The Dawkins criticism page

[jiminski]

To get back to Dawkins,

He is certainly entitled to his beliefs, but if he wants to claim that he has "proof" that God does not exist, that he is somehow intellectually superior because he does not believe in God, then he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of God and faith each.

He who condemns what he does not understand is truly ignorant.... and will remain so.

jiminski is not alone - other friends of mine who don't believe in gods can;t stand dawkins for the same reason. And i don't want to defend the guy for the sake of it. But i have to take issue with this - he's never claimed to have proof. Any right-thinking person would have to be deeply suspicious of anyone, believe-in-gods or atheist, who said such a thing.

heh i think we are mixing up what Jim said, what Player said i said Dawkins said and what the snake said. (that snake is a conniving bastard!)

you know i didn't say Dawkins said he had proof that god did not exist, right?

I said that in his last series on Religion, in an engagement with a creationist, he stated that he could prove Evolution. The tone of his argument was absolute in the sense that he deemed it superior to the extent of being irrefutable.

This stance, for me, is naive and i felt he allowed his passion to weaken it. Now that may well have been due to the perceived relative stupidity of creationist theory. Even if we generously infer that he intended this in relative terms, it opens him up to the accusation that he knows the final truth.

To make his point and to rubbish, what is to him the ludicrous concept of creationism, he took on the position of having absolute knowledge in this area. That is at best a tactical error and at worst falls into the same category as the dogma which he seeks to replace.

[PLAYER57832]

Now this is an interesting point ... I actually DO believe that major parts of Evolution, including the basic overall concept (not all the details) can be proven, too!

But I thought Dawkins did say that Logic proves God does not exist or something pretty close?

[jiminski]

Now this is an interesting point ... I actually DO believe that major parts of Evolution, including the basic overall concept (not all the details) can be proven, too!

But I thought Dawkins did say that Logic proves God does not exist or something pretty close?

he does .. and of course he is correct.... within the confines of what the days logic can determine. See, now we are back to the non-talking, talking snake again.

[Iliad]

Awww, whatever happened to the good old days when we could just burn all the heretics? I guess I will just have to do it in effigy like the homosexuals did to Sarah Palin in Gayland.

This wins my seal of approval! See the criteria
Waving away anyone who doesn't have the exact outlook on life as you do: Yes
Wanting to kill anyone who doesn't have the exact outlook on life as you do: Yes
Discriminate against a group of people: Yes
Using that group as an insult: Yes
Conveniently keeping double standards: Yes

You certainly win this one Pope!!

[Dancing Mustard]

Player, I admire your civilised tone in all of this, but I can't help but feel that you're claiming some kind of mystic 'spiritual highground' rather too often for it to go unchallenged.

Just because fairy-tale and superstition are dressed up as advanced spiritual concepts doesn't necessarily make them such, and no matter how high-minded you might try to make them doesn't change the fact that they are just folk-tales. I don't object to "well you can't 100% know" as an argument, but I find "you just don't understand the mystical side of life; when you do then you'll see I'm right" a tad patronising and self-deluding for me to let it slide.

The entire Bible was written by people who did not look at the world in a scientific way, as we do.

Otherwise known as people who made up fictional answers for phenomena they didn't understand. Why not just call a fork a fork?

Hey, the entire practice of cracking open the skulls of schizophrenics (in the belief it would release evil spirits) was invented by people who did not look at the world in a scientific way, as we do. Should we just take their word for the merits of the practice because they had a more spiritualistic world-view? I mean, even if we don't want to do skull-cracking, we should still believe that evil-spirits cause schizophrenia, right? I mean, to believe something like that then these people must have had a really deep spiritual connection with the world, no?

He who condemns what he does not understand is truly ignorant.... and will remain so

Unfortunately non-belief doesn't equate to ignorance. Just because atheists don't accept that the existance of a Christian God is a plausible foundation for life doesn't make them somehow ignorant.

I mean, wouldn't you find it offensive if a Muslim rocked up and told you that your disbelief in Allah must mean that you didn't understand the ideas of his worshippers, and that you were therfore 'ignorant'?

