Saturday, June 14, 2008

Book Review: The Dawkins Delusion?

Delusion: "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." By that definition, neither Dawkins nor the theism he despises are delusional, and perhaps both books render a disservice to the converstaion about God by the use of such hyperbolic titles. The McGraths merely resort to the same polemical style they are so critical of Dawkins for using. Other than this sometimes uncharitable tone, I found The Dawkins Delusion? to be well reasoned and worthy of reading by theists and atheists alike.

Alister McGrath, a fellow Oxford professor with Richard Dawkins, is joined by his wife, Johanna Collicut McGrath, in the writing of The Dawkins Delusion? (2007, InterVarsity Press), their answer to Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Alister McGrath, once an atheist himself, earned his doctorate in molecular biophysics. After become convinced of God, and converting to Christianity, McGrath went on to study theology. As a trained scientist, respected theologian, and Oxford fellow, McGrath is well-postioned to respond to Dawkins' bold claims.

It is the McGraths’ stated purpose not to refute every one of Dawkins’ contentions (hence the 97 page rebuttal of a 400+ page book). While they assert that all of Dawkins’ arguments are flawed “misrepresentations and overstatements” (page 13), they chose not to answer Dawkins on every point, but rather to respond selectively to a few of his points, namely these four:

1) Faith is not irrational nonsense, as Dawkins contends in many derisive statements. In this first chapter, the McGraths respond to Dawkins’ central arguments against the rationality of faith, his own rebuttals of the standard theistic arguments, and finally, his improbability argument. Here, the McGraths points out, correctly, that 1) complexity is not an argument for improbability and 2) improbability is not a valid argument for non-existence. The McGraths deftly turn Dawkins argument back upon himself (see page 28).

2) Science and faith are not incompatible, as Dawkins seems to think. Much of Dawkins’ book is devoted to discussions of evolution, with the underlying assumption that evolution makes God unnecessary and thus, passe. Stephen Jay Gould (America’s best known evolutionist who is also an atheist) disagrees, noting the great number of evolutionary biologist who believe in God. He puts it well in this excerpt from
The Rock of Ages cited by the McGraths (page 34): “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism.” The McGraths proceed to expand upon Gould’s well-known “NOMA” (nonoverlapping magesteria, Gould’s view that science and religion explore two very distinct disciplines without any overlap) with their own view of POMA (partially overlapping magesteria, suggesting that the two disciplines can inform and compliment each other)(pages 40-41), a concept that this reviewer has found useful.

3) Dawkins’ description of the evolutionary roots of religion are suspect. The arguments Dawkins uses to build his case that religious impulses have biological roots are largely psychological in nature, and the McGraths point out that questions of the origin of religion are unsettled in the field of psychology, a field in which Dawkins is not trained and has limited expertise. In this section, the McGrath’s also offer a reasoned critique Dawkins’ reliance upon his own concept of
memes, those mysterious determinative units of self-propagating cultural traits which work, as Dawkins imagines them, in much the same way as genes.

4) Dawkins’ contention that religion is evil is simplistic, and his the evidence he uses is highly selective. And so the McGraths argues that an even stronger case can be made for the benefits of religion historically in the world.

Throughout the book, the McGraths view is that
The God Delusion lacks analytical rigor, and instead relies heavily upon rhetoric. As such, they identify Dawkins’ book as an atheistic-fundamentalist polemic. And so Dawkins overblown arguments are welcomed by religionists such as anit-evolutionary William Dembski (who believes that Dawkins’ pomposity is turning people against belief in evolution) and decried by fellow atheists such as pro-evolutionary Michael Ruse (who laments Dawkins ignorance of Christianity and his polarizing rhetoric)(pages 50-51).

While not exhaustive (by design), the McGrath’s have offered us a well-reasoned critique of the atheistic arguments of Dawkins, and left us with a cogent description of the inherent weaknesses in 
The God Delusion. I recommend it to my friends on both sides of this debate.

45 comments:

Steve Martin said...

Hi Cliff,
Regarding the "McGraths merely resorting to the same polemical style they are so critical of Dawkins for using", do they in fact state baldly that Dawkins is delusional for not accepting the evidence for theism? My impression was that McGrath is highlighting Dawkins claim that "Theism is delusional", and that Dawkins firmly maintains this belief in spite of the fact that there are some excellent rational arguments that state otherwise. ie. The McGraths are referring not to Dawkins atheism but his claim that "Theism is a Delusion".

From my reading of McGrath (& I haven't read this book) he claims that neither theism nor atheism should be categorized as delusional, and anyone who claims one or the other is delusional (and the Christian side abuses this more than Dawkins), probably hasn't really investigated things thoroughly enough.

So, to crank up the polemics one could state, “To state that theism is delusional, Dawkins must be either ignorant, stupid, insane, or evil – and to be charitable, I’ll assume the former” (I think I heard something like this somewhere :-)). But I won’t.

Anyways, that’s what I took to be the meaning of the title, which to be fair, also included a question mark after it.

Cliff Martin said...

