Fact Based Criticisms of Richard Dawkins' Ideas

[gnomon]

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

Seems well in place to me.

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.

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.

Dawkins criticizes belief.

And yes I am right. It is not in line with making fact based claims regarding Dawkin's arguments by merely stating that he lacks theological knowledge without explicitly stating where he fails.

I'm sure Dawkins does fail in many individual points in his ideas. I'm sure they are based on theological points of view.

Doesn't discount his ideas the way people are trying to do here.

What, explicitly, in The God Delusion, or his debates with D'Souza, his debate with Boteach, his debate with Lennox is there to criticize about Dawkins. It's all out there. We can bring those arguments here.

Is it that hard to ask members of this forum to state explicitly, i.e. provide evidence, of exactly what it is they are saying!

I'm not defending Dawkins. I'm attacking the shoddy argumentation put forward in a thread where Sunstone asked for FACTS.

Well where are they?

All I've seen is more opinion by some who admit they don't even read the man's books or watch his debates.

 

[Storm]

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.

This is new information to me. How does he reconcile this with his argument that moderate believers enable extremists?

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.

A request I have made many times. Feel free.

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.

I freely admit I haven't read his books. I have watched a few videos, and while his demeanor mollified me somewhat, I have yet to be impressed.

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?

Of course we need reform. We need reform in EVERY area of modern life. Why single out religion? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

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.

When you say "religion," you address it all. When you say "the religious," you include us all. If Dawkins means to be more specific, he needs to do so. YEC is not the whole of Christianity, nor is Christianity all religion.

The commonality of the mistake does not justify the carelessness.

Pet peeve.

Because it's easy.

Because it's an error.

 

[Nepenthe]

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 how is religion "practiced correctly"? How can, say, someone's profound yet internal religous experience be practiced correctly or incorrectly? Is the Taliban practicing Islam correctly when they kidnap 14 year old boys and train them to be martyrs? Is the Buddhist who works with Doctors Without Borders practicing their religion correctly? How do you even reach anything resembling a concensus here?

Religion deals with far more simple things than science does; morality and ethics exist independent of religions and history has shown time and time again that religions, even those presumed to be practiced correctly, held morals that we look back on as repugnant and oppressive. Science deals with the hows and the whys, though religions do tend to ask the why questions exclusively. But philosophy has been more successful in tackling these questions than religion. Many of these classic questions, like the Primoridial Existential Question (why something rather than nothing?) aren't particularly complex or difficult or even meaningful.

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.

Why would that be a shortcoming? That's like saying geology's shortcoming is that it doesn't explain quantum mechanics or that my PCs shortcoming is that it doesn't give me a hug every morning! Why would science be responsible? Sure, it leaves the moral answers to religion, or more accurately, cultural and society's laws based on the mind bogglingly complex interaction of biology and history. There's no hypocrisy heresave for religion's insistence it's the moral barometer while history has shown just how lacking that barometer has been when it comes to human suffering and the suppression of knowledge. No, religion is definitely not the only one responsible here, but if you are to derive ethical and moral foundations from your religion and claim it's superior in this aspect to science and not hypocitical, then you'll have to wonder why history is replete with such religious savagery and oppression.

Was it just practiced incorrectly?

 

[Storm]

Religion deals with far more simple things than science does

A bit off topic, but this blows my mind. How can exploring the mechanics of the world be deeemed more complex than exploring the innermost workings of the self?

 

[gnomon]

This is new information to me. How does he reconcile this with his argument that moderate believers enable extremists?


A request I have made many times. Feel free.


I freely admit I haven't read his books. I have watched a few videos, and while his demeanor mollified me somewhat, I have yet to be impressed.


Of course we need reform. We need reform in EVERY area of modern life. Why single out religion? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?


When you say "religion," you address it all. When you say "the religious," you include us all. If Dawkins means to be more specific, he needs to do so. YEC is not the whole of Christianity, nor is Christianity all religion.

The commonality of the mistake does not justify the carelessness.

Pet peeve.


Because it's an error.

I was hoping that those who critique Dawkins would provide the points of debate.

