Oh, Dawkins can be insulting, I was just saying the teapot isn’t an example of it.
While Dawkins can seem dyspeptic, though, it’s probably worth noting that h’s gottenthis way after years and years of trying to debate and have dialogues with creationists.
I would also point at that religionists constantly insult and villify atheists while seldom getting called on it.
I find these comments to be pretty breathtaking. There has been a serious debate over theism vs. atheism going on for several centuries at least, and to say that you have nothing to learn from these arguments at all and they are not even worth looking at before jumping into the fray is quite wrong-headed.
People who think this way make all kinds of rookie errors. To take E.O. Wilson as another example, in talking about free will, he just assumes that determinism entails the falsity of free will and that free will, if it exists, will have to come from some indeterministic feature of human behavior. Now this may seem “obvious” to many, and many probably don’t see the point of looking at a bunch of philosophers who say otherwise. But in fact Wilson’s view is utterly confused, wrong and ignorant; and he would have known better had he even taken a freshman philosophy class. It pays to educate yourself before arguing.
EOG, per se, is a scientific debate, not a philosphical or theological one.
And never had an answer for.
Who says I know nothing of the debates between theists and atheists (actually, not theism, I specifically mentioned the Bible, and I’m talking about the Abrahimic God)? I’m perfectly aware that there’s been all sorts of debates back-and-forth over the centuries. That doesn’t imply anything about the relative worth of the two causes: the debate between “creationists” and the mentally developed still rages, even today.
This depends on what, exactly, is meant by “existence”. If we mean “presence as a physical object within the natural universe”, I agree the matter is purely scientific (and while it’s difficult to prove a negative, I agree there is no clear scientific evidence in favor of this type of existence).
This, I think, is where most atheists consider the question settled. But philosophers have debated the exact meaning of “existence” since Aristotle’s Metaphysics, so I think we have to bring some philosophy into the question. There are clearly non-material things (categories, numbers, rules of logic, physical laws) whose existence we recognize; could god’s existence be anything like these? Truly I have no idea, but I’ll bet more than a few high-powered philosophical minds have weighed in on the issue.
I agree the specifics of a theology are irrelevant to the basic question of existence, but they do bear on what exactly “god” means. For example, if I define “god” as merely an idea shared by a large group of people–one that causes them to act in ways we could broadly agree are “religious”–then “god” certainly exists even though he/it is not a physical entity in the universe. Most theists would obviously reject the argument because it doesn’t conform to basic theological notions of what “god” means. But I think most atheists would have to reject it for the exact same reason: I’m using an incorrect definition of “god”, and you need some theological thinking to make that judgment.
Is the Deist god–one who doen’t affect the universe after creation–a sufficient definition of “god” for the EOG argument? Can “god” be identified with the specific natural laws of the universe itself? Does “god” necessarily have to be omniscient and omnipotent? I think one must deal with these philosophical/theological questions in asserting any competent pro/con EOG argument.
Free will positions:
determinism: our actions are determined, not free
compatibilism: free will is not opposed to determinism, but this requires redifining “free”
libertarianism: some component of humans is not deterministic, either because of a supernatural component, or because the universe itself is not deterministic and we can naturally take advantage of this (I guess this latter might be “Penrosian” free will 
)
In any case, Wilson is totally correct, assuming the normal (non-compatibilist) use of the word “free,” which IMO is a fairly reasonable assumption, and the redefinition argument has been leveled at compatibilism for some time.
As far as the argument that I hear people making that you should have a deep knowledge of theology before saying religion is wrong; that’s exactly like saying that you need a deep knowledge of such questions as “do Balrogs have wings” before claiming The Lord of the Rings to be fiction.
It’s called “pointing out the elephant in the living room”.
And it’s rather the point; the whole reason he’s bothering to write and speak on the matter is BECAUSE of the evil’s it’s caused, and is causing.
Even assuming your assessment of Dawkins and “pop atheism” ( and since when has it been popular ? ) is correct, yes. Given how destructive and utterly stupid religion is, “sloppy thinking” is a huge step up. It’s far better than baseless, incoherent, delusional raving, which is all religion is.
