Fact Based Criticisms of Richard Dawkins' Ideas

[McBell]

Are you so biased that you have to use derogatory terms like "warm fuzzies" for the well-being of other people, while you wrongly proclaim that science is some gateway to high truth?

Do you think that the functionality of some proposed scientific theory is so important that it should be referred to as "truth" while the well-being of people, as determined by themselves, is just meaningless "warm fuzzies"? Are you so frightened by the abstract that only that which you can objectively quantify with science has any truth or value for you?

Science and religion are both methodology, but they have different functional criteria, and different goals. One seeks to understand how things in the mechanical world interrelate. The other seeks to attain spiritual peace and well-being. They are both of vital importance to the human experience.

Now that you have your rant out of the way...could you possibly actually address the content of the post you ranted about?

 

[PureX]

I personally don't consider the term "warm fuzzy" to be derogatory.

And weren't you the one that just claimed that quality of life was measured subjectively? If that's the case, then who are you to say that my term "warm fuzzy" is objectively wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was deliberately derogatory, in that it's meant to minimize it's import. And yes, quality of life is a subjectively measured criteria. But you seem to be presuming/implying that this somehow makes it less important. It doesn't.

I do think that only things that can be objectively quantified can be objectively verified, which was the starting point for this whole tangent: you claimed that the conclusions of theologians are validated by checks and balances. Are you now retreating from this position?

Things that can be objectively quantified can be objectively verified, things are are subjectively quantified are subjectively verified, so ......

The problem may be that you think things that are subjectively quantified and verified are less real, or significant, or important. This looks like a bias to me. It's like saying that oranges are better than apples because you like them better. Or that the process of science seeks the "truth" while the process of religion just seeks "warm fuzzy feelings".

Fine if you think that, but it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

My thoughts are as relevant to this discussion as yours are.

Mestemia asked what the checks and balances would be on a theologian to help confirm consistency and accuracy. You responded that "spiritual well-being" provided those checks and balances. Since then, I've been trying to find out what rationale you have for this position... if you're still holding it at all; I haven't figured out whether you are, since most of your replies seem to say something different.

One's spiritual well-being is self evident. Likewise, the consistency of one's spiritual well-being is also self-evident. The "accuracy" of one's spiritual well-being is not an issue because it's achieved subjectively, and is subjectively self-evident.

Religion does not seek "truth" any more than science does. It's seeks spiritual peace and well-being and these are self-evident when they are achieved. They are the desired "what is" of the participant, and in that sense they are "the desired truth" (the truth being 'what is').

The checks and balances are built into the fact that the goal (spiritual peace and well-being) are self-evident. We each know it when we achieve it. And we each know when we have not achieved it. The fact that this is not an objectively quantifiable state does not diminish it's truthfulness or value in any way, except to those who are biased toward "objectivity".

 

[PureX]

How does this work exactly?
What is the model that they follow?
The model that is used to determine the accuracy of their "research"?


So a mobster who implicates methods most people find horrid to obtain and maintain a high quality of life has established a spiritual truth?
What does quality of life have to do with spiritual truth?

What of the begger on the street who lives by the highest moral code?
How does his extremely poor quality of life reveal about spiritual truth?


How does one determine a truth when there is no solid checks and balances system to determine the accuracy of said truth?

You seem to be wanting me to quantify the subjective, for you, and I can't do that. The apples, in this case, are apples, not oranges. The rules that apply to the oranges do not apply to the apples. Religion is not science.

Everyone chooses their own religious "model". And the models that work for some don't necessarily work for others.

 

[Caladan]

No one has even attempted to summarize Dawkins' ideas that he has presented in any format. That's pretty much a requirement to debate. This is a debate. Who cares about anyone's personal opinion right now?

You are right, I haven't addressed his specific ideas. so I accept your criticism.

And if you wish to present Dawkins agendas and methods it is pretty much a requirement in a debate to show what they are. Not give pre-emptive philosophical opinions that bear little if any relevance.

Initially, my criticism was dealing with Dawkins' method, or what I perceive to be a flaw in his method, however in this context, I can understand why you find it lacking in relevance to exclusively discussing his ideas.

I'm not being flippant or rude. I understand. A lot of people simply don't like Dawkins or just don't want to get into specifics.

Actually for the most part, I gave Dawkins positive feedback on RF debates, but I always brought up the same issue I have with the background of his method.

Fine. Post in another thread about Dawkins. There's many of them. Don't muddy this one with irrelevant statements.

Seriously. Show some respect for Paul and this thread and stick to the topic.

Here, I'll present the topic again:


It's not that hard!

I've already shown how it's done.

My rant's over now.

I think I just need to take a break and come back to this forum later. The frustration of dealing with people who simply refuse to admit that they were wrong or just don't get it is too much right now.

I can find better critiques of Dawkin's ideas on his own website by his fanboys than people on this forum claiming that they think they know something.

Time to find a better use of my time for a while.

I accept this rebuke. and you are correct, I have been to hasty in getting caught up with the general principles while ignoring the purpose of the OP.

