Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

kelly1

Interesting article in the Spectator.

Methinks cracks are starting to appear in his thesis.

The article contains a link to the debate below. Very long but enjoyable.

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Spectator.

Methinks cracks are starting to appear in his thesis.

The article contains a link to the debate below. Very long but enjoyable.

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Depends on what you think his "thesis" is

A lot of people seem to think that since Dawkins is a scientist he therefore cannot believe anything unless it is supported by a scientific theory. When he says he doesn't believe God exists people then turn on him for having an "unscientific" position because they say science cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist.

Which is true, but it is like saying a "scientist" shouldn't believe things fall downward because science cannot demonstrate they aren't going to fall up the next time ...

philologos

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

Ever heard of a library?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago.

did you ever?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

Try Dennett's Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

did you ever?

I at least gave the God Delusion a chance in terms of challenging my viewpoint.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Try Dennett's Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

Dennett's another who falls into the Dawkinite camp, along with Harris and Hitchens.

So which one is better, God is not Great, or Breaking the Spell?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....Dennett's another who falls into the Dawkinite camp, along with Harris and Hitchens.

Don't you think thats a littel bit prejudiced? Your running with the popular 4 horsemen theme?

Jakkass wrote: »

So which one is better, God is not Great, or Breaking the Spell?

I haven't read anything of Hitchens it would be a waste of time preaching to the choir kind of thing. But Breaking the Spell helped me understand the reasoning behind religion from a natural pov.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't you think thats a littel bit prejudiced? Your running with the popular 4 horsemen theme?

Not really. If they continually blurb each others books, and sit in a room for two hours agreeing with eachother (which is the 4 Horsemen thing you are discussing, it's on Youtube also) surely they have given themselves that title.

I haven't read anything of Hitchens it would be a waste of time preaching to the choir kind of thing. But Breaking the Spell helped me understand the reasoning behind religion from a natural pov.

I'll consider it anyway.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. If they continually blurb each others books, and sit in a room for two hours agreeing with eachother (which is the 4 Horsemen thing you are discussing, it's on Youtube also) surely they have given themselves that title.

I watched it, I thought it was quite interesting how Dennett interacted with Hitchens and Dawkins.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll consider it anyway.

Its a good read.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed.

If you disagree with the book's fundamental assumption, then it's little wonder you found it disappointing.

Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.

If you're interested in reading up any more, then here's my guide:

Sam Harris, The End of Faith - passionate and well-written description of what religion does, what it has achieved, and the philosophical basis for religious belief.

Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - magnificently disorganized discussion of what religion is versus what religious people think religion is. Explains at length why religion, contrary to what most religious people think, is open to rational inquiry.

Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained - an academic-toned discussion which explains why so many societies, and so many people, exhibit religious behavior.

Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great - one man's broadside against religion. By turns, splendidly rude, hilarious and occasionally thought-provoking, it has no pretensions to explaining anything. It's just a rant.

Which one (or more) you choose, if any, and what you will get from reading, is entirely up to you.

If you're genuinely interested in advancing your understanding of religion in general, then I'd recommend the Boyer.

JoeB-

I didn't watch the full interview, may watch it later...

What points has Dawkins had to concede? Surely Dawkins doesn't now agree with the fantastical claim that God popped into existence from nowhere and that this can be proved scientifically?

For me, the huge amount of false religions around is enough to convince me that believers willl believe anything, regardless of it's probable truth value....

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Spectator.

A nasty case of attack the messenger, methinks.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I at least gave the God Delusion a chance in terms of challenging my viewpoint.

If you say so

Fanny Cradock

People may read a little too much into the admission that 'a serious case could be made for a deistic God'. I believe that there is a serious case that O.J. didn't kill his wife and her lover - he got off, didn't he! - but that's not to say I believe he is innocent. While I was a little taken aback after hearing his admission, it's probably a case of wishful thinking on our part. Still, it is interesting nevertheless.

By way of clarification - the link in the article Kelly provided is actually for a debate between Lennox and Dawkins that occurred sometime in 2007. The debate the article is speaking of took place around Oct 2008 - again against Lennox.

