Why Dawkins Disappoints « Thread Started on Jul 13, 2011, 4:59pm »
Richard Dawkins stands accused of cowardice for refusing to debate with an Amercian theologian, William Lane Craig. He responds that he's too busy and that Craig is nothing but a professional debater.
Naturally, Dawkins is under no obligation to take part in someone else's publicity tour, but the allegation does have some force, not least because Craig has a reputation for eating atheists for breakfast.
Even Christopher Hitchens, it is generally conceded (even by atheists), lost his encounter with Craig on points.
Theatrical debates about the existence of God rarely change minds – least of all those of the protagonists – and William Lane Craig's undoubted skill as a debater may have little to do with the strength of his arguments. Nevertheless, it is regularly claimed that "new atheists" such as Dawkins are not intellectually outstanding. The critic Terry Eagleton, for example, though not a believer, has berated him for, among other failings, not having properly thought through "the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus".
Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised by Dawkins's lack of philosophical sophistication. He is, after all, a biologist. As such, he is well qualified to rebut the claims of creationists.
But the "argument from design" is only one of the usual proofs of God's existence, and the one most vulnerable to empirical assault.
Religious philosophers, moreover, have had centuries to perfect their arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments might not be successful, in that they don't convince atheists, but then there has never been a really convincing philosophical argument for the non-existence of God. There hasn't needed to be.
Whether Dawkins is a coward or not only he knows. His stated position is that he will not debate Craig because Craig is merely a professional debater, an apologist, and not an official representative of any denomination as such. Seems a fair point to me. Terry Eagleton rather misses the point. Why should an atheist need to know the finer points of mediaeval epistomology? How many theologians do? Whatever those points may be they are irrelevent to any contemporary discussion of theism, having taken place as they did against a shared background of theistic belief, which can no longer be assumed. Dawkins makes this point himself in the foreward to the paperback edition of "God Delusion".
It is modern apologetics as such that atheists are quite rightly addressing themselves to, among which the argument to design is if "only one of the usual proofs", a fairly major one I would have thought - and if this argument can be shown to be intellectually poor, then the evidential approach to apologetics has taken a major blow.
I would dispute the last point about there not having needed to be convincing arguments for God's non existence. God's existence has been disputed since at least the time of Epicurus. The fact that atheists have been apparently silent is probably because it would have been dangerous to admit to atheism, at least until the last couple of centuries.
The article suggests that believers have to work harder to rationalise belief in God because we live in a predominantly secular society where atheism is taken for granted. I disagree. We live in a largely materialistic society, where the church has lost it's influence, but it is still a religious society. Most people in Great Britain at any rate have some sort of belief in a higher being.
However I do think that believers do need to work harder than atheists to justify their beliefs. I think that Anthony Flew was right in his article "The Presumption of Atheism" to argue that atheism is intellectually the default position, and that it is up to the beleivers to justify their belief, and not the other way round.
« Last Edit: Jul 13, 2011, 8:09pm by hawkinthesnow »
Whether Dawkins is a coward or not only he knows. His stated position is that he will not debate Craig because Craig is merely a professional debater, an apologist, and not an official representative of any denomination as such. Seems a fair point to me.
Craig is academic philosopher who publishes scholarly books and in peer-reviewed journals. He's a full member of the philosophical mainstream in America, and by all relevant parties acknowledged as one of leading philosophers of religion, foremostly for formulating a version of the cosmological argument that has had the highest number of published responses of all theistic arguments currently in discussion.
That Craig even expresses interest in a discussion with him ought to make Dawkins feel honored.
Quote:
Why should an atheist need to know the finer points of mediaeval epistomology? How many theologians do? Whatever those points may be they are irrelevent to any contemporary discussion of theism, having taken place as they did against a shared background of theistic belief, which can no longer be assumed. Dawkins makes this point himself in the foreward to the paperback edition of "God Delusion".
With all due respect, how much do you know about the contemporary discussion of theism to be able to say that Craig uses outdated philosophical ideas in defending theism?
And how is Dawkins, and his remark, and his wretched book relevant to the contemporary discussion of theism? What this pseudoauthority says on the matter has not one iota of deserved attention.
Quote:
It is modern apologetics as such that atheists are quite rightly addressing themselves to, among which the argument to design is if "only one of the usual proofs", a fairly major one I would have thought - and if this argument can be shown to be intellectually poor, then the evidential approach to apologetics has taken a major blow.
Until the New Atheism starts to engage with theistic intellectual heavy weights, that blow will remain a mouse snort.
Quote:
However I do think that believers do need to work harder than atheists to justify their beliefs. I think that Anthony Flew was right in his article "The Presumption of Atheism" to argue that atheism is intellectually the default position, and that it is up to the beleivers to justify their belief, and not the other way round.
