The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins (2014)

https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins

by pron • 11 years ago

23 59 11 years ago

micwawa6• 11 years ago

Just curious, did anyone read The God Delusion and find his central argument disappointing (complete nonsense)? I read the book after he promised to reduce the probability of existence of God to the probability of something completely absurd.

His argument appears to be the following. First, when the universe began there was no God (this is the assumption.) So God would have had to come into existence by random chance, sometime after the creation of the universe, which we all can agree is absurd. Therefore, no God. Booyah. In your face Intelligent Design.

I read this a couple times to make sure that I was understanding it correctly. But it still seems to me that this is about as blatant an example of question-begging that you can find.

He's an entertaining author, sure.

tamana• 11 years ago

It is a valid argument , until you get into the math and physics of the infinite and of compact manifolds. Dawkins is a biologist.

I think Dawkins was too early. In more recent years, we have identified biological pathways for how humans generate spiritual thoughts/feelings, and we have economic models for how religious beliefs exploit trust and counterfactuals (that is, if you wanted to invent a lie and make it as widespread believed as Christianity, you would do marketing tricks that look exactly like Evangelism and Cults, and then L Ron Hubbard provided empiric proof with Scientology. (which maybe is what you meant by "probability").

micwawa6• 11 years ago

The argument may be valid, but only as far as it argues an irrelevant case: Hardly any religious person would suggest that God came into existence sometime after the creation of the Universe. Am I missing something?

You're suggesting half of the Bayesian argument: Given a universe without God, it is quite probable that religions exist. But what I would like to see is the other half: Given a universe in which (some) God exists, the current universe is nearly impossible.

TrevorJ4• 11 years ago

An interesting point.

I think ultimately he has the same problem of first causes that the argument for God does. In both arguments you have to draw a box around the universe/timespan/laws you will consider and then make an assumption about the initial state. In Christianity, the box is drawn outside the universe itself by considering God to exist outside of time and space and predating the universe itself. Dawkins just draws a slightly smaller box, but neither argument is without assumptions.

Besides, these arguments all sort of start on shaky ground anyway because the nature of faith is that it's not based totally on things that are empirically provable. By it's nature it isn't something that claims to be rooted in empiricism. No matter what side of the argument you fall on, at a certain point after weighing all the evidence there is a chasm you have to cross between what is actually provable, and what you believe to be true.

matthewtoast2• 11 years ago

The God Delusion gives a handful of arguments both for and against the existence of God. Your summary comes across as a straw-man, a misrepresentation that's supposed to convince us that the real argument is poor. Where did he make this before/after argument?

Intelligent design is just one hypothesis among many to explain the complexity (the apparent "design") of the universe. But it posits the existence of an even more complex entity. If we really need intelligent design to explain where eyeballs and bird wings came from, why don't we also need an explanation of the omnipotent designer?

micwawa6• 11 years ago

Yes, there's a handful of arguments, but at some point in the introduction he says (I don't have the book in front of me, so this is my best memory) that the main argument in the book will be the Boeing 747 Gambit, presented in Chapter 4. This is why I read the book. Then, he goes on to describe how unlikely it would be for God to form completely by chance. In order for this argument to make any sense, he has to assume that God happening by chance is something happens inside of the universe (or some universe).

There's a few too many straw-men running around here. I'm attempting to summarize my view of an argument, and asking if that's correct.

jbssm7• 11 years ago

It'a quite clear after you understand semi-advanced physics that nothing could exist before the universe started.

Now, you could contest the Big Bang, but from the moment you assume it happened then I don't see nothing absurd in the sentence: "First, when the universe began there was no God"

Because unlike you put it, this is NOT an assumption. If the Universe did had a beginning (and all measurement indicate it did) then this (nothing existed before, not even God) follows directly from the laws of physics.

In fact Dawkins greatest problem when trying to explain people this, is exactly the one I feel when trying to explain other parts to believers. They are ignorant about certain parts of science that make what they are saying impossible, and since it's fairly advanced science, they just refuse to believe it and trying to understand it.

I would welcome to discuss religion with another person from my area (astrophysics) but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious... I guess because it would be really hard to mix both things.

