So there is no point to religion for an athiest? How about religious art? Up until the beginning of the 19th century, almost all art was religious in purpose. Is none of it beautiful and pleasing to your eye? (That it doesn’t outweigh things you find bad about religion is a separate point.)
Highlighting mine
Welcome to the SDMB!
It’s like reading about a brilliant researcher going into bioweapon research, using human subjects. However good the work, it’s done in the cause of evil. Religion as far as I’m concerned is the single greatest evil that has ever existed; any resource or effort put into it is at best wasted in my eyes.
Just two? Hell, see how many Christians eat their own if you are using that as a barometer.
Perhaps there is something from Ruse that would show he was aghast at Dawkin’s attempts of philosophy, but I wasn’t able to access the link to the 2007 Isis issue. Were you?
Is H. Allen Orr an atheist? I only read parts from him, but he never seems to use any religious label to describe himself. Where has he described himself as an atheist?
Indeed, just like the time where you and I both summed up the same text exactly the same, and yet somehow I was misrepresenting it.
So let’s see your summation of the first three items down to whatever minimum possible, and then let’s see if your versions are appreciably different from Dawkin’s. And in order to tell whether there is an appreciable difference, how about we take a vote? We give everyone Aquinas’ original versions, yours, and Dawkins’ and we’ll have people rank the two summations on a scale from 1 to 10, and answer a basic binary yes or no as to whether or not your and Dawkins’ summations say different things. We can also ask people to state their own religious stance to see if there’s any link between that and their answers.
No need for GD, just a basic IMHO opinion poll. Only problem is that you might lose when you put something up for a factual answer, like whether Einstein believed in the Christian God or what-have-you. Much safer to sit in GD and get the hyenas snapping amusingly below.
In that case, one should not appeal to Richard Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else.
Besides which, your statement is simply incorrect. Appealing to authority is something that all scholars do. If you want an authoritative statement on gun ballistics, you appeal to an authority on that matter, unless you are personally an authority yourself. Authorities on a subject are by no means infallible, but this does not make their use “always lame.”
There is no “unspoken subject” here. Both Ruse and Orr made it perfectly clear that they were objecting to the logic used by Dawkins and his amateurish attempt at philosophy. That’s precisely why Ruse said that Dawkins’ book made him “embarassed to be an atheist.”
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that both Ruse and Orr are in error. Heck, let’s assume that they’re complete idiots. The point remains that one does not have to be a theist to disagree with the logic used by Dawkins. That’s why it’s foolish to equate “nitpicking Dawkins” with “trying to prove God.” That’s a strawman attack, plain and simple.
I cited Ruse and Orr as EXAMPLES of atheists who recognized that Dawkins used fallacious reasoning. I did not say that this constituted an exhaustive list. In fact, the Wikipedia entry on this book illustrates how the scholarly community does not appear to have embraced this book warmly.
But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Michael Ruse and H. Allen Orr are the only atheists in existence who take issue with the reasoning that Dawkins used. How does this refute my claim – namely, that one can agree with Dawkins’ view on God’s existence while simultaneously being appalled at the reasoning that he employed? Quite obviously, it does not. So you can take all the cheap shots at Christianity that you want, but this does nothing to refute my statement.
Yes. In fact, I downloaded his article from the Isis site, and I invite you to do the same. I also suggest that you look at the other link that I provided.
Again, please check the link that I provided
for H. Allen Orr. He emphasizes that he agrees with Dawkins regarding God, but disagrees with the abysmal logic that Dawkins used
I don’t know why the OP thinks that attacking Dawkins will prove God exists, but I don’t see anything inaccurate about Dawkins’ paraphrasing of Aquinas’ Quinque Viae. Let’s take a look at Aquinas’ increasingly sophist and, indeed, quite vaccuous “proofs,” shall we?
Proof I:
Just as Dawkins says, this is unmoved mover bullshit. Aquinas asserts that the universe requires a Prime Motor, then blithely announces this mover to be “God.” I think one of the main things which should be noted is that Aquinas was relying on Aristotelian physics, and so had no idea that his assertion that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” would be proven false by Newton (see Newton’s First Law of Motion), so his premise is based on an ignorant assumption from the start. He also tries to declare by fiat that the the chain of motion can’t go back infinitely, and defends that with the laughably tautological argument that if it goes back forever, there can be no First Mover. His case for a First Mover is thus, utterly senseless, and his conclusion that the Firts Mover is “God,” even more so. The OP complains that Dawkins correctly points out that even if Aquinas’s proof held water (which it doesn’t), there would still be no reason to attribute any conventional “Godlike” properties to it. The OP says that Aquinas wasn’t assigning properties, only proving “existence,” but that’s the sheerest sophistry since there’s no reason to call it “God” (as Aquinas does) UNLESS it has those properties. God IS those properties. Without them, it’s not God, and so no existence is demonstrated.
