Thoughts on Dawkins?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

What do you guys think about Professor Richard Dawkins?

[NGNM85]

I enjoyed The God Delusion. It's probably the best single volume on the phenomena of religion.

[#FF0000]

The God Delusion was okay but it seems like he is wrong about literally everything else he has ever written or said.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The God Delusion was okay but it seems like he is wrong about literally everything else he has ever written or said.

Examples?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The God Delusion was okay but it seems like he is wrong about literally everything else he has ever written or said.

He's written about the falsity of God, the existence of evolution, and the altruistic nature of human beings. Where exactly was he wrong in any of those that he had written?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

He seems like a brilliant man, but from the arguments I've seen him make in videos and articles etc, he tends to be fairly reductionistic.

He's a smart guy, but I don't take what he has to say about anything to be as great or as revolutionary as, say, Karl Marx (who rarely went in a reductionistic direction, but thanks to his Hegelian background saw reality as a system of historical sub-systems).

[JerryBiscoTrey]

The God Delusion and his book about the rainbow were really good. I like him he's really witty (although a little condescending)


I enjoyed The God Delusion. It's probably the best single volume on the phenomena of religion.

I prefer God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

[tbasherizer]

I really like his writings on memetics. I tie his take on it into my still growing conception of historical materialism. I would reccomend that any materialist give him a good read. Politically, I think he's really helping the progressive cause with his inflamatory writings against religion and pseudoscience.

[NewSocialist]

He also agrees with Steven Pinker in thinking anarchism is not feasible due to the uglier side of human nature -*

What is the fallacy? As part of his excellent discussion on whether religion makes us good or not, Dawkins quotes [p. 228] "Steven Pinker's disillusioning experience of a police strike in Montreal":

"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' arguments that if government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictoions were put to the test . . . when the Montreal police went on strike . . . city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters. . . "

Dawkins presents this "just to weaken our confidence", after arguing that "I dearly want to believe that I do not need such surveillance -- and nor, dear reader, do you." [p. 228]

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/the-god-delusion-and-anarchism

[Queercommie Girl]

^

That's only something anarchists would be bothered by, not Leninists.

We Leninists always believe in democratic centralism.

So frankly I'm somewhat unconcerned by his example here.

[NewSocialist]

^

That's only something anarchists would be bothered by, not Leninists.

We Leninists always believe in democratic centralism.

So frankly I'm somewhat unconcerned by his example here.

I thought that democratic centralism was just a theory applied within a revolutionary party, but that Leninists still believe in the Marxist goal of the withering away of the state, no?

Even without a state, a militia --like what the anarchists in Spain had for policing-- could be formed without need of a convential government.

Anyway, what's more worrying about Dawkins is if he agrees with Pinker on that, it might be the case that he also agrees with Pinker in thinking that capitalism conforms best with our human nature. This is just conjecture, but a possibility nonetheless.

[Queercommie Girl]

I thought that democratic centralism was just a theory applied within a revolutionary party, but that Leninists still believe in the Marxist goal of the withering away of the state.. Is this wrong?

Even without a state, a militia --like what the anarchists in Spain had for policing-- could be formed without need of a convential government.

Anyway, what's more worrying about Dawkins is of he agrees with Pinker on that, it might be the case that he also agrees with Pinker in thinking that capitalism conforms best with our human nature. This is just conjecture, but a possibility nonetheless.

The "state" would wither away, but the organisations and structures of the Soviet are eternal.

And Soviets operate, at least politically, according to the principle of democratic centralism.

Even people's militias would need a degree of centralism and overall organisation too, in order for it to function effectively.

Dawkins actually does have a point. Consider that in pre-class societies, the socio-economic structures within each tribe were usually egalitarian and primitive communist, but different tribes still went to war with each other over land and resources. We do not want the future communist society to degenerate into tribalism.

But there is nothing in this example itself which is directly pro-capitalist.

I'm a political Leninist but cultural anarchist. Culturally I believe in de-centralisation as anarchists do, but not in politics and administration.

[#FF0000]

Examples?

I don't know. A lot of his articles were hella dumb. There was one recent one in particular but I can't find it. v:mellow:v

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't know. A lot of his articles were hella dumb. There was one recent one in particular but I can't find it. v:mellow:v

In other words, you're just pulling notions out of nowhere. Until examples are presented, there is no argument.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Dawkins actually does have a point.

