I think that’s a pretty nasty answer coming from a mod. It’s kind of ironic to have you play the peacemaker when other people express their natural feelings about religion, but when it’s something that you care about, the gloves come off.
I don’t believe in atheism, I am an atheist because I don’t believe in gods or the soul or a spiritual realm. Yes, I know, empty of me. Suck it up.
The same can be said of other such as Dawkins, even though he uses your vernacular of belief to spread his opinion.
But claiming that Dawkins does not know any philosophy (or just the amount that can be written on a postage stamp) is pure condescension. He may not be expert in the philosophy you do, but that’s irrelevant, because your philosophy is predicated on a non-existent shellgame called religion and rooted in belief in magic, pixies, and stuff (although you may call them angels, god, and miracles. Same deal.) and who wants to waste too much time on that when there are far more pressing matters at hand?
In fairness, Dawkins’ blunders on philosophy are well noted.
Both of these quotes come from a recent article I read, I didn’t Google twice to find them.
Jeremy Pierce: ‘Dawkins is not a philosopher, never mind a well-trained one, and what he says demonstrates that he is hardly familiar with the literature in philosophy of religion. He regularly commits easy-to-spot fallacies when it comes to religion.’
Thomas Nagel: Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy the traditional… arguments for the existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm. I found these attempts at philosophy, along with those in a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak.
He’s a smart man, but probably was out of his depth at some points. He’s a biologist, but didn’t really tackle the subject from the point of view of evolutionary biologists, so I have read a lot of evolutionary biologists who focus on the evolution of biology were quite disappointed in him, and in one case for misrepresenting someone else’s work, so I would take Dawkins with a pinch of salt.
[quote=“purewater”]In fairness, Dawkins’ blunders on philosophy are well noted.
Both of these quotes come from a recent article I read, I didn’t Google twice to find them.
Jeremy Pierce: ‘Dawkins is not a philosopher, never mind a well-trained one, and what he says demonstrates that he is hardly familiar with the literature in philosophy of religion. He regularly commits easy-to-spot fallacies when it comes to religion.’
Thomas Nagel: Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy the traditional… arguments for the existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm. I found these attempts at philosophy, along with those in a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak.
He’s a smart man, but probably was out of his depth at some points. He’s a biologist, but didn’t really tackle the subject from the point of view of evolutionary biologists, so I have read a lot of evolutionary biologists who focus on the evolution of biology were quite disappointed in him, and in one case for misrepresenting someone else’s work, so I would take Dawkins with a pinch of salt.[/quote]
Well, the fact that his opponents and rivals critique him is no proof that they are right and he is wrong. Have you taken into account philosophers who agree with or support some of his views? However, that is moot: I am more than willing to believe that the man - like any other - has his faults, and that his arguments are at times imperfect. I am also happy to believe that there are many academics better educated than him on the subject of philosophy. But this is a far cry from saying that he has virtually no knowledge of philosophy. I mean, the guy is brilliant, very well read and has studied and debated the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion for many years. To say that he is a complete lightweight is just silly.
What was nasty about it? Responding to ‘Frankly I think that assertion is somewhat ludicrous’, I didn’t make the same claim about your statements, and I didn’t make any personal comments.
There’s a report button if you feel that way.
Correct, but irrelevant to the point being made; and surely you’re not claiming Jeremy Pierce and Thomas Nagel are ‘his opponents and rivals’?
purewater is talking about issues on which professional philosophers (typically atheists), have identified Dawkins as having made blunders as a result of his lack of knowledge of the subject on which he is speaking. He has cited Pierce and Nagel as examples. If you can find philosophers who agree with or support Dawkins’ claims on the particular issues concerning which Pierce and Nagel critique him, please list them.
Indeed. But there is evidence that he has virtually no knowledge of philosophy. Do you have any evidence that he has the knowledge of philosophy you attribute to him? Any evidence at all? Can you tell me which philosophy he has studied in detail, either formally or informally? Which works he has read? Which papers, articles, or books he has published in the relevant peer reviewed literature?
Please provide evidence for this statement.
You can’t convince his supporters with mere evidence.
That’s ok, because no one was saying you do. The issue is simple; you made a claim which was not only completely unsubstantiated, but was easily falsified. This would not have happened if you had stopped to check your facts. Evidence based arguments FTW.
Indeed it can. No one was suggesting otherwise.
Evidence please.
It is irrelevant indeed. That has nothing to do with the point raised.
Richard Dawkins does, for a start.
I have very little knowledge of philosophy myself, but just to focus on the point of the evolutionary biologists, David Sloan Wilson, a fellow atheist and a noted evolutionary biologist, wrote this:
For me, what bothered me was that his peers distanced themselves from his views. Not proof that he is wrong, but still should give pause for thought, and to still take him with a pinch of salt. I think he’s clearly smart, but I find him to not be very trustworthy because there’s too much bias, but why should anyone care what I think. He wrote a book, giving one side of an argument, which is what people do all the time. The New Atheist books were really great for opening up a discussion and getting people talking about religion again. But I also admire Alister McGrath, and enjoyed his responses and books too. I find him to be a thoroughly likeable guy.
All in all, the New Atheism thing has been really interesting, if nothing else.