Seriously, very few of the atheists here don't understand religion... they just don't think its premises are particularly plausible. The fact that they deny the Bible's truth doesn't make them ignorant of its contents, it just means that they've found them equally as implausible as all the other fairy-tales they've heard (be it from the Ko'ran, the Hieroglyphs on Pyramids, or in the chantings of Wiccans). To just condemn everybody who doesn't agree with you as 'ignorant' is really quite offensive; it's not that they haven't looked at the evidence, it's just that they've reached a different conclusion.

Year ago, I laughed at the idea of ghosts. Ghosts were things in white sheets that we see at Halloween. Of course they don't exist. But, as I got older, I learned that what those who really believe in Ghosts think is not that there are these creatures in white sheets wandering around, but things much more ephemeral. "Entities" is probably a better decription. Could they exist? I have never seen one, but I ahve heard completely credible people who say they have. I can at least conceive that they could exist, though whether they do .. I don't know.

Don't mind me, but isn't it possible that this story might not be percieved as a shining example of you taking a rational evidence-based world-view and becoming a more intelligently thinking adult; but rather an example of you regressing back into a less critical and superstition-swallowing mind-set? Just because you're opening your mind doesn't mean that it's particularly clever to do so... let's have another example:

You see, years ago I used to think that my mother's tales of a Bogey-Man in my wardrobe might have a ring of truth to them. Sure, I'd never seen the Bogey-Man, but my mother was a credible person who said it was real. Could it have existed? I could certainly conceive that it might. After all, it was magical, who was to say that it was the solid-form ugly creature that my friends dressed as on Halloween, perhaps it could be a shadowy creature that wrapped itself around the dark shapes of my hanging clothes, invisible until it chose to reveal itself? Was it real? Well I couldn't definately say it didn't... so I chose to believe in the Bogey-Man.

Tell me Player, if I came back to this forum tomorrow and said that I'd lapsed back into believing that there might be a Bogey-Man in my closet; would you find that an indication that I was developing in my spiritual understanding of this world, that I was opening my mind and taking a balanced view of the evidence... or would you see it as me lapsing back into believing in myth, fantasy and folklore?

Simply saying "mystical phenomena X might exist, I can't prove it doesn't so I'm not ruling it out" isn't particularly convincing or particularly clever as an argument... I mean, why pick and choose which 'entities' we choose to give credulence to? Why not spend our whole lives living in indeciscion? It's 1000 to 1 odds that vampires exist, but they just might, so let's not go out after dark without carrying some garlic with us, right? Hell, if these phantasmal ghosts your credible sources are talking about might exist, then why not go all-in and believe in all the other unlikely beasties that some people believe in: kelpies, leprechauns, Jupiter-Fish and werewolves... why not? I mean, we can't prove they're not 100% false can we? Why give the ghost-stories special treatment, it'd be incredibly closed-minded not to apply the same thought-process to all the other folk-tales, wouldn't it?

After all, "Many people who talk of Chupacabara and say they "don't believe" or, more particularly who say that "belief is silly" are still in that "ghosts are things in white sheets" stage."

Aren't they?

One of the fundaments to a really good debate is respect.

And don't get me wrong, I really do respect your opinions Player... but I find the practice of ushering in folk-myths simply by saying "you can't 100% prove they're not real" rather disingenuous. It's not that atheists are still in your 'ghosts in white sheets' stage; they get the idea as much as you do, they understand the intangible constructs which you're proposing, they've just concluded that your thesis is highly improbable... and while they might not be able to 100% prove you wrong, it doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't mean they have yet to attain some undefinable plane of spiritual awareness, and it doesn't mean they're missing something.

To paraphrase the man this thread is about; we can't disprove God, but we can prove that he is extremely unlikely.

[heavycola]

I'm full of respect! i'm a respect machine!

