There is nothing new here as far as Dawkins goes. I continue to be amazed at how much air time he gets. He is neither wise, nor particularly smart, nor anyone worth listening to on any subject. (I read and listened to him a lot before coming to this conclusion.) His choice of "cultural christianity" is just an extension of his nihilist worldview. He is simply choosing something he thinks is better based on a relative moral fantasy.
It is terribly sad. He knows he cannot, or should not, live with the logical conclusion of his worldview, and like most nihilists he chooses to whistle past the graveyard.
I disagree with he’s not worth listening to on any subject. He’s one of the godfathers of memetic theory which, ironically, is ultimately an argument for religion. He’s also a pioneer in biology and evolution. I’m interested in knowing why you feel he’s not a valuable source regarding those particular subjects? Now…I think he has been exposed by a number of individuals with having many contradictions.
I don’t think anyone has done a better job of exposing him than Curtis Yarvin. He basically showed that these atheists are very much part of a religion called universalism. As I read his work I recognized that I was part of this cult. I grew up with that religion. We called ourselves atheists but we were really Christian theists who’s god was universalism. Anyone who can’t see that universalism is pure fantasy is a fool at this point. It’s already beginning to break down and it just came into existence the other day. Shortest religion of all time. 😂
There is much to say about what is wrong with his field of expertise, but it is his nihilist and false worldview which leads me to rejecting him as worthy of hearing. He has no basis for truth or even objectivity. By his own claims he is just an evolutionary meat computer. He has no claim to truth only the relative truth of propositions (that he cannot be sure are really real).
I don't think he is dumb, even though he habitually says things that are dumb. No doubt, he is very smart in his field, and he isn't wrong about everything. Outside of his field he is as swallow as a kiddie pool.
When someone tells you that what they say and believe can't be taken seriously, or as objective truth, believe them.
The problem with rejecting religious beliefs as implausible is that the people who do so are often left holding onto beliefs that are in turn rendered implausible by the absence of the religious frame of reference that made them plausible in the first place. In the absence of some idea of the transcendent that has some extra-linguistic reality these beliefs are reduced to no more than assertion and blind faith.
So, the idea that all humans by virtue of simply being human are of equal worth and are bearers of rights is implausible once the religious underpinning is removed. Likewise, the idea that the arc of history bends towards justice is wishful thinking in the absence of some transcendent other present in history.
My goodness! In my opinion, you just knocked it out the park. I have made this very same argument when discussing religion with atheists but this is better than anything I’ve presented because it’s not only succinct but you hit at one of the major reasons for why religion has lasted for so very long.
I think - hope - that there is a sort of realization that we need some metaphysical framework within which to function as individuals and collectively. It may be too late if we have pulled the framework apart - but recognising the problem is at least a start. It seems we have moved on from the Enlightenment which was a sort of fusion of rationalism and religion or an uneasy compromise, to the triumph of the rational. The old compromise of agnostics living in a biblical landscape, worked where there were enough serious believers to push back if they went too far - that is no longer the case.
It’s kind of you to be decent to Dawkins. He’s a tragic figure more than a malicious one and the dunking on him was kicking an old man when he’s down
There’s no solution to his dilemma. The West has been wrestling with it for more than a century now, only somewhat slowed by the 20th century’s hegemon having been a bit behind the rest in losing its faith
I have not read Richard Dawkins (neither his pre nor post 'cultural Christian' phase) but he has long been associated in my mind with the strident "all would be so much better if we got rid of religion" atheist mantra. Which has, in its turn, always been associated in my mind with obtuseness about human nature - a failure to NOTICE. Because - love it or hate it - anyone who fails to notice that the religious impulse is, one way or another, hard-wired into the human condition is no perceptive kind of people watcher.
No one ever seems to ask what 'values' or 'beliefs' we would *like* to have. Is it so strange to think that we could put together a syncretic religion that has enough appeal to maintain cultural solidarity? Something like that created by Mani or Frank Herbert in 'Dune'.
Atheists presume that their own favorite 'foundational beliefs' are better than the 'foundational beliefs' of theists. But they're not. There are some things that we 'believe' because we cannot imagine it being any other way.
