Eagleton on Dawkins

[_Jason Bourne]

Again, this is like saying that one cannot dismiss crop circles until one has a PhD in cerealogy, or tell the emperor that he has no clothes unless one has a PhD in fashion.

It really doesn't matter what nuance some given theologist believes he casts on the issue of God if there's no good reason to believe that a God exists at all.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the reviewer. Richard Dawkins doesn't need to have studied deeply the subject of theology to be able to judge that the whole subject of theology is really empty. Theologists debate and spin and create nuanced arguments on behalf of a being for which there is no evidence that it even exists, and plenty of evidence and logic which undermine the need for it. If Dawkins is able to see and understand that the entire subject of God, or whatever gods may be, is one for which there is really no good evidence whatsoever, then how is he required to have studied all of the various philosophical theories of people regarding their particular chosen God?

Do I need to have a PhD in the subject of the tooth fairy to be allowed to comment on its likely non-existence?

Must I have a PhD in Christmas to be allowed to comment on the likely non-existence of Santa Claus?

Pray tell, in what subject would one have to have a PhD in order to discuss the subject of alien abductions? Astronomy, or psychology?

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

[_Gadianton]

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

Can you or any other believer in this thread give us an example of a "nuanced" belief about God that is 1) compatible with Mormonism at all, 2) makes a difference to the question regarding his existence, and 3) has been overlooked by Dawkins, to his folly.

Eagleton gives a couple examples but, 1) I don't see how they are compatible with Mormonism and 2) I don't see any apologist demonstrating an understanding of his points.

(I'd like to learn from the Mormons full of great nuanced understandings of god, in what way, in Mormon theology, is God the Father, a being of flesh and bone, is non-existent particularily in some kind of mode as "the condition of possibility" for all existence.)

[_guy sajer]

Again, this is like saying that one cannot dismiss crop circles until one has a PhD in cerealogy, or tell the emperor that he has no clothes unless one has a PhD in fashion.

It really doesn't matter what nuance some given theologist believes he casts on the issue of God if there's no good reason to believe that a God exists at all.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the reviewer. Richard Dawkins doesn't need to have studied deeply the subject of theology to be able to judge that the whole subject of theology is really empty. Theologists debate and spin and create nuanced arguments on behalf of a being for which there is no evidence that it even exists, and plenty of evidence and logic which undermine the need for it. If Dawkins is able to see and understand that the entire subject of God, or whatever gods may be, is one for which there is really no good evidence whatsoever, then how is he required to have studied all of the various philosophical theories of people regarding their particular chosen God?

Do I need to have a PhD in the subject of the tooth fairy to be allowed to comment on its likely non-existence?

Must I have a PhD in Christmas to be allowed to comment on the likely non-existence of Santa Claus?

Pray tell, in what subject would one have to have a PhD in order to discuss the subject of alien abductions? Astronomy, or psychology?

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

This is a common complaint viz. books/monographs, etc., that the author overlooks certain "key" insights drawn from a variety of sources. The expectation seems to be that no work of criticism is valid unless it is a meta-criticism that invokes all and every sundry sort of belief, rationales, justifications strkes me as disingenuous, and quite a convenient one that relieves the believer from any responsibility of considering his arguments.

As I read Dawkins, I don't see that he demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian belief. His purpose was not to plumb the depths of Christian belief in all its nuances but to critique Christian belief, primarily, as it manifests itself generally at the level of the more dogmatic believer. Given the purpose of his book, he quite understandably generalizes, and I find his generalizations pretty damn spot on. His is not a dense acadmic tome on the shades of religious belief; it was never intended to be; so why continue to insist on holding him to this standard?

I doubt too many Bible thumpers from Alabama have read Acquinas, so why must Dawkins reference Acquinas to comment on the basic nature of their dogmatic belief and its effect on the individual, the mind, and society? The whole argument that religion is best understood reading the works of the "masters" is silly on its face; religion is best understood by observing those who believe and live it on a day to day basis, most of whom don't know and couldn't care less what the great masters had to say on the subject.

[_Sethbag]

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

I've watched Dawkins in probably at least four hours worth of interviews, in videos available on the web through youtube, Google video, etc., in addition to reading his book. He is certainly not arrogant. That charge, IMHO, is simply an excuse by a lot of people not to take Dawkins' arguments seriously, because they really are devastating. If you can just say he's arrogant and dismiss him, you don't have to address his arguments. The theologians, and the religious leaders who stand up and talk about God are very strong and forceful in uttering their positions, but if Dawkins just tells it how he sees it, he's somehow arrogant. How do you expect him to act? Is he supposed to be all timid and unsure of himself as he speaks?

Read my other thread about how people misunderstand Dawkins. His main points include that there is no evidence that a God exists at all, and that the universe appears to be running just fine without a God, so that there is no apparent "need" for a God. That is to say, there isn't a problem of explaining the universe, including human development and intelligence and whatnot, for which there being a God is a good, or necessary, answer. And there are numerous examples of how belief in things for which there is no evidence has subverted critical and rational thinking skills in people, and even lead to justification of acts which are without question harmful to society and other people.

Those people complaining that Dawkins hasn't addressed all the nuanced arguments made by theologians haven't themselves, IMHO, understood the nuances of Dawkins' arguments. I think he's spot on, and laser-like in the precision with which he undermines arguments for God.

Dawkins doesn't have to have studied all the fine little details of every different religion's claims in order to see through the BS clearly enough to undermine the whole subject of religion, and I think he's done just that.

