Richard Dawkins: The Untutored Philosopher

2/8/13 1:15 PMPlease Convince Me

of 9http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/richard-dawkins-the-untutored-philosopher/

Richard Dawkins: The Untutored Philosopher

written by Aaron Brake

Dawkins the Epistemologist

Richard Dawkins is often heralded as a brilliant scientist.Unfortunately he often resorts to shoddy philosophy. Sev-eral examples of Dawkins’ philosophical ineptness havebeen pointed out over the years, one of the more prominent

being that his self-described “central argument” in The God Delusion is not even logicallyvalid.[1] In a more recent book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True,Dawkins again leaves the realm of science (perhaps unwittingly) and tries his hand atphilosophy. But regrettably the results don’t fare any better.

The very title of Dawkins’ book should cause us pause: The Magic of Reality: How WeKnow What’s Really True. Notice the subtitle of this book is philosophical in nature, i.e.,How We Know is an epistemological question, not scientific. Epistemology is a branch ofphilosophy (not science) which deals with how knowledge is defined, what we know,and how we know it. It is an area of study Dawkins simply isn’t qualified to address,and this becomes painfully obvious as one continues reading. In chapter one, Dawkinssummarizes his view of knowledge which functions as the epistemological foundationfor the rest of his book:

We come to know what is real, then, in one of three ways. We can detect itdirectly, using our five senses; or indirectly, using our senses aided by specialinstruments such as telescopes and microscopes; or even more indirectly, bycreating models of what might be real and then testing those models to seewhether they successfully predict things that we can see (or hear, etc.), with orwithout the aid of instruments. Ultimately, it always comes back to oursenses, one way or another.[2]

According to Dawkins, all knowledge concerning reality comes through the five senses.If you can’t see, touch, taste, smell, or hear it, you cannot know it. How we know what’strue “always comes back to our senses, one way or another.”



Self-Refuting Epistemology

For those familiar with the concept of self-refutation, Dawkins’ view of knowledgeshould be glaringly problematic. A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it doesnot meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. Forexample, the statement “There is no truth” is self-refuting since the uttering itself is tak-en to be true. Self-refuting statements are necessarily false, i.e., there is no possible worldin which they are true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, thelaw of non-contradiction. This law states that A and non-A cannot both be true at thesame time and in the same sense. In the example above, the self-refuting statement af-firms A (“truth exists”) and non-A (“truth does not exist”) at the same time and in thesame sense, and is therefore necessarily false.

What about Dawkins’ theory of knowledge? How is it self-refuting? Recall the title ofDawkins’ book: The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. Dawkins is pur-porting to tell us how we come to know what is true, and according to him, we knowwhat’s true through the use of our five senses. As he states, it “always comes back to oursenses.” We can thus phrase his epistemology this way:

All knowledge concerning reality is acquired through the five senses.

The problem with this view is immediately obvious. The belief “all knowledge concern-ing reality is acquired through the five senses” is not itself acquired through the fivesenses, i.e., there is nothing you can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear from which you candeduce that all knowledge concerning reality is acquired through the five senses. This isa philosophical claim (not scientific) and cannot be justified or grounded in any sensoryexperience.

Dawkins has thus placed himself on the horns of an epistemological dilemma. Either allknowledge concerning reality is acquired through the five senses or it is not. If allknowledge concerning reality is not acquired through the five senses, then Dawkins isobviously mistaken in his claim. But if all knowledge concerning reality is acquiredthrough the five senses, the belief itself that “all knowledge concerning reality is acquiredthrough the five senses” could not itself be known since that belief is not acquiredthrough the five senses, and so Dawkins is again mistaken in his claim. So if Dawkins is



wrong he is wrong, but if he is right he is wrong as well. Dawkins’ epistemology is self-refuting, and it is on this incoherent, irrational view of knowledge that the entire rest ofhis book is based.

Scientism Isn’t Science

Science is good, but science isn’t everything. Science is only one way to discover what istrue, but it is not the only way. Anyone who says otherwise is no longer practicing sci-ence but rather “scientism.” This is the view that “science is the only paradigm of truthand rationality…Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjectiveopinion, of which rational assessment is impossible.”[3] While there are both weak andstrong versions of scientism, Dawkins seems to make his bed in the camp of strongscientism, according to which you can’t know something unless you can prove it scien-tifically (using, of course, the five senses). This is an attempt to elevate science and sen-sory experience to an illegitimate and unreasonable level, and in so doing Dawkins hasleft the realm of science and thrown his gauntlet into the philosophical arena:

The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all—that what isnot in science textbooks is not worth knowing—is an ideologist with a pecu-liar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector ofthe cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrinenot of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate sciencebut to distort it.[4]

No doubt Dawkins’ scientism is influenced by his prior commitment to philosophicalnaturalism. Ironically, even this commitment (to philosophical naturalism) shows thathis philosophy comes before his science, thus again undermining his own limited self-refuting epistemology. We could ask Dawkins how he knows philosophical naturalismto be true, a belief which would be impossible for him to justify based on anything hecan see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. The very fact that Dawkins deals with the topic ofepistemology in chapter one of his book before moving on to scientific issues againdemonstrates the priority and presumption of philosophy over science (as well as theinability of science to justify his philosophy), a point which Dawkins seems completelyoblivious to.



