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

[Denny Crane!]

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.

[Gaidin]

Oh god, I'm gonna have to buy that book in eBook form now and be entertained.

[Denny Crane!]

Oh god, I'm gonna have to buy that book in eBook form now and be entertained.

You mean the god delusion? Do amazon still do that ebook lend thing, cos I could give it to you.

[Gaidin]

You mean the god delusion? Do amazon still do that ebook lend thing, cos I could give it to you.

Nah, I have a Nook, sadly. My hard copy is just three states away is the problem. Not really a big deal. I have two copies of many of my books for the sake of riding a bus at 4am each morning.

[Denny Crane!]

Ah OK never mind.

To be fair I asked for quotes so any arguments should be made within the context of the thread I would hope, he tends to keep things quite boxed in by chapter so there can be no allusion to a larger context and they are mostly familiar arguments.

All I'm really seeking is some context to all of the mass and quite emotive criticism people give to him. Nobody ever says, yeah he is an idiot because of this argument. And I'm quite curious as to how you can be a bad philosopher by laying down some concise correct arguments in your own words even if it has been done before. Unoriginal, well damn, yes. But then again



originality is overated.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Who?

[Denny Crane!]

He is in the video I posted, he is the one they call Chicken Little. Good voice!

[James the Red]

I once watched his documentary, 'the root of all evil'. I was not impressed in the slightest and I thought it was crap.

[Gaidin]

Since we already need to reference the OP.

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.

[Denny Crane!]

I once watched his documentary, 'the root of all evil'. I was not impressed in the slightest and I thought it was crap.

well done for being an exemplary example of why this thread was created. Would you perhaps care to elaborate even a smidgen or do you just want to put yourself on a pedestal of vacuity? That isn't a place I advise going. Not even for a day.

Edit: God damn beaten to it. Though honestly it really does help my case.

[James the Red]

Meh, its been years since I saw it. But from what I recall I found that his argumentation was week and too emotional, I was not impressed because I felt he failed to deliver a convincing argument, or one that I could disagree with but still respect.

Also, considering him putting atheist messages on billboards and on bus signs makes him seem, oh whats a good term to use?... too attention seeking? Uh... or maybe... trying to hard?... either way it seems his style erks a lot of people, atheists alike. I have heard him described as Richard the-atheist-clown Dawkins.

[Lazarus]

James - Denny is asking you to cite Dawkins arguments and point out WHY they're flawed. He's not disputing that people think of him as Dawkins the clown. He's disputing the vlaidity of that image - and rightly so. Any criticism of Dawkins comes in vague platitudes and nonsense - so explicitly cite Dawkins himself, or stop posting. Because you're just proving Denny right.

Incidentally Denny, I happen to agree both on the topic, and that Chicken Little has some amazing pipes. When I first heard him belt out Take on Me I almost fell out of my chair.

[James the Red]

James - Denny is asking you to cite Dawkins arguments and point out WHY they're flawed. He's not disputing that people think of him as Dawkins the clown. He's disputing the vlaidity of that image - and rightly so. Any criticism of Dawkins comes in vague platitudes and nonsense - so explicitly cite Dawkins himself, or stop posting. Because you're just proving Denny right.

One example of his points in his documentary was in regards to some french fountain that supposedly had miraculous health benefits, then he cites statistics saying that the miracle water does not indeed do anything for the health at all. I found that a pretty weak-sauce argument against religion considering its just a local folk religious tourist spot. It wasn't worth my time, you think he would have better things to say in a documentary about religion. And that is just how he comes across overall, as atheism-light, trying to preach anti-religion to the masses.

It doesn't even matter if his arguments are good or not, his clownish persona has more to do with his antics rather than his argumentation. Though one article I just read says that Dawkins is too simplistic, and more sophisticated atheists tend to be more nuanced in their approach to religion. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

[Phier]

Yea, this thread is going to go as expected.

[Copperknickers II]

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.

I agree with an extent to people who say he is not a great philosopher. I think a good philosopher has to be at least somewhat original. All he does is pull together various existing scientific, humanistic and probabilistic arguments against religion. Just because you can write a good book on Nihilism, doesn't make you a great Nihilist philosopher. So the same goes for science. Besides, science is not a philosophy. Atheism isn't even really a philosophy, even if it is a philosophical position.

