Marilynne Robinson: Those who do the arguing are the worst representatives?

[ThePreserver]

So Marilynne Robinson, while on The Daily Show, said that those who argue for God, and those who argue against God are the worst representatives of each side. I mean, those that argue for religion are often ill-informed, and those that argue for science seem to be just as ill-informed of religion as well, since the presumption is occasionally that ALL Christians are Fundamentalists, and rarely is the idea of "God" outside of the Abrahamic faiths considered. Again, I'm not talking about everyone, only those who are most strongly opposed to the idea of God, or lack-thereof. Do you think this is true?

[Black_Eagle]

Here's a question: If you believe in God and you're arguing for God, is it possible not to be ill-informed? Many arguments against the existence of God can be applied across the board to all theistic religions. The only reason I see that many atheists involve the Abrahamic faiths is because they are the most widespread. Most of the people an atheist is going to argue against will probably be of one of the three abrahamic religions.

[zebrah]

Right off the bat I will say currently I have no religion. Yes most are ill-informed because they do not have a strong understanding of the oposition. When I am debating with someone about religion I always come at them with scientific examples and biblical examples. When attacking your opponent it is important to understand their sides perspective. Knowing the enemy is the the key to victory. Yes that sounded like a military strategy but it works.

[dajo]

Totally agree with the OP. It's mainly because people with strong opinions are biased in whatever direction they feel strongly about, thus being far from objective. But by opposition to god I rather think of the strict materialistic view that often is too quickly concluded, but strongly subscribed to by the atheist community, rather then arguing against the bible or the existence of a personal god, which is irrational to believe. Militant atheists are subscribing to a whole lineup of beliefs, as do militant anything.

[Universal Mind]

I watched that Daily Show interview. I would like to see that lady explain in person to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens that they are ill informed. The conversation would be a riot. When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, we are pretty much always talking about a conscious being that created the universe. As Black Eagle said, the Abrahamic religions involve the most commonly believed in of such characters. Also, many of the arguments against the existence of that particular God work as arguments against any possible concept of a God. The Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah character is a really good symbol of that general type of character, so they make for good examples to use in arguments about what and why the universe is. As for mere gods that do not have such great powers, such as the god of lightning or the god of polar winds, most atheists make similar arguments. The arguments go something like, "You made the far fetched claim. Now prove it."

[ThePreserver]

Black Eagle does raise a good point, I guess if they are more "Anti-Theist" rather than "Atheist" then the target would be the most widely spread. What I was trying to note was that in some cases, like the cases of some Eastern religions, there is little argument for or against, as the lack of a Creation God gives no real reason for arguing.

[Universal Mind]

Black Eagle does raise a good point, I guess if they are more "Anti-Theist" rather than "Atheist" then the target would be the most widely spread. What I was trying to note was that in some cases, like the cases of some Eastern religions, there is little argument for or against, as the lack of a Creation God gives no real reason for arguing. Even for an atheist who is not an antitheist, the Abrahamic God works as a good symbol/example in arguments concerning a conscious creator. Aso, usually when an atheist is arguing with a theist, it is about the Abrahamic God because that is what the theist believes in. Eastern religions involve beliefs in some "Gods" that are more like forces than characters. Not all of the same arguments apply to those. I think considering something like the Tao or the Buddha nature a God/god is a stretch. Most of the people of those religions agree.

[dajo]

I wouldn't call Hitchens and Dawkins ill-informed, but intellectually dishonest and one-sided. Hitchens I would guess is in it for money, that's at least what I've thought after his political musings to suddenly spread awareness to the imenent threat of terrorism and (imo) rather embarassing attempts to discredit Chomsky, as for Dawkins, he has an agenda that he follows - evidence doesn't really matter to him, especially when they would challenge his point of view. They may have been intellectuals or scientists, but in my opinion they have reduced themselves to pop figures of our time. They seem to make it personal and I can not take them seriously as scientists. Instead of trying to understand the workings of the universe or to get deeper down to a fundamental construct, time is wasted with arguing strawmen and ideas that can either be only understood through metaphor and analogy, or are obviously not worth debating. But maybe it's rather the fact that America has to really free itself of all these fundamentalists we, thank science, don't reallve have (much) in Europe. And apparently it can't go without a little drama either. These kind of debates may be entertaining to watch, but ultimately a waste of time that I don't get anything out of (I have watched quite a few and long ones, too). Granted, they are a good help for people that actually have to argue with those stereotypes on a daily basis, but a couple of books on common sense and logic would have done the same. I regard the horsemen of atheism as more intelligent than the average christian, no doubt, especially those numnuts that go into public, but I would just love to see them invest their time into something more constructive, but I'm pretty sure that in their field, this is the way to get rich and famous for being so wonderfully controversial and it's just the 'In-thing' to do now. My point is that if they were finding themselves to be wrong in any of the points they make, not even just about a personal god, but maybe on psi, they would be as hesitant to admit to their fault, as a christian would be to admitting there being no god. The reason is that either side has a strictly defined world view that can be shattered to pieces, which would be fatal to ones own psyche and would further discredit them in the future, which puts one into a difficult and subjective position. What I don't understand is how people can be so sure of themselves, especially since the universe is turning out to be a lot weirder than we could have ever imagined. How can you tackle questions of existence and origin through this black and white, 2-D lense, when at the frontier the brightest minds are starting to believe that we probably don't even have the mental capability to grasp any of it. Eastern religions involve beliefs in some "Gods" that are more like forces than characters. Not all of the same arguments apply to those. I think considering something like the Tao or the Buddha nature a God/god is a stretch. Most of the people of those religions agree. ok,.. I agree with that