Science Presupposes Philosophy

Philosophers of science understand that science is dependent on philosophy, not philos-ophy on science. You can do philosophy without science, but you can’t do science with-out philosophy. Even the question “What is science?” is philosophical in nature (notscientific) and therefore should be addressed by philosophers of science. The project ofscience could not even be undertaken without taking certain philosophical assumptionsfor granted. Some of the philosophical presuppositions that science assumes are thefollowing:[5]

1. The existence of a theory independent, external world2. The orderly nature of the external world3. The knowability of the external world4. The existence of truth5. The laws of logic6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and

as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment7. The adequacy of language to describe the world8. The existence of values used in science (for example, “test theories fairly and report

test results honestly”)9. The uniformity of nature and induction

10. The existence of numbers and mathematical truths

Not only must science assume the truthfulness of each of these philosophicalpresuppositions, but sensory experience will never be able to serve as the justification orwarrant for these beliefs.

In a 1998 debate, William Lane Craig faced off against Peter Atkins on the question“What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?” During the debate, Peter Atkinsmade the claim that science can account for everything and is “omnipotent.” Whenquestioned by Atkins regarding what science can’t account for, Craig lists the followingfive examples of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we are all rational toaccept:[6]

1. Logical and mathematical truths



2. Metaphysical truths3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value4. Aesthetic judgments5. Science itself

To help illustrate the limits of science and sensory experience, consider the followingstatements:[7]

1. I know A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.2. I know 2 + 2 = 4.3. I know it is morally wrong to torture babies for fun.4. I know what I ate for breakfast last week.5. I know truth is when a belief, statement, or idea corresponds with reality.6. I know Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States.

If Dawkins’ view of knowledge is correct, we could never know the truth of any of thepropositions listed above. Not a single one of these propositions is known to be truethrough the five senses. Not one of them can be proven scientifically and yet an individ-ual would be completely rational in accepting each of them as genuine objects ofknowledge.

The first four sentences above are examples of knowledge by acquaintance, i.e., “the ob-ject of knowledge is directly present to one’s consciousness.”[8] Knowledge by acquain-tance is knowledge by intuition. This intuition is “a direct awareness of something thatis directly present to the consciousness.”[9] Sensory intuition, which Dawkins seems toaccept, is only one form of knowledge by acquaintance. But there are others as well, in-cluding intuitive knowledge of our own mental states, the laws of logic, and basic math-ematical principles.

Through introspection, or attending to one’s own awareness of mental states (thoughts,feelings, sensations, desires), an individual may obtain first-person knowledge of thesepropositions. This presents a problem for scientism which entails that all knowledge isacquired in a third-person way, i.e., as an outsider using her senses to acquire knowl-edge about a distinct being or event. If first-person introspective knowledge is possible,then scientism is false.[10]



For example, sentence (1) is the law of non-contradiction, an undeniable law of logic.You cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear the laws of logic, nor can you know them tobe true through sensory experience. Sentence (2) is a basic mathematical fact which, likethe laws of logic, is necessarily true. Science presupposes both logic and math so thatany attempt to prove logic and math using science is arguing in a circle. Sentence (3) isknown to be true through moral intuition. Anyone who does not know that torturingbabies for fun is morally wrong is himself morally handicapped. Objective moral valuesare not something you can know or perceive through sensory experience. These firstthree propositions are self-evident, a priori truths.

My knowledge of sentence (4) is warranted based on my memory which I have directaccess to, not on anything I can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. Sentence (5) is a meta-physical claim concerning the nature of truth itself. Science cannot tell us what truth isbut rather must presuppose its existence like the laws of logic. What truth “is” is notsomething you can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. Sentence (6) is a historical truthwhich I know to be true based on expert testimony and good authority. Truths of histo-ry are not grounded in or justified by sensory experience.

Finally, each of the six sentences above express true propositions. But propositionsthemselves are abstract, immaterial, universals which are not sense-perceptible. If allknowledge concerning reality is acquired through the five senses, we could never knowthe propositional content of our own thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.

