Dawkins Straw Man: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dawkins Straw Man

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 08/27/08 - 06:02 AM: Subject: Dawkins Straw Man	#1
In several debates that I have watched involving Richard Dawkins, he condemns Christianity by using a Straw Man argument. Often those opposing his view are quick to point this fact out and as such do not give his arguments much weight. While it is unfair and fallacious for Dawkins to give Christianity such treatment, it is equally unfair for the Christian proponents to require Dawkins tailor his arguments to each individuals belief system in Christianity. From what I have observed, the Straw Man that Dawkins creates is simply by taking the Old Testament account of God as a literal description of what the modern Christian believes God to be like. The modern Christian however, is quick to point out that the description of God and the literal belief in the Old Testament have both changed over time. As such, when Dawkins condemns the Christian God as being jealous and brutal, he is only addressing the beliefs of those people that take the Old Testament as a literal book. The modern Christian is content to brush aside Dawkins' argument with a shrug suggesting that the Christian God they believe in is forgiving and tolerant. Through personal revelation and without any text to point to, the modern Christian feels as though they have defeated Dawkins. It is demanded that Dawkins address each personal belief separately so that one by one, the Christian can see the error in their ways. What Dawkins has done however is construct an argument that prima facie each Christian should agree to. Armed with the argument that the Old Testament is a book written by God and not man, each Christian must concede that their personal view of God must also account for the Old Testament portrayal. If the Christian dismisses the Old Testament as being an archaic description of God and that God has since changed, they invite other criticisms of their entire belief system that they must now address. For instance, if God is not an unchanging God, how can we know what God is like day-to-day? How do we know that in the end God will not just change its mind and all mankind will be eternally condemned despite belief in God? How can you take any rule or law given by God to be unchanging if God is not unchanging? With these questions in mind, it is unfair that the Christian abandons the Old Testament God merely to save face with Richard Dawkins. It is because of these systemic problems that arise when talking about a changing personal God that Richard Dawkins "creates" the Straw Man.

Kurt_Godel
Professor

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 528

Posted 08/27/08 - 07:27 AM:	#2
Are you really taking faith based counters to logical arguments seriously?

Mariner
Longing

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

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

Posted 08/27/08 - 08:33 AM:	#3
Soylent wrote: With these questions in mind, it is unfair that the Christian abandons the Old Testament God merely to save face with Richard Dawkins. It is because of these systemic problems that arise when talking about a changing personal God that Richard Dawkins "creates" the Straw Man. Christians do not abandon the OT God. They merely point out that Dawkins lacks the basic skills to interpret the Bible, such as the imagination to read it as its (human) authors would have intended it to be read, allowing for metaphors, etc. Note, these exegetic principles are as old as the Bible itself, common to both Christian and Jewish traditions, and are basically the result of common sense (something that is lacking in Dawkins' constitution, unfortunately). No one except Dawkins and his fans believe that when the Bible talks about the stretched arm of God, it is referencing a physical body. Just as Dawkins (correctly) feels it is a waste of time to debate with creationists when it comes to discussing evolution, theologians reckon it is a waste of time to discuss Dawkins' arguments about the Bible. Though they don't have media support, best-selling books, etc., they have the principles of their subject of inquiry to support their decision. (The weirdest thing about Dawkinism is not exactly its ignorance of the subject, it is its insistence that learning the subject is not necessary to debunk it. Somehow, they don't feel that this rule of thumb applies when one is discussing physics or evolution -- only theology is insulated from the necessity of study).
"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

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 08/27/08 - 08:41 AM:	#4
So what is the metaphorical meaning of the various examples of genocide in the OT, and what is the Christian perspective on these events?
"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?

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 08/27/08 - 11:27 AM:	#5
I take all dialogue concerning this subject serious as long as it is coherent. Once the faith based group starts arguing in terms of logic and fallacies of logic I think it is fair game to pursue those arguments to their end. Its only when they pull out the "faith card" that no more can be said. I am interested in hearing what would be said about Kwalish Kid's remark. As I understand it, those are more of the charges that anti-theists or the Dawkins type would bring up rather than the outstretched arm of God example. Whether the outstretched arm of God is a metaphor or not does not really trouble people that hold that belief in God is dangerous.

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 08/27/08 - 01:27 PM:	#6
I see your point Mariner... Mariner wrote: No one except Dawkins and his fans believe that when the Bible talks about the stretched arm of God, it is referencing a physical body. But I can prove you wrong right now...

Mariner
Longing

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

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

Posted 08/27/08 - 01:56 PM:	#7
Kwalish Kid wrote: So what is the metaphorical meaning of the various examples of genocide in the OT, and what is the Christian perspective on these events? Be specific, and I'll be specific.
"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

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 08/27/08 - 02:28 PM:	#8
Mariner wrote: Christians do not abandon the OT God. They merely point out that Dawkins lacks the basic skills to interpret the Bible, such as the imagination to read it as its (human) authors would have intended it to be read, allowing for metaphors, etc. Note, these exegetic principles are as old as the Bible itself, common to both Christian and Jewish traditions, and are basically the result of common sense (something that is lacking in Dawkins' constitution, unfortunately). No one except Dawkins and his fans believe that when the Bible talks about the stretched arm of God, it is referencing a physical body. The problem is that people are quick to claim those passages which are controversial to be metaphorical whereas those which are not to be literal. Or not necessarily controversial. Just those that they disagree with. There are some homosexual Christians who claim that attacks against homosexuality are metaphorical, or misunderstood, whereas there are other Christians who believe them to be literal. There are some who claim the advocacy of murder in the Old Testament to be metaphorical, or out-of-date, or misunderstood. But what makes them think this? Where in the Bible does it state which passages are metaphor and which are not? It seems that people use personal opinions to decide which passages are to be considered metaphorical. For example: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Now, where is the metaphor? And how does this relate to the commandment not to kill? The latter problem may be solved by claiming the correct translation to be a prohibition against murder, where murder does not include killing according to God's law, but then we run into the problem of showing that, according to God, it is wrong to kill those who commit adultery, as I'm sure most Christians will try to do today. But then I suppose this could have been a temporary law -- holding only for those at that time -- and that with the death of Jesus this was changed. But then who knows what else was changed? May I still kill those who lie with a man as one lies with a woman, as condoned in Leviticus 20:13?
I am awesome.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3307

Posted 08/27/08 - 05:43 PM:	#9
The OP is committing a major fallacy. I think "Straw Man" can only be applied to a specific statement, not to an entire argument. To say that Dawkins creates a big Straw Man means that everything that Dawkins says Christians believe in, they don't actually believe in. If he criticizes that Christian belief in an improbable deity is a delusion, then dismissing it as "straw man", would mean that Christians don't actually believe in a deity. Another example, on the issue of atonement, Dawkins says "the image of God as requiring the suffering and death of Jesus to effect reconciliation with humankind is immoral". If it is "straw man", then Dawkins is unfairly portraying Christians as believing in atonement or inaccurately portraying what atonement means. I think calling it "straw man", would be a "red herring" to distract from the question of whether such an act/requirement is immoral or not. I think Christians would be better off adopting post-modernist philosophy -- that while Dawkin's logic is valid in his world-view/premise, a Christian's view are still valid in their own world-view. As I've said before, all that matters is whether they are consistent. It is a "straw man" to assume that most of Dawkin's criticism are from OT perceptions, (atonement is definitely not an OT theme).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Mariner
Longing

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

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4371

Posted 08/27/08 - 06:20 PM:	#10
Yahadreas wrote: The problem is that people are quick to claim those passages which are controversial to be metaphorical whereas those which are not to be literal. Or not necessarily controversial. Just those that they disagree with. "People" may do that, but theologians don't. For example: Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Now, where is the metaphor? Nowhere to be seen. It is not a metaphor. It is a legal command. I think it is a good example to study, but we shouldn't turn this thread into an analysis of controversial Bible passages... this is still about how Dawkins does not feel it necessary to study this kind of thing. He is not asking your questions (even if my answers turn out to be disappointing to you); he is saying that it is not necessary to ask these questions in the first place, as religions are known-to-be-false. And how does this relate to the commandment not to kill? The latter problem may be solved by claiming the correct translation to be a prohibition against murder, where murder does not include killing according to God's law, but then we run into the problem of showing that, according to God, it is wrong to kill those who commit adultery, as I'm sure most Christians will try to do today. But then I suppose this could have been a temporary law -- holding only for those at that time -- and that with the death of Jesus this was changed. The fully correct answer probably lies upon all of those lines which you raise (though I, personally, don't think the translation argument about killing and murdering is very good). I'd mention some other points, though, about how this legal code of Leviticus was far more merciful than what was in vogue at that time in other cultures (remember, we had human sacrifices all around that area). But then who knows what else was changed? May I still kill those who lie with a man as one lies with a woman, as condoned in Leviticus 20:13? If you expected a legal code which is unambiguous and valid for all times, then you are expecting an impossibility (not even God can deal out impossibilities). At the very least, words change, meanings change, and there will always be the necessity of interpretation in any legal code (just as the problem of ethics cannot be solved by the setting up, in stone , of principles; interpretation and judgment are always required. If you want to know what else has changed, though, all you have to do is to follow Christ's words about it; the law is summed up in two commandments, love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself. As St. Paul said, love is the fulfillment of the law. That is what changed.
"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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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