Skip to main content

Dawkins Is Wrong

Richard Dawkins, pictured, is wrong.

Stripping away the tedious arguments, his position is that a) God does not exist (as any of the major religions imagine such a being) and that b) belief in God is damaging to society, particularly as it leads to conflict and to fundamentalism that is anti-rationalist. Dawkins is one of the leading atheists of our age. And one of the richest.

My position is antithetical to his.

Taking a), first. It is impossible to prove, using scientific method, the hypothesis "God does not exist" - just as it is impossible to prove the opposite (logically unverifiable) statement. The best a scientist can do is accept an agnostic position - that there is no way of knowing whether or not a God exists. Agnosticism is a sound position. Atheism is an irrational one.

Now, b). If there was no belief in God (i.e. no religion) there would still be conflict and resistance to reason and science. Conflict, between humans, as individuals, tribes and nations (wars, ultimately) is driven by power relations and the need to control a limited supply of desired resources and objects, including other people. As most natural resources are finite, and becoming more so, conflict is likely to continue, with or without any religious sanction. Indeed, from a purely rationalist standpoint, conflict is sometimes the only logical away to defeat one's enemy, subjugate their people, and possess their resources (sadly). Furthermore, regardless of contrary claims, leaders simply use religion (and other causes and belief structures) to drive their own agendas. Other terms like "Freedom" or "Nation" or "Reason" can and have been used in place of religion, to justify the conquest and liquidation of millions of persons. Indeed, the worst atrocities of the 20th century were mediated by ideological and racist positions that had, at base, no religious cause.

There will always be an impulse within humanity to withstand a totalizing definition from Science for all we do and are - irrational, artistic, or spiritual as it may be. The fact is, those "scientists" who refuse to factor in the Religious impulse are only studying half of the human experience, and are therefore unable to make convincing statements about existence, or reality.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html

Comments

puthwuth said…
Reacting to the equal and opposite impossibilities of proving or disproving the existence of God, Pascal proposed a 'wager' or leap of faith. If we believe we have nothing to lose and, potentially, heaven to gain, whereas if we don't we are potentially condemned to torment. Lifelong Christian-hater and -baiter William Empson had this to say about Pascal's position: ‘this argument makes Pascal the slave of any person, professing any doctrine, who has the impudence to tell him a sufficiently extravagant lie.’ The existence or non-existence of God are *not* equal in their unprovenness, in other words. One (not believing in God) need involve no intellectual compromise, whereas the other actively requires a belief in lies. Religious believers put themselves at the service of unprovable lies. No?

DW
EYEWEAR said…
Your comment, lucid as it is, has several assumptions. The first is that I am speaking of a God who punishes with hell, and rewards with heaven. The idea of a supreme being does not necessitate an afterlife, in the way it is articulated by some religiions. Empson's argument - that Pascal opens himself to any "sufficiently extravagant lie" - misses the point that no other claim is as existentially or ontologically large as the one regarding whether or not there is a God, since God is the idea of a supreme being. There can be no "extravagant lie" (I'd prefer the word claim) more supreme than that. Therefore, Pascal's bifurcating system of logic does not reduce to "either Paris Hilton wants me to run away with her, or I am really just a weird stalker - either this is my big day or I am in deep trouble with the law" ... however much Empson might have wanted to reduce the argument. As for God-believer believing in lies, surely a lie has to be proven an untruth to be described as such - and otherwise, is simply an argument as tautology - i.e. the argument "People who believe in God are putting themselves at the service of a lie (that God exists)" is circular.

It remains a logical and epistemological fact that the idea of a supreme being is neither inherently counter-factual or impossible, but nor is it unprovable.

"God" as an idea, if not a living presence, remains a possibility on the horizon of utopian ideas that must always stay open to those who do not choose to close their minds, or hearts.
Unknown said…
From Encyclopedia Britannica:

"...a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for [reasons that depend] on how God is being conceived."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109479/atheism

Many people, such as myself, choose to wear the label "atheist" because of the ambiguity surrounding the word "agnostic". Some people use the word agnostic to say they are unsure whether or not *man-made* gods such as YHWH exist; others use it to say they are unsure whether there are any higher powers at all.

I would fall into the category of the latter, but since atheism better fits my stance against man-made religion, that's what I call myself. Most atheists don't claim to know for a fact there are no higher powers; if they did I would think them idiots. I strongly believe, however, that YHWH, along with Ra and Thor, is an invention of man.
Anonymous said…
Clearly, you haven't taken the time to actually read Richard Dawkins' book or you would have read his explanation on agnosism.

To quote:

"That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things."

The only other point I would make is what's the point of believing in a higher power, as you state in the comments, that does not require worship? Is there any benefit to believing in something you have no proof for but just think is true based on no evidence whatsoever? Intellectually, it doesn't make any sense -- especially given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Flinthart said…
Pascal's Wager, of course, falls down on one major account: which particular faith gets his money? Will he bet on Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Jainism? Maybe something a little more recent and upmarket, like Scientology? Ohh, the choices.

Scientology aside, I personally can't see much to choose between the different myths -- which means Pascal's Wager is far from fifty-fifty for me. In fact, it looks like a losing proposition all round.
Anonymous said…
It's laughable that Dawkins is taken so seriously. This can only happen in the post modern west, which has painted itself into a materialistic, man-centric corner, refusing even now to take responsibility for the mess on the planet.

It seems to me that in an eastern forum, he would be politely ignored, as one who speaks from an inflated ego, and little else.

Ancient wisdom and daily life in a place like India, takes the invisible world as a given. A world that cannot be put into the confines of a test tube, to satisfy the equally confined thinking of an egotistic individual.

To make the kind of statements that Dawkins and his kind have been ranting, requires a mindset that assumes it has exhaustive knowledge of the universe and make dogmatic pronouncements about it, a la ex cathedra. It is doubtful that people like Einstein would feel comfortable in such distinguished company.

Dawkins ravings are rehashed, obsolete arguments, and it seems to give the man some reason to live, some meaning to his otherwise meaningless life.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".