[Universal Mind]

Hitchens and Dawkins might just be writing books and putting on shows for money, but the characters they either are or are just playing are doing what is supposed to be a service for society. They are antitheists who are trying to reduce the level of religion in the world because they think it is social poison. I haven't myself come across examples of when they ignored strong evidence or used strawman arguments. Do you have any examples in mind?

[ThePreserver]

Eastern religions involve beliefs in some "Gods" that are more like forces than characters. Not all of the same arguments apply to those. I think considering something like the Tao or the Buddha nature a God/god is a stretch. Most of the people of those religions agree. Regardless of what can be subjectively considered "God," the "force" in question, Brahman, or the Universal Soul, and so on, they are still entitled "God" in many western instances. If the distinction is not made in argument, then either side can be misconstrued.

[dajo]

Hitchens and Dawkins might just be writing books and putting on shows for money, but the characters they either are or are just playing are doing what is supposed to be a service for society. They are antitheists who are trying to reduce the level of religion in the world because they think it is social poison. I haven't myself come across examples of when they ignored strong evidence or used strawman arguments. Do you have any examples in mind? I linked to what I had in mind. And of course what I wrote is merely my opinion of it. http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Dawkins.html In this example, he's just a filmmaker with an opinion that will show in the end, no matter what. If he would not regard himself as a scientist, I'd have no problem with him at all. He of course can have his opinions, beliefs, etc. but when he 'puts on that labcoat' (metaphorically) he has a duty to objectivity. I just feel that a lot of this religion stuff is redundant, but that might be because it never was a big issue for me in the first place. However I have gained more interest over the last couple years in a pursuit to figure stuff out and I don't feel that Dawkins is helping. But as I said, the situation with fundamentalism might be a bit more severe in the states, therefore the ends might even justify the means, I don't know, but I don't personally get much out of him and at times get annoyed by the way he puts himself above others or portrays his ideas. (Plus, I cannot listen to the same old arguments over and over again that quite often miss the point or only adress lunatics) To call religion the root of all evil sounds a bit fundamentalist as well (I'm quoting him, not you). We all know that there are always many and diverse sides to a story, especially when it gets to a scale the size of all of societies, history, progress - pretty much humanity with all its facettes. I am sure the picture is a little more complexe and that is what I also mean by intellectual dishonesty. The reason I am accusing him of it also means that I think he could do better. Edit: Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is also an atheist as far as I understand, takes a much better approach in my opinion, showing the different sides of religions and is trying to understand the nature of belief (for example why there are still 15% of the top of the top scientists that consider themselves religious) and get people actually excited about science. It just seems more fair and balanced, as well as productive to me. (Even though he, too, sometimes appears to be more of an entertainer than a scientist, but I guess that just comes with being the link to the public and by speaking publicly to non-experts)

[Bonsay]

To call religion the root of all evil sounds a bit fundamentalist as well (I'm quoting him, not you). We all know that there are always many and diverse sides to a story, especially when it gets to a scale the size of all of societies, history, progress - pretty much humanity with all its facettes. I am sure the picture is a little more complexe and that is what I also mean by intellectual dishonesty. The reason I am accusing him of it also means that I think he could do better. The only thing that title represents is the profit controversy brings for the investors. He obviously isn't just some idiot. He might be, arguably, close minded, if that's how you choose describe presented behaviour, but not intellectually dishonest. Maybe I'm totally deluded, blinded and a biased "fanboy", but I really don't remember him saying anything unintellectual or intellectually dishonest, relative to my own general knowledge of the universe of course. Dawkins has said that the title The Root of All Evil? was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] The sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous. As you commented, I'm also interested in what points he quite often misses with his arguments? At least the general topic of these arguments. He doesn't mean much to me because I was never really somebody "to be saved from a religion", but I can't remember an argument from him that "didn't work" for me. They all seemed intellectually sound for the topic he was covering. Let's face it, he never really discussed any deep philosophy, but the thing he does talk about is pretty much correct, as far as logical conclusions go.. opinions are another matter. I mean, I'd like to hear people debunk him, but I've only heard of young earth creationists and that Christian philosopher William Craig, who's philosophical statements I find uncompelling, unsatisfying - coming from a doctor of philosophy.

