The God / Dawkins Delusion

[jonny mugwump]

yeah for sure, the eagleton link is brilliant.

 

[IdleRich]

"I find Terry Eagleton's review excellent, though I haven't read the book (nor do I intend to)."

So do you agree with what Eagleton says about criticising something you haven't read in depth?

 

[Edward]

Don't worry Zhao, it wasn't you I was disagreeing with, it was exoticpylon who said "dawkins is a complete fool" with no qualification.

-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-

Isn't it accepted even by most evolutionary biologists that Dawkins is a complete charlatan...Stephen Jay Gould for instance making it obvious what he thought of him for instance

not at all. there is a lot more contention around what gould had to say.

And regarding his materialist fundamentalism isn't it very likely if he'd been born in the middle ages there's a good chance he would have been one of the most intransigent religious fundamentalists causing all the kind of problems he himself blames on religion.

who knows? and what is the point of such counterfactual speculation?
it's just character assassination with no basis in fact. I agree that he's not likeable but the above quote is just fantasy.

Ironic that these two books are coming out now when at the cutting edge of certain scientific disciplines (quantum physics etc) there's more consideration for some kind of non-materialst explanation for certain phenomena than possibly at any any time since the early 19th century....

I think it's ironic that Dawkins is spending his time disputing with creationists when he has the talent to do something worthwhile. I suspect he feels sufficiently worried about the rise of fundamentalist religion that he thinks it IS worthwhile. I think he misunderstands human nature in a big way or else he wouldn't bother.

 

[hamarplazt]

Isn't it accepted even by most evolutionary biologists that Dawkins is a complete charlatan...Stephen Jay Gould for instance making it obvious what he thought of him for instance

Well, haven't Dawkins made it clear that he thought more or less the same about Gould?

 

[dHarry]

Eagleton's piece starts well, but soon lapses into the wooly thinking that Dawkins is surely critiquing in the first place. Here he criticises Dawkins' naivety in imagining God as a "chap" with or without a white beard, having taken Dawkins to task for not appreciating the subtlety of theology, but then continues to call God a "him" who "sustains all things in being by his love" and "might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago" with no theological or any other justification for these bold claims or unexplained anthropomorphism.

[Dawkins] seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.

Why is God some kind of person/entity full of love and even regret? Why is "he" an artist rather than a scientist? Why does creation ex nihilo imply love rather than need?
This to me is all-too-human fantasy, projecting our ability to think, love and imagine out beyond even the infinity of the universe and endowing some imagined super-being with the "best" of these qualities.

If the concept of God has any meaning for me (and having been brought up a Catholic, I have to say it doesn't generally), it must be more like Spinoza's (seen through Deleuze's idiosyncratic lens), where God is simply a concept for All That Is, essentially synonomous with or immanent to nature and material reality, and not some figure/being/person with pesudo-human qualities. And it is for philosophy, not the old either/or of science versus theology, to tease out and argue over the mysteries of that reality, "why there is something rather than nothing" etc.

And I don't consider this an impoverishment of imagination or a bleak materialist unspiritual way of looking at the world - there are still plenty of mysteries to go around for science, art and philosophy to ponder and investigate. I love Nietzche's caustic line on the emergence of the single God of monotheism, something like: "If the old pagan gods have vanished, they must have died laughing at the vanity of God proclaiming himself the only one".

 

[dHarry]

Anyone have any links on the Dawkins Vs Gould debate?

 

[swears]

Eagleton: "...one can be reasonably certain that he would not be Europe’s greatest enthusiast for Foucault, psychoanalysis, agitprop, Dadaism, anarchism or separatist feminism. All of these phenomena, one imagines, would be as distasteful to his brisk, bloodless rationality as the virgin birth. Yet one can of course be an atheist and a fervent fan of them all."

I can't imagine the sort of believer that would be a "fervent fan" of these "phenomena". All of them have their roots in atheism one way or another.

 

[borderpolice]

If the concept of God has any meaning for me (and having been brought up a Catholic, I have to say it doesn't generally), it must be more like Spinoza's (seen through Deleuze's idiosyncratic lens), where God is simply a concept for All That Is, essentially synonomous with or immanent to nature and material reality

I hear this a lot. but exactly why does one need a new word for nature? and such a loaded one at that? What intellectual benefit does one derive from saying god or vishnu or zeus when meaning nature? I'm baffled.

 

[Dusty]

I would just like to point out that from my remembered reading of the book, Dawkins does not blame religion for all the world's evils, and I seem to recall he is happy to accept the fact that humans could and would have found / would find other outlets for evil and violence, regardless of belief.