Not really. Click the link and read the commentary. The claim against anarchism based on the negative effects of anarchy in the absence of capitalist law-and-order have been addressed many a time...put simply, they rely on the idea that anarchists believe that a post-capitalist political structure will arise out of pure chance (i.e. a police strike, or a national government falling) rather than through a protracted struggle w/ an accompanied ideological paradigm shift that will last for many years.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anyway, he does have some suspect beliefs. For example:


Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ killers', no Northern Ireland ‘troubles', no ‘honour
killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give till it hurts')."

There you have it, folks. All of those conflicts and tensions are nothing more than the simple-minded follies of some delusional people and their sky-gods. :rolleyes:

The truth is that there's nothing particularly "revolutionary" about what Dawkins says, as further evidenced by his fairly large following among right-wing libertarians and other market fundamentalists. It's perfectly possible for one to be both a militant atheist and a rabid capitalist.

(I have enjoyed some of his writings on biology, though.)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not really. Click the link and read the commentary. The claim against anarchism based on the negative effects of anarchy in the absence of capitalist law-and-order have been addressed many a time...put simply, they rely on the idea that anarchists believe that a post-capitalist political structure will arise out of pure chance (i.e. a police strike, or a national government falling) rather than through a protracted struggle w/ an accompanied ideological paradigm shift that will last for many years.

Kind of supports what I was saying about him being a reductionist. It's like when someone denies global warming because it's snowy outside. So Montrealeans in the 60s couldn't live in an anarchist society, that doesn't prove that it's categorically against human nature because he hasn't definitively described this "human nature". Not to say he's not smart, he in fact does seem quite brilliant, but he seems to think he's smarter than he is.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not really. Click the link and read the commentary. The claim against anarchism based on the negative effects of anarchy in the absence of capitalist law-and-order have been addressed many a time...put simply, they rely on the idea that anarchists believe that a post-capitalist political structure will arise out of pure chance (i.e. a police strike, or a national government falling) rather than through a protracted struggle w/ an accompanied ideological paradigm shift that will last for many years.

You are forgetting something, friend.

I'm politically a Leninist, and though I'm Trotskyism-leaning, I'm also partly a Maoist and I don't completely reject Stalin.

So from my perspective "law and order" certainly isn't exclusively capitalist, it's also a Soviet institution.

My primary enemy is capitalism, not the "state".

I don't mind working with anarchists towards common goals, but I'm not an anarchist politically (culturally yes I am an anarchist), and while I have nothing against most anarchists on a personal level at all, I don't see the world in the same way that you do.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anyway, he does have some suspect beliefs. For example:



There you have it, folks. All of those conflicts and tensions are nothing more than the simple-minded follies of some delusional people and their sky-gods. :rolleyes:

The truth is that there's nothing particularly "revolutionary" about what Dawkins says, as further evidenced by his fairly large following among right-wing libertarians and other market fundamentalists. It's perfectly possible for one to be both a militant atheist and a rabid capitalist.

(I have enjoyed some of his writings on biology, though.)

Dawkins is no socialist, sure, but he isn't a pro-capitalist either.

Marx once greatly praised Charles Darwin simply because he was a great scientist, even though Darwin wasn't a leftist at all.

I don't see why we can't do the same for Richard Dawkins.

[Dóchas]

Dawkins is no socialist, sure, but he isn't a pro-capitalist either.

Marx once greatly praised Charles Darwin simply because he was a greatest scientist, even though Darwin wasn't a leftist at all.

I don't see why we can't do the same for Richard Dawkins.

Ye i have to agree with you there. I was watching and interview with Dawkins and he said he was a liberal which is unsurprising. But we cant hate on him just for that, he is a constant thorn in the side of religion in general, usually with amusing results

If I remember correctly Marx wanted to dedicate on of his volumes of Capital to Darwin but Darwin declined the offer.

[Mather]

I am not that familiar with Dawkin's theory of memetics and have yet to read his books on the subject, so I am going to concentrate on Dawkin's critique of religion.

