Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[_MrStakhanovite]

Stak apparently assumes that The God Delusion was written for atheists. In fact, if he were to learn more about Dawkins and the Dawkins Foundation, he would realize that Dawkins is writing for misguided believers. I hope Stak will understand the pragmatism in play here and cut Prof. Dawkins some slack.

If this book is written for believers, this is even worse! What happens when that believer reads one of the many replies to Dawkins that point out these same things, or watches some Apologist tear the work apart?

EDIT: And I don't assume anything, Dawkins makes it pretty clear he hopes this book will have a positive effect on Atheists, even on page 4 of the preface, he talks about how he hopes this book helps atheists "come out".

[_DrW]

Stak apparently assumes that The God Delusion was written for atheists. In fact, if he were to learn more about Dawkins and the Dawkins Foundation, he would realize that Dawkins is writing for misguided believers. I hope Stak will understand the pragmatism in play here and cut Prof. Dawkins some slack.

If this book is written for believers, this is even worse! What happens when that believer reads one of the many replies to Dawkins that point out these same things, or watches some Apologist tear the work apart?

Stak,

Christian apologist don't tear Dawkins work apart, because it is science based and stands on a foundation of evidence and fact. When building a worldview, one is best to start with facts. If you think that the Discovery Institute, or any other Christian based advocacy group has made any headway whatsoever against Dawkins' position, I would be very interested to see it.


I read the piece on "Divine Simplicity" that you referenced in your blog. If such mumbo jumbo is what passes for useful philosophy, nowadays, then I will stick with science. Thanks for the comment, though.

[_marg]

And he does a terrible job of it.

Not at all he shows just how illogical Swinburne is.

Swinburne’s book “ Is there a God?” is a reader’s digest version of his fuller argument that stretches across 3 books and 50 plus journal articles. If you actually want to present a relevant and undercutting defeat of what Swinburne says, you go where his arguments are best constructed, not a version that’s written at the popular level.

Look at what you quoted:

Dawkins via marg: "But how can Swinburne possibly maintain that this hypothesis of God simultaneously keeping a gazillion fingers on wayward electrons is a simple hypothesis? It is of coarse, precisely the opposite of simple. Swinburne pulls off the trick to his own satisfaction by a breathtaking piece of intellectual chutzpah. He asserts, without justification, that God is only a single substance. With brilliant economy of explanatory causes, compared with all those gigazillions of independent electrons all just happening to be the same!"

That doesn’t even deal with the doctrine of divine simplicity, I don’t even think that objection even gets off the ground, nor is it even fair to Swinburne. You are going to hand wave an idea away that takes pages to explain in just one or two paragraphs?

The "Doctrine of Divine Simplicity"? Eh gads. I think philosophy is essentially a function of making up labels ..as opposed to critical thinking. Look if you think The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity proves God then you offer up the logic. Criticizing Dawkins for not catering to philosophers you like is ridiculous. Dawkins promotes critical thinking..what is Swinbourne promoting? From the quotes he doesn't sound very logical.

This does a disservice to both Atheists and Theists, and does nothing to advance the discussion.

So says Stak, whose reasoning I'm not particularly impressed with.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Christian apologist don't tear Dawkins work apart, because it is science based and stands on a foundation of evidence and fact.

Not so much as Christian Apologists, as Philosophers, both atheist and theist. The science isn't in question, it's how Dawkins draws inferences from that science to defeat the belief in God.

I read the piece on "Divine Simplicity" that you referenced in your blog. If such mumbo jumbo is what passes for useful philosophy, nowadays, then I will stick with science. Thanks for the comment, though.

It's probably mumbo jumbo because you don't get it, and I don't get the "I will stick with science" part because, metaphysical ideas about simplicity are relevent to meta questions about science, and it's not an either/or kinda thing.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Look if you think The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity proves God then you offer up the logic. Criticizing Dawkins for not catering to philosophers you like is ridiculous. Dawkins promotes critical thinking..what is Swinbourne promoting? From the quotes he doesn't sound very logical.

God damn you are stupid.


No one offers up Divine Simplicity as a proof for God’s existence, where the hell did you get that idea?

I’ve never endorsed Divine Simplicity.

Can you show me any post by me, anywhere, that says Divine Simplicity is a proof for God, or that I endorse and believe in Divine Simplicity?


If we are going to sit around and talk about how Atheist excel at critical thinking, and then deny the plain and obvious fact that Dawkins can’t even engage the idea of Divine Simplicity in any meaningful fashion, then we are no better than Lee Strobel.


ETA: And marg, you don't gauge someone by another's quotes. It would be intellectually lazy and dishonest to take Dawkins at face value without investigating Swinburne's works. How can you talk about critical thinking when you blatantly disregard the idea of going to primary sources in favor of secondary sources?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Not at all he shows just how illogical Swinburne is.

Look at this at what marg wrote...


She insists that Dawkins show just how illogical Swinburne is, but has zero familiarity with any serious works by Swinburne. This is herd mentality, this is intellectual laziness, this is exactly like posters over at MD&D who argues for I.D. by parroting what the Discovery Institute says, and never bothering to read primary sources.

This is a problem, atheists can't claim any high ground when it comes to critical thinking if we continue to do dumb stuff like this.

[_Tarski]

I have several times written Swine-burne instead of Swinburne. Was this a Freudian slip?
I'm now disqualified. LOL

Marg, reading Swinburne and thinking carefully about the ideas just to be sure there isn't something one is missing, makes sense to me--if one has time. Especially, if theologians agree that this is among the best stuff they have. If this is the best, let's see it.

If I get time I am going to read some of it and some of the responses of the scientific and philosophical community.

[_The Dude]

If I get time I am going to read some of it and some of the responses of the scientific and philosophical community.

That's a good attitude.

Are you going to retire soon, Tarski? I feel like I'm just getting started!

It'll be a while before I make time for "the best" that theology has to offer.

[_DrW]

Christian apologist don't tear Dawkins work apart, because it is science based and stands on a foundation of evidence and fact.

Not so much as Christian Apologists, as Philosophers, both atheist and theist. The science isn't in question, it's how Dawkins draws inferences from that science to defeat the belief in God.

I read the piece on "Divine Simplicity" that you referenced in your blog. If such mumbo jumbo is what passes for useful philosophy, nowadays, then I will stick with science. Thanks for the comment, though.

It's probably mumbo jumbo because you don't get it, and I don't get the "I will stick with science" part because, metaphysical ideas about simplicity are relevent to meta questions about science, and it's not an either/or kinda thing.

From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/

Divine Simplicity

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS). It is represented not only in classical Christian theology, but also in Jewish, Greek, and Islamic thought. It is to be understood as an affirmation of God's absolute transcendence of creatures. God is not only radically non-anthropomorphic, but radically non-creaturomorphic, not only in respect of the properties he possesses, but in his manner of possessing them. God, we could say, differs in his very ontology from any and all created beings.

Emphasis is mine and I rest my case.

There is a reason that we have moved beyond "classical theism". And the reason is that, from a 21st century perspective, it is not far removed from primitive superstition. What we have here is a "just so" story.

Sorry, but I am not impressed. These are the imaginings of individuals who have too much time to think and to little data to think about.

[Guest]

the imaginings of individuals who have too much time to think and to little data to think about.

<buzzer> "What is philosophy?"

"I'm sorry, but the correct answer is: what is string theory?"

"I'll take Lost Ten Tribes and the Hollow Earth for 500 please"