It is the “implausibility of belief” that makes faith necessary and attractive. God does impossible things. Watering down religion without faith is what kills belief.
I'm a believer, similarly to Dawkins. The bible and Christian ministry is of too much relevance to be complete nonsense. These teachings throughout the bible will give you a solid base for any life problem in life. But it's faith! Not evidence, Christians live by. Your right mainly it gives us hope and churches are full of those that have been saved at some point in their lives, by it (faith).
I still can't see what Richard Dawkins got wrong, despite having been told multiple times by lots of clever people that his arguments were sophomoric. As far as I can see, Dawkins' only crime was to take religious truth claims literally. Not much of a crime. And as Ben wrote here:
'The truth is that the Christian faith will be relevant in Europe and America...only if people believe that its claims are true — and not true in a watery metaphorical sense but actually true.'
And clearly they aren't actually true. Yes, religious belief may be adaptive or an expression of the shape of the human mind and heart, but so what? The shape of my mind and heart tells me that the universe revolves around me and that everything I'm unaware of doesn't exist. This might be a deeper, psychological truth but you'd have to be pretty stupid to want to defend protect such 'truth' from criticism and ridicule.
It could be that Dawkins was lazy in not adequately addressing, or even understanding, Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God. I have a lot of sympathy with that kind of laziness. I experience the same arrogant dismissal when enjoined to look more closely into the evidence that our world is run by, say, Lizard People. Yes, they could exist and I might be premature in dismissing them out of hand. But if I were to spend a year reading the literature on Lizard People and looking into the proofs to finally conclude that no, there is really nothing to such stories, a day later someone else would start badgering me to look into other, better proofs. No, no, not Aquinas, you must read Alister McGrath! And if you don't you will have been remiss or are purposely avoiding arguments you are secretly afraid of. There is no end to this damned game, life is too short and the chances too small that the Creator of the Universe actually did impregnate a married virgin in Judea for the purposes of redeeming mankind for its sins. Or even that some generic God exists, without all the added details that only make Him ever less likely (though more appealing and easier to imagine).
Perhaps for someone who has made a (second) career out of debunking such stories Dawkins should at least be seen to have grappled with every bit of the literature and every argument. But as I said, I understand why Dawkins felt it was perhaps not worth it. And in the end what would be the point. Even if Dawkins managed to somehow find a flaw in Aquinas's arument, the same people who believe in Aqunias now would still believe him post-debunk, or perhaps find some other way to justify a belief not based on logic and rationality in the first place but on an emotional need.
😂…I don’t know if I want to go down this rabbit hole again with another atheists who refuses to look at the abyss. I agree with you. Your argument is rational and well thought out. The only problem is that it’s been said before. Apparently, it’s been said many, many times before and has died many, many times before. Why? Why do you think this has happened several times now?
I think Olli Thomson hit the nail on the head with his comment but it doesn’t even begin to capture the complexity involved here. As a life long atheist who is now very much in favor of a Christian worldview, I can tell you exactly how that came to be but I’m afraid it’ll fall on deaf ears.
The problem is that arrogant atheists like myself, Dawkins, Harris, and Bill Maher looked at this from the top on down. I think if you start there then you will see nothing. And when I say you, I literally mean you. Being that atheism is largely genetic I don’t think you have much of a choice in the matter. But when you go bottom to top like I chose to do that’s when you really begin to see what’s going on here. I haven’t even reached the level of belief in god and I already understand that Christianity going away is a world I personally don’t want to live in. Religion is rooted and tied to too many things that are fundamental to our existence and possibly our future. What sucks is that we are now only seeing this because those things are beginning to break down. Now if you’re a hardcore Nietzschean or Pagan forgive me. You probably want the breakdown and the chaos that follows. If that’s you then I respect that. I think you’re a horrible person but I respect that stance. But most atheists are not that. You’re cultural Christians like Dawkins who understand Memetic theory and universalism and yet still only choose to look from the top on down.