This is yet another method of A: misquoting him for the purposes of knocking him down and B: avoiding the main crux of the issue which is societies 'blind spot' when it comes to questioning the evidence behind belief systems with the same scientific rigour we question everything else.

this current trend of religion bashing is just completely fucking retarded.

Sorry to sound like a 4 year old, but why?

 

[dHarry]

I hear this a lot. but exactly why does one need a new word for nature? and such a loaded one at that? What intellectual benefit does one derive from saying god or vishnu or zeus when meaning nature? I'm baffled.

I guess in 17th C Europe it wasn't so easy to write or even think that God simply didn't exist - Spinoza didn't go this far but still was excommunicated from Judaism. It wasn't using a new word for nature, so much as dragging God-as-concept back into the real world (even if this ultimately makes it redundant).

Maybe it's also a way of preserving a space for imagination and philosophy in accounts of material reality, and not claiming that it is self-evidently understandable or completely accounted for by science.

 

[borderpolice]

I guess in 17th C Europe it wasn't so easy to write or even think that God simply didn't exist - Spinoza didn't go this far but still was excommunicated from Judaism. It wasn't using a new word for nature, so much as dragging God-as-concept back into the real world (even if this ultimately makes it redundant).

Sure, I understand that S. and others where trying to synthesize religious tradition with modern science. In the same way that political writers at the time tried to fuse monarchy and democracy. but this option is pretty threadbare these days.

Maybe it's also a way of preserving a space for imagination and philosophy in accounts of material reality, and not claiming that it is self-evidently understandable or completely accounted for by science.

It's not really clear to me why the pantheistic option does that in a constructive way: what do i learn about imagination if somebody says: Thor is just an alternative term for Everything.

Moreover, the phenomena you refer to are not accounted for in a comprehensive way by science. Why are people afraid to say: I don't know where the universe comes from, I have no idea how self-consciousness emerges etc?

 

[dHarry]

It's not really clear to me why the pantheistic option does that in a constructive way: what do i learn about imagination if somebody says: Thor is just an alternative term for Everything.

Moreover, the phenomena you refer to are not accounted for in a comprehensive way by science. Why are people afraid to say: I don't know where the universe comes from, I have no idea how self-consciousness emerges etc?

God knows Maybe it's fear of the cold vastness of the universe and the implacable certainty of time and death. But I'm not propounding this position - as I said originally I have no interest in God; all I meant was that if it has to exist as a concept then I might accept it in a particular Spinozist fashion.

But that's not what most people mean by God, which seems to be either Eagleton's loving artist and underwriter of being, an anthropomorphised and/or nebulous spiritual version of physical energy as animator of matter and life, a pre-Big Bang prima causa, or the guy with the beard and robes up in the sky. I don't see the validity of any of these.

 

[Edward]

Why are people afraid to say: I don't know where the universe comes from, I have no idea how self-consciousness emerges etc?

I am not afraid to admit to those things.

I think any rigorous scientist or philosopher would be happy to admit the same thing, and add: here are some theories we're working on that might lead towards some possible answers.

Science doesn't claim to have the answers to everything, it just claims to have a better method for finding things out than "it was in a book" or "the priest said so".
We have had a massive thread on that already.

Surely it's only the religious who are afraid to admit those things and instead subscribe to beliefs for which there is no evidential basis.

 

[Dusty]

Exactly, to break it down into its simplest form; Scientific thinking simply draws a conclusion from the presented evidence... there are no absolutes, nothing is set in stone. If something came along that turned evolution on its head tomorrow, Dawkins would look at the evidence, take it on board and if it was convincing, he would change his mind.

The same cannot be said of the people he is arguing against. To assume something exists until proved otherwise is fundamentally flawed logic. Hence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

 

[tryptych]

dharry is right about Eagleton's lapses back into anthropomorphism. I think he's also thinking wishfully when he declares that God as ontological ground of being is in anyway a mainstream view amongst believers. Eagleton is I guess stuck in his Catholic ways, force of habit bringing "love" into the equation when it's unwarranted. Much more appealing is the cold, uncaring creator of Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker".

RE Spinoza etc - Of course saying God = everything is trivial and buys you nothing. I think better to equate God with the pre-condition and ground of being . As far as I am aware, even the most advanced cosmology bangs up against the question of why there is anything at all, rather than nothing.

Moreover, the phenomena you refer to are not accounted for in a comprehensive way by science. Why are people afraid to say: I don't know where the universe comes from, I have no idea how self-consciousness emerges etc?

Because such statements jar with reductionist materialism? Once you admit that one thing can not be accounted for by science/materialism, then you open up the possibilities of lots of other things being outside that realm too.

