If someone doesn’t hold a belief in a supernatural deity, then he’s already an atheist.
90% of people in the US believe in a deity, but that’s because 10% are atheists. Out of the people who are religiously observant, I’d say that close to 100% believe in a supernatural deity. You must hang out in different circles from mine.
You read the wrong book. The God Delusion is about the non-existence of supureme supernatural overlords. If you want to read about your own brand of ritualistic atheism, read something else.
As far as I remember, his critique of religion as a social institution is based entirely on those institutions indoctrinating people with lies and bullshit. If the shoe doesn’t fit, so be it. I’m pretty interested in the idea of Judaism without God you’ve presented here, but it has nothing to do with Dawkins. He’s arguing against the concept of God. Did you not read the title?
re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən
Function: noun
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
You need to accept the fact that you are the Exception, not the rule. And not just a little exception. A big, fat, honking, capital E, bold, underlined exception. You are an ultra-minority. Almost anyone you ask in the western world would consider a religious person who doesn’t believe in god to be an oxymoron. When people hear “religion,” they think “man in the sky who affects things on Earth.” For Dawkins to write about you would be pointless and confusing to his readers. His whole book shouldn’t have to linguistically tapdance around a tiny group to whom it should be obvious he isn’t referring anyway. You’re like the left-handed, heterochromic relief pitcher asking why “The History of Baseball” didn’t devote a few chapters to left-handed heterochromes.
Great - then you know exactly what terms to type into the google search box.
As for the term fundamentalist, it’s a perfectly cromulent word. It appears to have conveyed the meaning that it was intended to, and I got it. We’ll wait and see what Pleonast and PBear42 have to say, but I’d guess most people roughly get it.
I haven’t read RDs books cover-to-cover, but I’ve read large excerpts of his writing, and summaries/critiques/reviews of his books. In general I get the impression that he is setting up straw men and knocking them down. His characterizations of believers tend to not very accurately describe me or any faithful people I know, and his deconstruction of religion starts with a false understanding of what he mocks.
I agree completely, but the problem I have is that he uses falsehoods about Judaism to make his argument against all religion. If Dawkins wants to argue only about the existence of god-idea, then he can knock himself out, but it’s sloppy and false to generalise about all religions, or even all the religions he includes in his book.
I’m not the exception in Judaism. Agnosticism is mandatory to Jewish practice. You can argue that Judaism is an exception among world religions, which it well may be, but that’s not how Dawkins engages with it. He addresses Judaism, but as if it were a belief-centric religion, which it factually isn’t.
If Jewish practice is so insignificant (and it probably is, in the grand scheme of things; I’m not bothered), why does he bother bringing it up? If it is a captial-E exception, why doesn’t he just ignore it? My problem is that he did include a few chapters on left-handed heterochromes, but argued as if they were all blue-eyed righties. It weakens his arguments significantly when his premises are so obviously, factually incorrect.
Very well put, thank you. I agree.
Can you provide any examples of such? It’d be a shame if your criticism was itself a fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
I agree that if Huphrey’s point is stated or summarized as that science education is a worthwhile contribution to every child’s education, it would be innocuous and unobjectionable.
However, it is pretty clear he’s saying rather more than that; that he knows he’s saying rather more than that; and further, that he knows his POV will be objectionable to many if not to most. He says as much.
It is exactly these ‘objectionable’ or illiberal elements in his thinking that make his essay remarkable; the tendancy of him (and presumably those who agree with him) to believe, not only that they are correct (which is understandable), but that those who think otherwise are so incorrect as to be positively harmful to future citizens, and that, given the power, society has a duty to protect these future citizens from their parents’ “enculteration” with such incorrect views.
Myself, I do not believe in any God and I do not believe that any Religion is correct. No doubt many parental beliefs, including religious ones, are “harmful”. However, I am a very firm believer in the sort of society in which no-one has the power to impose what they think is correct on children’s home lives, outside of the limits we already have concerning physical abuse. Thus, a person who argues by analogy that having wrong views is ‘just as bad as’ someone who commits wrong actions (e.g. pedophilia, Dawkin’s analogy, or female genital mulilation, Humphrey’s analogy) strikes a note of concern, even where I tend to agree that the views are in fact wrong*. It strikes me as a dangerous notion. Just like any such illiberal notions, it sounds great only if one has absolute trust in those enacting the notion - which I lack.
