# Theists, agnostics, beleivers: Have you attempted to read a book by Richard Dawkins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623 "2009-09-18T18:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/221 "2009-09-22T22:19:09Z")
> [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](#): > > It’s standard fare for critics of Dawkins and Harris to accuse them of being philosophically and theologically ignorant and of constructing simplistic caricatures of religion in order to make religion seem stupid. > > And then they go on about how Dawkins and Harris are “hateful” and “bigoted” without any support whatsoever. They erect trivial defenses of religion (“people need religion to be happy”, “there is no morality without religion”, “there has always been religion”, etc). The double standard is awe-inspiring. I think that’s a caricature that’s on a par with Dawkins’ own writing. I already cited Ruse and Orr, for example – two people who do NOT offer trivial defenses of religion. As atheists, they have no reason to defend religion at all, and yet that does not stop them from recognizing that Dawkins uses sloppy logic, acts as though he is ignorant of philosophy and history, and constructs the simplistic caricatures of which you speak. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/222 "2009-09-22T22:23:45Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > I’m challenging your (or rather their) critique, because you haven’t provided an example of a someone deconstructing Dawkins’ argument or excursion into philosophy logically. Yes, I have. I already cited reviews by Orr and Plantinga, for example. While their treatments are by no means exhaustive, both of them cited numerous reasons why Dawkins handled the matter poorly. You seem to be deadset on disbelieving the notion that knowledgeable philosophers – whether theistic or atheistic – could find such fault in his work though, so I suspect that you will continue to insist that they offer no such analysis of his work. If you want a more thorough treatment, you can refer to Dr. William Lane Craig, who breaks down Dawkins’ main argument [here](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493). “But he’s a Christian!” some here would doubtlessly interject, as they have done in the past. “That makes him biased!” Fine. Then by that logic, one should reject Dawkins’ arguments as well, since he obviously harbors a strong bias against theism and religion. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/223 "2009-09-22T22:25:03Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I think that’s a caricature that’s on a par with Dawkins’ own writing. I already cited Ruse and Orr, for example – two people who do NOT offer trivial defenses of religion. **As atheists, they have no reason to defend religion at all** , and yet that does not stop them from recognizing that Dawkins uses sloppy logic, acts as though he is ignorant of philosophy and history, and constructs the simplistic caricatures of which you speak. (my bolding) Surely they do, in that presumably they believe those arguments they make in defence of religion are true? I’m an atheist, and I certainly have reason to defend religion at times. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/224 "2009-09-22T22:32:07Z")
Craig’s rebuttal is not very good. Basically it just amounts to a claim that Dawkins has not disproven the existence of God, which is something that Dawkins never claimed to do in any case, but which also falsely reverses the burden of proof. Dawkins says, essentially, there is nothing in the universe which either necessitates or supports the God hypothesis. Craig’s rebuttal is that this still doesn’t prove there’s no God. Of course not. NOTHING could prove that. That doesn’t make the God hypthesis any more compelling or credible than the Matrix or Odin. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/225 "2009-09-22T22:38:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > You’re correct that, logically speaking, that is not the only possible conclusion of that line of reasoning. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, it is not an _implication_, by which I would mean that it is not outright stated but a hinted, or suggested, conclusion. And I just don’t see it as a hinted or suggested conclusion; and he does state his conclusion in terms of it being the one solution that he feels is the correct one, the one he’s willing to support. > > IOW, it does not follow from that line of argument that that is the only possible implication; however, that he does not imply anything else (as far as I can tell), and that he talks about the measure he does offer in considerable detail and praise, as well as offering his reasons why it is a good solution, suggests to me that if he did have other ideas he’d likely have suggested them, and more than that talked about why they were appropriate. Here’s where we disagree. He expressly states that censoring parental choice in enculturating their children is a good thing and that society has a positive duty to do it. That’s more than a “hint” or “suggestion”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/226 "2009-09-22T22:51:59Z")