I’ll even get you started. Look at all of the red pill 💩 that’s everywhere now. That’s as bottom as it gets. Male and female relationships. It must be quite the shock to see that break down in real time as we become a secular society. 😆 Who knew that that was being held up by something as fake as religion? We’ll…that’s where I started and when I kept going what I saw was horrifying and what I continue to see is even more horrifying.
Dawkins has repeatedly stated that he does not believe theology is even a subject and therefore declines to study it. Fine, but if he takes that line, he shouldn't be surprised if theologians (including those who are not themselves religious believers) mock him for the idiocies of his claims about religion.
It was Terry Eagleton who best summed up Dawkins on religion: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Do you feel the same way about astrology? That is, do you feel that only people who take its claims seriously and have studied it in all its detailed silliness are allowed to comment on it?
I wouldn't imagine for a second that Richard Dawkins was 'surprised' that theologians mocked him. What else would one expect from people who are experts in a non-subject?
If a person wants to write books specifically engaging with and critiquing the claims of astrology, then yes, I would expect that person to understand what those claims are, and to engage with people and communities who have historically believed in or advocated for astrology.
I think one of the things that Dawkins misses is the fact that the True, the Good, and the Beautiful are not separate. There are truths of the beautiful and good, of ethics and spirituality, and if you ignore that you are left with an irrational moralism.
Dawkins ironically has a clear strong sense of the beauty and goodness of truth, of science, of nature. He never seems to reflect for a moment that his own philosophy (such as it is) renders these purely subjective and irrational. Where then his dogged obsession with truth? He contradicts himself.
I'm naturally inclined to be gentle with Dawkins, but then I remember a dreadful story I heard about a devout young Christian man who read Dawkins et alia, then walked into the woods and shot himself because he'd lost his faith. One doesn't wish to hang such things on Dawkins per se, but it does cast a grim shadow over the gleefulness/glibness with which he set out to knock down Chesterton's fence.
There is nothing new here as far as Dawkins goes. I continue to be amazed at how much air time he gets. He is neither wise, nor particularly smart, nor anyone worth listening to on any subject. (I read and listened to him a lot before coming to this conclusion.) His choice of "cultural christianity" is just an extension of his nihilist worldview. He is simply choosing something he thinks is better based on a relative moral fantasy.
It is terribly sad. He knows he cannot, or should not, live with the logical conclusion of his worldview, and like most nihilists he chooses to whistle past the graveyard.
I disagree with he’s not worth listening to on any subject. He’s one of the godfathers of memetic theory which, ironically, is ultimately an argument for religion. He’s also a pioneer in biology and evolution. I’m interested in knowing why you feel he’s not a valuable source regarding those particular subjects? Now…I think he has been exposed by a number of individuals with having many contradictions.
I don’t think anyone has done a better job of exposing him than Curtis Yarvin. He basically showed that these atheists are very much part of a religion called universalism. As I read his work I recognized that I was part of this cult. I grew up with that religion. We called ourselves atheists but we were really Christian theists who’s god was universalism. Anyone who can’t see that universalism is pure fantasy is a fool at this point. It’s already beginning to break down and it just came into existence the other day. Shortest religion of all time. 😂
There is much to say about what is wrong with his field of expertise, but it is his nihilist and false worldview which leads me to rejecting him as worthy of hearing. He has no basis for truth or even objectivity. By his own claims he is just an evolutionary meat computer. He has no claim to truth only the relative truth of propositions (that he cannot be sure are really real).
I don't think he is dumb, even though he habitually says things that are dumb. No doubt, he is very smart in his field, and he isn't wrong about everything. Outside of his field he is as swallow as a kiddie pool.
When someone tells you that what they say and believe can't be taken seriously, or as objective truth, believe them.
The problem with rejecting religious beliefs as implausible is that the people who do so are often left holding onto beliefs that are in turn rendered implausible by the absence of the religious frame of reference that made them plausible in the first place. In the absence of some idea of the transcendent that has some extra-linguistic reality these beliefs are reduced to no more than assertion and blind faith.
So, the idea that all humans by virtue of simply being human are of equal worth and are bearers of rights is implausible once the religious underpinning is removed. Likewise, the idea that the arc of history bends towards justice is wishful thinking in the absence of some transcendent other present in history.
