Print
Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence
by Paul Campos, OC Register
Thanks to Barbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/dawkins-evidence-fish-1985706-faith-
Evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions.
Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins? That question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which Fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?
Here is Dawkins on the evidence for religious belief: Such belief, Dawkins writes, "will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."
Consider what Dawkins – the author of "The God Delusion" and, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens the most prominent of the current crop of evangelical atheists – is claiming.
He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.
And he would, of course, be right. Dawkins is a true believer, and for the true believer literally everything is evidence for the truth of his belief. For example, Fish points to St. Augustine's advice when confronting something that appears to contradict Christian belief: the phenomenon should be subjected "to diligent scrutiny until an interpretation contributing to the reign of charity is produced."
That is, Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, for the perfected soul – which Augustine points out again and again he himself is not – "diligent scrutiny" is unnecessary. For "the pure and healthy internal eye," he says, "God is everywhere."
Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity, employs the identical interpretive procedure to reach the opposite conclusion.
Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears – but it just so happens none ever has.
The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why it wouldn't: not because of the nature of angels, but because of the nature of interpretation. As long as Dawkins remains who he is now, he will remain incapable of seeing an angel of the Lord.
After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick – in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)
In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.
Reposted from:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/dawkins-evidence-fish-1985706-faith-
Evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions.
Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins? That question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which Fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?
Here is Dawkins on the evidence for religious belief: Such belief, Dawkins writes, "will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."
Consider what Dawkins – the author of "The God Delusion" and, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens the most prominent of the current crop of evangelical atheists – is claiming.
He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.
And he would, of course, be right. Dawkins is a true believer, and for the true believer literally everything is evidence for the truth of his belief. For example, Fish points to St. Augustine's advice when confronting something that appears to contradict Christian belief: the phenomenon should be subjected "to diligent scrutiny until an interpretation contributing to the reign of charity is produced."
That is, Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, for the perfected soul – which Augustine points out again and again he himself is not – "diligent scrutiny" is unnecessary. For "the pure and healthy internal eye," he says, "God is everywhere."
Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity, employs the identical interpretive procedure to reach the opposite conclusion.
Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears – but it just so happens none ever has.
The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why it wouldn't: not because of the nature of angels, but because of the nature of interpretation. As long as Dawkins remains who he is now, he will remain incapable of seeing an angel of the Lord.
After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick – in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)
In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 247 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #132412 by Szymanowski on February 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm
This - as an argument against Dawkins's views - is hilarious. I don't even know where to begin. I'm trying to find refutations in Debate Points as it seems to be a variant on the transcendental argument, the science makes faith claims and the atheism is dogmatic claims, and the anything goes argument. Other Comments by Szymanowski
3. Comment #132415 by FreeThink25 on February 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Ouch....my brain hurts.This guy is a law professor??
Other Comments by FreeThink25
4. Comment #132416 by maton100 on February 24, 2008 at 6:16 pm
This is such bullshit. Sounds like Stanley is morphing into Lynne McTaggart via zero-point. I like Mr. Fish's selective partiality principle: it will appear when you are ready to believe it, etc. This is bogus conflation. Ooops, I just saw the flying spaghetti monster fly out of the ass of Lee Strobel...guess you'd have to believe it to see it Stanley. Other Comments by maton100
5. Comment #132417 by Goldy on February 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm
So, if I get this right, there is no evidence as such, just an interpretation of what one sees. You can believe in gods by everything around you because they show what you want to see. If you don't want to see it, then there is no evidence at all.Eh?
Well, in a way, that makes sense. People believe in God. They pray for a sick person and lo and behold, a miracle cure is effected. Of course, when one digs deeper, one can also see the doctors at work and drugs being taken, but we don't need to see that - prayer worked! Now, should the same individual become ill again with the same disease and opted for the "prayer only" cure (it worked before, remember) - no doctors, no medicine, just him, Jesus and a few prayer friends and we see that he dies, does this mean it can be a sign that Jesus had other plans for him or that medicine saved him the first time?
I wonder...
In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.
In other words, make things up mentally to fit what you want to see, no matter how different it is to reality. The only way Dawkins will ever see God is to become irrational.
How does this explain all the other ex-religionists, all those that saw it was alla sham, all something wrong. How does that explain European secualrism?
Am I missing something?
Other Comments by Goldy
6. Comment #132419 by Cartomancer on February 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Literary and legal theorist? I smell the cloacal whiff of postmodernist claptrap here...
