Psychics

[Chili Pepper]

It is undoubtedly true that there is a lot of “intellectual”, “sophisticated” theology out there, and that Dawkins has not engaged with it in The God Delusion &c. However, it’s equally true that the “sophisticated” theology of seminarians does not bear much similarity to the kind of faith that Dawkins et al are most concerned with. How would it help his case, as a biologist exposing the obvious faults of religious objections to well-established scientific theories, to address Plantinga’s (silly but) “sophisticated” ground-of-being arguments?

And I would say that we don't necessarily need to engage any sophisticated theology. If they haven't proven their basic premise (that a god exists) then I really couldn't care how many erudite and learn'd scholars have bloviated further on the subject.

The Courtier's Reply is relevant here.

[Petter]

And I would say that we don't necessarily need to engage any sophisticated theology. If they haven't proven their basic premise (that a god exists) then I really couldn't care how many erudite and learn'd scholars have bloviated further on the subject.

The Courtier's Reply is relevant here.

I agree; that’s why I linked to it in the next bullet point of the post you partially quoted. ;)

[Chili Pepper]

I agree; that’s why I linked to it in the next bullet point of the post you partially quoted. ;)

cough Perhaps I'll read for comprehension next time ;-)

[Kovacs]

I can't really get on with the God Delusion. Dawkins scientific work was great, but his writings on religion are not scientific. They're just a very poor attempt at popularising the philosophy of religion, albeit with one specific conclusion to be peddled. Like a lot of (bad) attempts at popularising a subject, Dawkins treatment of religious philosophy suffers from being grossly oversimplified in an effort to make it easily understandable and also to draw forth a strong and convincing argument.

Thats a strange critique becouse that's how you successfully popularise a subject and Dawkins has proven this by selling millions upon millions of copies.

Dawkins does a lot wrong. His two chief errors, from my perspective, are that he ignores a vast body of thought that has gone before him

Like?

and that he point blank refuses to engage (in his writing and regarding his philosophical stance) with anything that could be considered as intellectual or progressive within the religious community.

I doubt that he wants to waste his time with something that's so intellectually bankrupt.

[thrutch]

I was also disappointed by The God Delusion. There are points in the book where he dresses opinion up as fact - it started fairly early on and by the time I'd got maybe a third of the way through the book it was really pissing me off. I had to ditch the fucker.

[AXPickle]

I think this sums up the subject very nicely and my beliefs on the matter:


As for my stance on Richard Dawkins, i think he has some serious flaws in his approach. An over zealous atheist is just as bad as an over zealous christian. Personally, I think he should start identifying as an anti-theist instead. Again, this is a good summary (never mind the clever remark dawkins makes at the end, which I think underlines the flaw to his approach on teaching science, it was pretty funny though.)




Finally, if anyone is interested, this is an hour 17 minute discussion between Dawkins and Tyson on how awesome science is and how everyone, religious or not, should be made aware of how it works and what it does. The first 5 or so minutes I think are pertinent to this thread.
EDIT: at about 20 minutes they bring intelligent life, which I also think is relevant to some of the discussion.



And yes, I have a massive nerd crush on Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[battheo]

First things first—I do agree that The God Delusion is among Dawkins’s weaker books; he gained and amply earned his fame with The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and his various extremely well-written science popularisation books.

I think there are two arguments that may at least partially answer the criticism:

• It is undoubtedly true that there is a lot of “intellectual”, “sophisticated” theology out there, and that Dawkins has not engaged with it in The God Delusion &c. However, it’s equally true that the “sophisticated” theology of seminarians does not bear much similarity to the kind of faith that Dawkins et al are most concerned with. How would it help his case, as a biologist exposing the obvious faults of religious objections to well-established scientific theories, to address Plantinga’s (silly but) “sophisticated” ground-of-being arguments?
  
  There may be a case for addressing that sort of tripe, and many, many atheist writers have, but there is also a case for addressing the blunt stupidity of creationism, and they are not the same thing—and would be a poor fit for the same book. I’m willing to bet money that the average creationist in Texas or Alabama (1) has no idea what Plantinga says about contingency of being, and (2) finds Dawkins’s description (though not evaluation) of his faith more familiar than Haught’s or Plantinga’s.
• We should be careful lest we end up with the Courtier’s Reply (or if you prefer, Tooth Fairy Science).

I always find this position curious. Most atheists are of course also agnostic, according to common definitions, in that they do not claim absolute knowledge. (Cf. Dawkins, in The God Delusion itself.) We agnostic atheists (though the first tends to be dropped to avoid long-windedness) judge that the probability is against it. (Presumably there are also agnostic theists.) “Agnostic” often seems to be used for some kind of 50-50 position where it’s implied that within the margin of error, existance and non-existance of gods is equiprobable. I doubt you apply that sort of thinking to most things in life (e.g. psychics, to go with the OT). I don’t claim absolute certainty in the non-existance of gods, but given the dearth of evidence for it, and the plentiful evidence against many testable religious claims (since abandoned by “sophisticated” theologians), the odds are sufficiently against it that we are justified in provisionally accepting the non-existance side, just as we may provisionally accept the theory of relativity and the existance of oxygen.

