Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[Lonewulf]

Maybe I am being unfair to Dawkins, but I think that if he were truly interested in having a meanigful debate about atheism and relgion or the supernatural, he would have done better to to pick a different title than The God Delusion.

You are welcome to your opinion.

For me, I translate him as meaning "delusion" as less of an insult; he isn't suggesting that people are "insane", but that people are willingly taking on a delusion, a story, a tale, a fiction. It's not supposed to be an insult, but instead to make a case of why people would accept something that is fictional, and then explain why it is fictional.

I myself am not especially offended by the title or any of the material that I have read in various synopses, but I think that Dawkins' approach (at least in title) does not lend itself to fostering any sort of debate.

What's the phrase? "Don't judge a book by it's cover"? I'd think that hundreds of pages worth of material is worth more than three words.

It reminds me a lot more of political commentators such as Ann Coulter...

Again, someone compares Dawkins to Ann Coulter. This is incredibly insulting to Dawkins, or it demonstrates that you're incredibly ignorant of either, or both.

Dawkins has never claimed that we should bomb cities and forcefully convert other people to a belief. Coulter has. Dawkins has never claimed that someone should be put to death, assassinated (poisoned), but Coulter has. Dawkins has never called someone a faggot. Coulter has. The comparison is ludicrous, insulting, and ignorant.

...accusing their opponents of treason, slander, lying, godlessness rather than addressing the issues.

??? What issues should Dawkins be addressing? Also, who has Dawkins accused of as being treasonous? Or lying? When has he said that someone believed in God in order to try to make their political viewpoint look bad? This is a stupid comparison.

He's gone over evolution so many times. Read River out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene... that's what Dawkins, as an evolutionary biologist, would focus on. But he's already focused on it. He's written about it so many times.

Not to mention that his main focus isn't politics at all. He doesn't advocate liberalism or conservatism; Ann Coulter is an ultra Right Wing Conservative, and her campaign is to attack those with a liberal bent. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist that has gone over, so many times, his studies in evolutionary biology, demonstrating evolutionary theory, both macro and micro. BUT, he's also an atheist, and he focuses on making arguments for atheism. I don't quite see what is wrong with that.

Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking sucha provocative title.

Well, that's fine. I'll be here actually reading his arguments, watching his interviews and intelligent discussions, and NOT comparing him to Ann Coulter, instead of criticizing three words.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Pretty much the experience I've had with a "believer" but that person was already on the fence. All we can hope to do is plant seeds of doubt and let them grow. But it's still fun being an ass.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the word "delusional" and answer the question yourself.

 

[Lonewulf]

How is referring to your opponents as delusional any different than describing them as slanderous, treasonous, godless, or dishonest?

Maybe I should let Dawkins justify it himself...

The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion'. Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. Surprisingly, the illustrative quotation the dictionary gives is from Phillip E. Johnson: 'Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself.' Can that be the same Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America today? Indeed it is, and the quotation is, as we might guess, taken out of context. I hope the fact that I have stated as much will be noted, since the same courtesy has not been extended to me in numerous creationist quotations of my works, deliberately and misleadingly taken out of context. Whatever Johnson's own meaning, his sentence as it stands is one that I would be happy to endorse. The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.'

You may not like it, but that's what he did. Personally, I'd rather focus on the issues. Isn't that what you criticize others for not doing?

Also, you really consider saying, "These people believe in something fictional" is the same as saying, "These people are dishonest"? One connotes something more villainous than another.

And slanderous? TREASONOUS? Jeez, wake up, boy.

 

[qayak]

Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking such a provocative title.

Perhaps you should get over yourself and pick up the book and read it. Then you can make a real judgement on it. Along the way you will learn why he used the word delusion in the title, in fact, it is really quite humourous, a quote taken out of context in The Penguin English Dictionary.

Try it, you might like it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think the title of his book would really matter in the eyes of a believer, any challenge to their belief that their god exists is an insult in their eyes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

All the other words have objective definitons which allow us to determine whether or not they are correctly applied. I am not saying the Coulter or Franken are applying them appropriately. I am just saying that Dawkins uses "delusion" in much the same way that Coulter and Franken use the various previously metioned word. If the comparison offeneds you, I am sorry, but I don't understand why it is appropriate for Dawkins to be deliberately provocative and inappropriate for Coulter and Franken (who no doubt took as much to cite their sources as Dawkins did, even if they did misinterpret them) to do the same.

I also took the time to reacquaint myself with the definitons of "delude" and "delusion":

delude, v.
1. trans. To play with (any one) to his injury or frustration, under pretence of acting seriously; to mock, esp. in hopes, expectations, or purposes; to cheat or disappoint the hopes of. Obs.

b. To disappoint or deprive of by fraud or deceit; to defraud of.

2. To deride, mock, laugh at. Obs. rare.

3. To befool the mind or judgement of, so as to cause what is false to be accepted as true; to bring by deceit into a false opinion or belief; to cheat, deceive, beguile; to impose upon with false impressions or notions.

b. with extension (on, to, into).

4. To frustrate the aim or purpose of; to elude, evade. Obs.

5. To beguile (time). Obs.

delusion, n.

The action of deluding; the condition of being deluded.

1. The action of befooling, mocking, or cheating a person in his expectations; the fact of being so cheated or mocked. Obs.

2. The action of befooling with false impressions or beliefs; the fact or condition of being cheated and led to believe what is false.

3. a. Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.

b. delusions of grandeur: a false belief concerning one's personality or status, which is thought to be more important than it is. Also fig.

4. Elusion, evasion. (Cf. DELUDE v. 4.) Obs.

It is clear from these defintions that "delusion" does not carry the connotation of being a story or tale (mainly because mot all stroies or tales are false), which others have argued earlier on in this thread. Furthermore, "delusion" carries a heavy connotation of the deluded individual being insane or otherwise mentally defective. While I have no problem with anyone referring to belief in god as false, I think that glossing "delusion" as "story", "tale", or "fiction" robs the word of its denotation as "a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things" and its connotation as a "mental derangement", which why I think that Dawkins picked it in the first place. However, designating one's opponents as mentally deranged or defective (or somethimes even, though not in Dawkins case, morally corrupt) is exactly what Coulter and Franken do in their political commentaries. All I was trying to point out is that if it is considered an ad hominem attack when liberals and conservatives do it to each other and (as I have gathered from reading the various JREF forums) when theists do it to atheists, it should be considered just as insulting and invalid when atheists do it to theists.

I guess a more fruitful question would be: How do you see Dawkins' works promoting a positive opinion of atheists if he uses provactive language in a way that seems to imply that his only aim is to provoke?

 

[Lonewulf]

All the other words have objective definitons which allow us to determine whether or not they are correctly applied. I am not saying the Coulter or Franken are applying them appropriately. I am just saying that Dawkins uses "delusion" in much the same way that Coulter and Franken use the various previously metioned word. If the comparison offeneds you, I am sorry, but I don't understand why it is appropriate for Dawkins to be deliberately provocative...

I stopped reading at this point, as you have yet to demonstrate evidence that Dawkins was deliberately provocative, much less so in the same way that Ann Coulter is.

As Qayak said, get over yourself and read the book. Or don't, I don't care. But I'm really not interested in a useless discussion over three words, especially when I have directly quoted Dawkins as to his intention.

Pretend to be psychic all you want, but this was what Dawkins meant when he used the word:

But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as 'a false belief or impression'.

As far as I'm concerned, until you can provide direct evidence that Dawkins meant otherwise, this convo is over.

Hmm...

I guess a more fruitful question would be: How do you see Dawkins' works promoting a positive opinion of atheists if he uses provactive language in a way that seems to imply that his only aim is to provoke?

Because I can actually read his works? And have done so? And because I don't continually snipe him off of three words that I intentionally continue to obfuscate the meanings of in order to attack Dawkins out of some perverse joy?

Hell, I QUOTED his reason, and I also QUOTED the definition he was operating off of. Did you even read it, or did you just skip it over?

 

[qayak]

I guess a more fruitful question would be: How do you see Dawkins' works promoting a positive opinion of atheists if he uses provactive language in a way that seems to imply that his only aim is to provoke?

I see that you have no intention of actually becoming aquainted with what Dawkins actually says but prefer to make judgements based on your belief of what he said. Just to make this perfectly clear, here is what he wrote in The God Delusion:

"The word 'delusion' in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: 'relusion.'Maybe it'll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with 'delusion', and I need to justify my use of it. The Penguin English Dictionary defines delusion as 'a false belief or impression'. Surprisingly, the illustrative quotation the dictionary gives is from Phillip E. Johnson: 'Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself.' Can that be the same Phillip E. Johnson who leads leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America today? Indeed it is, and the quotation is, as we might guess, taken out of context. I hope the fact that I have stated as much will be noted, since the same courtesy has not been extended to me in numerous creationist quotations of my works, deliberately and misleadingly taken out of context. Whatever Johnson's own meaning, his sentence as it stands is one I would be happy to endorse. The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder'. The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair, when he said: 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

As you can see, Johnson himself uses the word delusion. I guess he was just trying to be provocative as well.

I don't doubt that Dawkins puts a certain amount of controversy into his books just to get a reaction. Controversy is what sells and what gets people to sit up and take notice. You can say that Dawkins' book would have been better if he was nice to believers but let's face it, the book is a bestseller. How many of the books that are nice to believers can make that claim? Sagan's books were not nice to believers and they were bestsellers. Same with Feynman's books.

ETA: Sorry Lonewolf, just a repeat of what you already posted.

 

[Lonewulf]

ETA: Sorry Lonewolf, just a repeat of what you already posted.

S'alright, probably better if it's repeated... since it seems he didn't get it the first time.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

Rubbish.

There are several points wrong with your argument.

1) Atheists do not postulate a "magical substance behind the whole shebang". Rather they take the approach of "lets see what science discovers". Believing in magic is antithetical to atheistic philosophy.

2) "Materialistic" atheism? What is "materialistic" atheism? What other types of atheism are there?

3) Postulating that a god-concept of some sort is responsible for the creation of the universe simply moves the question back a notch. What is responsible for the creation of this god-concept? Where did it come from? If you then argue that "it always existed" you're deliberately avoiding the question, rather than offering a satisfactory answer.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Lonewulf]

Materialistic atheism is just about replacing an unkown God with some unknown magic substance behind the whole shebang that has the ability to self-generate and/or be infinate/eternal - just like God is claimed to be by non-materialists.

First of all, you are wrong. Infinite or eternal? The theory behind the big bang is that, quite frankly, before the big bang, "time" as we know it did not exist, as time and space are intertwined. Please look up the theory of general relativity. Also, space itself is not infinite at all. Space has a finite capacity, and while it's expanding ("stretching" is a better term for it), it is still finite according to the present-day model.

Second of all, the bolded is an inherent contradiction.

Naturalism, from Dictionary.com, defines the definition as:

4. Philosophy.
a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.



Magic is, at it's base, supernatural. So you basically said that people that don't believe in the supernatural believe in the supernatural.

This is an inherent contradiction.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence.

Wrong. It involves going where the evidence points us to, not defending thesis. In fact, scientists often try to disprove or falsify their own thesis in order to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. They also submit their papers to peer-review for the same reason. Science is about gaining knowledge, not dictating it.

You seem to be, in part, confusing thesis with hypothesis anlong with several other things - and nobody is talking about dictating knowledge. (And thesis defence certainly does not involve skipping peer review.) If you want a perfectly acceptable definition of a thesis read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis

I'm not talking about scientists trying to falsify their own hypothesis - even researchers in parapsychology do this. (Though almost everyone in any field of study usually sets out to prove what they believe.)

The point is that if someone cannot stand up on their own two feet and say they believe either that some special Conscousness or special Matter ( though ultimately, they don't know) is behind reality, then they either don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion yet or they need to get a set of b*lls.

I believe that there is some kind of Supreme Being/Consciousness behind it all, but ultimately, I don't know. If it did, it wouldn't be belief.

If nobody really takes the whole materialistic view seriously enough to say they believe in it, then why should you expect anyone to?

Quote: Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!

Exactly, and that's not a bad thing or illogical thing. They might say "I don't know, but I don't believe pixies farted the universe into existence" as well. There is nothing illogical about admitting ignorance while at the same time acknowledging that their is no vidence to support god-belief.

We have these two things - consciousness and matter. If a third option ever comes along things will change dramatically, but thousands of years of science and philosophy haven't let to anything else yet.

As for admitting ignornace - yes, that is a noble attribute as well. But it's played differently by the layman and the scientist. You can still admit ignorance while still advancing the argument you believe is the most likely; be it Consciousness or Matter. And you shouldn't use the term materialism/materialist unless you are willing to shoulder the "beliefs" of that tradition (http://www.answers.com/topic/materialism)

Quote:Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.

Sure it does. It explains that we need to look at evidence in order to reach conclusions and not draw off of absurd notions of pixies, fairies and gods. It explains that mythology isn't a source of scientific knowledge. It explains quite a bit.

This no more adds to knowledge about the origin of the objective universe than someone pointing out how impossible the materialistic faith seems to them.

We need to test the evidence for a materialistic origin of objective reality every bit as much as we need to test the evidence for a conscious origin of objective reality.

You're fighting yourself in a stalemate here, trying to gain an advantage for the materialistic position by proxy - ergo, by hoping that if people consider God illogical/impossible they're only left with a materialistic origins theory. But, of course, the exact same thing is true in reverse - if people consider spontaneous self-generation or whatever to be illogical/impossible they're only left with a conscious origins theory (be that a Super-Consciousness or whatever).

Either way, it's a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Actually, the religious often equivocate faith and belief to knowledge. I've often had religious people say that all the evidence they need to KNOW their god exists is FAITH. I think this is a common view among the religious.

That's just the language they use. I know some hard-boiled materialists who honestly believe that because they consider God so utterly impossible and illogical that means they know the universe must be purely physical in origin (a baby universe or whatever). They really believe the it can't be God so it must be physics idea. It's still an argument from ignorance from either side and a faith based metaphysic from either side.

Quote: How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?

WTF are you talking about? I'm sure there are materialists that would let a non-materialists give evidence of non-materialism, of the supernatural, if there were any. There isn't. I don't know that materialists say that physics is enough to explain existence.

I am not TF talking about anything you remotely suggest in your response to my paragraph above. Are you sure you read it correctly? And, again, if someone doesn't accept what really materialism means then they shouldn't be using the term materialist to describe themselves. For a very through, scholarly and clear description of materialism you should read the definition and article from this website:

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

As the authors note, materialism is an ontological (metaphysical) view as well as an epistemological view - materialism is not limited to beliefs about the workings of the objective universe.

I will grant you that many responding in this thread genuinely seem to be quite innocently unaware of this rather than deliberately misusing the term, but that doesn't change the fact that materialism still entails untestable metaphysical beliefs.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Whatever the explanation for the universe is, we should expect it to be parsimonious. God is not parsimonious.

That depends how you define "God". Materialistic ideas about baby universes/multiverses are equally unparsimonious.

Consciousness and some kind of material substance are both presumed to exist. We are quite far from knowing how reality came about either way.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

So then, what are these psychometric tests to which you allude? What would they measure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics

Psychometrics definately measure *something* related to personality, temperament, stress and IQ. What exactly is a debatable question related, perhaps, to our incomplete understanding of what personality, temperament, stress and intelligence actually are in the first place.

They don't prove a spiritual dimension exists.

Here's something interesting on mediation here:

http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI3048260/

Meditation is a very good thing, and it doesn't matter if you're a materialist or non-materialist for benefits to accrue.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is, Hypno, that those you call "material atheists" here are mostly just atheists. I am just an atheist. I can believe in the supernatural and "psi" stuff if there was reliable evidence of it. There isn't. Do you think you can take down your "material atheist" strawmen down now?

 

[HypnoPsi]

Why is it so important to you that "materialistic atheists" realize that that their metaphysic is as faith based as "non-materialistic (idealistic?) theists", HypnoPsi?

I think it is important that the debate be discussed on fair terms.

However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

Clearly you have the answer to the above question yourself. Recognising that one's own position is faith-based and untestable should inevitablly result in less personal attacks upon people who happen to hold another equally faith-based and untestable idea.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Moochie]

The problem is, Hypno, that those you call "material atheists" here are mostly just atheists. I am just an atheist. I can believe in the supernatural and "psi" stuff if there was reliable evidence of it. There isn't. Do you think you can take down your "material atheist" strawmen down now?

Methinks the lad is either a youngster, in the midst of acquiring knowledge, or an oldster busily, desperately rejecting it.

M.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hypno seems to be rather hammy with his posts and sometimes interestingly ianic. He obviously suffers from strawman addiction.