What was nasty about it? Responding to ‘Frankly I think that assertion is somewhat ludicrous’, I didn’t make the same claim about your statements, and I didn’t make any personal comments.[/quote]
Actually, you did:
I would consider that getting personal. You are aggressively accusing me of knowing nothing whatsoever of what I speak. That’s a too harsh for a mod, as you well know, especially in their own forum. I doubt you would tolerate comments like that by one poster against another if the topic was Buddhism. As to my knowledge of his knowledge of philosophy, it is clear from RD’s writing that he has studied in some way the philosophy of religion, as he discusses it. Perhaps he has a much weaker grasp of it then he credits himself with, according to some experts, but certainly more than can be written on the back of a postage stamp, to use your phrase. I said your phrase was ludicrous, not any more general assertion that RD is weak in philosophy.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
But there is evidence that he has virtually no knowledge of philosophy[/quote]
You have presented NO evidence that he has virtually no knowledge of philosophy. You have only quoted critics. He obviously has an overall knowledge of the philosophy of science and of religion because he discusses them in numerous books, papers and lectures. Whether he is respected in the philosophical community is another matter.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Please provide evidence for this statement.[/quote]
http://www.fontem.com/archivos/usuarios/cv_521.pdf
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Evidence please.[/quote]
No, your turn! You have only produced evidence that Dawkins has many critics, not that his knowledge of philosophy is close to zero. Given that he writes, edits and publishes on the philosophy of science and religion, the burden is on you to explain why you take such an extreme approach.
You call that aggressive? 
Ok, hit the report button. I was pointing out that you were making a claim without evidence, and that you were simply guessing. When you have evidence that this statement of mine isn’t true, I’ll glad you retract it.
Try reading the Buddhism threads to see what kind of comments I’ve tolerated about Buddhism, not to mention comments ‘like The sources you give are highly biased and selective’ (your comment), and ‘You have failed to take "the middle path"on this issue’, ‘You are highly biased’, ‘Do you or your group work for the PRC, or hope to open temples there?’’ (your comments). Perhaps you didn’t intend those as personal comments. Here are some more I’ve tolerated in that thread.
- Sounds like something the Chinese Communist Pigs would come up with in order to dissuade local Buddhists from empathizing with the Tibetan victims of CCP oppression
- This is religion. It’s always about money. And if you have ever had a run in with the major Buddhist organizations in Taiwan, you’ll know how rich they really are
- I’ve heard stories about Tibetans pretending to be lamas just to get a visa and live a luxurious life in Taiwan
- there’s self-titled “living buddah’s” setting up all over the Tibetan regions in China and it’s a pure scam
- If Taiwanese and Chinese were real Buddhists, they’d have more patience and would drive better
- apart from swindling money out of their followers, lamas have committed countless sexual abuses under guise of Tibet “Buddhism,”
- So any sexual misconduct committed by lamas were not isolated incidents, but are expected and inevitable. They are posing serious danger for the society, especially for many innocent females who could be our family members or dear friends
- The sources you give are highly biased and selective (your comment)
- You have failed to take "the middle path"on this issue. You are highly biased. Do you or your group work for the PRC, or hope to open temples there? (your comment)
- they are petty slagging from one Buddhist group to another, despite your organization’s flowery rhetoric (your comment)
- Obviously a bunch of PRC buddhist shills slagging off at Tibetans because Tibetans are not Chinese
- Do not feed the trolls
- Do you actually take this sort of anonymous, specious, unsubstantiated rubbish seriously?
Well that depends on what you mean by ‘studied’. Formally? No; he has no qualifications in the subject whatsoever. Informally? Perhaps, but how could we know unless it’s recorded reliably somewhere? But the mere fact that he discusses it doesn’t necessiate either; it simply requires that he has read a little and heard a little. I can discuss quantum physics, but would you claim I have ‘studied it in some way’, and that I’m worth listening to on the topic?
The best way to identify the extent to which Dawkins has actually ‘read’ and ‘studied’ on the subject, is to compare his writings on the subject to those of qualified professionals, and to examine what qualified professionals say about his comments on these subjects. That way we’re not guessing, and we’re subjecting his comments to objective scrutiny.
My phrase (which was obviously hyperbolic rather than literal), was intended to express my view that Dawkins has an extremely poor understanding of philosophy, certainly insufficient to be treated as authoritative on the subject, and certainly insufficient to be making the kind of dogmatic claims he’s making. His arguments illustrate what happens when someone tries their hand at a topic which interests them but concerning which they don’t know enough to comment accurately.
No. I have produced evidence that those who are professionally qualified on the philosophical and religious subjects concerning which Dawkins writes, describe him as having little to no knowledge or understanding of those subjects. That’s the point here, the identity and qualifications of Dawkins’ critics on this issue.
Remember when I identified the fact that Dawkins’ representation of Anselm’s ontological argument was flawed? You disagreed, and tried to explain why Dawkins’ claims were valid (despite the fact that you had never read Anselm youself, or studied his actual argument).
Here’s a comment from Ian Logan (Senior Research Fellow at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, teaching Medieval Philosophy), on Dawkins’ critique of Anselm’s ontological argument. It starts like this.
It continues in some detail; I recommend reading it (note also that Logan is not the first or the last to identify flaws in Dawkins’ representation of Anselm’s ontological argument). Now who am I to believe here? BigJohn who defends Dawkins’ critique of Anselm’s ontological argument (claiming it’s valid), or Logan who dismisses it as ‘sheer stupidity’? Which of you is qualified to make a legitimate comment on the subject?
Jeremy Pierce (teaches philosophy at Le Moyne College and Syracuse University), comments thus on Dawkins’ philosophical commentary.
Thomas Nagel (professor of philosophy at New York University), dismisses Dawkins’ philosophical commentary as amateur and weak.
Who should I credit with a better ability to assess accurately Dawkins’ knowledge of philosophy; BigJohn, or these three?
Anyone can discuss a topic ‘in numerous books, papers and lectures’ whilst knowing next to nothing about it; Young Earth Creationists do it with evolution, climate change deniers do it with regard to anthropogenic global warming, Fundamentantalist Christians do it with regard to the US Constitution. Just because someone writes a lot of words about a topic, doesn’t mean that they have an overall knowledge of the topic.
