Fact Based Criticisms of Richard Dawkins' Ideas

[Sunstone]

Are there any fact based criticisms of Richard Dawkins' ideas? If so, what are they?

Please note: If you want to criticize Dawkins the man, this is NOT the thread for that. This thread is only concerned with Dawkins ideas. So, please start a new thread if you want to criticize Dawkins the man.

 

[rojse]

Dawkins does an excellent job of conveying scientific ideas in a simple and easy to understand way, certainly. His obvious agenda against religion, though (from my opinions of having read The God Delusion) does hinder his theological arguments, even though he does manage to bring up interesting points at the same time.

While I largely agree with his arguments against religion, I don't agree with the conclusions to his arguments, particularly how religion should be treated in our society. For example, I don't agree with his view of dismissing moderate religious viewpoints on the basis that this encourages extremist religious viewpoints.

My other major problem is that Dawkins usually only manages to rail against a literal interpretation Christian mythology, with only a few of his arguments applicable to any other religious viewpoint.

 

[Sunstone]

My other major problem is that Dawkins usually only manages to rail against a literal interpretation Christian mythology, with only a few of his arguments applicable to any other religious viewpoint.

Just curious, but why is this a problem? Are you suggesting there is some reason why Dawkins would need to "rail against" all religions equally?

 

[Caladan]

rosje touched part of my POV. Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist in his field. but he is no theologian, and I simply dont find his arguments which involve theology to be satisfying, as his lack of religious education is evident, so in this regard I dont find a benefit in criticizing religion as a world embracing phenomenon. however, I do find it of benefit to see him interviewing and exposing certain threatening religious phenomena. moreover, for the most part, he seems to be making an effort to be articulate and he does not come off as being aggressive, which makes it easier for me to listen to what he has to say.

 

[rojse]

Just curious, but why is this a problem? Are you suggesting there is some reason why Dawkins would need to "rail against" all religions equally?

In regards to the goals of Dawkin's book - convincing those that are unsure of religion - I really don't see fundamentalist Christians reading Dawkin's book. Coupling the words religion and delusion together is not going to get those sort of people to read his book, let alone the attack, attack, attack stance that seeps through the book. You would want a book that is more open-minded, and doesn't try to dismiss or ignore everything good that organised religion does.

In regards to other readers, people with moderate religious leanings (and some atheists, although I have my doubts) can see that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted in a literal sense, and can see some value in what is contained within the book - spiritual truths, or as a representation of cultural beliefs and ideals of the time.

 

[Sunstone]

rosje touched part of my POV. Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist in his field. but he is no theologian...

Do you agree with Dawkins that the existence of god is a scientific question?

...and I simply dont find his arguments which involve theology to be satisfying, as his lack of religious education is evident...

Could you give an example or two of where his lack of religious education is evident? Are you suggesting, as Rosje might be suggesting, that Dawkins should know about all religions before criticizing any religions? I'm not looking for an argument here --- I'm just trying to get clear about your position.

 

[rojse]

Do you agree with Dawkins that the existence of god is a scientific question?

I think that the existence of a God who intervenes in this universe is a scientific question (which makes the book worth reading for that alone).

But a God who can intervene in this universe no doubt has the ability to falsify any godometer readings, too.

Could you give an example or two of where his lack of religious education is evident? Are you suggesting, as Rosje might be suggesting, that Dawkins should know about all religions before criticizing any religions? I'm not looking for an argument here --- I'm just trying to get clear about your position.

Rojse is suggesting that criticising one religion (and one interpretation at that) is not the same as criticising all religions, especially when the criticism is aimed at the theological presumptions in that particular religion.

 

[Sunstone]

In regards to the goals of Dawkin's book - convincing those that are unsure of religion - I really don't see fundamentalist Christians reading Dawkin's book. Coupling the words religion and delusion together is not going to get those sort of people to read his book, let alone the attack, attack, attack stance that seeps through the book. You would want a book that is more open-minded, and doesn't try to dismiss or ignore everything good that organised religion does.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose you and I have different ideas of who his book, The God Delusion, is targeted to. You seem to think that it is targeted to religious people, and I think it is targeted to "fence-sitters". I think Dawkins would have written a very different book if he was at all concerned with addressing religious people.

 

[Caladan]

Do you agree with Dawkins that the existence of god is a scientific question?

Personally my scientific interest is more motivated by a desire to understand nature, than to go into philosophical dilemmas of whether there is a God or not.

Could you give an example or two of where his lack of religious education is evident? Are you suggesting, as Rosje might be suggesting, that Dawkins should know about all religions before criticizing any religions? I'm not looking for an argument here --- I'm just trying to get clear about your position.

When one is making big arguments, in this case against religion, and part of the crowd have some background in knowing the religions, the texts, the historiography, etc. its simply doesn't cut it. I find it circular and unstimulating.
I mean I already know that Biblical stories are not the literal actual history of the world, there is no point in grinding this fact as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that the existence of a God who intervenes in this universe is a scientific question (which makes the book worth reading for that alone).