 

[McBell]

You seem to be wanting me to quantify the subjective, for you, and I can't do that. The apples, in this case, are apples, not oranges. The rules that apply to the oranges do not apply to the apples. Religion is not science.

Everyone chooses their own religious "model". And the models that work for some don't necessarily work for others.

So you are basically saying that it is a free for all?

That it is so subjective as to be more or less worthless outside ones own self?

 

[PureX]

So you are basically saying that it is a free for all?

That it is so subjective as to be more or less worthless outside ones own self?

People who follow a religious path to spiritual peace and well-being often find that they share much in common. Many of the beliefs and practices will have similar effects on similar people. But many will not. Ultimately, we must each find our own way to the goal. But I hardly think that makes the walk worthless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Things that can be objectively quantified can be objectively verified, things are are subjectively quantified are subjectively verified, so ......

The problem may be that you think things that are subjectively quantified and verified are less real, or significant, or important. This looks like a bias to me. It's like saying that oranges are better than apples because you like them better. Or that the process of science seeks the "truth" while the process of religion just seeks "warm fuzzy feelings".

No, the problem I see with your argument is that you seem to be saying that the measure of a religious belief is whether it "works" for the believer. This stands in stark contrast to the message of many theologians and most of the major religions.

Religion does not seek "truth" any more than science does.

For your religion, I take your word for it. But for all religions I disagree. I think many purport to be very concerned with seeking truth.

The checks and balances are built into the fact that the goal (spiritual peace and well-being) are self-evident. We each know it when we achieve it. And we each know when we have not achieved it. The fact that this is not an objectively quantifiable state does not diminish it's truthfulness or value in any way, except to those who are biased toward "objectivity".

Ah. Let's put this to the test with a practical example: take a religious person; let's say he's Muslim, just to pull a faith out of the air. While he believes in the tenets of his faith and follows its practices, he has discomfort in his religion to the point where he is very much not at peace. Can we conclude from this fact that, for him, Islam is the wrong path?

If so, how do you reconcile this with Islam's claim that it's the right path for everybody? Is Islam simply wrong?

 

[McBell]

People who follow a religious path to spiritual peace and well-being often find that they share much in common. Many of the beliefs and practices will have similar effects on similar people. But many will not. Ultimately, we must each find our own way to the goal. But I hardly think that makes the walk worthless.

I asked two direct questions.
Please do me the courtesy to give direct answers.

If you feel the need to further explain said answers, I can understand that and even encourage it.

But this reply seems to be you dancing around the answers.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

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.

Great debate idea Sunstone. I have been away from this site for a long time and was intrigued by this topic, as I have read 3 of his books since I was last on these forums.

How sad I was not to see anything that I can really point to over the last 11 pages that is directly addressing your debate topic. I haven't seen anyone yet quote Dawkins, either on theology or (what I was hoping for) on biology/evolution, then point out where they have a factual problem with his position.

Did I miss it? Or did this thread devolve into exactly what you were trying to keep it from being, . . . an attack on Dawkins' personality or demeanor.

Does anyone, specifically, have anything to say about his positions on any particular biological/evolutionary topic? I have seen the broad attacks on his overbroad positions, (i.e. "believers do, or think, thus and such) but to be real, we can all find an exception, and in some way, we have to speak in generalities in order to converse at all. (in other words, a map has to be generalized in some sense, or it wouldn't be any smaller than that which it purports to map out) But I am more interested in whether anyone has any specific points he makes which they wish to refute, such as whether his concestor's are out of line in The Ancestor's Tale, or some such.

 

[PureX]

No, the problem I see with your argument is that you seem to be saying that the measure of a religious belief is whether it "works" for the believer. This stands in stark contrast to the message of many theologians and most of the major religions.

That is exactly what I'm saying. And I do not believe that I am in disagreement with most theologians.

For your religion, I take your word for it. But for all religions I disagree. I think many purport to be very concerned with seeking truth.

We may be confusing two very different ideas of "religion", here.

When I refer to religion, I am referring to a path of spiritual inquiry intended to lead one to spiritual peace and well-being. This often includes a set of beliefs and practices and rituals designed to change the practitioner for the better, over time. For such a person, the "truth" is what works. It's what achieves the peace and well-being that they seek. That same "truth" may or may not work for you or I, but it will have proven itself to be true for them.

I suspect that when you refer to religion, however, you may be referring to the phenomena of large socio-political organizations that use theological ideology to control and manipulate other human beings. "Truth" for these organizations is just an ideological totem that they use to define how they want the people they control to behave. The real truth of such organizations are the real threats that they wield and carry out to maintain their control. These really have nothing to do with religion. They are simply abusing people through the abuse of religious theology.

Ah. Let's put this to the test with a practical example: take a religious person; let's say he's Muslim, just to pull a faith out of the air. While he believes in the tenets of his faith and follows its practices, he has discomfort in his religion to the point where he is very much not at peace. Can we conclude from this fact that, for him, Islam is the wrong path?