I have read The God Delusion and it does raise some very good points, namely:

* How religion (especially organised religion) is able to command an almost unthinking and unquestioning level of respect in society and in the public discourse.

* Highlighting the role parents play in indoctrinating their children, even if at times the parents themselves are unaware of it. It also deals with the issue of religious schools and the problems they can cause.

* It's strong criticism of how religions have recently begun to shy away from it's critics and from open debate, by hiding behind the concept of blasphemy and a tedency to re-invent blasphemy in the modern age as defence of 'religious tolerance' and 'religious civil rights'.

However, whilst I liked the points Dawkins made in The God Delusion, I feel that his critique of religion only goes so far and lacks a few important points that should be made. These points are lacking in both his book and his wider critique of religion.

Dawkins never really analyses religion from it's structural, social, economic and political aspect and to leave this out will in turn mean any critique will be limited in it's approach to religion. Apart from a few passing historical references in his book, Dawkins fails to expose the policital, economic and social role of religion and it's purpose in the management of ideas and public morality and it's ultimate place in relation to the power of the state and society.

Dawkins also neglects social and political struggles that indirectly challenge the power and hegemony of ideas that religion holds, such as the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, illiteracy eradication and progressive political formations that defend and promote secularism. To mount a real, effective and lasting challenge to religion, mere polemics and rationalist discourse alone will not suffice. Religion has many dynamics (structural, political, economic, ideological, social) so to limit a critique to merely one specific dynamic and to neglect the rest, as Dawkins has done in his critique, means the critique is incomplete and less effective in actually combating the power and influence of religion.

[ZeroNowhere]

If I remember correctly Marx wanted to dedicate on of his volumes of Capital to Darwin but Darwin declined the offer.That's a myth.

[Volcanicity]

The myth that Darwin turned down Marx's dedication to " Capital" was put to bed a few year's ago.It turned out to be a book by Edward Aveling called "The students Darwin" that he turned down the dedication to and not Marx.There's a good article about it here http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/.

[Queercommie Girl]

I am not that familiar with Dawkin's theory of memetics and have yet to read his books on the subject, so I am going to concentrate on Dawkin's critique of religion.

I have read The God Delusion and it does raise some very good points, namely:

* How religion (especially organised religion) is able to command an almost unthinking and unquestioning level of respect in society and in the public discourse.

* Highlighting the role parents play in indoctrinating their children, even if at times the parents themselves are unaware of it. It also deals with the issue of religious schools and the problems they can cause.

* It's strong criticism of how religions have recently begun to shy away from it's critics and from open debate, by hiding behind the concept of blasphemy and a tedency to re-invent blasphemy in the modern age as defence of 'religious tolerance' and 'religious civil rights'.

However, whilst I liked the points Dawkins made in The God Delusion, I feel that his critique of religion only goes so far and lacks a few important points that should be made. These points are lacking in both his book and his wider critique of religion.

Dawkins never really analyses religion from it's structural, social, economic and political aspect and to leave this out will in turn mean any critique will be limited in it's approach to religion. Apart from a few passing historical references in his book, Dawkins fails to expose the policital, economic and social role of religion and it's purpose in the management of ideas and public morality and it's ultimate place in relation to the power of the state and society.

Dawkins also neglects social and political struggles that indirectly challenge the power and hegemony of ideas that religion holds, such as the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, illiteracy eradication and progressive political formations that defend and promote secularism. To mount a real, effective and lasting challenge to religion, mere polemics and rationalist discourse alone will not suffice. Religion has many dynamics (structural, political, economic, ideological, social) so to limit a critique to merely one specific dynamic and to neglect the rest, as Dawkins has done in his critique, means the critique is incomplete and less effective in actually combating the power and influence of religion.

For Dawkins, the world is just one of "rationality floating in thin air".

[Meridian]

Ye i have to agree with you there. I was watching and interview with Dawkins and he said he was a liberal which is unsurprising. But we cant hate on him just for that, he is a constant thorn in the side of religion in general, usually with amusing results

If I remember correctly Marx wanted to dedicate on of his volumes of Capital to Darwin but Darwin declined the offer.

The problem isn't science but when scientists or others cross over to making normative or metaphysical statements. An example of this is any claim about the nature of human beings.