Agreed. As an uncomfortable agnostic, the idea that God is inherently implausible is not one I share.
My goodness! In my opinion, you just knocked it out the park. I have made this very same argument when discussing religion with atheists but this is better than anything I’ve presented because it’s not only succinct but you hit at one of the major reasons for why religion has lasted for so very long.
I think - hope - that there is a sort of realization that we need some metaphysical framework within which to function as individuals and collectively. It may be too late if we have pulled the framework apart - but recognising the problem is at least a start. It seems we have moved on from the Enlightenment which was a sort of fusion of rationalism and religion or an uneasy compromise, to the triumph of the rational. The old compromise of agnostics living in a biblical landscape, worked where there were enough serious believers to push back if they went too far - that is no longer the case.
It’s kind of you to be decent to Dawkins. He’s a tragic figure more than a malicious one and the dunking on him was kicking an old man when he’s down
There’s no solution to his dilemma. The West has been wrestling with it for more than a century now, only somewhat slowed by the 20th century’s hegemon having been a bit behind the rest in losing its faith
I have not read Richard Dawkins (neither his pre nor post 'cultural Christian' phase) but he has long been associated in my mind with the strident "all would be so much better if we got rid of religion" atheist mantra. Which has, in its turn, always been associated in my mind with obtuseness about human nature - a failure to NOTICE. Because - love it or hate it - anyone who fails to notice that the religious impulse is, one way or another, hard-wired into the human condition is no perceptive kind of people watcher.
No one ever seems to ask what 'values' or 'beliefs' we would *like* to have. Is it so strange to think that we could put together a syncretic religion that has enough appeal to maintain cultural solidarity? Something like that created by Mani or Frank Herbert in 'Dune'.
Atheists presume that their own favorite 'foundational beliefs' are better than the 'foundational beliefs' of theists. But they're not. There are some things that we 'believe' because we cannot imagine it being any other way.
I honestly think Disney gets the closest to this of any cultural force in the 20thC.
Disney is the popular religion, all the waffle about Human Rights is the intellectual version.
It is the “implausibility of belief” that makes faith necessary and attractive. God does impossible things. Watering down religion without faith is what kills belief.
I'm a believer, similarly to Dawkins. The bible and Christian ministry is of too much relevance to be complete nonsense. These teachings throughout the bible will give you a solid base for any life problem in life. But it's faith! Not evidence, Christians live by. Your right mainly it gives us hope and churches are full of those that have been saved at some point in their lives, by it (faith).
It is both. There is a great deal of evidence, and there is also faith.
I still can't see what Richard Dawkins got wrong, despite having been told multiple times by lots of clever people that his arguments were sophomoric. As far as I can see, Dawkins' only crime was to take religious truth claims literally. Not much of a crime. And as Ben wrote here:
'The truth is that the Christian faith will be relevant in Europe and America...only if people believe that its claims are true — and not true in a watery metaphorical sense but actually true.'
And clearly they aren't actually true. Yes, religious belief may be adaptive or an expression of the shape of the human mind and heart, but so what? The shape of my mind and heart tells me that the universe revolves around me and that everything I'm unaware of doesn't exist. This might be a deeper, psychological truth but you'd have to be pretty stupid to want to defend protect such 'truth' from criticism and ridicule.
I don't believe that Dawkins' arguments against the philosophical case for God were good — not because he took them literally but because he did not understand them. His treatment of Aquinas is a good example. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/dawkins-vs-aquinas-fail
It could be that Dawkins was lazy in not adequately addressing, or even understanding, Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God. I have a lot of sympathy with that kind of laziness. I experience the same arrogant dismissal when enjoined to look more closely into the evidence that our world is run by, say, Lizard People. Yes, they could exist and I might be premature in dismissing them out of hand. But if I were to spend a year reading the literature on Lizard People and looking into the proofs to finally conclude that no, there is really nothing to such stories, a day later someone else would start badgering me to look into other, better proofs. No, no, not Aquinas, you must read Alister McGrath! And if you don't you will have been remiss or are purposely avoiding arguments you are secretly afraid of. There is no end to this damned game, life is too short and the chances too small that the Creator of the Universe actually did impregnate a married virgin in Judea for the purposes of redeeming mankind for its sins. Or even that some generic God exists, without all the added details that only make Him ever less likely (though more appealing and easier to imagine).