If his arguments demonstrated a proper understanding of the subject, they would be respected in the philosophical community. Instead they are repeatedly criticized and even ridiculed as an example of what happens when dabblers try their hand at subjects concerning which they’re insufficiently educated.
Unsurprisingly, I see no evidence there that Dawkins ‘is brilliant, very well read and has studied and debated the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion for many years’. In particular there is no evidence for his having studied either the philosophy of science or the philosophy of religion ‘for many years’. What did you have in mind?
No. I have produced evidence that those who are professionally qualified on the philosophical and religious subjects concerning which Dawkins writes, describe him as having little to no knowledge or understanding of those subjects. That’s the point here, the identity and qualifications of Dawkins’ critics on this issue.
As I have pointed out, this is not simply my opinion; I am citing professionally qualified critics. Let’s turn this around. Given that he writes, edits, and publishes on evolution, the burden is on you to explain why Ken Ham shouldn’t be taken seriously on the subject. After all, the guy is brilliant, very well read and has studied and debated evolution for many years.
the point here is that Ken Ham is a fucking lunatic and Dawkins is right, though not able to support his arguments well in the philosopher’s arena by dint of not having bothered to waste much time on the philosophy of religion.
He should just stick to unsupported trolling like me.
Never knew there were “new earth creationists” and “old earth creationists”. What’s next, “middle earth creationists”?
Dawkins is old enough and sufficiently educated enough to know that behaving like Ken ‘Lunatic’ Ham isn’t acceptable for an academic. Unfortunately they’ve both realized that acting like a lunatic sells books.
At least you’re honest about it.
You call that aggressive? Ok, hit the report button. I was pointing out that you were making a claim without evidence, and that you were simply guessing. When you have evidence that this statement of mine isn’t true, I’ll glad you retract it.[/quote]
Not guessing, but using insight based on experience. My basic idea is that a brilliant academic who has dealt with philosophy for many years is more than cursorily familiar with it. He could be wrong on certain points, but the assertion that he has little to no understanding of it is obviously an overstatement. If in your opinion I haven’t substantiated my claim, or proven the value of my insight, then surely you may question it. But to assume a priori and to make the assertion that I have no basis beyond random guesswork is in effect to make a personal attack. Not cool for a mod.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Try reading the Buddhism threads to see what kind of comments I’ve tolerated about Buddhism, not to mention comments ‘like The sources you give are highly biased and selective’ (your comment), and ‘You have failed to take "the middle path"on this issue’, ‘You are highly biased’, ‘Do you or your group work for the PRC, or hope to open temples there?’’ (your comments). Perhaps you didn’t intend those as personal comments. [/quote]
My comments were after an initial contact phase with the poster where I was polite and curious. I did not simply lash out at him or her for saying something I disagreed with. Nor would I ever do so as a mod. As a mod, you need to show restraint. You took my initial comment and reacted to it in an excessive fashion.
As to the other comments you let by in the forum, you do have a point. I wonder how you would have reacted if they were about Christianity?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Well that depends on what you mean by ‘studied’. Formally? No; he has no qualifications in the subject whatsoever. Informally? Perhaps, but how could we know unless it’s recorded reliably somewhere? But the mere fact that he discusses it doesn’t necessiate either; it simply requires that he has read a little and heard a little. I can discuss quantum physics, but would you claim I have ‘studied it in some way’, and that I’m worth listening to on the topic?
The best way to identify the extent to which Dawkins has actually ‘read’ and ‘studied’ on the subject, is to compare his writings on the subject to those of qualified professionals, and to examine what qualified professionals say about his comments on these subjects. That way we’re not guessing, and we’re subjecting his comments to objective scrutiny.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone here but you feels that you are being objective about Dawkins.** If there is anyone out there who thinks that Fortigurn is being objective about Dawkins, please chime in.
So you are saying that if a brilliant person does research and writes a book - several in fact - sits on editorial boards of magazines, participates in various debates, all on philosophy, then that person may be said to know only that which may be written on the back of a postage stamp (very very little) because there are some critics who attack him on certain key points? That is silly. All that proves is that he might well have a flawed or incomplete knowledge of the subject, not a tiny one.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
My phrase (which was obviously hyperbolic rather than literal), was intended to express my view that Dawkins has an extremely poor understanding of philosophy, certainly insufficient to be treated as authoritative on the subject, and certainly insufficient to be making the kind of dogmatic claims he’s making. His arguments illustrate what happens when someone tries their hand at a topic which interests them but concerning which they don’t know enough to comment accurately.[/quote]
Ah! You admit that you were exaggerating. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole* I agree. But what do you mean by extremely poor? Do you mean flawed, incomplete, or superficial?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
No. I have produced evidence that those who are professionally qualified on the philosophical and religious subjects concerning which Dawkins writes, describe him as having little to no knowledge or understanding of those subjects. That’s the point here, the identity and qualifications of Dawkins’ critics on this issue.[/quote]
No, the point here is the degree of your criticism, not the nature of it. You are asserting that a flawed interpretation is the same as a virtually non-existent understanding. This is hardly a commonplace assertion. Can you show some evidence that you are not exaggerating, as you admit to having done before?*
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Anyone can discuss a topic ‘in numerous books, papers and lectures’ whilst knowing next to nothing about it; Young Earth Creationists do it with evolution, climate change deniers do it with regard to anthropogenic global warming, Fundamentantalist Christians do it with regard to the US Constitution. Just because someone writes a lot of words about a topic, doesn’t mean that they have an overall knowledge of the topic.[/quote]
So, you are saying that there is a quantum leap between knowing next to nothing and having an overall knowledge of something? Can you produce some evidence for this epistemological assertion, in some sort of peer-reviewed literature? Of course not. You are obviously shooting from the hip, in your Dawkins-hating self-righteousness!