Steve,

I think your assumptions about the McGraths, and their use of "delusion" in their title are accurate. But just as I was critical of Dawkins (see the final paragraph of The God Delusion Review) for clouding his own arguments by his impulsive rancor, I do believe the McGraths answer might have been even stronger than it is had they refrained from their, at times, uncharitable tone.

Then again, sometimes fire must be fought with fire.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff Martin said...
"Then again, sometimes fire must be fought with fire."

A Christian message?

Isaac Gouy said...

"The McGraths merely resort to the same polemical style they are so critical of Dawkins for using."

Exactly so. In itself that does not seem especially objectionable, and from the title "The Dawkins Delusion" we really ought not to be surprised by personal attacks on Dawkins.

It would seem objectionable if "The Dawkins Delusion" claims not to be that kind of book - that would break faith with the reader - does it?


... hence the 97 page rebuttal of a 400+ page book

It might just be that those few (small) pages of "The Dawkins Delusion" were written hastily to reach the bookstores while it could milk the publicity and success of "The God Delusion". In itself that opportunism does not seem objectionable.


While they assert that all of Dawkins’ arguments are flawed “misrepresentations and overstatements” (page 13), they chose not to answer Dawkins on every point, but rather to respond selectively to a few of his points...

Are McGrath's selective responses free from misrepresentation?

After all, the McGraths are scholars, they are only critiquing a single book, they are only responding to a few of the points they have selected - they could easily check their quotes and claims and paraphrases against the text of "The God Delusion".


... the McGraths view is that The God Delusion lacks analytical rigor, and instead relies heavily upon rhetoric. As such, they identify Dawkins’ book as an atheistic-fundamentalist polemic.

Was "The God Delusion" advertised as a scholarly book? Is there some reason that the McGraths, having correctly identified it as polemic, protest that "The God Delusion" is not a scholarly book?

What are the traditional beliefs and doctrines of atheism that the McGraths claim Dawkin's book is fundamentalist about?

(If we can't think of anthing beyond the dictionary definition of atheism then perhaps "fundamentalist" is just name calling. One of Einstein's more telling comments on "so-called atheists" was that they had no philosophy.)

Cliff Martin said...

Hello Isaac, welcome!

I agree with Einstein, that atheist do not, per se, subscribe to a philosophy. That is, disbelief in the existence of God is not in itself a philosophical position. But Dawkins atheism does not stop at mere disbelief in the existence of God.

Are you suggesting that someone who calls himself hostile to religion, who argues for raising our children in an non religious environment, and who clearly contends that the world would be a better place without any religion at all, are you suggesting such a person is not driven by a philosophical world-view?

Is Dawkins a "fundamentalist atheist"? He certainly defends himself against the charge (page 318). But remember that those who brought this charge against him were his fellow-atheists. If you want to argue that Dawkins is not a fundamentalist, maybe you should take it up with those atheists who see him as one.

As for me, while I accept Dawkins argument that he is passionate, and that there is a difference between passion and fundamentalism, his argument does sound a little like bone-picking.

Isaac Gouy said...

But Dawkins atheism does not stop at mere disbelief in the existence of God.
In a quite literal way I think it must.


Are you suggesting that someone who calls himself ...
I made no such suggestion, I asked for clarification: "What are the traditional beliefs and doctrines of atheism that the McGraths claim Dawkin's book is fundamentalist about?"


But remember that those who brought this charge against him were his fellow-atheists.
Which ought to be a reminder that all the label indicates is "mere disbelief in the existence of God".


... there is a difference between passion and fundamentalism ...
I'm mildly curious to learn what common meanings your dictionary provides for those two words.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

Re: Dawkin's Atheism ...
Perhaps in a some literal way, atheism is atheism, cannot be extreme or moderate, etc. Is this your point? But my point is that there are passionate, activist atheists, who have agendas that stem directly from their commitment to atheism. There are other atheists for whom atheism is not a driving force in their lives, and who are not agenda-ized thereby. Dawkins falls in the first category.

Re: Definitions ...
Random House, after two definitions dealing with Religious Fundamentalism specifically, offers this third definition (which is, I think, how the term is often used today, and certainly how I and other Dawkins critics are using it):

FUNDAMENTALISM 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

and from my computer dictionary:

PASSIONATE showing or caused by strong feelings or a strong belief

What exactly is your issue? I'm not sure I understand at what you are driving.

Isaac Gouy said...

there are passionate, activist atheists
Presumably there are passionate atheists, activist atheists, and passionate activist atheists - and we might rightly number Dawkins somewhere among them.


How are we to make sense of the phrase "atheist fundamentalism"? How are we to make sense of "strict adherence to" disbelief in the existence of God?

All it seems to mean is not flip-flopping from belief to disbelief to belief, moment by moment - and that's already what we would mean by atheist.

All "fundamentalism" contributes to the phrase "atheist fundamentalism" are the negative connotations of religious fundamentalism - it's just name calling.

Cliff Martin said...