As I really enjoyed the 2007 debate (Lennox was fantastic, and I would heartily recommend reading God's Undertaker) it's a shame that the most recent hasn't yet surfaced on the internet.

kelly1

Another analysis here

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you think his "thesis" is

A lot of people seem to think that since Dawkins is a scientist he therefore cannot believe anything unless it is supported by a scientific theory. When he says he doesn't believe God exists people then turn on him for having an "unscientific" position because they say science cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist.

Which is true, but it is like saying a "scientist" shouldn't believe things fall downward because science cannot demonstrate they aren't going to fall up the next time ...

I think Dawkins is quite closed-minded. He doesn't seem to be able to think philosophically.

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes. He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce. To quote "There is a God" by Anthony Flew:

"The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translations whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally the amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two fundamentally different structures of information management and chemical activity are co-ordinated by the universal genetic code."

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

According to Paul Davies,

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

He also wrote:

"The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge"

From http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/OriginsOfLife_II.pdf

kelly1

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I didn't watch the full interview, may watch it later...

I should have clarified that the link I posted for to their first debate in 2007 (as pointed out by FC and the Spectator article).

JoeBallantine wrote: »

For me, the huge amount of false religions around is enough to convince me that believers willl believe anything, regardless of it's probable truth value....

The point is that a majority of us believe in a Creator.

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote: »

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes. He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

Just on this point, I think his stance is that 'I don't know' doesn't mean 'I don't know, so god must have done it.'

philologos

robindch wrote: »

If you disagree with the book's fundamental assumption, then it's little wonder you found it disappointing.

Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.

If you're interested in reading up any more, then here's my guide:

Sam Harris, The End of Faith - passionate and well-written description of what religion does, what it has achieved, and the philosophical basis for religious belief.

Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - magnificently disorganized discussion of what religion is versus what religious people think religion is. Explains at length why religion, contrary to what most religious people think, is open to rational inquiry.

Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained - an academic-toned discussion which explains why so many societies, and so many people, exhibit religious behavior.

Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great - one man's broadside against religion. By turns, splendidly rude, hilarious and occasionally thought-provoking, it has no pretensions to explaining anything. It's just a rant.

Which one (or more) you choose, if any, and what you will get from reading, is entirely up to you.

If you're genuinely interested in advancing your understanding of religion in general, then I'd recommend the Boyer.

Now that you have provided someone who isn't one of the "4 Horsemen", I may find Pascal Boyers book. As for the best sellers from the religious camp, I believe Allister McGrath has had quite a few himself.

By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality. Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely? Not all chatter is positive chatter.

If I disagree with the books assumption surely Richard Dawkins if he is to prove religion a delusion should convince me with very very good arguments, however, he failed, it turned into a rant based on nothing more than straw clinging in most sections.

A Primal Nut

You say Dawkins is not open-minded, yet he talks about how a good case could be made for god or that aliens were the origin of life. Sounds very open-minded to me. The reason he says its more likely is because there are a billion billion planets in the galaxy so there is a good chance there is intelligent life somewhere. Its highly unlikely they started life on earth (as Dawkins believes) but more likely than God, as there is at least a statistical probability they exist in comparison to God which is impossible.

He says a case could be made for God to exist, but he means this in the sense that a case could also be made the world is flat are that something than can travel faster than the speed of light. People can give certain evidence but as long as it breaks all the laws of science, Dawkins ain't gonna believe it. Its rediculous to suggest that he is backtracking!! There is nothing remarkable about his comment.

As for matter being created out of nothing, most Scientists believe that, but as Dawkins is a biologist he isn't the guy to ask anyway.

But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent.

There are many theories of how this can happen; none of them are unlikely when you consider the number of planets and the length of time each has been around for.

If you consider life to have a sense of purpose then matter does too - for example, the idea that atoms form molecules in order to have a stable number of electrons in their outer shells. The sense of purpose the article talks about is really just a quest for stability and is no different in matter than in genes or organisms, where it is simply more complicated and advanced, hence evolution.

And yes the theory of how the universe works and where life came from is evolving...more and more away from a creator since Newton and then Darwin and then Einstein and now Hawking and Dawkins.

