Dawkins Demolished

[scottycelt]

Apparently, this is consistent with previous statements. To rule (a) God out would be to take "a faith position". Does anyone know where the debate can be viewed? Has anyone done so yet?

Atheism=Dogma

So apparently that has always been the position of Professor Dawkins ...

Some 'thickos' have been desperately trying to point out the essential dogmatism of atheism to some of our 'intellectual' friends for donkeys.

Ah well, let's welcome this Dawkins retreat to reality ... it's at least some significant progress on the road to proper and objective debate!

[amateur51]

Atheism=Dogma

So apparently that has always been the position of Professor Dawkins ...

Some 'thickos' have been desperately trying to point out the essential dogmatism of atheism to some of our 'intellectual' friends for donkeys.

Ah well, let's welcome this Dawkins retreat to reality ... it's at least some significant progress on the road to proper and objective debate!

Someone loosen his shoes - he's raving!

Why not try and construct an argument first scotty, and then someone might pay you a bit of attention?

[scottycelt]

Someone loosen his shoes - he's raving!

Why not try and construct an argument first scotty, and then someone might pay you a bit of attention?

Believe me, I'm not seeking any particular attention, Amsy, I'm much too shy for that ... and, in any case, I'm currently well-enough attended, thank you ....but, just like your goodself, I do like to post on this forum from time to time, and I'm really keen to discover what your actual position is regarding Prof Dawkins' comments.

Maybe you can start by informing us whether you agree with Professor Dawkins' rather belated realisation that atheism is "just another religion" ...?

If so, does that really mean you have agreed with my similar point all along without actually realising it yourself... ?

[Bryn]

If Dawkins thinks that atheism is a religion, he is just plain wrong:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

[John Skelton]

o apparently that has always been the position of Professor Dawkins ...

Some 'thickos' have been desperately trying to point out the essential dogmatism of atheism to some of our 'intellectual' friends for donkeys.

Ah well, let's welcome this Dawkins retreat to reality ... it's at least some significant progress on the road to proper and objective debate!

Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. He really does take himself seriously ("propel one to total conviction").

It seems to me nothing much of a problem, created by not being able to get away from the non-existence of God in some ... transcendental sense. Atheism doesn't = dogma: an atheist can happily point to all the areas where it's no longer necessary to posit a God to explain phenomena (or, indeed, to explain the existence of living creatures and how they have become what they are) because there are well-supported and coherent scientific explanations. And then leave it at that.

I think the problem is that whatever Dawkins says he really wants to prove to people definitively that God doesn't exist. Whereas it should be enough to show why God no longer needs to exist scientifically, and accept that outside that there's nothing really to be done argumentatively one way or the other. If people feel a godless universe is adequate scientifically but not adequate in other ways that's fine (or should be) and isn't something that can be scientifically proven or disproven. That's a reason why people fix on creation: the old creation myths can be shown to be - literally - wrong.

A much better case can be made assembling the evidence for a godless universe in terms of explaining phenomena; another argument should be made about obscurantism and oppression in and by religious institutions and society. The first doesn't imply the second, and Dawkins really wants to associate the two to campaign against religion (and has nothing to say about the political / social contexts in which scientific work is done, or about science which has destructive uses).

'Does God exist' might be an interesting question, but there isn't an answer to it in the way that there is an answer to a scientific question. Of course Dawkins knows that, but his positivism is so ingrained he acts as though there is. IMV.

[Lateralthinking1]

In theory, the science could be developed to a point of being watertight. At the same time, historians could provide unequivocal statistical evidence for the contribution religion has made to war, discrimination and suffering. People will continue to believe what they want to believe. In fact, such would be the defensive intransigence that religion would flourish. Facts would be ignored. The accusation would be obsession. The new truth wouldn't stand a chance of surviving in that climate. So those like Dawkins who think proof will be sufficient are deluded.

[scottycelt]

Of course it all depends on one's definition of 'religion/dogma' and 'faith'. We are back to that other sticking-point of 'existence' and 'non-existence' and the strict requirement of proof for the one but not the other.

I can appreciate the case that it is somewhat ridiculous to expect people to prove the 'non-existence' of anything ... quite ridiculous. However, the atheists' claim that there is definitely no God and then stating that there is 'no burden of proof' on such a dogmatic claim is equally as ridiculous. There is surely an obvious element of 'faith' required here as well.

Dawkins is absolutely correct if this is his current stance, imv, An agnostic is not convinced of any existence and has absolutely no faith, either way.

In contrast both religion and atheism make claims which are dogmatic, with a degree of faith attached, so the claim of certain 'non-existence' can be fairly described as 'just another religion' (in the wider sense).

I'm delighted to be able to agree with Dawkins on something, at long last ...

[John Skelton]

Of course it all depends on one's definition of 'religion/dogma' and 'faith'. We are back to that other sticking-point of 'existence' and 'non-existence' and the strict requirement of proof for the one but not the other.

