What is wrong with Dawkins?

[truthshift]

You give the excuse that Dawkins attacks Christianity because of Christianity's popularity. If this is true, shouldn't the God Delusion have been titled Atheists Against Popular Religions, or something to the effect?

No, it's not an excuse. There is nothing to hide. Yes, he attacks it because it IS so large and popular. Moreover, because it is the driving force behind most western mentality.

The title fits very well.

 

[Tenka]

He probably would have sold the same number of copies as well because people mostly just want affirmation of something they already think is true anyway.

Do you really think it was hardline atheists buying all the copies which kept it on all the best seller lists? I think the fact that 6 Christian novels were published in response to it shows the book was noticed far more by Christians than by atheists.

 

[stan1980]

I suppose a disclaimer should have been used. Anyone who is a sufficiently capable of critical thinking probably finds Dawkins painful at length. I just used philosophy because it turns and expands argument beyond rhetoric into an art.

Specifically, I mean that Dawkins relies on strawmen fallacies to paint any theistic thought as irrational, and then uses the supposed irrationality to dismiss everything said by the opponent. That, and he tends to be arrogant, smarmy, and too self-assured to be a really good (IMHO) debater. I always get the feeling with Dawkins that he has no interest in logically interacting with an opponents ideas, but using the opportunity to evangelize his view to those who can't see what he's doing.

I would really love to see Dawkins or Hitchens debate William Lane Craig. I don't know any theistic philosopher that has done a better job setting out arguments for God than him. In one of the debates I've seen he was debating a fellow philosopher who held a Ph.D as well, and was an avowed atheist. At the conclusion of the debate, the atheist recanted his atheism, with the qualifier that 'maybe there is a God, but it certainly isn't a loving Christian God.'

edit*
Found it on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfwq3GNjOU

Okay watched all 14 parts last night, William Lane Craig was certainly one of the best or most intelligent Christian or theist apologist I've come across, however I remain unconvinced by his conclusions (as you'd probably expect from an atheist, but I try and keep an open mind!). I skipped most of Dacey's parts, so didn't hear his rebuttals, but will listen again at some point.

I think he makes a bit of a leap when he says the universe has an external transcendent personal cause. I just don't see how we can know the nature of the cause of the universe yet, and much less attribute it to a God.

The fine tuning of the universe or the initial conditions of the big bang are to support life are so precise that it defies human comprehension. I'm not sure how true that is, but assuming it is, how do we know we're not just one of a countless amount of universes, we just happen to be in the one that can support life.

I've already said what I think of him with regards to objective morality. I don't believe objective morality exists, so therefore I can't agree with him on this premise.

I did like the fact that Craig wasn't an apologist who makes you want to pull your hair out for once, so credit to him for that! In the Q&A he does realise that we would be living in a deterministic world, but he thinks our soul gives us freewill if I heard him correctly. That maybe so, but we have no knowledge of a soul, so I'd still say we live in a deterministic world.

Good debate though, might watch it again at the weekend, as I don't think I took everything he said in, and wouldn't mind listening to what Darcey has to say.

 

[cantata]

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?

I'm not saying that the arguments can't be countered - they can. (Of course I believe that they can or I wouldn't be an atheist. ) But they take work to counter effectively, despite what you might think.

"Well what caused God? lol" misses the central tenet of the argument from contingency. We have around us a whole load of things which might not have existed. They all have "might-not-have-existed-ness" in common. The existence of all material objects is contingent in the sense that there is no logical contradiction in the notion of their non-existence. Now contingent things tend to demand an explanation. For example, it's not logically necessary that I am craving a cup of coffee, so you can ask me why I'm craving it, and I can explain to you that I'm craving it because I only had four hours' sleep. Then you might ask me why I only had four hours' sleep, and so on. Now eventually (when you get down to questions like "And why is there matter?") you're going to get to an answer that is either "Because there just is" or an answer that is "It was caused by a being whose existence and causal influence is necessary." Now, I honestly don't think that either of those answers is either completely silly or completely satisfactory. And I don't think that just stating the former is an effective rebuttal of the latter. There's a huge philosophical debate to be had about it, and it's dishonest to pretend you've won by just saying, "There just is."

"there could have never been nothing" and "infinite regress might not be a logical impossibility" are basically the same thing, and they both require a supporting argument. You can't just state them and then go to bed with milk and cookies. That's not what proper philosophy is about.