Dawkins the Philosopher of Mind

Dawkins seems to somewhat anticipate a critique of this sort, and so he attempts tohead it off at the pass:

Does this mean that reality only contains things that can be detected, directlyor indirectly, by our senses and by the methods of science? What about thingslike jealously and joy, happiness and love? Are these not also real?

Yes, they are real. But they depend for their existence on brains…These emo-tions are intensely real to those who experience them, but they didn’t exist be-fore brains did. It is possible that emotions like these—and perhaps otheremotions that we can’t begin to dream of—could exist on other planets, but



only if those planets also contain brains—or something equivalent tobrains…[11]

Here Dawkins moves from epistemology to philosophy of mind, another branch of phi-losophy (not science) which Dawkins is not only unqualified to address, but one inwhich the truth of the matter simply cannot be known through sensory experience.Whether genuine immaterial mental states and properties exist or whether the mind isnothing but the brain, this isn’t something that can be known to be true by anything youcan see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. Thus by claiming to have knowledge in this areaDawkins once again undermines his own limited self-refuting epistemology.

Leaving this aside for the moment (and the fact that mental states and properties are notidentical to brain states and properties), notice that Dawkins is still completely missingthe point. Even if Dawkins could offer up a reductionistic account of consciousness andthe mind (which he hasn’t) so as to rid them from his ontology, the way emotions suchas joy or jealously are known is through direct awareness of one’s own mental states, notsensory experience. There is nothing you can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear thatgrounds the knowledge you possess of your own emotions. Rather, they are directlypresent to your consciousness. So Dawkins has explained nothing by asserting that emo-tions are dependent on the existence of the brain. Rather, he has only attempted to ex-plain away.

Furthermore, the claim that these emotions are dependent on the brain is extremelycontroversial. Dawkins here offers no arguments, only assertions. If, for example, disem-bodied spirits or immaterial beings such as God or angels exist, then there is no reasonto think these entities could not experience emotions of joy, anger, jealously, etc., with-out a material brain. That is because (as substance dualists would argue) these emotionsare immaterial mental states (not material brain states) which take place in the immateri-al mind (not material brain). Dawkins may object to even the possible existence of suchimmaterial beings and dismiss them as illegitimate counterexamples, but then he wouldsimply be begging the question by once again assuming the truth of philosophicalnaturalism, a philosophy itself which cannot be known to be true through sensoryexperience. Dawkins again would be undermining his own naïve and inadequateepistemology.



Conclusion

Richard Dawkins’ commitment to scientism and philosophical naturalism, if leftunchanged, will continue to pervert both his science and his philosophy. His epistemol-ogy is self-refuting, evidenced by his own inability to remain consistent with it in hiswritings. No doubt Dawkins is very knowledgeable in many areas of science, but thisknowledge isn’t transferred by osmosis to other fields such as philosophy. Much of hisphilosophy is rubbish, and, to use Dawkins’ own words, “It is amazing how often peo-ple resort to this type of nonsense.”[12] This begs the question, “Why then is RichardDawkins so popular?” William Lane Craig perhaps has answered this best:

Dawkins is so popular because people are so unsophisticated in theirthinking. I am just appalled, honestly, when I read the stuff that’s out there onthe internet, how inept and sophomoric people are. I’m afraid that manyyoung people just have never been exposed to good, rigorous argumentationwith regard to these matters and therefore they’re taken in by these Dawkinstypes because they’ve never really read sophisticated treatments of theseproblems. And to a certain extent I think the church bears a responsibility forthis because we’ve so dumb-downed our preaching, and our Sunday schoolclasses, and our devotional thoughts, that we’re not equipping Christians tobe sophisticated in their grasp of Christian doctrine and theology, much lessin what good reasons there are to believe it. But, in general, our educationalsystem I’m afraid has been terribly dumb-downed so that people cannot thinklogically, they’re uninformed, and they’re unfamiliar with the sophisticatedliterature that is out there on these topics and so they are taken in by this sortof sophomoric material that people like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens putout. [13]

[1] See William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed.(Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 170-172.

[2] Richard Dawkins, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True (New York:Free Press, 2011), 19 (emphasis his).



[3] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of theSoul (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), 144.

[4] Nicholas Rescher, The Limits of Science, as quoted in Moreland and Craig, Philosophi-cal Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 346.

[5] Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, 147.

[7] For more on knowledge and intuition, see Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Founda-tions for a Christian Worldview, 71-91.

[10] Thanks to Sanjay Merchant for the insight and commentary in this paragraph.

[11] Dawkins, The Magic of Reality, 19.

Download Full Article:Click here

Download Bible Insert:Click here

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/richard-dawkins-the-untutored-philosopher/

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/richard-dawkins-the-untutored-philosopher/

Richard Dawkins: The Untutored Philosopher

Documents

Transcript of Richard Dawkins: The Untutored Philosopher