Maybe its just name calling, but I don't think so. (Remember, whether it is simply mean-spirited name calling or not, it was Dawkin's fellow atheists—by his own admission—who leveled the charge.)

Dawkin's uses the term fundamentalism with a distinctively derisive tone when describing passionate strict adherents to the Bible. If we were to draw a continuum of belief/non-belief, fundamentalist religionists would be at one extreme. I would place Dawkins at the opposite end of the spectrum, though there are atheists who may be yet more passionate, and who may act out of their disbelief in more extreme ways.

However, I'll grant that your are right: the term fundamentalist-atheist has little meaning if we use the technical meaning of the terms.

Isaac Gouy said...

Maybe its just name calling, but I don't think so.
Please explain how we are to make sense of the phrase "atheist fundamentalism".


Remember, whether it is simply mean-spirited name calling or not, it was Dawkin's fellow atheists—by his own admission—who leveled the charge.
You wrote that the McGraths "identify Dawkins’ book as an atheistic-fundamentalist polemic", and the phrase "atheist fundamentalism" begins the subtitle of their book.


the technical meaning of the terms
It isn't a question of obtuse technical meanings. The plain ordinary meaning of "fundamentalism" has nothing to add of meaning to "atheist" - just negative connotations. There's no content in atheism to get fundamentalist about.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

I think you're driving your point into the ground. I have no doubt that the McGraths' choice of a subtitle complete with built-in negative connotations was intentional. And so what? The book is, as we agree, a polemic.

Again let me say ... it seems that those who led the charge in identifying Dawkins' brand of atheism as fundamentalist were other atheists. What do you suppose they meant?

Believers like the McGraths, and myself, are dealing with a person who openly contends that the world would be better off without the likes of us, and who spends 31 pages defending his own hostility. And you are worried about the choice of the term "atheist fundamentalism"?

Isaac Gouy said...

I think you're driving your point into the ground.
Has it finally reached home?


What do you suppose they meant?
I don't know who you are talking about but, as we don't seem to be able to find any meaning in the phrase, my guess is that they were just name calling as-well.


And you are worried about the choice of the term "atheist fundamentalism"?
As you chose to continue using the phrase I hoped you would be able to explain what it could mean apart from something like - nasty nasty atheist.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

• I have explained what I mean by the term.
• I likely will continue to use it where it fits my meaning
• I do not use it to mean "nasty atheist". I interact with several very thoughtful atheists whom I respect. I do not consider them nasty. I do not consider them "fundamentalist", agenda-driven, or hostile.

Thank you for your input.

Psiloiordinary said...

I think I would call myself an enthusiastic fundamentalist rationalist.

(atheism is just a side note)

- - -


Sorry for the delayed response to this - very busy - and got an exam on Tuesday so might not be back for a while after this either.

First of all I will not use Cliff's pwn defence of the irrational i.e. "it's a different kind of logic" as this would be far to easy; e.g. Alistair McGrath is merely serving the great Leprechaun cause anyway, just in a mysterious way which we can never know. :-)

Instead I will keep the rational net up on my side of the court (tennis-debating with no net bringing a required standard of rationality to the game is too easy) and try to make a rational argument.

1) using Darwinian evolutionary thinking complexity is not an argument for improbability. Is he arguing that God evolved?

Dawkins does not argue for the proof of the non exitence of god he is not claiming improbability makes something impossible either. He is simply pointing out that when there are two possible causes then the fact that one is more probable than another means is it more probable.

2) When can credit both Dawkins and Gould with cogent arguments if we look at how Gould is using the word "stupid", cognitive dissonance as displayed in an eloquent and cogent manner by Cliff for example is not stupidty but in my view yet further evidence that humans evolved and even if you don't agree with that is part of what makes human beings so damn interesting.

3) Dawkins argument about the roots of religion talk about evolutionary psychology, McGrath seems to be confusing this with psychology.

4) Dawkins contend that religion can be evil, because it encourages irrational thought and argument and so can be twisted by those with agenda's.

- - -

Quicker than usual for me - Probably this can only be in improvement :-)

Regards to all

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Welcome back to this discussion! What is your Tuesday exam ... what are you studying, may I ask?

You call yourself “an enthusiastic fundamentalist rationalist.” and go on to say that “(atheism is just a side note)”

I accept that. Based on the parentheses, I presume you would agree that atheism does not necessarily follow rationalism. I would like to think of myself as an “enthusiastic fundamentalist rationalist” also. Many of my believing friends would “accuse” me of being such, and I happily plea, guilty! While you may protest that I have religious convictions as presuppositions that bar me from the rationalist club, I might argue that you, too, carry certain metaphysical presuppositions into your chosen rationalism. Would that be fair to say?

An example would be our inability to connect on “a different logic”. If we presume, as you do, that the material world is all there is, then clearly reality can only be understood empirically and, assuming good logic, probability is probability. But if we presume, as I do, a parallel spiritual reality, than insisting upon empirical evidence, and insisting that the spiritual world be subject to our laws of probability is senseless to me. We can no more apply our laws of probability and our rules of science into that parallel spiritual world than we can breath on the moon.

