All I can say is that you don't seem to be reading the same Dawkins materials as I have. I just don't see him setting himself up in the way you are claiming.
Do I really need to write up every outrageously offensive and irrationally formulated caricature of religion and religious people, Dawkins presents in his book? I must say I am a bit surprised that you're actually trying to mitigate the level of bigotry in his polemic. For instance, I said he refers to religion as a mental disease, and then you turn around and accuse me of misunderstanding him because what he really said was that religion is a "mind virus." Wow, an amazing difference!
Why are you splitting hairs here? The overall thrust and effect is exactly the same no matter which term is used. You said he didn't refer to a literal, physical virus. Well, I never said he referred to a literal, physical disease, either. Why can't disease and virus serve the same analogical objective?
And Dawkins doesn't claim to have disproved God.
I didn't say he claimed that, though I am pretty sure he has tried to strongly imply it. What I said is that he can't disprove God. Dawkins does, however, believe that the improbability of God is so extreme that he thinks it is safe to say "there almost certainly is no God." Dawkins' argues for the extreme improbability of our existence and then says if God exists then he must be more complex and therefore even more improbable. McGrath makes a good point when he says Dawkins makes an illicit leap from complex to improbable. Why does complexity mean improbability? Further, doesn't the fact that we
do exist mean something? McGrath responded, "We may be highly improbable -
yet we are here. The issue then is not whether God is probable but whether God is actual."
In fact, Dawkins rates himself a 2 on the scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is "there is certainly no God" and 7 is "there certainly is a God".But that's not his point
Neither is it the point that theists can't prove God exists. Yet, I am asked over and over where my proof is.
It's why he brings up Russel's celestial teapot so often. He agrees that one cannot prove that there is no such celestial teapot. However, there's no good reason to believe that there is one, and you don't get a good reason to believe this just by asserting that it's non-existence hasn't been proven.
These analogies are simply horrid and are clearly designed to insult and ridicule. The existence of God explains everything science can't, yet the existence of a tea pot explains nothing and raises more questions than it answers. There is no reason to believe a tea pot is orbiting our planet. No argument there. There is ample reason to believe God exists. The fact that these silly analogies are used, only tells me that the argument against God needs all the help it can get.
I don't agree that Dawkins asserts that knowledge only comes from science. What Dawkins does do from time to time is point out that the "knowledge" provided by the theologians is utterly unreliable.
Which is something he cannot prove, so why is he even talking about it? He doesn't study theology. He doesn't even understand theology. When pressed to debate theological issues he abaondons the debate with "Oh, I'm not interested in that."
On what basis do the theologians assert to "know" anything at all with respect to the origins and purpose of the universe?
There are many arguments to that effect, none of which can penetrate Dawkins because he is ignorant on so many points that need to be discussed. Again, free will, the existence of matter, he's not interested in discussing any of it because he only picks the battles he knows he can win. This is why he tries to explain everything in a scientific context, where he can speak as an authority. Well science doesn't explain everything. He knows it too, but then falls back on silly theories like the meme to fill in the gaps.
Or "why" we humans are here?
What is wrong with theology addressing these issues when scientists readily admit that science can
never answer them?
Are we supposed to be dismissive robots, saying "I am not interested in that," just because it is the attitude Dawkins subscribes to?
Or what will become of our consciousness after death?
Again, science cannot tell us anything about our consciousness in life. There is nothing to observe or test. Yet, we know we have one. How? Because we are conscious and aware of our own existence. What is wrong with theology addressing these issues when science has proved inadequate?
Science, on the other hand, at the very least attempts to back up the thinks it believes to "know" with evidence.
Naturally, and theologians have no problem with this. And most scientists have no problems with theologians. But Dawkins does because he is a loose canon who can't stay put in his own field of expertise. He is pretending to have an authoritative voice in telling theologians they are wrong, even though he knows nothing about theology. He is pretending to have an authoritative voice in telling social scientists they are wrong, even though he knows nothing about social science. The same with psychology. The man has overstepped his bounds by miles in every direction. He deserves to be lambasted for it because he is using this technique with sensationalism to become a pop culture author, not a responsible scientists. He has gained a cult following. His cult is not in the academic community. His cult is primarily a bunch of crazed internet bloggers.
I very much disagree that Dawkins asserts that all knowledge must come through science, but agree thoroughly with him that there is no good reason to believe that the "knowledge" from the theologians is anything of the kind.
This seems to be inconsistent. If knowledge
can come from outside science, then from whence is he willing to let it come? If not theology, then where? He tries to test all knowledge using the scientific method which is absurd. That is an implict admission that he only accepts knowledge through science. Trying to test theological knowledge using the scientific method is impossible and ridiculous. And this is a testament to the weakness of the scientific method. It says nothing about the unreliability of theology.
I think you, and probably quite a few others, have this problem called "we're so used to biased, polemical, agenda-driven people that we start seeing them everywhere".
