Fact Based Criticisms of Richard Dawkins' Ideas

[Sunstone]

...in fact science simply does not address the issue, nor can it

You don't see any role at all for science in the question of the existence of deity?

 

[Willamena]

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?

Because to rail against the literal interpretation is to indulge it.

 

[Willamena]

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

It's not even necessary to propose falsification or lying. The "God" that intervenes in everything, to the point of being everything (omnipotence/omnipresence) --that "God", that is science, is not measurable by science.

 

[Caladan]

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 can do that, its simply that many people dont connect all the way to it. some of us desire higher standards.

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?

In that case, Dawkins is simply one piece of the interpretation jigsaw. that's cool. just after a while its not my thing, personally.
I would much rather listen to a lecture by an academic who is proficient in scriptural historiography for example.

 

[Storm]

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

Thank you.

- "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.

That's not the only meaning of "faith," though. I rather doubt there are many who have such faith.

- 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.

Granted.

- 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.

This is where his theological ignorance bites him in the ***. There are many reconciliations, as even a cursory study of religion would have revealed.

- 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.

In another thread, the Fine Tuned Universe and its equations were castigated as speculative, and fairly so, I think. How is this any different?

 

[darkendless]

He can do that, its simply that many people dont connect all the way to it. some of us desire higher standards.

Higher Standards? From the bible? I didn't know you needed a PHd in BS to be qualified to preach

In that case, Dawkins is simply one piece of the interpretation jigsaw. that's cool. just after a while its not my thing, personally.
I would much rather listen to a lecture by an academic who is proficient in scriptural historiography for example.

Each to their own. To be honest i wish he'd chill out a bit as well.

I don't even know what that means. Scripture is so subjective that knowing actual meanings is out of the question.

 

[PureX]

You don't see any role at all for science in the question of the existence of deity?

Not as I currently would define "deity". Science could address the human idea of god, and how holding that idea might effect a person or society, but it could not address the actual existence of a phenomena that we might generally describe as a "deity", because science itself would be a subset of the phenomena it intended to define. I don't think that's possible, or logical, even.

I ask myself, "if 'God' were to stand before me and declare himself God, how could I possibly determine if this declaration were true"? And I have no answer. No amount of scientific investigation that I can conceive of could possible ratify such a declaration. I can never rule out my own limitations: perhaps I'm dreaming, perhaps this is some advanced alien species trying to trick me, perhaps something is going on to which I am completely oblivious. Nothing this "God" could do would overcome MY intellectual limitations. And the same will always be true of the scientific method.

 

[Nepenthe]

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.

Dawkins doesn't necessarily assume all religions are extremist, but that even the liberals and moderates are responsible for extremism in allowing that fringe element to thrive. His argument is essentially that even the most open-minded socially progressive faith is potentially harmful in that it allows such things as the faith of an extremist to have a negative impact on societies.
It's a sticking point for me 'cause I have too much in common with, say, Unitarians and Reform Jews to consider them the "slipper slope" to fanaticism. I don't appreciate Dawkins (and Harris') arguments here.

3. He blames religion for many ills that can equally be found in any number

This is the big one that Dawkins admirers and critics tend to butt heads over. Robert Pape has written extensively and convincingly that the connection between suicide terrorism and religion, specificallly Islam, isn't necessarily warranted. While I do think humans would find justification for atrocities independent of religion, I also think religion deters much social progress today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I think the issue is more with taking an argument that's geared toward fundamentalism and trying to draw inferences from it about religion as a whole. If you want to do that, you should be able to demonstrate that it's still valid to apply the argument in the wider sense.

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

I think it's plausible enough: as long as an idea has a means to reproduce and spread from person to person and is subject to inheritability, random mutation and natural selection, then it's conceivable that the notion might work.

OTOH, I think it may be based more on Dawkins' worldview than on evidence pointing toward the truth of "memetics"... Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, after all, and like they say: in the eyes of the man with a hammer, everything is a nail.

 

[Storm]

Dawkins doesn't necessarily assume all religions are extremist, but that even the liberals and moderates are responsible for extremism in allowing that fringe element to thrive. His argument is essentially that even the most open-minded socially progressive faith is potentially harmful in that it allows such things as the faith of an extremist to have a negative impact on societies.

I still don't understand this argument. It just doesn't make sense.

It's a sticking point for me 'cause I have too much in common with, say, Unitarians and Reform Jews to consider them the "slipper slope" to fanaticism. I don't appreciate Dawkins (and Harris') arguments here.

:hug:

 

[PureX]

Dawkins doesn't necessarily assume all religions are extremist, but that even the liberals and moderates are responsible for extremism in allowing that fringe element to thrive.