TrevorJ4• 11 years ago

It'a quite clear after you understand semi-advanced physics that nothing could exist before the universe started.

The implicit argument here is limited to the type of things that make up the universe we can see and observe. It would be most accurate to say that the things that make up the universe could not have existed before the universe started. Philosophically speaking we can't preclude the existence of things that could be of a different type, or exist outside our own universe. It's the same problem explored in Plato's cave.

micwawa6• 11 years ago

"First, when the universe began there was no God"

I don't see how this follows or doesn't follow from physics. Certainly, according to physics, God is not necessary. But to most believers God is not something that cares about physics, because God exists outside physics. Physics can only comment on what is governed by physics. Telling people they are ignorant does not refute this basic objection.

I'll put in another way. Perhaps we can say everything we want about the closed (let's just say 10-dimensional) manifold on which we live. We can pinpoint exactly where the negative signature of the metric degenerates, we can solve Cauchy problem for all time, or whatever. How does that tell us any information about a larger ambient manifold, or any disconnected components of the manifold? After all, Nash's Embedding Theorem holds for all signatures.

micwawa6• 11 years ago

>but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious

You should visit the IAS in Princeton sometime.

dpweb• 11 years ago

Just started to check it out. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I've found the common atheist arguments (ie.. people start wars in the name of religion, therefore religion is bad) usually pretty weak.

The first part looked interesting. I wanted to see exactly what he is attacking, and it seems to be specifically the idea of the supernatural. He notes that Einstein has been misrepesented as a believer (didn't know that - so I learned something already!).

However, I would expect a physicist, engaged in deep study of the physical world - to deny the existence of the supernatural. Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work? Dawkins mentioning Einstein didn't believe proves nothing. Einstein not believing something doesn't make it false.

Ultimately, what it comes down to, at least for me is - we know little about the origins of the universe, not to much about even our own minds, and nothing outside of our consciousness.

catawbasam• 11 years ago

re "Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work?"

Not for Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, Planck, Heisenberg, John Lucas, John Eccles, or John Stewart Bell -- all religious.

There is also a group who aren't religious but see reason to believe in a universal consciousness, e.g. Bohm, Schroedinger, and Penrose.

Biologists seem to be more prone to deny the supernatural, presumably due to the culture wars surrounding the teaching of evolution.

innocentoldguy4• 11 years ago

I like this quote from the article, "If science, for Darwin, was a method of inquiry that enabled him to edge tentatively and humbly toward the truth, for Dawkins, science is an unquestioned view of the world," because it hints at what I see as the biggest flaw in Dawkins' science vs. religion debate. Science is fallible.

Don't get me wrong, I love science and the many wonderful things it has brought into my life, but I view it as a tool to further our understanding, rather than an absolute truth. I don't see a difference between Dawkins' faith in science (his apparent belief that science is infallible and absolute) and the religious beliefs he likes to argue against. Both require a leap of faith, don't they?

matthewtoast2• 11 years ago

Via Wikipedia, science is defined as:

a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The key word being "testable". The fallibility (or falsifiability) of scientific hypotheses is the great strength of science: We can improve, or prove wrong, our understanding.

Dawkins writing celebrates this, and I think it's unfair to characterize his passionate (OK, sometimes strident) advocacy as "unquestioning" fanaticism.

If it's a "leap of faith" to accept the axiom that we can refine/invalidate knowledge through experimentation, then "a leap of faith" isn't a very profound deed.

pron9• 11 years ago

Dawkins's critique of religion is neither scientific nor rigorous (nor knowledgeable), and philosophy is not his strong suit. Philosophy calls for a different kind of inquisitiveness which he lacks, and it is in this sense that Dawkins is unquestioning.

innocentoldguy4• 11 years ago

I did not define Dawkins' beliefs as fanaticism. Don't inject words into a point that I never made.

What I said is that Dawkins injects a large degree of faith into his opinions on science vs. religion. Do you deny that? Dawkins himself admits that he (and science) don't know everything about the beginning of the universe, life, evolution, etc. I agree with him there. I also agree with him when he questions why we would inject God into our attempts to observe and understand natural phenomena, thus complicating our research with an attribute that cannot be observed. However, he still does use his imperfect knowledge on many scientific subjects to reach a conclusion that makes him "6.9 out of 7" sure that God doesn't exist. Whether you like to admit it or not, that is faith.

kazinator9• 11 years ago

What reasons are there to believe that Richard Dawkins is not prepared to be convinced of the truth of a proposition by rational evidence?