To be honest my copy of The God Delusion is buried in the bottom of my stacks. I guess my impression was that great since I can easily access my Sagan and Shermer books but still have a hard time finding Dawkins. I'm not going to try to find it before I go to work but when I get back tonight I'll try to dig it out and put forth some of my own critiques.

There are several debates on Youtube but I don't have enough time before I go to work to watch them again and then post responses. Starting with the Dawkins/Harries debate would be best because it's shorter and would be a better jumping off point.
YouTube - Dawkins vs Harries debate Part 1

I hope people realize that my complaints in this thread are the arguments that Dawkins is harsh or general do not address what Sunstone asked for in this thread and that there are already plenty of threads where people can say how harsh or general they find Dawkins.

 

[Nepenthe]

A bit off topic, but this blows my mind. How can exploring the mechanics of the world be deeemed more complex than exploring the innermost workings of the self?

How can it not?

Science deals with the material aspects of existence and the mechanics of the universe are responsible for the mechanics of our brains, which is of course responsible for why we ask such questions and examine our innermost workings. I don't see many speculative metaphysical questions like "why are we here" particularly complex especially when compared to the successes and intricacies science has revealed in the cogs and gears and quantum mechanics of the world.

 

[Storm]

How can it not?

Because the hard sciences have it easy. They just have to figure out how things work, and have at their disposal one of the most reliable methods of inquiry ever developed. Theologians and philosophers, otoh, are groping in the dark with nothing to rely on but their own intellect.

Science deals with the material aspects of existence and the mechanics of the universe are responsible for the mechanics of our brains, which is of course responsible for why we ask such questions and examine our innermost workings.

Precisely.

I don't see many speculative metaphysical questions like "why are we here" particularly complex especially when compared to the successes and intricacies science has revealed in the cogs and gears and quantum mechanics of the world.

I get the feeling we're so far apart on this that we'll never even comprehend one another's perspective.

IOW, let's table the discussion before we hijack the thread.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

So the only fair answer to that question is that it is possible for “God” to intervene in such a way as to be undetectable by scientific means. If the question cannot be answered scientifically (even in principle) then it is not a scientific question. All that can be said is that there is no scientific evidence of intervention.

Presumably, the actions or effects of an interventionist deity could be measured somehow.

Maybe or maybe not. But the presumption is not scientifically valid.

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.

Excellent post, I am just responding to the third point. Dawkins opinion of the incompatibility of evolution and “God” is a valid one, but an unscientific one. Dawkins fails to differentiate between his scientific opinions, and his personal metaphysical opinions.

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.

Very interesting point, but is this kind of “God” a “personal God”, is it “God” as Dawkins defines “God”. And Dawkins does have the right (and obligation) to define “God” for the purpose of his argument.

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

I often hear about more sophisticated, more evolved, more esoteric definitions of faith. But I may not be very smart because no matter how many threads and explanations I have read on the definition of faith (and there have been a lot) I still don’t fully understand what some people mean by the term.

However I do observe people using it quite often in the simple unsophisticated way that Dawkins refers to, belief without reason or evidence. It is very common on this board to read people say things to the effect of “I believe Jonah was inside a fish for three day because I have faith”, or “I believe that Adam was 90 feet tall because I have faith”, or “I believe that consciousness is eternal because I have faith” or “I believe evolution is a lie because I have faith”.

This unsophisticated view of faith is very common and many people do have such faith.

 

[Storm]

I often hear about more sophisticated, more evolved, more esoteric definitions of faith.

FTR, I wouldn't describe my faith so.

But I may not be very smart because no matter how many threads and explanations I have read on the definition of faith (and there have been a lot) I still don’t fully understand what some people mean by the term.

To me, it just means "a profound trust." As I said upthread, it's a result, not a tool.

However I do observe people using it quite often in the simple unsophisticated way that Dawkins refers to, belief without reason or evidence. It is very common on this board to read people say things to the effect of “I believe Jonah was inside a fish for three day because I have faith”, or “I believe that Adam was 90 feet tall because I have faith”, or “I believe that consciousness is eternal because I have faith” or “I believe evolution is a lie because I have faith”.

This unsophisticated view of faith is very common and many people do have such faith.

