I would dearly like to respect Professor Richard Dawkins. As a fellow atheist at least. Yet why, why is it, whenever I hear him on the radio or read anything by him, I feel the perverse urge to go sign up with the nearest recruiting religious sect? Its lucky his appearance on the Today programme this morning didn’t coincide with the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses on my doorstep, otherwise I might have done something which I would now regret.
For those of you who thought you might be spared my unnecessary and pointless attack on Prof. Dawkins, skip a couple of paragraphs (probably only one, to be honest, I may forget to paginate, let alone punctuation once I’m in full flow). Dawkins was on the Today programme to provide his usual uber-mcAtheist attack on religion after Cardinal O’Connor (chief Catholic of Britain) had suggested that Britain should not become a ‘God-Free’ zone. My main objection to Dawkin’s particular brand of ethical/scientific universalism in this instance is not, however, my usual array of hippie subjectivism.
Dawkins began by attacking the interviewing style of John Humphries and the Today team, for being ‘too soft’ on clergymen, suggesting that all an interviewee had to do to get an easy time was say ‘I’m a clergyman’. This was firstly not entirely (i.e. not at all) relevant to the issue of faith in Britain which had originally been raised in O’Connor’s speech. However, Dawkins persisted in devoting the rest of his interview to this subject. Humphries’ defence that when discussing religion, a matter of faith could not be interrogated to the same extent as, say, a politicians view on the economy, was rebuked by an increasingly outraged Dawkins.
Firstly, I learnt nothing about the good Proffessor’s view on religion in Britain. Secondly, his bull-in-a-china-shop tabloid selling approach to matters of conscience arguably does more to damage the positive aspects of atheism. Thirdly, and ironically, since he avoided answering the question on faith in Britain, are we to presume that he considers himself such a ‘clergyman’ at the grand church of atheism. High priest maybe, or master of ceremonies?
I feel this links into a deeper point about Dawkins’ atheism. In attacking all religion as unjustifiable superstition, he implicitly posits scientific, rational atheism as a similar creed to religious belief and observation. His view that religious belief is a form of deviant or delusionary behaviour (though apparently necessarily biological in origin) smacks to me of the sort of arguments used by all sorts of religious fundamentalists. I believe that more radical adherents to the Christian Gospels, the Koran or the Torah all suggest that theirs is the one and only and true truth. Why should we consider Dawkins’ evolutionary ’science’ as any more of a story. Certainly, it is couched in modern terms of objectivism and science which sit uncomfortably alongside the narratives of faith, trial and belief which abound in more traditional religious texts, but equally, in its radical unthinking rejection of alternative accounts of belief, there is arguably certainly a parallel.
It could be countered that the grounds of proof of religion and science are at odds with each other. This is arguable, however, only to the extent that one privileges one discourse over another. The grounds of proof are different, but since their teleology – universal proof of given laws and norms – is the same, arguably the parallel still stands. Furthermore, Dawkins’ unwillingness to even take a position on the issue of faith in Britain (on this occasion at least) suggests that he is more than aware of the act of faith at the heart of his apparently so rational, objective and scientific atheism.
Anyone please feel free to comment on the half-baked couple of hundred words above,
Byyeeeee!
I’ll sum it up. Belief and total conviction in ANY idea that cannot be definitively and empirically proven by repeatable experimentation is by nature faith.
An atheist has faith in the lack of God(s). A theist has faith in the existence of God(*s). The only ones lacking faith are the subgroup of agnostics who hold to the idea that they don’t know one way or the other.
Who died and made you pope?
Seriously “damage to atheism”? That is rather funny. Dawkins isn’t a strategist- he is a fireband. And if you compare him to other firebands for other causes he is remarkably subdued. I mean he hasn’t called for the deaths of anyone yet! All he has done is said that people were wrong.
Also, the objection to Dawkins reasoning… yeah, insisting your beliefs are true will do that. Seriously, look it over. Religion IS supersticion- the differances are none existant. If Dawkins is an atheist… if anyone is an atheist, by default they don’t consider religious beliefs supported- if they did, they would be religious. He just goes further and says they are false. The evolutionary part is to explain why they exist in the first place- which is a valid question.
And materialism and rationalism are beliefs. You need them to prove strong atheism or justify weak atheism.
Also, there is no standards for proof in religion. They use logic and reason like everyone else- except when it doesn’t suit them. That is the major problem.
And, no materialism, science, naturalism, rationalism and the like do not require faith. Dawkins may or may not have faith, but it isn’t required for these ideas- unlike in religion.
Thanks for the clarification, jonolan. My main argument, which possibly needs clarification, is that in refusing to engage in the debate about spirituality in Britain opened by Cardinal OConnor, Dawkins is behaving in just the same way as (apparently) the people of faith who (apparently) suggest their views are sacrosanct. This smacks of hypocrisy to me.
