Tsuyoiko
Jul 22, 2009, 23:38
I've started this thread as I wanted to contribute to the debate about Richard Dawkins without further derailing the Proof we went to the moon? (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42789) thread
Really ? Ever watch him get nailed by his own straw man arguments to the point of anger, back tracking and hurridly changing the subject ? Definately worth a listen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1378535008901640650&q=dawkins
I've watched this video, and I agree that it was definitely worth a listen. However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he was "nailed". I don't think he hurriedly changed the subject, and though he did backtrack, I think he did so in an attempt to bring the discussion back to what it was supposed to be about, i.e., whether it's fair to characterise belief in god as a delusion.
If I may offer a detailed critique of the interview, I think that would be a good starting point both for examining Dawkins' performance in this debate, and for examining his claims in general. I have tried to be balanced. I think Dawkins makes three serious errors in his reasoning, but I think Quinn's arguments are almost entirely devoid of reason.
To start with, I think the analogy Dawkins picks out, that of an imaginary friend, is quite fair. In both cases, an individual is claiming a personal relationship with an entity whose existence they can't demonstrate to a third party. Note that he is quite cagey in this claim; he says only that he "suspects" that something similar is going on in both cases. I don't see how there is a straw man involved here at all, since theists really do claim to believe in a god that listens to and answers their prayers, and I think it's fair to characterise that as a personal relationship. He is quite clear that he only applies the term "delusion" to those who believe in a personal god.
When asked whether he thinks that those who believe in god are "a bit dim", Dawkins offers a plausible explanation and an example to demonstrate how intelligent, educated people can believe in god. Quinn's only comeback is to offer a different example, which proves nothing either way.
Dawkins states that the criteria he is looking for is evidence. A more detailed explanation of what he means by "evidence" might have been helpful.
Quinn starts his argument ad hominen ("Richard Dawkins has done what he usually does"), accusing Dawkins of setting up straw men, but then goes on to commit another blatant logical fallacy. He claims to show that belief in god is not the same as belief in fairies because children stop believing in fairies but they don't stop believing in god. That's textbook begging the question. He makes a rather feeble attempt to back up his denial of the similarity by stating that "belief in god is a much more rational proposition", without offering any argument as to why it is more rational.
Quinn then goes on to make the sweeping claim that the origin of matter cannot be explained by science, but only by philosophers and theologians. Science hasn't yet explained the origin of matter, but that's not the same thing as saying that science can't explain it. As Dawkins points out, it's something scientists are working on, and given the history of science, there's good reason to be tentatively confident that they will make progress. Quinn offers no reason to support his claim that philosophers and theologians are better placed to answer the question.
When pressed to offer evidence for the claim that belief in god is not a delusion, Quinn simply states the existence of matter and the existence of morality, without any clear explanation as to why these should be considered evidence. It's not at all clear to me why the existence of matter is evidence for the claim that it's perfectly rational to believe in a being that listens to your prayers. :souka:
Quinn's next two statements are blindingly obvious straw men. He says that an atheist can't believe in free will. Well, I'm an atheist, and I believe in free will, QED. He also claims that an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes. As Dawkins quickly points out, atheists "believe" that we are also influenced by our environment. Quinn appears to be confused about the distinction between genes, environment and matter. His manner becomes somewhat aggressive at this point; his volume increases and he repeats himself. He asks Dawkins to explain how we are independent of our genes, but then shouts him down and demands that he instead explains where free will comes from.
I think Dawkins makes his first serious error at this point. Although he is correct that the question of free will has no bearing on the question of the existence of god, I think he would have done to better to have addressed the point, simply because by avoiding it he creates the impression that he is ignorant regarding free will.
As expected, the dreaded ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) raises its grizzled head at this point, as Quinn defines god into existence by evoking the "uncaused cause". It's astounding to see people still using an argument that has been repeatedly trounced for at least a thousand years.