You have to be freaking kidding me!! You mean to tell me he is not a biased, with an agenda and that this is just all in my head?
How much evidence do you need? He is extremely offensive on every page. He makes a movie calling for the eradication of the beliefs of 98% of the planet, which he calls, ironically, "evil." He accuses 98% of the planet of being a danger to society and victims of a mental virus. But he is more than a bigot, he is also sloppy. The man scrolls the internet to find anything he can that speaks negatively of anything historic and religion related, and he doesn't even verify its validity. This is unheard of from Oxford level scholars.
Dawkins is an intensely rational, deeply thinking scholar. If one spents any time trying to actually to understand his points, and see what it is that he's really trying to say, rather than just scanning his words looking for one's next point of attack, one would recognize this.
Nonsense. The man may be a genius in his own field of expertise, but in his arrogance he presumes to be able to speak on various topics of which he has no business speaking. Theists are not the only people who see this. Atheists are his strongest critics because of this. So you guys aren't going to be able to sell that one.
Dawkins doesn't say that belief in religion is the result of mental disease. He calls religion a "mind virus"
Yea, and I didn't say Schmo was extremely stupid, I just called him an idiot. There is no difference.
And it does relate to his ideas on memes.
For which there is no scientific evidence. His idea is just a shot in the dark to confuse those who don't understand it really isn't a scientific fact. He immediately rejects teh social sciences and all its models to explain the transmission of information between humans. Why? Because it doesn't sound offensive enough. Let's instead assume biological models explain social science! Yes, that's gonna go over well with social scientists, right?
He is drawing a comparison between the ability of an actual, physical virus to infiltrate and infect someone's cells, hijack the normal functioning of the cell to get it to reproduce the virus, and thus perpetuate itself, and the ability of some kinds of ideas to "infect" peoples' minds in a way which results in those ideas being similarly perpetuated.
And? How does this mitigate the offensive and bigoted nature of his analogy?
He is in no way saying that an actual mental illness causes religious belief, but that religious belief itself is a self-perpetuating, self-defending meme which reproduces itself by the means of "infected" believers convincing others and "infecting" them with the same beliefs.
Exactly. Do you think you succeeded in sugar coating what I said he said?
And this cannot rationally be denied.
It can be denied, because memes don't exist. Now look who has science on his side? You guys pledge blind faith in his meme theory, without the slightest care that none of it is science. Its just a shot in the dark, bigot-based theory. Again, leave it to the social scientists and psychologists to determine whether religious belief can be in any way considered analogous to a viral infections. He is overstepping his bounds, and knows nothing of which he speaks.
One simply cannot, with a straight face, deny that most strongly believing orthodox Jews believe the way they do for any reason other than that those were the ideas taught to them when they were young, impressionable children.
No kidding. That's called social conditioning. We see this all the time in various contexts unrelated to religion. It doesn't require Dawkins' silly meme theory, nor his offensive imagery of infections and viruses. He actually refers to the memes "leaping" from brain to brain in society, as if by simply being around a Mormon, you're infected with Mormonism. The question of the human's ability to absorb information in a critical, reasonable manner, doesn't seem to catch his attention. Everything religious just infects people in memes, as they speak about it and they jump out of their brains and attack and take over the brains of others, apparently against their will. The problem of course is Dawkins' blind faith in "universal Darwinism."
Do you honestly believe that very many people would be susceptible, as adults, to the notion that some blue-colored god with four arms actually exists? Yet millions of people strongly believe in Vishnu today because they were taught this belief as children, and it was reinforced in their minds.
None of this supports Dawkins' doctrine on memes.
Then they grow up, have their own children, and pass down those same ridiculous beliefs to the next generation.
What you're describing here is social conditioning, and that's all. And I'm afraid you're going to be tearing down a straw man if you expect me to disagree with it.
"Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain by a process which, in the broad sense of the term, can be called imitation."(Dawkins,
The Selfish Gene, p.192)
As McGrath points out, "Dawkins talking about memes is like believers talking about God - an invisible, unverifiable postulate, which helps explain some things about experience, but ultimately lies beyond empirical investigation."
If one really reads Dawkins with an eye toward understanding what it is he's trying to say, it's perfectly clear that religious ideas do in fact work in ways remarkably analogous to infection through viruses.
The same can be said of
any belief. The same can be said of knowledge on
any kind. But you don't see Dawkins calling scientific knowledge a "virus" even though McGrath did get him to admit that atheism aso must be considered a "meme" just the same as religious beliefs are. By that logic, atheism is equally parasitic and viral.
But that's an analogy, a concept, a metaphor, and not a claim that someone's brain was actually physically damaged in some way, and religious beliefs were the result.
Physically? No, but he does consider it damage. What kind of virus doesn't do damage? You're trying to put a happy face on his miserable argument. I'm not buying it. The guy is trying sensationalize a very simple, and easily explained social phenomenon.
And I totally agree with him on this
Do you agree that atheism is a meme? Do you agree that atheism is a virus? If not, why not?