To the second post, I would reply:
1. No-one died and made me pope, I am expressing my own views in a casual blog
2. Damage to atheism: i.e. Dawkins is providing unnecessarily radical and inflamatory remarks in the current debate. In terms of his moral arguments on the relative validity of atheism, he is no less subdued than a radical adherent to any theism. I make no mention of ‘calling for the death of anyone’ since I am dealing with this in terms of arguments of morality and faith, not the actions which religious radicals often (arguably misleadingly) claim such beliefs lead to.
3. You misunderstand my point about religion and atheism; Dawkins is propounding a form of atheism which has radical implications for faith since it asserts its objectively proved non-existence of God on the same level as faiths which count the opposite. Thus, he propounds an anti-theism, not an a-theism, if you see the distinction. Equally, to deny a certain series of beliefs through disproof to me smacks of the subjective moralising of an extreme religion (i.e. of science and rationalism) not of the more traditional sceptical tradition).
4. Dawkins’ objective claims about science and evolution smack of the naturalistic fallacy when used to disprove matters of faith. He is attempting to make a moral claim – ‘there is no God’ – from an objective one – ‘there is no proof of God, justified by evolution, rationalism et al’.
5. Incidentally, arguably religion has as strong a standard of proof as atheism (as a moral philosophy) since it rests on moral laws and guidelines, but configured differently to the rational ones of science (which assert scientific objectivity). Faith per se is as relevant if one wishes to establish truth from a holy book or from deductive reasoning since there is no external method of justifying either methodology of truth verification – one cannot justify religious belief scientifically (thus Dawkins’ endeavour strikes me as a rather pointless and self-fulfiling one) and neither can one objectively verify scientific methodology (since its own objectivity is self-referential).
Spirituality? Dawkins doesn’t care about that- well it isn’t his main focus. He is an antitheist!
1) I was refering to your “Dawkins is hurting the movement”. Atheism ISN’T like the Dems or the Reps- it is a statement about reality.
2) No, Dawkins is being honest. By definition being an atheist implies that there is insufficient evidence for any religion.
3) That is called strong atheism. And Dawkins doesn’t believe that (although I do). And… what the heck? Dawkins focuses on logic and evidence to disprove God.
4) Okay… you are a moron. I know it isn’t nice to say this, but… You now why? There is no God… is NOT a moral claim! I know that, religious people know it- everyone knows it! Except you! There is no God is a FACTUAL claim.
5) Once again your studity illuminates so much more. Religion is NOT a moral philosophy. Moral philosophies are known as… moral philosophies.
It gets worse. Faith is believing something to be true. It DOESN’tT establish truth- it assumes it.
And yes, one justifies religious belief scientifically. I live in a country where there are people called Christians. These Christians believe that a man named Jesus rose from the dead. Now that would be covered by science- if you where around and say the dead rise out of their graves or any other miracle that would count as evidence. And evidence counts in science. I fact, that is the justification for the entire religion!
Uh… the scientific method isn’t self referant. The Scientific method is a process- it doesn’t claim to be true, in and of itself- it just claims to be a useful method to gleam information about reality… by looking at reality.
Let me sum it up. You are lambasting Dawkins for saying his beliefs are true and thus those that contradict his are false. You are accusing him of being fundamentalist like for coming to his beliefs by logic and reason. You are holding science and religion as “seperate but equal”.
In short you have no idea what you are talking about.
As to jonolan… agnostic is about knowledge, atheism is about belief. Are you an atheist agnostic or a theistic agnostic? There is no “pure” agnosticism.
I think you quite mistaken when you accuse Dawkins, or just about any other atheist, of being as fundamentalist as the religious zealots. The difference between science and religion is that science is not dogmatic. If new evidence comes to light, you change your views accordingly. That is an everyday experience in science and it is why science has made such progress. Most scientists have to admit many times in their lives that new evidence means their previous views were wrong. Fundamentalist religious views, in stark contrast, are quite immune to evidence and very rarely change. It took the Catholic church 400 years to admit that Galileo may have had it right after all, The scientists of the time, faced with his evidence, were rather quicker to change their minds.
Repent ye sinners for the universe is CLOSED!
Sorry- trying to imagine fundamentalist scientists.
Lol, that joke possibly makes up for calling a complete stranger a moron.
My point is mainly about relative justifications of truth statements, based on the general principle that different forms of justification are relevant for different knowledge claims. For example, you might legitimately ask an artist’s view of the aesthetic value of a nuclear power plant, and a nuclear physicist on the intricate workings of one, yet one would not ask the artist for an accurate functional breakdown, or a nuclear physicist on how pretty it appeared.
My main objection to Dawkins’ rationalism (which is ontologically fundamentalist, not ethically) is that he presumes that the rationalist/objectivist scientific paradigm is the only one valid for justifying truth claims about anything. Certainly such an approach is valid if one is considering empirical questions of reality (as you yourself approach the existence of God), yet arguably it is of little value when considering a subjective moral position.