I do wonder, though, how this man thinks he can catch Richard out with the baseless assumption that he is impervious to any contrary evidence? It is a nasty thing to do, tarring Richard Dawkins with the same brush as Aurelius Augustinus - the latter claimed quite openly that he would interpret his evidence according to his preconcieved notions, the former claims just as openly that he will not. The only way this could be used to accuse Richard of hypocrisy is if he actually had dismissed something of the magnitude of a direct celestial visitation as hallucination. He's pointed out that hallucinations are commonplace, sure, but has he explicitly said they do account for everything and there is absolutely no empirical evidence which would change his mind? Not to my knowledge he hasn't.
Surely this man is not saying that there are no objective empirical standards of evidence at all is he...?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
7. Comment #132421 by Andrew Stich on February 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I can't think of anything eloquent or detailed to say. So rife with logical fallacies that it is hard to distinguish one from its neighbor, so many statements or implied statements that are completely incorrect and untrue... This is truly, truly an amazing article. Really, it makes me feel a sense of awe. I'm not at all being sarcastic. As a scientific-minded person, I believe that almost no suggestion should be dismissed outright without a thorough breakdown, but... this is really an exceptional piece of work. Maybe I'll come back to it later.Other Comments by Andrew Stich
8. Comment #132423 by Diacanu on February 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Cartomancer-I smell the cloacal whiff of postmodernist claptrap here...
D'oh! Totally stole that right out of my head!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
9. Comment #132424 by Double Bass Atheist on February 24, 2008 at 6:25 pm
St. Augustine's advice when confronting something that appears to contradict Christian belief: the phenomenon should be subjected "to diligent scrutiny until an interpretation contributing to the reign of charity is produced."
The real irony here is that if these people would only apply this type of thinking to their own religion, they too would be atheists!
I enjoyed reading this article with the exception of the fact the author repeatedly makes reference to the "atheist beliefs" or "belief in atheism." This is one of those things I find irritating. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand? Atheism is NOT a belief. In the absence of evidence for god(s), it is merely the default position.
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
10. Comment #132426 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm
As so frequently happens lately -- the writer equates atheism with belief and dogma. Atheists do not have a different invisible imaginary friend they want you to believe in. They are not trying to get Theists to believe in anything -- just to stop believing in the invisible imaginary friend they already have.That isn't so hard to grasp unless you really try not to...(see St. Augustine citation above). Would any evidence convince me to believe in their invisible imaginary friend? It is pretty unlikely , the writer is correct about that -- but so what?
There is no equivalence between unfounded faith and skepticism...even if they are both intransigent which I do not grant as a premise.
Other Comments by Radesq
11. Comment #132427 by GodlessHeathen on February 24, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Another journalist caught masturbating in public. Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
12. Comment #132428 by Cartomancer on February 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Incidentally, I am amused that many atheists still call those individuals whom the catholic church has beatified by their title "Saint", when there really is no good reason for still doing so apart from the fact it is culturally ingrained. I've even caught staunch protestants doing it too, when they of all people have a good reason not to buy into the church dogmas. Other Comments by Cartomancer
13. Comment #132429 by Diacanu on February 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm
If an angel appeared to me, I'd try to capture him.If I could, then he's a shoddy fucking angel.
Other Comments by Diacanu
14. Comment #132433 by Diacanu on February 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Cartomancer-I don't indulge the "saint", thing, actually.
When you look at the requirement for sainthood, it's pretty much being a fanatical wackaloon.
So, for regular religious nut, I use "fanatic", and for sainted fanatic, I use "extra-crispy fanatic".
Or "buffalo spice fanatic", whatever suits my mood at the moment.
Other Comments by Diacanu
15. Comment #132434 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Cartomancer the only Saint title that has any significance to me is that of Roger Moore. If that's the title that people know Aurelius Augustinus by then I have no problem using it. Other Comments by Radesq
16. Comment #132435 by Janus on February 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Does this idiot really think that if we lived in a world where, say, Christian prayers to heal amputees actually worked, there would still be more than a handful of non-Christians? Of course, if we lived in such a world, it could still be argued that even though there's good evidence that there is a very powerful being who cares about what Christians ask of Him, it doesn't follow that this being designed the universe, but if He had, it would have been extremely easy to provide conclusive evidence for His existence. All He would have had to do is put a message in the universe that only its designer could have put there.