Dawkins makes his next serious mistake at this point in his definition of Fundamentalism. He is wrong that fundamentalism has to do with belief in a holy book. Quinn's definition is closer. Fundamentalism is strict adherence to a set of beliefs, often to the point of intolerance. However, even on this definition, I think it's unfair to call Dawkins a fundamentalist. Sure, he could be accused of intolerance towards religion, but he's not a strict adherent to any belief. He states quite clearly that he is willing to change his beliefs in the light of evidence to the contrary.
Dawkins' final serious error follows, when he defines faith as "belief without evidence". I think it might be fair to call this a straw man. Although he gives a definition of faith, it is not what theists claim to mean by faith. I admit that I find their use of the word confusing, but simply to dismiss it like this is similar to what creationists do when they say "evolution is just a theory"; it's an argument based on a misunderstanding of a technical term. However, Quinn also makes a mistake when he accuses Dawkins of having faith that god does not exist. Dawkins atheism is the very opposite of faith; it is a position based on the examination of evidence.
I don't want to get this far off track, but Dawkins' arguments are actually ridiculously easy to refute for anyone with a moderate versing in theology or religious philosophy. Half the time he either avoids his own theory or doesn't even seem aware of their more sophisticated versions. The man is shrill, obnoxious and ill-informed on every level.
I would be interested to see these refutations, because there certainly aren't any in the debate you posted. Although Dawkins did make a few errors, they didn't have any bearing on his central argument, i.e., that belief in a personal god is a delusion akin to belief in an imaginary friend. I don't think his personal manner has much bearing on his ability to offer a sound argument, but I have to disagree with your characterisation. I think he showed a great deal of self-control in the face of someone who was shouting him down with extremely ill-conceived arguments. And I think it's a gross exaggeration to say he's "ill-informed on every level". He is certainty ill-informed on some subtle theological points, but I think he's generally well-informed about the kinds of religious beliefs people hold, and he's clearly read the Bible.
So, what are people's opinions of Dawkins' claims, based on this debate or on anything else you have seen or read about him? It would be good to see some links to other videos or articles too :cool:
Really ? Ever watch him get nailed by his own straw man arguments to the point of anger, back tracking and hurridly changing the subject ? Definately worth a listen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1378535008901640650&q=dawkins
I've watched this video, and I agree that it was definitely worth a listen. However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he was "nailed". I don't think he hurriedly changed the subject, and though he did backtrack, I think he did so in an attempt to bring the discussion back to what it was supposed to be about, i.e., whether it's fair to characterise belief in god as a delusion.
If I may offer a detailed critique of the interview, I think that would be a good starting point both for examining Dawkins' performance in this debate, and for examining his claims in general. I have tried to be balanced. I think Dawkins makes three serious errors in his reasoning, but I think Quinn's arguments are almost entirely devoid of reason.
To start with, I think the analogy Dawkins picks out, that of an imaginary friend, is quite fair. In both cases, an individual is claiming a personal relationship with an entity whose existence they can't demonstrate to a third party. Note that he is quite cagey in this claim; he says only that he "suspects" that something similar is going on in both cases. I don't see how there is a straw man involved here at all, since theists really do claim to believe in a god that listens to and answers their prayers, and I think it's fair to characterise that as a personal relationship. He is quite clear that he only applies the term "delusion" to those who believe in a personal god.
When asked whether he thinks that those who believe in god are "a bit dim", Dawkins offers a plausible explanation and an example to demonstrate how intelligent, educated people can believe in god. Quinn's only comeback is to offer a different example, which proves nothing either way.
Dawkins states that the criteria he is looking for is evidence. A more detailed explanation of what he means by "evidence" might have been helpful.
Quinn starts his argument ad hominen ("Richard Dawkins has done what he usually does"), accusing Dawkins of setting up straw men, but then goes on to commit another blatant logical fallacy. He claims to show that belief in god is not the same as belief in fairies because children stop believing in fairies but they don't stop believing in god. That's textbook begging the question. He makes a rather feeble attempt to back up his denial of the similarity by stating that "belief in god is a much more rational proposition", without offering any argument as to why it is more rational.