I would contend that while a scientist or an atheist (such as myself) often tend toward viewing religious issues in empirical terms, they are better understood as subjective and moral claims to truth. Thus, it seems to me inappropriate to judge an ethical statement on universal morality in terms of objectivity since, as Bakhtin, Foucault et al have argued, any form of objective morality is impossible. In terms of the distinction between religion and morality, I would suggest that religion’s (as a series of beliefs) primary content and intent for most believers is no longer as an ontology but as a system of ethics, and thus would tend toward symbolic, interpretative and metaphorical readings of religious texts/discourse. Religion of any form is a series of moral lessons and thus it is inappropriate to refute it in empirical terms (Dawkins incidentally has an interesting habit of conflating practical scientific method with ideological prescriptions, as in the original interview which provoked my blog). Since the primary justification of theism is generally a combination of adherence to moral laws/customs/practices and faith, it seems to me illogical to attempt to disprove it with science/empiricism. One can morally claim the inferiority or illegitimacy of x or y belief, yet I fail to see the relevance of objectivism in such a debate (you cannot prove a belief with a fact, for example, this is a desk, therefore I must worship it).
David, I feel you’ve misunderstood my use of the term fundamentalist (curses my own use of vague language also!). I accuse Dawkins of an ontological fundamentalism in his assertion of the primacy of scientific method of proof/disproof. My concern is that Popper’s falsification theory has no validity in the study of religion or ethics (if we conceive them as doctrines of morality, not facticity). It seems to me to be a poor form of atheism which seeks to disprove religious thought on empirical grounds. Equally, I would argue that the uber-scientific empiricism of Dawkins and many other atheists rests on an epistemological foundation which is self-justifying in its classification of truth/falsity which unfairly and unnecessarily eliminates the potential for subjectivist truth claims to be valid in the sphere of religion/philosophy (even, to an extent, history).
When ever I see someone do something stupid…. sigh- I need to get Publicous’s self control.
Ah- the lens theory. You do realize that ALL lens are true, right? They don’t contradict one another- they deal with different topics. By contrast religion doesn’y do that.
God is morality? God is something that exists and hence science. Therefore science can be used. Any other approach is nonsense. Not to mention it ignores the fact no ones religion looks like that.
Uhh… science is the best method of proof/disproof. See its track record.
Basically you have forgotten the definition of God- here is a hint, he is the creator of the universe. So he either exists… or he doesn’t.
I’ll give you a better example. YOUR existance is a matter of… (rolls dice) art. Wheter or not you actually exist is irrelevant…. you beginnning to see the problem? Saying God is morality is essentially meaningless- morality is morality.
Or to be more exact- imagine how a grammer/vocab Nazi would react to what you are saying. Or Salvor Halden.
“Words mean things”.
- G W Bush
How would you prove a moral position scientifically? Equally, could you validate faith scientifically? Surely science must leave some space for subjectivist accounts of truth since (despite its universalist claims) it is arguably a blunt tool with which to investigate any matter of conscience (i.e. politics, morality, faith etc).
It has a good track record as you say for proving/disproving things within its own empirical frame of reference, yet you must concede that the hypothetico-deductive method is invalid in an enquiry into religion as a series of values.
From such a perspective, the existence of God (or otherwise) is a non-issue since it cannot be verified. You cannot empirically measure faith. You can observe it scientifically, and quantify it (sociologically), yet it seems impossible to me at least to disprove it (the grounds of proof for religious faith are not scientific, thus it is meaningless to use science to disprove them). Certainly one can demonstrate its psychological origins but none of the above has any bearing on a matter of personal faith (in the existence of a creator as the source of a universalist world view).
Even if one found a way of absolutely, scientifically disproving God’s existence, surely this would have no impact on faith – or adherence to the moralities which have resulted from belief in Him – since faith in God is subjective (and often interpretative) not empirical.
By splitting truth claims by their justifications, it is possible to reach a much more sophisticated method of validating/disproving different types of truth claim.
Incidentally, you’re right to say words mean things, but these meanings are not fixed, absolute or scientifically verifiable. To my knowledge, no-one has ever tried to prove textual meaning/grammar with science since there is a radical lack of fit between the necessary proof criteria of science and the haphazard and constructed meanings of signifiers/words. Similarly, but in an ethical vein, one cannot disprove religion with science.
Effectively, its a case of using the wrong tool for the job to try to scientifically falsify religion.
Simple- proof by what works. Ripping peoples heart out is bad because it causes them pain (science), which they don’t like (science) and kills them (science).
So science can tell you what is moral or immoral based on causing pain and the like.
You can measure faith. See an MRI.