I've seen it, too, and it never fails to shock and disturb me. Maybe I just have too much faith in reason, lol. :angel2:

 

[gnomon]

Here's some meat.

Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe. If comebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to 'respect' it without question: respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings. Then there is a great chorus of disownings, as clerics and 'community leaders' (who elected them, by the way?) line up to explain that this extremism is a perversion of the 'true' faith. But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert? (The God Delusion, Ch. 8, pg 306).

This is a passage from a section entirely devoted to the question of whether or not moderate believers enable extremists.

I do take issue with the notion of guilt by association implied by the concept of enabling. I don't think he is making a strong argument at all.

He does raise the important question of who gets to lay claim to the true 'faith'. An argument can also be made based on the definition of faith and distinctions drawn between blind faith and faith. Whatever that may be.

But hell, I'm just cooking it up. Tear in.

This should be a pretty easy one to start some critiques.

edit: To note.

This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called 'extremist' faith. The teachings of 'moderate' religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism. (The God Delusion, Ch.8, pg. 306)

 

[Storm]

Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue.

Overgeneralization. Some do, others don't.

If comebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to 'respect' it without question:

I disagree. We are obliged to let him live peacefully with his beliefs, no more.

respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings.

How is this anything more than an appeal to emotion? Can it really be contested that such things are aberrations?

Then there is a great chorus of disownings, as clerics and 'community leaders'

And this is a bad thing?

(who elected them, by the way?)

Their communities.

line up to explain that this extremism is a perversion of the 'true' faith. But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert?

Religion is hardly alone in this boat. AFAIK, NO philosophy has "objective justification," they are all subject to perversion. Science, too is subject, objective justification or no. So why single out religion?

 

[gnomon]

Religion is hardly alone in this boat. AFAIK, NO philosophy has "objective justification," they are all subject to perversion. Science, too is subject, objective justification or no. So why single out religion?

That's a fair point. Although singling out faith, which is what he does here, doesn't invalidate the criticisms against it. It still remains how there can be a perversion of faith if there is no objective justification.

I question whether or not the faith of the moderates has any bearing on those of 'extremists'. Though he does bring up a fair point that defining a moderate and an extremist is rather subjective he fails to show in the examples he provides the other factors that come into play.

Al-Qaeda is not just a religious extremist group but a political extremist group as well. I don't think it's too much to assume that many foreign policy experts recognize that the actions of these extremist groups are motivated as much in response to political acts by the United States and other nations.

Also that, in his critique of faith as an unquestionable belief allowing these sorts of actions it doesn't necessarily mean that the actions would not have occurred with a lack of faith by the perpetrators. The means they used would probably be different. I've never heard of an unfaithful suicide bomber. But suicide bombings are just one method. The specific examples he uses are driven as much by national and ethnic divisions as they are religious.

Dawkins does fail to show how a faith based organization that involves itself in a multicultural/multifaith charity and aid work enables the actions of religious extremists who act out as much in political and ethnic conflict as a religious one.

As far as abberations I would say they are not. There are numerous religious conflicts around the world and faith based persecution as well. It's trying to separate those primarily motivated by religion and those by an ethnic difference that's troublesome. The political conflicts usually arise from those two. Or three if we throw in national as well. Which I should. It's difficult to quantify the level of religion, ethnic and national interests in many conflicts. Some are rather easy. Such as the conflict within northern Sudan between one group trying to establish stricter versions of Islamic law against the current government which already adheres to sharia. The northern/southern conflict in Sudan, however, appears to be driven as much by ethnic and resource conflicts even though the fact of Islam v. Christianity still remains.

 

[Storm]

That's a fair point.

Thank you.

Although singling out faith, which is what he does here, doesn't invalidate the criticisms against it.

Granted.

It still remains how there can be a perversion of faith if there is no objective justification.

This argument just doesn't make sense to me. Is there an objective justification for calling sexual violence a perversion of sex? Eugenics a perversion of evolution? Is there ever an objective reason for calling anything a perversion?

We handle all sorts of non-objective things with common sense, why should religion be any different?

As far as abberations I would say they are not.