I can appreciate the case that it is somewhat ridiculous to expect people to prove the 'non-existence' of anything ... quite ridiculous. However, the atheists' claim that there is definitely no God and then stating that there is 'no burden of proof' on such a dogmatic claim is equally as ridiculous. There is surely an obvious element of 'faith' required here as well.

Dawkins is absolutely correct if this is his current stance, imv, An agnostic is not convinced of any existence and has absolutely no faith, either way.

In contrast both religion and atheism make claims which are dogmatic, with a degree of faith attached, so the claim of certain 'non-existence' can be fairly described as 'just another religion' (in the wider sense).

I'm delighted to be able to agree with Dawkins on something, at long last ...

I don't think this is correct, or is only correct if people box themselves into a corner over certainty. It's quite possible for an atheist to be convinced that there is no God, on the basis that there are ample scientific explanations of phenomena which were once accounted for on the basis of God's agency and that there simply isn't anything left for God to have done / to be doing. The problem comes when you start talking about 'existence of'. An atheist needn't bother proving or disproving the existence of God because for an atheist there simply isn't any place for a God, explicatory or, presumably, emotional or psychological. That's not 'faith' - it's being convinced of something. I'm convinced scottycelt is a human being and not a computer programme - but I don't have 'faith' in that.

You are using the words atheist and agnostic against their usual meanings, surely? I'd say I was an agnostic, because unlike an atheist I'm not convinced there's no God. But that isn't an absence of faith in the non-existence of God: it's lack of certainty. Others may be agnostic because they think there may be a God but aren't sure. In terms of a religious discourse that's lack of faith: but really it's just part of a continuum of uncertainty.

My irritation with Dawkins has to do with his adoption of the language of Islamophobia and anti-Catholic rhetoric, his (for me uncritical) positivism, and his blurring of a critique of the idea of the existence of a God with a critique of the practices of religious organisations, societies and individuals. And his apparent unpreparedness to acknowledge critique of science institutionally or in the political / military world. In Dawkins et al science is 'abstract reason' though of practical benefit / religion is 'empty irrationality' though of practical harm. It's all too simple and one-sided.

[scottycelt]

I don't think this is correct, or is only correct if people box themselves into a corner over certainty. It's quite possible for an atheist to be convinced that there is no God, on the basis that there are ample scientific explanations of phenomena which were once accounted for on the basis of God's agency and that there simply isn't anything left for God to have done / to be doing. The problem comes when you start talking about 'existence of'. An atheist needn't bother proving or disproving the existence of God because for an atheist there simply isn't any place for a God, explicatory or, presumably, emotional or psychological. That's not 'faith' - it's being convinced of something. I'm convinced scottycelt is a human being and not a computer programme - but I don't have 'faith' in that.

You are using the words atheist and agnostic against their usual meanings, surely? I'd say I was an agnostic, because unlike an atheist I'm not convinced there's no God. But that isn't an absence of faith in the non-existence of God: it's lack of certainty. Others may be agnostic because they think there may be a God but aren't sure. In terms of a religious discourse that's lack of faith: but really it's just part of a continuum of uncertainty.

My irritation with Dawkins has to do with his adoption of the language of Islamophobia and anti-Catholic rhetoric, his (for me uncritical) positivism, and his blurring of a critique of the idea of the existence of a God with a critique of the practices of religious organisations, societies and individuals. And his apparent unpreparedness to acknowledge critique of science institutionally or in the political / military world. In Dawkins et al science is 'abstract reason' though of practical benefit / religion is 'empty irrationality' though of practical harm. It's all too simple and one-sided.

I certainly agree with quite a lot of your last paragraph, and I note your earlier point about atheism and agnosticism. As I say, any agreed 'labelling' must surely depend on definitions.

I suppose it is quite possible to say that one cannot see any scientific evidence for a God and therefore one does not believe there is a God and therefore one is an atheist.

On the other hand, to say there is no scientific evidence for a God and therefore there definitely isn't a God is a much bigger leap into certainty, Christianity has always conceded that faith is an essential element of belief in God, because 'proof beyond any doubt' is impossible to achieve. Proof beyond any doubt of non-existence is also impossible to achieve, We are dealing here with the Great Unknown, and there is still an awful lot unknown to science and religion alike. I therefore disagree with you when you say there is no 'faith' involved when an atheist claims there is definitely no God ... there is at least some astounding 'faith' in his/her own certainty, surely! However, you are right to highlight the word 'certainty' ... Dawkins previously has tended to give an impression of 'certainty', notwithstanding the rather unconvincing and almost legally enforced use of the word 'probably' on that sillier-than-silly bus.

Poor Dawkins did indeed box himself into a corner (he really only has himself to blame for that) and he now appears to have been forced to wriggle out of it!

So the Oxford debate has at least thrown up an apparent shift of position, and not exactly a minor one, imo ...

[amateur51]

I suppose it is quite possible to say that one cannot see any scientific evidence for a God and therefore one does not believe there is a God and therefore one is an atheist.

That's good of you scotty

Christianity has always conceded that faith is an essential element of belief in God, because 'proof beyond any doubt' is impossible to achieve.