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
If his arguments demonstrated a proper understanding of the subject, they would be respected in the philosophical community. Instead they are repeatedly criticized and even ridiculed as an example of what happens when dabblers try their hand at subjects concerning which they’re insufficiently educated.
Newsflash! We are not arguing about whether his understanding is proper; we are debating whether his understanding is close to zero. Can’t you understand that?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Unsurprisingly, I see no evidence there that Dawkins ‘is brilliant, very well read and has studied and debated the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion for many years’. In particular there is no evidence for his having studied either the philosophy of science or the philosophy of religion ‘for many years’. What did you have in mind?[/quote]
So you are saying that Richard Dawkins is not a brilliant biologist? The author of the Selfish Gene? Can you show some evidence for this?
Also: That he is not well read? Have you seen his indicces and bibliographies? Have you seen the stuff he has been involved in? Not well read? How is it that reading loads of books doesn’t constitute being well read? ** Or are you saying that he is some kind of phony academic who doesn’t actually read books? Decades of academic achievements, but he is not well read…says Fortigurn. Hmmm… very subjective. Well, he’s a religious guy, eh? 
The only point you have left is whether his deliberate and systematic exposure to philosophy constitutes study. I think that is an interesting question. However, before we get into that, I am curious to know what kind of formal training you have in epistemology.
I will respond on your other comments later; sleep beckons.
Where’s the moderator to put a stop to this tedious back-and-forth?
Oh, that’s right. I forgot.
But on the bright side… Although it’s too boring to read it all, it’s now fun to take a tape measure and see who can make the biggest post. So far Fortigurn is in the lead with 26cm. Let’s see who can beat that 
You call that aggressive? Ok, hit the report button. I was pointing out that you were making a claim without evidence, and that you were simply guessing. When you have evidence that this statement of mine isn’t true, I’ll glad you retract it.[/quote]
Not guessing, but using insight based on experience. My basic idea is that a brilliant academic who has dealt with philosophy for many years is more than cursorily familiar with it. He could be wrong on certain points, but the assertion that he has little to no understanding of it is obviously an overstatement. If in your opinion I haven’t substantiated my claim, or proven the value of my insight, then surely you may question it. But to assume a priori and to make the assertion that I have no basis beyond random guesswork is in effect to make a personal attack. Not cool for a mod.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Try reading the Buddhism threads to see what kind of comments I’ve tolerated about Buddhism, not to mention comments ‘like The sources you give are highly biased and selective’ (your comment), and ‘You have failed to take "the middle path"on this issue’, ‘You are highly biased’, ‘Do you or your group work for the PRC, or hope to open temples there?’’ (your comments). Perhaps you didn’t intend those as personal comments. [/quote]
My comments were after an initial contact phase with the poster where I was polite and curious. I did not simply lash out at him or her for saying something I disagreed with. Nor would I ever do so as a mod. As a mod, you need to show restraint. You took my initial comment and reacted to it in an excessive fashion.
As to the other comments you let by in the forum, you do have a point. I wonder how you would have reacted if they were about Christianity?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Well that depends on what you mean by ‘studied’. Formally? No; he has no qualifications in the subject whatsoever. Informally? Perhaps, but how could we know unless it’s recorded reliably somewhere? But the mere fact that he discusses it doesn’t necessiate either; it simply requires that he has read a little and heard a little. I can discuss quantum physics, but would you claim I have ‘studied it in some way’, and that I’m worth listening to on the topic?
The best way to identify the extent to which Dawkins has actually ‘read’ and ‘studied’ on the subject, is to compare his writings on the subject to those of qualified professionals, and to examine what qualified professionals say about his comments on these subjects. That way we’re not guessing, and we’re subjecting his comments to objective scrutiny.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone here but you feels that you are being objective about Dawkins.** If there is anyone out there who thinks that Fortigurn is being objective about Dawkins, please chime in.
So you are saying that if a brilliant person does research and writes a book - several in fact - sits on editorial boards of magazines, participates in various debates, all on philosophy, then that person may be said to know only that which may be written on the back of a postage stamp (very very little) because there are some critics who attack him on certain key points? That is silly. All that proves is that he might well have a flawed or incomplete knowledge of the subject, not a tiny one.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
My phrase (which was obviously hyperbolic rather than literal), was intended to express my view that Dawkins has an extremely poor understanding of philosophy, certainly insufficient to be treated as authoritative on the subject, and certainly insufficient to be making the kind of dogmatic claims he’s making. His arguments illustrate what happens when someone tries their hand at a topic which interests them but concerning which they don’t know enough to comment accurately.[/quote]
Ah! You admit that you were exaggerating. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole* I agree. But what do you mean by extremely poor? Do you mean flawed, incomplete, or superficial?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
No. I have produced evidence that those who are professionally qualified on the philosophical and religious subjects concerning which Dawkins writes, describe him as having little to no knowledge or understanding of those subjects. That’s the point here, the identity and qualifications of Dawkins’ critics on this issue.[/quote]
No, the point here is the degree of your criticism, not the nature of it. You are asserting that a flawed interpretation is the same as a virtually non-existent understanding. This is hardly a commonplace assertion. Can you show some evidence that you are not exaggerating, as you admit to having done before?*
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Anyone can discuss a topic ‘in numerous books, papers and lectures’ whilst knowing next to nothing about it; Young Earth Creationists do it with evolution, climate change deniers do it with regard to anthropogenic global warming, Fundamentantalist Christians do it with regard to the US Constitution. Just because someone writes a lot of words about a topic, doesn’t mean that they have an overall knowledge of the topic.[/quote]
So, you are saying that there is a quantum leap between knowing next to nothing and having an overall knowledge of something? Can you produce some evidence for this epistemological assertion, in some sort of peer-reviewed literature? Of course not. You are obviously shooting from the hip, in your Dawkins-hating self-righteousness!
