Talk:Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Theology

"The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting."

Dawkins studying theology? That's something that we don't read every day hehehe (I need to comment this, if I would have better fluence in English I would make a joke) 201.74.190.97 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think even if I were an atheist I'd find Dawkins response very weak. McGrath isn't writing a book about astrology so his failure to respond to astrologers is a non-sequitir. If the point is that Dawkins finds Christian theology not worth study than I don't see why the religion would be worth writing about for him at all. However Dawkins does write about Christianity and when you write about a subject you really should be knowledgeable about it. If McGrath did write a criticism of astrology it would behoove him to be well-read in the subject.--T. Anthony 21:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

McGrath isn't writing a book about astrology so his failure to respond to astrologers is a non-sequitir. [...] If McGrath did write a criticism of astrology it would behoove him to be well-read in the subject.

I think your are missing the point, by a huge margin. If McGrath (or anyone else) wrote a criticism of astrology, it would be necessary to explain why the basic tenet of astrology seems extremely improbable. I.e. demonstrate that the presupposition that other planets and far-away stars and galaxies directly influencing human affairs is completely unsupported by any strong evidence.

What Dawkins' analogy for McGrath means, is that McGrath, if he were arguing in favour of astrology in the same vein as he actually is for religion / Christian theology, would demand Dawkins to be extremely well read in the specific mumbo-jumbo that astrologers shares among their peers. Ie that he would have to read, analyze and really grok stuff like

"Uranus brings with it a new way of looking at things, and its approach is best met with an expanded consciousness. Originality, inventions, computers, cutting-edge technologies and future events are all ruled by this Planet."

...and similar gobbledy-gook. (This was the first actual, random clipping Google gave me from an astrology-related web-site.)

Instead, Dawkins does what he would do for astrology: he studies the fundamental tenets of religion (there is one or more super-natural sentient being who created the universe and oversees it, taking a special interest in humans, or something to that effect), and calls bunkum. If he is correct, there is of course no need for him to go any deepier into a subject which would then be completely vacuous, empty, devoid of any coherence, and all that. Dawkins don't need to know how many angels there can be on the head of a pin, whether this fantasy being is 3 beings in one, or 1 being with 3 names, or whether there could be a whole pantheon of them or not, or whether thinking about such fantasies makes people feel better, or what people have historically been saying about these fantasies -- as long as there is no usable evidence to show that the occupations of theologians are anything but based on fantasies.

So, no, I definitely don't find his response weak. I find it a) spot on, b) thought-provoking, and c) funny. I get the same feeling from his response, as from reading H.C. Andersen's tale about the Emperor's clothes.

Mortene 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was quite on point I think. If you find a subject to be so vacuous that it's not worth deep study than it's also not worth arguing against. For McGrath astrology is likely as vacuous as theology is to Dawkins, but he is not writing on astrology. He likely believes it'd be a waste of his time. However if McGrath wanted to argue against it effectively he'd need to be well-read in it. It is perfectly valid, more than valid I'd say, to believe that you have to be well-versed in a subject if you want to be effective in arguing against it. If a scientist wants to argue against memetics he should be well-versed in that. If the hypothetical scientist thinks memes are vacuous pseudoscience than he or she likely won't waste time on the matter. Or at least will concede that those who support memetic theory will ignore the position s/he puts out as ignorant. If Dawkins thinks theology is vacuous then it would be logical not to waste his own time discussing religion. His opinions on the matter are not credible as argument unless he's willing to study it in depth. This is McGrath's point I assume, I've barely heard of McGrath though, and I think it's valid. It would be just as true if Dawkins was arguing against Marxism, Freudianism, astrology, or a belief in faeries. Your opinion on a subject should be informed if you want it to be credible. If you find the subject itself meaningless than it's not the subject you should be arguing about.--T. Anthony 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you find a subject to be so vacuous that it's not worth deep study than it's also not worth arguing against.

I think this is just plain false. Any skeptic worth his salt, like Michael Shermer, James Randi, Martin Gardner, etc etc, finds for instance astrology, homeopathy and fairies to be utter bunkum, and have little to no interest in the ridiculous details dreamt up by astrologers, homeopaths and fairieologists (if such a thing exists any more) about these topics -- as long as the basic assumptions have not been proven likely to be true. But: they still argue against believing in these things, exactly because the evidence for the basic assumptions are so weak (or completely non-existent).

I fail to see how this should not be completely analoguous to what Dawkins does with religion. Would you also say that for instance Shermer, Gardner and Randi should stop arguing about the silliness / ulikelyhood of the afore-mentioned things?

On a side note, I just noticed 5 minutes ago that PZ Myers of Pharyngula discussed exactly this topic in his latest blog entry, and he made the exact same reference to that H.C. Andersen fairy tale. Check out his entry called "The Courtier's Reply" from December 24th. Perhaps he is reading this discussion.  :-)

Mortene 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall Gardner actually studied Urantia quite thoroughly and talked a good deal with its practitioners before writing his book debunking it. Also possibly we're meaning different things. If what you want is a simple debunking than the standard is lower. You simply show why XYZ doesn't work or something. Anyway if Dawkins is simply a debunker than I'd agree his goals and investment are different. I thought he was wanting to make an actual argument against religion. If you want to argue against any ideology you do need to be well-read in it to be a credible voice on the matter. I could debunk elements of Marxism, with a little work, but to really "take on" Marxism I'd find it necessary to really study it. Possibly this is the kind of problem that just happens when a scientist tries his hands at the humanities or any other area they aren't trained for. Anyway Charles Templeton or even Isaac Asimov were better positioned to actually argue on religion, Dawkins basically says he's not and you have given no real defense to the contrary. (Although at this point I think we're spinning our wheels so I'll stop)--T. Anthony 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all? [1]

Laurence Boyce 12:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could not the same materialistic criticism be applied to philosophy? To the arts? None of those enrich the material welfare of humanity in any demonstrable way. The problem with Dawkins is that his naturalistic pragmatism is so narrow that it fails to even justify his own writings, most of which are philosophical and polemical, not scientific and practical. That said, and in spite of the insufficiencies of his argument, I favor leaving his responses intact in the article. Let reason and good sense revolt in the mind of the informed reader, as it's not necessarily the place of an encyclopedia to establish whose position is the more tenable as long as the content has achieved notability. 209.30.90.117 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawkins quotation

Just a small point. Dawkins is quoted as having said he "read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief." This is copied out of an American document, which explains the lack of a U in the word favour. However, as Dawkins is English, and this quotation is now on wikipedia, should it not be seen that he would have intended the U in the word?

I would say that it should appear here as it appeared in the original document. Otherwise you are reproducing it inaccurately. --Dannyno 20:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the quotation in a paragraph (first paragraph) because it really didn't have a point to have a section with one sentence and a quote. IronCrow (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dawkins God.jpg

Image:Dawkins God.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)