Your Views on Dawkins?

[KichigaiNeko]

You are a philosophy student??

Keep questioning.

Also would you please read our "How to section" http://atheistforums.org/forum-40.html

Especially the BB code to help with the quotes you are answering.

[clemdog14]

Yes. I majored in Philosophy in undergraduate and I am currently studying at a seminary. I always enjoyed debating philosophic things because it is hard finding others who enjoy it.

I'm trying to learn the code. Thanks for the help. I appreciate it.

[Voltron]

I do not claim to be a scientist. I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

Here is my source:

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

I understand, I am not looking at the whole premise of the book, rather, I am investigating a claim that he made which appears to be logically invalid.

Once again this: " incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God." was for the evidence that I posted. Not on the whole thesis of the book.

So you are cherry picking and leaving out vital elements regarding his reasons for arriving at his conclusions about the best explanation.
How do you suppose that he got to those assumptions?

That source you sited earlier uses a very incomplete analogy too. This assumes that all you have to go on is the noise you hear when determining the cause at the stadium. We have the ability to research, gather data, make reasonable decisions based on that data. If you followed up and researched what caused the ruckus at the stadium, you have done much more than simply speculate what the likelier cause was and would arrive at a much more satisfying conclusion.

[KichigaiNeko]

Yes. I majored in Philosophy in undergraduate and I am currently studying at a seminary. I always enjoyed debating philosophic things because it is hard finding others who enjoy it.

I'm trying to learn the code. Thanks for the help. I appreciate it.

Then why reference a scientist?? You clearly have no reference point to argue....scientifically. As has been pointed out to you "logic is just a tool, reason is what you fear"

What you fail to understand is that no one deifies Hitchen, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett... "The Four Horsemen". It is a silly, childish notion that all of them would reject outright.

Are you in training to become a priest??

I am currently studying at a seminary.

The Page/ Thread I referenced has a number of "stickied" threads to aid a new comer. Take some time to read through our major categories and you may find information you are seeking, so far you are just rehashing a topic that has been done to dead with nothing new to offer. THEN start a new thread with your question and relate back to that old thread may also help you.

Good luck.

[clemdog14]

So you are cherry picking and leaving out vital elements regarding his reasons for arriving at his conclusions about the best explanation.
How do you suppose that he got to those assumptions?

I wouldn't say per se that I am cherry picking. I am just quoting a section when he compares picking unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

That source you sited early uses a very incomplete analogy too. This assumes that all you have to go on is the noise you hear when determining the cause at the stadium. We have the ability to research, gather data, make reasonable decisions based on that data. If you followed up and researched what caused the ruckus at the stadium, you have done much more than simply speculate what the likelier cause was and would arrive at a much more satisfying conclusion.

Maybe it is an incomplete analogy. It's true that you could probably find the answer by researching the stadium, however, I think that when comparing the two (the scientific inquiry on unguided Darwinian evolution vs. the existence of God) one cannot really evaluate the existence of God scientifically.

Plantinga's analogy was meant to represent that given each option and their low probabilities, that picking one over the other (even though both are largely improbable based on the argument) does not really follow. He was not trying to ascertain the scientific study of the stadium noises.

---

What you fail to understand is that no one deifies Hitchen, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett... "The Four Horsemen". It is a silly, childish notion that all of them would reject outright.

I am not being sarcastic in this reply. This is the answer I was looking for in my thread. I am just curious on what you all think of Richard Dawkins.

Are you in training to become a priest??

I do not know yet. I do not know my vocation yet, however, I am leaning towards counseling.

Take some time to read through our major categories and you may find information you are seeking

I appreciate it.

[Cato]

I do not claim to be a scientist.

No shit. Bypassing Dawkins' credentials and work on the matter was a dead give away.

