What is wrong with Dawkins?

[PantsMcFist]

Can you expand on that?

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

 

[Garyzenuf]

I can give another example of a problem with Dawkins logic.

I am not well schooled in logic, so if Dawkins is problematic, I'll take your word for it. What Dawkins did for a laymen like me was open my eyes to alternatives to standard beliefs about religion and God in general, possibilities I may never had looked into on my own had I not read one of his books. Got a lot of people thinking, talking, and questioning their core beliefs, which someone pointed out is never a bad thing.

 

[keith99]

How does a religion that seeks to love ones neighbour, forgive and turn the other cheek, cause wars? Surely you mean abandoning such a religion causes wars?

Is there any major religion that does this? Is there any minor one that will accept me if I wear flash stuff like my bicycling jersey? Oh and I want my beard because I like it, not because a religion demands it.

 

[mpok1519]

everyone has their flaws....

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Well?

"well?"

thats it?

why don't you elaborate. For instance in his book the God delusion where he calls the big bang just "luck" and says "maybe its a multiverse" that created it.

Now heres an atheist telling other atheists and his readers that we must rely on "luck" and using words like maybe? And then yet to proceed to tell us there is no God? What a foolish man. He proceeds to refute christianity and a creator, yet when posed with the most imortant question "where did it come from" all he can say is "luck"? and that maybe its a "muliverse"?... lol

 

[huldah153]

He does?

He's pretty much made a career out of it.

They were?

Yes, they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_fisher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewall_Wright

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

Well, I suppose he's perfectly entitled to be wrong.

 

[ReadingForOrders]

Got a lot of people thinking, talking, and questioning their core beliefs, which someone pointed out is never a bad thing.

Agreed!

 

[Athene]

It's so elegantly coiffed!

Don't tell anyone, but I think I secretly fancy him a bit. The hair, the clipped enunciation, the biology... Rawr.

He's weedy and he's got an annoying nasally voice. Plus he looks like one of those uppity men who always have to have the last word, I can't be doing with that unless the last word is ''yes dear''.

It's not that uncommon an affliction cantata.

I have met a couple of women who secretly fancy Dawkings.

I personally don't see the attraction.
I'm trying to think who a female version of Dawkings would be to see if this rouses anything but I can't figure out who fits the bill.

Germaine Greer , alternatively there's Jane Goodall - she was quite famous a decade or so ago with her chimpanzee work.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

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.

I do it all the time. You gotta use code words.

And I do agree with him that extremely smart people can be spectacularly stupid when it comes to religion.

Religion? You're being FAR to kind.

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.

wasn't just kind of hypothetical? If the guy is a Christian he knows full well you can't be the kind of Christians he presents. Jesus is a full commitment. With added jam.

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.

If a nine-year old is already a Christian he/she has already establihed their incredible mind is working very accurately.

Unlike thier easily influenced nongodian older fellow-students and kids on the block to busy (searching for you know what) to contemplate ultimate reality.

 

[Garyzenuf]

If a nine-year old is already a Christian he/she has already establihed their incredible mind is working very accurately.

Yes, Dawkins does go on a bit about childhood indoctrination.

 

[truthshift]

This is (slightly) off topic, but:

If Christianity has a book that supposedly covers everything and contains all the knowledge that is ever needed, why are philosophies and apologetics from 3rd party sources required by Christians to logically defend their own book? Shouldn't there be something in that book that, at least, lends to it's legitimacy if it contains everything that we should desire to know?

Oh, and Dawkins is all too often "QFT" on everything he says and is also all too often tagged as the "leader" in Atheistic reasoning. It should be noted again, that atheism has no set beliefs like a religion does. Why one man chooses not to believe in a god does not always correlate with why other people might make the same choice.

 

[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

Just watched the first few parts, I'll have to watch it again in full as I was doing other things as I had it on. Can't say I was terribly impressed when he drew the conclusion that there is objective morality (and therefore God). I'll have to watch it again when I have time and take notes!

 

[Verv]

I've just never known how science and religion are supposed to conflict.

