Dawkins and Determinism

[naimless]

For starters, I believe that there is probably no god and that the universe is deterministic. Dawkins appears to believe similarly.

Now, why would a man who has discovered this allow himself to be emotionally attached to spreading atheism?

There is something so trivial about it all.

I believe you are using a very simplistic reading of determinism.

The following was written about Sam Harris, but it obviously applies.

"This view fails to factor in a fundamental and necessary element of determinism, viz. that the state of the universe at any given moment contributes to the state of the universe in the very next moment by way of a set of causal relationships. So, simply because Sam Harris cannot alter his physiology or change his mind in some way required by an agent-causal system does not mean he cannot participate in the causal chains which might results in another person being persuaded by a certain argument, etc. To claim that the state of the universe at any given moment is fixed regardless of the behavior of the objects which populate it would be a non-causal view of the universe, since the objects in that universe seemingly maintain no causal relationship with one another"

I've seen Sam a lot and I feel he addresses this point here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

I don't think he denies that he can participate, but rather that his participations are severely limited and the choices that are made are beyond his concious control. He considers deep breathing exercises and makes a good example of choosing any city in the world.

Indeed, Sam seems to "get it" a lot more than Dawkins does in terms of being aware of the negative effects that his preaching could also cause. In other words, just because you think you are participating positively in a causal chain does not make it so. I'm unsure of how someone who has studied this field cannot develop a "professional paranoia" or a "pause for thought" as Sam puts it with regards to criticising their own approaches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowc

He makes the point well here, but when he tries to extend it, Dawkins expresses, "I think you have made that point well Sam, time to move on". Hitchens seems to get it a bit more - he addresses that there is something serious and important about faith and alludes to society separating numinous experiences from superstition possibly being a way to explore it more.

Hitchens describes it as an "X factor that will persist", Harris says a "usefulness to seeking profundity as a matter of attention" and "our neglect of this area as atheists, at times makes even our craziest opponents opponents seem wiser than we are". Indeed the West seems incredibly trivial over its preoccupations of the materialistic and only religion traditionally seems to annunciate this.

I have found cleverness does not equate to wisdom when dealing with people. People are, by in large, illogical, and there is a lot of this universe yet to discover. Hitchens says, "we ought to in a sense welcome... something like faith", he expands, "something like the belief that there must be more than we can know".

Dawkins takes this for a given, as if everyone he debates theism with recognises this when he refers to his atheism. I feel we only communicate in miscommunication this way. One does not play a draughts player in chess. It is unsporting.

Hitchens recognises, "clearly we're not cultural vandals but maybe we should think of the way in which so many people think that we are".

I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.


If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

He was the professor of public understanding of science at oxford. He is well known for his work in evolution and zoology as well. He does focus on evolution very much. Genetics also. Alot of these problems arise from creationist and religious distorting or attack these fields of study. He spoke out against religion because of it's corruptness. He defends atheism because of the fucked up things religion has done and it's irrational beliefs that stunt our progress in science, culture, morals, laws, and education to name a few. And saying if he was focused on the truth he would've just focus on the work well why is that? He stands against the lie and stone age myths that religion spreads and uses to harm and control things and people so how does him standing for atheism contradict him being motivated by truth?

I have seen him enter debates with a lot of people who it is pointless, and often cruel, to enter debates with. It ends up in an argument of "I prefer red, I prefer blue" similar to watching two politicians lock horns. The opposing person clearly hasn't had the same experience that he had as a teenager researching into metaphysical naturalism and being able to ask "why?" to his parents.

Furthermore, there are quite a few scientists who are not atheists. I think science focuses on agnosticism, if not then it remains unbiased on the issue of theism. I agree with him on a lot of things, especially regarding the harm organised religion causes. But there is also a harm in taking people out of theist beliefs, or blaming people for having them.

I'm unsure of how he does not consider this when addressing audiences that clearly have had a different experience to him.