He does not say that. He’s arguing against allowing the _parents_ to censor their children’s education. > [@](#): > > Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to **limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge** , to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. His solution to this is nothing more sinister than public education. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/227 "2009-09-22T22:52:52Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Here’s where we disagree. He expressly states that censoring parental choice in enculturating their children is a good thing and that society has a positive duty to do it. That’s more than a “hint” or “suggestion”. Technically you can’t censor choice itself, only the results of that choice. But yes, I agree with you; and he then says the means by which that duty should manifest itself, through public education, and certainly coming right out and saying something is more than a hint or suggestion. What he does not hint or suggest is that he has other ideas or support for alternative measures. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/228 "2009-09-22T22:55:11Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Yes, it does. It’s the censorship of of the idea that one idea is the only one by providing alternatives. **And he isn’t arguing in favour of censorship** , he’s saying he thinks it would sometimes be a good idea; saying that something is morally or societally good doesn’t necessarily imply that it is still a moral or societal good when enforced. But he does qualify and limit his failure, by providing the one solution he feels is appropriate. And saying that censorship can be a good thing sometimes doesn’t mean that \*enforced \*censorship can be a good thing sometimes. I don’t like being called names, and I would imagine you don’t like it either, but that doesn’t mean we’re in favour of measures enforcing a censorship of those names. This I can’t agree with, as it is contrary to the text. He claims he _is_ arguing in favour of censorship. His very words: > [@](#): > > **To argue, in short, in favour of censorship** , against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. Emphasis added. Reading the quote in its full context does not offer a different meaning. > [@](#): > > Should we then be fighting Amnesty’s battle on this front too? Should we be campaigning for the rights of human beings to be protected from verbal oppression and manipulation? Do we need “word laws”, just as all civilised societies have gun laws, licensing who should be allowed to use them in what circumstances? Should there be Geneva protocols establishing what kinds of speech act count as crimes against humanity? > > No. The answer, I’m sure, ought in general to be “No, don’t even think of it.” Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with. And however painful some of its consequences may sometimes be for some people, we should still as a matter of principle resist putting curbs on it. By all means we should try to make up for the harm that other people’s words do, but not by censoring the words as such. > > And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I’d expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. **To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.** > > Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. > > In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. **So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.** How on earth does one parse “… should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon” as a conclusion, as anything **other** than him being in favour of preventing parents from teaching their own children? He expressly states so! Says parents should no more be allowed to do it, than knock out their teeth or lock them up. Really, if his cause was any less sympathetic, I find it hard to believe that people would be defending this as strenuously. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/229 "2009-09-22T22:59:55Z")
In the context of pure education, it is, indeed, unacceptable to allow parents to teach their kids that the sun revolves around the earth or that 2+2=5. He’s saying that Parents don’t have a right to substitute factual falsehoods for education. That’s all. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/230 "2009-09-22T23:01:30Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > If you want a more thorough treatment, you can refer to Dr. William Lane Craig, who breaks down Dawkins’ main argument [here](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493). Oh brother - William Lane Craig. I get the impression that he views rhetoric as a game but doesn’t actually believe the crap he says - I think he’s too smart for that. But in that essay, it boils down to this central few sentences, which try to explain why the design argument is not the only reason to believe in god: > [@](#): > > Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn’t based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God’s existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. First, the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments are just stupid. They cannot support belief in an omnipotent, universe-creating deity. Revelation is also a demonstrably poor way to arrive at your beliefs. That does leave us with the design argument. And rejecting the design argument doesn’t prove that god doesn’t exist (Dawkins says this himself), but it does, contrary to Craig’s last sentence, mean that belief in god is unjustified. And that is Dawkins’ point in his book. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/231 "2009-09-22T23:04:39Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This I can’t agree with, as it is contrary to the text. > > He claims he _is_ arguing in favour of censorship. His very words: This is actually my mistake. I should have said that he isn’t arguing in favour of enforced censorship. I think the rest of that sentence makes it clear, but you’re right, that was an error on my part. > [@](#): > > How on earth does one parse “… should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon” as a conclusion, as anything **other** than him being in favour of preventing parents from teaching their own children? He expressly states so! Says parents should no more be allowed to do it, than knock out their teeth or lock them up. By parsing it as protecting them through teaching alternate ideas. By ensuring, not that that particular piece of teaching does not occur, but rather, that other teaching also occurs, so that a different lesson is learned. > [@](#): > > Really, if his cause was any less sympathetic, I find it hard to believe that people would be defending this as strenuously. If it is surprising that we are willing to apparently defend him on a point so unsympathetic, surely it is just as surprising that he should make such an apparently unsympathetic point? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/232 "2009-09-22T23:30:39Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > By parsing it as protecting them through teaching alternate ideas. By ensuring, not that that particular piece of teaching does not occur, but rather, that other teaching also occurs, so that a different lesson is learned. That’s a reasonable position, but I would suggest it is not reasonable to presume that this is what the author intended. He certainly does not state it anywhere - on the contrary, as I demonstrate below. > [@](#): > > If it is surprising that we are willing to apparently defend him on a point so unsympathetic, surely it is just as surprising that he should make such an apparently unsympathetic point? Indeed, and he himself acknowledges that his audience (particularly “liberals”) would find it difficult to swallow. > [@](#): > > I don’t suppose you’ll doubt my good intentions here. Even so, I realise there may be many in this audience—especially the more liberal of you—who do not like the sound of this at all … He then goes on to set up some “objections” to his illiberal censorship notions (clearly, no one would have “liberal” qualms about more public education!). He raises the analogy of physical mutilation as a means of disposing of the ingrained notion of parental rights, then states as follows: > [@](#): > > Well then, if this is so for bodies, the same for minds. Given, let’s say, that most people who have been brought up as members of a sect would, if they only knew what they are being denied, have preferred to remain outside it. Given that almost no one who was not brought up this way volunteers to adopt the faith later in life. Given in short that it is not a faith that a free-thinker would adopt. Then, likewise, it seems clear that whoever takes advantage of their temporary power over a child’s mind to impose this faith, is equally abusing this power and acting wrongly. > > **So I’ll come to the main point—and lesson—of this lecture**. I want to propose a general test for deciding when and whether the teaching of a belief system to children is morally defensible. As follows. If it is ever the case that teaching this system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they in fact to have had access to alternatives, they would most likely not have chosen for themselves, then it is morally wrong of whoever presumes to impose this system and to chose for them to do so. No one has the right to choose badly for anyone else. In short, the "central point’ of his lecture is the moral one: that religious parents have no moral right to teach their children (he earlier notes that it is impossible to expect religious parents to _not_ teach their children their own religion). He does _not_ say “the central point of my lecture is that I want more science education”. Science education is what he’d practically settle for, because he recognizes the unlikeliness of being in a position to impose what he quite clearly regards as the correct moral social duty - to prevent religious parents from teaching their children. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/233 "2009-09-22T23:30:42Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That is false. Nowhere in your previous comment did you point out how these philosophers offered invalid objections to Dawkins. Rather, you scoffed at the use of the word “jejune,” as though this alone were sufficient to dismiss their claims. I haven’t said they are _necessarily_ invalid, but you hadn’t quoted a point of meaningful criticism in the thread, or as I _had_ expressed, “on the basis of a point of logic”; however, I should have paid closer attention to the text you did link to, which I’ve now skim read. H. Allen Orr’s critique is a lot more meaningful that Dr. William Lane Craig’s ‘infinite regress destroys science’, ‘we don’t need to explain the designer’ and ‘God’s a really simple idea anyway’. I haven’t read Dawkins book in full, only extracts, so I don’t know how fully I would agree with the points raised by Orr. Some of them seem somewhat invalid from the outset (there’s nothing inherently wrong with failing to refer to Wittgenstein, or conversely using Douglas Adams to make a point, especially when dealing with a wider audience who aren’t necessarily fascinated with philosophical onanism), but Dawkins may have been inadequate in dealing with the comparative evil done by both believers and non-believers, and the role played by religion in doing so. My understanding is that the main thesis of the book is in refuting the teleological argument, which Dawkins aside, is invalid as a concept anyway, and largely why I’ve yet to read it in full. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Bith\_Shuffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bith_Shuffle)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/234 "2009-09-22T23:43:53Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I think that’s a caricature that’s on a par with Dawkins’ own writing. I already cited Ruse and Orr, for example – two people who do NOT offer trivial defenses of religion. **As atheists, they have no reason to defend religion at all** , and yet that does not stop them from recognizing that Dawkins uses sloppy logic, acts as though he is ignorant of philosophy and history, and constructs the simplistic caricatures of which you speak. Of course they have reasons to defend religion - they’re both reconciliationists. Lots of people act as though reconciliationism is somehow less ideological than atheism, but I don’t see how. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/235 "2009-09-23T06:40:48Z")
> [@Captain\_Awesome](#): > > delusional _n_. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. > > The description would seem apt to me. It’s only insulting to those who believe their religious ideas should never be challenged, by virtue of being religious. In which case any argument is insulting. I like the definition, but disagree with the interpretation. Bear in mind that we - I’m an atheist, remember - don’t have invalidating evidence of God’s existence. (Of course, theists don’t have evidence of his existence either.) So, calling belief delusional is not only insulting but inaccurate by any normal usage of the word. More importantly, as I argue [above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11582001&postcount=170), it’s counterproductive, if the aim of the dialogue is to change the minds of believers. Recall that the OP is about how Dawkins’ books are perceived by believers. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Awesome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Captain\_Awesome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Awesome)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/236 "2009-09-23T12:49:49Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > I like the definition, but disagree with the interpretation. Bear in mind that we - I’m an atheist, remember - don’t have invalidating evidence of God’s existence. (Of course, theists don’t have evidence of his existence either.) So, calling belief delusional is not only insulting but inaccurate by any normal usage of the word. More importantly, as I argue [above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11582001&postcount=170), it’s counterproductive, if the aim of the dialogue is to change the minds of believers. Recall that the OP is about how Dawkins’ books are perceived by believers. It’s correct that there is no invalidating evidence for a deistic God (aside from being illogical and not complying with Occam’s razor), but scientific and historical evidence is flatly contradictory of the various Abrahamic and other religious texts, to which billions of people subscribe. ‘Delusional’ is entirely appropriate as a succinct means of expressing someone who holds their scripture to be infallible, or does not recognise that it is undermined by science. Dawkins makes it clear in the book that God cannot be disproved. Regardless, I doubt any book, even written in the most logical, comprehensive, and brilliant fashion, without use of ‘insulting’ words, could convince as many as a handful of believers to change their mind. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/237 "2009-09-23T13:44:09Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > I like the definition, but disagree with the interpretation. Bear in mind that we - I’m an atheist, remember - don’t have invalidating evidence of God’s existence. (Of course, theists don’t have evidence of his existence either.) So, calling belief delusional is not only insulting but inaccurate by any normal usage of the word. This is a silly argument. There isn’t any invalidating evidence of aliens from Pluto either, that doesn’t mean we can’t say it’s delusional to believe they’re sending radio signals to your brain. How is it any less delusional to think that you have a telepathic “personal relationship” with an obscure Palestinian preacher who died 2000 years ago? How is it even any different from thinking you have a telepathic personal relationship with Brad Pitt? What CAN you say is delusional by your logic? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/238 "2009-09-23T14:19:27Z")