I have never viewed either as covering the same topic so I find it inane to treat it as they do.

 

[ReadingForOrders]

This is (slightly) off topic, but:

If Christianity has a book that supposedly covers everything and contains all the knowledge that is ever needed, why are philosophies and apologetics from 3rd party sources required by Christians to logically defend their own book? Shouldn't there be something in that book that, at least, lends to it's legitimacy if it contains everything that we should desire to know?

This is a position that only Fundamentalist Christians (and not even all of them) take. Fundamentalist Christians make up a minuscule percentage of Christianity.

Oh, and Dawkins is all too often "QFT" on everything he says and is also all too often tagged as the "leader" in Atheistic reasoning.

There are a number of people who are often quoted, this really only means he is known it doesn't mean he is correct.

It should be noted again, that atheism has no set beliefs like a religion does. Why one man chooses not to believe in a god does not always correlate with why other people might make the same choice.

Agreed, and not all Atheists agree with much of what Dawkins writes. I have had Atheist Philosophy professors who claim that he wouldn't know how to construct an argument with a set of instructions. (My Philosophy professors were mostly Agnostic and cringed when students quoted Dawkins in debates.)

 

[PantsMcFist]

Just watched the first few parts, I'll have to watch it again in full as I was doing other things as I had it on. Can't say I was terribly impressed when he drew the conclusion that there is objective morality (and therefore God). I'll have to watch it again when I have time and take notes!

Keep in mind that clip was part 1/14. I never really found objective morality to be a very persuasive standalone argument for God, but it's a useful part for a cumulative case argument.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

This is (slightly) off topic, but:

If Christianity has a book that supposedly covers everything and contains all the knowledge that is ever needed, why are philosophies and apologetics from 3rd party sources required by Christians to logically defend their own book? Shouldn't there be something in that book that, at least, lends to it's legitimacy if it contains everything that we should desire to know?

You the rote captain of all you survey or what? You'd be the first to jump up and rant out the circular reasoning rote. The writers of the New Testament were not hiding behind fiction, they wrote in real time, in a real place, about real things.

Last time I read the Bible, it didn't mention anything on how to build a boat. Or a jet plane, or band-aid.

Oh, and Dawkins is all too often "QFT" on everything he says and is also all too often tagged as the "leader" in Atheistic reasoning.

He's typical of the species. He puffs himself up as important as if he has something new to say.

Some dude whose work got included in the Bible wrote some few thousand years ago: "The fool says, there is no God."

So obviously the "who gives a ____" crowd has been around a long, long time.

It should be noted again, that atheism has no set beliefs like a religion does.

Since when? Freethinkers, skeptics and the garden variety atheist all roll wit' it and rock wit' it all the same way.

Why one man chooses not to believe in a god does not always correlate with why other people might make the same choice.

Sure could fool everyone in society.

Mmmmm, maybe not.

 

[truthshift]

I honestly think that you're just making argument out of pure spite. I can't imagine that any rational person would honestly believe what they, themselves were saying if they were saying this... pile...

You the rote captain of all you survey or what? You'd be the first to jump up and rant out the circular reasoning rote. The writers of the New Testament were not hiding behind fiction, they wrote in real time, in a real place, about real things.

Last time I read the Bible, it didn't mention anything on how to build a boat. Or a jet plane, or band-aid.

Well, then why do so many biblical authoritarians claim that it does? Even so, do you disagree with them? There are over 33,000 different perspectives on it. Why can't you all agree on what you've been reading for thousands of years?

What about the Old Testament? Why do you make specific mention of the New Testament? Do you acknowledge that the writers of the Old Testament did not write in real time or about real things?

He's typical of the species. He puffs himself up as important as if he has something new to say.

Some dude whose work got included in the Bible wrote some few thousand years ago: "The fool says, there is no God."

So obviously the "who gives a ____" crowd has been around a long, long time.

Dawkins has a 'species' now? The more I understand about you, the more you scare me.

Are you presuming that all people who do not believe in your god "don't give a _____"? According to that, you're either apathetic or a believer; either caring or destined for hell. Another awesome example of a Christian clumping everything into over-generalized groups.