I don't believe they are "allowing it" any more than anyone else is. Here in the U.S., we "allow" all manner of beliefs, as we have agreed to be a free society. The only things we disallow are anti-social behaviors. There is no belief police force. Is that what he is proposing? I suspect it is.

His argument is essentially that even the most open-minded socially progressive faith is potentially harmful in that it allows such things as the faith of an extremist to have a negative impact on societies.

And yet the exact same thing can be said of erroneous scientific theories, too. Yet I don't see him suggesting that these be policed out of the realm of science. Religionists walk down the wrong paths occasionally. So do scientists. And each error has it's social ramifications. Yet Dawkins seems only to see errors of the one endeavor, and never the other.

This is the big one that Dawkins admirers and critics tend to butt heads over. Robert Pape has written extensively and convincingly that the connection between suicide terrorism and religion, specificallly Islam, isn't necessarily warranted. While I do think humans would find justification for atrocities independent of religion, I also think religion deters much social progress today.

Human nature deters much social progress, today. Why doesn't Dawkins attack politics as social oppression? Why not attack commerce as a form of social oppression. God knows both of these human endeavors do far more harm in terms of oppression that religion ever has!

The bottom line is that I see Dawkins as just flat out biased.

 

[Nepenthe]

Dawkins doesn't necessarily assume all religions are extremist, but that even the liberals and moderates are responsible for extremism in allowing that fringe element to thrive.

I don't believe they are "allowing it" any more than anyone else is. Here in the U.S., we "allow" all manner of beliefs, as we have agreed to be a free society. The only things we disallow are anti-social behaviors. There is no belief police force. Is that what he is proposing? I suspect it is.

Though I don't believe faith is a valid, much less reasonable, tool (I know you disagree with me on this point ), I certainly disagree with Dawkins in that it's some gateway drug to suicide bombings or the oppression of gays and lesbians, etc. I don't recall him advocating anything like a belief police force (which would of course be ridiculous) but that education fails to encourage a skeptical critical perspective. He critiques Western religions mainly, and though he's heavy-handed I don't think he's particularly strident or rude (like, say, Hitchens, who I find to be a great writer and hilarious even when I'm cringing at some of his points and ranting against his politics), but I differ with Dawkins on many points and his generalizations on religions are hardly a secret.

His argument is essentially that even the most open-minded socially progressive faith is potentially harmful in that it allows such things as the faith of an extremist to have a negative impact on societies.

And yet the exact same thing can be said of erroneous scientific theories, too. Yet I don't see him suggesting that these be policed out of the realm of science. Religionists walk down the wrong paths occasionally. So do scientists. And each error has it's social ramifications. Yet Dawkins seems only to see errors of the one endeavor, and never the other.

I suppose. I'd argue (though, if memory serves right, Dawkins doesn't really address this in The God Delusion) that science has that built in self-correcting aspect that religions just don't have. The micro-filter of the scientific method strains out a lot more garbage than the macro-filter of religions (if they even have a filter- science and religion are not comparable when it comes to exploring the world). As for negative real world applications of scientific discoveries, the fault lies more with the engineers that build the technology that has negative potential, and the social/political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons.

But if the argument is that scientific discoveries can lead to horrific consequences, well then sure, but the fault isn't with science but how the socio-religious-political culture applys that scientific knowledge.

Human nature deters much social progress, today. Why doesn't Dawkins attack politics as social oppression? Why not attack commerce as a form of social oppression. God knows both of these human endeavors do far more harm in terms of oppression that religion ever has!
The bottom line is that I see Dawkins as just flat out biased.

I agree that political and economic policies are responsible as well, though not far more responsible. In Dawkins defense on this point, I'd say that the subject is obviously huge, so his focusing on religion is understandable. I definitely agree he's biased, but the omission(s) are to be expected when the book's intent is clearly aimed at fence-sitters. There's nothing revolutionary in it for non-theists who are already familiar with the subjects he tackles, nor anything unique for those who are religious and want a broad critical examination of Western faiths.

 

[Storm]

Though I don't believe faith is a valid, much less reasonable, tool (I know you disagree with me on this point ),

I can't speak for PureX, obviously, but I don't consider faith a tool at all. It's a result, not a method.

I certainly disagree with Dawkins in that it's some gateway drug to suicide bombings or the oppression of gays and lesbians, etc.

Much appreciated!

I don't recall him advocating anything like a belief police force (which would of course be ridiculous) but that education fails to encourage a skeptical critical perspective.

Granted, but is it the fault of religion, or a socio-economic system that's more concerned with churning out laborers than an informed citizenry?

 

[PureX]

I don't recall him advocating anything like a belief police force (which would of course be ridiculous) but that education fails to encourage a skeptical critical perspective.

I agree with him about this, but would point out that it's a failing of both secular and private religious based education. Neither of these systems seems to be doing much in teaching people how to think, rather than what to think.