Your point #4, “Dawkins contends that religion can be evil, because it encourages irrational thought and argument and so can be twisted by those with agenda's.” Could we also say that certain atheists have moved into irrational thought and so twisted their godless worldview to support evil agendas? Is it mere coincidence that Marxists were almost all atheists? I guess the difference might be in the presumption that religion “encourages” irrational thought, and you might claim that atheism does not. But I could contend that the opposite is true. Any response?

Cliff Martin said...

... or, if you choose, simply respond to this statement.

If there is, in fact, no God, it is irrational to build one's worldview upon theism. If there is, in fact, a God, it is irrational to build one's worldview upon atheism.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with that statement, but I would be interested in your response.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hey Cliff,

The exam is on Financial Derivatives - a different kind of logic if ever I saw it :-)

Contangos, backwardation, calls, puts, longs, shorts, etc.

I will certainly respond properly. I have seen your more recent posts and also intend to comment on them. Just might be a week or two before I catch up fully.

Regards,

Psi

Isaac Gouy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Isaac Gouy said...

June 24, 2008 9:19 PM
Cliff Martin said...

I likely will continue to use it where it fits my meaning
Doesn't atheist evangelism fit your meaning better?


I do not consider them nasty. I do not consider them "fundamentalist"...
As they are not an example of your usage "atheist fundamentalism" why do you mention them at all?

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

Doesn't atheist evangelism fit your meaning better?

Perhaps. But I know many evangelistic Christians who are not wide-eyed, rabid fundamentalists. And (even if the terms to not technically line up perfectly), I see the same lines of demarcation among atheists.


As they are not an example of your usage "atheist fundamentalism" why do you mention them at all?

Something in your earlier comment suggested to me that you may have thought I considered all atheists “nasty”. I think I might have mistook your meaning. However, I mentioned those other atheists (among them, several who comment on this site regularly) as examples of atheists who are not “fundamentalist” as I use the term—even when they make a forceful case for atheism.

Isaac Gouy said...

But I know many evangelistic Christians who are not wide-eyed, rabid fundamentalists.
I dare say you might know some Evangelicals who don't evangelize, and that's just as irrelevant.

Your point was "there are passionate, activist atheists, who have agendas that stem directly from their commitment to atheism" - which is to say atheists who evangelize.


... examples of atheists who are not “fundamentalist” as I use the term ...
Which is to say they don't seek to spread the message of atheism, they don't evangelize.

Cliff Martin said...

Which is to say they don't seek to spread the message of atheism, they don't evangelize.

No, Isaac, you're mistaken. They do seek to spread the message of atheism. But they are not rude. They are not "in your face" aggressive. They are not (as Dawkin's self-describes) "hostile". Is this beginning to make sense?

Isaac Gouy said...

They do seek to spread the message of atheism.
Do they go door to door asking people if they've heard about atheism?
Do they initiate conversations with people in their workplaces about their being no God?


Here's a McGrath example of Dawkins' hostility:

'True to form, Dawkins ignores this inconvenience, insisting that to take the Bible seriously is to "strictly observer the sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anyone who chose not to." Or to "execute disobedient children." Dawkins knows this is not true; enough Christians have told him so. His repetition of this nonsense does him little credit and simply suggests that he expects his readers seriously to believe that Christians are in the habit of stoning people to death."
p91 The Dawkins Delusion


That McGrath example of Dawkins' hostility has been achieved by snipping Dawkins' words out of an original context where Dawkins' argument relies completely on his readers understanding that it would be nonsense to say Christians were in the habit of stoning people to death.


"My purpose has been to demonstrate that we (and that includes most religious people) as a matter of fact don't get our morals from scripture. If we did, we would strictly observer the sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anyone..."
p249 The God Delusion

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

You have a very tight definition of evangelism.

Remember, I did not appeal to McGrath’s analysis when I said Dawkins is hostile. Dawkins claims the adjective for himself, and he defends his hostility. Your citations of McGrath’s are therefore irrelevant.

Nevertheless, they are very interesting! Dawkins demonstrates his ignorance of the sophistication of Bible-believing Christians. I do derive my morals from scriptures, and I have never observed the sabbath or executed anyone. If his views of the Scriptures are so confined and simplistic, its no wonder he discounts them.

I have read and reread the McGrath quote you cited, and the Dawkins context. I find that McGrath was fair and accurate. He says that Dawkins claims that to take the Bible seriously means one would do thus and so. Dawkins says that if he were to derive his morals from the Bible (that is, to take the Bible seriously) he would do thus and so.

How is this “snipping Dawkins’ words out of an original context?”

Isaac Gouy said...

You have a very tight definition of evangelism.
No. I've experienced both those specific forms of Christian evangelism in the past couple of years - it would only be fair to acknowledge those activities done by an atheist as evangelism.

What exactly do they do that would amount to evangelism?

Isaac Gouy said...