Perhaps for someone who has made a (second) career out of debunking such stories Dawkins should at least be seen to have grappled with every bit of the literature and every argument. But as I said, I understand why Dawkins felt it was perhaps not worth it. And in the end what would be the point. Even if Dawkins managed to somehow find a flaw in Aquinas's arument, the same people who believe in Aqunias now would still believe him post-debunk, or perhaps find some other way to justify a belief not based on logic and rationality in the first place but on an emotional need.
😂…I don’t know if I want to go down this rabbit hole again with another atheists who refuses to look at the abyss. I agree with you. Your argument is rational and well thought out. The only problem is that it’s been said before. Apparently, it’s been said many, many times before and has died many, many times before. Why? Why do you think this has happened several times now?
I think Olli Thomson hit the nail on the head with his comment but it doesn’t even begin to capture the complexity involved here. As a life long atheist who is now very much in favor of a Christian worldview, I can tell you exactly how that came to be but I’m afraid it’ll fall on deaf ears.
The problem is that arrogant atheists like myself, Dawkins, Harris, and Bill Maher looked at this from the top on down. I think if you start there then you will see nothing. And when I say you, I literally mean you. Being that atheism is largely genetic I don’t think you have much of a choice in the matter. But when you go bottom to top like I chose to do that’s when you really begin to see what’s going on here. I haven’t even reached the level of belief in god and I already understand that Christianity going away is a world I personally don’t want to live in. Religion is rooted and tied to too many things that are fundamental to our existence and possibly our future. What sucks is that we are now only seeing this because those things are beginning to break down. Now if you’re a hardcore Nietzschean or Pagan forgive me. You probably want the breakdown and the chaos that follows. If that’s you then I respect that. I think you’re a horrible person but I respect that stance. But most atheists are not that. You’re cultural Christians like Dawkins who understand Memetic theory and universalism and yet still only choose to look from the top on down.
I’ll even get you started. Look at all of the red pill 💩 that’s everywhere now. That’s as bottom as it gets. Male and female relationships. It must be quite the shock to see that break down in real time as we become a secular society. 😆 Who knew that that was being held up by something as fake as religion? We’ll…that’s where I started and when I kept going what I saw was horrifying and what I continue to see is even more horrifying.
I see. You've seen further and deeper than me. I'll just have to wait till I get to that level of profundity.
Yea…I’m sure you’ll get right on that.
Dawkins has repeatedly stated that he does not believe theology is even a subject and therefore declines to study it. Fine, but if he takes that line, he shouldn't be surprised if theologians (including those who are not themselves religious believers) mock him for the idiocies of his claims about religion.
It was Terry Eagleton who best summed up Dawkins on religion: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Do you feel the same way about astrology? That is, do you feel that only people who take its claims seriously and have studied it in all its detailed silliness are allowed to comment on it?
I wouldn't imagine for a second that Richard Dawkins was 'surprised' that theologians mocked him. What else would one expect from people who are experts in a non-subject?
If a person wants to write books specifically engaging with and critiquing the claims of astrology, then yes, I would expect that person to understand what those claims are, and to engage with people and communities who have historically believed in or advocated for astrology.
I think one of the things that Dawkins misses is the fact that the True, the Good, and the Beautiful are not separate. There are truths of the beautiful and good, of ethics and spirituality, and if you ignore that you are left with an irrational moralism.
Dawkins ironically has a clear strong sense of the beauty and goodness of truth, of science, of nature. He never seems to reflect for a moment that his own philosophy (such as it is) renders these purely subjective and irrational. Where then his dogged obsession with truth? He contradicts himself.
I'm naturally inclined to be gentle with Dawkins, but then I remember a dreadful story I heard about a devout young Christian man who read Dawkins et alia, then walked into the woods and shot himself because he'd lost his faith. One doesn't wish to hang such things on Dawkins per se, but it does cast a grim shadow over the gleefulness/glibness with which he set out to knock down Chesterton's fence.