After listening to it I thought it would be interesting to visit the popular http://www.richarddawkins.net/ website, to see how the debate was discussed in the forum system that the website provide to members.
What astonished me is the degree to which forum members were supportive of Dawkins, and dismissive of Lennox, even more astonishing is the level of misunderstanding amongst forum member for many of the points that Lennox made.
Lennox is described as "preaching", "repeating himself", of being "smug", he is misquoted, for example one poster states that Lennox said "miracles are real, because God can alter the laws of nature at will" but he did not say this.
Other forum posters describe Lennox as having a "patronizing attitude" of espousing "bullshit", of being "circular in his argument", of employing a "sick logic" and of being "willingly ignorant" and using "strawman" arguments.
Several posters expressed the opinion that the debate had been "unfair" in some way, and of being "especially disadvantageous" to Dawkins.
In reading these posts (which are publicly accessible here) I cannot help thinking that the participants (the bulk of them) are almost zealous in their devotion to Dawkins and in their eagerness to defend him.
Lennox made some rather pertinent points, some of the more important that directly undermine Dawkins position (that is his position as espoused in 'The God Delusion') are
- If it is blind physical forces that underly our actions, then on what grounds can Dawkins criticise religion or those who attacked the World Trade Center? are not these simply inevitable manifestations of those unguided physical forces?
- If Dawkins believes in atheism, then is that not faith? Of course Dawkins claims to base his belief on evidence, but so too does Lennox.
- Lennox said very early that Dawkins, indeed all scientists by defintion, must have faith that nature can be understood and analyzed by the scientific method, this needs to be assumed in order to undertake scientific enquiry and is thus faith.
- Dawkins, during the discussion of morality, referred to "rising above it" when it was pointed out to him that surely our genes in fact lead to evil and the negative issues associated with religions, but what is "Rising above it".
Almost none of the comments posted in the forum made any attempt to honestly assess whether Dawkins is scientifically or philosophically undermined by the issues.
What did you think of the debate and what do you think the forum tells us about Dawkins and his supporters?
5 comments:
Hi Doc,
Congratulations on establishing this blog - much needed. If you should run short of material you can always expand it to the 'big 3 atheist evangelists' by including Hitchens & Harris.
My initial reaction to the comments on the Dawkins blog was almost identical to yours and I posted a comment to that effect on one of the atheist sites I frequent.
Interesting that one could easily apply the same labels applied on the Dawkins blog to Lennox to Dawkins. It seems it is not just beauty that is in the eye of the beholder, but reason as well.
If I stretch the "eye" analogy I get rather close to what could be construed as a blind faith belief in Dawkins and the anti-theist position in general. There is little sceptical evaluation of what he says and so he gets away with some real porkies!
A few quick examples:
“Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." Well only if you ignore the brutal suppression of religion in for example Mao’s China. But it is an argument that misses the point. Evil people will use any available tool to further their own ends – religion, race, ethnicity or even the football team you support.
Dawkins has no time for faith schools. "Segregation has no place in the education system," he argues. "Take Northern Ireland. You could get rid of the climate of hostility within a generation by getting rid of segregated schooling. Separating Catholics and Protestants has fomented centuries of hostility." Some would say continued British rule and suppression of the indigenous people who happened to be Catholic by the British who happened to be Protestants was the real cause of centuries of hostility and is what really has to change. After all Catholics and Protestants seems to live alongside each other in the rest of the UK without the violence that has scared Northern Ireland. Sure it did not help (or did help depending on your point of view I suppose) that religion along with area of residence became the convenient way of identifying the “other side” in Ireland – easier to target really.
"You can see why people may want to believe in something," he acknowledges. "The idea of an afterlife where you can be reunited with loved ones can be immensely consoling - though not to me. But to maintain such a belief in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is truly bewildering." I for one have not seen “all the evidence to the contrary”, in fact it would be hard to imagine that there is in fact “evidence” to prove the non-existence something which Dawkins says does not exist.
Indeed a little scepticism would go a long way.
Peace
Hi akakiwibear
Thanks for posting feedback, it's appreciated, I am still finalizing my plans for how best to use this blog, focusing upon the weak or false arguments that litter much of Dawkins work is probably going to be my focus.
The tensions and distress in Northern Ireland can be greatly attributed to the British government, the history is well documented and I dont think labelling the strife as "religious" is helpful or accurate.
It's pretty clear to me and is pretty much undisputed by historians that many crimes and policies pursued by governments throughout history have been commited "in the name of" religion, but to use this as evidence of religion being the cause is pretty hard to defend I think.
I havent read Harris or Hitchens yet in any detail, I suppose I need to take a look though!
Regards
Hugh
Interesting blog. Shame it didn't take off.
I hope you continue this blog... It's needed and illuminating!
Hmmm, No new comments since 07.
I always thought Dawkins was a twat. Have respect for Hitchens though. How can not take pleasure in listening to his dissertations -whether you agree with him or not.
Sam
Post a Comment