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.

[honegod]

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.'
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.'

the idea that slavery can be supported by law is central to christianity, since all men are slaves of god by creation.

the bible is to tell us what we have to do to be a good slave of god.

I see nothing raceist about slavery in the bible, so the antiblack prejudice does seem seperate.

except they were not christians, so the fact that they were black could have simply started off as recognising their inferiority for not being christian and stuck even after they were taught that god wanted them to be good slaves.

so the religion, by endorsing slavery, insured that slavery would exist in one form or another.

the continuing influence is demonstrated by lawful imprisonment and military conscription.

{ I type slow }

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

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?

In this line of thinking; Does every antichrist carry some sickness?

Is there a (Richard) Carrier Cancer and a (Robert) Price Pandemy

What about Marauded Muslim Mentality
Does that exist too?

[TRANSPONDER]

One may dispute Dawkins. He is not the Pope ofatheism, much less an infallible one. But his arguments are valid and the objections seem to be invalid.

Faith is a real problem, not to say a social evil as it places personal opinion (individual or collective) above, reason, evidence or indeed anyone else's opinion. We may disagree, but discussion is one thing - personal conviction with fingers in the ears while shouting faithclaims is another.

Evolution does adequately explain biodiversity as physics explains matter, and without any need for a god (name your own). Postulating some kind of intelligence behind it is worthless without validation.

The debate about the high moral ground is also worthless. It means (aside that a true religion Ought to be better than flawed and sinful humanity can do - aside from religion /Dogmatic opinion doing worse than normal humanity does and without even bad reasons) that what is going on is human society and progress (or whatever) driven by instinct as much as by reasoning or more so, and there is no valid reason to suppose a god (whichever) is anything to do with it.

The arguments in the OP fail and 'strawman' seems also to be the invalid term. It seems to be used in the theist sense of 'I don't like what that atheist says'.

[TRANSPONDER]

One may dispute Dawkins. He is not the Pope ofatheism, much less an infallible one. But his arguments are valid and the objections seem to be invalid.

Faith is a real problem, not to say a social evil as it places personal opinion (individual or collective) above, reason, evidence or indeed anyone else's opinion. We may disagree, but discussion is one thing - personal conviction with fingers in the ears while shouting faithclaims is another.

Evolution does adequately explain biodiversity as physics explains matter, and without any need for a god (name your own). Postulating some kind of intelligence behind it is worthless without validation.

The debate about the high moral ground is also worthless. It means (aside that a true religion Ought to be better than flawed and sinful humanity can do - aside from religion /Dogmatic opinion doing worse than normal humanity does and without even bad reasons) that what is going on is human society and progress (or whatever) driven by instinct as much as by reasoning or more so, and there is no valid reason to suppose a god (whichever) is anything to do with it.

The arguments in the OP fail and 'strawman' seems also to be the invalid term. It seems to be used in the theist sense of 'I don't like what that atheist says'.