As I said in the other thread, if you try to read the God Delusion etc as philosophy it's no wonder you don't think it's very good. It's like reading the Bible as a science textbook. Dawkins might be competent, but he's not a competent philosopher, simply because he isn't really a philosopher at all. The article posted by James the Red is a great example of this. It totally misses the point of Dawkins' arguments, precisely because it tries to assign a philosophical agenda that doesn't really exist in his work.

Although that being said, it does have two valid criticisms:

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

2. The question of morality without religion is a very difficult issue, and not one that Dawkins approaches well when he says things like the following:

'Can we not design our society in such a way to have the sort of morality that we want to live in? If you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people: we don't believe in slavery anymore, we believe in the equality of women, we believe in being gentle, we believe in being kind to animals. Theses are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. They do not come from religion.'

The decline of slavery in Late antique Europe, and the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade, both definitively had their roots in Christianity. It's true that generally speaking, the scriptures didn't explicitly criticise slavery (or the ancient treatment of women), they just accepted them as a fact of life, but they certainly undermined the latter things:

'Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."'

And as for claiming that 'being gentle' doesn't come from religion, that's just laughable. 'Turn the other cheek' in Christianity, ahimsa in Indian religions, etc. Indeed arguably the vegetarianism and associated opposition to animal cruelty from the 1960s onwards was directly linked to the increased popularity of Hinduism and Buddhism in the West at the same time.

[Kyriakos]

I don't think i should bother with The OP Delusion

(joking But it should be noted that it is not rational to ask people to dig up quotes themselves; when dealing with thinkers one doesn't like they comment on quotes when and as they are provided, not the other way around. And yes, Dawkins is not a philosopher. We also have other hipster thinkers in Europe, such as that slovenian fat guy. Neither are interesting debaters, and have a trolling attitude as well).

[Taiji]

One example of his points in his documentary was in regards to some french fountain that supposedly had miraculous health benefits, then he cites statistics saying that the miracle water does not indeed do anything for the health at all. I found that a pretty weak-sauce argument against religion considering its just a local folk religious tourist spot. It wasn't worth my time, you think he would have better things to say in a documentary about religion. And that is just how he comes across overall, as atheism-light, trying to preach anti-religion to the masses.

It doesn't even matter if his arguments are good or not, his clownish persona has more to do with his antics rather than his argumentation. Though one article I just read says that Dawkins is too simplistic, and more sophisticated atheists tend to be more nuanced in their approach to religion. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

Someone wasn't paying attention. The author of that article seems to be Christian of the lying scumbag variety.

Here's another example to make it clearer: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...ms-empty-tomb/

Notice how keen he is to make atheism a religion? It's obvious he's a lying scumbag before we get past the first sentence!

*pats belly contentedly*

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Both articles are by the same guy, Theo Hobson... What a failure of a "journalist".

[Lazarus]

I found that a pretty weak-sauce argument against religion considering its just a local folk religious tourist spot.

Proving that the things religion claims to be true aren't actually true is a pretty strong-sauce starting point for an argument, so your dissatisfaction seems to be a personal problem rather than one that rests on Dawkins.

you think he would have better things to say in a documentary about religion.

You think he would have better things to do than dismantle his opponents claims? Do tell, what exactly would *you* be doing or focusing on?

It doesn't even matter if his arguments are good or not

You're wrong. This absolutely matters - and in fact comes in second only to whether or not the things he says are true or not.


With regard to your article Mr Theo Hobson, if you'll kindly see here... http://www.spectator.co.uk/author/theo-hobson/

Hasn't got the slightest clue what he's talking about. He's got a bone to pick, as the others pointed out.

[Mangalore]

...
2. The question of morality without religion is a very difficult issue, and not one that Dawkins approaches well when he says things like the following:

....

It's pretty simple. Religion is there to enforce morality, it is very crappy at formulating it, as crappy as random people making stuff up. Evidence #1: scripture.

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.