Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Ryft]

So did you actually read the book, or just critiques of the book?

I have read the book. And critiques of the book. And some of Dawkins' responses to those critiques. Unlike so many people, I don't digest material from only one side of an issue. But I have also spent years studying philosophy and know how to evaluate arguments. That is, I know how to think; and I bring such faculties to books like this one.

I haven't read any of Dawkins ...

When he writes on science, he is very good and recommendable. But when he expands into the arenas of philosophy and religion, he is absolutely embarrassing. As a qualified biologist he should stick to writing scientifically about biology, and leave metaphysical arguments to those actually qualified in the field.

The idea of making up an invisible Jewish entity that created the universe speaking magical words doesn't seem scientific to me.

It isn't scientific. But then no one pretends it is. When it comes to the origins of the universe, no answer is scientific—because the very nature of the case (the absence of a space-time manifold) precludes scientific inquiry. (I am choosing to ignore your fallacious prejudicial language, other than identifying it.)

Mr. Dawkins astutely describes faith and the character of God in the bible in a factual, based-on-the-bible, manner.

False. The Bible does not state anywhere that faith is "blind trust" in the absence of evidence, a "process of non-thinking" that is "evil." And the Bible does not state anywhere that God is petty, it does not state he is unjust, it does not state that he is sadomasochistic, etc. The Bible does, however, describe circumstances involving God which Dawkins evaluates ethically, arriving at such conclusions. His descriptions are not derived from biblical statements; they are derived from his ethical evaluations of biblical statements—i.e., "This can only be biographical material about Dawkins, describing his take on the Judeo-Christian God." That you agree with his ethical evaluations is only so much biographical information about you.

It is a Straw Man fallacy precisely because his attack is launched against something constructed by his ethical evaluations, creating "the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition and refuting it." If Dawkins wishes to critique the God of Judeo-Christianity, he should restrict his statements about God to actual biblical statements about God, not his evaluation thereof. And if he should do that, his list would be completely emptied (e.g., it is not 'ethnic cleansing' or 'homicidal' to attack and expel foreign forces who invaded your country, defying its sovereignty and government). Dawkins' list presupposes autonomy of not only mankind but the earth itself, which stands in contradiction to what the Bible states.

Nowadays it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the Christian God, to find the really, really, real Christian God.

Certainly. But that is not any kind of criticism because such is the case for pretty much any subject. An advanced course in astrophysics is needed to deeply comprehend the structure and nature of the cosmos. Who do you think would have a more accurate understanding about the cosmos: (a) a high school dropout, or (b) an astrophysicist with an advanced degree? Now, we cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field, but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter.

Dawkins is no more interpreting God than any of the thousands of Christian denominations.

And he is basing his interpretation upon... what? Theological ignorance, which he proudly admits. That is the salient point.

I haven't read the articles directly [on alleged Bible contradictions] ...

Says it all. Thank you.

Nor does he provide one single piece of evidence that proves the FSM-belief "as false with strong contradictory evidence" either! Shocking!

Um... <blinks>... no. That is not shocking. See, the book is not about the FSM.

No matter what subject your book is about (the FSM or otherwise), if you inform your readers that it is a delusion, which you set forth as "persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence," then people will sort of expect you to show that it is a persistent false belief using strong contradictory evidence. If you say you're going to deliver X, your readers will sort of expect you to deliver X. People are like that.

If it was about the FSM; if it was called 'The FSM' delusion and how it's delusional to literally believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created and governs the universe; and, just like with God, he failed to provide evidence of absence (for what there's absence of evidence of), would you also be saying that you couldn't call actually believing in the FSM delusional because there's no evidence against its existence either?

Dawkins asserts, correctly, that belief in the existence of X is delusional when it is a (i) persistent (ii) false belief held (iii) in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Let's break that down. It is the presence of contradicting evidence that renders the belief "X exists" as false. Now, someone might be unaware of this evidence which contradicts his belief that X exists, so it is not yet a delusion. What makes it a delusion is when he is faced with this contradicting evidence but persists in the belief anyway. (And no, it does not matter what you substitute 'X' with.)

If Dawkins fails to present evidence that contradicts "X exists," then he fails to prove that belief therein is false, much less delusional. "What if points to the absence of evidence for 'X exists' as evidence that X does not exist?" someone might ask (as it seems you have). Then he would be engaging in the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which would get counted among the other fallacies he commits. To argue that something is false because it hasn't been proven true is a very basic fallacy.

So if I believe there is a monster under my bed, is that not delusional because you have no evidence to disprove it, because I can just say it's invisible, inaudible and completely intangible and undetectable by any means whatsoever?

Sort of like the invisible, intangible, undetectable 'memes' Dawkins pretends is science?

Belief in monsters under your bed is delusional only if contradicting evidence proves it false and you continue to believe it anyway. If the monster has the properties you assert, I would tell you, "Don't worry about this fiendish creature. You said it cannot be seen, nor felt, nor even heard. He is therefore of no consequence to anyone."

Instead of presenting clear evidence for their divine claims, they merely repeat Christian dogma and try to discredit the approach and person of Dawkins.

Non-sequitur. Presenting clear evidence for divine claims is irrelevant in a critique of Dawkins' claims.

This is quite basic. The old trick on the burden of proof again.

It is not much of a trick. Dawkins shouldered the burden of proof and failed to meet it.

How did he shoulder the burden of proof? By staking the claim that belief in the existence of God is a delusion. Does he succeed at meeting this burden by assessing the state of evidence for belief in God, as you allude to? Absolutely not, because even if there is no evidence whatsoever for belief X, that does not prove it delusional. Remember, Dawkins affirmed—correctly—that a delusion is a false belief persistently held in the face of evidence that contradicts it. That is a very basic element of the definition: that the belief is false. "Not proven true" does not mean "proven false" (see argumentum ad ignorantiam). Yet proving that X is false is precisely what Dawkins' claim required of him.

If he cannot meet the burden of proof for this claim, he should have made a different one. And again, Dawkins' arguments stand or fall under their own merits, not on whether someone else can argue successfully for theirs; i.e., it is not as if Dawkins is right unless proven wrong (the same aforementioned fallacy.)

Let me please add that, Arcanus, you have written an absolutely fantastic post about the topic. It was thorough, and intelligent.

I appreciate the compliment. Thank you. However, the complete trainwreck of his argument says nothing about him as a person. I do not think Dawkins is an asshole. Quite the contrary, I think he is a charming fellow and a very gifted writer. But he is a biologist, not a philosopher. When he writes outside his field, it is embarrassing.

What did you think about the 'Methinks it is like a weasel," thing?

I think it is closer to an argument for teleological evolution than anything else, given its target phrase, specified keys, and artificial selection process. But Dawkins is aware of its weakness and has said that the program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately. I think it's fine as far as it goes, but I do not suppose that it goes very far.