First, look at this clip from a conference last year with Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion:
Now, does anything strike you as odd about Dawkins’s response? Let me point it out: he did not answer the question at all. In fact, Dawkins deflected the question back to the questioner. Why is it so difficult for Dawkins to answer a relatively simple question. What if Dawkins is wrong? Sure, he does have a point that the faith practices of parents are typically passed along to their children, but that doesn’t make the question invalid, especially since his project is an attack on all religious traditions, not just American Christianity. Dr. Dawkins, if he is seriously engaging in anything to do with religious faith, especially from a “scientific” standpoint should know that one should be trying to disprove one’s own theory. In this case, honestly evaluating the question “what if you’re wrong?” is a prerequisite to the dialog in question. Deflecting that question is more a sign of fundamentalism than it is of academic study.
I am under the impression that you have not read “The God Delusion.” The answer Dawkins gives during this question period has been propagated throughout the blogosphere thanks to YouTube, but rarely is there any commentary on the rest of the lecture, which, of course, is a plug for his book.
What sort of answer would you honestly expect: “Well, I suppose I’ll just go to hell?” Seriously. The man just outlined why “there almost certainly is no God.” Whether you agree with him or not is besides the point, but this is not Pascal’s Wager (which he does briefly address in the book).
But let’s be honest. The question the young lady asked was a question based out of fear, not out of philosophic inquiry. It might as well be rephrased: “aren’t you afraid you are going to burn in hell? I know I would be if I were you.”
Even though her question may have been based on some kind of fear, the actual question is still a valid one. His response was asking her the same question, so it must be somewhat important. If Dawkins expects theists to answer the same question (as he asks, “what if you’re wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pink faeries?”), then he should also be honest enough to answer the question.
If he thought the question was an invalid question, his response should have been remarkably different, if he is treating the subject from a serious, academic standpoint. If he’s just spouting propaganda, then his response is very accurate to his perceptions.
Chris,
I don’t think he expects theists to answer the question, or else we would not pick such outlandish examples as the faeries or FSM. There is no doubt that Dawkins often engages in polemics against religion that often set up straw man arguments, but this seems to be a result of him simply stooping down to the level of the people he opposes.
“if he is treating the subject from a serious, academic standpoint.”
That fact is, he doesn’t. Dawkins is a scientist and treats his science as a academic endeavour. His major flaw is that he argues that God can be another hypothesis for science to investigate, even if the answers are all in the form of probabilities. Dawkins, however, has not once looked to the scholars of religious studies to explain his ideas. He never defines what religion is, but he gives is term “religion” an essence anyway (a delusional condition of the human mind, which in turn he must explain through evolutionary theory).
Does Dawkins engage in propaganda? Sure, that is his whole point about being a “religious non-believer.” But he isn’t “just spouting propaganda”, since he systematically deals with the questions that theists ask. Dawkins, unfortunately, has continued to learn the hard way that what he says will be taken out of context and with the same amount of mercy he bestows upon theists.
But again, what sort of scholarly answer could he actually give other than “I will join the other 5 billion people on this planet in hell.” The point he was making was a valid one: the question, according to his paradigm, is a ridiculous one.
But he is pitting himself against all theists, not just the fundamentalists. In other words, he is painting all theists as fundamentalists, not just the radicals. If Dawkins is trying to be “scientific” about this, then he shouldn’t be so polemical.
His response forces the discussion into his paradigm: observable science finds non-observable phenomena “ridiculous.” First, that ignores the limits of science (i.e. observable and repeatable physical phenomena). Second, he then forms a “scientific” hypothesis on things outside the limits of science (i.e. non-observable metaphysical phenomena) and expects every reasonable, logical person to accept his conclusion. No scientist should be that immune to criticism.
Here’s my point: his whole “religion as a delusion” project is non-scholarly. He uses a bastardization of science as a crutch and expects reasonable people to accept his results. This is something I would expect from a cocky 17 year old boy in high school who read Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, not a fellow at Oxford University.
‘But he is pitting himself against all theists, not just the fundamentalists.’
Dawkins’ is a strong atheist and he actually has more respect for radicals and fundamentalists than the “watered-down” liberal or moderate Christians. But yes, a theist is a theist. Whether you are a fundamentalist/radical or a liberal/moderate theist, you still believe in a personal God (unless you are John Shelby Spong).
‘If Dawkins is trying to be “scientific” about this, then he shouldn’t be so polemical.
His response forces the discussion into his paradigm: observable science finds non-observable phenomena “ridiculous.”’
I am unsure why a scientist cannot be polemical. Science isn’t stoicism. Polemics are value-neutral and very different from dogmatism (which would be a much more convincing accusation against Darwin in my opinion). I am trying to see both sides here - normally when one engages in any discussion, such as in Dawkins’ case, the argument is meant to persuade someone to see something, hence attempting to move his readers/viewers into his paradigm (how else would you argue?).
The first half of “The God Delusion” (the only part I have read so far) deals explicitly with the issues you raised in your second paragraph. Again, it does not appear that you have actually read Dawkins, but merely skipping his arguments and attacking his conclusions. Although he may be harsh, I would hardly compare him to a 17-year-old.
It seems odd that he would have more respect for someone like Jerry Falwell than a fellow academic like NT Wright.
Arguing, however, does not need to be a polemic or a diatribe in order to succeed in persuading others. It is relatively tactless and is typically seen as a last resort (except in political debate–at least in the States–where that is the normal form of communication).
You’re correct that I have not read Dawkins’s book, but my criticism isn’t about his entire project, but about his response in the video. Nearly any other response (giving a good reason why his argument[s] won’t fail, answering the question, or even not responding at all) would have been more appropriate than what he actually did. Again, that sort of tact is found more often in 17 year-old boys.
I think we are in agreement, with many others who do not subscribe to the beliefs of the “Brights”, that Dawkins is not exactly the most tactful speaker - this may have something to do with why he may respect fundamentalists more than moderate/liberal Christians. I, however, would not say that he uses polemics, that is simply harsh or strong attacks, as a mode of persuasion - I think it is purely emotional, a result from his own fanaticism, whether backed up by science of not.
I think the point I was making by shrugging aside such tactless speech is the same reason philosophers chose not to study the lives of past philosophers: attack the idea, not the person.
Perhaps I simply see his response in a different light after reading the first half of the book. It is true, however, that he gives little value to any sort of theological inquiry (which is essentially what the question in this clip was) that isn’t based on “scientific” probabilities. If one follows his line of reasoning, which would have been apparent in the lecture prior to this question, we would know that he would have already addressed the “frivolity” of soteriology (his view, not mine).
I recently heard a small part of Mr Dawkins Beatty lecture (Queerer than We Suppose: The Strangeness of Science).
I was facinated that someone who brandishes alternate realities to deal with why evolution gave birds wings, doesn’t see that murderers have their own to deal with.
Evolution hasn’t taken us far enough yet, to have displaced arrogance and bigotry. Or was the message that survival requires arrogance and bigotry?
I am happy with my reality that lets we discard Mr Dawkins as lost in his own.
Dawkins was merely demonstrating that religious propositions tend to be mutually exclusive; propositions whose truth values are statistically attributable to cultural heritage.