadly, almost to the point of tears. It is for a greater good though. And, for that, I will go through the pain of it all.

uggh, pay no mind to my little self-righteous blabber. ^

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree. Though I do agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, I don't think his approach is particularly comprehensive. If The God Delusion or other similar writings are intended to encompass a complete logical argument against the basic claims of theism, they fall somewhat short.

Though he intended it to convince the fence-sitters, I see it more of an explanation of Dawkins' own logic.

I have heard atheists lament that they have never read a more convincing argument for Christianity than The God Delusion.

Really? Wow.

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that inasmuch as people take it as a complete refutation it doesn't live up to expectations. Fortunately, we still have the Bible, which contains in my opinion some of the greatest arguments against Christianity.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

This is the thing, I'm sure you know better than me, but I haven't really heard anyone who has got much answer to him. Where are these people with the stronger formulation of arguments for him to tackle?

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

"On October 3rd of 2007 in Birmingham, Alabama, Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The debate centered on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Both presenters agreed to the format and topics of discussion."

 

[cantata]

I have to admit, I was thinking of people I've across who are familiar with his work who were on the middle ground. Not a great sample size, admittedly, but I wouldn't be too afraid to assume that, yes, he has been successful at least partially turning people from the middle ground towards atheism. Okay we'll never really know for certain, but I'm not going to let a little fact like that stop me from making rash statements!

*grin* Just so long as you know that it can't hold a lot of weight until we do a comprehensive study.

This is the thing, I'm sure you know better than me, but I haven't really heard anyone who has got much answer to him. Where are these people with the stronger formulation of arguments for him to tackle?

Well, for example, from what I can recall, he responds to the cosmological (first cause) argument with "Well, what caused God, then?!?!?!?!?!!!1" as if no one had ever thought of that before.

Aquinas' argument from contingency is, in my view, the strongest formulation of the cosmological argument. It goes something like this. There are lots of things in the world which are contingent, meaning that they might not have existed (i.e. their existence isn't necessary). We usually explain their existence in terms of other contingent facts. For example, if I say, "Why is there a tree in the garden?" the answer is, it grew from an acorn. The acorn was there because a squirrel planted it. The squirrel was there because a mummy squirrel gave birth to her. And so on.

Aquinas says that all of these contingent things owe their existence to something else - many of them to other contingent beings. But there cannot be an infinite regress of continent facts. Therefore there must be a necessary thing on which all contingent things ultimately rely for their existence. This thing is that-which-we-call-God.

Leibniz put it more succinctly: we need an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. We cannot explain the existence of all contingent things on the basis of other contingent things (as this, again, would lead to an infinite regress, which is unsatisfactory). Therefore there must be a necessary thing which completes the explanation.

Now of course the counter-arguments to this are many, and they usually fall into an argument that the necessary being in question need not be God, or that an infinite regress is not logically impossible. But the point is that there is a debate still to be had: you can be sure that Aquinas will begin churning out God-like properties for this necessary being as soon as you give him an inch, and it is far from certain that an infinite regress is plausible. The debate is not conveniently ended by someone saying "But what caused God?" because the existence of the God we're talking about is necessary. It makes as little sense to ask what caused her existence as it does to ask what caused the existence of the number 3.

What annoys me is Dawkins' smug "lol this is a stupid argument that only stupid people will be convinced by" attitude. The fact is that Aquinas wasn't stupid, and nor was Leibniz. These were highly critical, intelligent men, and they are not the only brilliant people to have been convinced by and to have presented convincing formulations of this argument. The same goes for most of the classic arguments for the existence of God. I dislike Dawkins' weirdly anti-intellectual attitude towards what are some actually extremely complex and challenging arguments. His denigration of centuries of remarkable scholarship is very frustrating to me.

I don't think Aquinas was right, of course, but I absolutely don't think he was stupid, either.

 

[PantsMcFist]

Dawkins tends to rely on strawman fallacies. He does a fantastic job of making his opinions comprehensive, and then simplifies that which he objects to to the point of absurdity. Maybe great to read and listen to if you already see things his way, but for people schooled in philosophy, it tends to be a rather painful experience.

 

[cantata]

Dawkins tends to rely on strawman fallacies. He does a fantastic job of making his opinions comprehensive, and then simplifies that which he objects to to the point of absurdity. Maybe great to read and listen to if you already see things his way, but for people schooled in philosophy, it tends to be a rather painful experience.

^ this.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Dawkins tends to rely on strawman fallacies. He does a fantastic job of making his opinions comprehensive, and then simplifies that which he objects to to the point of absurdity. Maybe great to read and listen to if you already see things his way, but for people schooled in philosophy, it tends to be a rather painful experience.

Philosophy? What about physics?

I don't believe in the god Dawkins doesn't believe in.


-----Dawkins puts himself on quite the pedestal, always looking down at those he only sees as lower than himself.

 

[huldah153]

Fortunately, we still have the Bible, which contains in my opinion some of the greatest arguments against Christianity.

I assume you mean the Old Testament? The first Christian Canon had no Old Testament at all. However, I agree that the present Canon is nothing but a liability to Christianity.

 

[tulc]

Philosophy? What about physics?

I don't believe in the god Dawkins doesn't believe in.


-----Dawkins puts himself on quite the pedestal, always looking down at those he only sees as lower than himself.

...wait...did Polycarp_fan, cantata and Pantsmcfist all just sort of agree on something?
tulc(definitely needs more coffee)

 

[stan1980]

Well, for example, from what I can recall, he responds to the cosmological (first cause) argument with "Well, what caused God, then?!?!?!?!?!!!1" as if no one had ever thought of that before.