Yeah, right. Because pandering to the believers and pretending their ideas have merit is SOOOO effective at convincing them they are wrong. :rolleyes:
As pointed out, it’s not his idea originally, and it’s an accurate comparison. Believers find it insulting because ANY honest, realistic discussion of beliefs as foolish and deeply held as theirs is going to be insulting. They don’t accept any position besides them being right as anything other than a threat and insult.
Nothing he says will change that. Nothing is going to convince people who consider unbelief the ultimate evil to look at atheists as anything but monsters.
And as pointed out, the believers constantly insult atheists; so if they don’t like their own medicine, too bad.
It’s been going on for centuries because one side is composed of deluded fools who have no interest in reality. Not because the sides are equally matched. One side, the believers, has no facts, is illogical and can’t even agree on what delusion it wants to embrace, the other side all the facts, makes logical sense and perceives the same real world.
I don’t understand why one sides gets away with bringing fiery bushes, water/wine magic tricks and water walking and the other side is expected to bone up on carbon dating and genetic sequencing.
You don’t have to have a degree in anything to call a blue six-armed goddess ridiculous.
Yeah, I’d really like to know what philosophy and theology I’m missing here. For one thing, what the hell is theology but the study of fairy tales?
So, I guess just philosophy then. What is the deep, complicated philosophy concept that suddenly makes the Holy Ghost, for example, stop being ridiculous? I’ve been alive damn near 27 years, and I’ve yet to hear it.
I think the point being made was, if you want to engage and refute a philosophical argument, you’re more convincing if it appears you actually understand what you’re trying to refute. Dawkins fails at this, at least on occasion.
Others in this thread are making the argument that philosophy and theology need not enter into the debate over the EOG. Then Dawkins should dismiss such notions out of hand. He doesn’t, and he can’t have it both ways. If he wants to refute Aquinas, he comes off as foolish or dishonest when he misrepresents Aquinas’s proofs. If Aquinas’s work is not worthy of his attention, then don’t give it any.
2nd page, and I still don’t see how Dawkins misrepresented Aquinas. Revenant Threshold mentioned something about “necessity” but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t change the fact that “infinite regress” is the way Aquinas proves God in all three “proofs”. And in all three, he is wrong. Dawkins’ point wasn’t engage Aquinas, it was to illustrate that infinite regress cannot, does not prove the existence of God.
And anyone can do philosophy without having taken a class, as evidenced by this very forum. If anyone wants to point out where Dawkins is wrong in this case, go for it, especially if you can do it without attacking his credentials. I’d welcome it whether you have a philosophy degree or not.
I have read “The God Delusion”, and I have to say I agree with the critics of the book. Dawkins is seriously out of his depth whenever he strays away from biology, and it shows. The God Delusion, I think, is little more than a mostly fallacious, bigoted atheist screed that is of little value in the wider philosophical debate.
So for instance I think his problem with Aquinas is that he simply doesn’t understand what Aquinas is saying. Aquinas first three proofs are basically about whether the natural laws alone as we understand them are able to account for all that we see, or whether it is necessary to have some transcendent thing outside of the natural world to form a full explanation of the universe around us. It is this transcendent thing that Aquinas calls God.
Aquinas first three proofs, in their simplest form, have two premises:
Therefore he comes to the conclusion:
There must be some origin of these things that is not accounted for by natural processes. This thing is by definition “God”
Dawkins two objections, as best I can see are:
The first objection Dawkins raises does nothing to invalidate the premises of Aquinas argument. Aquinas defines God to be that which has no pre-existing thing before it. Therefore by Aquinas definitions he is absolutely justified in saying that God is immune from regress. Further, if we say that God is not immune from regress, then we find ourselves back in the infinite chain of causes. God needs a cause, and then God’s cause needs a cause and so on. If the second premise of Aquinas argument is true, this must terminate somewhere and we can then define that somewhere as “God”.
The second objection is just entirely irrelevant. As has been pointed out Aquinas did not intend to derive the properties of God through that argument save for his existence, so the criticism is neither here nor there.
If Dawkins were to show that Aquinas argument is false, he must attack the premises that the argument is based on. So for premise 1 if you could show that there are some natural things that are not preceded by other things, that would invalidate the argument. So for instance in the argument of first causes one could point out that quantum mechanics suggests that there are some events, such as nuclear decay, that happen without direct cause, and therefore the infinite chain is broken.
