What do you think about Dawkins?

[Winner]

Do you seriously think that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago? Yes or no.

Or, that a guy was swallowed by a whale and survived for days in its belly? Or that at one point in human history, the whole Earth's surface was covered by water and the whole humanity today are descendants of Noah and his family?

Seriously, how can anyone take offense when I call these things crazy and delusional?

 

[Smidlee]

Yes he is using satire. He is clearly making bogus point after bogus point. Dawkins is aware of this. The audience is aware of this. Small puppies are aware of this.

Please, for the sake of argument, what was that valid point he made, since I could not make it out, even when provided with the time frame in which this valid point was made

Except the fact they are not bogus points even if Colbert or the audience is not aware of them. Now I really believe Dawkins himself is smart enough he knows these are valid points which I believe is why he went on this anti-religion crusade. Dawkins wants to believe that everything can be explain mechanically and hope science would lead him the way. Here is another satire yet makes a valid point which to me seems to fit with someone like Dawkins. John Cleese "The Scientist" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Except the fact they are not bogus points even if Colbert or the audience is not aware of them. Now I really believe Dawkins himself is smart enough he knows these are valid points which I believe is why he went on this anti-religion crusade. Dawkins wants to believe that everything can be explain mechanically and hope science would lead him the way. Here is another satire yet makes a valid point which to me seems to fit with someone like Dawkins. John Cleese "The Scientist" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

Please, for the sake of argument, what was that valid point he made, since I could not make it out, even when provided with the time frame in which this valid point was made

You forgot to mention the valid point Colbert made. Instead you link to another video. I'm not going to watch that before we're clear on the first one.

edit: And you also attribute a position to Dawkins which isn't stated anywhere in the video as well: "Dawkins wants to believe that everything can be explain mechanically". I'd like to see a quote for that one as well

 

[Munch]

Wow this thread exploded pretty quickly, good work. Of course, Dawkins is great. In my opinion some of his arguments could be put better, for greater effect, but he is only human (and so am I, I might be wrong). I don't understand how people call him humourless or aggressive, his many videos demonstrate the opposite.

Here's a good example of how not to answer the question. He's being a jerk, even though it's funny. Please note: there's no point in arguing with me whether he's being a jerk in this clip, because what I'm reporting is the perception of others. And 'jerkiness' is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder.

Nevertheless, I don't find anything jerk-like here. It was a humourous response to the question, and far better than him just retreating in fear and going "oh well I guess I'll burn forever".

Richard Dawkins disliked that bus campaign . He wanted it to say "There is no god" instead of "There probably is no god"

Are you sure about that? I think that was his initial reaction but for some reason I think he changed his mind later and agreed it was quite good.

Still, I think the concept of the atheist bus adverts is great, but the slogan was mediocre. I think it would be better if the money raised for the campaign was used to put up adverts for societies which help people leave the hell of organised religion. But there were some other very good ideas in a discussion on the Dawkins site. For instance, the near-famous 'There is no such thing as a New Labour child, a Leninist child, a Hindu child, a Christian child' etc, or 'Don't believe in Amun Ra, Thor, or Zeus? We just go one god further'.

I shook his hand!

Lucky bastard!

did you read the previous 5 pages of this thread

Dude - select '40 posts per page'

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

One of my favourites

Criticism of religion should remain off-limits. It's a terrible thing to allow. Allowing atheists to criticize religion does nothing but offend religious people.

Oh my! While we're at it lets ban criticism of politicians, celebrity chefs and The Black Eyed Peas. Man, they suck. Oops sorry to offend the fans, please arrest me.

NOTHING, nothing at all is beyond criticism; that way madness lies.

I think once you stop being taught, you start questioning, which in my view leads to atheism. I'm a 'foxhole atheist' in that I stopped believing in God when I saw things that meant he was either not worth worshipping or not there.

respect++;

 

[Flying Pig]

NOTHING, nothing at all is beyond criticism; that way madness lies

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Dawkins wants to believe that everything can be explain mechanically and hope science would lead him the way.

I in fact do have a quote


Link to video.

At 9:00: "I fully accept that science cannot actually explain love. I can;t say love is the uptake of that that or that chemical. But it's entirely believable that although we cannot explain it, we cannot explain the details, nevertheless there is nothing beyond that. But you've done nothing by calling it ineffable and transcending, you're just using words. We're not getting anywhere by doing that. I'm not getting anywhere either, but I'm admitting it"

The whole thing is quite good to watch

 

[Winston Hughes]

I'm a life-long non-believer who wishes Dawkin would shut up about religion.

For one thing, his smug, self-satisfied manner just gets my back up (and, no, that has nothing to do with his accent).

More importantly, his arguments are riddled with inconsistencies, unstated (and, for the most part, unfounded) assumptions, and rhetorical sleights-of-hand. Worse, he has consistently failed to address the very valid criticisms that have been made of his work on religion, instead retreating into "I'm no philosopher" populism whenever a point is raised that he can't handle.