 

[cantata]

exactly how is it possible for an unintelligent universe create intelligence so a man like Dawkin could produce an intelligent designed book called "The God Delusion". (after all man is a part of nature) In another word "Where did intelligence come from?" The unintelligent universe? Appeared in thin air?

So stupid people isn't the problem it's intelligence itself that give Dawkins the biggest headache.

Dawkins has absolutely no problem explaining intelligence through natural selection, which is, after all, his area of expertise. Bad choice of issue to pull him up on.

 

[stan1980]

I'm not saying that the arguments can't be countered - they can. (Of course I believe that they can or I wouldn't be an atheist. ) But they take work to counter effectively, despite what you might think.

"Well what caused God? lol" misses the central tenet of the argument from contingency. We have around us a whole load of things which might not have existed. They all have "might-not-have-existed-ness" in common. The existence of all material objects is contingent in the sense that there is no logical contradiction in the notion of their non-existence. Now contingent things tend to demand an explanation. For example, it's not logically necessary that I am craving a cup of coffee, so you can ask me why I'm craving it, and I can explain to you that I'm craving it because I only had four hours' sleep. Then you might ask me why I only had four hours' sleep, and so on. Now eventually (when you get down to questions like "And why is there matter?") you're going to get to an answer that is either "Because there just is" or an answer that is "It was caused by a being whose existence and causal influence is necessary." Now, I honestly don't think that either of those answers is either completely silly or completely satisfactory. And I don't think that just stating the former is an effective rebuttal of the latter. There's a huge philosophical debate to be had about it, and it's dishonest to pretend you've won by just saying, "There just is."

"there could have never been nothing" and "infinite regress might not be a logical impossibility" are basically the same thing, and they both require a supporting argument. You can't just state them and then go to bed with milk and cookies. That's not what proper philosophy is about.

Okay, thanks. I wouldn't mind reading a philosophical debate on this, any pointers on where to look?

Isn't Dawkins' "job" though, just to show why there isn't necessarily a God? What I'm trying to say is there is only so many pages his book can be, I'm not sure how necessary it is to be as comprehensive as you'd like him to be to put the doubt into the readers mind. That said, I think I can see why you being a philosopher might be infuriated by his claim of 'victory', but I'd probably have to read up on this in full to get a full understanding of why you are annoyed.

My brief response to this philosophical argument would probably always be "well there isn't anything to suggest an intelligent God did it".

 

[Smidlee]

Dawkins has absolutely no problem explaining intelligence through natural selection, which is, after all, his area of expertise. Bad choice of issue to pull him up on.

He has no problem convincing himself and his followers but for someone wanting something more than saying "natural selection did it" will not be satisfied with Dawkin's supernatural selection.
As some many has pointed out so many times NS only deals with the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest.

 

[cantata]

Okay, thanks. I wouldn't mind reading a philosophical debate on this, any pointers on where to look?

Hmm, I'll have a think about that for you.

Isn't Dawkins' "job" though, just to show why there isn't necessarily a God? What I'm trying to say is there is only so many pages his book can be, I'm not sure how necessary it is to be as comprehensive as you'd like him to be to put the doubt into the readers mind. That said, I think I can see why you being a philosopher might be infuriated by his claim of 'victory', but I'd probably have to read up on this in full to get a full understanding of why you are annoyed.

It is indeed his claims of victory, which are unwarranted, but also his sneeriness that gets my goat. He suggests that everyone who's been convinced by these arguments is stupid, and given the forms of the arguments that he presents, you could be forgiven for agreeing with him. But it's actually quite offensive to misrepresent classical theism and then claim that its adherents are idiots.

I just don't know why he couldn't stick to what he knows. If he'd wanted to write a popular book about evolution and science as offering alternatives to various religious ideas, fair enough, but he goes into territory he's clearly unfamiliar with and he does both himself and philosophy of religion a disservice by being so ham-fisted and unsubtle in his approach to the subject.

My brief response to this philosophical argument would probably always be "well there isn't anything to suggest an intelligent God did it".

No, indeed.

 

[cantata]

He has no problem convincing himself and his followers but for someone wanting something more than saying "natural selection did it" will not be satisfied with Dawkin's supernatural selection.
As some many has pointed out so many times NS only deals with the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest.

Well, Dawkins offers some plausible accounts of abiogenesis in The Blind Watchmaker, and then as soon as natural selection gets going on its products, there's no reason for intelligence not to evolve. Why do you think intelligence is different enough from any other biological phenomenon to warrant a separate explanation?