Not necessarily. But obviously something is wrong. Perhaps he has misunderstood his chosen ideology, or perhaps he is being abused by some socio-political sect through his religious ideology. Either way, it sounds like he needs to make some serious changes.

If so, how do you reconcile this with Islam's claim that it's the right path for everybody? Is Islam simply wrong?

Religion is a path; a course of action. It's often based on an ideology, but is not an ideology, itself. Religions (organizations based on theological ideology) do often make such claims, but they are wrong to do so. Not everyone can achieve spiritual peace and well-being through their religious model, as they claim, and lots of people can do so through other religious models, as they often deny.

When religious followers band together they tend to fall into the old "us vs. them" paradigm that is so common among we humans. They naturally believe they have found the "truth" because they HAVE found a truth that works for them. Unfortunately, they do not realize that their truth is not all truth, and is not going to be the truth for everyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We may be confusing two very different ideas of "religion", here.

When I refer to religion, I am referring to a path of spiritual inquiry intended to lead one to spiritual peace and well-being. This often includes a set of beliefs and practices and rituals designed to change the practitioner for the better, over time. For such a person, the "truth" is what works. It's what achieves the peace and well-being that they seek. That same "truth" may or may not work for you or I, but it will have proven itself to be true for them.

Ah... that's handy. You say that the test of the truth of a religion is spiritual well-being, and then re-define "religion" as a path leading to spiritual well-being. Well, at least it's internally consistent.

I suspect that when you refer to religion, however, you may be referring to the phenomena of large socio-political organizations that use theological ideology to control and manipulate other human beings.

Actually, I meant something closer to "a community of believers who share in faith and worship", but potayto, potahto.

"Truth" for these organizations is just an ideological totem that they use to define how they want the people they control to behave. The real truth of such organizations are the real threats that they wield and carry out to maintain their control. These really have nothing to do with religion. They are simply abusing people through the abuse of religious theology.

Indeed. Those "religions" aren't really religions. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

When religious followers band together they tend to fall into the old "us vs. them" paradigm that is so common among we humans. They naturally believe they have found the "truth" because they HAVE found a truth that works for them. Unfortunately, they do not realize that their truth is not all truth, and is not going to be the truth for everyone else.

Hmm. You denounce the "us vs. them" mindset, and then go on to criticize "them" at length. Then, you condemn their belief that their truth is "all truth" while implicitly declaring your own "truth" to supercede theirs.

I sense some conflicts in your position.

 

[PureX]

Ah... that's handy. You say that the test of the truth of a religion is spiritual well-being, and then re-define "religion" as a path leading to spiritual well-being. Well, at least it's internally consistent.


Actually, I meant something closer to "a community of believers who share in faith and worship", but potayto, potahto.


Indeed. Those "religions" aren't really religions. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.


Hmm. You denounce the "us vs. them" mindset, and then go on to criticize "them" at length. Then, you condemn their belief that their truth is "all truth" while implicitly declaring your own "truth" to supercede theirs.

I sense some conflicts in your position.

Reality is very often paradoxical. If you want a story without contradictions, you'd better stick to make-believe, because that's the only place such a story can happen.

As to the 'true Scotsman' comment, it is what it is. Scotsman are what they are. It's a generality, sure, but as with many generalities, it's also generally true.

The term "religion" is used to cover several very big categories of human endeavor. And these endeavors are in conflict with each other in a number of areas. We are not going to have a discussion of "religion" without running into confusion over our definitions, and conflicts of observation. You're gonna have to put on your big boy pants and accept such difficulties if you want to discuss such a huge and complex subject.

Lastly, I have not posited a position on "truth" except to say that it is 'what is', and I have condemned no one for anything that I am aware of. We can continue this discussion, and maybe both learn something, or you can attack me, and learn nothing, but we can't do both.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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

I am not sure if my comment fits the question.
I do not have much to say about criticizing dawkins ideas (as far as i know them), but i certainly have some problems with his "style" of conveying them.

For example in his book God delusion i find him all to often jump to conclusions and make postulations that he does not seriously deduce.

Let me give you an example of what i mean (not nessessarily from the book now).
When talking about popular people and rumors as well as tales that spring up after such peoples death Dawkins all to often simply states that in the case of Jesus, Mohamed, X, Y it simply was the same. People exaggerated the stories, made Gods out of men etc etc.

Now it may actually be so (and i would agree to it), BUT its not really scientific to simply declare that.... And telling people to not blindly follow postulations while himself making them every now and then is not really what i like.

Perhaps thats my real critique.
I think that Dawkins does not meet scientific requirements when speaking about religions. If he did i would feel more comfortable.

One may try to excuse that by saying that of course he has a special audience in mind but so do evangelic priests.

Overall I DO agree with him in essense. I find his style not fitting for a scientist. He doesnt "reason" all he says and he certainly injects his moral values every now and then. I would have wished for a more "formal" presentation of his ideas.

If i wanted polemics, postulatins and persuation as well as fast conclusions and irony i would rather read a christopher hitchens. There you get what you expect and it is really entertaining.

I rather prefer "convincing" arguments.