When they met, Plantinga, a Reformed epistemologist, just brushed Flew and his presumption off. I agree. It is truly presumptuous to demand that we have as a starting point a position that deprives veracity from one of humanity's most universal experiences.
Whether Dawkins is a coward or not only he knows. His stated position is that he will not debate Craig because Craig is merely a professional debater, an apologist, and not an official representative of any denomination as such. Seems a fair point to me.
Craig is academic philosopher who publishes scholarly books and in peer-reviewed journals. He's a full member of the philosophical mainstream in America, and by all relevant parties acknowledged as one of leading philosophers of religion, foremostly for formulating a version of the cosmological argument that has had the highest number of published responses of all theistic arguments currently in discussion.
That Craig even expresses interest in a discussion with him ought to make Dawkins feel honored.
That maywell be the case, but he does not represent anyone but himself. On that point Dawkins is surely correct.
Quote:
With all due respect, how much do you know about the contemporary discussion of theism to be able to say that Craig uses outdated philosophical ideas in defending theism?
Where exactly did I say that? I have reread my post, and as far as I can see I did not say that Craig used outdated philosophical ideas. The words are yours, not mine. I referred to mediaeval epistomology and I said it was irrelevant to contemporary discussions of theism. Irrelevant is not the same as outdated. The focus of the current debate is elsewhere. One of the major concerns of contemporary evidentialist theists is to defend the compatibility of contemporary scientific discovery with Christian belief. The atehist response is to undermine that stance.
As for my own knowledge of the contemporary discussion of theism I would be happy to tell you but I suspect that was not the real point of the question.
Quote:
And how is Dawkins, and his remark, and his wretched book relevant to the contemporary discussion of theism? What this pseudoauthority says on the matter has not one iota of deserved attention.
Dawkins is relevant to the discussion as he has raised in an acute form the relevance of scientific knowledge and scientific method and it's implications for theology. His approach is popularist by intention because he wants to reach the widest possible audience. He has confronted head on the major plank of contemporary popular evidentialist apologetics - the design argument, and in so doing has helped focus debate on this issue.
As for pseudoauthorities, what relevant qualifications does Craig have in the relevant sciences that he so freely uses to support his apologetics? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Quote:
Until the New Atheism starts to engage with theistic intellectual heavy weights, that blow will remain a mouse snort.
Who for example? You mention both Craig and Plantinga. You clearly admire both men, so I assume that you would consider them both to be heavyweights. Atheists have engaged with both of them, and others, both publicly and on the internet, as well as in print.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However I do think that believers do need to work harder than atheists to justify their beliefs. I think that Anthony Flew was right in his article "The Presumption of Atheism" to argue that atheism is intellectually the default position, and that it is up to the beleivers to justify their belief, and not the other way round.
When they met, Plantinga, a Reformed epistemologist, just brushed Flew and his presumption off. I agree. It is truly presumptuous to demand that we have as a starting point a position that deprives veracity from one of humanity's most universal experiences.
Atheism does not deny the experience. It is the interpretation put on the experience that is questionable. You have the advantage of me in regard to Plantinga vss Flew. I have very little time for Reformed epistomology myself, but it seems to me, and always has, that the onus of proof in any dispute is on the person who makes the assertion - in this case the assertion is that there is a God. The atheist's request for evidence before she commits herself is perfectly legitimate.
« Last Edit: Jul 15, 2011, 6:42pm by hawkinthesnow »
Whether Dawkins is a coward or not only he knows. His stated position is that he will not debate Craig because Craig is merely a professional debater, an apologist, and not an official representative of any denomination as such. Seems a fair point to me.
Craig is academic philosopher who publishes scholarly books and in peer-reviewed journals. He's a full member of the philosophical mainstream in America, and by all relevant parties acknowledged as one of leading philosophers of religion, foremostly for formulating a version of the cosmological argument that has had the highest number of published responses of all theistic arguments currently in discussion.
That Craig even expresses interest in a discussion with him ought to make Dawkins feel honored.
With all due respect, how much do you know about the contemporary discussion of theism to be able to say that Craig uses outdated philosophical ideas in defending theism?
And how is Dawkins, and his remark, and his wretched book relevant to the contemporary discussion of theism? What this pseudoauthority says on the matter has not one iota of deserved attention.
Until the New Atheism starts to engage with theistic intellectual heavy weights, that blow will remain a mouse snort.
Quote:
However I do think that believers do need to work harder than atheists to justify their beliefs. I think that Anthony Flew was right in his article "The Presumption of Atheism" to argue that atheism is intellectually the default position, and that it is up to the beleivers to justify their belief, and not the other way round.
When they met, Plantinga, a Reformed epistemologist, just brushed Flew and his presumption off. I agree. It is truly presumptuous to demand that we have as a starting point a position that deprives veracity from one of humanity's most universal experiences.
