Dawkins is an utter failure as a philosopher! (and he smells)

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I find it very curious, then, that you can have an objective (ergo, pertaining to objects) research without it, ya know, having the QUALITY of pertaining to objects. Can you explain me better? Are mental objects "reality"?

Does'nt really matter. What you have in hand is yet another name-giving speculative ontotheology system. We could argue forever what constitutes "descriptive", what constitutes "sensory" and so on; this is inherently fruitless, inherently unrelated to any religion, and thus irrelevant. My claim is: ontotheology is intrinsically unrealistic, ontotheology has nothing to do with religion, contra Dawkins. I have already backed up everything sufficiently.

The problem of philosophy, in general, is not the question that it poses, it is the fact that it cannot go beyond these questions. Dawkins et all are merely doing mind games, and this is sufficiently obvious to anyone with discernment. There are n10x more things more productive and useful than metaphysical speculation out there.

[Ima Farmathar]

he smells

To be fair Northern Europe is cold, I wouldn’t bath much either if I lived there.

I'll personally say it is probably a counter cultural automatic response rather than a deliberate volitional rational response.

There is a bit of that, but I think it is a form of dismissing his often uncomfortable claims without addressing them. This applies both atheists who hold different opinions, and from theists that are unable to address them.

What makes a competent philosopher

Originality is important. Deep knowledge of previous philosophical works and structure is another. Otherwise: like with

slovenian fat guy. Neither are interesting debaters, .

The mark of good philosophy it’s its entertainment value.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

This is a rather empty article I would make a counter claim but I find no argument in it to focus it on.

1. The idea of religion as 'the root of all evil' is massively overplayed in the God Delusion.

This is my main problem with anti-clericalism, not so much Dawkins, as the right wing anti-Muslim kind. But Dawkins also commits this sin. Particularly offensive are the claims that religion is the root of all “evil”, or conversely that Islam is the cause of current problems in the Middle East, etc.
If religion is a response to environmental and social factors, etc. then the “evils” it facilitates would have arisen anyway as a response to said factors. Religion is then a-moral, and depending on your ontological frame for morality good. For religion to be a source of “evil it would have to come from outside fiscal reality. It then would be true, and its morality automatically supersedes that of man, thus it can’t be evil.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The conservation of cakes is a very important principle in philosophy.

trolling attitude as well).

Trolling is an ancient and respected tradition in philosophy, it is called “polemics”.

What makes Christianity bearable is not Christianity but its discourse with humanism, enlightenment and all other kinds of philosophy which have little to do with original Christian morality other than maybe being a starting point for some thought experiment either to disprove, to enhance or interpret it in a nice way.

The core Christian doctrine is probably the most offensive and prejudicial to intellectual progress of all mayor religions, yet, our civilization originated on Christian lands due to a number of economic, demographic, geographic, and stochastic factors. Like the poster above mentioned, we have developed an amalgam of other resources to address and oftentimes supersede the original Christian doctrine.

I mean this is so frankly obvious to someone acquainted with postmodernism that I felt no need to proceed. Ok, let's us proceed? Heidegger claims, as per Levinas, Sartre, etc... that metaphysics grounds itself on an objective reality, but that this grounding and enframing cannot proceed from an ever-changing substance-less physical reality.

A valid point, yet I don’t see how it applies particularly to Dawkins, or is even universal to contemporary thinkers.

It is not only Dawkins. It is, as a whole, Western ontotheological thinking of which Dawkins is part. All of which, particularly, juxtaposes representation into reality and falls into unrealism.

In fact there are prominent atheists that avoid this mistake, take Russell’s “Philosophy of mathematics” for an example of excellent metaphysics.

the use of building blocks of abstract theoretcal objects, speaks about OBJECTS, BEINGS, without touching the question of REALITY, BEING, outside of these objects, then metaphysics is nihilism (was ist die Sein des Seiendes?). Particulalrly because the Cartesian tradition which is the culmination of metaphysics sees reality as a single large building block,

This is certainly a problem with his concept of meme. The ignorance of the proper management of metaphysical constructs.