As for who built the museum, how the hell is that relevant?

Stupid article...instead of talking about why Dawkins might be wrong, it simply suggests that Dawkins might admit that he is wrong. Classic case of shoot the messenger. Whether or not Dawkins chooses to believe in something or not is irrelevant; its whether what he believes in is true that matters, i.e. i am more interested in whether evolution is true than whether Dawkins personally believes in Evolution or not. This article is more interested in what Dawkins chooses to believe than whether what he says is actually true.

You could choose to believe Dawkins is a money-grabbing liar, idiot, poor author or poor debator or is attempting to use Evolution and Religion for his own ends. It still doesn't change the fact that Evolution is true and God isn't.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes.

Everyone's knowledge of abiogenesis contains gaping holes. We don't know how it happened. We have dozens of plausible hypothesis, but not enough information to choose an optimum candidate for refinement and the construction of theory. Dawkins does not hide this. No biologist does.

kelly1 wrote: »

He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same.

Firstly, he makes no assertion that life is goal-directed. Quite the opposite. Such a position would be a gross misunderstanding of both our abiogenesis hypotheses and the theory of evolution. Secondly, he has at various times provided not one but several plausible means by which life might have emerged from non-life. There is one in the opening chapters of The Selfish Gene and I understand there's another in The Ancestor's Tale.

Both of these models, and others he has mentioned, are not of his devising at all but are hypotheses made by chemists and biologists. The models are all quite plausible and none require any form of supernatural intervention.

kelly1 wrote: »

He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

No. He has assumed that position because our understanding of biology does not require an alternative explanation. The emergence of life from non-life is a simple explanation. The creation of life by God is complex and contains non-testable elements. At this time, the general abiogenesis hypothesis is holding, we see no need to invoke any other influences. Going by Occam's Razor, abiogenesis is the logical model to assume first. We can test it. If it fails, we can then consider alternative models.

Dawkins is acting in accordance with the scientific method.

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce. To quote "There is a God" by Anthony Flew:

"The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translations whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally the amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two fundamentally different structures of information management and chemical activity are co-ordinated by the universal genetic code."

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

The quote you provided does not support your assertion. It is merely a description of how life currently functions on a cellular level. We can assume that the first life or self-replicating structures did not use such a complex system. If you'd like to discuss abiogenesis further, you can take it to the BC&P thread where I'll happily debate the matter with you. Otherwise, I suspect this point could drag us off-topic significantly.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to Paul Davies,

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

Explicable within the context of normal abiogenesis. There's nothing radical here.

kelly1 wrote: »

He also wrote:

"The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge"

From http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/OriginsOfLife_II.pdf

Paul Davies makes arguments from incredulity and lack of imagination here. It may be a conceptual challenge, but that does not allow us to insert God. Davies is quite popular amongst some religious types, but his work does not impress chemists or biologists.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the best sellers from the religious camp, I believe Allister McGrath has had quite a few himself. By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality.

Agreed. I've not read any of McGrath's books, but I've heard him speak and read a few of his articles and for me, listening to his endless flurries of non-sequiturs is rather like listening to somebody play Chopin on an untuned piano with sausage fingers.

Jakkass wrote: »

Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely?

Yes, in places it is. But I don't believe that it's a great book either and I think that some A+A posters could put together something better. It looked to me like it was cobbled together in a hurry. From the number of misunderstandings that I've seen derive from it, I don't really think that he added to the debate very much, other than to reduce the stigma of public atheism (which I suppose is a good enough thing).

But as above, it may help if you're more clear about what kind of a book you're looking for. You may be looking for something philosophical like David Hume's excellent Dialogs on Natural Religion instead of about the nature of belief and knowledge in preference to Boyer's very recent evolutionary-psychological approach.

philologos

I've read some of David Hume already. I'm studying the Philosophy of Religion this semester so I've seen his critiques of various arguments for God's existence. I've also seen his arguments on other philosophical topics, and I must admit they are very good, however he doesn't quite refute the possibility of God's existence entirely in any of the pieces of his work I have read.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality. Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely? Not all chatter is positive chatter.