What is more presumptuous than the use of argumentum ad populum to support any position?If there were only one theist in the world would that negate the veracity of their beliefs?
'Live a good life.If there are gods and they are just,then they will not care how devout you have been,but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.If there are gods,but unjust,then you should not want to worship them.If there are no gods,then you will be gone,but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.'-Marcus Aurelius.
I have very little time for Reformed epistomology myself, but it seems to me, and always has, that the onus of proof in any dispute is on the person who makes the assertion - in this case the assertion is that there is a God.
Agreed.
Quote:
The atheist's request for evidence before she commits herself is perfectly legitimate.
It is. Why the gendered language? Are only females atheists?
The atheist's request for evidence before she commits herself is perfectly legitimate.
It is. Why the gendered language? Are only females atheists?
It is meant to display their righteousness and adherence to certain modern dogmas, rather like making a display of praying in public.
But as for the request for evidence: in the world, some things are changing, there is an ordering of efficient causes, there are scientific laws. There is quite a bit of evidence, really.
The difficulty comes from interpreting the evidence. There is no such thing as a fact that is self-demonstrating. It is always perceived as an element in a construction of facts (a "fictio"). The same evidence may be construed in multiple ways. That's why there are five or more theories to explain quantum mechanics. That's why when Xenophanes observed marine fossils in the mountains of Greece, he took them as evidence of a primeval world-flood. He knew of no other natural mechanism for depositing sea life on land.
Naturally, the evidence will always be interpreted in the light of one's deeply-held convictions. Lessons learned from revered teachers; thoughts read in authoritative books. Like Dawkins and so forth.
_______________________ For the usual thing among men is that when they want something they will, without any reflection, leave that to hope, while they will employ the full force of reason in rejecting what they find unpalatable.
-- Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, IV, 108
I have very little time for Reformed epistomology myself, but it seems to me, and always has, that the onus of proof in any dispute is on the person who makes the assertion - in this case the assertion is that there is a God.
Agreed.
Quote:
The atheist's request for evidence before she commits herself is perfectly legitimate.
It is. Why the gendered language? Are only females atheists?
Why not? Why always he? I'm surprised that anyone would even think to point it out.
It is. Why the gendered language? Are only females atheists?
It is meant to display their righteousness and adherence to certain modern dogmas, rather like making a display of praying in public.
If that was meant as an insult then you are pretty wide of the mark. Nothing I have said could not be said by a believer. It seems rather chavinistic to say that someone who uses the feminine third person is adhereing to a modern dogma. What dogma is that??
« Last Edit: Jul 16, 2011, 8:01pm by hawkinthesnow »
It is. Why the gendered language? Are only females atheists?
But as for the request for evidence: in the world, some things are changing, there is an ordering of efficient causes, there are scientific laws. There is quite a bit of evidence, really.
The difficulty comes from interpreting the evidence. There is no such thing as a fact that is self-demonstrating. It is always perceived as an element in a construction of facts (a "fictio"). The same evidence may be construed in multiple ways. That's why there are five or more theories to explain quantum mechanics. That's why when Xenophanes observed marine fossils in the mountains of Greece, he took them as evidence of a primeval world-flood. He knew of no other natural mechanism for depositing sea life on land.
i]
And that is why theists will never be able present a convincing case for God. When it comes down to it, belief in God is a matter of faith. Rightly or wrongly, atheists simply refuse to make the leap on that basis. I have yet to meet a believer who was argued into faith.
« Last Edit: Jul 17, 2011, 10:22am by hawkinthesnow »
If that was meant as an insult then you are pretty wide of the mark. Nothing I have said could not be said by a believer. It seems rather chavinistic to say that someone who uses the feminine third person is adhereing to a modern dogma. What dogma is that??
Dogmas aren't confined to believers. himself is pointing out that you're ostentatiously affirming your submission to a feminist philosophy of language.
Because it's factually inaccurate unless you're only referring to female atheists, or unless all atheists are females.
Quote:
Why always he?
Who uses 'he'? In my experience North America is the last bastion of the pathetically clumsy 'he or she', and the deliberate substitution of 'her' for 'they' is ideologically motivated rather than rational. There's a perfectly good third person neuter pronoun which has been used for over a century, 'they'.
[quote author=hawkinthesnow board=philosophy thread=944 post=10029 time=1310846390]If that was meant as an insult then you are pretty wide of the mark. Nothing I have said could not be said by a believer. It seems rather chavinistic to say that someone who uses the feminine third person is adhereing to a modern dogma. What dogma is that??
Dogmas aren't confined to believers. himself is pointing out that you're ostentatiously affirming your submission to a feminist philosophy of language.
himself would be wrong then.
Quote:
Because it's factually inaccurate unless you're only referring to female atheists, or unless all atheists are females.