For example, a message in binary code (with a translating key) could have been encoded in the cosmic microwave background radiation that resulted from the Big Bang. Or to give another example, the Judeo-Christian God could have designed the inter-molecular forces in such a way that if you put salt in a certain solution, it would self-assemble into the the text of the Bible written in all the human languages that have ever existed and will ever exist. The Bible itself would contain the instructions for making the solution. Then there would be no need for any of these silly debates. Anyone who doubted the existence of Yahweh could perform the experiment himself and see the evidence for himself. The truth of Christianity would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and only insane wackos would deny it.
That there is no such undeniable evidence for the existence of a God can only mean three things: He doesn't want to provide this evidence (in which case he's not benevolent), he's not able to provide this evidence (in which case he's far from omnipotent), or there is no God.
Other Comments by Janus
17. Comment #132436 by chuckgoecke on February 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm
His arguments are like the parapsychologist who claims that scientific observation somehow spoils the psychic energy, thus always ruining the attempts to verify the claims. I just heard that James Randi has removed this 1 million dollar challenge, having never had anyone close to winning it in the many years his challenge has been up. Other Comments by chuckgoecke
18. Comment #132439 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Interesting piece - of course, the author doesn't realise that he is already operating under the influence of an assumption - an unquestioned assumption. What he also fails to realise is that Professor Dawkins is not operating under the same assumption. He questioned it. That's all he wants anyone to do.
Evidence, by the way, someone spell this out for me: anecdotal evidence does not make data. What does?
Other Comments by Rational Thinking
19. Comment #132440 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 6:48 pm
A giant pile of nits; if I started picking these off, when would I ever stop? Other Comments by Quine
20. Comment #132442 by Brian English on February 24, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Pick away Quine. I'm interested. Other Comments by Brian English
21. Comment #132443 by Badger3k on February 24, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I knew that name was connected to the Discovery Institute somehow - here's a post I found connected to previous writing on the subject: http://www.sedhe.net/blog/archives/000434.html. There are more. Campos is one of those right-wing/fundie-style hacks. I do want to ask him if we should teach the controversy regarding mythical origins of savior stories of popular religions (in religion courses, of course).Other Comments by Badger3k
22. Comment #132445 by Diacanu on February 24, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Badger3k-Ah, another bullshitter for Jesus.
Jeez, it's like these hacks spew out of an assembly line.
And it's all the same bullshit.
(Gym teacher from Simpsons)
Bombardment!! Bombardment!! Bombardment!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
23. Comment #132447 by markg on February 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Badger3k-
Your link doesn't work.
Other Comments by markg
24. Comment #132449 by troyreynolds86 on February 24, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Belief in Atheism being so ingrained as to blind the Atheist to any evidence. Horsecrap. We are only asking for proof that isn't open to interpretations, the same evidence we expect from all other areas. Here's one that should be easy for a being of infinite insight. How about the pitch locations and speeds (to the mile per hour)of every pitch for every game of the 2008 Red Sox before the season begins. It would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, for such a thing to be faked, so not open to interpretation. Provide me with that level of proof and my belief will be given freely.I would also need tickets to all of the games so that I could confirm the prophetic proclamations of my guiding angel. Third base line, above the dugout would be nice. And airfare for road trips. And hotel vouchers. I guess my soul is for sale.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
25. Comment #132450 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm
According to Wikipedia Paul is on staff at the Rocky Mountain News (where this editorial presumably originates). Interestingly, he also wrote "The Obesity Myth" leasing me to question if he uses the same definition of the word myth and alternatively if Campos is a hippo.~ Incidentally, I can't tell you the speed Troy, but they'll all be strikes as far as I'm concerned.
~ See how I tied that all together Cartomancer - Augustine of Hippo ;)
Other Comments by Radesq
26. Comment #132452 by adonais on February 24, 2008 at 7:07 pm
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
In other words, "whatever evidence you might present I can adopt an assumption (ad hoc) that allows me to disregard your evidence." What infantile drivel. Do these fruitcakes grow on trees or what.
Other Comments by adonais
27. Comment #132454 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Predictions wouldn't do it - all you'd have to do is rationalise them afterwards. Mass hysteria or the like.
It's an interesting question.
Other Comments by Rational Thinking
28. Comment #132455 by SPS on February 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I saw this article a few days ago on scrippsnews.com and another site. I'll just post what I posted at scrippsnews:Next time you go to the pharmacist for a prescription ask for something he/she 'has faith' will work. See how far you get in life when you live thinking what you believe is just as good as evidence and real knowledge. Oh, and say 'hi' to Santa Claus for me.