[Sosa]

The God Delusion is a good introductory book, but there are others that offer better critiques of religion. Dawkins should stick to what he does best, biology. The Greatest Show On Earth, is a great book.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem isn't science but when scientists or others cross over to making normative or metaphysical statements. An example of this is any claim about the nature of human beings.

Erm, if one makes a claim about the nature of human beings, how is that a normative statement unless it is also accompanied by a demand that individuals or society should follow that supposed nature, rather than to try and defy or change it? Saying that humans are naturally selfish or lazy is not the same thing as saying that individuals should be that way or that society should sanction such behaviour.

Since humans are physical beings like the other animals, I don't see how metaphysics comes into it either, unless one invokes shit like souls and such.

[Mather]

He also agrees with Steven Pinker in thinking anarchism is not feasible due to the uglier side of human nature -*

What is the fallacy? As part of his excellent discussion on whether religion makes us good or not, Dawkins quotes [p. 228] "Steven Pinker's disillusioning experience of a police strike in Montreal":

"As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin's anarchism. I laughed off my parents' arguments that if government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictoions were put to the test . . . when the Montreal police went on strike . . . city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters. . . "

Dawkins presents this "just to weaken our confidence", after arguing that "I dearly want to believe that I do not need such surveillance -- and nor, dear reader, do you." [p. 228]

The example that Steven Pinker uses proves only one thing, that Pinker never understood even the most basic points of anarchist theory in all the time he allegedly considered himself an anarchist.


Not really. Click the link and read the commentary. The claim against anarchism based on the negative effects of anarchy in the absence of capitalist law-and-order have been addressed many a time...put simply, they rely on the idea that anarchists believe that a post-capitalist political structure will arise out of pure chance (i.e. a police strike, or a national government falling) rather than through a protracted struggle w/ an accompanied ideological paradigm shift that will last for many years.


Kind of supports what I was saying about him being a reductionist. It's like when someone denies global warming because it's snowy outside. So Montrealeans in the 60s couldn't live in an anarchist society, that doesn't prove that it's categorically against human nature because he hasn't definitively described this "human nature". Not to say he's not smart, he in fact does seem quite brilliant, but he seems to think he's smarter than he is.

Pinker's example cannot prove his own point about anarchism. The above quoted posters have made two good points on this. For every example of disorder, chaos, violence and societal breakdown that occurs when the state collapses or law enforcement becomes non-existent due to some crisis or calamity, there are an equal number of examples where the exact opposite is the case. Any person with a deep sense of commitment to and understanding of anarchism would at the very least do a lot more than use one isolated personal example to change their whole worldview and renounce anarchism.

Pinker though seems like a typical 60s 'radical', a comfortable middle class student who did a few years of 'radicalism' before giving it up once he started his career. If instead of Pinker, this was a committed working class anarchist with a consistent and developed level of knowledge on anarchist theory and a materialist worldview, then I would take their point (even if I disagreed with it) more seriously than that of Pinkers.

[Mather]

The "state" would wither away, but the organisations and structures of the Soviet are eternal.

The state cannot just 'wither away', either it is overthrown and abolished or it will remain and as long as it remains, then the specture of capitalism will always loom. The failures of leninism and state socialism in the 20th century only came about because of the continued existence of the state.

Also workers councils (soviets) are the embryos of a stateless communist society and lay the basis for organising society in a post-state, post-capitalist era. Workers councils are not a state nor statist in nature, they are it's exact opposite.


And Soviets operate, at least politically, according to the principle of democratic centralism.

So do many anarchist organisations, if we take the literal description of democratic centralism, then it is direct democracy with unity in action. Anarchist organisations have also had a better track record in applying democratic centralism than leninist vanguard parties, which always end up being ruled by the central committee or a single leader thus abandoning party democracy and the method of democratic centralism.


Even people's militias would need a degree of centralism and overall organisation too, in order for it to function effectively.

I and most class struggle anarchists would agree with you on this, but military organisation and stateless communism are not mutally exclusive, so this point neither validates or invalidates the anarchist view of the state.


Dawkins actually does have a point. Consider that in pre-class societies, the socio-economic structures within each tribe were usually egalitarian and primitive communist, but different tribes still went to war with each other over land and resources. We do not want the future communist society to degenerate into tribalism.