That's quite an interesting point. Too bad I can't frubal you again.

Rojse is suggesting that criticising one religion (and one interpretation at that) is not the same as criticising all religions, especially when the criticism is aimed at the theological presumptions in that particular religion.

Another good point. While I agree that Dawkins uses the word "religion" to refer to the only religious expressions he seems familiar with, I think the point is trite. It's the equivalent of saying, "Well, maybe he should have used a different word, rather than have used 'religion'." But it does nothing to support or disprove what he is saying about the religious expressions that he is familiar with.

 

[Sunstone]

When one is making big arguments, in this case against religion, and part of the crowd have some background in knowing the religions, the texts, the historiography, etc. its simply doesn't cut it. I find it circular and unstimulating.
I mean I already know that Biblical stories are not the literal actual history of the world, there is no point in grinding this fact as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Sunstone]

Personally my scientific interest is more motivated by a desire to understand nature, than to go into philosophical dilemmas of whether there is a God or not.

Yeah, I too tend to think that god is more a philosophical question than a scientific question. Unless, of course, one is referring to an interventionist god. Presumably, the actions or effects of an interventionist deity could be measured somehow.

 

[Sunstone]

What about Dawkins' notion that religious expressions are memes? Is there any creditability to his notion of memes?

 

[rojse]

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose you and I have different ideas of who his book, The God Delusion, is targeted to. You seem to think that it is targeted to religious people, and I think it is targeted to "fence-sitters". I think Dawkins would have written a very different book if he was at all concerned with addressing religious people.

He does say that he tries to target fence-sitters, but I don't see it working the way he intended.

If I was the sort of atheist that believed myself to be intellectual and moral superiority over theists, and needed to be reminded, though...

 

[Sunstone]

He does say that he tries to target fence-sitters, but I don't see it working the way he intended.

I'm curious why not?

If I was the sort of atheist that believed myself to be intellectual and moral superiority over theists, and needed to be reminded, though...

Why would you need to be that sort of atheist for the book to appeal to you?

 

[rojse]

What about Dawkins' notion that religious expressions are memes? Is there any creditability to his notion of memes?

Certainly is (if this was addressed to me or not, I don't care . Interesting and challenging topics are at a premium, particularly original ones).

I don't disagree with his science at all, even his social science. I disagree with his conclusions about religion.

 

[rojse]

I'm curious why not?

Dawkins largely fails to consider the good things about religion in his work. Sure, there's something to be said in favour of that - I doubt religious books discuss the problems that are associated with religion, and speak in favour of atheism - but Dawkins goes too far in the opposite direction.

I agree with his arguments, but not his conclusions. I doubt a wavering theist is going to agree with the conclusions either, particularly because the wavering theist, by definition, would still see some worth in the idea of theism, and I doubt that this support is simply explained away as indoctrination.

Why would you need to be that sort of atheist for the book to appeal to you?

It's the only way I really see the book working.

Sorry I can't go into more details about my opinions, but there have been quite a few books between today and "The God Delusion", which I must have read a year or more ago.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Let's get specific, shall we? Some key points Dawkins makes that I'd like to see addressed:

- "Faith", belief in the absence of evidence, is considered a virtue in large parts of the world, especially America. Dawkins says faith can be dangerous, and we should instead encourage the use of reason and evidence.

- Religious belief is often the result of cultural upbringing, which is purely accidental. There isn't a good reason to justify belief in one god over any of thousands of others.

- As one of the most knowledgeable experts in the field of biology, he doesn't think evolution can be reconciled with the existence of a personal god.

- Complex things, such as intelligence, have simple beginnings. It is far more likely that the universe had a simple beginning rather than a complex (intelligently designed) one.

 

[PureX]

You all have brought up a number of reasonable objections to Dawkins' position. And I agree with them.

1. He is reacting to all religion as though it is all extremist, when it is not.

2. He presumes that because science does not ratify the idea of a god, that god cannot exist. When in fact science simply does not address the issue, nor can it

3. He blames religion for many ills that can equally be found in any number of other categories of human endeavor, such as politics or commerce. .

 

[darkendless]

Something that bothers me is why should Dawkins require a religious education in order to criticise religion. Why should he not take literal interpretations when devout Christians worldwide do the very same thing? He's reading whats in front of him and thats the way he should. To me, in many cases, a "religious education" is equivalent to moving the goal posts when things get heated, fabricating BS to ensure a level of ignorance can be maintained and so on. I also recognise i'm over-generalizing.

On this site i've asked many Christians how they treat the bible in regards to literal interpretations. There seems to be no clear pattern of answers. How is Richard Dawkins meant to interpet the bible when Christians can't even interpret the bible consistently?