Richard Dawkins

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Well the thread title is Richard Dawkins, how about telling us about one of these mistakes ?

Ok, here's an error picked at random from one page of The God Delusion (page 95) where Dawkins talks about something he doesn't understand (Biblical Studies).

The four gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen,
more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a
dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip,
Bartholomew and Mary Magdalen.51 It is these additional gospels
that Thomas Jefferson was referring to in his letter to his nephew:

Two errors here.
a) Anyone familiar with the history of the formation of the Canon of scripture will know that the selection of the canonical Gospels over the works mentioned was to do authorship, dating and theology. The process was anything but arbitrary.

b) The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip were discovered in 1945. The first fragment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in 1886. The Gospel of Mary Magdelene was first published in 1955. Therefore Thomas Jefferson, who died in 1826, could hardly have been referring to those 'Gospels' in a letter to his nephew.

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

I dismiss Craig's views -- or at least, all that I'm aware of -- not because I disagree with them, but because they are nuts, or dishonest, or both. Yes, he has academic qualifications which suggest that he's studied philosophy extensively, but that doesn't make him a honest philosopher any more than Sarah Palin's degree in journalism makes her an honest journalist.

As above, Craig is a sophist -- somebody who excels in the use and abuse of language and ideas and not somebody interested in an unbiased pursuit of knowledge and truth.It's not quote-mining since I provide an entire paragraph of text, together with the entire document from which it comes.

I quoted this piece of text to give a short and simple example of the kind of extreme mental and verbal gymnastics that Craig specializes in -- in this case, a bizarre, upside-down world in which murdered kids are receiving some reward, their dead parents are receiving justice and the murderers are to be sympathized.

That's not philosophy, that's just cr*p

Nothing in this post has any substance to it. You are merely name calling and using stronger terms like "nuts" and "crap" to make the same flawed point as before. What is the relevance of comparing him to Sarah Palin? His academic credentials are clearly of a far higher standard.

Regarding the quote from his website, my point was that whether or not we find that sentiment objectionable or not. That's is not relevant to the point of whether or not he is worthy of debating on the philosophical issues of theism.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

Or would you consider them both experts?

I'd probably consider them both experts.

johno2

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly not, but I may consider them as experts in space shuttles.

You'd probably be wrong. They'd be an expert on some small aspect of the whole system. This isn't a thread about shuttles so I'm not going to rant about the servicing procedure, and I'm not an expert so I'd probably be wrong about it anyway.

My point was that a PhD might be an expert in lobsters or parallel computing, but that doesn't mean they know anything about trout or databases. Philosophy is such a huge field that you can't just say someone is an expert in philosophy. Pretty much every scientific disciple in the world today can trace it's roots back to philosophy. (There may be exceptions).

johno

equivariant

johno2 wrote: »

You'd probably be wrong. They'd be an expert on some small aspect of the whole system. This isn't a thread about shuttles so I'm not going to rant about the servicing procedure, and I'm not an expert so I'd probably be wrong about it anyway.

My point was that a PhD might be an expert in lobsters or parallel computing, but that doesn't mean they know anything about trout or databases. Philosophy is such a huge field that you can't just say someone is an expert in philosophy. Pretty much every scientific disciple in the world today can trace it's roots back to philosophy. (There may be exceptions).

johno

Yes but Craig's particularly field of philosophy is the philosophy of religion. Even more praticularly, he is interested in the cosmological argument which Dawkins has debunked in his books. It is in precisely this area that some posters seem to want to dismiss his views as irrelevant.

Regarding your point about specialization, I would say that you would struggle to find someone who had written a PhD on parallel computing who knew nothing about databases - they may not be expert, but they will know much more than your average man on the street. Your assertion is in that regard is just false imo.

Also, while it may be true that some PhD students are overspecialised, I believe that is more a feature of the Irish educational system than elsewhere. In many other countries, PhD students will typically have a much broader knowledge of their chosen field than corresponding Irish students have.

With all the negativity about PhDs here, I wonder how many people here actually have one?

Zulu

johno2 wrote: »

You'd probably be wrong. They'd be an expert on...
My point was that a PhD might be an expert in...

Well, you either recognise a PhD as an expert in their field or you don't.

All I suggested was that I'd recognise a PhD as being an expert in their field, where as Wicknight clearly doesn't.

(Your last post seems to suggest you'd recognise them as experts contrary to your previous post .)

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

What is the relevance of comparing him to Sarah Palin? His academic credentials are clearly of a far higher standard.

The relevance is that we are discussing his honesty. Craig might have acquired his qualifications from better universities, but the honesty he demonstrates is much the same as what Sarah Palin brings to a discussion.

equivariant wrote: »

Regarding the quote from his website, my point was that whether or not we find that sentiment objectionable or not. That's is not relevant to the point of whether or not he is worthy of debating on the philosophical issues of theism.

Craig is very well suited to go up against other sophists, so I suggest that he should be out debating cardinals and bishops, preachers, imams, sadhus and so on. He's a skilled debater and I'm sure he'll do very well.

However, good philosophy is not done through public debate, so anybody who's interested in an honest pursuit of philosophy should avoid the man, for the same reasons that biologists should avoid creationists.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Two errors here.
a) Anyone familiar with the history of the formation of the Canon of scripture will know that the selection of the canonical Gospels over the works mentioned was to do authorship, dating and theology. The process was anything but arbitrary.

b) The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip were discovered in 1945. The first fragment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in 1886. The Gospel of Mary Magdelene was first published in 1955. Therefore Thomas Jefferson, who died in 1826, could hardly have been referring to those 'Gospels' in a letter to his nephew.

Your first point is probably valid, I think "arbitrary" is the wrong term here as well. What ever a person feels about theology it is clear they did not simply pick the books out of the air.

But the second point is just silly. Dawkins notes a dozen books and then lists a few. It is obvious that Jefferson was referring to the complete collection of non-canon books, not the few Dawkins mentions.

I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricius, which I will endeavor to get & send you.

iUseVi

PhDs are ridiculously easy to get nowadays tbh. Its just a matter of time rather than anything else. I know several people with PhDs who are frankly idiotic. Having a PhD is no barrier against being entirely illogical, I know that for sure.

johno2

equivariant wrote: »

Yes but Craig's particularly field of philosophy is the philosophy of religion. Even more praticularly, he is interested in the cosmological argument which Dawkins has debunked in his books. It is in precisely this area that some posters seem to want to dismiss his views as irrelevant.

Regarding your point about specialization, I would say that you would struggle to find someone who had written a PhD on parallel computing who knew nothing about databases - they may not be expert, but they will know much more than your average man on the street. Your assertion is in that regard is just false imo.

I think you're being obtuse, or argumentative. Substitute encryption, video compression or C64 for databases if you must to understand the point I am making here. I think you got the point from the lobsters/trout example but you wanted to disagree anyway. I banged my head off a rock last weekend and I've no desire to repeat that experience for a while.

I came to this thread to share my opinions about some of Dawkins books, but it appears that discussion is over. I'll just let you guys carry on philosophising about philosophy now, even if ye are technically off-topic.

johno

edit: sorry, not off-topic, thread title is Richard Dawkins.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Two errors here.
a) Anyone familiar with the history of the formation of the Canon of scripture will know that the selection of the canonical Gospels over the works mentioned was to do authorship, dating and theology. The process was anything but arbitrary.

"Of the many gospels written in antiquity, only four gospels came to be accepted as part of the New Testament, or canonical. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. <snip> Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8).

Lets look at a couple.

Gospel of the Hebrews

"The Gospel of the Hebrews was the gospel in use among Hebrew Christian sects, which later were excluded (declared heretical) by the Gentile (proto-orthodox) Church. It enjoyed a good reputation but was later judged apocryphal."

"Professor of Theology, James Edwards in his latest work, claims that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews, an eye witness account in the Hebrew of the life of Jesus long before any of the Canonical Gospels. He argues that it was considered authentic, held in very high regard by Early Church leaders and the basis for future gospels including the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible. Edwards said he won’t get feedback from scholarly reviews until 2011 at the earliest, but it most probably will spark scholarly debate."

Gospel of Thomas

"A few scholars argue that its first edition was written c 50-60, but that the surviving edition was written in the first half of the second century.[47] This would mean that its first edition was contemporary with the earliest letters of Paul the Apostle."

You know as well as I that there were disagreements over what was included and what wasn't included in the early church.

You also know as well as I that people are fallible and people choose what gospels they 'thought' were right.

Development of the New Testament canon

The development of the New Testament canon was, like that of the Old Testament, a gradual process.
Irenaeus quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. By the early 200's, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, see also Antilegomena.

Perhaps you could say 'chosen more or less arbitrarily' without explaining it further is making it appear more 'arbitrary' then it actually was. But this is not the same thing as suggesting its wrong or a lie.

b) The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip were discovered in 1945. The first fragment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in 1886. The Gospel of Mary Magdelene was first published in 1955. Therefore Thomas Jefferson, who died in 1826, could hardly have been referring to those 'Gospels' in a letter to his nephew.

It was well know that the four canonical gospels were chosen from a larger group even when others from the larger sample themselves were still considered lost.

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years."
-- John Adams

So would you be so kind as to pick out a mistake you have actually researched and know is wrong ?

johno2

Zulu wrote: »

Well, you either recognise a PhD as an expert in their field or you don't.

All I suggested was that I'd recognise a PhD as being an expert in their field, where as Wicknight clearly doesn't.

(Your last post seems to suggest you'd recognise them as experts contrary to your previous post .)

Ok, fair enough. From what I've read in this thread there's been a hint of expert being used in a generalised sense. Think "computer expert", "gardening expert", "financial expert" "religious expert" etc. All nonsense terms in my opinion. Perhaps I haven't read enough of the thread, and I don't have the time or will to do so.

johno

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

However, good philosophy is not done through public debate

I completely agree and had made this point earlier

equivariant wrote: »

Sam's point is a valid one. I think that the real reason that Dawkins won't debate him is that Dawkins fears the consequences of am embarassing defeat. Of course, I don't believe that Craig's arguments are correct. To me this just illustrates the point that public debates are not the best way to educate people on scientific and philosophical matters. HOWEVER, that is not the excuse that Dawkins offered. Instead, he attempted to belittle Craig's credentials as a debate opponent. That I find disingenuous.

However, this discussion of Craig was started by someone pointin out Dawkins refusal to debate.

If Dawkins had made that point - that people do not learn philosophy through public debates and that the subtlety of philosophical argument is not suited to public debates - I would less inclined to take issue. Hoever, he did not. He justified avoiding Craig, by basically identifying him with the creationist/ID movement and by belittling him as a "professional debater".

If Dawkins wants to pursue the route of public debates (and he seems to be quite keen on it) then surely his integrity demands that he not avoid potentially tricky opponents. I actually probably have just as much disdain for Craig's arguments as you do, but I do believe that he is as worthy a debating opponent as any bishop or priest.

A separate issue is the one of whether or not public debates are a legitimate or reasonable forum for discussion of religion/theism/atheism/etc..

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

He justified avoiding Craig, by basically identifying him with the creationist/ID movement and by belittling him as a "professional debater".

Is that not what he is? You keep referring to a PhD he got 30 years ago. What has he done since then to further philosophy?

equivariant wrote: »

If Dawkins wants to pursue the route of public debates (and he seems to be quite keen on it) then surely his integrity demands that he not avoid potentially tricky opponents.

But you seem to be saying that anyone with a PhD in philosophy is someone Dawkins should debate with.

Where would you draw the line?

equivariant wrote: »

I actually probably have just as much disdain for Craig's arguments as you do, but I do believe that he is as worthy a debating opponent as any bishop or priest.

Why does everyone keep spinning that comment? Dawkins' point was that he does not shy away from debating theists simply because they are theists, but he won't debate just anyone who wants a debate.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

He justified avoiding Craig, by basically identifying him with the creationist/ID movement and by belittling him as a "professional debater".

I don't see anything wrong about that, since both comments accurately reflect reality and Dawkins has made it quite clear that he does not debate creationists, in order to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to self-publicists.(*)

(*) Though in Craig's case, it's arguable that he should be denied the oxygen of, well, oxygen.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

Is that not what he is? You keep referring to a PhD he got 30 years ago. What has he done since then to further philosophy?

I repeat my previous post since you appear not to have read it or are ignoring it.

equivariant wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Craig hasn't maintained an interest in philosophy since 1984?

Despite being Professor of Philosophy at various institutions (I may not be particularly impressed with the institutions but seem to be reasonably accredited) and conducting research in philosophy Leuven in Beligium, depsite having authored a book on the cosmological argument, despite the fact that many of his arguments in debates are philosophical in nature such as the OA or the CA. I know, I agree that they are bad arguments. But the ontological and cosmological arguments are clearly part of philosophy. I mean look at the publications listed on his wikipedia page in the last few years. You are basically saying that they are all bogus, despite being published in philosophy by well established academic publishers such as Edinburgh University Press, Oxfod University Press, despite all this you claim that he has not maintained an interest in philosophy since 1984?

Look, I diasgree with Craig. I think that he puts forward very flawed arguments in favour of theism. But THAT IS NOT THE POINT.


Yes, there are people who move on to other areas after a PhD. However, anyone with a PhD in CS/physics from a reputable institution deserves to have their opinion at least considered - that is all I am suggesting. Just for the record, on what basis would you consider yourself well qualified enough to dismiss your friends' expertise in CS and/or physics. Have you asked them if they agree with your assessment of their expertise?

Moreover, I would also suggest that is far more rare for people to drop their interest in philosophy after a PhD than it is in CS/physics. Very few people complete a PhD in philosophy without having a passionate interest in the subject.

But you seem to be saying that anyone with a PhD in philosophy is someone Dawkins should debate with.

I have never said that. You are straw manning me there. I am saying that Dawkins should debate people who have published (in reputable journals or with reputable publishing houses) extensively on the very topics that Dawkins has written about in his books i.e. philosophical arguments for/against the existence of God

Why does everyone keep spinning that comment? Dawkins' point was that he does not shy away from debating theists simply because they are theists, but he won't debate just anyone who wants a debate.

No, his point, very clearly, was that he will debate priest/bishops/cardinals but not creationists or professional debaters. You are putting your own personal interpretation on his words. He said nothing about whether he would or would not "shy away from debating theists simply because they are theists"

While we are on the topic of things that people keep harping on about. Why do you keep harping on about the fact that Craig's PhD was 30 years ago. Even if he had published nothing since, of what relevance is that? Either his arguments (from 30 years ago) are valid, or they are not. Are you claiming that Dawkins is privy to developments in philosophical thought during the last 30 years ago of which Craig is unaware. I don't think that Dawkins himself would claim that.

To me it is very clear. Dawkins based much (not all) of TGD around objections to arguments such as the cosmological argument and the ontological argument yet he refuses to debate the people who are commonly held up (even by opponents) as the leading defenders of these arguments.

Fanny Cradock

Getting back on track, Rupert Sheldrake (I understand that his work courts much controversy) wrote a complaint about what he saw as Dawkins' intellectual prejudice when they met to film for the C4 programme Enemies of Reason.

moonpurple

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

The Dawkins Delusion. (Ha!)

Dawkins is a very arrogant man, imo. With a rather small, unevolved head!

This picture from his wiki says it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg

I'd love to know how he calculates the probability of God existing or not. Oh, wait, he's an uninspired copycat biologist flogging books, not a mathematician...

you may have right on your side but that is a sweet bird at his side

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

I repeat my previous post since you appear not to have read it or are ignoring it.

I didn't actually see it, posts are flying around pretty fast. But the most you can do is get him up to 1984 which is hardly progress.

equivariant wrote: »

Either his arguments (from 30 years ago) are valid, or they are not.

They are not valid, that is the point. They weren't even valid 30 years ago, but he was young and could be excused for this.

This is the point you seem to be ignoring. What purpose would Dawkins debating this man have? To highlight the mistakes in his work? Already done, but lots and lots and lots of people even before he made them.

To convince those who subscribe to Craig's writing that he is mistaken? Appears to have no effect, they continue to quote him as if he has "wiped the floor" with his opponents.

So again there is no point. We know this, Dawkin knows this, Craig probably knows it.

equivariant wrote: »

Are you claiming that Dawkins is privy to developments in philosophical thought during the last 30 years ago of which Craig is unaware. I don't think that Dawkins himself would claim that.

Craig's argument had been invalidated years before he even made it.

equivariant wrote: »

To me it is very clear. Dawkins based much (not all) of TGD around objections to arguments such as the cosmological argument and the ontological argument yet he refuses to debate the people who are commonly held up (even by opponents) as the leading defenders of these arguments.

Who holds Craig up as a leading defender of the cosmological argument?

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

in order to avoid giving the oxygen of publicity to self-publicists.(*)

The problem with this attitude is that it is a double edged sword - who should get to decide who is entitled to this oxygen.

I am more inlined to follow Voltaire's position ..... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (at least this quote is attributed to Voltaire), and I far more admire, for example, Chomsky's support for the publication of Robert Faurisson's holocaust denying book, a book that espoused a position that Chomsky clearly despises.