Look, I have to ask these questions because I honestly don't know how believers answer them. It's not 'poking holes' per se, but to someone who doesn't buy any of it, it does seem odd that whole chunks of the bible can be labelled allegorical while other equally fantastical parts are taken as truth. To a sceptic, they are taken as truth because the basic tenets of the xian faith insists they have to be, not because they are, objectively, any more believable than talking snakes.
On the other hand, if you explain jesus' miracles as physically possible events that were misinterpreted, then you IMHO deal a big blow to his 'divinity'.

Jim - i don't really watch TV and I never saw Dawkins' programmes. I hav eread plenty of hsi boosk though and my opinions are therefore a) possibly out of date and b) based on writing, which tends to be more measured anyway.

[austrianeagle]

Does it matter weather or not there is a god? If he dosen't exist it's unlikely we'll know it when we see it/him/her, because we have never encountered it. How would you know what to look for? What is god made of? Does he emit radiation? We don't know and for the most part the people doing the reaserch have preconceptions about god and don't believe in him. Mainly because most of the masses believe in him without proof, so there is no need. If he does exist, how could you tell?

[Dancing Mustard]

Does it matter weather or not there is a god?

If people choose to base their lives around things he's supposed to have advocated, then presumably it does. I mean, his existance is a fairly key part of the validity of their code of behaviour, isn't it?

If he dosen't exist it's unlikely we'll know it when we see it

Isn't that sentance self-contradicting?If it doesn't exist, then how can we see it in order to be given the opportunity to recognise it?

We don't know and for the most part the people doing the reaserch have preconceptions about god and don't believe in him.

Sorry, that's just speculation, and also demonstrably false.

If he does exist, how could you tell?

So are you saying that the existance of a God is utterly irrelvant? If he doesn't exis then there's no point worrying, and if he does exist, then we can't know... so why bother caring either way?


I have to say though, that's a mind-set I'm quite happy to take up arms with. If this 'God' really does exist in the way that the Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Hindus) tell me he does, and if he's so keen that I ought not take my mother's name in vain (or eat pork, or clad my wife in a veil, or wear my hair in a large bandage) then isn't it slightly unreasonable of him (in all his infinite power and wisdom) to make himself so utterly imperceptible, to clog his creation with equally plausible alternatives, and to present me with a gamut of equally improbable competing deitys to worship, expecting me to somehow pick the correct hellfire-dodging choice from a wide gamut of equally unlikely options?

[jiminski]

........

Jim - i don't really watch TV and I never saw Dawkins' programmes. I hav eread plenty of hsi boosk though and my opinions are therefore a) possibly out of date and b) based on writing, which tends to be more measured anyway.

Indeed and there is no doubt that his writing is far more measured. I have always been a strong supporter of him based upon his writings and in the main his live debating skills. But i found his bullying, self-righteous and dismissive tone to be incredibly hypocritical.

I understand his passion, faced with a fairly dangerous leap back to preposterous theories and their harking back a generation to a reactionary form of brain-washing (American Creationism). I understand that he is, perhaps in a subconscious way, championing the more measured 'English' style Christian acceptance, which fits in with secular logic. However this scene, backed-up by the rest of the many hours of programming accompanying it, dangerously teetered on the edge of being dogma imparted with 'religious' zeal.

[austrianeagle]

have to say though, that's a mind-set I'm quite happy to take up arms with. If this 'God' really does exist in the way that the Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Hindus) tell me he does, and if he's so keen that I ought not take my mother's name in vain (or eat pork, or clad my wife in a veil, or wear my hair in a large bandage) then isn't it slightly unreasonable of him (in all his infinite power and wisdom) to make himself so utterly imperceptible, to clog his creation with equally plausible alternatives, and to present me with a gamut of equally improbable competing deitys to worship, expecting me to somehow pick the correct hellfire-dodging choice from a wide gamut of equally unlikely options?

Yes trying to choose the "correct" god is like playing russian roullete with an AK-47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falling up into the darkness of my own perverted soul.

[Backglass]

These are miracles, plain and simple and yes, they are to be taken literally because the whole point is that they were just that -- miracles.

Why is it that such grand miracles happened seemingly every day 2000 years ago, but today the only miracles we see are extremely vague and/or grilled cheese related?

