I generally ignore blog posts I strongly disagree with, but when norm links to one and thereby lends it some credibility I feel it’s fair to point out the various problems. Tonight’s The Root of All Evil? is bringing the snipers out from the woodwork, and it’s entertaining to listen to them. Richard Dawkins is an easy target because of his strong views, and it’s easy to snipe from the sidelines by claiming that his arguments are “obviously” wrong. It’s easy to mistake passion and dedication for arrogance, and it’s surprisingly common even within the atheist community. In this case the author goes on the attack, but analysing the arguments rather than summarising them falsely would be a far more effective tactic if the aim is actually to change people’s minds.
Regular readers will know that I’m a big fan of Dawkins, but only because I’ve thought about his arguments and decided I agree. Because I’ve agreed with previous arguments I’m more inclined to listen and actively seek out any new thoughts, but I don’t just accept them because he said them.
Now, taking issue with either Dawkins or Bunting on the subject of religion is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel because with both of them, their propensity to pontificate about the subject is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject
If you’ve read Dawkins you’ll know how much knowledge he actually has of religious method, instruction and history. I don’t understand this statement; to me it seems rather bitter. There isn’t any evidence to back it up. What follows is:
Does one really have to deconstruct his stupid and really quite vicious argument that parents who bring their children up as believers are guilty of child-abuse? Or his ridiculous idea that theology departments in universities should be closed-down because they’re devoted to the study of something that doesn’t exist? She writes that, “a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins’s anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers” and I find myself thinking she’s on to something here. I cringe when I hear people describe religious belief, and believers, as stupid. The majority of the human race, both now and in the past, have believed in a deity or deities; I’d confine myself to the observation that, in my experience anyway, those who consider themselves on account of their atheism to be intellectually superior to the majority of the human race really ought to take a more sober estimate of their abilities - to say no more than that.
There are a large mixture of bizarre statements and untruths in here, so I’ll take them in turn:
- The child-abuse allegation is summed up by a Dawkins article from a 1997 edition of Humanist magazine:
Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse. In a 1995 issue of the Independent, one of London’s leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.
What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?
How is this ’stupid and really quite vicious’? I don’t see that this is clear-cut. It’s different from the normal associations of child abuse, but I think the point stands. When we hear of suicide bombers brainwashed by fanatics we know that they’ve been taken advantage of, used and duped. How come it’s ok to do this to children who don’t know any better? Because it’s the norm? Is it ok to forcing children to think what you think? It comes down to the definition of ‘child-abuse’. I’m not making a statement about whether this does or doesn’t fit the definition, but it’s not so obvious as the claim suggests.
- The closing down of theology departments. Hmmm, not sure about this. I can’t find any Dawkins quotes calling for this, and indeed it wouldn’t appear to be something he’d say. I guess the claim comes from writings like this:
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?
If you look up the word ‘theology‘ there are various definitions. Is Dawkins talking about the “course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary” or “The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.” Given his other writings, I’d almost certainly say it’s the former. To me he makes a valid point, and there would certainly be an argument for educational establishments not offering courses in religious doctrine (if such things even exist). Like I said, I can’t find anything relating directly to the closing down of specific courses, and I’m happy to be proven wrong.
- Cringing at people calling believers stupid. Yep, with you on that one. But, again, I can’t find any evidence of Dawkins doing this. The idea probably comes from strong statements like this:
To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
That’s not saying that believers are stupid, that’s saying that people who actively claim not to believe in evolution are either lacking in knowledge of the facts, unable to think clearly, or lack the intelligence to comprehend the facts. This isn’t referring to people who don’t know what to think, this is actively
not believing. It’s not a passive thing. Given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, his point stands. Evolution is entirely independent from the idea of a deity, anyway. It’s entirely possible to acknowledge the incredible likelihood that evolution is a fact while still believing in a deity. No reasonable atheist / secular humanist would ever call believers ’stupid’, as there are extremely large factors that could prevent people from gaining access to what we see as the truth.Dawkins expresses very strong views very succinctly, but care must be taken not to read more into them than is actually there.
- “The majority of the human race, both now and in the past, have believed in a deity or deities; those who consider themselves on account of their atheism to be intellectually superior to the majority of the human race really ought to take a more sober estimate of their abilities”. This is a tricky one, and depends on your definition of ‘intellectually superior’.
If I know more about photography, say, than a friend, do I consider myself ‘intellectually superior’? If you confine it to knowledge of photography, yes. By this I mean that it’s a fact that I know more. I take satisfaction in my knowledge, but not in that I have more of it than somebody else. That would make no sense. The statement seems to imply smugness, moral superiority and looking-down-upon those who know less, and I don’t see that in Dawkins’ writings, although admittedly it’s a failing of some atheist writers. It’s closely linked to the ‘believers are stupid’ idea above.
The scientific method says that we should look at all available evidence, form a tentative hypothesis and be open to further developments. I’m an atheist because I see no evidence for the existence of a deity. That ‘the majority of the human race…have believed’ is entirely irrelevant. I’ve read widely on the topic, and consider myself more educated about it than the average man on the street. But this doesn’t mean I’m claiming to be ‘intellectually superior’ or that I can understand more than the average person. It doesn’t mean I think I’m a different class of human, or morally superior. It simply means that I think I’ve looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion that any reasonable person would. I’m grateful that I have had the opportunity to do such a thing - it would make no sense to consider myself ‘better’ than anybody else for doing so.