Plantingas arguments essentially boil down to the cosmological argument by another name, and therefore are addressed, along with the other two of the 'big three' arguments for Gods existence (Telelogical and Ontological).

Your objection that Dawkins definition of Theism is one more Easilly recognisable to Alabama based Creationists than a more sophisticated definition of Theism is correct. However, Dawkins book does not claim to refute Creationism, or 'out dated' or 'unsophisticated' Theism. It claims to refute Theism.

By addressing only the most uneducated sections of religious belief, Dawkins attempts to reduce all religious belief to the ridiculous, and, refuting that, claims to have refuted Theism itself. For a better refutation of Theism, we should turn to Mackie, who at least engages with progressive religious thought.

The Courtiers reply may be poorly used, but is no doubt a valid response in many situations. One of which, I would suggest, is a reading of Dawkins theology. He is certainly well trained in the analysis of evidence as a scientist, but (based on the God Delusion) is either incapable or unwilling to tackle the subject of intelligent religious belief. (I am aware, of course, that in real life he is personable and willing to engage with intelligent theologians, as his debate with Rowan Williams demonstrates. Though he takes a far softer and more genteel approach).

Regarding my own agnosticism, I would agree with you whole heartedly in reference to Theistic belief. However (as someone who is now lucky enough to be a layman) I prefer to put it in the context of wider metaphysical questions. I fully believe that there are depths of knowledge that are thus far hidden from us, and I am agnostic as to what they may contain. I would be hard pressed to believe in the reality of an old man who made the universe sitting on a cloud waiting to weigh up all the good and bad I'd done, but cannot rule out the possibility. I would accord that, along with numerous other possibilities such as multiple gods, the existence of states like Nirvana and Samhadi, multiple worlds, a formless primordial energy, an impersonal creator etc as having a fair percentage of possibility as opposed to their absence.

Thank you, BTW, for an intelligent and thought provoking reply.

[battheo]

Thats a strange critique becouse that's how you successfully popularise a subject and Dawkins has proven this by selling millions upon millions of copies.


I agree that he has succeeded in popularising the subject, but he has done it badly because he has omitted a huge swathe of thought that does not agree with his conclusion. A good popularisation of an academic subject deals with the large argumentative strands of its forebears. A comparison with his popularisations of science serve as a good example of how it should be done.

Like?

I am on my I phone, and forum interaction is difficult. Also, I am not your tutor. So, I'll not be regaling you with links to the relevant Wikipedia pages. However, if you doubt the existence of prior thought in this area, you are an idiot. I assume that when you wrote 'like' you were requesting proof or example of philosophical precursors to Dawkins work? It's not hard to find online...

I doubt that he wants to waste his time with something that's so intellectually bankrupt.

Its completely valid to consider the entirety of modern religious thought as intellectually bankrupt. But if you're attempting to refute it, and speak to anyone without the same forgone conclusion, it should be addressed.

[Kovacs]

I agree that he has succeeded in popularising the subject, but he has done it badly because he has omitted a huge swathe of thought that does not agree with his conclusion. A good popularisation of an academic subject deals with the large argumentative strands of its forebears. A comparison with his popularisations of science serve as a good example of how it should be done.

By adding swathes and swathes of arguments for theism, the book would become a doorstep and it wouldn't sell, to popularise a book it's best to keep it short and sweet which I think Dawkins does very well by picking out one of the most popular arguments 'From Design' and attempts to sink it. I do actually agree with you that more could be made of opposition in The God Deulsion but I disagree that it's a bad way to popularise a book. It is incomplete but it does what it does very well.

I am on my I phone, and forum interaction is difficult. Also, I am not your tutor. So, I'll not be regaling you with links to the relevant Wikipedia pages. However, if you doubt the existence of prior thought in this area, you are an idiot. I assume that when you wrote 'like' you were requesting proof or example of philosophical precursors to Dawkins work? It's not hard to find online...

I said nothing of the sort so there's no need for insults.

But I'll expand on 'Like', what do you think would be a good counter to Dawkins' arguments?

Its completely valid to consider the entirety of modern religious thought as intellectually bankrupt. But if you're attempting to refute it, and speak to anyone without the same forgone conclusion, it should be addressed.

Dawkins talks with theists regularly but he refuses to speak with some becouse their beliefs are just too bizarre, it would be a waste of time.

[Petter]

Dawkins talks with theists regularly but he refuses to speak with some becouse,
their beliefs are just too bizarre, it would be a waste of time.

He has been known to quote Robert May (although by his own account not as a direct response to a request for discussion):

Why would I decline to to debate with Creationists? Would you, if you were a geographer, agree to have a debate with a Flat-Earther? There comes a point when you have to say you are — by agreeing to appear on a platform with somebody like that — you are giving them status. If a real scientist appears on a platform; if say, a reproductive scientists appeared on a platform with an advocate of the Stork Theory…

But, I will say this, that I’ve never actually dared to use the formula that my colleague, Robert May — Lord May — who’s one of Britain’s — actually, he’s Australian, come to think of it — most distinguished scientists. He was the government Chief Scientific Adviser for a while and then president of the Royal Society. What he says when he’s asked to have a debate with a Creationists, “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”

(Quoted from a transcript, hence the structure.)