[austrianeagle]

God dosen't need to be tangible, we can debate all we like but it is most likely impossible that we can prove or disprove god, even if we disprove the bible and fully confirm that it is all rubbish we cannot fully disprove god in any rational way. We can say, "since there is almost no evidence that god exists then I don't believe in him." But, we cannot fully disprove the idea that there is a god.

[jiminski]

God dosen't need to be tangible, we can debate all we like but it is most likely impossible that we can prove or disprove god, even if we disprove the bible and fully confirm that it is all rubbish we cannot fully disprove god in any rational way. We can say, "since there is almost no evidence that god exists then I don't believe in him." But, we cannot fully disprove the idea that there is a god.

so let me re-cap: We can not prove that a made-up thing does not exist due to the fact that there is no proof that it does or does not exist.

this is solid enough for your to base the philosophy of life on?
Good grief.. and atheist get accused of manipulating words to fool logic!

[Frigidus]

God dosen't need to be tangible, we can debate all we like but it is most likely impossible that we can prove or disprove god, even if we disprove the bible and fully confirm that it is all rubbish we cannot fully disprove god in any rational way. We can say, "since there is almost no evidence that god exists then I don't believe in him." But, we cannot fully disprove the idea that there is a god.

Of course not. We also can not "prove" that there is gravity, only note that objects in our world seem to have an attraction to each other. That said, I will admit that we can't disprove a god. But, if we can explain everything in the universe without this "god", then what exactly is it? If the universe would be exactly the same with or without this god, does that not in a way disprove it? If there were, say, invisible iguanas that ate nothing, that did not breath, that could pass through matter, and that could not be detected by any scientific equipment, what are they?

[PLAYER57832]

Now this is an interesting point ... I actually DO believe that major parts of Evolution, including the basic overall concept (not all the details) can be proven, too!

But I thought Dawkins did say that Logic proves God does not exist or something pretty close?

he does .. and of course he is correct.... within the confines of what the days logic can determine. See, now we are back to the non-talking, talking snake again.

God cannot be proven or disproven logically. It is a matter of belief.

Do I consider my belief superior? Well, if I didn't I would not believe as I do. Same for everyone. We ALL think our beliefs/thoughts are to an extent "superior" to others.

BUT, the line comes when we go from saying "this is what I believe and why" to "you cannot believe this and" "still be intelligent"/"be fully logical"/etc.

I say again and again that I don't expect everyone, even every Christian, to think as I do. I DO ask that you not leap from "I think this" to "you are illogical". Sorry, it just is not true.

Now, I realize many of you just don't want to think that. You want to keep not just believing, but saying you KNOW you are right. ANYONE who claims they KNOW something that is just plain outside of proof ... be it religion or any other idea is heading down a dangerous path. Because, if there is a logical way to disprove God, then that means that no one really and truly can have the right to believe in God unless they are just plain choosing to be illogical idiots. Perhaps very smart idiots, but still idiots.

Here is the thing. I don't think you actually want to call everyone who believes in any religion and idiot. (well, not in public anyway .. and truthfully, not really even in private .. misguided, but not completely illogical idiots). So, yes, I keep harping on that old line.

If you cannot disprove it, it just might be true. God DOES fall into that realm.

Finally, the attempts at claiming God is "proven" to not exist do rely on assumptions and limitations that just don't apply to God. Ergo my comparison to disbelieving in creatures floating around in white sheets as opposed to a belief in "spirits". (no, I am not debating whether they exist, just saying that while a kindergartener can pretty well know the first is pretend, the second... is debateable even amongst adults).
And yes, while criticism is fine, to criticize something simply because you don't or don't want to understand ... is very illogical.

[PLAYER57832]

These are miracles, plain and simple and yes, they are to be taken literally because the whole point is that they were just that -- miracles.

Why is it that such grand miracles happened seemingly every day 2000 years ago, but today the only miracles we see are extremely vague and/or grilled cheese related?

There are differant answers.

one, I eluded to earlier is that many things that would be considered miracles in the past are explained today.

