Dawkins - FISH!!!

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please quote a few of your favorite passages WRITTEN BY DAWKINS and discuss briefly why he is such a complete moran?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote NotReady, 12th February re The God Delusion:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so glad there's no reason whatsover to read that book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously he hasn't actually read Dawkins. He's just read Dawkins rehashed by a fellow theist and then declared Dawkins an idiot.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
..........Just a few quotes from a book review by Plantinga (long time and well respected philosophy prof at Notre Dame)..........

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen Plantinga speak and I read one of his papers prior to the talk that purported to use mathematics to prove his claims, and the supposed fact that he could supposedly use mathematics properly was supposed to be one of his strengths that impressed people. But as a professional mathematician I could immediately see that his arguments were complete rubbish. It's pathetic that someone with such flaky arguments as Plantinga gets respect, and the fact that he does is clearly a result of widespread pro-religious bias, rather than any kind of actual merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reference to one of these papers? I'd really like to read one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was several years ago (and the paper was several years old at that time, and had already been rebutted in various ways), and I can't remember what paper it was, and couldn't be bothered trying to figure it out.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please quote a few of your favorite passages WRITTEN BY DAWKINS and discuss briefly why he is such a complete moran?

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. I'm willing to entertain the idea that Dawkins has some poor arguments - I'm not a fan myself, for other reasons - but third party quotes are lame. Show me specific passages that are logically flawed. Since his ideas are "below sophomoric", the book should be littered with them.

Awaiting your quotes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady, you seem to have an unhealthy hatred of Dawkins


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't hate him, or Russell or Sagan. The reason I pound on him (and them) is because they make moronic arguments against theism but seem to achieve popularity with many. I want to expose the unthinking nature of their statements. All three did achieve a certain level in their main careers, and than't fine and admirable. But to me they are like rock stars or Hollywood airheads who think their fame in one area translates to competence in politics(I have to exclude Russell from this as to philosophy, but not as to his stance against Christianity). Dawkins is abysmally inept and untaught in philosophy, history and probably literature - i.e., most of human liberal arts endeavors. I've read the first page of God Delusion and it's sickening - he and Sagan who he quotes seem to have the attitude that they are the only humans who have ever been inspired and awed by the magnificent sublimity of God's creation, that they have discovered feelings hereunto unknown to humanity, and they, like Prometheus, have generously brought down the heavenly fire to us poor groundlings toiling slavishly in the darkness of our own ignorance. They don't seem to be aware of the multiplicitous, rich heritage on which they unthinkingly, unknowingly draw, on which their very existence as scientists and incompetent, amateurish philosophers depends.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Awaiting your quotes.


[/ QUOTE ]


See the link.

[ChrisV]

There are some interesting rebuttals of Platinga's review here and here. The second one is especially interesting; I had ignored that portion of Platinga's review because it frankly made no sense to me. After reading the rebuttal of it, I can see why not. What an inane argument.

[ChrisV]

NotReady,

I'd be interested to know if you endorse Platinga's argument at the end of his review, rebutted in the second link I posted above.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady,

I'd be interested to know if you endorse Platinga's argument at the end of his review, rebutted in the second link I posted above.


[/ QUOTE ]

I took a quick look at both links and will respond more fully later. My initial impression of the second is that he was responding to Plantinga's brief synopsis of the argument from reason and didn't get the argument. Could be wrong. Probably tomorrow before I can continue.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Awaiting your quotes.


[/ QUOTE ]


See the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm about halfway through the review now, but what jumped out at me so far is that Plantinga refutes Dawkins claim that God is complex by saying that classical theology thinks God is simple. But Dawkins gave a scientific reason for the necessity of God's complexity. Just saying that you think God is simple doesn't make him simple.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Awaiting your quotes.


[/ QUOTE ]


See the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm about halfway through the review now, but what jumped out at me so far is that Plantinga refutes Dawkins claim that God is complex by saying that classical theology thinks God is simple. But Dawkins gave a scientific reason for the necessity of God's complexity. Just saying that you think God is simple doesn't make him simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a few paragraphs later, Plantinga doesn't understand why Dawkins thinks God is improbable. He addresses a weird argument about materialism, but that's not what Dawkins said - he said that IF god is complex, THEN god is improbable, BECAUSE probability is inversely proportional to complexity. How does this relate to materialism? As suspected, Plantinga is employing strange strawmen.