Dawkins arguments accused of being strawman fallacies.

[Confused]

In "The Language of God" Richard Collins tears apart what he finds to be Dawkins three main concepts for disproving religion. He refers to them as strawman fallacies and state why.

Dawkins: It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow' disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the worlds greatest evils, comparable to the somall pox virus, but harder to erradicate. (Is Science A Religion-Richard Dawkins)

Aliston McGrath in "Dawkins God" points to three major flavors of logical fallacies behind Dawkins:
1) Dawkins argues evolution fully accounts fro biological complexity and the origins of humankind, so there is no need for God. McGrath states that while this relieves God of special creation for each species on the planet, it doesn't disprove the idea God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. He claims this makes Dawkins first arguement irrelevant and a strawman.

2) Dawkins: (The Selfish Gene) says religion is antirational. He defines it as "Blind trust in the absence of evidence, even on the teeth of evidence". McGrath states that the faith Dawkins refers to isn't the faith of true believers, such as those from Augustine to Aquinas to C S Lewis. Instead Dawkins attacks the caricature of faith, but not the real thing. He claims yet another strawman fallacy.

3) Dawkins claims great harm has been done in the name of religion. McGrath states that this is true, but great acts of compassion have been done in the name of religion as well. He says evil has a way to impugn the truth of the faith rather than impugn the nature of human beings.

Questions for debate:

Are these in fact fallacies of strawman or did McGrath only include certain biased comments from each of these books to make it fit the fallacy, similar to how preachers take scripture from passages and twist it to mean something that in no way reflects the nature of the passage it was taken from.

[McCulloch]

On the whole I think The God Delusion is not a very subtle as a general argument against religion.

You have a gift for understatement. I think that anyone who has any exposure to Professor Dawkins' writings, whether they agree or not, will concede that there is little or no subtlety. However, I am not sure that subtlety is always called for.

[Confused]

Are these in fact fallacies of strawman or did McGrath only include certain biased comments from each of these books to make it fit the fallacy, similar to how preachers take scripture from passages and twist it to mean something that in no way reflects the nature of the passage it was taken from.

Are you trying to pigeonhole all preachers as 'twisters' of God's Word? Certainly some have done this but there's a great many who are honest brokers of the Word, and teach the truth about the historical Jesus Christ and his teachings.

As for what is specifically argued in your post about Dawkins, I think they are legitimate rebuttals.

Are you attacking me specifically because I am atheist? If not, then I will ignore the undertones of our first sentence and respond with the following:

No, my intention isn't to pigeonhole all preachers as anything. Only point out observations I have seen and use them as examples to compare and contrast.

In regards to the ligitimate rebuttals, can you expand?

[Confused]

Cephus:

No, Dawkins is attacking real faith because *ALL* faith, by definition, is 'blind trust in the absence of evidence'. There is simply no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, period. Therefore, Dawkins is completely correct.

If I recall correctly, on the faith thread, we never really came to a consensus as to what faith actually entails. Personally, I think that faith need not be based only on blind trust in the absence of evidence. In science, we use the hypothetic-deductive method where one forms a hypothesis based on a scant amount of data, deduces a prediction from the hypothesis, then tests the prediction against further data. Paleontology uses this often when discerning which direction to head in while unearthing a fossilized remain. A hypothesis is nothing more than a guess based on scant observations. But if one has faith in that observation, they will test their hypothesis. We have faith that our hypothesis will yield our prediction. When it doesn't, we revise our methods accordingly. But it is still faith in the absence of evidence, merely an observation. In religion, could we say that faith is very subjective and based on an emotion as opposed to an observation? For example, I can't see the neurochemicals being transmitted down the synapses of my nuerons or jumping the synaptic gaps to continute its path to another neuron. But I can have faith this is happening based on known "emotions" one experiences under the influence of these chemicals. Would Dawkins concept of faith conflict with this concept?

[Confused]

jcrawford:

Regardless of strawman or other fallacious arguments, Christian analysts and therapists may come to regard Dawkin's mental delusions as a particulary symptomatic variant of Darwin's Disorder.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Confused]

jcrawford"

That delusionary form of thinking is the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

I am sorry, I am unfamiliar with where in the DSMIV this Darwins Disorder is listed. Please do cite it, and what exact criteria does the DSMIV use to label this as a mental disorder?

[McCulloch]

Moderator's Note

That delusionary form of thinking is the essential mental problem which people like Dawkins who are suffering from Darwin's Disorder have with scientists and other normal people who believe in God's creative and supernatural powers.

In this one sentence, jcrawford has implied:

1. Richard Dawkins has a mental disorder
2. only believers in God are normal
3. there is a mental disorder called Darwin's Disorder
4. evolution is delusional thinking.

Without evidential support for these implications, I believe that these comments are inflammatory and are personal attacks.

[micatala]

In "The Language of God" Richard Collins tears apart what he finds to be Dawkins three main concepts for disproving religion. He refers to them as strawman fallacies and state why.

Dawkins: It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow' disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the worlds greatest evils, comparable to the somall pox virus, but harder to erradicate. (Is Science A Religion-Richard Dawkins)

Aliston McGrath in "Dawkins God" points to three major flavors of logical fallacies behind Dawkins:
1) Dawkins argues evolution fully accounts fro biological complexity and the origins of humankind, so there is no need for God. McGrath states that while this relieves God of special creation for each species on the planet, it doesn't disprove the idea God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. He claims this makes Dawkins first arguement irrelevant and a strawman.

2) Dawkins: (The Selfish Gene) says religion is antirational. He defines it as "Blind trust in the absence of evidence, even on the teeth of evidence". McGrath states that the faith Dawkins refers to isn't the faith of true believers, such as those from Augustine to Aquinas to C S Lewis. Instead Dawkins attacks the caricature of faith, but not the real thing. He claims yet another strawman fallacy.

3) Dawkins claims great harm has been done in the name of religion. McGrath states that this is true, but great acts of compassion have been done in the name of religion as well. He says evil has a way to impugn the truth of the faith rather than impugn the nature of human beings.

Questions for debate:

Are these in fact fallacies of strawman or did McGrath only include certain biased comments from each of these books to make it fit the fallacy, similar to how preachers take scripture from passages and twist it to mean something that in no way reflects the nature of the passage it was taken from.

I would in general agree that these three statements of Dawkins are strawmen.

In particular, with respect to 3, Dawkins needs to consider whether many of these same evils would have been in the absence of religion for some other ostensible reason or in the name of 'something else.' We humans are very adept at applying whatever intellectual justification we find handy to support our deeds, good or evil.

I think it is reasonable to suggest, for example, that white US southerners of the 19th century would have been just as racist with the Biblical justification for their views. They would have found some other rationale or argument to make why slavery is OK. The same is true for those who misappropriated evolution to support their racist views. The racist views are likely due to other factors, and the religious, scientific, or other rationale are usually arrived at 'post hoc.'

[juliod]

In particular, with respect to 3, Dawkins needs to consider whether many of these same evils would have been in the absence of religion for some other ostensible reason or in the name of 'something else.' We humans are very adept at applying whatever intellectual justification we find handy to support our deeds, good or evil.

But how does this make Dawkins' argument a strawman?

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Alleged Dawkins strawmen:

1. Dawkins argues evolution fully accounts for biological complexity and the origins of humankind, so there is no need for God. McGrath states that while this relieves God of special creation for each species on the planet, it doesn't disprove the idea God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. He claims this makes Dawkins first argument irrelevant and a strawman. If you believe in the lazy God of the deists, one that set things in motion and sat back and watched it spin (or not), you might have a case. But Dawkins is not arguing against the deist concept of God. He is arguing against the traditional monotheist God, who actively creates and sustains the universe, who feeds every sparrow (except the ones who occasionally starve to death).
2. Dawkins: (The Selfish Gene) says religion is antirational. He defines it as "Blind trust in the absence of evidence, even on the teeth of evidence". McGrath states that the faith Dawkins refers to isn't the faith of true believers, such as those from Augustine to Aquinas to C S Lewis. Instead Dawkins attacks the caricature of faith, but not the real thing. He claims yet another strawman fallacy.
   When push comes to shove, most of the faithful do use the term faith in the sense that Dawkins means. That is to believe something to be true (not probably true or provisionally true but absolutely unquestionably true) based on no evidence or even contrary to evidence.
3. Dawkins claims great harm has been done in the name of religion. McGrath states that this is true, but great acts of compassion have been done in the name of religion as well. He says evil has a way to impugn the truth of the faith rather than impugn the nature of human beings.
   Sam Harris in The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, points out that great harm has never been done deliberately by humans, except when they cling uncritically to one set of dogmas or another, with insufficient evidential and rational support.

[Cephus]

Personally, I think that faith need not be based only on blind trust in the absence of evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, I follow the old dictum: Faith is believing where you cannot prove. Certainly, there are many theists who want faith to mean belief in *ANYTHING* for any reason, simply because they can point out that everyone has faith and therefore, their own unfounded, irrational and baseless faith seems more intelligent and less out of place. Sitting down on a chair and believing that it will hold your weight is certainly a lot different than the blind belief in an unseen and unknown deity that's going to send you to eternal damnation for "sinning". One is a rational belief, based on experience and knowledge, the other an irrational belief, based on nothing but wishful thinking.

Once you start allowing people to term any form of belief as 'faith', you're going down the slippery slope toward acceptance of any old thing that someone with a tinfoil hat wants to believe is true.