This is because resources were very scarce at that time, due to our ancestors limited ability to extract resources and utilise their surrounding environments. So primitive communism would inevitably be more violent than an industrial, technologically competent, global communist and stateless society.

This point illustrates my own critique of Dawkins, that he fails to take account of the materialist condidtions which play an important role in the wider dynamics of society and human behaviour.


But there is nothing in this example itself which is directly pro-capitalist.

The very fact that Dawkins is not a materialist will mean that his views will, by default, reflect a bourgeois view on human nature.


I'm a political Leninist but cultural anarchist. Culturally I believe in de-centralisation as anarchists do, but not in politics and administration.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "cultural anarchist"?

[Mather]

So from my perspective "law and order" certainly isn't exclusively capitalist, it's also a Soviet institution.

You are aware that anarchists do have their own solutions to the issue of anti-social crimes and public safety, so this issue in no way supports the need for a state nor does it back up any arguements for having or preserving the state.


My primary enemy is capitalism, not the "state".

Capitalism and the state are one and the same in their purpose and function, you cannot have one without the other. So abolishing capitalism without abolishing the state will simply lead to counter-revolution and capitalist restoration, as has happened in every state ruled by a vanguardist leninist party.


I don't mind working with anarchists towards common goals, but I'm not an anarchist politically (culturally yes I am an anarchist), and while I have nothing against most anarchists on a personal level at all, I don't see the world in the same way that you do.

How do you see the world and what made you form that view?

[Mather]

Dawkins is no socialist, sure, but he isn't a pro-capitalist either.

How do you know that? Dawkins votes for and supports the Liberal Democratic Party, a bourgeois centre-right party. He seems like a liberal centrist, which in my view places him firmly on the side of the bourgeoisie and within the dominant ideology of the ruling class.


Marx once greatly praised Charles Darwin simply because he was a great scientist, even though Darwin wasn't a leftist at all.

I don't see why we can't do the same for Richard Dawkins.

I agree, even though Dawkins is not a leftist or in any way opposed to capitalism, that does not invalidate his critique of religion or his scientific theories. Though as I said earlier, it does limit his ability to properly and wholly analyse religion, given that he lacks a materialist method in his analysis of religion.


For Dawkins, the world is just one of "rationality floating in thin air".

I think Dawkin's critique of religion and the specific way he promotes atheism is good for atheists and people who are sitting on the fence (agnostics, non-practitioners etc...) as it can sharpen our own critique against religion. However, I think it will make little headway against the religious and that Dawkin's approach to religion would be more or less futile in a place where religion is in a powerful position, especially where religion can command the power of the state, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran for example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do you know that? Dawkins votes for and supports the Liberal Democratic Party, a bourgeois centre-right party. He seems like a liberal centrist, which in my view places him firmly on the side of the bourgeoisie and within the dominant ideology of the ruling class.

My understanding is that Dawkins only supports (supported? I heard this before the last election, and given their limp and anaemic performance as part of the Coalition it would not be surprising if RD had withdrawn his support) the Lib Dems because it's the closest thing we have in the UK to a mainstream secular party - both Labour and the Tories are balls-deep in stuff such as faith schools and pandering to the religious in various ways.


I think Dawkin's critique of religion and the specific way he promotes atheism is good for atheists and people who are sitting on the fence (agnostics, non-practitioners etc...) as it can sharpen our own critique against religion. However, I think it will make little headway against the religious and that Dawkin's approach to religion would be more or less futile in a place where religion is in a powerful position, especially where religion can command the power of the state, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran for example.

I'm not so sure myself. Since everyone's individual life history is unique, who's to say what kind of arguments might or might not "catch"? I wouldn't expect instant epiphanies, even for those only mildly religious or sitting on the fence. Yet Dawkins' ruthless yet poetic mixture of assertiveness and logic does seem to reach people (http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts), even those we would classify as religious fundamentalist.

When it comes to social discourse, my experience is that an effective form of religious criticism is kind of like running water over time - in the short term, it is "water off a duck's back" - easily brushed off and ignored. You can run back to your pastor or imam and they will provide some trite trivialities which will quieten the worm of doubt... for now. But in the long term, it can lead to a complete reshaping the foundations of one's worldview.

