In response to the Skeptic Zone here.
The Courtier's Reply is a term that has come to be used for the response to the
Courtier's Reply, and so you are right to say that it might be more proper to call it the Courtier's Reply Reply, but that gets awkward to say.
Here is the problem. Sure, I don't have to understand the difference between, let's say, Sunni and Shiite Islam if my disagreement with Islam has primarily to do with whether I believe that Allah, through the Angel Gabriel, dictated the Qu'ran to Muhammad in Arabic. Both Sunnis and Shiites agree on this, and the question of how the succession in the Caliphate should have gone is not relevant to the fundamental issue between myself and Muslims of either stripe.
On the other hand, if something is relevant to the reasons why one believes that Muhammad did receive this revelation, then I had better understand the reasons Muslims have for believing this I am going to seem pretty ignorant to my Muslim interlocutors. I need to know what their best reasons are. Or, I should at least show that I have tried to understand it. A person's time is limited, so I could reject Islam without this kind of information. But if I want to write The Muslim Delusion, then I need to know what the best Muslim scholars have to offer on why they think Islam is true. If I write a book that makes no attempt to understand this, then they have every right to complain that I am arguing from a position of ignorance, even if Islam is delusional.
When you do something like say that all forms of the Cosmological Argument fail to the "Who made God" question, there are some obvious ways that argument defenders have of responding to this, and you ought to know what those are and rebut them.
Now, I think there is further discussion which might develop the "Who made God" response to more sophisticated version of the Cosmological Arguments. For example, some people argue that if there was a time prior to the beginning of the universe, the causal principle should apply that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, but if there was no prior time, and time began at the Big Bang, then the causal principle should not be applied. But a popular kind of response to arguments like Aquinas's and Craig's, sometimes given in intro philosophy classes, makes it seem as if they somehow didn't think to ask the question "Who made God," a question asked by most grade school children.
On the famous Trilemma argument, he gives a two paragraph rebuttal the completely ignores a wide range of arguments on both sides. John Beversluis wrote a chapter in his revised C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, which he considers to be an effective take-down of the argument, but in a footnote criticizes as too quick and too easy Hitchens's three-paragraph refutation. I'm sure he would say the same thing about Dawkins's two paragraphs.
Now Dawkins has a quadrilemma concerning those who believe in God, (or, as he puts it, don't believe in evolution) and that is that they are either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. But I think he think that theism is really a stupid position.
So, if Dawkins has reasons for rejecting theism in general, then, sure, he shouldn't be expected to know understand, for example, the filioque controversy about the procession of the Holy Spirit. But he should be expected to understand, or at least make an effort to understand the reasons why someone might think that the evidence for God is reasonably good, or that it can be justified as a properly basic belief.
Another example: Dawkins assumes that if believers just believe on tradition and pay no attention to evidence. Reading him, you would never guess that one of the most popular books on Christianity is Josh McDowell's book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or that there is another book called Faith Founded on Fact. Now, these people may be all wrong, and it could be that they don't have good evidence, but a well-informed anti-apologist should be aware that there are Christians out there who think the evidence favors them.
Myers' presentation of the Courtier's reply appears stupid because he takes discussions that take place on the assumption that the emperor is clothed as a basis for answering the question of whether or not he is clothed, when in fact he appears naked. But if there are books offering reasons for thinking that the emperor is really clothed, then it is fair to expect someone defending the emperor's nudity to consider them.
I'm sure Dawkins is an intelligent person, but my complaint is that he projects and impression that he doesn't have to bother to understand his opponents in order to attack them. He has I believe an earned reputation for lucid explanations of Darwinian biology, but the lack of effort to understand the people he is criticizing, (and his excuses for making no such effort), means that if anyone is going to talk me out of my religious beliefs, it won't be him.
13 comments:
Victor,
This is a more fair treatment of Dawkins than I have heard you make in the past. If he makes bad philosophical arguments, that's fair game. Go ahead and criticize. But you don't need to resort to namecalling, and you don't need to misrepresent his positions. First understand them (which you haven't always done), then argue against them, criticize them, and give credit where credit is due.
For what it's worth, a lot of people have been persuaded by reading his books.
But you don't need to resort to namecalling
So you condemn Dawkins when he endorses making people the butt of contempt, and calling people 'faithheads'?
First understand them (which you haven't always done)
As usual, this is a case of the pot calling the ivory black. "Realizing that they said something stupid" isn't a 'lack of understanding'.
For what it's worth, a lot of people have been persuaded by reading his books.