[dajo]

I mentioned a couple of times that I don't think of him as an idiot, nor closed minded per se. And the title of the show was mainly meant to substantiate my argument, namely that he doesn't supply the entire picture, but only arguments and data to support his hypotheses in disregard of it being (in my opinion) far more complexe. I'm sure he is aware of a lot of it, but he never presents it. By intellectual dishonesty I don't mean that he is lying, or even willfully manipulating or unintellectual, but using rethorics and selective data to convey his point without honestly considering other possibilities or interpretations. (for some belief may be not all bad? maybe some good came out of it?) From a scientific standpoint this is quite an undesirable trait, especially for a former professor of a scientific division in Oxford. Sometimes there are more conclusions that could be drawn. He's not really interested in religion, but rather in the abortion of it and it's obvious. But this isn't even my main issue. And I don't even like religion, but it's not a scientific call to brand it either good or bad and by taking a definite stance one looses the much needed objectivity. To really name precise arguments that I disagree with or that I feel being examples of intellectual dishonesty, I would have to watch a talk again, which I might do, but not now. So, why don't we use the one first that I have already adressed. As I'm sure you know, he also argues for and against quite a few more things related to "the paranormal". In the case of the interviews (psychic phenomena) he wanted to do for his show, he was neither interested in discussing the evidence nor was he even willing to examine it, even though available. Wether you believe it's authenticity (or the experimental data of Radin) is besides the point; what is important is that his show was not a balanced view of opposing sides with equal chances to present scientific data, even worse, it wasn't even to be considered and that in my opinion shows the general tenor of what he does. Which is fine, just not really scientific. I have reached my general conclusions about him by viewing quite a few of his lectures, I'm kind of an addict when it comes to talks, even the ones I don't particularly like or agree with. I just have a personal clash with some of what he is saying or more often than not how he is saying it and while I would gladly fight for him to be able to voice his opinion, I think what he does borders on missionary work. What's far worse though is that, as you have mentioned, he doesn't really ever speak of deeper philosophical issues - how can you leave them out while talking about every kind of religion or faith or spiritual understanding that has ever been present in history in the way he does? In his case, as pointed out by UM, he mostly argues and is mainly known by his arguments against a personal god, essentially the christian version as literally written in the bible. This to me has no place on scientific ground, it's laughable, there is no argument to be made and it's barely scratching the surface. But this one he attacks and with it often times an entire set of much more thoughtfull hypotheses or beliefs carried by others. While he focuses on the dumbest possible version of a christian, he should focus on the 15% of the best scientists that do believe in a god and investigate them, if he does want to continue with theology (which to my knowledge he didn't study). But that would be honest. Edit: Just to make sure, I also didn't say or mean that his arguments are inconsistent, but rather that there are more, and sometimes equally consistent ways of looking at things, while it often sounds very absolute out of his mouth. I'll check out William Craig though, even though I will probably not like him if he argues for creationism There are also quite a few arguments of Dawkins I totally agree with.

[Samael]

I watched that interview. I marvelled at how little she could say with so many words. The title of her book is "Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self". Really? You couldn't make that a little more wordy? Maybe I'm biased. Robinson reminded me of a person several people I dislike IRL. ...said that those who argue for God, and those who argue against God are the worst representatives of each side. It's unfortunate that those in the public eye are considered representatives of very diverse groups, because those "representatives" often have very polarizing opinions. Being an atheist doesn't mean I agree with other atheists on every topic. That said, no. I don't think that everyone who argues "for" or "against" automatically gives a bad impression of their side. Although some of them sure do...

[Caprisun]

I think arguing the existence of God should be done in a purely logical manner. For me personally, there is no possible combinations of words or stories that anybody can say to me that will change my mind. Even if I truely wanted to believe in God at this point, it just isn't possible. Nothing short of God himself appearing before me could make me believe. Anybody who knows how to make sound arguments based on the known laws of the universe is qualified to argue the existence of God. Familiarizing myself with the opposing religion so I might better understand them is a waste of time and in no way shapes my argument.

[Bonsay]

(for some belief may be not all bad? maybe some good came out of it?) From a scientific standpoint this is quite an undesirable trait, especially for a former professor of a scientific division in Oxford. Sometimes there are more conclusions that could be drawn. He's not really interested in religion, but rather in the abortion of it and it's obvious. But this isn't even my main issue. And I don't even like religion, but it's not a scientific call to brand it either good or bad and by taking a definite stance one looses the much needed objectivity. Well I have nothing to add really. It would be nice to have wise gurus do the talking, but often when one comes into view to the general public he is ignored. The way I see it, most people live on simplistic adversity and conflict. I'm sure many would concede on the futility of violence if in the right setting and frame of mind, but emotions take over pretty soon. That's what people like Dawkins tap into. He became a preacher for the cause of atheism. And he always admits to being militant. Just like some fundamentalists bask in their beliefs that atheists will burn in hell, so do atheists enjoy it when the stupidity of others is revealed. It's an ego battle. Granted this is more complex because people get "saved" and want to save others, plus there are pragmatic problems being solved. I'm just saying that we can't expect another Carl Sagan here, although it would be nice. But these are sadly a rarity. In the case of the interviews (psychic phenomena) he wanted to do for his show, he was neither interested in discussing the evidence nor was he even willing to examine it, even though available. Which is fine, just not really scientific. Yeah sure. Looking from his perspective though, he just doesn't want to waste time. He's been keeping a stable world view based on science and being a scientist for his whole life. I couldn't imagine myself in his shoes to have the time or patience to entertain somebodies ideas of the paranormal, just like I don't waste time now asking Jesus to save me or reading the Bible. We all do what feels good to us, the rest we leave to others, whether we think it's stupid or not. I can't really hold anything against him for turning down that guy. But I agree that, if you want, it gives you the permission to call him a hypocrite in some debate or whatever. What's far worse though is that, as you have mentioned, he doesn't really ever speak of deeper philosophical issues - how can you leave them out while talking about every kind of religion or faith or spiritual understanding that has ever been present in history in the way he does?... Well as I said. That's the topics he does. I never saw him as anything more, so I never judged him on something he doesn't cover. The way I got it is that to him what's going on in the mind is pretty clearly an emergent property of the objective world to be best described with science. Talking about the less stupid aspects of peoples' beliefs or the less stupid beliefs (15%)...and since this thread is already mostly made of our impressions of the guy, I'm sure he's already expressed a greater respect and implied that he favours such philosophical views. After all, his statements about the beauty and mystery of the universe could be argued as spiritual, which is the positive aspect of religion. I'll check out William Craig though, even though I will probably not like him if he argues for creationism. Yeah, don't waste your time. I was being easy on him. At the risk of sounding pretentious, he's a complete idiot. Just goes to show that a phd in philosophy doesn't make you a critical thinker or logical for that matter. His argument are pretty shallow and are there only to boost the egos and supply material for creationists.

[dajo]

Yeah, don't waste your time. I was being easy on him. At the risk of sounding pretentious, he's a complete idiot. Just goes to show that a phd in philosophy doesn't make you a critical thinker or logical for that matter. His argument are pretty shallow and are there only to boost the egos and supply material for creationists. Haha, yeah. I had to laugh pretty bad watching some of his arguments on youtube

[Bonsay]

Back to the point of the thread... to solidify my opinion on Dawkins being a representative. Personally, after admitting the potential faults in his persona, I think he is still a great representative for what atheists generally subscribe to. A moral, humanistic approach to life with an agnostic philosophy. I watched him a bit again and I have to say that he is far, far from the worst representative this general population of people could have. He might not be strictly into deeper philosophical topics and he might succumb to sensationalism in some of his works from time to time, but all in all, considering the image atheists have had through history, he gives the opposition little ammunition but their bigotry and strawmen. I think you'd really have to try very hard to get him to say something stupid or illogical, even if you lead him into a conversation about spirituality and the likes. I still like him.

[dajo]

There are many atheists and agnostics that have studied theology, also on a high academic level far from a christian college. I would say Dawkins is good for people, who want to learn more about the negative sides of religion, defend themselves from fundamentalists or need to critically confront their own belief system (I would probably even recommend the god delusion to a christian), but as a true representative I'd prefer a studied scholar in this field with an honest interest to fully cover the subject. Basically, I want someone representing the subject that would let me think for myself and neither Dawkins, nor any preacher telling me that my disbelief is sending me to hell is going to deliver what I would expect from an objective approach. And that's where I agree with the OP (without having seen the interview or knowing who Marilynne Robinson is), I don't think this neccessarily has to be a struggle, I want a representative that is not fighting for a side. Personally, after admitting the potential faults in his persona, I think he is still a great representative for what atheists generally subscribe to. That's fair. He is a good representative for his community if the community thinks so. I don't subscribe to this one so he's not a very good representative to me.

