5 ms·

I am an atheist, but I thought Dawkin's book, the god delusion, came across frankly as ignorant. There are whole canons of theological thought which counter ma

I am an atheist, but I thought Dawkin's book, the god delusion, came across frankly as ignorant. There are whole canons of theological thought which counter many of his arguments, as theologians raised those concerns ages ago and have been thinking about them for literally thousands of years. I think maybe he served a role though. An unreasonable voice can still be a valuable one, however much I might dislike that fact

paulryanrogers 4y ago
So your criticism is based on an appeal to authority? Do you value medicine based on humors more than the scientific method? They are more ancient and are thoroughly argued.
- optionalsquid 4y ago
  It's been a long time since I read The God Delusion, so my memory is hazy, but I read it after having read books like Nicholas Everitt's The Non-Existence of God and Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, and I remember being disappointed with how comparatively weak Dawkins' treatment of the subject was. As LeroyRaz pointed out, these arguments are not new and a lot of back-and-forth has been (and is) happening, but from what I recall Dawkins only ever addressed weaker (layman's) versions of those arguments and it felt pretty obvious that he was writing about a subject far outside of his area of expertise
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    What are the stronger arguments for a god then? Because having been raised in churches and studying under university trained apologists I've only encountered weak arguments. All relying on appeals to authority or unfalsifiable claims. Even the premise of a god strikes me as impossible and/or irrelevant given it must also exist outside the bounds of our experience.
    - optionalsquid 4y ago
      Mostly it's the same general arguments that Dawkins addresses, modified in various ways to address counter arguments, though I recall Plantinga in particular having some novel arguments that I believe were covered in Martin's book. Some of these were quite interesting, even if not convincing (to me). However, I couldn't give you the specifics as it has been a long time since I tried to engage with theistic apologetics. If you are interested then I'd suggest checking out the two books that I mentioned, as they cover the subject in depth.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  They didn't explicitly say it but how that reveals the ignorance of dawkins here is that the attacks he chose were effectively fended off hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago by theology and apologetics. It's not just that the refutations are old, it's that they're old and convincing. Which is not to say that the conversation is over, or that the theologians are correct. But that an informed argument would be to address the (ancient) refutations to the naive attacks, rather than to simply restate the naive attacks as if they are insightful. The points he raises in that book aren't going to be novel to pretty much anyone. Most believers will recognize them from their own minds. Probably no modern person is a "pure" believer: we are all exposed to and familiar with the mechanisms and logic of unbelief. Believers experience belief more as an inconsistent state, or an active effort or choice, than a simple delusion they are unable to perceive. There's a very interesting conversation there that dawkins wasn't willing or maybe able to have. Charles Taylor's "a secular age" is one place where you could pick up the conversation our society has been having with itself for centuries about the mechanisms, role & effects of belief, delusion, religion & faith if you were interested in it as a practical or philosophical question and not as a battlefield for self aggrandizement as dawkins clearly was.
  - d0mine 4y ago
    Zero actual argument.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      No, because I'm not making one. I'm pointing out that the argument is in progress already, has been for centuries, and dawkins should catch up if he wants to be taken seriously as a participant.
  - epups 4y ago
    > the attacks he chose were effectively fended off hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago by theology and apologetics. It's not just that the refutations are old, it's that they're old and convincing Could you provide a couple of examples?
epups 4y ago
Can you point to a couple of examples?
jll29 4y ago
Although I enjoyed reading the Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins clearly isn't a scholar seeking the truth; rather, he is an activist that is trying to spread/evangelize his personal atheist agenda. The one thing I don't understand his what caused him to behave that way - was he perhaps abused by a cleric? Just read "The Dawkins Delusion" (2010) by his Oxford colleague Alister McGrath, which takes Dawkins apart and demonstrates the book's ignorance.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Remember that The God Delusion was published 20 years after The Blind Watchmaker. While certainly TBW made no bones about the author's atheism, it primarily focused on evolution, which was, in 1986, still considered rather subversive and doubtful to much of the public. Even more so when The Selfish Gene in 1976, only 4 years after the first gene was sequenced. A lot of public opinion changed from 1986 to 2006, making evolutionary biology unlikely to be a radical, controversial or even interesting topic any more. Probably also changed was Dawkins' personal outlook on religion and atheism. Possibly this was affected by the reactions drawn by TSG and TBW, as two notable books that helped finally drew evolution into the mainstream and Dawkins himself being a self-made pro-evolution lightning rod. I also don't happen to think it was a coincidence that the more philosophical angle of things like Unweaving the Rainbow gave way to more aggressive writing (uncharitably I might say "Reddit bait") just as the Internet really hit its stride. Alternatively, and rather more prosaically, some people seem to just get, well, angrier, in their mid-60s.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

