Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Repeat after me: “this has nothing to do with my views on religion”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[[This blast from the past was originally published here at UD 25oct06. With EXPELLED coming out so soon and given Dawkins’s prominent role in it, I thought it worth moving to the top of the stack (blogs have the data structure of a push-down stack). –WmAD]]

Last night Richard Dawkins did a reading from his new book, The God Delusion, at a bookstore in DC. After the reading he fielded questions. A friend of mine was in the front and got to be the first to go. He asked Dawkins if he thought he was being inconsistent by being a determinist while taking credit for writing his book. The answer so shocked my questioner friend that he typed out a transcript of what was said, which is pasted below. He recorded the audio on his laptop and has as an MP3, just in case someone wishes to dispute his recollection of this event. I post it here with my friend’s permission.

Richard Dawkins at Politics and Prose speaking on The God Delusion
Question and Answer

Questioner: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I’ve seen you written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about and the places where I think there is an inconsistency and I hoped you would clarify it is that in what I’ve read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn’t to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It’s not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I’ve ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should … I sometimes … Um … You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a …

Questioner: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.

Questioner: Thank you.

Comments
It seems really complex. 1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth) 2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth. (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge) 3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (From 1 and 2) 4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing. (Assumption: Fixed Past) 5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (From 3 and 4) 6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow. (Necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness) 7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow. (From 5 and 6) 8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning. (Assumption of Libertarian Free Will) 9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow. (From 7 and 8)jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
jaredl
I don’t see how an adherent to classical theology is any more consistent. After all, since God created ex nihilo, ultimately God is responsible for The God Delusion.
No, because free will exists, therefore, Dawkins is responsible for his book because he elected to write it, not God. It is really quite simple.Jehu
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
I don't see how an adherent to classical theology is any more consistent. After all, since God created ex nihilo, ultimately God is responsible for The God Delusion.jaredl
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
My compliments for a very sharp, simple question that obviously threw Dawkins for a loop. So the human condition is designed such that the irrational is necessary for us to operate? Funny how that works.nullasalus
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.
LOL! The irrational inner life of Richard Dawkins. Don't worry folks, good, evil, and free will do in fact exist and are not merely convenient glosses we put over things.Jehu
October 25, 2006
October
10
Oct
25
25
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply