nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Richard Dawkins

branie

Anyone here read any of his books, and what's their opinion on them? apologies if there are threads on this already.

Find more posts tagged with

richard dawkins

Quick Links

Comments

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

"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).

And what has Irenaeus got to do with Dawkins' quote? We already know that the four canonical Gospels were in use as a unit before Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies". It is, sadly, common for atheist propaganda websites to quote Irenaeus as if that were the rationale for choosing the number of the Gospels, when, as any student of Church History knows, it was a case of Irenaeus attempting (badly IMHO) to defend what was already accepted by the Church against those who would dispute it.

"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."

So this guy's view is that there was a proto-version for Matthew. While that may indeed be plausible, it does not support the idea that the choice of the 4 Canonical Gospels was arbitrary. Indeed, since we only know a few fragments of what was in the Gospel of Hebrews we have no evidence to claim that its ultimate rejection was arbitrary (although if Edwards it was not so much rejected as simply supplanted by a later revision that became Matthew).

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 won't get far with citing "a few scholars"! Most scholars date Thomas much later, and besides, its theology is clearly Gnostic. Therefore, while it probably didn't exist while the 4 canonical Gospels were becoming accepted, if it did then it would still be rejected on theological grounds. So, again, not arbitrarily.

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.

THat is irrelevant to whether they were chosen arbitrarily or not. All the evidence we have indicates that the early christians, fallible or not, did what they 'thought' was right for reasons that were very far from arbitrary.

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.

Which would argue against the choice being made arbitrarily. The Canon was formed after much debate and discussion.

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.

Who mentioned anything being a lie? I said it was an error, which it was.

Prefacing an error with 'more or less' does not remove the error. There is no evidence that the choice of the 4 Canonical Gospels over other books was arbitrary, more or less arbitrary, or even slightly arbitrary.

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.

Not really. There is little or no evidence of contemporary Gospels that were considered serious contenders for inclusion as Scripture.

However, and this was my point, Dawkins specifically named works that Jefferson was thinking of when, in fact, it was impossible for Jefferson to have known about those particular books.

"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

Yes, i'm aware of Jefferson's views on Scripture - but here they serve as a red herring. They do not in any way lessen Dawkins' error.

"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

This is from a letter by John Adams to John Taylor, and it refers to events that occurred long after the Canon was formed. Apart from littering this thread with irrelevant diatribes, why are you quoting it? It has nothing to do with Dawkins, Jefferson or the choosing of the 4 Canonical Gospels.

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

I have done so, and you have signally failed to address it.

Dawkins claimed the choice of the four Canonical Gospels was done arbitrarily, when there is no evidence to support that claim and abundant evidence that suggests the opposite.

Also, Dawkins claimed that Jefferson had books in mind when Jefferson clearly did not even know of some of those books.

That is what happens when people talk about stuff they don't actually understand.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

Wha? I was indirectly referring to your "getting back on track..." comment, which I assumed meant the original topic but it seems you want actually want to debate William Lane Craig so fine.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

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

It's not the same situation. My point is that when a professional philosopher says "let's have a debate about philosophy", that's very different to when a creationist extremists says "let's have a debate about adam and eve/creationism"

You are arguing that Craig doesn't qualify as a philosopher. I have presentes arguments which I believe demonstrate the falsehood of that assertion.

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.

I tend to agree with this position. Dawkins on the other seems quite willing to give airtime to as many creationist extremists as he can lay his hands on.

The same holds with people like Craig.

No. See point above.

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.

That may be why Dawkins dismisses him as a "professional debater" or it may not. However, I haven't seen a quote from Dawkins to that effect. I have only seen your assumption on his behalf.

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.

Well, I disagree with the cosmological argument. However to dismiss it as obvious "bunk" is a bit much. It has been discussed extensively in philosophical literature for quite a long time both by supporters and opponents. Unless you are a professional philosopher, can you explain why you have seen through this obvious bunk so quickly, while many philosophers have seen fit to spend a lot of energy discussing the pros and cons.

I should say that the reasons I have for disagreeing with the CA are not ones that I have seen expressed in print. However, I have not formulated them accurately as philosophical arguments and am reluctant to do so in public because of my own lack of expertise in the area.

equivariant

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

The pages and pages of posts are about whether or not Dawkins is justified in refusing to debate Craig and so is relevant to the OP

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Wha? I was indirectly referring to your "getting back on track..." comment, which I assumed meant the original topic but it seems you want actually want to debate William Lane Craig so fine.

Stop being silly.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Stop being silly.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. PM me if you care to explain.

Lukker-

I cringed so much reading this thread.

Fanny Cradock

equivariant wrote: »

The pages and pages of posts are about whether or not Dawkins is justified in refusing to debate Craig and so is relevant to the OP

Read what I said! I said that it was inconsistent to mention that one man's opinion of Dawkins was off topic while not mentioning anything about the discussion people were having about WLC and his philosophical credentials. I personally didn't say that the WLC tangent was or was not relevant to the OP. The correct thing to do would be to report the thread as going off topic (specifically the link I posted and the WLC tangent) or say nothing.

equivariant

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Read what I said! I said that it was inconsistent to mention that one man's opinion of Dawkins was off topic while not mentioning anything about the discussion people were having about WLC and his philosophical credentials. I personally didn't say that the WLC tangent was or was not relevant to the OP. The correct thing to do would be to report the thread as going off topic (specifically the link I posted and the WLC tangent) or say nothing.

Point taken

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

It's not the same situation. My point is that when a professional philosopher says "let's have a debate about philosophy", that's very different to when a creationist extremists says "let's have a debate about adam and eve/creationism"

Of course it is. Plenty of Creationists claim to be professional scientists, and if having a PhD and being employed by a group that funds you to do science makes you one then they are.

Explain to me why Dawkins shouldn't debate them but should debate Craig?

equivariant wrote: »

You are arguing that Craig doesn't qualify as a philosopher. I have presentes arguments which I believe demonstrate the falsehood of that assertion.

I'm arguing that Craig doesn't qualify as a philosopher interested in exploration of philosophy as opposed to re-enforcing is own ideas in the face of a torrent of counter arguments.

Thus a debate with him would be a pointless waste of time and do nothing but give him what he wants, the oxygen of discussion.

And you haven't demonstrate the falsehood of that at all.

equivariant wrote: »

I tend to agree with this position. Dawkins on the other seems quite willing to give airtime to as many creationist extremists as he can lay his hands on.

Dawkins doesn't debate Creationists. Doesn't matter if they have a PhD.

equivariant wrote: »

Well, I disagree with the cosmological argument. However to dismiss it as obvious "bunk" is a bit much.

Why?

It is based on assumptions that don't hold, and that in fact have been shown not to hold by science.

So while 60 or 70 years ago people might have been excused for assuming these assumptions hold without actual being able to demonstrate that, there is no excuse any more.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

Stanford philosophy department good enough for you?

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

They are perfectly fine, but they aren't saying Craig is a leading defender of the argument, they are saying he popularized it after it had fallen out of favour. Which he did.

Did you actually read the responses to Craig's version?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Cause he is really bad at it, and ends up looking like a hypocritical fool.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

They are perfectly fine, but they aren't saying Craig is a leading defender of the argument, they are saying he popularized it after it had fallen out of favour. Which he did.

Did you actually read the responses to Craig's version?

Oh for **** sake - the line about popularisation is in the first paragraph on the Kalam CA, please read at least some of the rest of that section. So they are not putting him foward as a defender of CA, despite spending a good portion of the article discussing his philosophical arguments, indeed discussing precisely his arguments in defense of the CA? I know you are determined to make a point Wicknight, but I have to say your not doing yourself any favours with this type of stubbornness. How can anyone read that article and then say that the author does not include Craig as a defender of the CA?

Yes I did read some of the criticisms of his arguments and I generally find them reasonable (at least the ones that I have thought about)

THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

The point is that the author, writing on behalf of the philosophy department of one of the best universities in the world, clearly sees Craig as one of the main defenders of the CA. This goes directly against your claims that Craig is not taken seriously in philosophy and is not seen as a defender of the CA by professional philosophers.

PS In fact the author of the stanford article says this about Craig's writings before going on to describle many of his arguments in some detail.

"A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig."

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Having a PhD does not make you a serious philosopher, having a serious interest and devotion to philosophy makes you a serious philosopher.

But let us imagine that he was wining debates by only having a serious interest and devotion to philosophy and no qualifications whatsoever. The first charge that would be laid against him is that he has no qualifications. You can't win with you guys :rolleyes:

Applause must go to equivariant for the most balanced and honest comments I've read on boards in quite a while. Well done to you sir / miss. We could all learn a lot from you.

Will try and get more time to respond to posts later. Can't get a bloody minute in work :mad:

equivariant

Anyway, I off to shower, having dirtied myself by spending the day defending WLC. I need to purge myself before going out to watch Barca hammer Arsenal

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Cause he is really bad at it, and ends up looking like a hypocritical fool.

I remember agreeing with his critique of homeopathy he gave during The Enemies of Reason (it's bunk, in other words) but the manner in how he went about making his point made me want unscrew the top of his salt shaker (that's not a euphemism, btw).

equivariant

Soul Winner wrote: »

Applause must go to equivariant for the most balanced and honest comments I've read on boards in quite a while. Well done to you sir / miss. We could all learn a lot from you.

Will try and get more time to respond to posts later. Can't get a bloody minute in work :mad:

Dammit Wicknight - look what you've made me do

I may need to get drunk now

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But let us imagine that he was wining debates by only having a serious interest and devotion to philosophy and no qualifications whatsoever. The first charge that would be laid against him is that he has no qualifications. You can't win with you guys :rolleyes:

Yes, that is correct.

You "win" Soul Winner by presenting people who have both. I'm not sure why people think this is such an unreasonable requirement.

You would probably be no less likely to let a zoologists repair your computer than you would someone who has a degree in computers from 1977 and who has spent the last 30 years as a professional dancer.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I remember agreeing with his critique of homeopathy he gave during The Enemies of Reason (it's bunk, in other words) but the manner in how he went about making his point made me want unscrew the top of his salt shaker (that's not a euphemism, btw).

Didn't see that episode so can't comment. I personally think Dawkins should stick to writing books. He is poor on telly. Though I don't think that is because he is arrogant.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Didn't see that episode so can't comment. I personally think Dawkins should stick to writing books. He is poor on telly. Though I don't think that is because he is arrogant.

Fair enough. I guess that if this thread has taught us anything (and it hasn't, of course) it's that one man's derision is another man's route to truth.

johno2

Soul Winner wrote: »

Applause must go to equivariant for the most balanced and honest comments I've read on boards in quite a while. Well done to you sir / miss. We could all learn a lot from you.

Which thread were you reading? equivariants method of replying is to ignore half a post and take the other half out of context to make his opponent look bad. He has no interest in having a conversation or debate, just a desire for making others think they're wrong. He's even arguing against what he actually thinks some of the time, how hungry is his debating ego? Luckily I only wasted 30 minutes on this thread before I saw through that. Some other poor shmucks have wasted most of a day.

johno

Fanny Cradock

Post not poster, johno.

PDN

equivariant wrote: »

I need to purge myself before going out to watch Barca hammer Arsenal

Now there has to be something in the Charter to stop that kind of talk!

Turtwig

equivariant wrote: »

Barca hammer Arsenal

....

Fanny Cradock

*cough* Birmingham 1 Arsenal 1 *cough*

I'm sure Dunphy would say something about "bottlers" at this point.

Stephentlig

What I dont like about Dawkins argument aside from his snidefulness ( is that even a word? ) is that he assumes an awful lot that he has to prove, also what he finds repungent about the Old Tesament is actually his own theory of the selfish Gene in which he loves and calls beautiful.

He also calls a miracle something that is Highly improbable, but if something is improbable and not immpossible, then it is probable and worth calling a miracle, but why doesnt dawkins just call it a miracle? the answer is simple: he'd rather call it anything but a miracle which is only a manifestation of his atheism. His faith in the powers of Chance is astounding to say the least.

Therefore if God is highly improbable then he is not impossible and therefore probable, and so we should believe in him.

Am I making sense?

Pax Christi
Stephentlig

mardybumbum

Stephentlig wrote: »

Am I making sense?

Pax Christi
Stephentlig

Not really.
Dawkins has mentioned on numerous occasions that he was dissapointed when certain people used the Selfish Gene as an excuse to practise their dog eat dog methods in business.
Im not sure if he has called it beautiful, perhaps you would be able to provide a reference to that?
At moments, I often consider evolution to be elegant myself, but on further inspection we realise that it is pretty cruel.

Im sure most, indeed all the contributors to this forum accept that the theory of evolution is fact. Does that mean they think its a great thing?
Probably not.
Humans try their best to interfere with natural selection everyday. Its the goal of medicine.

So, perhaps he finds its simplicity to be elegant, but does not endorse the outcome?
Im sure he doesn't take pleasure in the deaths of those who suffer from hereditary diseases, e.t.c

As for not calling a highly improbable event a miracle. Well its probably not to confuse anyone.
You would nearly believe Einstein was religious the number of times he mentioned God.

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

At moments, I often consider evolution to be elegant myself, but on further inspection we realise that it is pretty cruel.

Evolution isn't cruel, you have asigned emotional intent to a process that has no potential for such ends. Still, this topic is not suitable for this thread.

mardybumbum

Edit: I have a feeling this may go around in circles.

equivariant

johno2 wrote: »

Which thread were you reading? equivariants method of replying is to ignore half a post and take the other half out of context to make his opponent look bad. He has no interest in having a conversation or debate, just a desire for making others think they're wrong. He's even arguing against what he actually thinks some of the time, how hungry is his debating ego? Luckily I only wasted 30 minutes on this thread before I saw through that. Some other poor shmucks have wasted most of a day.

johno

I know I must be onto something when the ad hominems start flying (and with thanks from Robin, no less. Why exactly are you thanking someone for an ad hominem?).

For Zeus' sake, at least try to make a point instead of incoherently ranting about how I am "arguing against what I think" and trying to "make others think that they are wrong" (boo hoo). What ARE you talking about?

I have put forward two basic points in this thread

A. That Dawkins is being disingenuous in the reasons that he presents for refusing to debate Craig

B. That I disagree with Craig's arguments for theism.

How, in the name of the FSM, are these two points contraddictory?

Of all the regular Dawkins suporters on this forum, Sam Vimes is the only one that made a reasonable assessment of this particular situation.

You say I have no interest in debate or conversation (although later you say I have a hungry debating ego - make up your mind for teapot's sake)? Well I will point out that most of my posts are more than a few lines of ad hominems and that I try to respond to specific points in previous posts (unlike the garbage that I quoted from you above)