Diogenes, PBear, Captain Awesome, I think the phrase tripping us up is “invalidating evidence.” We have no invalidating evidence for God, or aliens on Pluto, so the definition quoted may not be the best one. It’s certainly delusional to have certain beliefs even though there’s not “invalidating” evidence, and the case of aliens on Pluto sending radio signals to your brain is a good example. Maybe the definition should be invalidating evidence, or a profound lack of evidence where there would be evidence expected if it were real. And in that case, traditional religion is a delusion. I’ve heard that the DSM (I don’t have one myself) defines a delusion as a strongly-held irrational belief, but it specifically excludes any that are widely held in the population. So religion gets a free pass from them, but otherwise I see no reason to think that traditional religious beliefs are anything other than delusions. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/239 "2009-09-24T00:44:16Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s a reasonable position, but I would suggest it is not reasonable to presume that this is what the author intended. He certainly does not state it anywhere - on the contrary, as I demonstrate below. I would argue, that through suggesting a solution he feels is appropriate which takes the form of “solving” the problem through alternate sources of teaching, that this argument is implicit. It makes sense to me that, if he suggests a solution through teaching alternate ideas, then it is reasonable to conclude that he believes as a theoretical position that solutions may lie in teaching alternate ideas. > [@](#): > > Indeed, and he himself acknowledges that his audience (particularly “liberals”) would find it difficult to swallow. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point then in your comments about the unpleasantness of the argument. > [@](#): > > He then goes on to set up some “objections” to his illiberal censorship notions (clearly, no one would have “liberal” qualms about more public education!). He raises the analogy of physical mutilation as a means of disposing of the ingrained notion of parental rights, then states as follows: > > In short, the "central point’ of his lecture is the moral one: that religious parents have no moral right to teach their children (he earlier notes that it is impossible to expect religious parents to _not_ teach their children their own religion). I disagree. Yes to it being a moral one, but it’s that religious parents have no moral right to teach their children to the exclusion of all else. That parents have no moral right to entirely control their children’s education; if it was simply teaching at all, then his expectation that it is impossible to expect parents not to would presumably have left him at an impasse. > [@](#): > > He does _not_ say “the central point of my lecture is that I want more science education”. Science education is what he’d practically settle for, because he recognizes the unlikeliness of being in a position to impose what he quite clearly regards as the correct moral social duty - to prevent religious parents from teaching their children. No, I disagree. As i’ve said, the duty he sees is not to prevent teaching, but to prevent teaching from only one source, to prevent enculturation via one or two individuals. To, essentially, not alter that there is teaching occurring, but rather, to ensure that alternative sources of teaching are avaliable. Hence why his praise of science education is so full - he doesn’t simply suggest it as a poor, but necessary, second best, something that he’ll sigh and accept; he lauds it considerably. And he goes on to say (at some length) \*why \*science education is so good in his eyes. These don’t read to me as the words of someone who’s settling for something; they read to me as the words of someone extremely committed to the idea, who places a high priority on it. And beyond that, even if your interpretation were correct, I’d still say you’re making a big leap from him saying “this would be nice” to “this would be nice; any means of enforcing or imposing it would therefore also be nice”. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623/240 "2009-09-24T05:15:47Z")
I notice that no one seems to be interested in discussing the strand of my argument which relates to the OP. Whether belief in God is delusional we can discuss, but there’s no getting around the fact that the claim is insulting and effectively terminates the dialogue. If Dawkins’s purpose was simply to write an atheist manifesto, the title and tone of the book become defensible. If the object, as he claimed, was to change the minds of believers, they were mistakes. IMHO, of course, for reasons set out earlier in the thread. As for whether the label fits, part of my problem is that I acknowledge, where apparently none of you do, that Christians are using a different world view. I’m a materialist, as I assume are all of you. In that world view, religion is out on its ear for want of evidence. Calling it delusional adds nothing. More to the point, I don’t assume _a priori_ that my world view is right and the Christian one is wrong. That’s why I said (in my first post) that Dawkins’ title assumes the conclusion. Also, let’s recall that the foundational belief of Christianity isn’t the cosmological proof. Nor is it creationism. It’s the proposition that the NT accurately describes an actual historical event which really happened. It’s not at all like radio beams from Pluto, the FSM or the IPU. No wonder Christians do “roll eyes” when arguments like these are trotted out. You’re not talking about their religiion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theists-agnostics-beleivers-have-you-attempted-to-read-a-book-by-richard-dawkins/510623.md?page=13)