Proof II:
This is exactly as Dawkins characterizes it, and is virtually identical to the first proof. Aquinas asserts a chain of cause and effect, which he agin tries to declare by fiat cannot be infinite, and then just as blithely says the First Cause must be “God.” As with the first proof, complaining that he is assigning no properties to God is fatuous, since there is no other reason to use the word, and since quinas himself makes no effort to qualify his use of the word.
Proof III:
Same thing again. First Cause argued through an imagined chain of “causes of existence.” Same false assumptions. Same bogus conclusion.
The OP also complains because Dawkins quite correctly points out that even if a terminus was necessary for any of these chains (and it isn’t), that “God” is not a solution but merely a regression. The OP tries to argue that this isn’t so, that the “God” terminus is conveniently define as not requiring a cause, but all that declaration does is invalidate the premise that everything needs a cause. If God doesn’t need a cause, then it’s not true that “everything requires a cause.” If it’s not true that everything requires a cause, the universe doesn’t need a cause.
I’ll also reiterate that Dawkins is still absolutely correct in pointing out that even if an uncaused cause is accepted for the sake of argument, it still does not follow that the cause has any of the properties conventionally assigned to “God.”
ITR claims that Aquinas makes the case for properties elsewhere in the Summa, but this is not true. Aquinas does try to make the case for God having properties, but he does not connect any dots from uncaused cause. He just inserts “God” as the Cause (with no support at all), then argues properties for God based on other reasons that do not flow out of First Cause and are not necessitated by the existence of a First Mover.
Proof IV:
This is such obvious logical hash, that it hardly needs refutation. Aquinas says that for every graduated quality, there has to be something with the maximum of that quality. and that this maximum causes all the sub-maximum qualities (i.e there has to be a “hottest” thing to cause all the other hot things). Aquinas claims that “good” qualities like “truth,” “nobility,” perfection," and…well…“goodness,” all have to be caused by something that is maximally “true,” noble," “perfect,” and “good,” and that this maximum good is “God.”
Do I really have to explain all the problems with this?
Proof V:
This one should be pretty familiar. It’s pure ID. Obviously, his assertion that the universe shows evidence of “design” is unsupported. His proof therefore fails in its first premise and requires no further refutation.
Him is, is him? Suppose instead of God, he chose to call his Prime Mover “Dave”? Would “Dave” still be a member of the trinity?
Yes you will, Of course you will. The whole point is that Dawkins was nitpicking Thomas Aquinas to prove God does not exist. Do you really think he would hesitate to attack the Pope?
No true Scotsman. And I suppose that Dawkins isn’t particularly intellectually honest.
You wouldn’t catch an intellectually honest theist doing the former, if if comes to that.
I thought your problem with Dawkins was that he was a bad philosopher, not that he was a bad evolutionist. Not that he can’t be both, of course, but this isn’t really something i’ve heard before.
This is not true. Dawkins was not trying (and never has tried) to prove that God does not exist. He was showing why Aquinas’ 5 proofs do not work to prove that God DOES exist. And he wasn’t doing it in a nitpicky way, but pretty much showing the same flaws with Aquinas that everbody else always shows. He did not try to suggest that refuting Aquinas was a negative proof, only that Aquinas hadn’t proven anything in the affirmative.
Havings aid that, it is true that many atheists make the same mistakes that ITR makes in trying to win EOG debates by launching ad hominem attacks on adherents of the other side, and it’s fallacious when either side does it.
Dawkins is not one of the people who typically does that, though he does skirt a little close in some of his broadsides against organized religion as a whole.
The problem for the Church is that neither Thomas Aquinas, nor anybody else in history, has ever been able to overcome these two insurmountable objections to the God hypothesis (and they should be properly understood as objections to a hypothesis, not as “arguments for atheism.” Atheism is the logical default, not something that has to be argued FOR). It’s easy to say that Aquinas understood the obejections, what you’re leaving out is that he was utterly stymied by them and was never able to defeat them. Neither has anyone else.
I also think you’re overrating Aquinas’ intellect. He doesn’t seem that smart to me. I’ve never read anything from Aquinas that I can’t take apart with relative ease. He strikes me as little more than a sophist and a blowhard.
