The God Delusion - lazy criticism

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19610385.post-1160429385577936852006-10-09T20:18:00.000+01:002007-04-13T02:00:41.636+01:00The God Delusion - lazy criticismFor a blogger who lays claim to scholarly qualities, rmj <a href="http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com/2006/09/god-delusion.html">presents depressingly superficial arguments</a> against Dawkins's 'The God Delusion'. Here is rmj: <blockquote>Neither a theologian nor a philosopher of religion, he [Dawkins] spends 80+ pages on the arguments for the existence of the God of Abraham (the Hindu pantheon and other gods of other world religions need not apply, apparently). Neither an anthropologist nor a psychiatrist, he devotes 70 pages to the "roots of religion" and a discussion of whether morality is possible outside of religion (I'll save you the money: yes. That's me. Ignore Dawkins.). Not trained as a scriptural scholar (not all of whom are either religious nor Christian), he devotes another 40 pages to scriptural criticism. The rest of the book is devoted to making clear his straw man is actually a version of Christian fundamentalism, one that exists largely in his fevered perceptions.Skimming the index, I find no reference to any philosopher of religion outside of Immanuel Kant (and he merits only a page; thus does Mr. Dawkins apparently dispose of both Kant's Idealism and <a href="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=61-0521599644-1">Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone</a>). The chapter on the proofs of God references Aquinas (whom Dawkins deigns to declare a thinker with an "eminent" reputation. Yeah, and Shakespeare was a pretty good writer, too.) and Pascal. The index betrays no reference anywhere in the book to St. Anselm (creator of what Kant later labelled the "ontological proof"), nor to modern philosophers like Charles Hartshorne (<a href="http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-0875480373-1">The Logic of Perfection</a>, his updating of Anselm's argument) or Alvin Plantinga...Nowhere in his index, indeed, does Mr. Dawkins reference any important philosophers of religion or even of phenomenology.</blockquote> What have we here? A critique based on a reading of the Table of Contents and the Index? Surely not. But yes, as we read rmj, the truth dawns. He hasn't read the Dawkins book that he so ineffectually criticises in such an appallingly innappropriate magisterial tone. He fails to address a single one of Dawkins arguments, relying instead on what he imagines Dawkins arguments must be based on his scanning of the Table of Contents and the Index. He hasn't even bothered to read the index properly, claiming that: <blockquote>The index betrays no reference anywhere in the book to St. Anselm</blockquote> Well, Anselm of Canterbury appears large as life in the Index and is referenced on four pages. It's quite disgraceful to critique a book based on a reading of its index, but if he is hell bent on that flummery, it behoves him to read the index properly - if he is so incompetent that he gets even that wrong, well, we need not give much credence to anything else he says about the matter. (If, against all the evidence, rmj has read the book, things are no better for him since he stands accused of egregious superficiality; his criticism is indistinguishable from that of someone who hasn't read the book. But, the evidence is that he hadn't read it at the time of his writing). Since it's impossible to properly represent Dawkins arguments without reading the book (a task that rmj regards as an unnecessary chore), rmj sets up and knocks down strawmen with grim satisfaction and utter futility. For example, he criticises Dawkins for concentrating on Abrahamaic religion, a point that, had he only bothered to read the book, he would find Dawkins addressing head on. Rmj is more concerned to present himself as learned than to offer any sort of properly reasoned criticism. His is the sort of pseudo-intellectualism that seeks to impress others and that is impressed by the length and complexity of arguments: "Hartshorne's argument is so complex that even Mr. Gale declines to include it in his book, saying it needs separate consideration". Well, it must be right, then. I trust that even rmj can see the fallacy of that now that it's pointed out to him. Hartshorne's argument might be telling or it might not; whether it is or not does not depend on how long or complex it is; and its utter ruin need not require more than three sentences. And rmj knows (or should know) that Hartshorne's philosophy is completely marginalised in the context of practical religion (as well as being thoroughly criticised by many other philosophers - the philosophers of religion have never been able to agree on any matter whatsoever), so it is unnecessary and inappropriate for Dawkins to spend any ink on him. There are some valid criticisms that one might raise against Dawkins's thesis. Rmj misses them all. At one point in his dreadful critique he heaves himself up on to a pedestal, and in reference to Dawkins pronounces: "I must admit a weakness, though: I do not suffer fools gladly" I wonder, then, if he doesn't suffer fools gladly, how he manages to live with himself.Alechttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09226151025010209117noreply@blogger.com