I have read and reread the McGrath quote you cited, and the Dawkins context.
Did you read the final sentence of McGrath's comment? - "His repetition of this ... simply suggests that he expects his readers seriously to believe that Christians are in the habit of stoning people to death."

And to repeat myself - Dawkins' argument relies completely on his readers understanding that it would be nonsense to say Christians were in the habit of stoning people to death.

McGrath tells us Dawkins expects his readers to believe Christians stone people to death; when in fact, Dawkins expects his readers not to believe Christians stone people to death - the opposite of what McGrath tells us.

Psiloiordinary said...

A question worth answering I think.

This would appear to be primae facia quote mining to deliberately mislead.

What do you think Cliff?

Psi

PS passed the exam but have now realised little free time until the weekend anyway.

Isaac Gouy said...

I do derive my morals from scriptures, and I have never observed the sabbath or executed anyone. If his views of the Scriptures are so confined and simplistic, its no wonder he discounts them.

As you have read and reviewed The God Delusion, you of course understand that you have provided another example of selecting which scriptures to follow according to some moral rule outside of scripture - which was Dawkins' point.

(Seems like further discussion of this should be in the comments with your review of The God Delusion.)

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,
Congratulations!

Psi and Isaac,
I understand your objection to McGrath’s characterization of Dawkins’ point. Still, it does not appear to me to be egregious. Just as Dawkins presumes upon “his readers understanding that it would be nonsense to say Christians were in the habit of stoning people to death” (Isaac thus reads between the lines), so McGrath presumes upon his readers understanding that Dawkins does not literally think believers stone people to death (I’m reading between the lines). Both authors resort to a bit of hyperbole, and presume their readers are tracking with them. (When I read each book, I tracked with both of their intended meanings). McGrath’s point seems clear enough: Dawkins constructs a supposed belief system which, followed the his own logical conclusion, would make its adherents into monsters. But Dawkins knows, his readers know, we all know that Christians are not driven to such behavior. Could McGrath have said it better. Perhaps. But I think you are grasping at straws here. “Quote mining to deliberately deceive”? I do no agree that this rises to that level. Again, when I read that the first time, it did not even occur to me to take McGrath’s words to mean that, quite literally, Dawkins expected his readers to believe Christians actually behave like monsters. I understood him to mean that Dawkins expected us to believe that serious, consistent Christians would or should act that way.

Isaac,
“As you have read and reviewed The God Delusion, you of course understand that you have provided another example of selecting which scriptures to follow according to some moral rule outside of scripture - which was Dawkins' point.” Hardly. This argument seems so worn out, and simplistic. Believers I know all understand that the Bible must be understood according to a consistent hermeneutic. Believers I know understand progressive revelation, that the Bible “self-corrects”, if you will (see Matthew 5:27-48). Believers I know understand the need to “rightly divide” the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Believers I know understand that the Bible, and not some “moral rule outside of scripture”, interprets the Bible. I have tried to be clear about own personal hermeneutic (see my most recent post), which is consistent and reasonable. Respond there, if you wish. But please don’t forward this Dawkins nonsense that Christians just arbitrarily choose which verses to believe, or impose some external moral system upon the Bible until you engage me about my own hermeneutic.

Isaac Gouy said...

I understood him to mean that Dawkins expected us to believe that serious, consistent Christians would or should act that way.

That is the McGrath's meaning in the first 3 sentences (we should remember Dawkins is talking specifically about where people get their morals from and not about some generalized taking the bible seriously - whatever that means).

The final sentence goes further simply to denigrate - we're given the suggestion this is something Dawkins expects "his readers seriously to believe" when it just isn't so.

Isaac Gouy said...

But please don’t forward this Dawkins nonsense that Christians just arbitrarily choose which verses to believe, or impose some external moral system upon the Bible until you engage me about my own hermeneutic.
"external moral system"? - back to McGrath: "Dawkins rightly demands that there should be an external criterion for dealing with the interpretation of these texts." p90


McGrath continues: "Yet he seems unaware of the Christian insistence that there indeed exists such a criterion -- the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth." p90

No Dawkins does not seem unaware of that insistence, in fact he writes:

"... the moral superiority of Jesus precisely bears out my point. Jesus was not content to derive his ethics from the scriptures of his upbringing. ... Since a principal thesis of this chapter is that we do not, and should not, derive our morals from scripture, Jesus has to be honoured as a model for that very thesis." pp249-50

Cliff Martin said...

If it is true, as you suppose, that McGrath lifted the quote out of context in a deliberate effort to deceive his readers into thinking that Dawkins actually expects that his readers would believe that Christians act monstrously, I would suggest he failed miserably. I did not think that when I read it. I would challenge you to find one person who was so deceived.

(This whole discussion borders upon the ridiculous!)

Both McGrath and Dawkins use hyperbole. Both expect their readers to track with them. It clearly would not help McGrath's argument one iota to intentionally mislead his audience on a matter that is so patently, and demonstrably untrue. But apparently you believe he stoops that low and is that stupid. I give up trying to persuade you otherwise.