And to you TBMs out there, I would remind you that you don't believe in Hinduism, despite not knowing much about all the nuanced arguments in favor of Hinduism, precisely because you believe that the "truth" you know about Mormonism automatically precludes Hinduism being true. This is no different an approach than Dawkins believing that what he knows about the state of evidence and there being no "need" for God undermines all religious claims, whether he knows or engages all their specific nuanced arguments or not. Be very wary of accusing Dawkins of arrogance for dismissing religion without address each and every religion's claims, because in so doing, you're being hypocritical.

[_guy sajer]

And to you TBMs out there, I would remind you that you don't believe in Hinduism, despite not knowing much about all the nuanced arguments in favor of Hinduism, precisely because you believe that the "truth" you know about Mormonism automatically precludes Hinduism being true. This is no different an approach than Dawkins believing that what he knows about the state of evidence and there being no "need" for God undermines all religious claims, whether he knows or engages all their specific nuanced arguments or not. Be very wary of accusing Dawkins of arrogance for dismissing religion without address each and every religion's claims, because in so doing, you're being hypocritical.

Actually, the analogy doesn't quite work. Mormon belief that Hinduism isn't true is not a result of examination of the evidence, but is based almost entirely on feelings (or witness of the spirit--I'm still waiting for someone to point out how one can tell the different between the two in any reliably consistent way). They haven't looked at, and more, don't care about the evidence. They just "know." That's all. That's all that matters.

Dawkins, on the other hand, has spend a life time assessing the evidence that is available in the natural world and which can be inferred from the human experience over the eons. He has applied the evidence he has observed to the different frameworks for understanding the world; a scientific framework and the religious framework, and the former has proven far more and consistently reliable.

His conclusions are evidence-based, not faith based, and that distinguishes him from his religious critics.

[Anonymous]

I completely agree with your statement "His conclusions are evidence-based, not faith based, and that distinguishes him from his religious critics.", however I feel I must explain my analogy better.

TBMs believe that they know the LDS church is true. How they know it isn't critical to this analogy; they just know it. TBMs feel justified, since they know that Mormonism is true, in concluding that Hinduism is not, indeed cannot be true, because its beliefs would contradict LDS beliefs. So, to a TBM, Hinduism is not true simply because something mutually exclusive is known to be true.

In the same way, Dawkins knows that there isn't any good evidence that a God exists, and that scientifically, there's nothing about the Universe for which there being a God is a necessary, or indeed even a very good answer. He concludes, from these and some other arguments, that there almost certainly is no God. Dawkins, therefor, can conclude that Hinduism is almost certainly not true, because Hinduism posits gods, and he's already concluded that there is almost certainly no God, or gods. He can conclude this on the basis that Hinduism being true would contradict something about which he's already pretty settled. Replace Hinduism with Islam, Mormonism, Catholocism, Anglicanism, JWism, and any other religion, and the argument goes the same way.

The bottom line is that Dawkins feels justified in concluding that there almost certainly is no God. Since the belief that there is in fact a God, or gods, underpins pretty much all the religions out there, his conclusion about there almost certainly not being a God undermines them all together, whether he addresses every nuanced difference between them or not.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Dawkins knows that there isn't any good evidence that a God exists, and that scientifically, there's nothing about the Universe for which there being a God is a necessary, or indeed even a very good answer.

Silly Seth, that's because Dawkins hasn't had a witness of the Spirit! If only the Holy Ghost would talk to him through a warm sensation in his bosom, then he could give up all his science nonsense and really know the really true truth that Catholicism is the really true church! Or, wait, was that the JW's? No, the Mormons...?

KA

[_Some Schmo]

On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity, he is predictably silent. Yet the Apocalypse is far more likely to be the product of them than the work of religion. Swap you the Inquisition for chemical warfare.

Yeah, I can just see the scientists all sitting around rubbing their hands while plotting the end of the world... we'll use chemical warfare! Yeah, that's it!

Just like guns don't kill people, people kill people, chemical warfare isn't actually behind the killing motivation. And I really have a difficult time imagining scientists wanting to commit genocide. It's not so difficult imagining religious types doing it, however.

This article was, for want of a more appropriate descriptor, a load of crap. It's almost as though the guy didn't read the book himself. Shouldn't he at least know what it says before he can critique it...? Oh... wait...

[_The Nehor]

Actually, the analogy doesn't quite work. Mormon belief that Hinduism isn't true is not a result of examination of the evidence, but is based almost entirely on feelings (or witness of the spirit--I'm still waiting for someone to point out how one can tell the different between the two in any reliably consistent way). They haven't looked at, and more, don't care about the evidence. They just "know." That's all. That's all that matters.

The problem with it is that English doesn't have any good words to differentiate between the two experiences. Our vocabulary falls very short. There is a distinct difference though. The problem is if asked to describe them both I'd fall back on much of the same verbiage. I might add sublime or some other word to the spiritual experience but I don't think that will give you what you want.

[_guy sajer]

Actually, the analogy doesn't quite work. Mormon belief that Hinduism isn't true is not a result of examination of the evidence, but is based almost entirely on feelings (or witness of the spirit--I'm still waiting for someone to point out how one can tell the different between the two in any reliably consistent way). They haven't looked at, and more, don't care about the evidence. They just "know." That's all. That's all that matters.

The problem with it is that English doesn't have any good words to differentiate between the two experiences. Our vocabulary falls very short. There is a distinct difference though. The problem is if asked to describe them both I'd fall back on much of the same verbiage. I might add sublime or some other word to the spiritual experience but I don't think that will give you what you want.

Ok, fair enough. But then, how do you teach, within the framework of Mormon belief, believers to discern between emotions and the spirit if there's no words to describe the latter? Would not one reasonably expect, therefore, a large error rate in discerning between the two?