Dawkins Straw Man: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Dawkins Straw Man » Dawkins Straw Man

Dawkins Straw Man

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dawkins Straw Man

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

Posted 08/29/08 - 01:45 PM:	#31
Kwalish Kid wrote: Nice answer. If you cannot actually defend your bizarre claims, then don't make them. You introduced this idea, so you defend it. If you cannot read, you shouldn't be writing. I didn't say I couldn't defend my claims, I said this is not the proper venue for doing it. Your argument, if you recall, is that Christians only believe in the Bible because, and only to the extent that, the Catholic Church tells them to. Yep, that's definitive. You can't read.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307

Posted 08/29/08 - 07:03 PM:	#32
Mariner wrote: I never saw him baffled. And his books are not testimonials of baffledness, either (if there is such a word). He speaks as if he knew what he was talking about. Yes, he is speaking as if he knows what he is talking about. He is speaking from a secular/atheist viewpoint, so his points make sense to him. I'm saying he seems to be baffled as to why someone can hold a viewpoint that contradicts clear evidence in biology or humanism. Maybe he even suspects that many Christians are aware that they are contrary to (his) logic, but proceed anyway for some political gains. The point is, if its "straw man", then he has to know that the version of Christianity he presents is not the "correct" one, (of course that brings up the question of which position is "correct"), and is deliberately trying to weigh his arguments against Christians by making them look ridiculous. I think he sincerely believes that Christian viewpoints are ridiculous, (from within his own context), and he is appealing to others who believe the same thing. Mariner wrote: No, that's not "just you". That's sanity. Dawkins is explicitly against this position. He says that talking about theology is akin to child abuse (remember that?) -- he would never encourage you to "talk to someone who speaks theology about religious matters." Really, I don't think you've read the most virulent Dawkinsian positions. You are defending someone else, not Dawkins. (Your position is exactly equivalent to the position of the late Stephen Jay Gould -- look around for Dawkins' words about that). I've read them. I think he goes overboard and I've been shot down by Dawkins supporters as being misrepresentation of his ideas. I distinctly remember him commenting that raising a child with religious beliefs should be considered "child abuse" and their parents should be charged. I recently read one comment where he compared teaching a religion to a group of individuals should be treated as introducing a destructive disease to a population, (through the "meme" idea). I think those ideas are even too extreme for his secular humanist audience and I've been told that I didn't understand his statements, or that they were simply "metaphorical", (sound familiar). I agree that he tends to be anti-religious ... mostly because he sees religion as anti-science or anti-thinking. I don't like a lot of his positions. I don't agree with his humanist viewpoints. In "The God Delusion", he argues for an objective moral philosophy for atheists, which I find very strange for a humanist. Mariner wrote: An honest misunderstanding requires correction -- a willful misrepresentation requires denounciation as a fraud. This goes for every discipline (including science), why shouldn't it apply to religious issues? It isn't a helpful response to a "straw man" to simply call it incorrect without presenting details about why it is a misrepresentation. The "audience" is left to choose between a misrepresentation and an unknown. I think correction should always be the preferred response. In this case, the audience is already fairly familiar with Christian arguments, and are looking for confirmation of their bias. The statements made wouldn't be intended to mislead or commit fraud, but simply to raise the emotional content and invoke a less productive response from Christians.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/29/08 - 07:41 PM:	#33
swstephe wrote: It isn't a helpful response to a "straw man" to simply call it incorrect without presenting details about why it is a misrepresentation. I thought the answer was that anything that an atheist says about a religious text is a misinterpretation because they don't believe in the text. Any atheist that does Biblical study, or history of Biblical events, must be wrong a priori because they are interpreting things as a non-believer, and this is simply false.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Kurt_Godel
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 528

Posted 08/30/08 - 08:13 AM:	#34
Agree with KK. swstephe, I fully understand your point...that both parties Dawkins and Christians have a different set of predicates and vastly different contexts. I still don't see how this would render Dawkins' argument as a 'straw man', given the reason and the rules of logic still apply to both parties.

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 08/30/08 - 08:48 AM:	#35
swstephe wrote: The point is, if its "straw man", then he has to know that the version of Christianity he presents is not the "correct" one, (of course that brings up the question of which position is "correct"), and is deliberately trying to weigh his arguments against Christians by making them look ridiculous. I think he sincerely believes that Christian viewpoints are ridiculous, (from within his own context), and he is appealing to others who believe the same thing. I respectfully disagree with this point. It seems that the only people claiming this to be a "straw man" are the Christians themselves and not Dawkins. The straw man arises because the Christian fails to reconcile the OT account that Dawkins provides with their own personal belief about God. Whether a reconciliation actually needs to take place is a point of contention as Mariner has pointed out... Mariner wrote: We (Christians) certainly do not need to accept or reconcile Dawkins' caricature with our personal belief. And the argument as to why we can dismiss the caricature is already given -- we can do that because it has nothing to do with "the OT description", as you put it. However, my claim was not that Dawkins is ignorant of the OT or has the OT description wrong. The problem is only that when Christians are confronted with the Dawkins account of the OT they just claim it to not be their personal belief about God. They don't show how Dawkins got it wrong, and I don't think any argument could exist to show conclusively that Dawkins in fact does have it wrong. The Christian maintains that the reality of God is more than the OT description and despite evidence to show God to be of a certain character they use their personal belief as trump to say God is the opposite. Shouldn't a Christian have a belief in God that can reconcile the supposed word of God (in the OT) and their own personal belief in God? If the Christian makes a claim about God changing then it lends itself to systemic doubt.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307

Posted 08/30/08 - 06:21 PM:	#36
Soylent wrote: I respectfully disagree with this point. It seems that the only people claiming this to be a "straw man" are the Christians themselves and not Dawkins. The straw man arises because the Christian fails to reconcile the OT account that Dawkins provides with their own personal belief about God. Whether a reconciliation actually needs to take place is a point of contention as Mariner has pointed out... I agree that only the Christians are claiming it is "straw man". But to commit "straw man", you need to deliberately misrepresent a position and dismiss the incorrect position. I'm not talking about reconciliation, just to present a correction. This may be difficult to present, however, because there are very few subjects which all Christians agree on, even who are considered Christian or not. Maybe that is the real problem. If Dawkins questions the beliefs of young-earth creationist Christians, is he misrepresenting Christianity by implying that all Christians are young-earth creationists? I bet you can't find a single Christian who will agree with the statement that there are no Christians that are young-earth creationists, so if Dawkins had been more specific, his criticisms would be accurate. The thing that Christians are really insulted by the generalization, but are redirecting their embarrassment over a valid criticism of a subset of their group as a "misrepresentation". It is true of any religion. Christians can't reconcile the OT in a way that would have universal agreement. There are huge degrees of variation within Christianity, from the fundamentalists who take OT literally and historical, to the liberal Christians who believe the OT is entirely metaphorical. If one Christian group tried to reconcile OT accounts with modern secular ethics, they would certainly face rejection from the different extremes.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307

Posted 08/30/08 - 06:27 PM:	#37
Kwalish Kid wrote: I thought the answer was that anything that an atheist says about a religious text is a misinterpretation because they don't believe in the text. Any atheist that does Biblical study, or history of Biblical events, must be wrong a priori because they are interpreting things as a non-believer, and this is simply false. I like it, but for the wrong reasons, (as usual). If a priori belief in the Bible is a mandatory requirement for interpretation, then a belief in Christianity is impossible through reason and skepticism alone. It would require an assumption which could never be challenged, (falsifiability). I like it because it points out what I always say, religion can only be a subjective experience and calls for any objective purpose is unjustified.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 08/30/08 - 06:36 PM:	#38
swstephe wrote: I like it, but for the wrong reasons, (as usual). If a priori belief in the Bible is a mandatory requirement for interpretation, then a belief in Christianity is impossible through reason and skepticism alone. It would require an assumption which could never be challenged, (falsifiability). I like it because it points out what I always say, religion can only be a subjective experience and calls for any objective purpose is unjustified. OK, but where does that leave us with the people who are stoning adulterers, or keeping slaves, or killing doctors like many Christians like to do on the basis for their subjective religious belief? Should we grin and bear it? Should we lobotomize them?
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/31/08 - 06:55 AM:	#39
swstephe wrote to commit "straw man", you need to deliberately misrepresent a position and dismiss the incorrect position. Shouldn't that be "dismiss the correct position"? If someone deliberately misrepresents a position then they are deceitful and not-to-be-trusted folk. This may sometimes be the case but it can also be that someone is unwilling or unable to understand the claims presented. No doubt some opponents of Dawkins believe that he lies - he knows its not the truth but there he goes again - and may then justify their own "bad" practices as serving a higher good.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2598

Posted 08/31/08 - 08:22 AM:	#40
Mariner, Not that I needed to see it. Your opinion of Dawkins' books is enough to mark you as ignorant of the subject as well. If you want to verify your ignorance, read any book by an acknowledged author in this field I'm not sure what "field" you are referring to. From your other posts it appears that you are talking about the field of the theological and historical study of writings in the Bible. But this field has no relevance to Dawkins' arguments, and therefore no relevance to this discussion. (with the exception of Dawkins, of course -- you can't verify the errors of Dawkins against the current expert knowledge by reading Dawkins' books, which is why the claim that you have "made your own research", when substantiated only by the assertion that "you have read Dawkins' books", is quite amusing. It's like saying that, since you read Behe, you know he's right about Intelligent Design...). Apperantly I misunderstood you. When you said you knew more about the subject than me, I erroneously thought you meant the subject which we were actually discussing. Namely Dawkins' books, and subjects relevant to the arguments he makes, such as what the Bible says, how various modern Christians interpret what it says, what those modern Christians believe, and how those beliefs contribute to misconceptions about the world. I did not realize that you were actually talking about being more knowledgable about what theological scholars think the proper interpretation of the Bible is. I don't recal Dawkins even discussing that subject. I can indicate some books if you want to do that research. Let me know if I can be of any help. Really, to say that Dawkins knows what he's talking about is akin to saying that the Flat Earth Society has a good standing in the NSF or in similar academies. Open the first page of The God Delusion and the errors will tumble down from the page; you have to be [heavily] asleep not to notice them. Well, I have the God Delusion right here. I am looking at the first page of Chapter 1. It describes how a teacher that Dawkins was fond of was inspired by a childhood experience to ultimately become an Anglican priest, and uses this as an example to clarify that he (Dawkins) did not have religion shoved down his throat. There was no mention whatsoever of biblical facts or claims of what theological scholars believe. So I really don't see your point. So far your posts just seem to confirm my point about strawman attacks against Dawkins. You have been characterizing his books as though they were something they are not. The God Delusion, for example, is not an attempt to make claims about how the Bible should be interpreted, nor to claim that all (or even any) Christians believe that some particular interpretation of the Bible is literally true. It is an attempt to discuss the misconceptions about the world that are commonly associated with Christian beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with theology, other than the trivial issue of disagreeing with any theology that flatly contradicts what is scientifically known. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.