 

[Braunwyn]

Okay watched all 14 parts last night, William Lane Craig was certainly one of the best or most intelligent Christian or theist apologist I've come across, however I remain unconvinced by his conclusions (as you'd probably expect from an atheist, but I try and keep an open mind!). I skipped most of Dacey's parts, so didn't hear his rebuttals, but will listen again at some point.

I'm glad this debate was linked. I'm going to check it out this weekend as well. I've yet to come across any kind of convincing argument for a personal god, and I can't imagine one either, but the reviews in this thread have me interested.

 

[stan1980]

when you get down to questions like "And why is there matter?"

Just quickly back to this, I think there will come a point where we either wont be able to answer the question (i.e. there just is!) or every time we answer one question another question will be posed (where did that come from?), so infinite regress. I can't see any other possibilities when you get down to it? Would that be accurate?

Hmm, I'll have a think about that for you.

It is indeed his claims of victory, which are unwarranted, but also his sneeriness that gets my goat. He suggests that everyone who's been convinced by these arguments is stupid, and given the forms of the arguments that he presents, you could be forgiven for agreeing with him. But it's actually quite offensive to misrepresent classical theism and then claim that its adherents are idiots.

I just don't know why he couldn't stick to what he knows. If he'd wanted to write a popular book about evolution and science as offering alternatives to various religious ideas, fair enough, but he goes into territory he's clearly unfamiliar with and he does both himself and philosophy of religion a disservice by being so ham-fisted and unsubtle in his approach to the subject.

Fair enough

What is there not to love about him:

Spoiler: spoiler

 

[cantata]

Just quickly back to this, I think there will come a point where we either wont be able to answer the question (i.e. there just is!) or every time we answer one question another question will be posed (where did that come from?), so infinite regress. I can't see any other possibilities when you get down to it? Would that be accurate?

Well, yes. But the question is, about what sort of things can we reasonably say "There just is!"? I think if you say "Why is there the number 4?" I can reasonably answer "There just is!" But if you ask "Why is there matter?" it's not obvious that you can answer "There just is!", and you certainly can't without giving some explanation of why you think that's a sufficient response.

What is there not to love about him:

Spoiler: spoiler

Hawt. <3 Look at all those happy lines around his eyes! D'aw!

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Hey this is exciting!
I have come to think that getting down to the "just is" situations is the best way of understanding the universe and existence.
The "just-is-ness" (I think there is a German word for that) of existence is both frightening and awe-inspiring when you really dwell on it.

 

[cantata]

"just-is-ness"

Necessary existence? Brute fact?

 

[truthshift]

Hey this is exciting!
I have come to think that getting down to the "just is" situations is the best way of understanding the universe and existence.
The "just-is-ness" (I think there is a German word for that) of existence is both frightening and awe-inspiring when you really dwell on it.

Wouldn't just-is-ness be akin to an infinite existence? It's just all there and has been and will be for inifinity. It's just infinite.

 

[cantata]

Wouldn't just-is-ness be akin to an infinite existence? It's just all there and has been and will be for inifinity. It's just infinite.

No. "It's just all there and has been and will be for infinity" would be sempiternal existence.

Sempiternity: all of time.
Eternity: timelessness.
Infinity: unboundedness (temporal or otherwise).

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I'm not explaining myself properly.
Take any question, keep asking why in that mildly annoying way a 4 year old child might and keep it going to you have reached the "just is" moment.
Now most people, myself included think they have reached the just-is moment long before they actually have and with a little more thought and a little more knowledge you can push it further.
Once you've reached the real just-is, ponder it for a moment meditate on it if you like, think of all the ramifications of this quantum of knowledge.
Sometimes it's exciting and sometimes it's a bit of a head-messer.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

BTW, don't get hung up on just obviously scientific questions ( this will come into at some point sooner or later).
Do it with other things too like, I don't know ...
"Why do I like the book 'The Old Man and the Sea' by Ernest Hemingway ?"

 

[truthshift]

No. "It's just all there and has been and will be for infinity" would be sempiternal existence.

Sempiternity: all of time.
Eternity: timelessness.
Infinity: unboundedness (temporal or otherwise).

I understand but, if it "just is" as in it "just exists" wouldn't that lend to the idea that it had no cause and is not the effect of anything? If that is the case, would it not have to have been there for eternity?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well?

He calls evolution 'evilution' due to an accent, which is enough for some of the Christians I know to deny it.

Not logical, I know, but it is like pouring gas on a fire.