Following your logic had I said "he" that would have been wrong as well because I would then have only been referring to male atheists. And how many people reading this forum, do you think, would think that I was referring to only male atheists? It would take someone with a very wooden and literalist turn of mind, and with very little feel for language, to draw that conclusion. One would hope that the readers on this forum are literate enough to appreciate the use of language for rhetorical effect. It was my post, I can do that. As a gay man I am not uncomfortable around feminine pronouns or their subjects. Maybe you are.
Had I used "he", no one would have bothered even to comment on it. I can only conclude that it is not because I didn't use "they", and because I did use "she", that we are having this pointless argument now. And the only reason I am responding to is to defend myself from the charge of submitting to a feminist philosophy of language.
My point was to draw attention to the individual atheist as a person faced with a choice, either a he or a she. "They" would have weakened that effect. "he" a little less so. "she" makes the point nicely because it is not so usual.
Feminists have a point. Language shapes the way we think. In what is still a man's world by and large, a little positive discrimination is no bad thing. Until such a time as remarks like the one made in my earlier post can be made without drawing accusations of being in "submission to feminist philosophy of language" then I think that there is still work for feminists to do.
And that is why theists will never be able present a convincing case for God. When it comes down to it, belief in God is a matter of faith. Rightly or wrongly, atheists simply refuse to make the leap on that basis. I have yet to meet a believer who was argued into faith.
Are you an atheist, or an agnostic? I'm not attacking you, just trying to understand your position better.
Following your logic had I said "he" that would have been wrong as well because I would then have only been referring to male atheists.
Not necessarily; 'he' has traditionally been used as a third person neuter pronoun, so I could have simply assumed you were as archaic in your use of English as Richard Dawkins is. Regardless, you didn't use 'he', and you used 'she' quite deliberately.
Quote:
As a gay man I am not uncomfortable around feminine pronouns or their subjects. Maybe you are.
Wow, a personal attack already, despite the fact that you know absolutely nothing about me. As if anyone would be uncomfortable around 'feminine pronouns or their subjects'.
Quote:
Had I used "he", no one would have bothered even to comment on it.
Of course not, because it wouldn't have been radically outside common grammatical convention. Using 'he' would have been slightly outdated or even archaic (depending on which country you're from), but using 'she' certainly has no grammatical rationale whatsoever and is used in the way you used it, for ideological reasons.
Quote:
I can only conclude that it is not because I didn't use "they", and because I did use "she", that we are having this pointless argument now.
Then you are wrong. It is precisely because you deliberately used 'she', which you knew full well would stand out as a grammatical gaffe and a feminist affirmation, that we are having this conversation.
Quote:
My point was to draw attention to the individual atheist as a person faced with a choice, either a he or a she. "They" would have weakened that effect. "he" a little less so. "she" makes the point nicely because it is not so usual.
If you think that 'she' means 'he or she', and that 'they' doesn't, then you're simply wrong; 'they' is third person neuter plural or singular and does exactly what you claim to be trying to do, whereas 'she' isn't, and doesn't.
Quote:
Feminists have a point.
I am not here to argue the pros and cons of feminism.
Surely it is trivial to question hawk about his use of "she"? It is common practice by some to avoid the politically correct but (technically) grammatically incorrect "they", while avoiding offending those who are sensitive to gender bias in language, by alternating between 'he' and 'she'. I have used that approach myself on occasion, other times I use 'they'.
Quote:
And that is why theists will never be able present a convincing case for God. When it comes down to it, belief in God is a matter of faith. Rightly or wrongly, atheists simply refuse to make the leap on that basis. I have yet to meet a believer who was argued into faith.
But I would have to disagree with you here hawk, for this is surely too black and white.
(1) Many people find the case convincing, many do not. It is subjective, whereas your statement is presented as objective. Surely better would be "that is why theists will never be able present to me a convincing case for God."?
(2) And "belief in God is a matter of faith" is too binary. As if any decision we make can be explained so simply! Just about every christian I have ever discussed this with believes for a reasons that are a mixture of evidence, experience and faith. Some (like me) give greater weight to evidence, some to experience, some to faith.
(3) "atheists simply refuse to make the leap on that basis", and if they continue to misrepresent or misunderstand why christians believe, they will continue to miss the point, unfortunately.
(4) "I have yet to meet a believer who was argued into faith." I don't doubt this is true, inasmuch as you have discussed it with believers. But I know or have heard of quite a few for whom evidence was the key factor.
Thus I think your comments over-generalisations based on a misunderstanding of christians. It seems, unfortunately, to be part of the atheist-theist wars for both side to misrepresent the other to somehow better justify their position. I think I have been guilty of the same thing on occasions, and so I can hardly criticise you, but I hope you may take a more understanding stance in the future, as I hope I also try to do.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.shmoop.com/media/covers/literature/lit00223.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://www.bitgamer.su/imagebucket/german_knt.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")