Is there any proof/evidence that you can offer me about the existence of God, scotty?

[Serial_Apologist]

My irritation with Dawkins has to do with his [...] blurring of a critique of the idea of the existence of a God with a critique of the practices of religious organisations, societies and individuals.

There is a problem with criticising Dawkins from this pov though. I.e., doesn't God "automatically" come with all the characteristics of e.g. forgiveness, condemnation to eternal hell etc., attributed to his power and therefore a believer's faith? Indeed, God's limitless mercy is what completes the circle, if one believes in him and accepts all the conditions, which is what makes Christianity so ingenious - a kind of insurance policy on correct earthly living. One would have to go to other religious traditions such as Hindiusm to find an idea of godhead disassociated from moral consequences in the following. This did not form part of yesterday's debate - which maybe it should.

[John Skelton]

I suppose it is quite possible to say that one cannot see any scientific evidence for a God and therefore one does not believe there is a God and therefore one is an atheist.

There isn't any scientific evidence for a God and, of course, scientific evidence isn't the only evidence there is (again something Dawkins et al as positivists I think are uncomfortable with), so I think - oddly - that would be a weak basis on which to be an atheist. I think the argument would be redundancy; if there are all these well-supported scientific explanations about almost everything else where does God fit in? That would support S-A's point about the characteristics associated with a God being what matters: what I meant was that Dawkins uses practical criticism of religious institutions and theoretical criticism of the divine without seeming to respect an important distinction: the question of whether 'God exists' is surely distinct from 'is belief in God a good thing in terms of its effects'. I still think Dawkins can't resist the idea of scientifically proving that God doesn't exist. Though that makes no sense (and it's wrong to ask for it in defending the existence of God).

I don't think certainty implies faith, or only in a very loose sense. Faith is surely a theological concept. I'm certain the air isn't made up of the brilliant shadows of dancing angels. I don't need faith to be certain of it. I suppose that's how a true atheist feels about God. God just isn't there.

[Serial_Apologist]

I suppose it is quite possible to say that one cannot see any scientific evidence for a God and therefore one does not believe there is a God and therefore one is an atheist.

There isn't any scientific evidence for a God and, of course, scientific evidence isn't the only evidence there is (again something Dawkins et al as positivists I think are uncomfortable with), so I think - oddly - that would be a weak basis on which to be an atheist. I think the argument would be redundancy; if there are all these well-supported scientific explanations about almost everything else where does God fit in? That would support S-A's point about the characteristics associated with a God being what matters: what I meant was that Dawkins uses practical criticism of religious institutions and theoretical criticism of the divine without seeming to respect an important distinction: the question of whether 'God exists' is surely distinct from 'is belief in God a good thing in terms of its effects'. I still think Dawkins can't resist the idea of scientifically proving that God doesn't exist. Though that makes no sense (and it's wrong to ask for it in defending the existence of God).

I don't think certainty implies faith, or only in a very loose sense. Faith is surely a theological concept. I'm certain the air isn't made up of the brilliant shadows of dancing angels. I don't need faith to be certain of it. I suppose that's how a true atheist feels about God. God just isn't there.

One problem with the atheist tag is that one needs to be informed about God before being able to disbelieve in him/her/it - as Jonathan Miller put it, more-or-less, in defining himself as non-theist, rather than a-theist, iirc from his fine TV series The History of Disbelief.

However it still sits uncomfortably with me, being asked by scottycelt to know for certain that God doesn't exist before being privileged to be considered an atheist.

A. I know for absolute certainty there are fairies at the bottom of my garden
B. I know you are just saying this to put me into the position of having either to deny that there are, admit that I might be wrong in my certainty that there aren't, or say there could just be fairies at the bottom of your garden. Based on you positing the proposition and inviting me to prove or disprove it or admit there is a possibility, it's heads you win, tails I lose.

[John Skelton]

However it still sits uncomfortably with me, being asked by scottycelt to know for certain that God doesn't exist before being privileged to be considered an atheist.

I agree. I think that's a problem on both 'sides' of the argument: if you know God doesn't exist you know God doesn't exist, in the way you know all sorts of things. There's no proving the existence or non-existence of God, and the problem for me is the lurking idea that the thing can be scientifically determined. I'm not saying scientific method isn't important: just that it doesn't apply to everything (nor am I saying that such things float above science or belong to a 'higher' sphere, nor am I arguing for some kind of irrationalism. They are just different).

Edit: what science has done and is doing, though, is to provide explanations for things which previously 'needed' God to account for them. So God's ... physical necessity has pretty much disappeared.

[amateur51]

Edit: what science has done and is doing, though, is to provide explanations for things which previously 'needed' God to account for them. So God's ... physical necessity has pretty much disappeared.

While we knew relatively little about how the world 'works' then it was inevitable that God should be created and believed in, for explanation and for comfort. As science has gradually accounted for mystery after mystery, there is no longer a need for God to exist. I don't believe that God does not exist rather I believe that there is no need for God to exist and further that God is unlikely to exist.

Does that make me a slogan-writer for the sides of buses?