Ultimately, Dawkins' error proceeds from a theological error. Dawkins, just like Heidegger (but without the brilliance of the former) is an ontotheologian, of a protestant bent. Protestantism itself was only possible because the late Scholastic tradition posited the univocity of Being and God, and also posited the univocity of Metaphysics with Being. Meaning that it confounds the Absolute with its manifestation, and also confuses mentally posited objects with reality, which is really one and not derived from people's perspectival cogitations. .

I see your point, and it would be valid, if Dawkins were doing such. He actually translates the morality problem out of metaphysics and into, physics. He does this by addressing the semantic source for morality, It all falls apart however when he appeals to intuition in discarding religion as a source of morality. It proves his point, since but does so by using one of the lowest forms of argument. By appealing to intuition he tacitly suggests that morality is subjective. The problem is in my opinion that he doesn’t build upon that. Likewise his exploration of the physical semantics of religion is lacking, leaving the argument with poor foundations. I make an amateurs attempt to address both issues in the previous Dawkins tread.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think you'll find I know my feelings about making a thread better than you do. The reasons for the thread I explained in the opening post. I can't help you further than this and also my personal reasons for opening the thread are off topic.

This is not about your feelings as much as you can try to make it to be. It's about what makes Dawkins so special which is what I asked about and your opening post doesn't explain that. Many scholars get attacked many times for who they are. I'm bemused by the defensiveness of the responses I got and the lack of answer to a what should be a very simple question.

There is a premise that it is an ignorant statement and that your phraseology adequately encapsulates his statement which it does not.

"If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare,"

Nothing wrong with that statement.

That statements considers living with Down syndrome as increasing suffering. He continues:

In any case, you would probably be condemning yourself as a mother (or yourselves as a couple) to a lifetime of caring for an adult with the needs of a child. Your child would probably have a short life expectancy but, if she did outlive you, you would have the worry of who would care for her after you are gone.

Seeing it as a condemnation for the parents. Assuming short life expectancy. All ignorant statements about life with Down syndrome in the 21 century in the developed world.

This simply shows, while being a respected scholar by many, he still makes false claims based on his own prejudices without checking at least the facts on the issue on Google.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Yes, Dawkins is a physicalist. That's true. That doesn't make him escape semantics, also true. Ultimately, I believe Heidegger and Kant to be far superior to Dawkins when it comes to delineating the border between science and theology, but Dawkins of course is superior as a pop scientist and that's why he gets more audience.

[Taiji]

I find it very curious, then, that you can have an objective (ergo, pertaining to objects) research without it, ya know, having the QUALITY of pertaining to objects. Can you explain me better? Are mental objects "reality"?

I just told you that what you are doing is confusing the sensory level, where qualities exist for us, and the descriptive level, where they are described.

Does'nt really matter. What you have in hand is yet another name-giving speculative ontotheology system. We could argue forever what constitutes "descriptive", what constitutes "sensory" and so on; this is inherently fruitless, inherently unrelated to any religion, and thus irrelevant. My claim is: ontotheology is intrinsically unrealistic, ontotheology has nothing to do with religion, contra Dawkins.

You'd know already if you'd read the right book.

I have already backed up everything sufficiently.

We don't care about your allegations towards Dawkins in that case.

The problem of philosophy, in general, is not the question that it poses, it is the fact that it cannot go beyond these questions. Dawkins et all are merely doing mind games, and this is sufficiently obvious to anyone with discernment. There are n10x more things more productive and useful than metaphysical speculation out there.

You mean certain questions can't be answered? Of course. That, and the rejection of faith, is why I don't believe in any Gods.

[Ima Farmathar]

Ultimately, I believe Heidegger and Kant to be far superior to Dawkins when it comes to delineating the border between science and theology, but Dawkins of course is superior as a pop scientist and that's why he gets more audience.

Can’t argue with that.

[chilon]

Or so everyone tells me every time I, or anyone else, opens any thread that has anything to do with Dawkins.

