"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal
That’s the only conclusion I can come to after reading things like this.
“Richard Dawkins” is obviously a pseudonym of someone seeking to discredit atheism by associating it with the most ridiculous and childish “arguments” available.
(HT: Richard at Connexions, who insists on perpetuating this charade by responding to “Dawkins” in a reasonable and intelligent manner.)
Care to point out what is ridiculous or childish about that?
Oh, come on – “Would you need to read learned volumes on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?”
I respect honest atheism but Dawkins is becoming a caricature of himself.
It is a reasonable analogy.
I agree – it does characterise the arguments commonly used by critical reviewers.
If he doesn’t have to read theology, why do theologians have to read biology? Even pop biology?
And why does Peter Stanford have to read him and Hitchens?
Let’s none of us read each other, and all attack straw men.
Much simpler, that way.
Always did hate research. All those bloody note cards, you know.
Dawkins is simply begging the question: he declares belief in God a “delusion;” the reviewers point out his apparent unfamiliarity with theology; Dawkins responds that he doesn’t have to study theology because … belief in God is akin to belief in leprechauns!
And this of course is a restatement of his thesis, not a defense of it. So why does he think it’s such a crushing rejoinder?
Harris has done similar things. This meme of “I don’t have to learn anything about theology because religion is silly” has spread through the new atheist community like the hantavirus.
But even if we assume belief in God is akin to belief in leprechauns, it’s still a stupid reply. If I’m attempting to write a book that argues against leprechauns, I better pay attention to what people have actually written about leprechauns.
Ironically, one of Dawkins’ chief complaints is that his reviewers seem not to have read his book! (He implies it in this letter – “A decent start would be to read them.”) One has to wonder why Dawkins insists people read his book if they already know it is wrong.
The analogy isn’t that belief in leprechauns is akin to belief in god. The analogy is that disbelieving in leprechauns without reading all the leprechaun literature is akin to dismissing the existence of god without reading all the god literature.
Do you believe in leprechauns? Have you read all of the leprechaun literature? How can you dismiss the possibility that there are leprechauns without reading all about them?
Look it’s a stupid analogy and if ‘Dawkinsian’ atheists were a little more intellectually honest they acknowledge it to be so.
First of all, you’d have to show that the existence of leprauchans has ever been seriously considered. You know perfectly well they haven’t and there is no literature on this. It’s the same with all the other nonsensical analogies that a certain type of atheist brings up all the time: flying spaghetti monsters and the like.
If ‘the God hypothesis’ were so patently absurd then it wouldn’t have engaged the greatest minds in history, whether atheist or a believer of some sort.
What Dawkins does is just pander to Western, middle class, fairly educated ‘atheists’ who are more than happy to have some apparently credible argument to continue their carefree existence without God. It’s pretty much the same thing as Dawkins accuses religion of doing. There is no serious intellectual engagement in Dawkins. What a stark contrast to other atheists who are infinitely easier to respect, those such as Albert Camus, Umberto Eco and others who actually engaged in dialogue with believers, who actually seek to understand what they ultimately reject. And don’t give me the rubbish about leprechauns, you know full well it’s not the same thing at all.
If on the other hand, you can point me towards the most authoritative tome in leprechaunology, I would be very much obliged.
Consider a more credible analogy: Writing an entire book denouncing communism without having even the most rudimentary knowledge of Karl Marx’s work.
“Do you believe in leprechauns? Have you read all of the leprechaun literature? How can you dismiss the possibility that there are leprechauns without reading all about them?”
If I were writing a book about how believing in leprechauns is a delusion, you’d be sure that I’d familiarize myself with what leprechaun believers actually say. Not reading the relevant literature is a recipe for creating a strawman.
I don’t have to go to the zoo. I know there can’t be anything as silly-looking as what you call “a giraffe”!
If you are writing a book to prove there are no leprechauns you need to attend to the evidence.
If you are writing a book to denigrate people who believe in leprechauns, or complain that they have made a mess of history, no such research is needed.
So, what kind of book was he writing?
“Not reading the relevant literature is a recipe for creating a strawman.”
If there are strawmen in his book, by all means present and refute them.
This is the real issue. 99% Books on god assume that he exists from the outset. So most of what they are on about is completely irrelevant unless one believes in god already. (This includes the bible.) I do not need to know what you think god has done or not done, what properties you think god has, it is all entirely irrelevant to whether or not god exists.
The only books on theology that I will bother reading are those that actually try to defend the belief in the existence of gods, because those are the only ones that present information relevant to that question.
His understanding of the word “faith” is one of the biggest strawmen in his book. His idea that faith is “belief without evidence” has been knocked down many, many times.
Care to knock it down again, just for old times sake?
Not really.
You wouldn’t even be kind enough to provide me with a competing definition. I have never heard a very coherent one.
Faith is trust or commitment to God. Kind of like a patient puts his or her trust in a surgeon’s hands. This trust is based on knowledge and experience of God – kind of like my trust in my surgeon is based on his or her reputation, credentials, past medical performance, etc.
So it should not be a reason to believe in god? Or to maintain belief in something in the face of contradicting evidence?
I’m bored.
This is why I made it easier for people to comment on my own blog. 21 comments on Leprechaunology; that’s some action I really want in on!
Joe,
If you’d like a response to your most recent question, there are certainly entries elsewhere on this very site that might satisfy you. I ‘m fairly certain that Thinking Reed is google searchable, so that might be a good place to start. I’d also suggest attacking the “faith” question from a different angle: asking whether science, itself, is based on faith. The works of Quine and Kuhn might be a handy. Or perhaps Hume. IMHO, (and it’s not a mature view), science and religion are both locally coherent views (under standard principles of coherence). That, alone, will probably be inadequate to satisfy people of their truth. If more is wanted, I think the debate turns pragmatic: have religion and/ or science “paid pay the goods?” The answer will likely depend on the answerer’s personal experience.
I plan on attacking faith from that angle and others when I finish up my next blog. I won’t have a chance to read much Hume, Quine, or Kuhn between now and then, but feel free to recommend them to me again when you see what I have written. 🙂
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a reply to David Cancel reply