Dusty - see the "critiques of science" thread...

 

[polymorphic]

Well, I thought this post might rattle a few cages

The McGrath book is a very poor thing full of "strawman" type arguments - criticising Dawkins for things he doesn't actually say...

Exactly, I read the McGrath response to try and get a rounded view. It's pretty tough to confirm these points though unless you have a grounding in the Theology (which I don't).

I recognised the character assassination of Dawkins and was kind pleased to find the following factual refute of the McGrath case :

I am not particularly interested in fighting Richard Dawkins’ corner. Firstly, he can look after himself. Secondly, atheism does not stand or fall by Dawkins’ presentation of the issues. Thirdly, I don’t always agree with Dawkins. The God Delusion is not the book I hoped he would write. This is not, then, primarily a defence of Dawkins. My purpose here is simple: to document the scholarly failings of Alister McGrath

http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~llrdjb/shs/delusion.html

Well, haven't Dawkins made it clear that he thought more or less the same about Gould?

Well, he certainly addresses Gould's case for not using scientific analysis on religion. The section on Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA).

I would just like to point out that from my remembered reading of the book, Dawkins does not blame religion for all the world's evils, and I seem to recall he is happy to accept the fact that humans could and would have found / would find other outlets for evil and violence, regardless of belief.

This is yet another method of A: misquoting him for the purposes of knocking him down and B: avoiding the main crux of the issue which is societies 'blind spot' when it comes to questioning the evidence behind belief systems with the same scientific rigour we question everything else.

Totally agree.

----

It's the context and purpose of both these books that I find a little difficult. I enjoyed the Dawkin's book, well, cos I'd kinda been waiting for someone to say this stuff but I also think it's important that we question these ideals. Why should people believe in unobtainable "truths". Why should children have beliefs forced upon them ?

I suspect many religious people are just be happy that there is a published refute* and leave it at that. Kinda means we're not any further forward in the debate..

I'd be interested to know if there's an religious person swayed by the Dawkin's book. Are the people here that think he's a fool etc religious (oh no he isn't, oh yes he is ) ?

* Dawkin's response in The Times alludes to the fact that the Dawkins Delusion is a commercial exercise. The McGraths could've just addressed these arguments succinctly on a web site ?

 

[borderpolice]

Surely it's only the religious who are afraid to admit those things and instead subscribe to beliefs for which there is no evidential basis.

My take of this is that (one of) the social function(s) of religion is precisely to cover up the fact that it doesn't have answers to the questions about why there is a universe/god at all, rather than nothing, and use (meaningless) rituals instead so people forget that these questions are really not answered.

 

[Edward]

BP, I agree!


_____+____+_____+____+_____+____+_____+____

even the most advanced cosmology bangs up against the question of why there is anything at all, rather than nothing.

I don't think science attempts or claims to answer "why" questions, only "how" and "what" kind of questions.
Cosmology attempts to come up with a verifiable theory of how the universe started, not why.

"Why" is for philosophers, or in the view of some, for theologians (who in my view are just very poor unrigorous philosophers).

 

[john eden]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2737140.ece

 

[Mr. Tea]

RE Spinoza etc - Of course saying God = everything is trivial and buys you nothing. I think better to equate God with the pre-condition and ground of being . As far as I am aware, even the most advanced cosmology bangs up against the question of why there is anything at all, rather than nothing.

Hmm...I think Edward's bang on about science's ability to answer "how/what" questions rather than "why" questions - "why" after all implies meaning or at least purpose, which are purely human terms.
For example, science doesn't really answer questions like "why is the sky blue?", it answers "how is the sky blue?" (Rayleigh scattering, etc.): asking "why" the sky is blue is tantamount to asking "for what purpose is the sky blue?" (Because it's God's favourite colour, perhaps).

Because such statements jar with reductionist materialism? Once you admit that one thing can not be accounted for by science/materialism, then you open up the possibilities of lots of other things being outside that realm too.

There are certainly things that cannot be answered by science, yet. A hundred years ago, asking questions like "how did the universe start" would have been regarded as the realm of theologians or mystics, not scientists, but now there is an entire academic field (cosmology) dedicated to answering just this question, in scientifically rigorous terms. Furthermore, they deal not just with abstruse mathematical theories, but with hard observational evidence.
Also I think it's not quite true to imagine that all scientists are hard-boiled reductionists: a lot of work is being done at the moment on ideas like emergence, in which complex systems arise out of simple physical laws and are described by more complex laws that cannot be derived purely from the initial physical laws.
Just because reductionism doesn't explain something that's no reason to throw up your hands and say "Oh well, it must be God/spirits/morphogenic fields" or whatever.