Usually the opposite, I find.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I think Dawkins is quite closed-minded. He doesn't seem to be able to think philosophically.

Well probably not, but then "thinking philosophically" seems to mean being open to anything that the human mind can imagine, irrespective of the actual evidence that such things are true.

Philosophy tends to value the human imagination at a higher level than I think Dawkins is comfortable with, given the vast amount of times the human imagination gets things completely wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

"Goal directed life" ... er, not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I assure you Dawkins has never put forward that biological evolution has a "goal"

And there are plenty of coherent arguments as to how life could have "emerged" from non-life ("life" is simple a human classification, what we call life is simply a complex process of chemical reactions, the universe really doesn't view life as being separate to any other chemical reaction).

The problem isn't imagining how it could happen in a materialistic fashion, the problem is figuring out which way it actually did happen.

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce.

No, actually it isn't.

A good while ago we discovered RNA, which is simpler to DNA but can also carry information and produce proteins, and about 15 years ago we discovered PNA, which is an even simpler molecule, and far more stable, that can carry information and produce protein like molecules (it is thought that PNA pre-dates the evolution of proteins)

Life on Earth has evolved to use DNA exclusively, but life does not require DNA and it is very doubtful that early life had it.

kelly1 wrote: »

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

Davis is setting up a straw man there, because "information storing" doesn't mean life is more than complex chemical reactions. Complex chemical reactions can store information.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I've read some of David Hume already [...] however he doesn't quite refute the possibility of God's existence entirely in any of the pieces of his work I have read.

Hume doesn't refute the possibility of the christian deity's existence, since it's elegantly impossible to do so -- the same reason that Dawkins and the rest don't either.

Though even if it were possible to disprove the existence of the christian deity, it's debatable whether or not Hume would actually have done it. Heresy was still a crime in Hume's day and the state had shown itself willing and able to execute people to protect religious ideas from criticism. As it was, Hume was prosecuted for heresy once (he got off, I believe on a technicality), had trouble gaining a secure academic position, his Dialogs on Natural Religion were not published during his lifetime and when they did finally appear, they were published anonymously.

ChocolateSauce

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce.

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

Clearly DNA isn't the only means. After all, long ago, when the first substances started to replicate, DNA wasn't around. DNA evolved from simpler molecules which had some of DNA's replication properties.

AtomicHorror

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Clearly DNA isn't the only means. After all, long ago, when the first substances started to replicate, DNA wasn't around. DNA evolved from simpler molecules which had some of DNA's replication properties.

Well it might well have been around- I'd be surprised if it weren't. But it wouldn't be a good candidate for our ancestor replicator. DNA needs a lot of extra bits to help it replicate efficiently (I'd say it can do it alone but at a very low rate). So while I'm sure it was around, it was probably being well out-competed by other nucleic acids such as RNA, which can function as both enzyme and genetic information.

Morbert

Anyone who says Dawkins is close minded doesn't understand his stance very well. In fact, they probably don't understand atheism very well.

Atheism is a remarkably simple idea: It is the idea that God is not evident, and that it is therefore unwise to believe he exists until evidence can be presented. It is a subset of agnosticism, and does not hinge on some sacred axiom stating that He does not exist, or that science answers everything. It seems a lot of people don't understand this, and are therefore "shocked" when Dawkins makes "admissions" about the possibility of the existence of God, or the limitations of science.

Dawkins primary thesis is that the beauty and complexity of life and the universe should not be interpreted as evidence of God. He argues this extremely well, and his arguments in this regard have not been answered to this day.

Dawkins also debates issues regarding the role and influence of religion in society. Plenty of valid objections to these arguments have been made, but this is not what Dawkins is about. Believing that religion = bad influence is not a necessary part of Atheism.

Christian apologists tend to be content to either conflate religion with morality, and tender such non-sequiturs as counter-arguments, or ignore Atheist arguments altogether and claim that complexity = evidence for God.

kelly1

Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

- The source of consciousness
- Origins of life.
- Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

- Who created the Creator?
- He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
- That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
- That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

His attacks on religion, which contain so much exaggeration, sarcasm and flippancy, undermine his credibility.

This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.