Other Comments by SPS
29. Comment #132456 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I entirely agree with you. And possibly it's a hypothetical question. I just find it intriguing. Other Comments by Rational Thinking
30. Comment #132457 by markg on February 24, 2008 at 7:16 pm
thyseeker-
Thanks for correcting that. Will have to look at it tomorrow as it's late here.
Other Comments by markg
31. Comment #132459 by steveroot on February 24, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Badge,Here it is:
http://www.sedhe.net/blog/archives/000434.html
"5"
Other Comments by steveroot
32. Comment #132461 by Frankus1122 on February 24, 2008 at 7:24 pm
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
I think this is true.
But he needs to turn the lens on himself.
if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.
This is not true.
Some here have already provided what would be considered evidence for god's existence.
As Steve Zara pointed out elsewhere:
all we are after is a consistent standard of evidence
Any evidence for god only works if you already believe god exists. Then any 'evidence' proves god's existence. (I saw a frozen waterfall split in three and the reality of the Trinity was revealed to me).
I am not sure if the faithful do not inhabit a different world. No, I'm sure they do. But it is a smaller world than the real one. It is their bubble world within the larger reality. Everything makes sense inside the bubble.
Has anyone got a pin?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
33. Comment #132463 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Troy - "Belief in Atheism" - just run that by me again :-) Other Comments by Rational Thinking
34. Comment #132464 by Fire1974 on February 24, 2008 at 7:29 pm
When confronted by the faithful, I like to say that I'll believe in [insert your favorite dogma] for any reason at all. As long as I actually think it's true. Even if I can't verify that belief to anyone else. But as it stands now, I think that [insert your favorite dogma] sounds like a pile of mind suppressing, unconvincing horse-shit.If there come a day when I have some 'road to Damascus' moment that actually convinces me to believe in [insert your favorite dogma] there I'll be, believing it. But what I sure-as-hell won't do is insist that other people give me the slightest bit of credibility for my unverifiable convictions.
Other Comments by Fire1974
35. Comment #132465 by LorienRyan on February 24, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I wonder if Paul Campos would ponder such questions if a tram car was hurtling towards him, or when he has to do the weekly grocery shopping? Other Comments by LorienRyan
36. Comment #132467 by Quine on February 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Okay, I will just pick one of so many. His foundational quote is:"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
As counterexamples to this we have many testimonials from former believers who heard evidence (from Prof. Dawkins and others) that they considered flatly wrong, but subsequently thought it over and had the scales fall from their eyes. There is a wonderful part in the PBS Evolution series where students from a Christian College are taken out to a dig where they can see the fossils coming out of the ground. The expression on the face of one of the students when she realizes that the paleontology grad students (digging this big hole around her with paint brushes) are neither devils nor liars, is priceless.
Edit: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ (see last part titled: "Religion")
Other Comments by Quine
37. Comment #132469 by troyreynolds86 on February 24, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Rational Thinking,Why wouldn't preditions work? If the prediction was for a random event, personally observable from an objective view point and impossible to fake. I suppose one could rationalize being confused or hallucinating into disregarding the results, but such rationalizations would render all observation unqualified as any kind of evidence on any topic. "Belief in Atheism". I was simply mocking the author's tone.
Troy
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
38. Comment #132470 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Would like a link for that show Quine -- got one? Other Comments by Radesq
39. Comment #132472 by jonjermey on February 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm
If the article were true then nobody would ever change their minds about anything. The fact that people do change their minds indicates that their opinions can be swayed -- and this includes their opinions about what counts as 'evidence'. The scientific view of what counts as evidence has a lot on its side -- it produces tangible improvements in health, welfare and happiness every day. What benefits has the religious view of what constitutes evidence have to offer?Other Comments by jonjermey
40. Comment #132473 by Rational Thinking on February 24, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Troy - simply because if and or when the event occurs, you will view it through the filter of the underlying assumption.
Personally, I disbelieve anything on principle.