They rush in to talk about how infantile he is as a philosopher...but he is OK as a biologist, and that he isn't a great thinker. Only of interest to the immature students and any other ad hominem they can think of whilst always strictly remaining content free. This is not one poster, and oddly isn't always a religious position as some atheists say it too, it is so common as to be almost absurd if only that no one ever actual refutes anything specific but are at pains just to insult the man. I'll personally say it is probably a counter cultural automatic response rather than a deliberate volitional rational response.

So now I'd like to posit two challenges. What makes a competent philosopher, and why Dawkins is not a competent philosopher with specific references and quotes and where his arguments fail.

Personally I view a competent philosopher as one who discusses important philosophy issues. Some might disagree but I don't consider the "philosophical issue" that most of his books focus on - belief and proof of whether a "God" exists to be a relevant or compelling philosophical problem. To me Dawkins is not a philosopher because he is not ever discussing philosophy. He is focusing on theology.

IMO he is just mentally fapping over an issue which can never be objectively proven or disproven so its a complete waste of time.

Personally I find people (philosophers) who write about relevant issues (moral philosophy or ethics, political philosophy, etc) or interesting intellectual abstract issues (like truth) to be far more interesting and worthwhile use of my time than contemplating the silly questions that Dawkins seems so passionate about.

[Denny Crane!]

Well the things he discusses are the validity of the beliefs not the ability to prove objectively one way or another. The central tenets of belief in things like whether or not morality must come from God. I certainly wouldn't call these things particularly the last one, when they are so politically relevant, silly. Personally I prefer Sam Harris in his style and speech but that is a personal taste thing and I don't think personal taste is relevant.

I opened this thread specifically to find out what he has done wrong. Whether his interpretation of the cosmological argument and its refutations are wrong etc. He certainly isn't breaking any new ground which for people already well read in philosophy means the subject matter might not be of interest (if someone rehashed Nietzsche I certainly wouldn't want to reread it, been there done that). But I'm looking for his incompetencies and failures, poor thinking or reasoning.

[chilon]

Well the things he discusses are the validity of the beliefs not the ability to prove objectively one way or another. The central tenets of belief in things like whether or not morality must come from God. I certainly wouldn't call these things particularly the last one, when they are so politically relevant, silly. Personally I prefer Sam Harris in his style and speech but that is a personal taste thing and I don't think personal taste is relevant.

I opened this thread specifically to find out what he has done wrong. Whether his interpretation of the cosmological argument and its refutations are wrong etc. He certainly isn't breaking any new ground which for people already well read in philosophy means the subject matter might not be of interest (if someone rehashed Nietzsche I certainly wouldn't want to reread it, been there done that). But I'm looking for his incompetencies and failures, poor thinking or reasoning.

If Dawkins is indeed brilliant as some claim I would argue its a complete failure for him to focus on the issue about belief in God and be so passionate and sometimes abrasive about it. I think his choice to focus so much on the belief in god issue is itself poor thinking because it is a complete waste of time.

I would personally say his entire passion about this, IMO, irrelevant issue and his abrasive tone is something he has done wrong because it makes me even less likely to ever care about anything he says because he never says anything on any relevant topic. I am sorry but I view 'belief in God' to be a complete waste of time. He seems to only care about winning "debate points" in the public sphere to feed his ego.

I have yet to see anything remotely resembling an interesting philosophical argument out of him. Maybe I missed it. Maybe he has written some compelling and interesting pieces outside his obsession with the "belief in God" topic. If so, I just haven't seen it

[Denny Crane!]

If Dawkins is indeed brilliant as some claim I would argue its a complete failure for him to focus on the issue about belief in God and be so passionate and sometimes abrasive about it. I think his choice to focus so much on the belief in god issue is itself poor thinking because it is a complete waste of time.

I'm wondering who claimed he was brilliant? What I do know is you post anything done or said by him and the thread is immediately drowned in people making usually ad hominem attacks against Richard dawkins, arrogant, poor thinker, rubbish philosopher. These are the claims, claiming he is the bestest philosopher ever - well I'd have to see someone do that first.

As for his focus I'm sorry we are getting strongly into subjectivity here. You don't think it should be a focus but many other philosophers certainly have and no one has singled them out. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens were lumped in with him in the so called four horsemen and no one singles them out for abuse. Bertrand Russel, Camus, Nietzsche, Pinker, Sartre and Carl Sagan all focused on the question without criticism.

Sagan and Russel are particular favourites and both made it an almost singular focus at points in their life and I enjoy the arguments and their reasoning. Sagan was also one that retold particular arguments in his own way but did a very good job of doing so.

Honestly the focus, I don't find that a valid criticism. Might be something you personally don't like.

I have yet to see anything remotely resembling an interesting philosophical argument out of him. Maybe I missed it. Maybe he has written some compelling and interesting pieces outside his obsession with the "belief in God" topic. If so, I just haven't seen it

His case for an independent morality, arguments on irreducible complexity, anthropic principles, natural selection as a consciousness raiser and his take on evolution and abiogenesis.

Again whether or not you like them or find them interesting are quite irrelevant as to whether or not they are correct.

[chilon]

As for his focus I'm sorry we are getting strongly into subjectivity here. You don't think it should be a focus but many other philosophers certainly have and no one has singled them out. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens were lumped in with him in the so called four horsemen and no one singles them out for abuse. Bertrand Russel, Camus, Nietzsche, Pinker, Sartre and Carl Sagan all focused on the question without criticism.

All of the latter you mention and including Dennett have written tremendous amounts of work on other topics outside of the "belief n God issue". In fact to most of them you probably only have an essay or two about that topic with huge amounts of work on all sorts of other issues.

Dawkins focuses almost exclusively on the "belief in God" issue. I can't even think of anything he wrote on another topic so to compare him to Bertrand Russell is just obscene to me. Oops, I forgot The Selfish Gene. Didn't really find that thesis anything spectacular or outside the box. But he never talks about that anymore really that I see. Its not just that he discusses the issue, its that its his SOLE focus now and he always seems to be clamoring for media attention about it. So to me, that is drastically different than all the latter thinkers you mention and Dennett.

Hitchens, I never liked anyway because of his literary reviews for Atlantic Monthly. Always came across as one of the most pretentious, self-important, conceded a-holes I ever read in decades of reading the Atlantic. So because of how annoying his pretentious literary reviews were and how much I disliked Hitchens as a reviewer I had no interest in ever hearing him talk on another subject (although I do think I heard him on Daily Show or something).

Can't say I ever read much of Sam Harris or even seen him speak or lecture so can't comment there.

Sagan and Russel are particular favourites and both made it an almost singular focus at points in their life and I enjoy the arguments and their reasoning. Sagan was also one that retold particular arguments in his own way but did a very good job of doing so.

Singular focus of their life? Can't say I ever interpreted either one as caring that much that some people believed in "god". Even if it was they certainly hid it well because I read a bunch of Sagan and Russell over the years and never read them comment on that "belief in god" issue. They both certainly have a huge body of work that its quite easy to miss that was ever a "singular focus of their lives". I've quoted Russel a lot in essay, papers, articles over the years but never about the belief in god issue.

Honestly the focus, I don't find that a valid criticism. Might be something you personally don't like.

I personally find debating on belief of god or whether god exists or any iteration of that argument to be a complete waste of time that would be more usefully spent on other issues.

I accept my posts here are hypocritical on that note and probably wont post much here anymore as a result

His case for an independent morality, arguments on irreducible complexity, anthropic principles, natural selection as a consciousness raiser and his take on evolution and abiogenesis.

If you would like my comment you will have to tell me his takes on these issues and how they are relevant outside his context - pretty sure all his comments on any of those issues are directly related to him arguing with religious people right?

[Phier]

Metaphysics is a mental exercise.

Speculative personal fiction I think is a good description.

The only good thing about Dawkins is his biology, and even that is pitiable. Ultimately, technique is the only good thing that metaphysics has brought us - it is best not to become lost in the jungle of useless arguments and thoughts.

Oh please, tell us what its pitiable, you here do exactly what the OP laid out as typical. I am a biologist myself, with a masters and I couldn't tell you how many hours under my belt in both lab and class time, and I really can't find where his biology is "pitiable".

