Hello Pilgrim.1,

Since our last exchange, I have been doing some research on the question of the definition of atheism and will have to agree with you that etymologically, atheism means "without god"  rather than "without belief in god", on the premise that theism means god.

Looks like at some point in the middle ages theism came to also mean "belief in god", thus the other definition which I tended to favour.  Like I say, these are philosophically VERY different positions to defend, but practically for an individual, the difference is negligible.

I had found the defence of "without god" atheism a very difficult position to defend and likewise have many philosophers. Notwithstanding, many have attempted.  I shall soon present my list of the philosophers and the position they take.

Now, on Richard Dawkins.  I must admit, when I first became aware of Darkins, I thought his style was too abrasive and tended to distance my position from his, but that was about 20 years ago.  I have since learnt a lot about the subject and have revised my views about him.  I must also admit,  there is a lot that I do agree with him these days.  Of course, that does not mean I agree with him on everything, nor am I a disciple of his.  He will be the last one to encourage discipleship and committment to him.  I am sure he would rather ask you to look at the evidence/facts he present.  In order words, supposing what he said was being said by someone else, would they have the same force?

Take for instance, the core of his criticism;

1)  The labelling of children as Christian, Moslem, Jewish.  He regards this as a form of child-abuse.  Ok, these are strong words, but I have yet to see any good rebuttal of his point.  We rarely call children Keynesian, Marxist, Smithian, etc, etc.  So why should we label children with labels they did not chose for themselves?

2)  Why do religions deserve respect?  No other ideologies in life is respected simply for being an ideology, so why should religion?

3)  The miseducation of science in schools with the teaching of creationism, etc.

Dawkins is not a philosopher.  Hense, he tends to steer clear of deep philosophical arguments.  If you did read "The God Delusion" that fact would be very obvious.  Strong philosophical atheist find his arguments a little unsatisfactory ( I remember having the same feeling)  not because they were wrong but because they did not go far enough or were a little loose.  I am yet to see a robust philosophical rebuttal of TGD. This is not probably not the sort of thing philosophers spend most of their time on.

Would be interesting to see your arguments against Dawkins or any other arguments. Although Flew has criticised Dawkins I simply cannot remember the main thrust of his criticism.  Please can you enlighten me?

As far as I know, the only change in his position is that there may be a god, an impersonal god, uninterventionist god. Apparently, he appears to be impressed by the Argument from Design. So for all intends and purposes, his life is indistinguishable from the life of an atheist.

@huxley,

It's great to read your efforts at a working and practical definition of both theism and atheism. When we have a functional understanding of the terms either way, it then becomes easier for us to find a common ground for the germane questions of this discussion.

That said, here are a few things to highlight from yours:

huxley:

Now, on Richard Dawkins.  I must admit, when I first became aware of Darkins, I thought his style was too abrasive and tended to distance my position from his, but that was about 20 years ago.  I have since learnt a lot about the subject and have revised my views about him.  I must also admit,  there is a lot that I do agree with him these days.  Of course, that does not mean I agree with him on everything, nor am I a disciple of his.  He will be the last one to encourage discipleship and committment to him.  I am sure he would rather ask you to look at the evidence/facts he present.  In order words, supposing what he said was being said by someone else, would they have the same force;

It matters very little to me, at least, if it was someone else saying what Dawkins had said. The main issue is what has he really said that makes for a coherent discussion? When we examine the conclusions from his argument as a whole, would we be concerned at all that it was said by someone else?

huxley:

Take for instance, the core of his criticism;

1)  The labelling of children as Christian, Moslem, Jewish.  He regards this as a form of child-abuse.  Ok, these are strong words, but I have yet to see any good rebuttal of his point.

N/B ~ Edited:

First, there have been several very sound rebuttals of Dawkins' polarized views. Alistar McGrath is one name that even Dawkins will not forget in a hurry; and a few examples rebutting the latter may include:

 
God and the New Atheism:
A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
by John F Haught


Dawkin's God: Genes, Memes,
and the Meaning of Life
by Alister E McGrath


The Dawkins Delusion
by Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath


The Dawkins Letters:
Challenging Atheist Myths
by David Robertson

Of course, each one of these writers have their varied styles; but I especially enjoyed Alistair McGrath's books because they essentially and concisely captured Dawkins' most vociferous arguments in a neat package and engage the reader with the salient points. David Robertson is appreciated by many people for showing how very much Dawkins misrepresented the Biblical message.

huxley:

We rarely call children Keynesian, Marxist, Smithian, etc, etc.  So why should we label children with labels they did not chose for themselves?

Theism and all the "-isms" mentioned above are not on the same philosophical grounds. Even so, look at it from the other point I argued earlier: do we not think that George Smith's appellation of babies as [b]a[/b]theist is rather in the same league as Dawkin's child-abuse propaganda? However, it is true that children, on the other hand, may not have chosen to call themselves 'Christians, Jewish', etc., yet one should understand why those children are addressed as such - because they grew up in Christian or Jewish homes. Now Dawkins may have a problem with that; but we would really have to question whether he was not proposing a hideous child-abuse campaign for teaching children anti-Christian ethics! The issue here is not whether children lack or do not lack theistic beliefs: rather, it is an irrational campaign to promote godlessness among children that we should discourage.

huxley:

2)  Why do religions deserve respect?  No other ideologies in life is respected simply for being an ideology, so why should religion?

Quite to the contrary, Dawkins is being mischievous - carpriciously and embarrasingly mischiecous for a man who wears the title of "professor". Wait a minute, how do you think Dawkins reacts to remarks of his atheism and theory of evolutionary biology? Do you assume the mistake of thinking that he welcomes disrespect to his theories? Not in the least. Now the question is this: if Dawkins craves respect for his theories and yet cannot respect other people's views about the reality of life, who's playing the hypocrite?

huxley:

3) The miseducation of science in schools with the teaching of creationism, etc.

Teaching creationism in schools is not miseducation - it is a theory as much as evolutionary biology is a theory. There are many shades of evolutionary biology, as there are about creationism. Let me show you a few things happening currently around us:

Atheism should be taught in schools:

~~ Institute of Public Policy Research (BBC)

~~ Atheism to be taught in RE lessons

Would you say that it is alright to teach atheism in British schools? If such a state of affairs is being proposed in our schools, is that not stark [b]mis[/b]education as well? We al know that atheism is not science; and to teach atheism as science or anything of the sort is the kind of hypocrisy that is second nature to some of these fellas. While decrying the teaching of theistic ethics in schools, the same guys are busy hooting for a curriculum for atheism in our schools. Are we missing something here across the border?

huxley:

Dawkins is not a philosopher. Hense, he tends to steer clear of deep philosophical arguments.

Another way of putting that is this: Dawkins is not intelligent enough to hold rational philosophical dialogue, and that is why he is too shy to expose his lack in this regard in public debates.

huxley:

If you did read "The God Delusion" that fact would be very obvious.

Aye.

huxley:

Strong philosophical atheist find this arguments a little unsatisfactory ( I remember having the same feeling) not because they were wrong but because they did not go far enough. I am yet to see a robust philosophical rebuttal of TGD.

Nope - there are several atheist who have opined openly that Dawkins is seriously mistaken in some of his views. Of course, Dawkins' response has usually been to rail at them instead of being open to learn from sound critique. As for robust philosphical rebuttal of TGD, it is simply the case that the TGD does not even measure up as a philosophical treatise.

huxley:

Would be interesting to see your arguments against Dawkins or any other arguments.

Someday we shall get there.

huxley:

Although Flew has criticised Dawkins I simply cannot remember the main thrust of his criticism. Please can you enlighten me?

Well, for the most part, what I have read in Flew's persuasion of an Intelligent Mind leaves me none the wiser as you. Briefly, Flew only shares why he became a deist rather than a theist. As such, it is a bit quizzical to argue for a desitic worldview when my persuasions are more inclined and concretly Christian theism.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

It's great to read your efforts at a working and practical definition of both theism and atheism. When we have a functional understanding of the terms either way, it then becomes easier for us to find a common ground for the germane questions of this discussion.

That said, here are a few things to highlight from yours:

It matters very little to me, at least, if it was someone else saying what Dawkins had said. The main issue is what has he really said that makes for a coherent discussion? When we examine the conclusions from his argument as a whole, would we be concerned at all that it was said by someone else?

Basically, the point I was making is that if something is true and objective, it remains so whoever may utter it.

pilgrim.1:


First, there have been several very sound rebuttals of Dawkins' polarized views. Alistar McGrath is one name that even Dawkins will not forget in a hurry; and a few examples rebutting the latter may include:

I very much aware of mcGrath and have listened to many debates and interviews he has given. I tried reading his book (The Dawkins Delusion) but gave up after about 10 pages. In his books as well as his debates, he preceeds almost every sentence with "It seems to me . . . . " When one is looking for some objectivity, this way of argumentation is rather feeble and unsatisfactory.

I also aware of the other Dawkin's flees (Dawkin's word for those authors who making a living denouncing him) and at most one John Haught even attempts to approach the issue from a non-theological point, which by necessity has to be. For instance, when Dawkins challenged the Ashbishop of Canterbury whether he believed in the virgin birth, he so much as said he was not too sure about the virgin birth and that the are no Christian foundational doctrine based on it anyway. (I gasped). But as for the resurrection, the Ashbishop said he would have to believe in the resurrection because the doctrine of salvation was based on it.

Hitchens challenge McGrath about the resurrection of the Saints on the death of Jesus, and asked whether this resurrection does not cheapen resurrection, McGrath just waffled over the issue.

Darkins wrote the following in TGD;

The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:

Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser
A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill's son Randolph somehow contrive to remain ignorant of scriptures until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire bible in a fortnight: "Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud " I say I bet you didn't know this came in the bible . . . " or merely slapping his side and chortling "God, isn't God a shit"' Thomas jefferson, better read, was of a similar opinion: "The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust."

Taken from The God Delusion, Page 31, by Richard Dawkins,

Can you make a case that these attributes of God as described by Dawkina are unjustified? With such a direct frontal confrontation Christian always retreat to the issue of "Ah, you guys don't understand God". Why would a Christian "know" god anymore than non-Christians?

Now, you like McGrath, I shall pick up his book from my local bookshop tomorrow.

pilgrim.1:


Of course, each one of these writers have their varied styles; but I especially enjoyed Alistair McGrath's books because they essentially and concisely captured Dawkins' most vociferous arguments in a neat package and engage the reader with the salient points. David Robertson is appreciated by many people for showing how very much Dawkins misrepresented the Biblical message.

I would like to see how Dawkins misrepresented the bible.

pilgrim.1:

Theism and all the "-isms" mentioned above are not on the same philosophical grounds. Even so, look at it from the other point I argued earlier: do we not think that George Smith's appellation of babies as [b]a[/b]theist is rather in the same league as Dawkin's child-abuse propaganda? However, it is true that children, on the other hand, may not have chosen to call themselves 'Christians, Jewish', etc., yet one should understand why those children are addressed as such - because they grew up in Christian or Jewish homes. Now Dawkins may have a problem with that; but we would really have to question whether he was not proposing a hideous child-abuse campaign for teaching children anti-Christian ethics! The issue here is not whether children lack or do not lack theistic beliefs: rather, it is an irrational campaign to promote godlessness among children that we should discourage.

Did you see a video making the rounds on the net called "Jesus Camp" ? I think I posted a clip of the video on here. Have you seen the kind of stuff that goes on in Moslem madrasa? Admittedly not all religious educations are like that.

You like to paint a different picture which bares little resemblance to what the skeptics are calling for. They are calling for the teaching of religion as a subject, just as history, without indoctrination. They are also calling for the teaching of critical thinking from a much younger age.

Godlessness (or atheism) has no doctrines or philosophies to teach. In fact, atheism gets its raison d'etre from the existence of theism. If there was no theism, there would be no atheism. All Dawkins et al are calling for is that children be left free from indoctrination and taught the best available "facts" about the world.

For instance, if a child were to ask you "Why are there no native placental mammals in Australia?" What is the best explanation for this really bizarre anomaly?

pilgrim.1:

Quite to the contrary, Dawkins is being mischievous - carpriciously and embarrasingly mischiecous for a man who wears the title of "professor". Wait a minute, how do you think Dawkins reacts to remarks of his atheism and theory of evolutionary biology? Do you assume the mistake of thinking that he welcomes disrespect to his theories? Not in the least. Now the question is this: if Dawkins craves respect for his theories and yet cannot respect other people's views about the reality of life, who's playing the hypocrite?

I think you are being rather uncharitable to Dawkins here. He may not agree with you and may even criticise your beliefs, but he is no dunce. This is a man that has published some of the best academic books in his subject and many other books popularizing science. Very few of his critics can match his skill and abilities. Even when he is being critical, he shows respect to his subjects, because his targets are (usually) their beliefs and NOT the individuals.

Dawkins, as a scientist, would welcome criticism and debate. Are you aware of any of his pronouncements where he discourages debates. In his subject of evolutions, he and Stephen J Gould famously had a bitter and scholarly debate about the mechanism that drives evolution. Even so, I think they considered themselves as friends, on opposite side of the scientific debate. That is how science is conducted.

If you had read TDG carefully you would have come across an incident he narrate about one of his university professor whose cherished theories was unceremoniously overthrown in a seminar at their college, by a visiting professor from America. Dawkins gloats and cherished this event so much that he narrated it in TDG, basically to show the humility and practice of science. Why do you think he would go to great length to narrate this if really he was dogmatic about the conduct of science?

An expression that I learn from him is the following "All scientific position are held only tentatively . . . " Although I was aware of this, it had never really ingrained into my consciousness.

@huxley,

Many thanks for your reposte. I'll take the time to reply as well; but my observation is that Dawkins rants and misrepresentations may not be useful to us here. I know that many people may find McGrath quite unsuitable because in their way of thinking, they fail to understand that he is as passionate for truth and evidence as Dawkins claims to be. The difference is that Dawkins is assertive on his presumptions, while McGrath is honest to the core. At the end of the day, the real gist to be had is that McGrath actually dealt with Dawkins' objections in a very thoughtful manner that no one who is open enough to see would have failed to observe it.

Later then, I'm trying to follow up another recently opened thread by Queenisha. Thanks all the same.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Many thanks for your reposte. I'll take the time to reply as well; but my observation is that Dawkins rants and misrepresentations may not be useful to us here. I know that many people may find McGrath quite unsuitable because in their way of thinking, they fail to understand that he is as passionate for truth and evidence as Dawkins claims to be. The difference is that Dawkins is assertive on his presumptions, while McGrath is honest to the core. At the end of the day, the real gist to be had is that McGrath actually dealt with Dawkins' objections in a very thoughtful manner that no one who is open enough to see would have failed to observe it.

Later then, I'm trying to follow up another recently opened thread by Queenisha. Thanks all the same.

Hello,

Understand. I have already read all you have posted on that thread. Very engrossing so far. Seems like you have been through a lot in your short life already!

Keep it up.

pilgrim.1:

Hmm, . . well, I'm not so sure that I can "prove" God's existence either. Let me explain: "proof" is not the same thing as "logic". I can provide the logical explanation for the existence of God: this is like saying, I can't show you God to your naked eyes, but I can show you WHY His existence cannot be discounted.

BEAUTIFUL. So, why would an atheist be bickering over the God whose existence they CANNOT disprove!

pilgrim.1:

On the other hand, such thinkers as Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist) have argued that atheists should be careful to argue that God does not exist! No one can "prove" that He does not exist, as no one can supply "proof" that He does. The question lies in the type of proof that people are asking for. Mathematical proofs only tend to theorems, not "proof" in the same way as spiritual matters are investigated. Thus, one can "prove" that the sum of angles in a triangle amounts to 180°. There are mathematical theorems for such "proofs".

Why do they always ASSUME that God can be subjected to the reasoning faculty of their tiny brains.

pilgrim.1:

But what kind of theorems can one apply to negate spiritual realities? Since some rationalists are too embarrassed to admit that there exists no such theorems for investigating such phenomena, they generally tend to deny those realities. What their arguments amount to is simply using logic to make imploding statements (ie., assertions that suddenly collapse upon the person who is making such arguments).

So, we see the limits of logic and rationality.

pilgrim.1:

Phew! I didn't want to go on this far; but my point is that we should not be so angry with these guys. Some will listen, some will not. Those who listen will ask further intelligent questions, and we should never assume that we know all the answers. What we can do is invite them to a dialogue such that they would have the oportunity to look inward at their own assumptions and see that in so many ways, they often do not have a handle on their persuasions.

Well, I'm not angry with them as such. Just pointing out how 'irrational' their 'rationality' actually is.

This is from an older thread =>

Atheism is based on belief in the non-existence of God/gods even though it cannot prove the non-existence of God/gods.

Atheism is ultimately a belief system.