Other Comments by Rational Thinking
41. Comment #132474 by robotaholic on February 24, 2008 at 7:50 pm
oh wow, this tripe utilized the english language- I am going to Steve Zara out:
Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins?where is your evidence?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which Fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:once is enough
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."do not use absolutes- this sentence is wrong because you are mischaracterizing Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?read a book rude idiot
Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?stfu - read one of his books and be in awe- then stfu
In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.problem #1 if it is evidence it doesn't require faith. #2 you are not worth a #2 yet you want him to lose his faith? - i thought "evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions that necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify" - if I am correct - that means someone predecided? um thats not the scientific method and it is not what Richard Dawkins has ever done- his books really speak for themselves
Other Comments by robotaholic
42. Comment #132475 by LorienRyan on February 24, 2008 at 7:52 pm
The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
'Experience' being the operative word here, makes Paul's statement the question of striking naivete.
If only Campos could direct us to a field of science that accepts personal experience as evidence.
Other Comments by LorienRyan
43. Comment #132477 by troyreynolds86 on February 24, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Rational Thinking,Fair enough. I suppose that is why absolute certainty on any subject (one's personal existance remaining the exception) remains the elusive and unattainable prize.
Rasdeq,
And if any are called balls, the ump was paid off by the Yankees.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
44. Comment #132478 by paulwwww on February 24, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Sorry if this has already been said in the previous posts, I read a few but not all. Here we are again with the same old trot-out cyclical reasoning. I see eggplantbren has caught the gist of things in the first post;The angel could appear and provide evidence that implies it could not be a hallucination. For example, by providing extremely specific testable information that nobody could have known
add ... that has consistent results in numerous tests...
Someone needs to tap this fellow on the head and say "Hello McFly!!"
Other Comments by paulwwww
45. Comment #132481 by NormanDoering on February 24, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Paul Campos wrote:The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
...
After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick â€" in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)
Invert that.
What would happen to Paul Campos or Stanley Fish if an Angel of a different religion came and told them their beliefs were wrong, that it was the Muslims or Buddhists who were right, or if advanced aliens from another star system came saying neither they nor any other galactic civilization have ever considered a God and found the notion rather crazy?
Actually, things like that do happen. I remember reading about how Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean tricked the local Indians when they were getting pissed at the Europeans. Columbus knew there was going to be a lunar eclipse and used that knowledge to convince the Indians that their god was angry at them and was taking the Moon away. The only way to make God happy was to give the Europeans everything they wanted and the Moon returned once they agreed to this.
Neither Dawkins (nor I) would be convinced right away by an angelic visit, but if the angel stuck around and was really willing to make a case and demonstrate specific abilities I might be convinced enough. I imagine Dawkins might also be convinced with the right evidence. Thus the fact that such an angel hasn't appeared is just more evidence God isn't trying to convince us he exists and that's probably because God doesn't exist.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
46. Comment #132482 by Laurie Fraser on February 24, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Just another religious wanker trying to pass himself off as an intellectual - I really do prefer them when they come over all hellfire and brimstone; at least you get a chuckle out of it. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
47. Comment #132485 by Chris Bell on February 24, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Stanley Fish, for that matter, had terrible reviews (three of them!) of the God Delusion in the NY Times back when it came out. It was like Fish never even read the book.Other Comments by Chris Bell
48. Comment #132487 by GroovinMastiff on February 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It's not even worth trying to digest this repetitive nonsense, and the fact that it has blossomed over the last couple of years seems to suggest that these fundies are scared. They've spent centuries trying to build a tower on a flimsy foundation, and it's starting to topple.
Kind of reminds of that block-stacking game Jenga: the structure is shaking, and the religious are frantically trying to rearrange the blocks to try and save face - if that makes any sense :-)
Other Comments by GroovinMastiff
49. Comment #132491 by JuxtaMonkey on February 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Green monkeys ate a 6 pack of post-it notes and the water ran down the drain like a pen writes on the roof but it's all silly because we all know the bear and the stars have to watch the falling igloo. This is what it is like arguing with you people! You sit down and with a flash of light
Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey
50. Comment #132492 by Radesq on February 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Juxta monkeys must be nocturnal. I rarely get to see your posts except a day later - and it's already past my bed time. :( Other Comments by Radesq
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake."
Richard Dawkins
"There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #132403 by eggplantbren on February 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Still, most of the possible confirmations of religion aren't going to happen - if all of astronomy was wrong and there really was a firmament, with heaven outside it, that would be pretty strong evidence. But it's false.
The world could work the way fundamentalists think it does, with magic etc, and only Christian prayers working, whereas others have a negative effect. But that's not what is observed either.
Sure, an ambiguous event that can be explained in two ways won't sway anyone who has a strong opinion on either side. But that doesn't mean that all conceivable events, ever, are ambiguous.
Other Comments by eggplantbren