So, I must off hand confess that I probably haven’t delved too deep into the topic, but I’ve read a few criticisms of Dawkins, and read some variation on the above statement quite a few times in them; however, so far, I seem to have failed to notice any great substantiation of it. By that, I mean that once I got through an initial hoopla of just how much the reviewer disagrees, if not with Dawkins conclusions, with his methods, his logic and philosophizing, how he should have stuck with what he’s good at etc., after all those fireworks, when I got to the actual criticism, I was always surprised at how rather light it seemed in comparison with the initial fervour of the reviewer’s embarrassed disassociation from every word Dawkins has written. Not that there weren’t valid criticisms, but well, nobody’s ever written a perfect book, however, I found a lot of it to be nitpicking and methodological quibbling of not particularly salient points – the review linked in this thread by H. Allen Orr is a good example of what I’m talking about, since after much fluffing up and parading about of his rejection of Dawkinsian logic, what he seems to criticize most is how Dawkins ‘never squarely faces [his] opponents’, i.e. fails to examine serious theological thought. However, what Orr chooses not to tell me is how serious theological thought would, even if only in his opinion, impinge on Dawkins’ points – I can’t see how Augustine’s rejection of biblical literalism has any importance to the question of whether or not there is a god, for instance. Indeed, it seems a bit that Orr dismisses Dawkins’ claim that the emperor is, in fact, naked, by pointing out that he never even once considered the question of whether or not he might be wearing a jacket or a chemise.
Anyway, I’m engaging in rather more Dawkins apologetics than I’m comfortable with, and there are some good points of criticism later on in the text, particularly concerning the ‘root of all evil’-meme, but this kind of top-heaviness – lots of scrambling disassociation, little in the way of critical discussion – seems a frustratingly common feature in reviews of Dawkins’ arguments, so I guess I just would like to see one that doesn’t do that – that actually presents a reasoned discussion of Dawkins’ points, and points out the apparently ubiquitous logical and philosophical flaws with it, that outright states why, for example, the epistemological differences between Duns Scotus and Aquinas have any bearing on the issue, rather than just making vague allusions.
Especially given that in the same passage, he misrepresented himself for rhetorical effect.
We’re really expected to believe that in a book called “The God Delusion”, he is reticent to criticize somebody because he is eminent among theists? :rolleyes:
I definitely don’t see any relevance to Aquinas’s arguments. Even if they were viable, they only suffice to demonstrate the existence of a “God” that conceptually falls far short of a personal Christian God with all the trappings thereof. But Dawkins is nothing more than pop atheism, and does the cause more harm than good with his rhetoric.
How does he do the cause more harm than good?
There’s more atheists now than ever, and “pop atheism”, along with better levels of education, goes a long way to explaining that trend. Who really has the intellectual training to get involved with the philosophical nitty-gritty of debates over epistemology, meta-physics, etc.? Who amongst those that are so trained are really being swayed by Dawkins, anyway?
True, Dawkins may not be philosophical rigorous, but neither are his arguments vacuous, and his rhetoric is precisely what is needed to appeal to a wide audience.
Okay, so here’s a standard complaint about Dawkins. IMO the centerpiece of Dawkins’ work is the ultimate 747 argument, which (in a nutshell) is this: if you think something complex like the universe requires a designer, then surely God needs a designer, too. The standard theological rebuttal to this would be that God is simple, not complex. Now the idea that God is simple runs into serious difficulties, I believe. But Dawkins never engages this view or even shows that he is *aware *of it.
And don’t get me started on E.O. Wilson’s “refutation” of the naturalistic fallacy.
You’re missing the point. The claim was made that appealing to authority “is always lame.” If one truly believes that (which I don’t), then one should have serious problems with citing Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else.
Again, I am NOT arguing against his views on evolution, though I do think that some of his views are pretty ridiculous (memes, anyone?). Rather, I am pointing out that it’s foolish to say that one should never appeal to authority. Educated people do it all the time, and rightfully so.
It’s not a view that needs to be addressed. It’s logically fallacious on its face.
Ignorance is ignorance. I’m sure that some people are delighted by the rise in atheism – giddy, in fact. If this rise can be attributed to the kind of sloppy thinking and “pop atheism” that Dawkins promotes though, is that truly something to be proud of?
Skeptics often ridicule theists as being ignorant and using sloppy argumentation. Whether such criticisms are deserved or not, how can one persist in such criticisms and yet condone the kind of musings that Dawkins promotes – musings that make professional philosophers positively cringe?