The rest of the post deals with other matters, but I just wanted to put my case forward here. Blanket statements and attacks from the sidelines annoy me, especially when the issues involved are so important. If you think I’m wrong about anything, feel free to argue in the comments.
-----
32 Responses to “In Defence of Dawkins” 
-----
Leave a Reply
Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.Where am I?
You are currently reading the wongaBlog weblog archives - hello!
Recent Comments 
-
- benyon: I really want to goto a drive in cinema, i was trying to find one in the UK but i came accross this post.
- Andrew: That did occur to me! I have decided scarecrows = not nice. There must be a word for that.
- Skuds: Or was it the family of blood? All the classes in the school where my wife works made scarecrows as a...
- Darkwinter: Indeed, it was only when I saw the video embedded in a post by PZ Myers that I finally went “Ohhhh,...
- Lauren: Yep, I’ve seen that on TV a couple of times. I think once was during the American Idol finale…...
Latest Posts
Subscribe
Values
Stats!
- Since October 2003 there have been 2,924 posts and 4,714 comments. Akismet, meanwhile, has nuked 37,930 spam attempts.
I’m glad someone has picked up on the unfair criticism of Dawkins that has even spread to atheist commentators.
This assumption that Dawkins knows little about religion is completely false and well done in pointing this out.
Hello,
Just thought I’d stick my oar in too. Have just watched Dawkins’ performance on channel 4 and I’ve read most of his books. Basically, I think that although he is a truly revolutionary thinker in evolutionary science his knowledge and understanding of theology is incredibly lacking and these polemical diatribes he puts out only serve to muddy the waters. I’m not religious myself so my opinions don’t come from ‘indoctrination’, but theology - which is a proper academic area of study by reasonable criteria - is far more sophisticated than Dawkins’ portrays and was not in any way represented by the few nutters he talked to in his programme.
As far as I’m concerned I think the confusion with Dawkins comes from the way he likes to use fundamentalism and more specifically the American brand of young earth creationism as a stick with which to beat religion as a whole. In this way he paints religions as making - and depending upon - claims that the are demonstrably incompatible with science. This is to ignore mainstream theology which comfortably coexists alongside evolution and generally deals with issues that are not within the scientific domain of study.
From this grounding Dawkins likes to wax lyrical about all the ill effects of religion. Many of his arguments are really quite simplistic and nothing but baseless polemics for which he does not use his own much-loved standards of rigorous assessment of the evidence. I won’t go into detail but if religion is the cause of evil then why was the worst example of institutionalised genocide the world has ever seen committed by a vigorously atheist society? This is surely a difficult piece of evidence to get around.
I might just add that for many years I did totally share your views and those of Dawkins having read lots of popular science by materialist atheists. But, without trying to sound patronising, I broadened my reading horizons and found that outside his sphere Dawkins sounds more like Daily Mail journalist than a reasoned commentator.
Benjamin;
“mainstream theology which comfortably coexists alongside evolution and generally deals with issues that are not within the scientific domain of study.”
Theology makes claims on our behaviour that are not based on evidence, therefore it does infringe on science.
Fundamentalist religion is still religion, it is based on the same principles and beliefs as those who moderate their religious views. Dawkins emphasised quite what an inpact this can have. In the US, atheists are discriminated against and religious groups influence political decisions on how science is taught and in all sorts of other areas.
“Theology makes claims on our behaviour that are not based on evidence, therefore it does infringe on science.”
What evidence do you have for this statement. If you read what theologians write you will find this idea that Dawkins like to perpetuate: that “faith is blind trust in the absence of evidence”, is wrong and that theological claims are very evidence based.
On ‘child abuse’ - My problem with Dawkins’ line on this is that it is part of a general semantic trend whereby words like ‘abuse’, as with ‘fascist’, ‘totalitarian’ ‘oppression’ etc. are bent to cover things they were never intended to. Is Dawkins - or you - aware of what real child-abuse involves? To use the term in the same context as a nativity play is pretty silly and yes, vicious. You wouldn’t talk of a monetarist four year old but with economics, as with religion, the views of the parents are bound to be impressed on the child until they’re of an age to decide for themselves. Would it kill Dawkins simply to say he disapproves? It wouldn’t but he’d rather accuse the religious of abusing their children. I don’t understand how this can be understood as a reasonable line to take.
On theology departments - I can assure you he did say this, although it was on telly so I can’t provide a link. His view is ‘theology’ is the study of god; god doesn’t exist, ergo theology is pointless. This shows a breath-taking ignorance of what is taught in theology dpartments. God may not exist but theologians study doctrines, texts like the Bible and the Koran, the various philosophies of religion - including those who take Dawkins’ view, church history and so on. You could argue, I suppose, that these aren’t worth studying - although I’d disagree with this - but you couldn’t do this on the grounds that they don’t exist.
On Dawkins’ understanding of religion - You say, “If you’ve read Dawkins you’ll know how much knowledge he actually has of religious method, instruction and history.” I have read Dawkins and I’m aware that he has a reasonable grasp of religious history and theology but his greatest weakness is that he understands practically nothing about either the sociology or the psychology of religion, and this is his greatest weakness. He treats religious ideas as concepts completely abstracted from their social and historical context to be treated as more or less rational. But this isn’t how it works. Did you see the programme last night? While there was much I’d agree with, the section where he’s following devotees marching behind the statue of the Virgin Mary and announces this to be part of the ’slippery slope’ that leads to suicide-bombing represents the problem with Dawkins’ heavy-handed analysis. He seems to have practically no interest in the social context in which ideas operate or the social institutions that mediate them.
