I’ve noticed a brigade of commentators attacking Richard Dawkins lately and have been impressed by the depth of argument and amount of painstaking research they have used in deconstructing his personality. The upshot of this flurry of religious debate seems to be that Dawkins is somewhat rude and generally unpleasant.
Although I’m an atheist it saddens me to see such a low intellectual level of discussion. As a philosophy student I very much enjoyed debate about the existence of God and it is depressing to witness people droning out the tired mantra that atheism is a faith based position and that, hey, there is no actual evidence that God doesn’t exist either! Dawkins has covered these arguments, as have many before him. They are tired, weak, and uninteresting. They are the equivalent of atheists trotting out the fairly feeble problem-of-evil argument, which, to his credit, Dawkins has not done as far as I’m aware.
To be honest I haven’t actually read The God Delusion and while that doesn’t appear to be any stumbling block to criticising Dawkins’ personality effectively - and seeing it appear in major publications - here are some handy pointers to rebutting some of the actual arguments which I encountered watching The Root Of All Evil and reading The Blind Watchmaker.
The existence of God is a scientific proposition.
I don’t see how this is the case. Even if one were to construct a scientific test for determining the existence of God, He, being all powerful could alter the evidence or the mind of the experimenter if He chose to. Why would He wish to do so? To stay in the background, so that we may come to Him freely. The concept of free-will is quite important to theologians and philosophers so it’s a handy concept to bring up whenever you’re losing an argument with an atheist like Dawkins.
There is no evidence for the existence of God.
As we’ve seen if God wanted us to come to Him freely He would not want to give incontrovertible proof of His existence. There is some evidence that the Universe has been “fine-tuned” for life to evolve. Dawkins dismisses this evidence with appeal to the idea of parallel universes. However, until a scientific test for parallel universes is devised (which may not be far off) they are as much a faith based belief as God. In relation to fine-tuning a stronger counter position than Dawkins’ is put forward here.
Note that pointing out there is no evidence that God does not exist is not in itself particularly interesting. Dawkins will merely point out that there is no evidence that a flying teapot isn’t spinning round the sun. You could however build on this line of argumentation by pointing out that a flying teapot doesn’t actually explain any phenomena whereas God does, namely the existence of the Universe. However Dawkins will probably go on to the following.
The Complexity of life and the Universe can be entirely explained by simple scientific laws.
See fine-tuning answer above. Read up on the mind-body problem.
An intelligent creator of sufficient complexity to create the Universe would also require an intelligent creator of sufficient complexity to create the creator who would also require an intelligent creator and so on.
Not necessarily. Dawkins is assuming that materialism is correct or that mind arises from material processes. Again read up on the mind-body problem.
Indoctrinating children and defining them by religious beliefs of their parents is wrong .
Dawkins of course contradicts himself here. If indoctrinating children with religion is effective then surely they can be defined by that religion. If indoctrination isn’t effective what can he complain about?
We Should Rename Atheists As ‘Brights’
Note that Dawkins is most likely being facetious here therefore a witty rather than well reasoned response is required to prevent you seeming like the boring stiff you most probably are.
I hope these points are of use when arguing with atheists like Dawkins, helping to prevent you coming across as the irrational, "faithhead" he accuses you of being. Then when you attack him for being rude and arrogant you will actually have a point.
2 comments:
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand you point (or how Dawkins is contradicting himself) on the "indoctrinating children" one. Dawkins says it is wrong because children are far too young, impressionable, and ignorant about the world to have a religion forced on them. They just don't know enough to make an informed decision but they will believe whatever you tell them. That's what's wrong about it. He's not saying its wrong because its effective (or ineffective).
Reply to the publisher of this webpage. That's right - if you can't come up with the evidence to prove your superstitions then attack the one who uncovers the truth. Wake up witch-hunting medievalist, you've been taken for a ride. It's all nonsense and stems from ignorance of parochial religious cults of the middle ages. These days the myth is perpetuated by the churches so they can continue to take your money. Open your minds and shake off the spell they've got you under. We don't have to believe something just because our parents or others believe it. It's time we grew up and threw away the crutch and got on with life without the threat of religion. Remember the Jonestown masacre? That's just one example of mass brainwashing that occurs with religion. Wake up and smell the roses. We don't need superstition or the threat of the 'devil' to be good to each other. We are loving beings without religion. In fact look at what religion has caused over the centuries. Are those atrocities caused by good, loving people? Get out and away from the mesmerised spellbound masses.
Post a Comment