The same can be said of everyone from Neil Tyson and Kent Hovind.
But he should be expected to understand, or at least make an effort to understand the reasons why someone might think that the evidence for God is reasonably good, or that it can be justified as a properly basic belief.
Which, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, he does not understand. It bugs the piss out of people that the world's most famous atheist could have had his criticisms dismantled by a theist like Plantinga, to say nothing of Feser - but that is what happened, which can be plainly seen.
And by the way - while we continue to note that the leaders of the Cult of Gnu can't even be bothered to understand the arguments that they've spent a lot of time and ink attacking, I'll also note that the lesser leaders are still devolving into conflict with each other.
So much for the scientific minded loving to be challenged and welcoming doubt.
A take-down of Dawkins by Plantinga and Feser?
Oh how satirical. Such delightful spoof.
" he projects an impression that he doesn't have to bother to understand his opponents in order to attack them."
That is exactly the impression that you project when attacking Dawkins. For instance, why do you keep saying that Dawkins thinks a religious upbringing is child abuse? He has explained what he means, why not attack that?
In your post you say that Dawkins' famous 'ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked' quote applies to people who believe in God "(or, as he puts it, don't believe in evolution)" but believing in God and not believing in evolution are not the same thing at all and Dawkins has never said that they are. He is not even talking about Darwinism and the theory of natural selection here but simply the theory of evolution and common descent.
Dawkins is not even as hostile to the concept of God as you make him out to be. He has said that he thinks a good case could be made for the existence of a deistic God, based on the fine-tuning argument. Not a case that he accepts of course but a case that needs to be answered.
Certainly there are all sorts of criticisms that could fairly be made of Dawkins. His understanding of the Trilemma is very odd, he gets Aquinas wrong, he misrepresents Pascal, he misunderstands the argument for Purgatory and so on and so on. But the criticisms from religious people are usually so full of misrepresentations and insults that most of the time it hardly seems worth reading them.
^ Isn't it amazing how accurately I had Kathen pegged from just her (or his) initial post here?
I think he thinks that evolution leads to atheism.
Dawkins (and evolutionists in general) doesn't simply think "that [belief in] evolution leads to [belief in] atheism", he knows that what he has in mind when he says "evolution" is equivalent to God-denial. As, indeed, what he has in mind (Darwinism) *is* equivalent to God-denial.
That is exactly the impression that you project when attacking Dawkins. For instance, why do you keep saying that Dawkins thinks a religious upbringing is child abuse? He has explained what he means, why not attack that?
There is significant overlap between the two, and the inanity of Dawkins' views on child abuse haven't been glossed over on this blog besides.
Dawkins is not even as hostile to the concept of God as you make him out to be. He has said that he thinks a good case could be made for the existence of a deistic God, based on the fine-tuning argument. Not a case that he accepts of course but a case that needs to be answered.
He said that, once, and I recall he backtracked later and talked about how he was giving that for the sake of argument. He's also on record as saying he's 6.9~ out of 7 sure God does not exist, so exactly how 'good' of a case can he say exists?
But the criticisms from religious people are usually so full of misrepresentations and insults that most of the time it hardly seems worth reading them.
Baloney, especially since 'religious people' have included Plantinga and others. By the by - all those criticisms you yourself listed of Dawkins. Many others have pointed them out as well.
Has Dawkins admitted as much? Or has he completely bullshitted everyone and ducked things to the point where it was obvious he was in over his head?
Victor Reppert
You say: "I think he thinks that evolution leads to atheism."
In some sense he certainly does think that. He thinks that Darwinism provides a better explanation than divine design for the structure and function of organisms. He thinks it was hardly possible to be an atheist before Darwin but that it is the most reasonable position to hold now. He thinks that religious beliefs are the most important obstacle to accepting evolution. He thinks that religion is or can be a dangerous and damaging idea and one that is worth fighting and that convincing people of the truth of evolution may be a step towards the eradication of religion. Possibly, although I am not at all sure about this, he thinks that Darwinism entails the nonexistence of God.
But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth.
More on Victor's critique: Who made God?"
In some sense he certainly does think that. He thinks that Darwinism provides a better explanation than divine design for the structure and function of organisms.
And the only way for him to think as much is to present evolutionary theory in a way that goes utterly beyond science. That he does so while presenting it as THE scientific view, is all the worse for him.
But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth.
That isn't exactly an improvement.
Kathen: "But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth."
Prediction: Kathen will eventually be recognized by the rest of you as being as intellectually dishonest as 'I-pretend' and that sad troll from Australia.
Post a Comment