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
If his arguments demonstrated a proper understanding of the subject, they would be respected in the philosophical community. Instead they are repeatedly criticized and even ridiculed as an example of what happens when dabblers try their hand at subjects concerning which they’re insufficiently educated.
Newsflash! We are not arguing about whether his understanding is proper; we are debating whether his understanding is close to zero. Can’t you understand that?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Unsurprisingly, I see no evidence there that Dawkins ‘is brilliant, very well read and has studied and debated the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion for many years’. In particular there is no evidence for his having studied either the philosophy of science or the philosophy of religion ‘for many years’. What did you have in mind?[/quote]
So you are saying that Richard Dawkins is not a brilliant biologist? The author of the Selfish Gene? Can you show some evidence for this?
Also: That he is not well read? Have you seen his indicces and bibliographies? Have you seen the stuff he has been involved in? Not well read? How is it that reading loads of books doesn’t constitute being well read? ** Or are you saying that he is some kind of phony academic who doesn’t actually read books? Decades of academic achievements, but he is not well read…says Fortigurn. Hmmm… very subjective. Well, he’s a religious guy, eh?
The only point you have left is whether his deliberate and systematic exposure to philosophy constitutes study. I think that is an interesting question. However, before we get into that, I am curious to know what kind of formal training you have in epistemology.
I will respond on your other comments later; sleep beckons.[/quote]
I win!
[quote=“jimipresley”]
I win! 
[/quote]
But does Jimi have any formal qualifications?
You still haven’t provided any evidence that Dawkins is a ‘brilliant academic’ who as ‘dealt with philosophy for many years’ in any capacity which justifies your claim that he should be taken seriously on the subject.
Why? Jeremy Pierce (teaches philosophy at Le Moyne College and Syracuse University), says this.
If you think that’s an overstatement, please provide an evidence based reason for doing so.
I did question it; I invited you to prove it and you haven’t. I provided several points of information which you could have used, but didn’t.
I didn’t assume it a priori, I drew my conclusion on the basis of the fact that you provided no evidence for your claim, and the fact that informed professional say otherwise. If you really think that was a personal attack then report it, as I’ve said.
Really? Then report it.
:roflmao: See [url=The 'religion sucks' thread [lightning rod] and [url=The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all] I permit every form of ridicule, abuse, and criticism of Christianity on this forum.
Please read what I actually wrote. I said that the best way to identify the extent to which Dawkins has actually ‘read’ and ‘studied’ on the subject, is to compare his writings on the subject to those of qualified professionals, and to examine what qualified professionals say about his comments on these subjects. That way we’re not guessing, and we’re subjecting his comments to objective scrutiny. The ‘objective scrutiny’ in this case is not my personal scrutiny, but the scrutiny of third party qualified professionals.
No, I’m saying that if a biologist writes on philosophy and religion, and qualified professionals in philosophy and religion say that his writings demonstrate that he knows next to nothing about the subject, then the rational conclusion is that he knows next to nothing about the subject.
Of course I was exaggerating. This isn’t an ‘admission’, no one would seriously imagine that Dawkins’ knowledge of philosophy could literally be written on the back of a torn postage stamp, on which you could fit perhaps three words. I mean ‘an extremely poor understanding of philosophy, certainly insufficient to be treated as authoritative on the subject, and certainly insufficient to be making the kind of dogmatic claims he’s making’. You know, what I actually wrote.
No I am not. I am asserting that if a biologist writes on philosophy and religion, and qualified professionals in philosophy and religion say that his writings demonstrate that he knows next to nothing about the subject, then the rational conclusion is that he knows next to nothing about the subject. Just as when Dawkins says that Nigel McQuoid knows next to nothing about evolution on the basis of a couple of statements by McQuoid; ‘The level of McQuoid’s scientific understanding can be judged from his belief that the world is less than ten thousand years old, and also from the following quotation’, ‘The use of the phrase in such a context is illiterate nonsense’, ‘science is not Mr McQuoid’s subject’. Would you tell Dawkins that he is judging McQuoid unfairly, that Dawkins is ‘asserting that a flawed interpretation is the same as a virtually non-existent understanding’?
Please just read what I write instead of asking if I am saying X, Y, or Z when I never wrote X, Y, or Z. I am saying that just because someone writes a lot of words about a topic, doesn’t mean that they have an overall knowledge of the topic. You know, what I actually wrote.
Yes I understand that. What you don’t seem to realize yet is that when qualified professionals say that Dawkins’ knows next to nothing about a subject, that’s good evidence that he knows next to nothing about the subject.
My original objection was to your unqualified claim that Dawkins is ‘brilliant’. You’ve now changed that to ‘brilliant biologist’, another claim made without presenting any evidence; so let’s see your evidence for that claim please. What do you mean by ‘brilliant biologist’, and who recognizes him as a ‘brilliant biologist’?
In a 40 year career, he has published on average less than one academic paper per year; of these papers, only eight (out of 35), appear in the highest ranking journals (‘Nature’, ‘Science’, and the ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, Biological Sciences’). This is far from the typical output of a well performing (let alone ‘brilliant’), academic. He is not found at all in ISI Highy Cited (check for yourself). His books are all popular works, none of them academic publications except for ‘The Oxford Book of Modern Science writing’ in 2008. However, even in this case he only served as editor; he did not contribute any articles.