Dawkins "attacks" god on basic grounds, that morality is evolved, that belief in god is an offshoot of early learning, and that there is no evidence for god. It is a simplistic argument, but its because honestly its a very simple subject. It doesn't require a thesaurus to discuss.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The problem here is ontological. In fact, the fact that Dawkins focuses so much on metaphysical subjects could be very much why Newton also focused most of his work on metaphysical subjects: it's because the complexity and "structure" of Being cannot be sucessfully understood by the human mind, yet the human mind requires metaphysical grounding. This is fertile root for faith.

As for Biology, well, Biology has many points of view. Actually, that's why Heidegger is so important. The shaky ground lies not in physical facts per se, but in how they are interpreted. In this respect, Science follows the aporias of late Scholasticism neatly, which consist in trying to place the understanding of metaphysical truths at a merely individual level - seeking, as it is, the forbidden fruit of Wisdom.

[Lazarus]

Well, I don't see posting in a thread to ask a simple question at the same level as creating a thread for starters.

Both constitute writing a single post positing a rather simple straightforward question, they are one and the same. The point that I made was your point, if you wish to admit to everybody your point was cheap please be my guest.

[chilon]

Oh please, tell us what its pitiable, you here do exactly what the OP laid out as typical. =

Perhaps that he actually contributed no original thoughts or discoveries to the field? Correct if I;m wrong but the Selfish Gene was based on another's discoveries correct?

[Mangalore]

Perhaps that he actually contributed no original thoughts or discoveries to the field? Correct if I;m wrong but the Selfish Gene was based on another's discoveries correct?

The Selfish gene is not a scientific paper of his... and I think you have to check on how science works if you think discoveries are independant accomplishments by individuals. Einstein and similar people are exceptions, usually you have dozens of scientists being busy in the same field and exchanging ideas, data or experiments.

[chilon]

The Selfish gene is not a scientific paper of his... and I think you have to check on how science works if you think discoveries are independant accomplishments by individuals. Einstein and similar people are exceptions, usually you have dozens of scientists being busy in the same field and exchanging ideas, data or experiments.

Then what is an original piece of science by Dawkins?

Just mentioned that because it was the closest to anything not related to his obsession with 'belief in god' topics that I could think of

feel free to link an original piece of science by Dawkins that isn't related to his god obsession please

Also I would still like to see any reference to philosophy that Dawkins offers that isn't theology.

@ Denny

I've never considered Dawkins a philosopher in any way because I haven't seen him offer anything to philosophy. I have considered him a theologian because everything I have seen he is just talking theology not philosophy.

[Visna]

Then what is an original piece of science by Dawkins?

Just mentioned that because it was the closest to anything not related to his obsession with 'belief in god' topics that I could think of

feel free to link an original piece of science by Dawkins that isn't related to his god obsession please

Also I would still like to see any reference to philosophy that Dawkins offers that isn't theology.

As far as I see it, Dawkins' primary contribution to biology is that he can communicate. The ability to make complicated things understandable to the average reader/viewer/listener/what-have-you is worth as much (if not even more) than spending time in a lab and publish a report that only a few nerds will ever read, let alone understand.

[Mangalore]

Then what is an original piece of science by Dawkins?

Just mentioned that because it was the closest to anything not related to his obsession with 'belief in god' topics that I could think of

feel free to link an original piece of science by Dawkins that isn't related to his god obsession please

Also I would still like to see any reference to philosophy that Dawkins offers that isn't theology.

@ Denny

I've never considered Dawkins a philosopher in any way because I haven't seen him offer anything to philosophy. I have considered him a theologian because everything I have seen he is just talking theology not philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...s_bibliography

[PointOfViewGun]

Both constitute writing a single post positing a rather simple straightforward question, they are one and the same. The point that I made was your point, if you wish to admit to everybody your point was cheap please be my guest.

No two posts, or two threads are the same. It's quite nonsensical to suggest that. This should have been self explanatory. There are many factors such as length, substance, etc. The point you made was one of a straw man to set up a defensive cheap attack. No amount of deflection on your part will change that.

My actual point, however, still stands. What makes him so special?