(Or if that's not the definition of "closed mind", then what is?)

tome4• 11 years ago

Some aspects of human society and culture are not really subject to empiricism per se, literature for example. Dawkins could well say "I don't believe in the existence of literature beyond words printed on a page, until you present rational evidence". That wouldn't be an unscientific approach, but would nonetheless be closed minded, I think.

kazinator9• 11 years ago

I don't think Dawkins disputes the existence of religion in human culture, or the role of works like the Bible as cultural artifacts.

He's just opposed to the classification of fiction as non-fiction.

kazinator9• 11 years ago

Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which believers have read Scripture.

Of course, because that interpretation is hand-waving nonsense: replacing the actual words with something else that you wish the words really said (at the moment), with no justification.

If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all? Macroexpand all the symbolism into its concrete terms, say that "this is it", and let's discuss that.

Until then, the serpent in Eden was really a snake, the apple was really an apple and so on.

pron9• 11 years ago

If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all?

Good question, which is thoroughly discussed and answered in various religious writings.

But I could ask you the opposite question: why would you assume that a text -- let alone an ancient one -- is anything but allegorical? Why would you assume that a text, by default, is literal until proven otherwise? Throughout history, there have been periods when it's been assumed that most written (let alone canonical and holy) texts are allegorical. It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.

In any case, whatever your views on human texts and their default literary genre, if you believe that a god wrote your scriptures, your interpretation of them would be based on the nature of your god and his preferred writing style, no?

pklausler4• 11 years ago

I can't wait to read these complete, unambiguous, and mutually consistent religious writings. Links, please.

tome4• 11 years ago

If that's so then why should the Tanakh and Quran not be as instrumental in my life (as an atheist -- an "atheist Christian", if you must) as in a Jew and a Muslim's life respectively?

kazinator9• 11 years ago

It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.

Nope! My assumption is that the text is allegorical, and so please decide what the allegories are about and commit to an interpretation. Or else stop claiming that any of it is true, or the word of god, etc. You can't say, "these words are from god and they are true, and their meaning is [insert my subjective interpretation out of thin air]". I mean, if it were the were the word of god, how dare you even substitute your paraphrase? Oh right, you have divine inspiration---pardon me! God appeared to you one night and said, "here is what I really meant behind this paragraph".

Secondly, Christians literally believe the bulk of the New Testament: that Jesus really lived, was really the result of a virgin birth with God as the father, that he walked on water and so on. If you don't believe that material literally, you're a heretic. The latitude for allegoric interpretation is confined to the Old Testament. Literal belief in a large section of the Bible is not anachronistic at all; it is perfectly current.

dragonwriter• 11 years ago

Strict literalism and textual primacy, in Christianity at least, is a fairly recent reaction against the traditional approach to the religion, in which Scripture was important, but neither necessarily viewed as literal nor viewed as the sole (or even preeminent) foundation of the religion.

kazinator9• 11 years ago

Christianity is quite definitely based on the New Testament being taken literally: water literally turning to wine, Christ literally walking on water, healing the sick, coming back from the dead, and so on. Adam, Eve, serpent and apple might not be taken literally, but J. C. is: being born of a virgin, being the Son of God, all of it.

aap_• 11 years ago

Just wanted to note that the bible doesn't say anything about the fruit being an apple. It's the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good an evil. You can't seriously claim this was ever meant as an actual physical tree.

kazinator9• 11 years ago

So, what is the tree and what is the fruit? What events are being described through the allegory? Who were the real people, and what concrete actions did they perform to gain knowledge, and what knowledge was that? What evidence justifies the answer?

ommunist• 11 years ago

I recall a good definition of prayer by Mr. Bierce in this connection: “Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”

alfapla• 11 years ago

I wouldn't call Richard Dawkings close minded. Here's a man who abandoned a successful career in biology because he found contemplating God more rewarding.

tome4• 11 years ago

Just found this nice counterpoint.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/richard-dawkins-...

The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins (2014)

Related Stories