I suppose. I'd argue (though, if memory serves right, Dawkins doesn't really address this in The God Delusion) that science has that built in self-correcting aspect that religions just don't have.

Religion does have it when practiced correctly. Just as science does not have it when practiced incorrectly. The difference, I think, is that religion deals with far more complex and difficult questions, and problems, than science does. Science is only concerned with the 'how' of things, while religion is trying to deal with the 'why's.

But if the argument is that scientific discoveries can lead to horrific consequences, well then sure, but the fault isn't with science but how the socio-religious-political culture applies that scientific knowledge.

Yet that in itself exposes a major shortcoming of science, in that it doesn't deal with the moral ramifications of it's own endeavor. It leaves that to religion, all the while disparaging religion for it's shortcomings. The hypocrisy is deep, here.

 

[gnomon]

Criticisms against Dawkin's theological ignorance are nothing but a strawman.

And definitely not in line of what Sunstone asked in this thread. Which are fact based arguments.

If his critiques and commentaries regarding religion are invalid because he cannot regurgitate every little bit of dogma made up in this world than neither can others defend, in their critiques, religion for that very same purpose.

If it's a fact based discussion it would be better to actually plot out Dawkin's ideas and address those.

Why is this always so hard for people to grasp.

 

[Storm]

Criticisms against Dawkin's theological ignorance are nothing but a strawman.

And definitely not in line of what Sunstone asked in this thread. Which are fact based arguments.

If his critiques and commentaries regarding religion are invalid because he cannot regurgitate every little bit of dogma made up in this world than neither can others defend, in their critiques, religion for that very same purpose.

If it's a fact based discussion it would be better to actually plot out Dawkin's ideas and address those.

Why is this always so hard for people to grasp.

I fail to see how pointing out that his critiques of religion amount to little more than strawmen themselves is irrelevant.

 

[gnomon]

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?

Because they are setting up a strawman.

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. .

1. Is he reacting to all religions as extremist. Just saying it and having a couple of other forum members shake their head up and down doesn't make it so.

2. Actually, in The God Delusion, Dawkin's spells out seven different levels of faith and claiming himself to be not of the type who states that God cannot exist. In direct contrast to your claim. You can read it in the book. Something I will recommend if anyone wishes to make fact based claims against the man. Maybe he has said otherwise in a debate found on youtube that can be posted here.

3. In numerous discussions Dawkin's has recognized people who use religion for good, states that his arguments do not go against liberal religious believers, etc.

If someone is going to highlight points of Dawkins than actually highlight points of Dawkins. Not what people want them to be to knock down easily.

Like this,

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.

Frubals to Carlinknew.

 

[Caladan]

Criticisms against Dawkin's theological ignorance are nothing but a strawman.

really? enlighten me. Dawkins criticizes theological beliefs, and you don't believe that his ignorance of the scriptures is downgrading his arguments?

And definitely not in line of what Sunstone asked in this thread. Which are fact based arguments.

Seems well in place to me.

If his critiques and commentaries regarding religion are invalid because he cannot regurgitate every little bit of dogma made up in this world than neither can others defend, in their critiques, religion for that very same purpose.

I didnt say they are invalid, I said they dont meet my standards. and neither do those who defend [literal] religious beliefs as you say.

Why is this always so hard for people to grasp.

I think you are having a hard time grasping, that all his methods, philosophy and opinions are not meant for everyone.
atheism to me, is not a relentless battle against all things religious. I may not be religious, but I am fascinated by many religious phenomena, and alas im not just yet willing to fight them all.

 

[gnomon]

I fail to see how pointing out that his critiques of religion amount to little more than strawmen themselves is irrelevant.

Because they are not strawmen.

People who make this claim only prove they have never actually read his books or watched any of the debates he engages in.

His primarily criticisms relate to the role of religion in society and asks the question, a valid one, from a cost/benefit point of view. Is the level of fundamentalism, extremism, etc. that we get (with some approximations of nearly five dozen religious conflicts in 2006 affecting hundreds of millions) with religious belief is it worth it? Does there need to be some change?

The complaints that he is not the most stellar theologian or that every word regarding religion applies to all religious believers, even the most liberal and nice people you meet, are given in place of actually addressing his ideas.

Because it's easy.

 

[Caladan]

Higher Standards? From the bible? I didn't know you needed a PHd in BS to be qualified to preach

when it comes to the Bible, preaching is its 'extra garbage on line'. on the other hand its real gems, are the works of our best artists inspired by the Bible: da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dali.
Its a bit of a shame that people are ignorant of such a prized piece as the bible, because their parents made them go to Sunday school.

I don't even know what that means. Scripture is so subjective that knowing actual meanings is out of the question.

There is a spicy, juicy and vibrant academic research and scholarly work regarding the scriptures.