Likewise the second premise could be attacked if you could show that it is possible to have an infinite chain of things. So for instance if the universe always existed and therefore had no real beginning, it may be possible to have an infinite chain. Unfortunately modern cosmology is not shaping up that way, but it is still another tactic in invalidating the argument.
Dawkins does none of this, and therefore the only real conclusion is that either he doesn’t understand the argument, or that he has simply glossed over it because he has no real answers.
Calculon.
See, that’s just the attitude I was alluding to earlier. I know that compatibilists exist, but I’m largely an ignoramus on the topic – from what little I’ve read, compatibilism really just seems like an attempt at shifting the goal posts. That may be, and for all I know is, utter bullshit and a complete misrepresentation of compatibilism. However, your posts amounts to merely claiming that anybody who holds the view that determinism precludes free will is an idiot and his opinion therefore to be discarded, without actually substantiating this; furthermore, it’s a rather hard to believe claim, since as far as I know, even today, not all philosophers are compatibilists, so it seems that the position is not utterly devoid of merit – or possibly it’s just a case of no true philosopher being an incompatibilist, which is kinda hard to judge from the outside.
So I guess that’s kind of what I’d need to see to take this kind of criticism seriously – don’t just state that because Subtlety X wasn’t taken into account, the whole argument is void, but, at least for those members of the unwashed masses who still don’t get it, at least give an outline of how that is damaging to the argument as a whole.
Otherwise, anybody can just proclaim themselves a master of some obscure field and debunk any kind of argument by appealing to subtleties germane to that field.
Actually, what Dawkins does is somewhat stronger than merely attacking the argument’s premises: in criticising its structure, he shows that even if its premises are true, its conclusion is at best trivial, since the premises form a contradiction; if both ‘nothing can move without having been moved’ and ‘some thing can move without having been moved’ are true, everything follows.
Of course it does. First Aquinas says “Everything has a cause.” Then he says “God doesn’t have a cause.” That’s just nonsense, as Dawkins is pointing out. If EVERYTHING has a cause then God must have a cause too. And if at least one thing (God) doesn’t have a cause then its possible that lots of things don’t have causes.
Aquinas’s premises lead to a conclusion that contradicts one of his premises. That’s classic reductio ad absurdum! All Aquinas has done is proven that one of his premises is faulty and he doesn’t even realize it. Dawkins notices and points out the flaw: That Aquinas is trying to exempt God from the conditions set out in the premises!
I will agree that point 2 is unnecessary, however.
Oh, I dunno, that’s a pretty common argument for god. People argue for “god” with no attributes other than existence. Then after it is conceded that it’s possible something exists they start slapping on properties that for no reason should be attributable to the “god” that was shown to exist. I would say it’s pretty sly, but I don’t think it’s a terribly hard thing to catch when it’s done, but apparently people fall for it.
No, there is no contradiction. Implicit in the proofs is the distinction between God, who exists outside of nature and as such has no preceding thing, and the natural world for which there is always a preceding thing. Essentially what Aquinas said was that if you say that the natural world is all there is, then in trying to explain how things are now you end up with a problem of an infinite number of causes and effects. The only way to resolve this is to introduce another entity in addition to the natural world, one that has no cause, that one can label “God”.
Or to put it even simpler way, in Aquinas argument “God” is not of the same substance as everything else, so there is no contradiction is saying that everything is preceded by something else where as God is not.
Calculon.
The problem with that, though, is that the distinction between natural and ‘non-natural’ world is a rather arbitrary one, and so the contradiction has only been shifted to a slightly more subtle level, implying that ‘everything that exists, exists within the natural world’ and ‘god doesn’t exist within the natural world’. It seems to me that all the ‘everything but god’ arguments suffer from this.
Perhaps you’ll forgive us whiny atheists when we say that definition is not proof.
It’s already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. If Aquinas’s proof demonstrates anything–and I’m not sure it does, but if it does–it is that there was some first cause. If he wants to assign three letters to stand for this, that’s his right, but without any additional proofs it is a terrible equivocation to use “god” as the symbol to stand for the first cause, because we all know what “god” means and this proof doesn’t go anywhere towards it.
I’m quite sure he understands this. Equivocal apologia should speak for itself but apparently it doesn’t.