My principle concern - although you wouldn’t know this from your misrepresentation of my views - is to defend secular institutions and I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that people like Dawkins aren’t helping because his unsubtle approach serves to alienate people who might otherwise be supportive of measures like, for example, the elimination of religion from education. Dawkins needs a better understanding of how religious institutions function. Let me close with an illustration of what I’m trying to get at: many people like Dawkins view ‘fundamentalism’ as a religious tradition that stems from an interpretation of the Bible, or the Koran. My own view is that they would get nearer the mark if they could see the relationship works the other way around: it’s an interpretation of the Bible that springs from a perculiar religious tradition and to understand the sociological forces that have shaped and move it is a crucially important task. Dawkins simply ignores this side of it, which is why I feel quite free to ‘attack’ him. Sorry if that offended you but, hey - Dawkins is a big boy; he can cope.
Your post didn’t offend me, I just disagreed with parts of it
Didn’t mean to misrepresent your views - thanks for responding! We seem to agree in much of our thinking, and I’m happy we can debate the best way to solve the problems we’re both aware of.
Child-abuse is obviously an emotive topic. Mental abuse is clearly very different from physical abuse, but surely both can produce the same scarring in later life? At the time physical is undoubtedly far worse, but when it comes to the effects that both have later on…I can certainly see your point about the manipulation of language - hell, I complain about it all the time - but equally I can see how the teaching of religion could be construed as to fit the definition.
Theology departments - I’ll have to take your word for that, but I’d still like to see a quotation
I’d agree that wanting the closing down theology departments that study the sociological and historical sides of religion would make little sense.
I have to disagree on the social context front. I agree that the social framework does mediate the extremist tendencies, and of course the vast majority of religious preachers actively condemn fundamentalists. But he’s not just talking about the suicide bombers, he’s talking about the anti-condom campaigners and those who would teach intelligent design in schools. The social context in some religions actively encourages these things. When there’s an approach that restricts rational thought there is no difference between this ‘word of god’ and somebody’s interpretation that would lead to suicide bombing. Dawkins isn’t saying that all religious people would, under the right circumstances, blow themselves up. But he is saying that those capable of such acts would receive contradictory messages from religious doctrine, and when the social context involves the bible first and preachers second, the former will win over. When the ‘rational view’ is that the word of god is law, it’s irrelevant what other people’s interpretation is.
I wouldn’t say that Dawkins ignores your argument, but instead I think it’s far more likely that he disagrees and so disregards it. I can’t say whether fundamentalism comes from the bible or whether it’s the other way around - it’s definitely a question I’d like to hear discussed, now that you’ve mentioned it.
Benjamin -
Despite the title of the programme, I don’t think anybody is claiming that religion is the root of *all* evil. Just a hell of a lot of it
Of course atheist societies can behave badly - the claim isn’t that atheism will fix all of the world’s ills, but that critical thinking and reason can do a massive amount to alleviate them. Religion, however, does everything it can to suppress such notions.
“[religion] deals with issues that are not within the scientific domain of study.” Like what? Science is the study of everything. What else can there be?
You then say that “If you read what theologians write you will find this idea that Dawkins like to perpetuate: that “faith is blind trust in the absence of evidence”, is wrong and that theological claims are very evidence based.”
Please, tell me what this is! Are you talking about the existence of a deity as having some evidence? Or other theological claims? From everything I’ve ever seen or read, religion is entirely based upon the notion of something that has no evidence, and this is pushed as a virtue in most cases.
Krypto-
“I don’t think anybody is claiming that religion is the root of *all* evil. Just a hell of a lot of it”
I wasn’t claiming that that was Dawkins’ thinking. But if it makes no difference whether a society has a theistic basis or an atheistic basis for the amount of violence and ‘evil’ that goes it within it then what’s the point of making this statement about religion. In other words unless atheism is shown (with an evidence-base) to reduce violence within society then it cannot be true to say that religion promotes violence. In other words there is no identifiable causality one way or the other and the causes of violence are other factors altogether.
“the claim isn’t that atheism will fix all of the world’s ills, but that critical thinking and reason can do a massive amount to alleviate them. Religion, however, does everything it can to suppress such notions.”
“religion is entirely based upon the notion of something that has no evidence, and this is pushed as a virtue in most cases”
Now this idea that religion ’suppresses critical thinking and reason’ and is supported by ‘no evidence’ is exactly the kind of misinformation that Dawkins perpetuates and has achieved the status of a popular myth. What do you think the study of theology actually is? Would it surprise you to discover that it’s the application of critical thinking and reason to the evidence and arguments supporting the existence of a god? Indeed it is a study that is very closely analagous to the approach used in the sciences and many people would argue that it is an extension of the scientific world-view that helps to corroborate it. Indeed if religions are so groundless and nonsensical then why does such a high proportion of the scientific community subscribe to a religion, moreover, why are half (I think) of science nobel laureates of a religious persuasion? Are they all just ignorant, naive or misguided?
“[religion] deals with issues that are not within the scientific domain of study.” Like what? Science is the study of everything. What else can there be?
Science, in practice, is the study of physical phenomena using a reductionist method. When I say ‘outside the scientific domain’ I’m implying this practical definition. I do not, however, mean that the scientific method is not universally applicable. Quite the contrary, I think that scientific methodology is an extension of common sense and goes hand in hand with rationality within all areas of study. But my point was that neither a physicist nor an evolutionary biologist, for that matter, has a good background for discussing the possibility of God. They simply don’t spend their time reading and debating those arguments with any seriousness.
I’d quite like to suggest some reading matter but I’m ever concious of sounding like a patronising prick!
Benjamin,
“Quite the contrary, I think that scientific methodology is an extension of common sense and goes hand in hand with rationality within all areas of study.”
Not so sure. Go out in the morning and watch the sun rise; then, the same day watch it set. Common sense surely tells us that the sun moves round the earth.
t
Dawkins is an easy target not because of his strong views, but his arrogance.
Though the debate between punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution is not yet concluded, the vast majority of the evidence — from the pre-cambrian explosion, through the extinction of dinosaurs and several ice ages, even through to the USAs man-fearing feral “mustang” horses — suggests catastrophic events and sudden changes of circumstances are the key driving factor behind evolution.
Despite this, when the evangelical US pastor suggested that the theories that Richard holds to may be proven false by the time of his grandchildren, Richard stated that they won’t be. That is not simply a strong view, it is arrogance.
Furthermore, the program only looked at Judaism, Christianity and Islam; three religions of common origin and extremely similar views on the vast majority of issues. From these three, and indeed the most extreme elements of these, he claims conclusions that apply to religion in general.
What about Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Animism, Paganism…?
Niall - punctuated equilibruim and graduated evolution are differences only in aspects of the theory of evolution. The pastor and RD were discussing whether evolution itself would be disproven, not the finer details. Neither RD nor any decent scientist would claim that evolution (or indeed, any scientific theory) is complete - that’s how the scientific method works, after all.
The program was investigating the idea of faith with no corresponding evidence, which is surely an aspect of every religion? The focus on the three most ‘popular’ religions was to demonstrate the problems with this view, I thought. When every religion has this idea of faith, what’s wrong with applying the conclusions to all religion? Whether a specific religion preaches peace, the idea of suppressing critical thinking is common, and that’s what’s being discussed.
Benjamin -
There’s large amounts of evidence that religion causes violence. I don’t claim it does in everybody - far from it - but you only need look at the history books to see this. Anyway, we’re not discussing violence on its own here - it’s the lack of critical thinking induced by the suppression of reason under the guise of ‘faith’ that results in problems, of which violence is one. It’s not up to atheists to prove that another way would work better - the evidence shows that the current method causes problems.
If it’s a popular myth, where is this supposed evidence? If theologians have evidence, why isn’t it shown? I would be extremely surprised if theologians used anything resembling the scientific method in their studies into the existence of a deity. A method “closely analogous to the approach used in the sciences” suggests that it deviates from the scientific method. The scientific method cannot “go hand in hand with rationality” - it is itself rationality defined! Tony points out that common sense alone isn’t enough. The scienitific method involves looking at the evidence and bending over backwards to prove yourself wrong - it is dedicated to the exposition of truth. Why not use this method? What more can there possibly be?
You’d have to ask these scientists why they believe in a god, using this as evidence is a false tactic. Just because they supposedly do, doesn’t stop the arguments against the evidence being any less valid. Also, my, a biologist’s, any other scientist’s supposed lack of knowledge isn’t a valid argument. If the questions we ask are so simple, why not just answer them? “You need to study more” seems to be avoiding the question, to me…
“There’s large amounts of evidence that religion causes violence”
“only need look at the history books to see this”
I fail to see this evidence. I have been trying to highlight that this is not the case by appealing to history and formulating the best type of controlled experiment that history (as our laboratory) allows. The history books document violence in both religious and anti-religious societies therefore implying that it is not a causative factor. This is especially relevant since Dawkins, you and myself are all firmly of the belief that the scientific method is universal and, as far as I can see, out of the three of us, I’m the only one using it here!
“If theologians have evidence, why isn’t it shown?”
Theologians publish all the time but they are just not as good at self-publicity as Dawkins.
By way of example “The Existence of God” by Richard Swinburne of Oxford University - a rigourous, scholarly and highly rational text which uses probability theory to assess a belief in god. He begins the book by laying out his epistemological approach to the nature of an explanation and goes on to elucidate the range of arguments for the existence of god ranging the cosmological to the historical. These are well-known arguments within philosophy of theology and been developed and refined over hundreds of years.
I would also recommend Keith Ward, and Alister McGrath is particularly interesting on the sociology of atheism and not least the nature of Dawkins’ own view of theology.
“You’d have to ask these scientists why they believe in a god, using this as evidence is a false tactic. Just because they supposedly do, doesn’t stop the arguments against the evidence being any less valid.”
I made my statement about scientists being religious only to illustrate that your claim that religion is irrational opposes the views that a lot of very rational people hold. This was not meant to be evidence for the existence of god. Indeed if that is what we are arguing it will take a lot longer for me to have my say. I am merely trying to tell you that what Dawkins says is a poor reflection of reality and that a more thorough study of the issue would help to reveal this. That’s not meant to be an argument but a personal suggestion.
The argument isn’t that religion is the only causative factor, but that it is a major one. The crusades, israel/palestine, northern ireland - they’re all entirely religiously motivated problems.
Also, publicity isn’t the issue. The scientific process allows for anybody to present evidence. Scientific journals will publish anything that’s been peer-reviewed and agreed to make sense. If theologians have evidence that meets scientific standards then there’s nothing to stop them presenting it…
But I still don’t understand what it is that’s a poor reflection of reality…I’m happy to read the books, but I have a suspicion that if I still disagree I’ll be pointed to more, when surely the counter-arguments must be arranged online somewhere?
Krypto,
“argument isn’t that religion is the only causative factor, but that it is a major one”
I know that you are not claiming that religion was the ONLY causative factor. I am saying that history gives us no evidence that it is a causative factor at all.
“The crusades, israel/palestine, northern ireland - they’re all entirely religiously motivated problems”
This is a bizarre statement. These conflicts are certainly not ENTIRELY religious in origin. The primary causative factors are certainly issues of history, politics, culture and ethnicity. Do you really think that if only the Israelis and the Palestines all gave up their religions and became atheist there would be no more conflict?
“Scientific journals will publish anything that’s been peer-reviewed and agreed to make sense.”
Scientific journals publish science. Theology has its own journals. It’s absurd to think that the reason they don’t publish theological theories in scientific journals is that they are not peer-reviewed or that they don’t make sense. Your not being aware of theology or basing what you conceive to be theological arguments on what you hear some wacky evangelical preacher saying on TV is not good grounds for dismissing the whole area of study before even looking at it.
Look, my suggestion to you is that you try reading something I’ve suggested, Keith Ward’s - God, Chance or Necessity is a excellent read. It takes a very scientific approach and directly argues against the materialist approach taken by Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins in their respective areas of study. Although you might find some of the debate online it’s generally quite hard to find much that makes any sense for either camp and reading a book-length argument by a professional gives you a much better insight.
I think that a central point to take on board is that although you might think that arguments for god are very ropey, are there actually better arguments for atheism. It was a revelation to be to see atheism as a claim in itself. Atheists normally frame all their arguments as rejections of the reasons given for believing in a god. However, to be an atheist is to make a positive statement - that there is nothing external to the universe, or that only the physical exists. The alternative is that something (whatever term you give it: god for convenience) exists. These are the only two options: something or nothing. Atheists only tend to argue against the something and very rarely in favour of the nothing. If you see the debate in this light and then try and take theological arguments seriously, rather than being dismissive, peoples beliefs may seem less unreasonable. To me this is the more rational approach.
Tony,
“Go out in the morning and watch the sun rise; then, the same day watch it set. Common sense surely tells us that the sun moves round the earth.”
I said that “scientific rationality was an EXTENSION of common sense”. The extension being that if you take many observations of planetary movements using astronomical instruments and apply mathematical models to the accumulated data (much as Copernicus did) it becomes common sense to say that the earth orbits the sun. My statment was just a shorthand way of saying that there is nothing mysterious about a scientific approach. That is not to say that such a method can not produce counter-intuitive results.
But history does give us plenty of evidence…The crusades were to liberate holy land. Northern Ireland’s problems are because of the catholic/protestant rivalry. Israel and Palestine hate each other primarily because of their different religions which are entirely incompatible. The cultural and ‘ethnic’ (not sure what this means) causes mainly stem from religion, as do the historical ones. ‘Entirely’ was indeed the wrong word to use, there, but to say that religion isn’t the major cause of all of these problems is surely ignoring the facts?
Atheism is most definitely not actively stating the non-existence of a deity, that’s a common mistake. Atheism is saying that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity, and that the burden of proof lies upon those who make the claim that there is (so-called ’strong atheism’ involves saying that no deities exist, but that makes as little sense as claiming they do). Having looked at the evidence, I can come to a tentative conclusion that it is extremely likely no god exists, but I’m open to any evidence that says otherwise. Athiests do not have to actively argue that there is no god - or ‘in favour of the nothing’ - as you can’t prove a negative. If I said that I didn’t believe in a china teapot orbiting the sun (to quote Bertrand Russell) nobody would say that I should be making arguments in favour of there *not* being one - the onus is clearly on those who believe in the teapot to show that there is.
Although I haven’t read the books you’ve suggested, I’ve read similar tomes and have found them flawed. Looking around the internet right now, there are plenty of reviews of these books with criticisms that come back to the same old issue about basing theories and indeed interpreting ‘evidence’ (like the probability of god allowing the existence of evil, or some such) upon faith. I’ll continue to expose myself to all sides, but although science is all about bending-over-backwards to prove that you’re wrong, in this case there’s no scientific theory that needs defending. It’s not that I’m wrong, it’s that religion hasn’t proven itself. Again, it’s up to those making the extraordinary claim to show that they are correct, and it’s entirely reasonable to expect this to happen in the way that all other claims are verified - namely, by scientific journals and the use of evidence. This is how the scientific method works, and is an entirely rational procedure that eliminates personal bias and does everything it can to find the truth. New theories in physics are not revealed via popular non-fiction, they’re analysed rigorously first. Theology falls under the bracket of science, the study of everything, and saying that religious claims should instead be published in ‘theological journals’ makes no sense. If the evidence is there, why not show everybody in the accepted way? That, surely, is the rational approach.
Krypto said:
“The program was investigating the idea of faith with no corresponding evidence, which is surely an aspect of every religion? The focus on the three most ‘popular’ religions was to demonstrate the problems with this view, I thought. When every religion has this idea of faith, what’s wrong with applying the conclusions to all religion? Whether a specific religion preaches peace, the idea of suppressing critical thinking is common, and that’s what’s being discussed.”
Yes, this program was discussing the suppression of rationality, but it is part of a two-part demonstration of the danger of religion. As I understand it, he will go on to attempt to show that religion kills, but I have yet to hear of anyone being described as Buddhist jihadi. The Hindu Ayurvedic tradition has always adhered to principles of empirical observation, as have several threads of Chinese spirituality. These systems may have flaws, and the larger part of their treatments may prove to be worthless, but even yet the occassional treatment emerges to have benefits that western medicine cannot explain, but accepts as having a real therapeutic effect. (Consider accupuncture, now practiced as a routine part of patient care by many NHS physiotherapists.)
Even going back to the three featured religions, which are only truly representative of the Canaanite philosophy as all three emerged from Judaism, even then his claim that the belief in God suppresses rational thought does not bear weight. Yes, belief in God is irrational, and I say that as a believer. I accept it as irrational and resist any attempts by others to rationalise it. However, having one irrational thought does not make one wholly irrational. My sister has a fear of spiders. This is irrational, but it does not make her unfit to study to be a doctor — she is in control of her rational faculties in the majority of situations.
Indeed, the Judaistic tradition celebrates the idea of learning about creation as a virtue and a method of praising God. This was carried on into Christianity and Islam and the people and instutions of all three religions greatly furthered our understanding of physics, astronomy and maths. The man called “the father of genetics”, Gregor Mendel, who proposed the idea of a “particle” of inheritance, and even the notion of dominant and recessive traits, was a monk. Dawkins’ work relies on the rational science of a churchman, but he’d never shout that one from the rooftops.
And the final irony, is that the hallowed scientific institution that he works for, Oxford University, was established for the better understanding of the sciences by the Catholic Church.
Krypto said:
“The argument isn’t that religion is the only causative factor, but that it is a major one. The crusades, israel/palestine, northern ireland - they’re all entirely religiously motivated problems.”
That’s a debatable point.
The conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Ireland are about historical land disputes between different ethnic/sociographic groups. One of the differences within each pair is religion, and that religion is used to give authority to their territorial disputes.
However, that is not to say that religion causes these territorial disputes. Similar disputes can be seen in the form of atheistic/same-sect gangwars in cities the world over.
In fact, territorial disputes even occur in animals who have no notion of God.
There is no conclusive evidence that believing in God breeds violence, although it is obvious that the flawed “martyrdom” theology propounded by some fanatical extremists does provide for a more extreme form of violence.
It’s not killing on its own, although that’s obviously an effect, I think it’s the suppression of critical thinking and rational thought that is being presented as the main danger of religion. There are no Buddhist jihadis, but I bet there are examples of Buddhists causing problems through insistence on their own beliefs being ‘respected’, even when nonsensical.
That systems can be shown to have previously unrealised benefits is irrelevant - there are infinitely more ideas that proved to be incorrect than the reverse. That’s why evidence is so important.
You’ve really intrigued me with your statement that you are aware your belief in a deity is irrational. I hope you don’t mind if I ask a couple of questions based on this. A fear of spiders, for example, is presumably founded in the idea that the spider will cause harm in some way. The idea is valid in itself, it’s just that it couldn’t really happen. Similarly, there must be a reason that you’ve decided to have a ‘faith’. Whether it’s that you want to believe, or that you feel it to be true, or whatever, there must be a reason behind the belief, even though you know it to be irrational. I can’t understand how you can ‘resist any attempts…to rationalise it’, but that’s up to you
I entirely agree that having irrational thoughts does not make one irrational entirely. I’ve always imagined that scientists who claim to believe in god must lock it away in a part of their brains and not analyse it - they make a special exception for other reasons. If somebody can do this about their belief, and behave rationally in every other way, then that’s of course ok. The problem comes firstly with any faith-baggage. If you subscribe to a particular religion that preaches against the use of birth control in aids-ravaged countries, do you shut that away too? Some people would, and lack of critical thinking about that kind of issue causes great harm. But let’s say that your belief is simply in a deity, and that you don’t follow the teachings of any particular religious institution. The other issue is for people who do not make a conscious decision to make an exception for religion - they reject critical thinking for whatever reason (they don’t like it, their particular religion makes a virtue of mystery etc.) and then, something homeopathy comes along.
Homeopathy is very much like acupuncture in that for a very long time both have been the subject of much propaganda. Both claim amazing medical benefits. Acupuncture finally produced some evidence that it worked. The gumpf that came with it, like the x number of chinese pressure points, turned out to be nonsense, but it’s been shown that acupuncture can have some beneficial effects. Great - medical advances are of course wonderful. Then you’ve got homeopathy, which makes incredible claims and provides no evidence to back them up. There are thousands of people who claim to have been cured by homeopathy, but there are perfectly valid scientific reasons why this isn’t evidence of anything (confirmation bias, the placebo effect etc.).
What’s the difference between believing in homeopathy and believing in a deity? Neither have any evidence other than the testimonials of many people. If critical standards aren’t applied you end up with the current situation in which many people refuse proper medical care in favour of drinking pure water - homeopathy is causing unnecessary deaths and has been for years.
I’m not claiming that religion is solely responsible for the rise of homeopathy, but you can see what I mean about the correlations? If logic and reason are suppressed, this is the kind of thing that happens, and is just one example. Because the major religions push mystery as a virtue and encourage people not to think critically, the world is suffering. If you’re able to make an exception for religion, that’s great, but I’d suggest that doing that never occurs to many people, because the idea of analysing things properly is never something that is even explained to them.
Incidentally, the irony of Oxford being started by the Catholic church is lost on me. So what? I highly doubt the Catholic church had this kind of use in mind, and the argument isn’t that the church is incapable of producing anything good, just that the bad far outweighs it
I don’t think there’s any point in continuing the discussion on the various conflicts around the world - to me it’s incredibly obvious that religion caused those particular territorial disputes in the first place, but the opposite is apparently evident to others, and without evidence either way we’re not going to get very far.