To put it bluntly, there is a coherent case to be made against many aspects of religion, organised and otherwise, but Dawkins ain't making it. His work on subjects more closely tied to his actual field of expertise is usually coherent and often quite brilliant (though I still find his smugness irritating). But, whenever he has religion in his sights, the rigor which he brings to those other subjects seems to desert him.

I'd hazard a guess that the reason for this is that he has too great an emotional hang-up with religion in general, and with Christianity in particular, which leads him to become far less rational than usual when he engages with that subject. To use a rather trite analogy, he's like the ex-smoker (Dawkins was raised a Christian) who can't stop berating smokers about their habit, even though his exhortations tend to make those smokers less - rather than more - likely to give up.

If anyone wants a more specific explanation about the problems with Dawkins' arguments, I suggest they check out this article from the New York Review: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

It's not totally comprehensive, and there are a couple of points I take issue with, but it highlights several of Dawkins' most glaring problems.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I have a question for those who do not believe in the Evolution theory.

Are you comfortable with a guilty verdict in court based on DNA?

 

[Munch]

Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought.

The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?).

Interesting. This particular criticism seems to be concerned with The God Delusion not being more all-encompassing in the many-faced religious debate. I don't think the intention was ever to write a book that 'seriously examines' Christian or Jewish theology, it was meant to be a lot easier to pick up than that (also I assume such books already exist). I for instance have almost no interest in the ins and outs of theology. I hesitate to use a phrase like 'meticulous reasoning on the wingspan of angels' but that really is how theology appears to me. I don't care how many days it took to create the earth or in which order fish and sea-dwelling mammals were created, because it probably didn't happen like that. Besides, restricting the book to an analysis of the theology of one or two religions neglects the rigourous debate concerning classical polytheistic faiths etc.

The premise of the book, from what I can remember, is simply that there is no reason to believe in any creation myth, or supernatural entity. Any discussion on the Church's varying role in science throughout the ages, for instance, is secondary and a distraction.

 

[Masada]

Are you comfortable with a guilty verdict in court based on DNA?

I don't see the issue, from a literalistic perspective its quite easy to answer. If God is omniscient and created everything, then he created DNA, which now serves the purpose he intended it to do. The simple fact that science has now discovered God's work shouldn't matter, he obviously intended it that way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't see the issue, from a literalistic perspective its quite easy to answer. If God is omniscient and created everything, then he created DNA, which now serves the purpose he intended it to do. The simple fact that science has now discovered God's work shouldn't matter, he obviously intended it that way.

Sure, but I was addressing it to people who do not buy into the Theory of Evolution. Not those who argue that God can be behind Evolution. I suspect it won't be a problem for them. It just seems to me that if you don't buy the evidence put forward by examining genetics, you wouldn't be comfortable when there are people behind bars because of evidence based on the same branch of science.

 

[Truronian]

I dislike the fact that he was Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science.

 

[Masada]

Sure, but I was addressing it to people who do not buy into the Theory of Evolution. Not those who argue that God can be behind Evolution. I suspect it won't be a problem for them. It just seems to me that if you don't buy the evidence put forward by examining genetics, you wouldn't be comfortable when there are people behind bars because of evidence based on the same branch of science.

Treat DNA merely as a thing that God created, remove the implications (which God created as well to test believers) and presto you have your answer.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Interesting. This particular criticism seems to be concerned with The God Delusion not being more all-encompassing in the many-faced religious debate. I don't think the intention was ever to write a book that 'seriously examines' Christian or Jewish theology, it was meant to be a lot easier to pick up than that (also I assume such books already exist).

It's fair to say that no book could cover even a fraction of the different debates surrounding religion. The problem, however, is that Dawkins only tends to target the weakest, most easily demolished arguments for god or religion, whilst ignoring the more coherent ones.

Of course, the weak arguments need to be knocked over. But if, like Dawkins, you do so in a manner that suggest that that ends the debate, then I think it's fair to demand a response to the stronger religious arguments. That demand has been made of him on numerous occasions, but his response (as far as I've seen) is always to dodge the question.

I for instance have almost no interest in the ins and outs of theology. I hesitate to use a phrase like 'meticulous reasoning on the wingspan of angels' but that really is how theology appears to me.

Bear in mind that theology isn't the sole preserve of believers (see the 'Ask a theologian' thread, for example), and there's a lot more to it than the ethereal nonsense you mention. Religion has been so integral a part of human life for so long now, and has taxed the minds of so many great thinkers, that it's plainly ridiculous to think that you can blast it away with a few high-school-philosophy-class arguments. And that is precisely Dawkins' problem.

I don't care how many days it took to create the earth or in which order fish and sea-dwelling mammals were created, because it probably didn't happen like that.

I agree completely. But that does not describe the kind of serious theological arguments that Dawkins shies away from engaging (ie. the ones that are actually worth discussing).

Besides, restricting the book to an analysis of the theology of one or two religions neglects the rigourous debate concerning classical polytheistic faiths etc.