I think that the best way to expose the flaws in Craig's arguments is to expose them. Not pretend that he doesn't exist.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Getting back on track, Rupert Sheldrake (I understand that his work courts much controversy) wrote a complaint about what he saw as Dawkins' intellectual prejudice when they met to film for the C4 programme Enemies of Reason.

This is a good example of why I think Dawkins should stop making these types of programs.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a good example of why I think Dawkins should stop making these types of programs.

How so? I could take your comment to mean several things?

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Getting back on track, Rupert Sheldrake (I understand that his work courts much controversy) wrote a complaint about what he saw as Dawkins' intellectual prejudice when they met to film for the C4 programme Enemies of Reason.

Dawkins clearly acted like a bit of a twat here, but I fail to see how this discredits the contents of his book (which was the original topic).

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

I think that the best way to expose the flaws in Craig's arguments is to expose them.

This is the argument Creationists use with Evolution (not calling you a creationist), the "Lets have the debate" argument

The point is they had the debate on evolution, they had it 100 years ago. Having another debate and another one and another one ad nausea simply makes the public think there is something substantial to the Creationist claims that there is a debate about evolution.

The same holds with people like Craig.

Dawkins dismisses Craig as a "professional debater" because Craig shows no interest in philosophy and learning and only interest in continuing debate over and over on the same topic simply to keep it going to give the impression that there is actually a debate.

The cosmological argument, at least Craig's version, is bunk. It was bunk for Craig wrote it. It was bunk afterwards. This has been pointed out by so many people, yet Craig doesn't listen, because he is not interested in listening he is interested in debating.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't actually see it, posts are flying around pretty fast. But the most you can do is get him up to 1984 which is hardly progress.

actually I was talking about things he has done since 1984 (when he graduated from Munich.)

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

I think that the best way to expose the flaws in Craig's arguments is to expose them. Not pretend that he doesn't exist.

An entirely honorable thought, but a naive one which assumes that people in general are ready and willing to take part in honest debate, grapple and overcome the intellectual challenges they face, and reject lousy reasoning and the people who propagate it.

Unfortunately, reality suggests that people are certainly not willing to do this and instead we find a significant portion of society who actively support people who tell them what they want to hear, regardless of the rights and the wrongs of it, or even the basic political or physical logic. Just in the last few years alone, many new areas of anti-knowledge have become hugely popular to the detriment of political culture and society at large -- climate change deniers, moon hoaxers, 9/11 conspiracists, the birther movement, the anti-vaxxer crowd and so on, and so on.

Knowledge, much as one would wish otherwise, is too valuable and too hard-won to let it be freely abused by people like Craig.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Dawkins clearly acted like a bit of a twat here, but I fail to see how this discredits the contents of his book (which was the original topic).

Yeah it was a twat move. My understanding from articles by Dawkins on things like this (though not this incident) is that Dawkins is reluctant to get drawn into having to critique "evidence" for these phenomena on his programs.

But then why interview these people? I don't follow what Dawkins thought would happen, Sheldrake clearly believes he has evidence for telepathy, so did Dawkins really expect him to agree with him when he said there as no evidence for it?

Dawkins should stop making these types of programs, he really is not very good at it.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

Who holds Craig up as a leading defender of the cosmological argument?

Stanford philosophy department good enough for you?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah it was a twat move. My understanding from articles by Dawkins on things like this (though not this incident) is that Dawkins is reluctant to get drawn into having to critique "evidence" for these phenomena on his programs.

But then why interview these people? I don't follow what Dawkins thought would happen, Sheldrake clearly believes he has evidence for telepathy, so did Dawkins really expect him to agree with him when he said there as no evidence for it?

Dawkins should stop making these types of programs, he really is not very good at it.

Another thing Dawkins sometimes does in live or unedited interviews, is to get entirely the wrong end of the stick and misunderstand a person. And he also makes silly "Freudian" type slips saying things like "millions of years" instead of "billions of years" etc. But these problems don't effect his book contents, which are of course proof read.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Dawkins clearly acted like a bit of a twat here, but I fail to see how this discredits the contents of his book (which was the original topic).

Actually, the OP was concerning his books (plural) which has since broadened beyond that. It is inconsistent to point out that the opinion of somebody who has direct contact with Dawkins isn't directly related to the OP and also maintain silent about the pages and pages of posts about another man, William Lane Craig.