So your criticism is based on an appeal to authority? Do you value medicine based on humors more than the scientific method? They are more ancient and are thoroughly argued.

optionalsquid 4y ago
It's been a long time since I read The God Delusion, so my memory is hazy, but I read it after having read books like Nicholas Everitt's The Non-Existence of God and Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, and I remember being disappointed with how comparatively weak Dawkins' treatment of the subject was. As LeroyRaz pointed out, these arguments are not new and a lot of back-and-forth has been (and is) happening, but from what I recall Dawkins only ever addressed weaker (layman's) versions of those arguments and it felt pretty obvious that he was writing about a subject far outside of his area of expertise
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  What are the stronger arguments for a god then? Because having been raised in churches and studying under university trained apologists I've only encountered weak arguments. All relying on appeals to authority or unfalsifiable claims. Even the premise of a god strikes me as impossible and/or irrelevant given it must also exist outside the bounds of our experience.
  - optionalsquid 4y ago
    Mostly it's the same general arguments that Dawkins addresses, modified in various ways to address counter arguments, though I recall Plantinga in particular having some novel arguments that I believe were covered in Martin's book. Some of these were quite interesting, even if not convincing (to me). However, I couldn't give you the specifics as it has been a long time since I tried to engage with theistic apologetics. If you are interested then I'd suggest checking out the two books that I mentioned, as they cover the subject in depth.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
They didn't explicitly say it but how that reveals the ignorance of dawkins here is that the attacks he chose were effectively fended off hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago by theology and apologetics. It's not just that the refutations are old, it's that they're old and convincing. Which is not to say that the conversation is over, or that the theologians are correct. But that an informed argument would be to address the (ancient) refutations to the naive attacks, rather than to simply restate the naive attacks as if they are insightful. The points he raises in that book aren't going to be novel to pretty much anyone. Most believers will recognize them from their own minds. Probably no modern person is a "pure" believer: we are all exposed to and familiar with the mechanisms and logic of unbelief. Believers experience belief more as an inconsistent state, or an active effort or choice, than a simple delusion they are unable to perceive. There's a very interesting conversation there that dawkins wasn't willing or maybe able to have. Charles Taylor's "a secular age" is one place where you could pick up the conversation our society has been having with itself for centuries about the mechanisms, role & effects of belief, delusion, religion & faith if you were interested in it as a practical or philosophical question and not as a battlefield for self aggrandizement as dawkins clearly was.
- d0mine 4y ago
  Zero actual argument.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    No, because I'm not making one. I'm pointing out that the argument is in progress already, has been for centuries, and dawkins should catch up if he wants to be taken seriously as a participant.
- epups 4y ago
  > the attacks he chose were effectively fended off hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago by theology and apologetics. It's not just that the refutations are old, it's that they're old and convincing Could you provide a couple of examples?

epups 4y ago

Can you point to a couple of examples?

jll29 4y ago

Although I enjoyed reading the Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins clearly isn't a scholar seeking the truth; rather, he is an activist that is trying to spread/evangelize his personal atheist agenda. The one thing I don't understand his what caused him to behave that way - was he perhaps abused by a cleric? Just read "The Dawkins Delusion" (2010) by his Oxford colleague Alister McGrath, which takes Dawkins apart and demonstrates the book's ignorance.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Remember that The God Delusion was published 20 years after The Blind Watchmaker. While certainly TBW made no bones about the author's atheism, it primarily focused on evolution, which was, in 1986, still considered rather subversive and doubtful to much of the public. Even more so when The Selfish Gene in 1976, only 4 years after the first gene was sequenced. A lot of public opinion changed from 1986 to 2006, making evolutionary biology unlikely to be a radical, controversial or even interesting topic any more. Probably also changed was Dawkins' personal outlook on religion and atheism. Possibly this was affected by the reactions drawn by TSG and TBW, as two notable books that helped finally drew evolution into the mainstream and Dawkins himself being a self-made pro-evolution lightning rod. I also don't happen to think it was a coincidence that the more philosophical angle of things like Unweaving the Rainbow gave way to more aggressive writing (uncharitably I might say "Reddit bait") just as the Internet really hit its stride. Alternatively, and rather more prosaically, some people seem to just get, well, angrier, in their mid-60s.