On Biblical hermeneutics, we are right back to semantics. If you, Dawkins, and (apparently) McGrath consider Jesus and his teachings "external" to the Bible, then we just need to clarify our definitions. If that is the case, then I do use an "external criterion." But when Jesus, and the New Testament bring clarity and correction to Old Testament understandings, that is not what I would call an "external criterion". But, in the end, you and I have no disagreement if we define Jesus as "external".

Isaac Gouy said...

Both McGrath and Dawkins use hyperbole.
In this case, Dawkins uses the form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

As to McGrath we are left with the usual choice - fool or knave? - did he not notice the reductio ad absurdum or did he invert the meaning to suit his own purpose?


... on a matter that is so patently, and demonstrably untrue.

Did you notice it was patently untrue?

I can't see how anyone would notice unless they cross-checked the texts - even I didn't do that until I'd read The Dawkins Delusion twice through, and I only cross-checked because the comments about the TV series "The Root of All Evil?" p51 seemed so blatantly misleading (I'd already watched the video of Alistair McGrath filmed for the TV series - obviously he too had been "sought out").

Actually I didn't notice even then because I stopped so quickly - coming across this stuff leaves a bad taste.

I came across this particular "oddity" a few days ago when I idly thought to check a reference starting at the back of The Dawkins Delusion.

Isaac Gouy said...

But when Jesus, and the New Testament bring clarity and correction to Old Testament understandings, that is not what I would call an "external criterion".
As you know the Bible is a collection of books; as you know the books of the Old Testament are with variations from The Tanakh; as you know Jesus taught in the context of those scriptures - so when you say Jesus brings clarity and correction, that plainly requires a criterion external to those scriptures.

The more interesting question would be whether you use external criterion to select among the teachings of Jesus - I'll hazard a guess that we won't find anything in the teachings of Jesus to suggest that the sabbath should not be observed.

Isaac Gouy said...

It clearly would not help McGrath's argument one iota to intentionally mislead his audience on a matter that is so patently, and demonstrably untrue.

The Dawkins Delusion should at least teach us to take more care reading.

Although I'd noticed the contradiction with a different passage from The God Delusion, I didn't realize that this statement is quite different from the direct quotation that is supposed to support it until a few days ago:

"... Dawkins then weakens his argument by suggesting that all religious people try to stop scientists from exploring those gaps: “one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”‘ pp29-30


McGrath's version: all religious people try to stop scientists exploring gaps.

Dawkins' words: religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding.

Can you find a way that the words McGrath quotes actually mean what McGrath tells us they mean?

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

When you quote me and ask this question ...
“... on a matter that is so patently, and demonstrably untrue.”
Did you notice it was patently untrue?

... you miss my point. No, I did not notice it was patently untrue. What I did notice (McGrath’s intended meaning, I believe) I indicated above ...
“I understood him to mean that Dawkins expected us to believe that serious, consistent Christians would or should act that way.” His statement was hyperbolic, and his meaning was true.

Your guess about Jesus...
I'll hazard a guess that we won't find anything in the teachings of Jesus to suggest that the sabbath should not be observed.

... is true only if you limit your reading to his oral teachings. But Jesus also taught by actions. And his practice was to treat the sabbath like any other day, a practice which frequently landed him in hot water with the religious authorities.

I take my cues about sabbath keeping both from the example of Jesus and from the elaborative teachings of his immediate followers in the New Testament. People can and do have differences of opinion on the question of sabbath keeping (not a highly consequential moral issue), but the progressive revelation of the scriptures on this question is sufficiently clear to me.

The Dawkins Delusion should at least teach us to take more care reading.
I’ll grant you that, if you will grant that The God Delusion teaches us the same thing (though I do not care to debate the matter, I personally found the factual errors, and omissions, misquotes, etc. in Dawkins book more egregious than those you cite in McGrath).

Your comments on the McGrath version of Dawkins’ comments on God of the Gaps are nit-picking. First, will you agree that Dawkins paints with too broad a stroke when he generalizes about “one of the truly bad effects of religion ...”? That certainly does not include myself, or McGrath, or countless other pro-science evolutionary Christians. So McGrath includes the original citation so the reader can decide if his paraphrase of Dawkins is accurate (you don’t like his paraphrase; I agree, it could have been worded better; but his objection is to Dawkins’ inclusion of “all religious people”; and there I think his paraphrase is accurate).

This thread, with its focus on minutia, has gone on long enough (if any one else is reading, they are long past bored, I’m sure). I’ll give you the final word, if you care to respond again ...

Isaac Gouy said...

His statement was hyperbolic, and his meaning was true.
I'll grant exaggeration for effect, and ask if the effect was simply to paint Dawkins in a negative light?


I’ll grant you that, if you will grant that The God Delusion teaches us the same thing (though I do not care to debate the matter, I personally found the factual errors, and omissions, misquotes, etc. in Dawkins book more egregious than those you cite in McGrath).

I don't find general complaints about "factual errors, and omissions, misquotes..." helpful - no one can confirm or reject such claims.