I know, not quite without a shadow of a doubt, but close, that I would never have been a strongly-believing Mormon if I hadn't been born to strongly-believing Mormon parents.
Of course. But of the many cases where people join faiths in adulthood, on their own study... or when atheists like Antony Flew become theistic through years reasoning, what scenario does Dawkins offer here? Did Flew create meme ex nihilo? Did he infect himself?
You see Dawkins refuses to accept the possibility that religion can be believed through reason. I mean come on, people sit down and investigate religions all the time, and they do a cost-benefit analysis as they would any other major life-changing decision. But they generally begin with a theistic premise first. Why join any religion unless you already believe God exists? That is like trying to join a frat at a University you don't even attend. So to say religious belief is all about being at the wrong place at the wrong time, is to be extremely ignorant, naïve or both. And again, it is easy for Dawkins to take this route because he spits in the face of social science. He presumes to think biology answers economical and social questions.
I also believe very strongly that the only reason most religious Indians are Hindu, most religious folk from the Middle East are Muslim, and most religious people in the United States are Christian, is because those are the ideas that were fed into our minds by our parents, who likewise received them from their parents, etc.
And kids raised in atheist households are likely to be athiests themselves. But what about the explosion of Christianity in the first centuries? It certainly wasn't a matter of children being indoctrinated by overbearing parents. Most converts were adults who were converted trhough missionary work. And of course, no reasoning could have played part in any of that right?
But that by adulthood, those who remain believers in these religions do so with a complete conviction, "knowing" that they're right, etc. The infection is complete.
Likewise, those who are infected with atheism become "complete" when they appear on internet forums attacking those who differ from them.
I want to add that religion and theism are not synonymous. What I don't understand is te propensity to argue one thing and then turn aroudn and argue another as if it is teh same thing. Are we discussing teh existence of God, or the truthfulness of Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Islam, etc.,? Dawkins, and many atheists here, seem to think they can discredit the former by showing errors in the latter. This is sloppy argumentum, and I get frustrated with it quite often. When i say I "know" God exists, I see atheists turn around and say things like, "Kevin knows
Christianity is true."
Well, no I don't. I do not have nearly the confidence in the truthfulness of any religion, that I do for the existence of God. God exists without religion, and Dawkins needs to figure out which point he wants to attack. So do you guys - you too chap. I didn't appreciate your claim that: "Dartagnan "knows" that the deity commonly accepted in his natal culture exists." As if you knew what you were talking about. All I see here is an attempt to belittle and score easy points, because you know it is easy to score points against any particular religion, whereas dealing with theism is much harder.
This is a fundamental problem in Dawkins' premise. McGrath pointed out that Dawkins attacks religion without understanding what religion is. Dawkins hilariously ran back to the 19th century to find a definition that served his purpose. Here is an excerpt from McGrath:
Definitions of religion are rarely neutral but are often generated to favor beliefs and institutions with which one is in sympathy and penalize those to which one is hostile, often reflecting little more than the particular purposes and prejudices of individual scholars. Dawkins deals with this serious problem by evading it, choosing not to engage with the issues that have famously destroyed previous attempts to generalize about the roots of religion. His analysis rests on the 'general principles' of religion he finds in James Frazer's Golden Bough - a highly impressionistic early work of anthropology first published in 1890. It is a highly puzzling strategy. Why on earth should Dawkins's theory of the roots of religion depend so heavily on the core assumptions of a work that is well over a century old and now largely discredited?...
So why does Dawkins want to follow Frazer in reducing religion to some single universal trait, neglecting the mass of research that suggests it is much more complex and diverse, incapable of being forced into a simple set of universal beliefs or attitudes? The anser is clear: because by doing so, he believes it can be analyzed within the 'universal Darwinism' that represents his core belief system. 'Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian explanation.' But that is precisely the problem.: it is now known that religion does not exhibit 'universal features' that Dawkins's preferred approach.
Dawkins doesn't deal with the complexity of religion. Some theists reject religion outright. It is even becoming a catch phrase among Evangelicals, that they don't have religion at all, but simply a relationship with God. All the negative attributes of religion they reject. So which is Dawkins attacking? Religion or theism?
When I get in these debates I do not do so to defend the validity of any particular religion. I do so because I defend my theism, and I know that it is not because of a silly "meme" that I believe. I know I spend a great deal or time and effort reasoning things out. My parents talked nearly nothing at all about God when I was a kid, but I was always the philosopher in the family, always asking questions about God. It drove my parents crazy because they didn't have any answers. They couldn't figure out why, and they always said they thought I would grow up to be a minister or some sort.
Anyway, I'm tired of being expected to defend a particular religion when I cannot even be expected to convince anyone God exists. What I do know is that if God exists, then just about any religion is plausible. I'm not a die hard fan of the Bible, so please stop throwing biblical arguments at me as if I'm supposed to defend by request.
(I have spent way too much time on this lately. I am out of town and should be working. I'll be back in a few days)
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein