
The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins (2014) - pron
https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins
======
micwawa
Just curious, did anyone read The God Delusion and find his central argument
disappointing (complete nonsense)? I read the book after he promised to reduce
the probability of existence of God to the probability of something completely
absurd.

His argument appears to be the following. First, when the universe began there
was no God (this is the assumption.) So God would have had to come into
existence by random chance, sometime after the creation of the universe, which
we all can agree is absurd. Therefore, no God. Booyah. In your face
Intelligent Design.

I read this a couple times to make sure that I was understanding it correctly.
But it still seems to me that this is about as blatant an example of question-
begging that you can find.

He's an entertaining author, sure.

~~~
jbssm
It'a quite clear after you understand semi-advanced physics that nothing could
exist before the universe started.

Now, you could contest the Big Bang, but from the moment you assume it
happened then I don't see nothing absurd in the sentence: "First, when the
universe began there was no God"

Because unlike you put it, this is NOT an assumption. If the Universe did had
a beginning (and all measurement indicate it did) then this (nothing existed
before, not even God) follows directly from the laws of physics.

In fact Dawkins greatest problem when trying to explain people this, is
exactly the one I feel when trying to explain other parts to believers. They
are ignorant about certain parts of science that make what they are saying
impossible, and since it's fairly advanced science, they just refuse to
believe it and trying to understand it.

I would welcome to discuss religion with another person from my area
(astrophysics) but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious... I
guess because it would be really hard to mix both things.

~~~
micwawa
"First, when the universe began there was no God"

I don't see how this follows or doesn't follow from physics. Certainly,
according to physics, God is not necessary. But to most believers God is not
something that cares about physics, because God exists outside physics.
Physics can only comment on what is governed by physics. Telling people they
are ignorant does not refute this basic objection.

I'll put in another way. Perhaps we can say everything we want about the
closed (let's just say 10-dimensional) manifold on which we live. We can
pinpoint exactly where the negative signature of the metric degenerates, we
can solve Cauchy problem for all time, or whatever. How does that tell us any
information about a larger ambient manifold, or any disconnected components of
the manifold? After all, Nash's Embedding Theorem holds for all signatures.

~~~
jbssm
TL;DR: It's a logic truth, if you accept the Big Bang theory, then God
couldn't exist before the beginning of the universe.

I think you didn't understand the premise here.

The premise is: "The Universe started in the Big Bang.", now, following from
that premise it's impossible to have a God before the Big Bang.

You can contest the Big Bang theory and with it find a loophole for the
existence of God, but the OP was finding it "amusing" and nonsensical what
actually follows directly from accepting the Big Bang theory: God couldn't
exist before the beginning of the Universe.

~~~
livingparadox
This assumes that the Universe contains God. Most understandings of a divine
creator place him outside the bounds of the physical universe, and therefore
immune to your argument. Unless you're referring to a specific idea of "God"
that does include him/her/it as a part of the universe.

~~~
jbssm
If the God is outside the physical bounds of the Universe then he cannot
interact with the Universe. From the moment the God can exert some change or
even just observe parts of the universe then he must be within the physical
bounds of the Universe.

Again, the issue here lies in your understanding of the Big Bang theory.

~~~
livingparadox
Let me present an alternative scenario, if a video game developer creates a
virtual world, is he required to exist within the virtual world to exert any
change or "even just observe parts" of the virtual world?

------
kazinator
> _Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook
> the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which
> believers have read Scripture._

Of course, because that interpretation is hand-waving nonsense: replacing the
actual words with something else that you _wish_ the words really said (at the
moment), with no justification.

If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with
properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for
all? Macroexpand all the symbolism into its concrete terms, say that "this is
it", and let's discuss that.

Until then, the serpent in Eden was really a snake, the apple was really an
apple and so on.

~~~
pron
> If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with
> properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for
> all?

Good question, which is thoroughly discussed and answered in various religious
writings.

But I could ask you the opposite question: why would you assume that a text --
let alone an ancient one -- is anything but allegorical? Why would you assume
that a text, by default, is literal until proven otherwise? Throughout
history, there have been periods when it's been assumed that most written (let
alone canonical and holy) texts are allegorical. It is your assumption that a
text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.

In any case, whatever your views on human texts and their default literary
genre, if you believe that a god wrote your scriptures, your interpretation of
them would be based on the nature of your god and his preferred writing style,
no?

~~~
kazinator
> _It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which
> is recent and anachronistic._

Nope! My assumption is that the text is allegorical, and so please decide what
the allegories are about and commit to an interpretation. Or else stop
claiming that any of it is true, or the word of god, etc. You can't say,
"these words are from god and they are true, and their meaning is [insert my
subjective interpretation out of thin air]". I mean, if it were the _were_ the
word of god, how dare you even substitute your paraphrase? Oh right, you have
divine inspiration---pardon me! God appeared to you one night and said, "here
is what I really meant behind this paragraph".

Secondly, Christians literally believe the bulk of the New Testament: that
Jesus really lived, was really the result of a virgin birth with God as the
father, that he walked on water and so on. If you don't believe that material
literally, you're a heretic. The latitude for allegoric interpretation is
confined to the Old Testament. Literal belief in a large section of the Bible
is not anachronistic at all; it is perfectly current.

~~~
pron
> My assumption is that the text is allegorical, and so please decide what the
> allegories are about and commit to an interpretation. Or else stop claiming
> that any of it is true, or the word of god, etc.

That is a very Christian understanding of religion. I know a bit more about
Judaism, and Judaism says that once the scriptures were given, they are open
to interpretation and reinterpretation, and practical matters are decided by a
majority (in accordance with the some framework around scripture -- which is
viewed like a constitution -- and based on some deductive rules). There's even
a famous (allegorical!) story in the Talmud where one rabbi is arguing with a
group, and at one point God intervenes and says that the single rabbi is
right, and the rest of the rabbis tell God that his opinion doesn't count
anymore once Torah was handed to mankind[1].

Of course, polytheistic religions (like Shinto and some forms of Hinduism) are
quite different, and others (like Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism) are not
even theistic at all (and even in Judaism the concept of God is radically
different from Christianity).

In short, when Dawkins says "religion", he really means "Christianity",
because it doesn't seem like he has a clue about any other religion.

> Literal belief in a large section of the Bible is not anachronistic at all;
> it is perfectly current.

That is not what I meant by anachronistic (anachronism means placing an
assumption, idea or object taken from one time period in another). I meant
that today we assume most normative texts to be literal, but that was not the
prevailing assumption when the bible was written.

[1]:
[http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm](http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm)
\+ Discussion: [http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.il/2010/07/furnace-of-
akhn...](http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.il/2010/07/furnace-of-akhnai-story-
and-puzzle.html)

------
tome
Just found this nice counterpoint.

[http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/richard-
dawkins-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/richard-dawkins-
doesn-t-deserve-fellow-atheist-s-smears)

------
kazinator
What reasons are there to believe that Richard Dawkins is not prepared to be
convinced of the truth of a proposition by rational evidence?

(Or if that's not the definition of "closed mind", then what is?)

~~~
tome
Some aspects of human society and culture are not really subject to empiricism
per se, literature for example. Dawkins could well say "I don't believe in the
existence of literature beyond words printed on a page, until you present
rational evidence". That wouldn't be an unscientific approach, but would
nonetheless be closed minded, I think.

~~~
kazinator
I don't think Dawkins disputes the existence of religion in human culture, or
the role of works like the Bible as cultural artifacts.

He's just opposed to the classification of fiction as non-fiction.

------
ommunist
I recall a good definition of prayer by Mr. Bierce in this connection: “Pray,
v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single
petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”

------
alfapla
I wouldn't call Richard Dawkings close minded. Here's a man who abandoned a
successful career in biology because he found contemplating God more
rewarding.

------
innocentoldguy
I like this quote from the article, "If science, for Darwin, was a method of
inquiry that enabled him to edge tentatively and humbly toward the truth, for
Dawkins, science is an unquestioned view of the world," because it hints at
what I see as the biggest flaw in Dawkins' science vs. religion debate.
Science is fallible.

Don't get me wrong, I love science and the many wonderful things it has
brought into my life, but I view it as a tool to further our understanding,
rather than an absolute truth. I don't see a difference between Dawkins' faith
in science (his apparent belief that science is infallible and absolute) and
the religious beliefs he likes to argue against. Both require a leap of faith,
don't they?

~~~
matthewtoast
Via Wikipedia, science is defined as:

> a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the
> form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The key word being "testable". The fallibility (or falsifiability) of
scientific hypotheses is the great strength of science: We can improve, or
prove wrong, our understanding.

Dawkins writing celebrates this, and I think it's unfair to characterize his
passionate (OK, sometimes strident) advocacy as "unquestioning" fanaticism.

If it's a "leap of faith" to accept the axiom that we can refine/invalidate
knowledge through experimentation, then "a leap of faith" isn't a very
profound deed.

~~~
innocentoldguy
I did not define Dawkins' beliefs as fanaticism. Don't inject words into a
point that I never made.

What I said is that Dawkins injects a large degree of faith into his opinions
on science vs. religion. Do you deny that? Dawkins himself admits that he (and
science) don't know everything about the beginning of the universe, life,
evolution, etc. I agree with him there. I also agree with him when he
questions why we would inject God into our attempts to observe and understand
natural phenomena, thus complicating our research with an attribute that
cannot be observed. However, he still does use his imperfect knowledge on many
scientific subjects to reach a conclusion that makes him "6.9 out of 7" sure
that God doesn't exist. Whether you like to admit it or not, that is faith.

~~~
tome
I'm not an expert on Dawkins's writings, but surely that is not what he is
saying. Presumably his conclusion is more along the lines of "I'm am nearly
certain that no _relevant_ god exists" (i.e. no god that actually interacts
with us meaningfully).

~~~
innocentoldguy
In his book _The God Delusion_ , Dawkins creates a 1 to 7 point scale where 1
= I know God exists, and 7 = I know God doesn't exist. It his book, I believe
he placed himself at a 6 on his scale, but later, in a debate at Oxford
University, he declared himself a 6.9.