[ThePreserver]

I'd prefer a studied scholar in this field with an honest interest to fully cover the subject. This I would have to agree with, because then they would understand the non-Fundamentalist portions of the religion and the good intentions as well. They would also know more about Eastern religions and the basis for each faith in general. Someone with a heavy background knowledge in religion would seem the most reasonable in argument.

[Caprisun]

This I would have to agree with, because then they would understand the non-Fundamentalist portions of the religion and the good intentions as well. They would also know more about Eastern religions and the basis for each faith in general. Someone with a heavy background knowledge in religion would seem the most reasonable in argument. An atheist with a backround in religion will have the same argument as an atheist without one. I don't get why it matters other than to make the other side feel understood, which is pointless in a debate about God's existence unless your purpose is to convert your opponent, in which case you would be a dreamer. Whether they are fundamentalists or not, good-willed or not, they are all trying to argue for the existence of something supernatural, so the argument against a fundamental Christian is the exact same one that would be used against any and all other religions. The good qualities of a religion have no bearing on it's truthfullness. So maybe I've misunderstood the point, but are you saying that because a religion is not dogmatic and it produces virtuous, level-headed followers, that it shouldn't be subjeted to scrutiny, or that it's tenets are somehow more valid than a more dogmatic religion? I still don't get why a person like Richard Dawkins would be unqualified to make his arguments, he seems to me to be exceptionally qualified.

[ThePreserver]

If you consider that in Buddhism, there is technically no necessity to believe in God, then the argument would no longer be against if their BELIEFS are false, but that the practices are immoral or purposeless. The same goes for Taoism, while both can be considered religion, they still do not have creation Gods unless believed by the individual. If there is nothing to disprove, then the validity would be much easier to uphold, but it wouldn't necessarily make it MORE valid, just easier to support and more difficult to refute.

[Xaqaria]

I think arguing the existence of God should be done in a purely logical manner. For me personally, there is no possible combinations of words or stories that anybody can say to me that will change my mind. Even if I truely wanted to believe in God at this point, it just isn't possible. Nothing short of God himself appearing before me could make me believe. Anybody who knows how to make sound arguments based on the known laws of the universe is qualified to argue the existence of God. Familiarizing myself with the opposing religion so I might better understand them is a waste of time and in no way shapes my argument. Sounds like you fit the bill of this thread pretty well then. How can you possibly hope to argue logically if you are completely ignorant of what you are arguing against? Why enter into the discussion at all even if your mind is already completely closed?

[Scatterbrain]

Sounds like you fit the bill of this thread pretty well then. How can you possibly hope to argue logically if you are completely ignorant of what you are arguing against? Why enter into the discussion at all even if your mind is already completely closed? Well, a deep understanding about the weaving of invisible cloth is not necessary to accuse the emperor of nudity.

[Caprisun]

If you consider that in Buddhism, there is technically no necessity to believe in God, then the argument would no longer be against if their BELIEFS are false, but that the practices are immoral or purposeless. The same goes for Taoism, while both can be considered religion, they still do not have creation Gods unless believed by the individual. If there is nothing to disprove, then the validity would be much easier to uphold, but it wouldn't necessarily make it MORE valid, just easier to support and more difficult to refute. It doesn't have to have a creation God. Im saying that any belief in the supernatural should get the same treatment from atheists no matter what exactly it entails, they would otherwise be hypocrites. Sounds like you fit the bill of this thread pretty well then. How can you possibly hope to argue logically if you are completely ignorant of what you are arguing against? Why enter into the discussion at all even if your mind is already completely closed? My argument is that the bill is wrong. I was debating with an individual about Islam a few weeks ago, and the concepts I was arguing were completely logic based and required no previous knowledge of Islam. The other individual kept trying to say that because I've never read the Quran and Im not as familiar with Islam's teachings as he is, that I have no business arguing with him. That is what I believe the philosphy of this particular author is (unless I misunderstood.) I responded by telling him that I could raise any ancient philosopher from the dead and they would justifiably be able to make the same arguments as I had without ever having heard of Islam. If I am arguing against the existence of God in a logical and scientific manner, how are bible stories or any sort of cultural details going to change my mind or affect my argument in any way? One supernatural phenomenon is as unlikely as the next. If you argue against one, you argue against them all. That means I am not ignorant at all, it means that what I am arguing against is the same concept in every instance, independent of whatever religious teachings it is attached to.