For example, the plague of frogs, even the death of the first born.... all can have logical scientific explanations.
(I cannot remember the exact details, but the frogs had to do with changes in the Nile River that happen, albiet rarely. The plague could have been due to gases, I think sulphuric acid? It happened in Cameroon a few years ago. Since first born sleep on beds (or it could have even been the reverse... that first born slept lower down), they were closer to the poisons and were killed, whereas the rest survived).

Another answer is simply that the days of miracles are past. They come in waves, in periods when God needs to prove something. He does not feel the need right now.


A third answer is that miracles DO occur now, but many people just dismiss them as "science" or "unexplained, but not a miracle".

There are probably other explanations of which I am not aware (or just not thinking about now).

Pick your choice. I actually believe a combination of the three.

[Neoteny]

Jim, can I ask which discussion you took issue with?

Anyhow, I've got a lot of respect for Dawkins for both his scientific work and atheist consciousness-raising. I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says (likely dashing my possibilities of ever writing a best-seller). So I'm going to out my biases right there. I would probably have retarded fish-frog, man-sex with Dawkins if given the opportunity.

But I can't help disagreeing with your aversion to Dawkins' confidence in the veracity of evolutionary theory. It's the same confidence that could be applied to any other accepted theory. As the too-commonly-used example goes, if a physicist carried the same tone with you about the theory of gravity, could the same dogmatic attribution be given to the physicist? I don't think so, because we know that the physicist, if anyone, is aware of the flaws and problem areas of the theory. I feel the only difference is that the theory of gravity doesn't clash with anyone's worldview. And I think you and I both know Dawkins' feels the same way as our hypothetical physicist.

And on that point, we get back to perceived respect. Dawkins isn't going out of his way to offend, but it is in the nature of his opposition to be offended by his statements. And I still see that as being the main issue here.

[PLAYER57832]

NO true scientist will claim that Evolution, or just about anything else is absolutely proveable.

Similarly, no true logician or scientist will claim that God can actually be logically refuted or scientifically disproven.

That said, no one has come up with a credible contradiction to Evolution.... and it becomes highly unlikely they will.

As for God ... that will probably remain in the area of belief/not proveable or disproveable.

Most scientists just reach their own personal conclusions on these issues .. and then go on to what they can prove/disprove. In the meantime, we all operate as if our beliefs are true... because WE think they are!

(that goes for me AND you!)

[Neoteny]

But Dawkins doesn't claim evolution is absolutely provable. He claims it has just failed to be disproved. It just has the bonus over god of having more easily (this is me being nice) observable effects.

[jiminski]

Jim, can I ask which discussion you took issue with?

Anyhow, I've got a lot of respect for Dawkins for both his scientific work and atheist consciousness-raising. I find myself agreeing with nearly everything he says (likely dashing my possibilities of ever writing a best-seller). So I'm going to out my biases right there. I would probably have retarded fish-frog, man-sex with Dawkins if given the opportunity.

But I can't help disagreeing with your aversion to Dawkins' confidence in the veracity of evolutionary theory. It's the same confidence that could be applied to any other accepted theory. As the too-commonly-used example goes, if a physicist carried the same tone with you about the theory of gravity, could the same dogmatic attribution be given to the physicist? I don't think so, because we know that the physicist, if anyone, is aware of the flaws and problem areas of the theory. I feel the only difference is that the theory of gravity doesn't clash with anyone's worldview. And I think you and I both know Dawkins' feels the same way as our hypothetical physicist.

And on that point, we get back to perceived respect. Dawkins isn't going out of his way to offend, but it is in the nature of his opposition to be offended by his statements. And I still see that as being the main issue here.

i am not debating against the veracity of the theory of evolution nor saying even that i do not believe in its truth to an almost unequivocal degree. I am saying that when one is categorising an antiquated philosophy as dogmatic; built on nothing more than ill-conceived mumbo-jumbo and spiritual comfort, (Mumbo-jumbo which has held the same historical merit as the counter.) then you should try to avoid, at all costs, exactly replacing your adversary.