Of course, achieving this is easier in countries where people are not regularly locked up or executed for expressing attitudes critical or dismissive of religion.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not so sure myself. Since everyone's individual life history is unique, who's to say what kind of arguments might or might not "catch"? I wouldn't expect instant epiphanies, even for those only mildly religious or sitting on the fence. Yet Dawkins' ruthless yet poetic mixture of assertiveness and logic does seem to reach people (http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts), even those we would classify as religious fundamentalist.

It reaches me, certainly, and it makes me eager to dissociate from Dawkins as much as possible. He cannot understand what forces drive people to religion, and as such he is unable to fight against it. Dawkins is extremely ignorant of history and psychology, which doesn't help at all. Hell, he is extremely ignorant of atheism itself - how can someone who believes himself an atheist manage to simply ignore all about Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud baffles me.


When it comes to social discourse, my experience is that an effective form of religious criticism is kind of like running water over time - in the short term, it is "water off a duck's back" - easily brushed off and ignored. You can run back to your pastor or imam and they will provide some trite trivialities which will quieten the worm of doubt... for now. But in the long term, it can lead to a complete reshaping the foundations of one's worldview.

Arguments will never shake no one's faith, because faith isn't rational. It is practical experience that destroys people's faith. Yes, when it happens, people may well recall arguments they have heard and practically ignored in the past, but those arguments certainly played little or no role in the change, and I very much doubt they are actually helpful in shaping people's new views once faith is lost.

Luís Henrique

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I think Dawkin's critique of religion and the specific way he promotes atheism is good for atheists and people who are sitting on the fence (agnostics, non-practitioners etc...) as it can sharpen our own critique against religion. However, I think it will make little headway against the religious and that Dawkin's approach to religion would be more or less futile in a place where religion is in a powerful position, especially where religion can command the power of the state, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran for example.

Well, seeing as religion is predicated on faith which is irrational to start out, it's difficult to use any rational argument to undermine one's belief in a higher power in the first place. Those "on the fence" people are the ones who atheists should be targeting... with them they have a chance of conversion through reason.

[Meridian]

Erm, if one makes a claim about the nature of human beings, how is that a normative statement unless it is also accompanied by a demand that individuals or society should follow that supposed nature, rather than to try and defy or change it? Saying that humans are naturally selfish or lazy is not the same thing as saying that individuals should be that way or that society should sanction such behaviour.
Erm, I never said a claim about human nature is a normative claim.


Since humans are physical beings like the other animals, I don't see how metaphysics comes into it either, unless one invokes shit like souls and such.
Well, it depends on whether "nature" is used in a descriptive manner or a prescriptive manner. There's a difference between saying "due to his quick-tempered nature, I would not say such a thing to him" and "being selfish is human nature". In the former, the sentence is used to point to what is currently or has previously been the case, and extrapolate from that. In the latter, the sentence is used to say not just something about how things happen to be, but what is by definition the case with humans. So, while superficially the sentence resembles a descriptive one, in that it appears to resolve an underlying fact about human beings, in reality it is but a prescription of language use, like other metaphysical statements.

[Luís Henrique]

I like this criticism by H. Allen Orr: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/.

I am particularly fond of this sentence:


Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur.

"Amateur atheist", that's great; it deserves to become a meme.


Dawkins’s intellectual universe appears populated by the likes of Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Carl Sagan, the science popularizer,3 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/?page=2#fn3-265930262) both of whom he cites repeatedly.

That's good, too, and of course related to my own criticism that Dawkins is an atheist who ignores the basic texts of modern - i.e. post-Enlightenment - atheism.


Considering arguments for God, Dawkins is careful to recite the many standard objections to them and writes that the traditional proofs are “vacuous,” “dubious,” “infantile,” and “perniciously misleading.” But turning to his own Ultimate Boeing 747 argument against God, Dawkins is suddenly uninterested in criticism and writes that his argument is “unanswerable.” So why, you might wonder, is a clever philosophical argument for God subject to withering criticism while one against God gets a free pass and is deemed devastating?

The reason seems clear. The first argument leads to a conclusion Dawkins despises, while the second leads to one he loves.


the fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging—as when Dawkins asks “who designed the designer?”—cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn’t that question-begging?

