Richard Dawkins' Faith In Free Will Is As Blind As A Christians To God

[Cecco]

he may have never said the words 'i believe in free-will' but by saying we can choose to educate something as deep rooted as religion out of our biology is another way of saying 'i believe in free-will'. so dawkins, and anyone else with this belief, is showing blind faith.

sexual desire cannot be educated out of us. you can use the mind to repress it, but it's still there.

and yes 'stupid' people don't get athiesm, but that's exactly my point, no matter how good or right minded the teacher, this sort or lesson cannot be learnt if humans are too 'stupid' or narrow minded, and that's what many humans have evolved to be and always will be, so religion needs to be begrudgingly accepted by all.

---

and in regards to that link you sent me, it is written by a mad man. at one point is says 'sleepiness comes from false thoughts'. sleep is a weakness to be overcome? some buddhists are 'nanas.

[Cego_Colher]

We do choose, but we wouldn't have chosen any other way.

So, religion is only repressed?

I don't see why 'stupid' people can't get atheism, or rather can't be atheists. You could get raise a child as an atheist and they might not get it. They might just not believe, because their parents told them not to and such. My friend's father was an atheist, but he was convinced that his lesbian daughter "chose" to like women.

[Shell B]

I'm not one of those atheists that reads a ton of literature by atheists. I'm far more interested in other things. Therefore, I am *gasp* not all that familiar with Dawkins. Judging by your original post, Dawkins does not have blind faith in free-will. He very well could have blind faith in free will, but you have not shown any proof of it here that I can see.

As for determinism and free will, I don't see any reason why they should be mutually exclusive. Why should it be one or the other?

[Scented Nectar]

Hello.

Firstly, Richard Dawkins is great. I love reading his books and find him for the most part a very fascinating and charming man. If I was forced by some supernatural creature to criticise Dawkins personality or else die, all I would say is that his choice of pose for most photographs is a tad too 'Brent'.

I'd put a ponytail on him, since his hairstyle is the only thing about him I'm not fond of (reminds me of one that someone else has, who I don't like much), but his hairstyle preferences are probably a really superficial and minor personality point to disagree with. He's one of the few people I can listen to a long talk from without getting bored, and I can't think of anything to criticize about what I've heard/read him say so far.

A lot of people criticize his voice as being shrill. I don't get it. I find the opposite, that it's got a pleasant sound. Someone else on youtube commented about his voice being melodic. I agree. Listen to his part in Symphony of Science. He puts the others to shame.
[youtube]9Cd36WJ79z4[/youtube]

That said, I will now like to express as thriftily as I can what I consider to be the criticism to which Dawkins has no answer, regarding his philosophy.

Evolution: All animals are as they are because this is how they have adapted to survive.

Humans (also animals) have developed religious belief.

Richard Dawkins says this is because the humans have been poisoned by religious ideas, or religious 'memes' as he puts it.

Now, regardless of the fact that there is not the slightest bit of evidence today for memes, what he is saying is that human free-will has been exploited by religious crazies, and what he hopes is that human free-will can one day overcome this through education and we will all one day be enlightened athiests.

Did he really say that human free will has been exploited? Or is that a paraphrasing of something he worded differently?

[Purple Rabbit]

You are all changing the topic!

Do we agree that Dawkins is showing blind faith?

What is your evidence that Dawkins is endorsing acausal free will?

Free will or choice can be short hand for "understanding that in contemplating the future one could causally form notions on preferred outcome and by reporting this to the self might indeed influence the way in which latent preferences would causally play out".

---

If free will is proven to be untrue, and determinism correct, which I personally don't think is the case, would we have to then accept that a murderer was going to murder no matter what? So maybe he's really not responsible for his actions, he was destined to do it all along, how can we punish him?

For free will to be true in the traditional meaning you need a contra-causal mechanism akin to the supernatural uncaused soul. So indeed be sure what to want here, if acausal free will is true it proves determinism wrong and vice versa.

Bur determinism is not the same as predestination (the view that a specified outcome cannot be influenced before it has happened). Murderers can be influenced to not murder. Pointing a loaded gun to their temples usually suffices in the crime series on TV.

But there are considerable changes to the concepts of punishment and responsibility when you accept determinism. That is not to say that a murderer cannot be held responsible for the committed murder in that case. The concept of punishment loses meaning if it is aimed at done deeds instead of prevention of deeds to come.

---

Hello.

Firstly, Richard Dawkins is great. I love reading his books and find him for the most part a very fascinating and charming man. If I was forced by some supernatural creature to criticise Dawkins personality or else die, all I would say is that his choice of pose for most photographs is a tad too 'Brent'.

Done some investigation on the subject you present. Dawkins does not endorse acausal free will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LE4uu49S...re=related
(go to 2 m 8 sec to skip the Steven Pinker part)

My conclusion is that either you either are a fraud (probably a theist in disguise) or you have no clue what Dawkins actually is saying.

[Cecco]

it's all paraphrasing, but it gets to the point - he believes religion can be educated out of us. but humans are not logical beings. this is belief in free will yadda yadda said it before.

i'm just a bloke giving an opinion. love the idea i could be a fraud. what arrogance to even suggest it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Richard Dawkins' faith in free-will is as blind as a Christians to God.

Why should I care what Richard Dawkins believes about free will? I don't care about anything else he believes simply because he believes it. He seems to be a brilliant scientist and a clever polemicist, but has nothing original to say [ on religious belief] that I've noticed. I disagree with him completely on some of his personal opinions.

Me? Hard determinist

[theVOID]

If free will is proven to be untrue, and determinism correct, which I personally don't think is the case, would we have to then accept that a murderer was going to murder no matter what? So maybe he's really not responsible for his actions, he was destined to do it all along, how can we punish him?

It makes no difference in either model. You are either attempting to prevent the outcome of predetermined mechanism (a murderous individual) or attempting prevent the recurrence of actions taken by an individual who chose to murder - in both cases the individual is still acting against the interests of society.

Also, the action taken against the individual in question would also be predetermined in the former, so I don't see any moral problems in taking action.

Free will vs. determinism is an interesting debate, I think essentially it's still very much up in the air, so someone who espouses determinism could very likely be as faith based as you claim free will is.

That is why the only rational response to ether proposition is to withhold judgement.

Practically we must attribute actions to free will, otherwise how can society work? How do we determine responsibility for evil actions, such as murder and rape?

That is an argument from ignorance. An algorithm and complex mechanics could just as easily account for social interactions. If you can believe based on evidence that a pattern in a feedback loop is responsible for the rest of existence then by what thought do you exclude social dynamics?

[Purple Rabbit]

it's all paraphrasing, but it gets to the point - he believes religion can be educated out of us. but humans are not logical beings. this is belief in free will yadda yadda said it before.

It's not paraphrasing. Dawkins is actually formulating quite accurately to get across the point that there is no room for independent agency in nature. Also, the belief that religion "can be educated out of us", whether he endorses it or not, is not inconsistent with determinism. How you've reached that conclusion beats me. It is a typical line of attack only a theist would make to discredit Dawkins.

i'm just a bloke giving an opinion. love the idea i could be a fraud. what arrogance to even suggest it.

My hunch is sustained by every reply you put out. You try to attribute something to Dawkins that he is not sayng. And you have no clue what determinism is about.

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh and please give a referenced quote in which Richard Dawkins is endorsing acausal free will.

Anyway, determinism is not as you say it "everything is as it is because that is how it was always going to be since the big bang started it all, religious belief included". That would imply that religious belief or indeed any observable phenomenon of society, is inevitable and unchanging. No mortal can decide on inevitability because this would require absolute knowledge. Unchangebility is dafter still since determinism does not mean that the world is in a fixed state. How you arrive at these conclusions is beyond me.