Quinn then goes on to make the sweeping claim that the origin of matter cannot be explained by science, but only by philosophers and theologians. Science hasn't yet explained the origin of matter, but that's not the same thing as saying that science can't explain it. As Dawkins points out, it's something scientists are working on, and given the history of science, there's good reason to be tentatively confident that they will make progress. Quinn offers no reason to support his claim that philosophers and theologians are better placed to answer the question.
When pressed to offer evidence for the claim that belief in god is not a delusion, Quinn simply states the existence of matter and the existence of morality, without any clear explanation as to why these should be considered evidence. It's not at all clear to me why the existence of matter is evidence for the claim that it's perfectly rational to believe in a being that listens to your prayers. :souka:
Quinn's next two statements are blindingly obvious straw men. He says that an atheist can't believe in free will. Well, I'm an atheist, and I believe in free will, QED. He also claims that an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes. As Dawkins quickly points out, atheists "believe" that we are also influenced by our environment. Quinn appears to be confused about the distinction between genes, environment and matter. His manner becomes somewhat aggressive at this point; his volume increases and he repeats himself. He asks Dawkins to explain how we are independent of our genes, but then shouts him down and demands that he instead explains where free will comes from.
I think Dawkins makes his first serious error at this point. Although he is correct that the question of free will has no bearing on the question of the existence of god, I think he would have done to better to have addressed the point, simply because by avoiding it he creates the impression that he is ignorant regarding free will.
As expected, the dreaded ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) raises its grizzled head at this point, as Quinn defines god into existence by evoking the "uncaused cause". It's astounding to see people still using an argument that has been repeatedly trounced for at least a thousand years.
Dawkins makes his next serious mistake at this point in his definition of Fundamentalism. He is wrong that fundamentalism has to do with belief in a holy book. Quinn's definition is closer. Fundamentalism is strict adherence to a set of beliefs, often to the point of intolerance. However, even on this definition, I think it's unfair to call Dawkins a fundamentalist. Sure, he could be accused of intolerance towards religion, but he's not a strict adherent to any belief. He states quite clearly that he is willing to change his beliefs in the light of evidence to the contrary.
Dawkins' final serious error follows, when he defines faith as "belief without evidence". I think it might be fair to call this a straw man. Although he gives a definition of faith, it is not what theists claim to mean by faith. I admit that I find their use of the word confusing, but simply to dismiss it like this is similar to what creationists do when they say "evolution is just a theory"; it's an argument based on a misunderstanding of a technical term. However, Quinn also makes a mistake when he accuses Dawkins of having faith that god does not exist. Dawkins atheism is the very opposite of faith; it is a position based on the examination of evidence.
I don't want to get this far off track, but Dawkins' arguments are actually ridiculously easy to refute for anyone with a moderate versing in theology or religious philosophy. Half the time he either avoids his own theory or doesn't even seem aware of their more sophisticated versions. The man is shrill, obnoxious and ill-informed on every level.
I would be interested to see these refutations, because there certainly aren't any in the debate you posted. Although Dawkins did make a few errors, they didn't have any bearing on his central argument, i.e., that belief in a personal god is a delusion akin to belief in an imaginary friend. I don't think his personal manner has much bearing on his ability to offer a sound argument, but I have to disagree with your characterisation. I think he showed a great deal of self-control in the face of someone who was shouting him down with extremely ill-conceived arguments. And I think it's a gross exaggeration to say he's "ill-informed on every level". He is certainty ill-informed on some subtle theological points, but I think he's generally well-informed about the kinds of religious beliefs people hold, and he's clearly read the Bible.
So, what are people's opinions of Dawkins' claims, based on this debate or on anything else you have seen or read about him? It would be good to see some links to other videos or articles too :cool: