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.

[Easyrider]

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.

[Cephus]

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.

Dawkins is correct, there is no need for God. Dawkins does not state that, therefore, God doesn't exist, only that there is no need for God and a special creation.

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.

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.

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.

That may be true but it doesn't mitigate the fact that great harm has been done. McGrath is, himself, engaging in logical fallacy. Anyone surprised?

[jcrawford]

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.

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.

[jcrawford]

Dawkins is correct, there is no need for God. Dawkins does not state that, therefore, God doesn't exist, only that there is no need for God and a special creation.

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.

[Furrowed Brow]

On the whole I think The God Delusion is not a very subtle as a general argument against religion. However Dawkins makes some points about raising our consciouness that I kind of agree with. The point about the tendency of the media to label a child a Muslim child, rather than the child of those from the Muslim faith for example. Also the point that religious sensitivites should be given no higher status than any other sensitivites being another point.

[Cogitoergosum]

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.

We have a very good theory on how species and man came to be, and that theory does not require the presence of god, so why add god to it? for that matter we could say that the pink unicorn used evolution to create humans, or a magic shoelace did. If anything Mcgrath is portraying god as a procrastinator and an underachiever. he just put the pot in the stove and 5 billion years later, voila the dish is ready.

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.

the only fallacy i see here is mcgrath's argument. i read "the selfish gene" not to long ago and dawkins was talking about all faith. How is St thomas's faith any different that any other devout christian? what is a true believer?

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.

i have said that a million times, compassionate deeds were done by ahteists and religious people alike, but i still have to see a crusade, jihad or heretic persecution promoted by atheists.

[Cogitoergosum]

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.

That delusionary form of thinking is only in your mind which badly wants to create a soul against all odds and then attribute that soul to god. Instead of constantly using nonsensical rethorics how about you actually prove darwin's idea as wrong.
you know something we can debate instead of your philosophical opinion.
define for us darwin's disorder and how "he" instead of "you" has a mental disorder.
And define for us who you consider a normal person? is that somebody who believes in magic, trolls and monsters?

[juliod]

Are these in fact fallacies of strawman

No, they are not strawmen fallacies.

To argue that they are, it would be good if the theists here would remember the definition of a strawman fallacy. A strawman is when you argue against a made-up version of your opponents argument rather then the genuine argument.

This is a charge that can't be sustained against Dawkins, at least in The God Delusion which is the only book of his that I've read. Dawkins' arguments are responses to very common apologetic arguments. No one on this forum can claim that his arguments are straw men because the we see right here the sort of claims Dawkins is opposing.

DanZ

[Cephus]

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.

This from the guy with the imaginary friend. Sure, tell us another one.