I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

Oh, the anticipation is killing me. Renowned evolutionary biologist's words vs. some dude that takes at face value the words from some asshole that speaks from a riser and the wisdom of CARM.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

Uh, evidence!!! There's a plethora of evidence for speciation through natural selection (evolution) and absolutely no evidence for your god. Dawkins wrote a book in 1996 titled Climbing Mount Improbable . Is it a fair assumption that you didn't read it? How about The Selfish Gene (1976), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaer (1986), or The River Out of Eden (1995)? Dawkins published two more books before penning The God Delusion .

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

You are a disingenuous cunt, but I guess lying for Jesus is ok, right? You seperate the argument with a dash, but leave the reader assuming that Dawkins made the 747 claim when in fact he destroyed it in the same book you pretend to be quoting. Only an ignorant creationist hack uses the term 'unguided Darwinism'. You know fuck all about natural selection, unguided...dolt.


I won't bore the forum with your laundry list of plays that would elicite a Notre Dame crowd to cheer, but will tell you that any example you give for their cheer has been obserevable and not outside the realm of possibility. Your god has never been observed. Also, Plantinga's an idiot. I fear the 1920's Notre Dame four horseman more than those dreamt by John of Patmos.

[clemdog14]

I did not try to bypass any of Dawkin's credentials. I claimed that he is a brilliant scientist, however, a poor philosopher.

Why all the ad hominems man? Just trying to have a conversation.

You are a disingenuous cunt,

dolt.

Also, I don't deny that evolution could have happened. I just disagree in that it is unguided evolution in that it is naturalistic. I am fine with guided evolution.

[Aractus]

In my opinion, I think that some of Richard Dawkins' viewpoints are sometimes logically invalid. I respect him as a human and a brilliant scientist, however, when he dwells into philosophy, frankly, he is not a good philosopher.

This is exactly what happens when people start talking about things that aren't their area of expertise. I don't follow his work much, but he seems to think being stubborn and narrow-minded is fine as long you're a Bible-hating-atheist. The truth is that most atheists don't hate the Bible, and many even respect Christians for their morals (and some of my atheist friends fall into this category). With him it seems to be very much "us and them", and I think it's a mistake for anyone - and Christians foremost - to have that attitude towards other people.

[Voltron]

I wouldn't say per se that I am cherry picking. I am just quoting a section when he compares picking unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

Maybe it is an incomplete analogy. It's true that you could probably find the answer by researching the stadium, however, I think that when comparing the two (the scientific inquiry on unguided Darwinian evolution vs. the existence of God) one cannot really evaluate the existence of God scientifically.

Plantinga's analogy was meant to represent that given each option and their low probabilities, that picking one over the other (even though both are largely improbable based on the argument) does not really follow. He was not trying to ascertain the scientific study of the stadium noises.

You're really whittling it down to the point where you are portraying Dawkins as providing a hypothesis with no rational theory or evidence and making a simple choice between that or god.

Why believe in god then?

Again, these two improbable options differ greatly.
Improbable, no evidence
Improbable, with evidence.
What makes more sense? This is not merely flipping a coin.

[Cato]

I did not try to bypass any of Dawkin's credentials. I claimed that he is a brilliant scientist, however, a poor philosopher.

Why all the ad hominems man? Just trying to have a conversation.

You are a disingenuous cunt,

dolt.

Also, I don't deny that evolution could have happened. I just disagree in that it is unguided evolution in that it is naturalistic. I am fine with guided evolution.

OK Mr. Philosophy major...give me an example of an ad hominem.

I referred to you as a disingenuous cunt because you portrayed Dawkins as having said that evolution was as improbable as a hurricane ripping through a junkyard. I even went so far as to identify your use of a dash, where you could later give a technical explanation to the contrary. My use of 'disingenuous cunt' was fairly objective.

My use of the term 'dolt' was also appropriate in that only idiot christian sheep use the term 'unguided Darwinism' to characterize evolution by natural selection. Consult a dictionary, study the term dolt, and argue that I didn't use the term appropriately.

Again, Mr. Philosophy Major, my use of the terms 'disengenuous cunt' and 'dolt' do not constitute an ad hominem attack.