Compare the numbers. Dozens - maybe hundreds - of violent extremists compared to billions of peaceful believers. Terrorism is an aberrant human behavior.

There are numerous religious conflicts around the world and faith based persecution as well.

I can't think of a single example of violence that had no motive other than religion. Can you?

Even assuming you can, it's still an aberration.

It's trying to separate those primarily motivated by religion and those by an ethnic difference that's troublesome. The political conflicts usually arise from those two. Or three if we throw in national as well. Which I should. It's difficult to quantify the level of religion, ethnic and national interests in many conflicts. Some are rather easy. Such as the conflict within northern Sudan between one group trying to establish stricter versions of Islamic law against the current government which already adheres to sharia. The northern/southern conflict in Sudan, however, appears to be driven as much by ethnic and resource conflicts even though the fact of Islam v. Christianity still remains.

Precisely.

 

[PureX]

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.

I agree. But then I'm not going to study every word Dawkins has ever written or uttered, either, and neither is anyone else. I will admit I am conversing here with some degree of ignorance, but I am also conversing relative to a generally held idea of Dawkins' statements. If I am wrong, I will stand to be corrected.

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.

Yeah ... once again, no one is going to study every word the guy has ever uttered or written. So I don't think this particular argument is going to go anywhere. If you post a direct quote, then I'll stand corrected. If someone else finds a contradictory quote, however, we will have achieved nothing.

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.

Then he is at best confused, as he is blaming religion, when it's some form of ideological conservatism that he really objects to. "Religion" includes liberal theology. "Christianity" includes liberal Christians. If his objection is not with these, then he needs to further define his terms.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

But isn't there some chance science would be able to demonstrate the proposition "I am God" was false? That is, if an actual god stood before you, then you might not be able to demonstrate that her claim she was god was false. But if a false god stood before you, then you might be able to demonstrate that his claim he was god was false. So wouldn't science potentially have a role then?

Second, even though science might never prove that a true god were true, wouldn't it be able to accumulate evidence that a true god were true. And wouldn't that evidence at some point become rather overwhelming? So wouldn't science potentially have a role then?

 

[PureX]

Is it that hard to ask members of this forum to state explicitly, i.e. provide evidence, of exactly what it is they are saying!

I'm not defending Dawkins. I'm attacking the shoddy argumentation put forward in a thread where Sunstone asked for FACTS.

Well where are they?

All I've seen is more opinion by some who admit they don't even read the man's books or watch his debates.

I understand your point, but this is a lot like politicians arguing with numbers. Anyone who has published as many words and phrases as Dawkins is bound to have a lot of conflicting statements attributed to him. Once the well of quotes gets deep enough, one can usually find whatever one desires to find if he looks long enough, and takes what he needs out of context.

I appreciate you calling us to task on accuracy. That's only fair. But in the end we WILL be discussing our opinions, and we will never have ALL the "facts". That's just the way life is. So although I respect your point, I respect it only to a degree. And beyond that lies only pointless drudgery and darkness pretending to be light.

 

[gnomon]

This argument just doesn't make sense to me. Is there an objective justification for calling sexual violence a perversion of sex? Eugenics a perversion of evolution? Is there ever an objective reason for calling anything a perversion?

He's saying that since there is no objective justification for faith, which is just another way of saying that faith by definition cannot be empirically proven, it is not possible to say that anyone faith is right or wrong including that of extremists. Even the definition of extremist simply denotes a fringe group. It doesn't necessarily mean violent.

In other words, he's bringing forth the no true Scotsman fallacy to show that when an extremist does act out it's not really fair of others of faith to claim that the extremist's faith is wrong. However, it that doesn't mean people of faith cannot point out that the actions of an extremist are wrong.

I can't think of a single example of violence that had no motive other than religion. Can you?

I can actually think of acts of violence, neglect and even wars that religion was the motivation. But I would count them as uncommon among motives for violence.

 

[gnomon]

I understand your point, but this is a lot like politicians arguing with numbers. Anyone who has published as many words and phrases and Dawkins is bound to have a lot of conflicting statements attributed to him. Once the well of quotes gets deep enough, one can usually find whatever one desires to find if he looks long enough, and takes what he needs out of context.