Religion is about God. Morality, amazingly enough is about… morality. Saying we can’t take it down is meaningless. We can’t stop homicides. However, police are pledged to do their best.
If the meanings of a word change, a thing still has the same meaning. Black is still black even in another tongue. Words may shift, goalposts may be moved, but reality is constant. ALWAYS remember that. Always.
Thats the fundamental problem with most science-inspired atheism. It presumes that there is (a) such a thing as external reality, (b) that it is unchanging and constant and (c) that it can be quantified and measured objectively.
All three arguments are flawed. Firstly, there is no objective way to prove external reality separate from human consciousness/constructivism. There is no such thing as a pregiven fact outside of human construction since in order to verify such a fact, one would have to occupy an entirely objective position outside of human perception (impossible). You could reply that science never achieves true objectivity yet that doesn’t mean it isn’t a goal worth aiming at, and perhaps that is justified. Yet i would be tempted to suggest that a constructionist world view would provide philosophically, ontologically and ethically more satisfying conclusions than clinging to outdated Enlightenment pseudo-rationalism.
Religion is about more than God – God may be the constructed origin of belief yet its practical application defines it unequivocally as a moral philosophy.
Reality is not always constant, that is a naive empiricist position if you don’t mind me saying so. Reality is constructed through language and is thus as unstable as language. There is no single pre-given constant meaning in the world which one can point to and identify without recourse to a signifying system which originates in the human brain (ethically or ontologically). I advise you read Derrida’s ‘Of Grammatology’ or Foucault’s ‘Truth and Power’ before making such a sweeping statement about reality being ‘always’ ‘constant’.
Incidentally, for the same reason, even if one accepts ontological empiricism in relation to those things common-sensibly external to the human mind (trees, flowers, birds etc etc), it is impossible to justify any form of scientific measurement under such a system since any unit or schema employed is clearly the product of subjective (thus, fallible, thus constructed, thus inconstant) human consciousness, and thus unobjective. Again, the best fit argument assures the maintenance of the edifice of scientific empiricism in Western culture, yet this in no way answers the ontological relativism critique.
Theism presumes external reality too.
I don’t assume it is unchanging or we can measure it accurately. We have PROVEN that.
So… you deny objective reality? Than jump off a bridge. I dare you. But wait- you’ll die! Sounds real and objective enough to me.
Wow- I am consistant and you aren’t. Feel free to question reality all you want- but realize that down that road lies madness. Have fun:)
I hate to disappoint you but science hasn’t proved external reality or the ability to measure it. This is simply a product of the scientific world view – a construct. I am refuting both religious and scientific theism, not opposing them as you attempt (and fail) to.
You misunderstand my denial of objective reality; for the sake of argument, and to get through the day safely, I do not dispute the common sensible difference between human beings and their surroundings. Philosophically, however, I dispute the possibility of ever objectively and empirically proving some fact as external to human construction. Passmore’s hypothetico-deductive model is the most apposite reference here.
Humans use language in order to delineate the world. Language is built up of signifiers which, if you accept Derrida/Foucault’s basic argument, you will know are unstable and prone to collapse their meanings. Any form of objectivism asserts a pre-given reality external to the temporal constructions of language.
To me, this is a farcical notion since it elevates some category of analysis to a superhuman level. Whether this be traditional theism (with its panoplies of Gods) or science with its methodological empiricism.
Effectively, you have confused madness and post-structuralism
How entertaining that you are using typical religious imagery of consequence to justify your (aupposedly atheist) position. Religion, let’s not forget, is the oldest and most well-worn of all ideologies – so don’t get too carried away with your argument that science has the best track record. it doesn’t. the main problem with scientific fundamentalism, as classically illustrated by dawkins, is that these fundamentalists really think that the only truth out there is scientific proof. frankly, your argument is flawed even on your own terms, because science is essentially about inductive knowledge, and most people who hold a religious belief do so on inductive grounds. their ‘experience’ is equally valid as any ‘experiment’.
My view is atheist, but I object to scientific fundamentalism, not defend it. There are posts from others which seek to defend objectivism, I do not. I argue that science is the wrong tool for the job of justifying or disproving fatih and the Dawkins is barking up the wrong tree completely (as well as objecting to his bombasticism and egocentricism as the self-styled ‘god of atheists’). I mention above that science does not have the best track record – particularly when dealing with subjective issues; science can take apart a plant and reduce it to its constitutive elements but it cannot explain the beauty of a flower subjectively. I argue above that scientific ‘proof’ is as based on a construct as religious belief, and that neither are genuinely objective, whilst as you say, both have their basis in inductive reasoning. Thus, I distance myself from Dawkins as an atheist since he effectively (see the posts above by alleged atheist, and entire internet randomer, Samuel Skinner) sets up objectivism as his god and worships unquestioningly at its altars (hows that for religious imagery), cya tomorrow! Hx