Since when? Freethinkers, skeptics and the garden variety atheist all roll wit' it and rock wit' it all the same way.

Since for as long as the bible has been around.

Another clear example of you clumping everything together.

According to your reasoning, we either believe or do not believe and it's no more complex than that. That's ridiculous. The fact that there are many different reasons that people DO believe in your god should be proof enough that there are many many reasons why people would not believe in your god or (m)any other gods for that matter.

I'm sure that many people do appear to follow the same course of thinking. That can be attributed to people using the same kind of rational, plausible logic to draw their conclusions. But, I maintain that not everyone is the same.

Your entire post was a load of garbage. Witty quips and a smug attitude are all good and well, except when you use it to proliferate ignorance.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I honestly think that you're just making argument out of pure spite. I can't imagine that any rational person would honestly believe what they, themselves were saying if they were saying this... pile...

Atheism brings out the loathsome in me. You haven't been around long. Wait 'til we get started.

Well, then why do so many biblical authoritarians claim that it does?

Who? Part two.

Even so, do you disagree with them? There are over 33,000 different perspectives on it. Why can't you all agree on what you've been reading for thousands of years?

We don't have shallow thinkers on our side. All are 100% free. Let's cruise over to skeptics dot org to see how original your concepts are going to be? Or a freethinkers convention. You pick. I'll keep my eyes closed and my eras open and will not be able to tell your voice from every other rote factory rep there.

But Christians . . . as you have so aptly pointed out.

What about the Old Testament? Why do you make specific mention of the New Testament? Do you acknowledge that the writers of the Old Testament did not write in real time or about real things?

Grasping at straws as you are sliding into the cognitive dissonance pit? Last time I looked Egypt and Syria were real places.

Dawkins has a 'species' now? The more I understand about you, the more you scare me.

I doubt that you CAN understand me. That would take free thinking. And we've already shown what passes for that in your club.

Are you presuming that all people who do not believe in your god "don't give a _____"? Slefishness takes a lot of thinking. 100% of it.

According to that, you're either apathetic or a believer; either caring or destined for hell. Another awesome example of a Christian clumping everything into over-generalized groups.

I don't judge people. I have no idea who gets hell and who gets to evolve into a prettier ape.

Since for as long as the bible has been around.
Another clear example of you clumping everything together.

Get used to it. You're clumping has nothing to do with my efforts. You all did it together.

According to your reasoning, we either believe or do not believe and it's no more complex than that. That's ridiculous.

Wrong. Typical. I always assert that it is very comlicated how convoluted ideas find their destination at the atheist/freethinker/skeptic/humanist/liberal/progressive etc., etc., et al. Club.

The fact that there are many different reasons that people DO believe in your God should be proof enough that there are many many reasons why people would not believe in your God or (m)any other gods for that matter.

I am an atheist to other gods. Why waste time on something I do not care about.

I'm sure that many people do appear to follow the same course of thinking.

Duh.

In the PhD sense of the word.

That can be attributed to people using the same kind of rational, plausible logic to draw their conclusions. But, I maintain that not everyone is the same.

Let's see: Who made God? and, why are babies born blind? The requirements of membership in your club.

Your entire post was a load of garbage. Witty quips and a smug attitude are all good and well, except when you use it to proliferate ignorance.

0 x 0 = atheism.

No ignorance in that at all.

Oh, and does a smug attitude bother you?

I prefer to call it confidence.

I've reasearched something from nothing, and after seeing someone evicted for the 75th time, I finally realized atheism just doesn't work in reality.

Reality does though.

 

[Smidlee]

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?

Stupid people?!? this reminds me of Dawkins appearance on the Colbert Report where he brought up the "who made God?" question. Even Colbert had no trouble pointed out that even Dawkins has to deal with this issue(just in a different angle) as 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.

 

[revanneosl]

Dawkins' problem is that he is laboring under the delusion that most Christians don't believe in science, specifically evolutionary biology, when in fact the majority of Christians do believe in science, specifically evolutionary biology.