But Dawkins doesn't actually engage with any of them. That's the point. He takes a generalised view of religion, assigns it arguments he knows he can knock over, and then takes a sledgehammer to the whole edifice he has thus created.

The premise of the book, from what I can remember, is simply that there is no reason to believe in any creation myth, or supernatural entity. Any discussion on the Church's varying role in science throughout the ages, for instance, is secondary and a distraction.

To the point of the book, yes. But it seems to me that Dawkins has set it up this way precisely so he doesn't have to engage with the tougher arguments against his anti-religion stance. He's picking the easy fights, and hiding from the hard ones, whilst proclaiming his opponents' position to be thoroughly discredited.

 

[Winner]

Bear in mind that theology isn't the sole preserve of believers (see the 'Ask a theologian' thread, for example), and there's a lot more to it than the ethereal nonsense you mention. Religion has been so integral a part of human life for so long now, and has taxed the minds of so many great thinkers, that it's plainly ridiculous to think that you can blast it away with a few high-school-philosophy-class arguments. And that is precisely Dawkins' problem.

No, it's not. Dawkins doesn't argue theology with "a few high-school-philosophy-class arguments", he maintains that theology and its arguments are irrelevant to the discussion whether God (Gods) exists. Theology is based on a presumption that God (no matter how you call this entity) exists. Ergo, without first proving this, discussing theology is pointless in the kind of debate Dawkins wants to take part in.

Imagine you met a guy who believed that everything written in the Lord of the Rings was true. He'd really, strongly believe that Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf etc. existed at one point of Earth's history, on a place called Middle Earth. You'd tell him:

- "This is just silly. It's a fantasy book written by a guy in the previous century, everybody knows that."
~ "Yes, but Tolkien only written down the true story."
- "No, he never said it was true, in fact he said he wanted to create a myth for Western Europeans, something like the Norse mythology."
~ "He was misinterpreted."
- "OK, never mind. Prove it to me that Lord of the Rings is a true story."
~ "OK, so open the book at the page 52..."
- "No no no, I want you to give me a solid proof that the whole book is true. You can't argue with something that's written in it when I am asking for that."
~ "Why not, it's true...?"
- "HOW do you know it?"
~ "It is written on page..."
- "Oh godsdammit I am not interested in what's written in it! I want a proof that the book contains a depiction of true events! Do you have any evidence? Did archeologists uncover the ruins of Minas Tirith or something? Are there any fossils of orcs? Did the geologists find a proof that continents looked like Middle Earth few thousands years ago? Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that the events depicted in the Lord of the Rings might have happened?"
~ "Well... I simply know that, ok? One day I woke up and I had this feeling 'Wow, it really happened!' I don't need scientific proof, because science deals with things outside the realm of the Lord of the Rings. But you can check out the forums at www.LordoftheRingsisTrueStory.com. You will find lotrologians there who can answer any questions related to the story..."
- "You're not following me. I don't want you to tell me about the story, I don't need your "lotrologians" to explain me things related to the story, I WANT TO KNOW IF THE STORY IS TRUE!"
~ "Of course it is! Why should I prove it to you, it's obvious! You prove to me that it isn't true!"
- "OK, I am done with you, you're delusional!"


This is a shortened analogy to a discussion between Dawkins-like atheist and a believer. Allow me some creative licence

 

[Flying Pig]

That's pretty good - an example of where shifting the battlefield proves that the fight is stupid.

 

[aelf]

IAt 9:00: "I fully accept that science cannot actually explain love. I can;t say love is the uptake of that that or that chemical. But it's entirely believable that although we cannot explain it, we cannot explain the details, nevertheless there is nothing beyond that. But you've done nothing by calling it ineffable and transcending, you're just using words. We're not getting anywhere by doing that. I'm not getting anywhere either, but I'm admitting it"

Hi again

That would be absolutely spot on, except that we actually experience love. Hence, ignoring it because it's not something that is measurable or can be analysed scientifically isn't exactly getting us anywhere either. Since it is very relevant to the human experience, human beings need to engage it as a subject.

So why can't we talk about it and why does talking about it have to be meaningless?

It seems to me that Dawkins is wont to regard anything out of the realm of scientific truth as irrelevant or not worth discussing. I suppose he's far from the first to do so.

 

[Flying Pig]

He's saying that we can't talk about it scientifically, so there's little point in talking about it in any manner that tries to be scientific. Actually, BTW, he can explain love (read The Selfish Gene)

 

[aelf]

He's saying that we can't talk about it scientifically, so there's little point in talking about it in any manner that tries to be scientific. Actually, BTW, he can explain love (read The Selfish Gene)

Who's trying to talk about love scientifically?

By the way, again there is a general failure to separate the 'how's and the 'why's.

 

[Flying Pig]

But you've done nothing by calling it ineffable and transcending, you're just using words.

What he means, I think, is that saying things like this is trying to explain it, which he doesn't think is possible