He has made only two attempts at original contribution to the discipline of evolutionary studies; an evolutionary explanation for religion, and a theory of memes (memetics). Both have been widely criticized by his scientific peers, even ridiculed. His evolutionary explanation for religion has come under sustained attack by other evolutionary scientists, who have objected to his lack of original work on the subject,[1] ‘fundamentalist rhetoric’ devoid of scientific evidence,[2] failure to address the current professional literature,[3] [4] factual inaccuracy,[5] and personal ranting.[6]
His theory of memes was promoted (by Dawkins himself), as a brand new insight into evolutionary theory and its application to cultural and society. In reality it was not new; it was first proposed in 1904,[7] revisited by anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn in the 1940s, and examined in detail by Gerard, Kluchohn, and Rapoport in the 1950s (‘Biological and Cultural Evolution: Some Analogies and Explorations’, 1956). It had already been abandoned by the time Dawkins started writing about it. Dawkins has acknowledged he was not aware of the previous work on the subject when he started writing, which shows how ‘well read’ he was on this subject.
Dawkins’ meme theory has been criticized profoundly by professional philosophers such as David Stove[8] and Michael Ruse (a staunch opponent of Creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’, and one of the prosecution witnesses in McLean v. Arkansas).[9]
As if this was not enough, memetics has been rejected overwhelmingly by the scientific community also. In 2005 the ‘Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission’, established specifically to examine and develop the discipline of memetics, was abandoned ‘due to a lack of quality submissions’.[10] The theory had failed the test of academic scrutiny and professional peer review;[11] [12] it was ‘a short-lived fad whose effect has been to obscure more than it has been to enlighten’.[13] Last year one of the previously foremost upholders of Dawkins’ application of memetics to religion, renounced the view and her own writings on the subject.[14] Attempts to revive the theory have been resisted in the professional literature.[15] A recurring criticism is that Dawkins never did the real scientific work necessary to establish the facts before proposing his theory.[16]
I am certain he is well read in biology (though he has been criticized by some of his scientific peers for ignoring key literature), but as other professionals have pointed out, he is not well read on other subjects on which he writes, specifically philosophy and religion. I’m afraid that listing a lot of books in an index or bibliography is no guarantee of being well read. It is certainly no guarantee that the author of the list has even read all of the works they cite. I refer you again to people like Ken Ham, who can put up a nice long list of books in a bibliography, and still fail to demonstrate any knowledge of the subject on which they write. If I wrote a long list of books on biology, would you consider me well read in biology?
What matters is the quality of the works cited, evidence that the writer has read and understood them, and evidence that the author has actually engaged in an informed manner with the relevant scholarly literature. An actual case of Dawkins using Google instead of proper research, is a quotation he provides from Luther on page 221, which he clearly took from a website because he actually provides the URL. Dawkins uses it in an attempt to prove that Luther ridiculed reason and believed that reason was incompatible with religion. Dawkins does not tell us the context of the quotation (most likely because he does not know, having scraped the quotation secondhand from a website he found), nor does he bother to tell us what Luther actually wrote on the relationship of reason and religion, which was this.
My source is Bervgall, ‘Reason in Luther, Calvin, and Sidney’, The Sixteenth Century Journal (23.1.115-127), Spring 1992 (which examines Luther’s actual attitude to reason), and the same text can be found in many academic sources. Of course Dawkins did not tell his readers about this quotation, most likely because he has no idea that it even exists. The fact that Dawkins makes such blunders as casually referring to the New Testament book of Hebrews as written by Paul is a case in point. The book itself is anonymous, and critical scholarship has agreed for over 100 years that it could not have been written by Paul; even Sunday School students know this stuff, and so do people who are actually ‘well read’ on the subject of the Bible. This is a typical example of Dawkins simply not knowing what he’s talking about.
Of course not.
I have little formal training in epistemology (only a year and a half in philosophy), but that’s ok because I don’t make authoritative statements on epistemology on the basis of my own understanding. In fact I always avoid making personal assertions on subjects concerning which I am inadequately qualified; I refer instead to the relevant scholarly literature.
[1] 'When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. ', Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[2] ‘Here is how Dawkins recounts the period in his 1982 book The Extended Phenotype: "The intervening years since Darwin have seen an astonishing retreat from his individual-centered stand, a lapse into sloppily unconscious group-selectionism … We painfully struggled back, harassed by sniping from a Jesuitically sophisticated and dedicated neo-group-selectionist rearguard, until we finally regained Darwin’s ground, the position that I am characterizing by the label ‘the selfish organism…” This passage has all the earmarks of fundamentalist rhetoric, including appropriating the deity (Darwin) for one’s own cause.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[3] ‘Only more scientific legwork can resolve these issues, but one thing is sure: Dawkins’ armchair speculation about the guilt-inducing effects of religion doesn’t even get him to first base.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[4] ‘As a second example reported in the December 8, 2006 issue of Science, economist Samuel Bowles estimated that between-group selection was strong enough to promote the genetic evolution of altruism in our own species, exactly as envisioned by Darwin. These and many other examples, summarized by Edward O. Wilson and myself in a forthcoming review article, are ignored entirely by Dawkins, who continues to recite his mantra that the selective disadvantage of altruism within groups poses an insuperable problem for between-group selection.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[5] ‘The problem with Dawkins’ analysis, however, is that if he doesn’t get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won’t be right either.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[6] ‘Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
[7] ‘The overall concept was not totally new or altogether Dawkins’ invention. According to Wikipedia, the German Richard Semon had a work published in 1904 titled “Die Mnemischen Empfindungen in ihren Beziehungen zu den Originalempfindungen”, meaning loosely, “The Memory-Based Feelings In Their Relation To The Original Feelings (or Sensations)”, wherein he had invented the term mneme. The word came into English with the translation in 1921 of Semon’s book, “The Mneme”.That term was picked up and used by Maurice Maeterlinck in a book, “The Life of the White Ant”, which came out in 1926. Dawkins has stated he did not know of that earlier term, the mneme, or its usage.', Gurdur, ‘[ur=http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=574]Whatever happened to memes and memetics? Richard Dawkin’s idea, and how it became a zombie idea: Part 1[/url]’ September 19 (2010).