I appreciate you calling us to task on accuracy. That's only fair. But in the end we WILL be discussing our opinions, and we will never have ALL the "facts". That's just the way life is. So although I respect your point, I respect it only to a degree. And beyond that lies only pointless drudgery and darkness pretending to be light.

Yet I was able to dig up my book and actually provide the chapter referencing Dawkins statements regarding enabling.

And it clearly shows that while he thinks that faith itself is a problem nowhere in there does he malign moderates or liberal religious believers.

I did all that, ate a late breakfast, just finished a shower and now have to go to work and engage Storm in a short exchange where I think we both agree that Dawkins argument regarding the enabling of extremists and fundamentalists is not valid.

My issue was with expanding Dawkins statements into something he did not say. At least something that I have never heard or read. Many people question the validity of faith and its a valid philosophical and practical question.

Now I have to go to work.

Tschus!

 

[Storm]

He's saying that since there is no objective justification for faith, which is just another way of saying that faith by definition cannot be empirically proven, it is not possible to say that anyone faith is right or wrong including that of extremists.

Well, this at least makes sense. I still don't agree, though. When an extremist violates the teachings of their claimed religion in order to promote their extremism, that's an objective standard for saying they're wrong.

Even the definition of extremist simply denotes a fringe group. It doesn't necessarily mean violent.

I know, that's why I specified violent extremists.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that I'm a religious extremist! LOL.

In other words, he's bringing forth the no true Scotsman fallacy to show that when an extremist does act out it's not really fair of others of faith to claim that the extremist's faith is wrong. However, it that doesn't mean people of faith cannot point out that the actions of an extremist are wrong.

I don't think it's No True Scotsman to say "In doing this, they violate the teachings of our religion. Please don't judge us all by their actions."

I can actually think of acts of violence, neglect and even wars that religion was the motivation.

Without examples, I can't tell if this is because you are more or less cynical than I.

But I would count them as uncommon among motives for violence.

All I'm saying.

 

[PureX]

But how is religion "practiced correctly"? How can, say, someone's profound yet internal religous experience be practiced correctly or incorrectly? Is the Taliban practicing Islam correctly when they kidnap 14 year old boys and train them to be martyrs? Is the Buddhist who works with Doctors Without Borders practicing their religion correctly? How do you even reach anything resembling a concensus here?

Any human endeavor which brings suffering, death, and destruction to mankind is clearly a false path for men to follow. It's perversely irrational, and self-apparent.

Religion deals with far more simple things than science does; morality and ethics exist independent of religions and history has shown time and time again that religions, even those presumed to be practiced correctly, held morals that we look back on as repugnant and oppressive. Science deals with the hows and the whys, though religions do tend to ask the why questions exclusively. But philosophy has been more successful in tackling these questions than religion. Many of these classic questions, like the Primoridial Existential Question (why something rather than nothing?) aren't particularly complex or difficult or even meaningful.

No offense meant, but this whole paragraph is so screwed up (to my way of thinking) that I wouldn't even know where to begin addressing it. Every thought being expressed here is wrong, I believe.

Why would that be a shortcoming? That's like saying geology's shortcoming is that it doesn't explain quantum mechanics or that my PCs shortcoming is that it doesn't give me a hug every morning! Why would science be responsible?

To engage in any human endeavor that offers no way for the humans to check themselves morally is both foolish and dangerous. To then bash other human endeavors that must now take on that dropped responsibility is the height of hypocricy.

Sure, it leaves the moral answers to religion, or more accurately, cultural and society's laws based on the mind bogglingly complex interaction of biology and history. There's no hypocrisy heresave for religion's insistence it's the moral barometer while history has shown just how lacking that barometer has been when it comes to human suffering and the suppression of knowledge. No, religion is definitely not the only one responsible here, but if you are to derive ethical and moral foundations from your religion and claim it's superior in this aspect to science and not hypocitical, then you'll have to wonder why history is replete with such religious savagery and oppression.

It's not all that replete with religious savagery and oppression, when compared to politics or commerce.

Was it just practiced incorrectly?

In the instances when it did happen, yes.