Richard Dawkins

[comelately]

Although abstract logical first causes don't generally encourage people to turn up in special buildings on prespecified days, partake of no hotdog buns on friday or deny legal rights to gay people...

Not directly no. There is a debate to be had around all that stuff and its 'cause', but, given the existence of Godwin's law and that it would be a further complication to the thread, I don't intend to pursue it at length

people are more likely to do bad things when they are motivated by a false belief than when they're accurately informed about something.

They're more likely to do things full stop I think. I don't accept that an 'atheist' will necessarily have less 'false beliefs'. I'm not sure your statement is much better than:

People are more likely to do bad things when they are motivated by a false belief about doing bad things

And even then you have the problem regarding what 'falseness' actually means, although I accept there are things we here would reach consensus on; the consensus would not necessarily include the person doing the action of course. "People are more likely to do things I disapprove of if they do not share my epistemological viewpoint"

 

[baboon2004]

Would anyone say that they have noticed in their lives that the religious people they have known (rather than the extremists they've read about) have been any madder/morally worse than the non-religious people? i certainly wouldn't.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Isn't "empirical evidence" another word for "other facts", though?

No, evidence is not the same as a fact. The observation of any one fossil is not the same thing as the fact of evolution.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Would anyone say that they have noticed in their lives that the religious people they have known (rather than the extremists they've read about) have been any madder/morally worse than the non-religious people? i certainly wouldn't.

They might not personally, but they might (for example) be more likely to vote for a party with illiberal social policies.

 

[baboon2004]

why do you think that though? being religious doesn't entail believing in the more illiberal elements of organised religion, just as being a socialist doesn't entail excusing bad socialist regimes. To take a random example.

Dogma, especially dogma that is oppressive to others, is bad, but it exists both inside and outside religion.

What are Dawkins' politics anyway? That to me would seem to be the interesting thing.

 

[IdleRich]

"I agree, but my point is we are now in family resemblance, infinite regress, waheguru territory."

I've missed something here - how does someone deciding to fight for what they think is important relate to any infinite regress?

"My point wasn't that that they were completely analogue. The testing issue is on one side, the side that's all about testing (or at least pretends to be). I'm not saying anything quite as direct as 'if placebo, why not religion?' I can see how that might be inferred, but I hope you can see there is a difference between somebody apparently committed to testable propositions devoting a considerable part of his life to arguing for something that is fundamentally untestable and somebody who takes a less verificationist/falsificationist, more narrative-based, viewpoint doing the same."

Well, I can see what you're saying but I think the example looked like it was trying to do more than that.
I can see that difference anyway but what about it? It's hardly surprising that someone who is entirely interested in empiricism is gonna be annoyed with a group of people who base their life on something that appears to be entirely made up (and then tell him what do) and is gonna attempt to dissuade them from that course. What does it matter that he'll do it in a way that is different from someone from another religion?
With some people he's obviously on a hiding to nothing, I guess he can't defeat them on their own terms, what he's effectively hoping is that they will snap over from one way of thinking to another and suddenly the light will come on. A religious epiphany in reverse basically. And of course it does happen, the number of people I've heard saying things like "suddenly I realised everyone was just talking bollocks and then I stopped believing" is surprising.

"You're probably right, but it's not like it's not part of the book he chose to write. If he is not interested in these questions, then others clearly are and that just feeds my initial critique that he does not really grasp the importance these issues have for others."

I think that removing religion would cause a lot of people to think about these questions and maybe some of them will have success. I have no problem with things that are built up piecemeal, that's how progress in a field works, he's just doing the first stage and he's doing it pretty well I'd say.

"I refer the honourable gentleman..........If you want Santa Claus to come, you have to have a way to get him down the chimney. Who is your God now?"

I'm sorry I don't get the reference, but it was a genuine question.

"No I don't think a 1 dimensional sliding scale of factishness works."

OK, you've inserted the bit about one-dimension there but does that mean that you wouldn't accept that "London is the capital of England" is closer to being a fact than "My little finger is the capital of England"?

 

[Slothrop]

No, evidence is not the same as a fact. The observation of any one fossil is not the same thing as the fact of evolution.

It's a smaller scale fact, but a fact nonetheless. You believe it to be true that this thing in front of you is a fossil ie that it's the preserved trace of an animal. At some point you have to make a jump from the world of senses to the world of reason, and if you really want to argue that your world view is based on reason down to the finest detail then I can't see how you can get around that.

On the other hand, I don't really think that this works as an argument for going on a pilgrimage to Lourdes rather than taking antibiotics or asking your invisible friend what you should do rather than thinking about it for yourself.

 

[comelately]

I've missed something here - how does someone deciding to fight for what they think is important relate to any infinite regress?