[8] ‘I try to think of what I, or anyone, could say to him, to help restrain him from going over the edge into absolute madness. But if a man believes that, when he was first taught Pythagoras’ Theorem at school, his brain was parasitized by a certain micro-maggot which, 2600 years earlier had parasitized the brain of Pythagoras, …what can one say to him, with any hope of effect? And if a man already believes that genes are selfish, why indeed should ne not also believe that prime numbers are sex mad, or that geometrical theorems are brain parasites?', Stove & Kimball, ‘Against the Idols of the Age’, p. 278 (2001); ellipsis in original text.
[9] ‘One is really just taking regular language and putting it in fancy terms. No new insights. No new predictions. No astounding claims that turn out to be true. More importantly, one is not really using Darwinian evolutionary theory to do any work.’, Ruse, ‘Charles Darwin’, p. 281 (2008).
[10] Edmonds, ‘The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy – why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results’, Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission (9), 2005.
[11] ‘I claim that the underlying reason memetics has failed is that it has not provided any extra explanatory or predictive power beyond that available without the gene-meme analogy. Thus whilst the idea of memes has retained its attractiveness for some in terms of a framework for thinking about phenomena, it has not provided any “added value” it terms of providing new understanding of phenomena’, Edmonds, ‘The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy – why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results’, Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission (9), 2005.
[12] ‘Back ten years ago, there was still serious scientific research into memes. These days, practically nothing. It’s proved itself futile, a blind alley, a non-productive theory that never really got off the ground despite quite intensive work by many. Today in almost all cases the word “meme” is merely a metaphor, or it is used in a pseudo-scientific way. It is a zombie, dead on its feet but still lurching around. Memetics, as in the original idea of a science of memes, is a zombie idea.’, Gurdur, ‘[ur=http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=574]Whatever happened to memes and memetics? Richard Dawkin’s idea, and how it became a zombie idea: Part 1[/url]’ September 19 (2010); see also his followup article here.
[13] ‘The fact is that the closer work has been to the core of memetics, the less successful it has been. The central core, the meme-gene analogy, has not been a wellspring of models and studies which have provided “explanatory leverage” upon observed phenomena. Rather, it has been a short-lived fad whose effect has been to obscure more than it has been to enlighten. I am afraid that memetics, as an identifiable discipline, will not be widely missed.’, Edmonds, ‘The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy – why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results’, Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission (9), 2005.
[14] ‘So it seems I was wrong and the idea of religions as “viruses of the mind” may have had its day.’, Blackmore, ‘Why I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind’, The Guardian, September 16 (2010).
[15] ‘Distin’s defense of `memetics’ is deficient because it is based on a flawed analogy with genetics.', Walter, ‘Biology and social life: book review/Biologie et vie sociale: note de lecture: The trouble with memes: deconstructing Dawkins’s monster. An Essay Review of The Selfish Meme: A Critical Reappraisal by Kate Distin and Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution by Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd’, Social Science Information (46.4.691-709), December 2007.
[16] ‘As with religion, Dawkins has not conducted empirical research on cultural evolution, preferring to play the role of Mycroft Holmes, who sat in his armchair and let his younger brother Sherlock do the legwork.’, Wilson, ‘Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion’, eSkeptic, Wednesday July 4 (2007).
How does Dawkins “doing his homework” or not make his point that religion is silly and dangerous for diverting us from reality and sending people off on stupid crusades and so on instead of using that energy on something useful and beneficial to the whole of humanity, any less valid?
Indeed. There seems to be books’ worth of criticism of Dawkins on the basis that he’s not this or hasn’t done that, but very little attention paid to what he actually is saying. Apparently, one needs to be qualified and in the correct field, and certainly cannot be a well known author and biologist, to make simple assertions about such matters.
The criticism of Dawkins’ discussion of Anselm’s ontological argument is a case in point. Dawkins makes it clear he thinks it is stupid. OK. We all know he’s not a philosopher and he hasn’t spent years studying it. But he’s within his rights to make such an assertion. Having said that, Anselm’s argument sure as paint sounds stupid to me. Now from what I have seen elsewhere, it seems that in a broad sense at least, and outside of his opinion of it, Dawkins has characterized the argument accurately. I’m willing to accept that Dawkins is wrong in his opinion, but if so, I’d like to know why, and not simply be told that Dawkins has no right to even comment because of A, B and C. Sure you can come back and say that Dawkins is stupid as a response–what almost exactly was done at the Saint Anselm blog link you provided above Fortigurn–but by doing so you are now on the same level as him and have done nothing to counter an assertion that on the surface, to some at least, seems quite reasonable.
If Dawkins had done his homework, he would have been aware of the overwhelming multi-disciplinary scholarly consensus that religion (regardless of crusades), does not divert people from reality, and is beneficial to humanity.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
It’s a simple matter to disprove with evidence, such unsubstantiated claims as ‘religion is silly and dangerous for diverting us from reality and sending people off on stupid crusades’, given the wealth of evidence based scholarly literature proving otherwise.