A question that Dawkins, ignoring the Theses on Feuerbach, cannot certainly answer.


Dawkins cites a litany of statistics revealing that red states (with many conservative Christians) suffer higher rates of crime, including murder, burglary, and theft, than do blue states. But now consider his response to the suggestion that the atheist Stalin and his comrades committed crimes of breathtaking magnitude: “We are not in the business,” he says, “of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity.”

Not only that, of course, but correlation is not the same as causation. Perhaps the "red states" are more religious because religion is a reaction to harsher life conditions, instead of the other way round?


Dawkins almost reflexively identifies religion with right-wing fundamentalism and biblical literalism. Other, more nuanced possibilities—varieties of deism, mysticism, or nondenominational spirituality—have a harder time holding his attention. It may be that Dawkins can’t imagine these possibilities vividly enough to worry over them in a serious way.

And he certainly is politically inept. Pushing people towards the more extreme manifestations of religion, which is what this does, is a bad, not a good thing.


Part of Dawkins’s difficulty is that his worldview is thoroughly Victorian.


C.S. Lewis, in perhaps the most widely read work of popular theology ever written, Mere Christianity, conceded the possibility. Emphasizing that the Gospel was preached to the weak and poor, Lewis argued that troubled souls might well be drawn disproportionately to the Church. As he also emphasized, the appropriate contrast should not, therefore, be between the behavior of churchgoers and nongoers but between the behavior of people before and after they find religion. Under Dawkins’s alternative logic, the fact that those sitting in a doctor’s office are on average sicker than those not sitting there must stand as an indictment of medicine.

And, might we underline, Lewis is certainly not an intellectual giant even among religious thinkers...


The point is that all judgments, including ethical ones, begin somewhere and ours, often enough, begin in Judaism and Christianity. Dawkins should, of course, be applauded for his attempt to picture a better world. But intellectual honesty demands acknowledging that his moral vision derives, to a considerable extent, from the tradition he so despises.

Here I think Orr is not truly fair to Dawkins. It is not a matter of intellectual honesty, it is a matter of ignorance. Dawkins knows nothing about history, including about the history of his own moral vision...


Its arguments are those of any bright student who has thumbed through Bertrand Russell’s more popular books and who has, horrified, watched videos of holy rollers. Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics.

Yes, it is a mediocre book. And may the Holy Inexistence of God keep Dawkins from venturing into ballet and currency markets; what we have already read from him on other subjects he isn't familiar with is enough.


The God Delusion is not itself a work of either evolutionary biology in particular or science in general. None of Dawkins’s loud pronouncements on God follows from any experiment or piece of data. It’s just Dawkins talking.

Luís Henrique

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, seeing as religion is predicated on faith which is irrational to start out, it's difficult to use any rational argument to undermine one's belief in a higher power in the first place. Those "on the fence" people are the ones who atheists should be targeting... with them they have a chance of conversion through reason.

Faith is not irrational. Logical contradiction is irrational. Faith is not a type of contradiction. It is merely a belief without much empirical backing. One can rationally believe that God exists and that the world is 5 billion years old, and so belief in science does not necessarily contradict God. However, science can contradict mythology; a person can not rationally believe that the earth is both 6,000 years old and 5 billion years old.

[NGNM85]

Faith is not irrational. Logical contradiction is irrational. Faith is not a type of contradiction. It is merely a belief without much empirical backing. One can rationally believe that God exists and that the world is 5 billion years old, and so belief in science does not necessarily contradict God. However, science can contradict mythology; a person can not rationally believe that the earth is both 6,000 years old and 5 billion years old.

However, it is irrational to accept such an extreme proposition based on, essentially no evidence. Simply not being able to disprove something does not make it a rational proposition. Certainty in the existence of god is no less irrational than certainty in the existence of unicorns.

[Mather]

My understanding is that Dawkins only supports (supported? I heard this before the last election, and given their limp and anaemic performance as part of the Coalition it would not be surprising if RD had withdrawn his support) the Lib Dems because it's the closest thing we have in the UK to a mainstream secular party - both Labour and the Tories are balls-deep in stuff such as faith schools and pandering to the religious in various ways.