They have a belief about what is important. Either they think it's a fact that it is important, in which case it is because it resembles 'other facts' which itself was decided on their resemblance to 'other facts' and so on. Or the belief is somehow more directly pretending to transcendentality, same end result really.

OK, you've inserted the bit about one-dimension there but does that mean that you wouldn't accept that "London is the capital of England" is closer to being a fact than "My little finger is the capital of England"?

Well a slide generally moves in one dimension so I'm just working with the metaphor you gave me, which was significant as the nominalist point about 'factishness' is really fundamental here. I would accept that the former of those statements much more closely resembles a fact than the latter.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's a smaller scale fact, but a fact nonetheless. You believe it to be true that this thing in front of you is a fossil ie that it's the preserved trace of an animal. At some point you have to make a jump from the world of senses to the world of reason, and if you really want to argue that your world view is based on reason down to the finest detail then I can't see how you can get around that.

Well I expect you'd have a hard time defining the number six without using reference to other numbers. I don't think that makes the concept of number tautological.

On the other hand, I don't really think that this works as an argument for going on a pilgrimage to Lourdes rather than taking antibiotics or asking your invisible friend what you should do rather than thinking about it for yourself.

Of course. I'm not entirely sure all this wrangling over facts/factiness has much to do with the central debate.

 

[comelately]

What are Dawkins' politics anyway? That to me would seem to be the interesting thing.

He supported the LibDems in 2010, mostly because of their secular persuasion. I think it's fair to say that he's to the left of much of his audience, which does contain a fair sprinkling of Randian sociopaths (though I accept most of them probably found "Atlas Shrugged" before "The God Delusion") who bemoan his soft left politics. Interestingly, Sam Harris lost a lot of subscribers to his mailing list when he dared to suggest higher taxes for billionaires might be a good idea:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying

Stating that "Objectivism is basically autism rebranded" pretty much made me a fan for life. But if I'm sceptical of Dawkins' philosophy's ability to make people less crazy, then maybe you have a better idea as to why.

 

[vimothy]

Watching Dawkins argue with theologians and philosophers of religion is like watching creationists argue with evolutionary biologists--except for the fact that Dawkins argues with the false authority of the scientist, whereas creationists have no authority.

Make it stop, please.

 

[baboon2004]

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying

goodness. proves that there a lot of greedy,stupid atheists out there...

 

[IdleRich]

"They have a belief about what is important. Either they think it's a fact that it is important, in which case it is because it resembles 'other facts' which itself was decided on their resemblance to 'other facts' and so on. Or the belief is somehow more directly pretending to transcendentality, same end result really."

I was simply saying in that part that Dawkins' actions seem perfectly reasonable given his beliefs. How those beliefs were arrived at was discussed elsewhere so of course I don't really accept that characterisation. Except on an entirely trivial level which would rule any motivated action as the first step in an infinite regress - which makes it a trivial statement.

"Well a slide generally moves in one dimension so I'm just working with the metaphor you gave me, which was significant as the nominalist point about 'factishness' is really fundamental here. I would accept that the former of those statements much more closely resembles a fact than the latter."

Not the ones I went on as a child, but OK, I just wondered if you were going to suggest a multi-dimensional one.
So... if the the first phrase more closely resembles a fact then you would accept that it is in principle possible for the phrase "There is no God" to resemble a fact more closely than the phrase "There is a God" (as I think it does)?

 

[comelately]

I was simply saying in that part that Dawkins' actions seem perfectly reasonable given his beliefs.

I think reasonability, although innocently employed, is a weasel word. Yes it might be said to be reasonable that people do things, but that's distinct from those actions being based on reason alone. You sympthise with his actions, I get that.

How those beliefs were arrived at was discussed elsewhere so of course I don't really accept that characterisation.

Honestly? Please clarify where.....

Except on an entirely trivial level which would rule any motivated action as the first step in an infinite regress - which makes it a trivial statement.

Again maybe I am dumb, please explain?

So... if the the first phrase more closely resembles a fact then you would accept that it is in principle possible for the phrase "There is no God" to resemble a fact more closely than the phrase "There is a God" (as I think it does).

Not objectively. From my own subjective pov, I might be more inclined to think that, in this thread, 'there is a God' is closer to the truth. If having a debate about God with some fervent Roman Catholics, I'd probably suggest the phrase 'there is no God" to be more closely resembling the truth, as long as there was little likelihood of violence.

 

[IdleRich]

"I think reasonability, although innocently employed, is a weasel word. Yes it might be said to be reasonable that people do things, but that's distinct from those actions being based on reason alone. You sympthise with his actions, I get that."

Well, yeah, I tend to but substitute "unsurprising" for "reasonable" if you like in the previous paragraph to get what I meant there.

"Honestly? Please clarify where....."

It's virtually the whole point of the debate isn't it? Does he or does he not have grounds to make this assertion? But to just slip in at that point that he doesn't as a way towards another argument seems a bit cheeky.