... will you agree that Dawkins paints with too broad a stroke when he generalizes about “one of the truly bad effects of religion ...”? That certainly does not include myself, or McGrath, or countless other pro-science evolutionary Christians.

Consider - one of the truly bad effects of arson is that people die in the fires. Does that mean someone dies as a result of every act of arson?


... his objection is to Dawkins’ inclusion of “all religious people”; and there I think his paraphrase is accurate

Dawkins did not include “all religious people” - that was McGrath; Dawkins generalized about religion, not about religious people.

We ought to be able to agree that if Dawkins had actually wanted to write "all religious people try to stop scientists from exploring those gaps" there's no reason to think he would have hesitated - but that isn't what he wrote.


This thread ...
You could always respond to the "Book Review: The God Delusion" comments.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

Finally catching up to things.

You said; "I presume you would agree that atheism does not necessarily follow rationalism."

Sorry Cliff but I think it does, based on the evidence I have available to me. I have looked pretty hard for evidence of the various and mystical multitude of gods humans worship and have found no evidence.

I would simply repeat that there is only logic. Your 'other kind of logic' would seem to me to simply be 'Illogic'.

I don't presume that a material world is all there is. A material world is the only world we seem to have any evidence at all to support. I don't presume your god does not exist, I just don't see any evidence.

You do presume your spiritual world exists, In my view you have to do this to compensate for a lack of evidence that it exists at all.

"Could we also say that certain atheists have moved into irrational thought and so twisted their godless worldview to support evil agendas?"

Absolutely. It is irrationalism that leads to evil in my view.

So to recap - I think atheism follows from a rational world view, but I don't think that rationalism follows from an atheist world view. There are people who are atheist for irrational reasons, to get back at parents or a myriad of other reasons we could both come up with, I am sure.

Also let's remember that human beings are great at holding two mutually contradictory opinions at the same time without any sign of a mental struggle. Let's not forget this.

So perfectly rational people do hold irrational beliefs e.g. thinking their belief in god is rational. Me thinking my stomach is smaller than it is.

Does this make sense?

Perhaps both sides understanding this would take some of the insult or stigma away from the hyperbole discussed above. I am not claiming that I don't hold any irrational beliefs, I am not even claiming that I know which are the irrational ones. But I do subscribe to the "scientific method" even in everyday life while making up my mind about things. I am not Spock and I do have emotions and gut feelings and I do base decisions on them, but I do try to do this consciously.

So I think that you are a member of the rationalist club Cliff - but I do think you have a pretty big irrational belief and have a blind spot around it - mutters to side; different logic indeed ;-)

You also asked for a response to this; "If there is, in fact, no God, it is irrational to build one's worldview upon theism. If there is, in fact, a God, it is irrational to build one's worldview upon atheism."

Seems like obviously logical statement to me. Substitute leprechaun or ham sandwich for god and it still works.

Sorry If i missed something deep in it.

Regards,

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Cliff said; “I presume you would agree that atheism does not necessarily follow rationalism.”
Sorry Cliff but I think it does, based on the evidence I have available to me. I have looked pretty hard for evidence of the various and mystical multitude of gods humans worship and have found no evidence.

So, you would also say that, in the absence of evidence, rationalism would lead one to disbelieve that there is extraterrestrial life in the cosmos? Your brand of rationalism would not say “we don’t know.” It would say, “there is no life elsewhere in the universe.” Is this correct?

Do you actually believe that no one has arrived at a belief in God apart from religious, emotional, or experiential underpinnings? Do you believe no one could look at the cosmos, its order, at life, at the (still) mystery of abiogenesis, and say “Rationally, I think there is a God.”

Perhaps we are talking past each other semantically (I’ve done enough of that with Isaac, I don’t want to start it again.) You and I would no doubt agree that positivism would never lead one to theism. But I rationalism can lead to theism in my book. Rational thinking has lead many a person to conclude that God is more likely than not.

Or do you use the two terms (positivism and rationalism) interchangeably?

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

You seem to be somehow saying that being rational means you can't base a decision on probabilities but must either know 100% or can't know at all.

This simply does not follow. In fact I agree with the general principle in science that we can never know anything 100% but just mark our current thinking as the best available so far and keep looking for new evidence.

Yes I agree with you that most religious people think they have perfectly rational reasons for believing in their god. My point is that when you examine them you find they aren't.

I do find thinking errors fascinating (in myself and others) and even wrote a few pages on them;

thinking straight

evaluating evidence

As I amassed these pages I found it fascinating to examine my own opinions on many things and changed my mind on things which had previously been in my blind spot. One of these was a casual 100% knowledge that no god existed - clearly this is logically unsound.

Now of course I haven't spoken to everyone on the planet who is religious, and of course I don't claim to be able to disprove the existence of any of the 3,000 gods humans seem to worship/have worshipped. I do claim that so far in my discussions and investigations then perhaps the most eloquent defence of rational reasons for belief in god has been "it's a different kind of logic".