Interesting arguments though - thanks very much for responding! I’m enjoying thinking things through.
I’m a catholic. I believe because I was brought up to and have always done. I have felt comfort from it — which could be described as feeling God’s presence, but I accept that it may simply be a psychological trick that has been programmed into my brain. Should I reject religion? That would seem counter-productive. If I have been brain-washed, then deprogramming myself would mean losing a very useful source of comfort and support.
Furthermore, I would be rejecting in the absence of any rational evidence. There is no rational reason for my belief, so there can be no rational counter-argument.
So why bother? I accept it and move on. I live in the real world and interact with the whole of society — it’s what we’re supposed to do.
“If you subscribe to a particular religion that preaches against the use of birth control in aids-ravaged countries, do you shut that away too? Some people would, and lack of critical thinking about that kind of issue causes great harm.”
That’s a difficult one. The churches that are against birth-control are also against sexual intercourse outside marriage. Are the churches to say “don’t sin, but if you do then do it this way”? Let’s take a secular parallel: drugs. Numerous people die every year from taking impure drugs. Some argue that the governments are to blame as if drugs were legal, they could be regulated and made safer. The government, on behalf of society, maintains that the drugs are inherently harmful and that legalisation would lead to an increase in users and an increase in death and mental illness.
“I’m not claiming that religion is solely responsible for the rise of homeopathy, but you can see what I mean about the correlations? If logic and reason are suppressed, this is the kind of thing that happens, and is just one example. Because the major religions push mystery as a virtue and encourage people not to think critically, the world is suffering. If you’re able to make an exception for religion, that’s great, but I’d suggest that doing that never occurs to many people, because the idea of analysing things properly is never something that is even explained to them.”
Can we credit the rise in popularity “new age” and eastern practices in the western world? I do not see how. The popularity of these practices has occurred in the generations brought up in the absence of a religious upbringing. There seems to be something in the human psyche that seeks out both authority and mysticism.
So is it the desire for an authority or for mysticism that causes the suspension of rational thought? Most people’s initial reaction would be mysticism — it seems obvious, but it’s not that clear cut.
Are you familiar with the Milgram experiment? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Milgram discovered that the majority of people would deliver seemingly life-threatening electric shocks to other human beings if a man in a labcoat told them to do so and told them they would not be held responsible if anything went wrong. The rational mind would reject this action as immoral/harmful on the grounds of evidence presented (the numbers on the dial, the screams of the subject, the later lack of response from the subject), yet 65% of the study group delivered the full 450-volt shock.
This suggests that it is deference to authority — whether divine or earthly — that causes us to suspend rational thought, and (speaking as the devil’s advocate) perhaps mysticism is a symptom of this, and indeed perhaps religion is simply the minds way of trying to resolve the issue of an ultimate authority when faced with more than one opposing authority figure.
It is easy to blame religion for a wide variety of historical ills for one simple reason: historically, the majority of the world has been religious. Widespread atheism is a relatively new invention, so doesn’t have a large back-catalogue of faults to pick at. But we do have Stalin’s USSR: a totalitarian secular regime with an earthly authority figure that suppressed rational debate through entirely earthly propaganda.
“Incidentally, the irony of Oxford being started by the Catholic church is lost on me.”
It’s quite simple: Oxford University was founded by a religious for the study and furtherance of rational, empirical science. Dawkins is a professor at Oxford. Dawkins claims the core of religion is diametrically opposed to rational thought. Dawkins, in effect, denies the existence of his employers.
Whoops, forgot about this!
I agree that it would be depriving you of a source of comfort, but if you’re a catholic who thinks that countries ravaged by aids shouldn’t promote the use of condoms then I have little sympathy, I’m afraid. Your statement about the churches saying “don’t sin, but if you do then do it this way” only makes sense if you don’t analyse the initial belief. It does indeed cause a problem if you happen to believe in sin, but my argument is that since there is no reason to believe in this the problems shouldn’t arise.
“There is no rational reason for my belief, so there can be no rational counter-argument.” - The rational counter-argument is that there’s no reason to believe it in the first place.
It’s undoubtedly true that the human psyche seeks out mysticism, but that’s not my argument. I claim that the growth in these kinds of beliefs are due to a lack of rational thought - a doctrine explicitly promoted by religion.
Saying that “religion is simply the minds way of trying to resolve the issue of an ultimate authority when faced with more than one opposing authority figure” is rather a leap. Although I think there’s case for a psychological attraction to religion because of the comfort it seems to provide, the idea of faith as a meme with built-in mechanisms for avoiding its own destruction (’faith’ being the major example) also makes a lot of sense.
I do not make any claims about the perfection of atheistic societies, my claims are that religion directly stifles rational thought, and it is this that is a major negative influence. I’m not talking about alternative ways of living - that’s where secular humanism comes in, and I don’t know enough about that yet to say one way or another whether I think it makes sense.
“Dawkins, in effect, denies the existence of his employers.” - *blinks*. That doesn’t follow at all…
“It’s undoubtedly true that the human psyche seeks out mysticism, but that’s not my argument. I claim that the growth in these kinds of beliefs are due to a lack of rational thought - a doctrine explicitly promoted by religion.”
If you claim to be a rationalist then presumeably you only hold a belief when you have sufficient evidence to defend it. What is your evidence that religion promotes a lack of rational thought?
Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence. A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted. Surely this is completely contrary to rational thought?
“Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence”
I go along with that
“A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted”
I contest this definition you have of faith. What is your evidence for this definition?
Can you find me an incidence of a Christian writer using this definition? Dawkins certainly agrees with you. He defines faith as ‘blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence’. As far as I am concerned such a faith would be worthwhile criticising but if no serious christian ever uses this definition then how does this constitute an argument against christianity?
A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows:
‘Faith affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.’
The key point here is that it is not ‘blind’ it is not ‘in the absence of evidence’ and it is therefore not simply accepted’. With this in mind the blanket criticism of religion as inherently irrational is clearly wrong. Furthermore attacking the spurious beliefs and reasoning of those in the fringes of religions and their weak grasp of such concepts is like picking holes in a GCSE students ideas of biology. In other words that a GCSE student cannot make a convincing case for evolution does not mean that the whole field is rubbish.
Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of ‘religious’ practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion. And it is particularly galling that he does so without evidence - that is to say his definition the concept of faith is not backed up by evidence.
Just to add a point on faith: Somewhere at a starting point of the theory of evolution, a “cannot be challenged” tenet or assumption has been made which cannot be supported by science: in this case, the absolute refusal to believe that God can play a role in the equation (because science can neither prove nor disprove God - inferences of judgement can be made, but not 100% conclusions).
Proponents of evolution like believe that do not have faith. But they do. The only difference is what is the OBJECT OF THAT FAITH. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim “no faith”, but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind’s superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it.
Benjamin - “Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of ‘religious’ practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion”. I agree. EXTRAPOLATION seems to be the name of game here.
I was commenting on another thread (http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/17/second-part-of-the-root-of-all-evil) and could not resist putting my thoughts.
Peace,
~Sal
A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows:’Faith affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.
Benjamin,
That not a definition of faith. Griffith-Thomas starts with an assumption then uses verbs like “affects”, “commences”, “continued”, and “crowned”.These are perfectly valid observations of the affects of faith but not a definition.
t
Tony,
Griffith-Thomas is giving a description of what faith is and how it comes about - which is what amounts to a defintion. And the central point I am making is that faith includes ‘the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence’. You can’t have an assumption in a definition, you are stating what a term means so therefore your defintion stands and the point to be debated is how many people who use the term agree with the definition. And in the case of Christianity I think that this is typical of most serious writer’s understanding of the term.
I don’t really know what to say about that - that’s not any definition of ‘faith’ that I’ve ever heard used before. But changing the words doesn’t make any difference to the argument. There is no evidence for the existence of a deity, so belief in a deity is based upon nothing reasonable, hence why I think it stifles rational thought.
Sal - to paraphrase my response to that: no, no, no, no, no.
I repeat, there is no agenda in science. The non-existence of a deity is *not* assumed at the start of the process - I wish I knew why so many religious people have this bizarre idea. The theories are based upon evidence, and that is all.
There is no need for blind daith in the evolutionary process, because anybody can look at the base evidence and see the logical arguments stemming from it. This is the complete opposite of faith (no matter what odd definiton you use) in which belief is based upon no evidence.
Here in the States most people believe in the existence of god, and subscribe to a particular branch of a religion (i.e., branch of the Protestant faith). And a large minority in the country consider themselves Catholics. And there are a few million Jews too, mostly secular. An atheist oftentimes lives in the proverbial “closet” in order not to alienate/offend this large believing majority.
Weren’t these beliefs taught to us when we were too young to think rationally about many things? Was this the original point to this thread of comments?
In effect, is the belief in a god just the result of this universal societal folkway to inculcate children into the belief of a deity? Do we do this for the same reason parents tell children there is a Santa Claus (it is the expedient thing to do, just in case the child doesn’t like his/her Christmas gift)? Is belief in a god the expedient way to get a child to stop crying when a close relative dies? Was believing in god originally a red herring, and now we’ve been hoisted on our own petard?
Is atheism the workings of evolution in our brains? Is there something genetic going on (or at least genetic drift) that results in some of us to completely divest ourselves from our childhood religious/god teachings?
Is god/religion just a palliative to the fear so many have of death?
As an atheist these questions are never answered by others, since I don’t ask them. Any thoughts?
I think the idea of religion as a meme explains much of why it succeeds so spectacularly. It’s an idea with built-in safeguards against analysis, built-in methods of transfer that attack the recipient when they are at their most open to suggestion and, most powerful of all, the ability to superficially provide comfort and tell people what they want to hear.
I don’t think atheism is really an evolutionary tendency, in fact my hunch is that the ability to think rationally is far more the result of environmental than nature. I’m sure it’s true that some people have the ability to think more rationally than others, but it seems unlikely to me that the difference is actually that large. I’d think that a person’s surroundings are the major factor in their ability to think critically. If you are allowed to think for yourself as you grow up, and are surrounded by sources of knowledge as well as being taught how to discover what is true and what is not, I think you’ll probably see that religion is based upon nothing. But if the opposite is true, it’s not that people willfully refuse to listen, it’s that it never occurs to them that anything other than what they believe could be true. Or something - I could be talking nonsense
I just read the “meme” reference in Wikipedia and learned that Dawkins believes religion is a meme. So, we are so mindless that we follow the myths of religion as good “imitators”? The meme concept seems to imply that our human gullibility is just a benign trait (for religion; not for a meme that results in genocide), and belies the problem that many of use do not make much of an attempt to think for ourselves. Or, at least the meme concept seems to excuse (by ignoring) our reluctance to come to our own conclusions on many things. Sad, if it is true.