Indeed it may well be that enforced seperation is the only practical method of preventing parents from ‘enculturating’ their own children.
He is clearly in favour of preventing (religious) parents from enculturating their own children - he says as much.
He does not go so far as to actually state that the seperation ought to take place, so I cannot (and do not) accuse him of stating as much.
ITR did.
Fair enough. It was simply the matter that since I could not figure out a way to prevent parents from raising their children without seperating them, I assumed that that’s what you meant when you made that claim. Plus as **DtC **says, ITR Champion does claim Dawkins is in favour of forced seperation. Apologies for misrepresenting you.
Fair enough; no apology necessary.
I don’t speak for ITR, but I merely presume he jumped to the same conclusion concerning what H. was stating; it’s a reasonable one to jump to.
I disagree. It’s not remotely reasonable.
Disagree. I think Relevant Threshold made a good point with his assumption.
A couple of questions Blut Aus Nord asked which I didn’t see addressed;
Re quantum mechanics and ‘nothing from nothing’, I imagine it relates to (among other things, no doubt) Virtual Particles and the Casimir Effect.
On deism versus theism; deists believe in a ‘God’ that set all the laws in motion, creates the universe according to a grand design, then he/she/it sodded off and otherwise paid no further attention to a bunch of primates on some half-baked half-frozen rock. Theists believe in the more classic interpretation of God, answering prayers, sending plagues and poison monkeys and whatnot.
Humphrey never came close to suggesting that parents should not be allowed to raise their children. That assertion is still just as false as it ever was. Further extropolating state mandated separation from an already false assumption is not remotely justified.
In Deism, the creator does not interact with the universe after creation. An analogy is commonly made to a watch which is wound up and then left to run on its own. The Deistic model does not allow for miracles/revelation, etc. The creator makes the universe and then steps aside from it.
Extrapolating state mandated seperation from the statement that parents have no right to enculturate their children, and society has a duty to prevent the same if said enculturation is harmful, is quite reasonable, as it is I would submit the only possible way to ensure said enculturation does not take place.
Though again I stress Humphrey never states anything about seperation.
Or are you still of the opinion that Humphrey was only concerned with public education?
Absolutely. He was talking only about the public responsibility to educate children whether the parents like it or not. That’s it.
Rejecting a critic’s comments because he uses the word “jejune” strikes me as an argument that’s rather, well, jejune.
Same thing with glibly dismissing their objections as just “a contrived form of the ontological argument.”
That is absolutely incorrect. Plantinga specifically emphasized that Dawkins’ attempt at philosophy is sophomoric even if you taken into account the fact that Dawkins is not a philosopher. In short, the problem is not simply that Dawkins is a scientist; rather, the problem is that his attempt at philosophy demonstrates how little he knows about that subject.
Michael Ruse voices similar objections. Ruse, in case you didn’t know, is both a philosophy professor and one of the foremost atheist debaters of this day. As a professor, he would surely take pleasure in seeing a layperson demonstrate basic competence in philosophy. As a debater, he would surely take delight in seeing the populace offer a well-argued defense of atheism. Instead, he laments the poor quality of Dawkins’ arguments, stating that they are an embarassment to him as an atheist.
Ruse believes that Christianity and evolution can be harmonized, as do a great many scientists, philosophers, and theologians. You obviously hold a different view. Regardless of who is correct on this matter, Ruse’s remark on evolution is ultimately a secondary point – just one of many criticisms that he and other philosophers have voiced of Dawkins’ book. So even if we were to grant that claim, it would do nothing to demonstrate the supposedly high quality of Dawkins’ attempt at philosophy.
Now, if you want a scientist’s viewpoint, there is H. Allen Orr, an atheist and an evolutionary biologist who specializes in reviewing texts that explore philosophy and science. (Indeed, this aspect of his work was key to his current professorial appointment.) What was Orr’s conclusion?
“Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur. I don’t pretend to know whether there’s more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins’s general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.”
As an atheist and an evolutionary biologist, Orr would have every reason to support Dawkins’ viewpoint. Instead, he laments the poor quality of the reasoning that Dawkins used – and he was absolutely right to do so.