Now you bring up another interesting point (kind of) which is that is impossible to prove that reason works without using reason. Fundamentalists are fond of this and use it explicitly as a reason (ironic or what?) for not even discussing the reasons behind their faith.

In response I point out that this does not mean that reason does not work, nor does it negate the huge pile of empirical evidence that abounds in the world that reason works.

As Hume would say, you are free to assert otherwise but then I think that you will leave the room by the door and not the window - or some such.

Regards,

Psi

PS

I don't reveal my personal home page that often linked to this Pseudnym of mine, mainly due to abuse previously received directed at me be by faithful folks who are offended by questions, so you and your group here are now in an honoured and select group are honoured ;-)

Regards,

Mark

Isaac Gouy said...

Perhaps we are talking past each other semantically (I’ve done enough of that with Isaac, I don’t want to start it again.)

Before we criticize what Dawkins wrote isn't it incumbent on us to figure out what the words mean? To figure out what "external criterion" means. To be sure that the misunderstanding is his rather than ours.


What might McGrath make of your comment?

- "Your guess about Jesus is true"

- 'Martin insists that we should ignore the fact that Jesus taught by actions: "limit your reading to his oral teachings"'.

That level of misrepresentation is way past semantic quibbling.

Cliff Martin said...

Hi Psi (or may I call you Mark),

Your wrote, You seem to be somehow saying that being rational means you can't base a decision on probabilities but must either know 100% or can't know at all.

Actually, not at all. I was trying to get at your idea of rational thinking, based upon your assertion that theism does not (cannot?) spring from rationalism. Sometimes, when, for example, you deny that theism can be the result of rational thought, it sounds more like you are talking about positivism, not rationalism.

Do you think it is rational to keep searching for extraterrestrial life when there exists no evidence to support such life? Is it rational to conclude (as many do) that other life forms out there are very likely to exist? Is it any less rational for many of us to look at Creation, and conclude it likely that there is a Creator?

Yes I agree with you that most religious people think they have perfectly rational reasons for believing in their god.

Well, then, we don’t really agree. I am maintaining that theists don’t just think they have rational reasons, I think many actually do. Do many of us have errors in our thinking? Certainly. Does that mean our rational reasons are not truly rational? How does that follow?

(Thank you, btw, for the links to your articles on thinking errors. I scanned them, and I will bookmark them for future reference.)

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

My assertions about theism being irrational are made on the basis that I see no rational reason to believe - I see no evidence. Give me your evidence, my mind is there for the chaning.

You asked; "Do you think it is rational to keep searching for extraterrestrial life when there exists no evidence to support such life?"

Yes to the first bit and I don't accept the second. We know a lot about what life is made of and have some pretty detailed ides about how it may have started. We also have lots of evidence about conditions elsewhere in the universe. So yes I would say it is rational to have a look.

I don't see this level of indicative evidence for a god. You draw a conclusion from no evidence. I say it is worth looking for more evidence in a field we have a decent amount of surrounding evidence about.

Feel free to enlighten me on your evidence for god.

You said;

"Well, then, we don’t really agree. I am maintaining that theists don’t just think they have rational reasons, I think many actually do. Do many of us have errors in our thinking? Certainly. Does that mean our rational reasons are not truly rational? How does that follow? "

It all comes down to the evidence then doesn't it.

What is your evidence for a god - perhaps this needs another thread?

Do you want to start one or shall I?

Regards,

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

You write, I say it is worth looking for more evidence in a field we have a decent amount of surrounding evidence about ... Feel free to enlighten me on your evidence for god.

We certainly have no proof of extraterrestrial life, yet you are perfectly willing to mount a search (or continue a search) based upon what you call "a decent amount of surrounding evidence." You get no quarrel with me. I totally agree with that position.

But from where I sit, it seems you are constantly demanding proof of God before you would consent to the possibility of his existence, or agree that further searching is warranted. You are not consistent. But then, you have never yet allowed that there may be "a decent amount surrounding evidence" of a Creator.

Wow! No surrounding evidence of a Creator? I hardly know where to begin. But I know a comment thread is hardly the place for such a discussion. I would like to take on your challenge in a post or two, but I make no promises how soon that will happen. The ground rules would need to be clear: I would not be setting out to prove God's existence; my goal would to present "a decent amount of surrounding evidence." Is that reasonable and fair?

I am currently reading David Marshall's The Truth behind the New Atheism, which is, perhaps, a more complete response to The God Delusion, than was the McGrath book. (He is also responding to Hitchens, Harris, and others.) I will be reviewing it here, perhaps sometime this week. Marshall presents what I consider a strong rational foundation to belief, and a fairly scathing indictment of atheism. I wonder if you could read Marshall and still say things like theism [is] irrational [because] I see no rational reason to believe.

Psiloiordinary said...

I agree that this is fair.

If you carefully read my posts and comments I don't demand proof of god just any kind of evidence that indicates he might be there.

Marshall sounds great. By all means use his rational foundation as evidence.

My mind is truly open. Show me your evidence and I am ready to change my mind.

Regards,

Psi