"Again maybe I am dumb, please explain?"

I mean you pressed the keys on the keyboard in the belief that writing would appear on the screen where I could read it and so on... but uh-oh belief, we're on our way to an infinite regress again.

"Not objectively. From my own subjective pov, I might be more inclined to think that, in this thread, 'there is a God' is closer to the truth. If having a debate about God with some fervent Roman Catholics, I'd probably suggest the phrase 'there is no God" to be more closely resembling the truth, as long as there was little likelihood of violence."

So to get it clear where you stand - presumably you think that "London is the capital of England" is objectively (otherwise bringing in this word means that you're not answering the question I'm asking) closer to being a fact than "My little finger is the capital of England" but you do not accept that even in principle "There is no God" could be objectively closer to the truth than "There is a God"?
It sounds to me as though you have a kind of two-level system of facts where there are close-to-facts, say factoids (basically the things that most people would call facts), and then other further away unknowable meta-physicals, would that be fair to say?
Although I'm not sure that your contrarianism in religious debates is an argument for the subjectivity of that factoid relative to the other one. Maybe in a given argument you might claim the little finger thing is closer to being a fact than London even though you've accepted that that is not the case...
But we digress further and further.

Edit: Just read back through the whole thread and it is one big digression. Possibly my fault. But I would really like to have an encapsulation of the left-wing critique of Dawkins' position, I still don't think I properly get it. Is it just that it doesn't attempt to answer the questions that religion attempts? Is it because in a capitalist world the void that a lack of religion will leave will be filled with more capitalism, or is it simply because continental philosophers think that empiricists should stay out of what they see as their domain? I'm beginning to think the latter.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'd probably suggest the phrase 'there is no God" to be more closely resembling the truth

Why do you think this, just out of interest?

 

[comelately]

It's virtually the whole point of the debate isn't it? Does he or does he not have grounds to make this assertion? But to just slip in at that point that he doesn't as a way towards another argument seems a bit cheeky.

I can see how it seems cheeky, and I'm inclined to take it as a compliment. I think we've reached the impasse of 'there are no facts'. I am willing to accept that 'there are no facts' contains a trace of the very thing that it denies, but I maintain the notion of meaningless is wide of the mark. what we get is another infinite regress and the pomo negative theology God. Yay!

So to get it clear where you stand - presumably you think that "London is the capital of England" is objectively (otherwise bringing in this word means that you're not answering the question I'm asking) closer to being a fact than "My little finger is the capital of England"

The objectivity/subjectivity distinction is probably a needless complication at this point. I should not have brought it in.

but you do not accept that even in principle "There is no God" could be objectively closer to the truth than "There is a God"?

Not right now, no. Principle?

It sounds to me as though you have a kind of two-level system of facts where there are close-to-facts, say factoids (basically the things that most people would call facts), and then other further away unknowable meta-physicals, would that be fair to say?

That isn't a position I particularly want to identify with.

 

[comelately]

Why do you think this, just out of interest?

Haha! I see the trap here, that I end up doing more or less what I'm ragging on Dawkins for doing. Because as IdleRich suggests, I'm a contrarian.

 

[comelately]

Edit: Just read back through the whole thread and it is one big digression. Possibly my fault. But I would really like to have an encapsulation of the left-wing critique of Dawkins' position, I still don't think I properly get it. Is it just that it doesn't attempt to answer the questions that religion attempts? Is it because in a capitalist world the void that a lack of religion will leave will be filled with more capitalism, or is it simply because continental philosophers think that empiricists should stay out of what they see as their domain? I'm beginning to think the latter.

2 and 3. I think I've suggested how Dawkin's views do lead to the 'life-affirming' and the 'we the living' type spirituality stuff. Zizek has talked about spirituality as the problem reframed as the solution - another link on this;http://cardiff.academia.edu/PaulBowman/Papers/94136/The_Tao_of_Zizek . I've also talked about how I believe religion emphasises the transcendental demand for altruism in a way that new-age spirituality does not and the result of less religion and more spirituality is that manifestations of altruism become more blatantly self-referring in nature, and with that do less for social justice and equality.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Haha! I see the trap here, that I end up doing more or less what I'm ragging on Dawkins for doing. Because as IdleRich suggests, I'm a contrarian.

So if most people you knew were theists of some kind, you'd be an atheist?

I appreciate the humour here but I doubt that's the real reason. For one thing, I don't think it's possible to 'choose' to believe something any more than you can choose to love someone or to like a particular food.

Also, I'm not trying to trap you into anything, I'm genuinely interested. For most people who subscribe to one religion or another, it's because it's the faith they were brought up in; some people of course have powerful experiences of one kind or another which they put down to God and therefore 'see the light'. But the sort of intellectualised nonspecific theism that you and Eagleton espouse is a different thing. I just find it curious.