Evidence please that very little attention is being paid to what he is actually saying.
No, the point is that when someone makes claims concerning an academic discipline in which they aren’t qualified, and those claims demonstrate an ignorance of demonstrated facts, an ignorance of the relevant scholarly literature which says otherwise, and use of arguments which are unsubstantiated by evidence, then the person concerned needs to stop making a fool of themselves.
Of course he’s within his rights to make such an assertion, just as Ken Ham is within his rights to say that evolution is stupid. However, given that neither of them make an evidence based case, and neither of them actually understand what they’re talking about, their assertion is invalid.
When you can articulate it accurately and identify rationally why it sounds stupid to you, I’ll be interested in hearing more.
No one has said that Dawkins has no right to comment. Why is this straw man raised repeatedly? Are people just not bothering to read Dawkins’ critics at all? Evidence please that Dawkins has characterized the argument accurately. If you really wanted to know why philosophers have said that Dawkins is wrong, you would have sought out their opinion and read it. Let me know when you’ve done so. I say this as someone who doesn’t find Anselm’s argument compelling myself, and I’ve studied it formally at university.
If you had read the Saint Anselm blog link I provided, you would understand why it calls Dawkins’ response stupid. Among other things, Dawkins cites what he claims are Kant’s objections to Anselm’s arguments, when in fact Kant was not aware of Anselm’s arguments, and the words of Kant which Dawkins cites are in fact Kant’s arguments against Wolff. For additional specific criticisms, see here and here.
[1] ‘Unfortunately, however, both authors either fail to appreciate, or have chosen not to acknowledge, the extraordinary importance that a very “personal God” may play in the lives of many individuals forced to deal with these profoundly life-changing situations.’, Markman, ‘Benefits of Religious Beliefs for Cancer Patients: A Response to Dawkins and Hitchens’, Current Oncology Reports (10.185), 2008.
[2] ‘Many studies have documented the benefits of religious involvement. Indeed, highly religious people tend to be healthier, live longer, and have higher levels of subjective well-being.’, Mochon, Norton, & Ariely, ‘Who Benefits from Religion?’, Social Indicators Research (101.1), 2010.
[3] ‘Similarly, although there are exceptions and the matter remains controversial (Sloan et al. 1999), a growing body of research documents an association between religious involvement and better outcomes on a variety of physical health measures, including problems related to heart disease, stroke, hypertension, cancer, gastrointestinal disease, as well as overall health status and life expectancy. This research also points to differences by religious affiliation, with members of stricter denominations displaying an advantage (Levin 1994). Many of the early studies in this literature suffer from methodological shortcomings, including small, unrepresentative samples, lack of adequate statistical controls, and a cross-sectional design that confounds the direction of causality. Yet the conclusion of a generally positive effect of religious involvement on physical health and longevity also emerges from a new generation of studies that have addressed many of these methodological problems (Ellison and Levin 1998). In one of the most rigorous analyses to date, Hummer et al. (1999) use longitudinal data from a nationwide survey, the 1987 Cancer Risk Factor Supplement–Epidemiology Study, linked to the Multiple Cause of Death file. Their results show that the gap in life expectancy at age 20 between those who attend religious services more than once a week and those who never attend is more than seven years—comparable to the male–female and white–black differentials in the United States. Additional multivariate analyses of these data reveal a strong association between religious participation and the risk of death, holding constant socioeconomic and demographic variables, as well as initial health status. Other recent longitudinal studies also report a protective effect of religious involvement against disability among the elderly (Idler and Kasl 1992), as well as a positive influence on self-rated health (Musick 1996) and longevity (Strawbridge et al. 1997).’, Waite & Lehrer, ‘The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis’, p. 2 (author manuscript 2003).
[4] ‘Overall, we find strong evidence that youth with religiously active parents are less affected later in life by childhood disadvantage than youth whose parents did not frequently attend religious services. These buffering effects of religious organizations are most pronounced when outcomes are measured by high school graduation or non-smoking and when disadvantage is measured by family resources or maternal education, but we also find buffering effects for a number of other outcome-disadvantage pairs. We generally find much weaker buffering effects for other social organizations.’, Dehejia et al., ‘The Role of Religious and Social Organizations in the Lives of Disadvantaged Youth’, NBER Working Paper No. 13369 (2007).
[5] ‘However, as we discuss below, an emerging literature shows a positive effect of religiosity on educational attainment, a key determinant of success in the labor market. These studies suggest a potentially important link between religious involvement during childhood and adolescence and subsequent economic well-being as an adult. Preliminary results from a new line of inquiry at the macro level are consistent with this hypothesis. Using a cross-country panel that includes information on religious and economic variables, Barro and McLeary (2002) find that enhanced religious beliefs affect economic growth positively, although growth responds negatively to increased church attendance. The authors interpret their findings as reflecting a positive association between “productivity” in the religion sector and macroeconomic performance.’, Waite & Lehrer, ‘The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis’, p. 3 (author manuscript 2003).
[6] ‘At the societal level, higher religious involvement is related to increased levels of education (Gruber 2005), lower crime rates (Baier and Wright 2001; Johnson et al. 2000), increases in civic involvement (Putnam 2000; Ruiter and De Graaf 2006), higher levels of cooperation (Norenzayan and Shariff 2008; Shariff and Norenzayan 2007), lower divorce rates, higher marital satisfaction and better child adjustment (Mahoney et al. 2001; for a review, see Sherkat and Ellison 1999).’, Mochon, Norton, & Ariely, ‘Who Benefits from Religion?’, Social Indicators Research (101.2), 2010.