Dawkins was a Labour Party voter until the formation of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in 1988 and has voted for the LDP in all the elections since, including the May 2010 general election. He is a member of Republic, a British anti-monarchist pressure group and he was opposed to the US/UK imperialist invasion of Iraq in 2003.

From this, my description of his politics as bourgeois liberal centrism stand. I am aware that Dawkin's support for the LDP is due to the LDP programme for electoral reform and because (in his view) of the LDP "refusal to pander to 'faith'."

The irony in all of this is that because of the LDP decision to join the Conservative Party in the coalition government, the British educational system will now be subject to even more religious influence as part of the coalitions 'free schools' (privatisation) policy. This policy will see many schools being handed over to religious 'charities' and we may, in the near future, see even more religious influence in the national curriculum.

Like all parties of the bourgeoisie, the LDP "refusal to pander to faith" evaporates as soon as they are in power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ExUnoEtc:


What do you guys think about Professor Richard Dawkins?

As several of us have shown (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-left-hostile-t132454/index.html), this guy spouts little other than right-wing biology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/childhood-diseases-may-t149375/index.html), and advocvates theories that do not work.

His theory of 'memes' is not less defective.

[norwegianwood90]

In terms of getting religious individuals to at least question their faith, he's far too arrogant and stand-off-ish for that to work on more than a small number of individuals. If anything, Dawkins' arrogance has become a rallying cry for Christians, who have simply hardened their religious beliefs. Much like Bill Maher's Religulous, I think the goal is to essentially make non-religious people feel better about ourselves when we look at how absurd and ridiculous religion is. I do, however, agree with much of what he says about religion. Like others have said, his arguments aren't as good as those presented by others.

Dawkins is also a much better writer on biology. The Ancestor's Tale, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Blind Watchmaker are all very good books for those looking to learn about evolutionary biology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

He's a good writer sure, but he is also dead wrong about evolution and his 'selfish genes' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-left-hostile-t132454/index.html).

[Luís Henrique]

Dawkins is also a much better writer on biology. The Ancestor's Tale, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Blind Watchmaker are all very good books for those looking to learn about evolutionary biology.

Well, of those I have read only The Selfish Gene. As someone looking to learn about evolutionary biology, I have to differ. Though I don't know enough biology or genetics to dispute many of his claims, or even his general views.

But each time he steps out of his field, he leaves dirty footprints of gross ignorance.

First comes the widespread use of game theory as a theoretical model. Game theory, however, supposes rational players striving to achieve finalistic goals - it cannot, in consequence, serve as a model for biological phenomena, unless we are reinstating some kind of "intelligent design".

Then there is the also quite widespread use of market analogies. This not only incurs in the same problem - markets cannot exist without "rational maximisers", that cannot be found in biological phenomena - but also raises the problem of what are the commodities in Dawkins' natural "markets". More, it is a strange step forward in the direction of naturalising the market. Traditionally, economists would use natural sciences as the source of theoretical models to show that markets are "natural", not historic. Dawkins is so convinced that markets are natural, that he uses them as the base of theoretical models in the field of biology.

Third comes his absurd theory of "reproducing universes". I am no more a physicist than a biologist, but it doesn't take much physics to realise animals and plants grow and reproduce because the are able to incorporate into their bodies matter from their environment - in other words, they eat or absorb "food" through vegetal processes. What matter from what environment would universes absorb, in order to grow, so that their supposed "reproduction" doesn't imply ever smaller Fn+1 generations?

Fourth there is... "memetics", the absurd attempt to equate ideas to genes. This not only is again an a-historic attempt into naturalising social relations between human beings - a new brand of social-darwinism, so to say - but also calls into question Dawkins understandment of evolution, for a "memetic evolution" must necessarily be Lamarckian instead of Darwinian.

So, frankly, maybe Dawkins is the be all end all of modern evolutionary biology. But he spouts so much nonsence when he talks about any subject I have a high-school level of understanding, that I doubt it very much. Especially because he seems to use his misunderstandings in other fields as theoretical models in his own field of expertise.

In other words, he may well be a good writer in the sence that he is able to make agreeable strings of words. But he is a very lousy thinker with a very lousy logic and very wrong facts.

Luís Henrique