Aquinas' argument from contingency is, in my view, the strongest formulation of the cosmological argument. It goes something like this. There are lots of things in the world which are contingent, meaning that they might not have existed (i.e. their existence isn't necessary). We usually explain their existence in terms of other contingent facts. For example, if I say, "Why is there a tree in the garden?" the answer is, it grew from an acorn. The acorn was there because a squirrel planted it. The squirrel was there because a mummy squirrel gave birth to her. And so on.

Aquinas says that all of these contingent things owe their existence to something else - many of them to other contingent beings. But there cannot be an infinite regress of continent facts. Therefore there must be a necessary thing on which all contingent things ultimately rely for their existence. This thing is that-which-we-call-God.

Leibniz put it more succinctly: we need an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. We cannot explain the existence of all contingent things on the basis of other contingent things (as this, again, would lead to an infinite regress, which is unsatisfactory). Therefore there must be a necessary thing which completes the explanation.

Now of course the counter-arguments to this are many, and they usually fall into an argument that the necessary being in question need not be God, or that an infinite regress is not logically impossible. But the point is that there is a debate still to be had: you can be sure that Aquinas will begin churning out God-like properties for this necessary being as soon as you give him an inch, and it is far from certain that an infinite regress is plausible. The debate is not conveniently ended by someone saying "But what caused God?" because the existence of the God we're talking about is necessary. It makes as little sense to ask what caused her existence as it does to ask what caused the existence of the number 3.

What annoys me is Dawkins' smug "lol this is a stupid argument that only stupid people will be convinced by" attitude. The fact is that Aquinas wasn't stupid, and nor was Leibniz. These were highly critical, intelligent men, and they are not the only brilliant people to have been convinced by and to have presented convincing formulations of this argument. The same goes for most of the classic arguments for the existence of God. I dislike Dawkins' weirdly anti-intellectual attitude towards what are some actually extremely complex and challenging arguments. His denigration of centuries of remarkable scholarship is very frustrating to me.

I don't think Aquinas was right, of course, but I absolutely don't think he was stupid, either.

Thanks for taking the time to type that out. You're probably not going to like me much for saying this, but I'm on Dawkins side here, these arguments aren't very convincing to me, and are easily countered by "well what caused God? lol" or stuff like "there could have never been nothing" or as you say "infinite regress might not be a logical impossibility", you've said it yourself!

Forgive me for asking, but are you just annoyed that Leibniz and Aquinas' questions are just so easily knocked down or countered? Has he actually said they're stupid people?

 

[stan1980]

but for people schooled in philosophy, it tends to be a rather painful experience.

Can you expand on that?

 

[Axioma]

I generally like Dawkins, but his whole concept of the "brights", and particularly their name, makes me want to say the kinds of words that moderators on this site frown upon.

And I do agree with him that extremely smart people can be spectacularly stupid when it comes to religion. For an example, Pascal, a brilliant mathematician, who came up with what has to be one of the most ridiculous, small-minded arguments for being a Christian that has ever existed. His math is unimpeccable, but Pascal's Wager is so obviously stupid that a nine year old can spot the flaws, so long as that nine year old doesn't already believe in the religion Pascal's Wager is being used to promote.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

...wait...did Polycarp_fan, cantata and Pantsmcfist all just sort of agree on something?
tulc(definitely needs more coffee)

Maybe, kinda, sort of.

Agreeing on the correct time of day does not mean the same thing as supporting progressive activism.

 

[stan1980]

One time I did disagree with Dawkins was in the summer when he was commenting on Big Brother contestants for some reason. He made the comment on all of them, if my memory serves me correctly "they are all no more than trailer trash, vile people with vile personalities who are a terrible influence on children" or something along those lines.

I just thought for an intellectual person to generalise like that is a bit surprising. Some of the contestants are vile, but there have been a lot of very decent people even amongst the winners. Also there have been a lot of contestants of all sexualities, races and backgrounds, (minorities have generally been over represented which I think is a good thing). Some of the winners have been transsexual, homosexual, black and I think the show has helped especially for differing sexualities to get these people accepted amongst the public and into the mainstream.

 

[ReadingForOrders]

I can give another example of a problem with Dawkins logic. I fully admit this is based upon early lectures and writings as I stopped reading him rather early on.


Dawkins was fond at one time of pointing out that in debate a positive claim rightfully places an onus upon the claimant to provide evidence of the claim. For example for an individual to make the claim that God exists implies a responsibility to prove that claim before others should feel compelled to accept it. This is correct in my opinion so far. But Dawkins often made the "Positive claim" that "God does not exist". This of course puts the onus upon him to provide evidence of his claim and as we all know it is not possible to prove that something does not exist.

A more careful or skilled philosopher or debater would make the similar statements like "there appears to be no evidence of God" or "Because I find the evidence presented by Thiests to be flawed or lacking I deduce that God must not exist at all or at least not in the manner in which they claim He/She/It does."

But again I fully admit when I noticed such elementary flaws I stopped reading Dawkins and wondered why people thought he was so brilliant.

 

[tulc]

Maybe, kinda, sort of.

Agreeing on the correct time of day does not mean the same thing as supporting progressive activism.

uhmmm...what?
All three of you had much the same criticism of Dawkins (he tended to dismiss rather then discuss peoples arguments that disagreed with him) You know, it's not wrong to find areas where you agree with others, right?
tulc(it might even be a good thing)