If time teaches us anything, it is that no theory, no matter how 'provable', will stand the text of times brutal eye.

what will take the place of evolution? i concede it seems bloody unlikely that anything will! However, I am damn certain that its foundation will be rocked and some of its founding principles will evolve.


NB... i have looked for the particular interview/debate on youtube Neo .. i can not find it, not helpful that i can not remember the episode or name of the Creationist.

[PLAYER57832]

But Dawkins doesn't claim evolution is absolutely provable. He claims it has just failed to be disproved. It just has the bonus over god of having more easily (this is me being nice) observable effects.

But keep in mind that MOST people (Creationists are a growing minority even among Christians). Believe that both are likely true. Comparible only in that, as you say, Evolution is more close to being proven.

God likely never will be ... and never will be disproven, either I believe.

I guess that is all I am saying. I am happy to discuss atheism (almost anything, really), but anyone who tries to claim they can PROVE God does not exist will be shot down by anyone with religious ideas or conceptions (that is, you don' t have to believe in God to know it just cannot be proven there is not one).

By the SAME TOKEN, anyone who claims they can absolutely PROVE that God does exist ... will also be shot down, and again, by many who actually believe differantly. I firmly believe there is a God, but I won't say I can prove it ... and will shoot down anyone making that claim, except in specific contexts amongst believers.

ANYWAY .. to sum, Dawkins probably lapses into words that more or less sound like Evolution is fact, because it almost is (and some portions of the theory actually are fact). I do the same on occasion. Similarly, I might at times make it sound as if I think there is proof that God exists.... If this is the case for Dawkins, that he just firmly believes there is no God, and sometimes just goofs, does not think it necessary to put in the qualifier, but does understand it cannot be proven, then no problem. If he cannot admit that, then he is a fanatic, and like ANY fanatic, potentially dangerous.

The key is that we each know that these things are not really and truly fact ... THEN we can discuss things. (yep, I would love to sit down with Dawkins .. sounds like an interesting fella).

[The1exile]

But Dawkins doesn't claim evolution is absolutely provable. He claims it has just failed to be disproved. It just has the bonus over god of having more easily (this is me being nice) observable effects.

But keep in mind that MOST people (Creationists are a growing minority even among Christians). Believe that both are likely true. Comparible only in that, as you say, Evolution is more close to being proven.

I feel we're getting unnecessarily a lot deeper into a "you're either with us or against us" view held by the religious vs atheists on the battleground of evolution. I think neot is probably better off expressing his view as "if you're going to let yourself only be directed by logical thinking, evolution is a lot higher up on the ladder of logical thinking than deityhood" (and I think it was either him or Ditocoaf who once had a sig saying "it should never be necessary to believe something without implicit proof or explicit logic", or a similar sentiment?).

P.S. it's "comparable"

[Neoteny]

But Dawkins doesn't claim evolution is absolutely provable. He claims it has just failed to be disproved. It just has the bonus over god of having more easily (this is me being nice) observable effects.

But keep in mind that MOST people (Creationists are a growing minority even among Christians). Believe that both are likely true. Comparible only in that, as you say, Evolution is more close to being proven.

I feel we're getting unnecessarily a lot deeper into a "you're either with us or against us" view held by the religious vs atheists on the battleground of evolution. I think neot is probably better off expressing his view as "if you're going to let yourself only be directed by logical thinking, evolution is a lot higher up on the ladder of logical thinking than deityhood" (and I think it was either him or Ditocoaf who once had a sig saying "it should never be necessary to believe something without implicit proof or explicit logic", or a similar sentiment?).

P.S. it's "comparable"

Indeed. That was Dito, btw.

[The1exile]

Indeed. That was Dito, btw.

I have some strange affliction that makes me mentally pair people on this forum. You could probably do worse than Dito as your alter ego.

[Neoteny]

Indeed. That was Dito, btw.

I have some strange affliction that makes me mentally pair people on this forum. You could probably do worse than Dito as your alter ego.

It happens. Guiscard always used to do the same thing to me too...