Dawkins and the Scientific Method

A brief word on Dawkins and the scientific method: First, I do respect this man's capabilities as a scientist. The man is Oxford trained and is vastly influential in genetic and evolutionary biology. However, when he departs from science into the realm of religious debate he seems to forget the very objectivity and consideration that make the scientific method work.

I responded to someone in a comment box that I thought Dawkins was deficient in his consideration of the other side of the God question. He has not read Thomas Aquinas, for example, or any of the other philosophical heavy-weights (Aquinas really was a heavy-weight) supporting a theistic world-view. His response is that he doesn't have to, that the opposing view is so ridiculous that it doesn't bear examination. One response of his was to point out that we hardly need to read the works of leprechaunologists in order to dismiss a belief in leprechauns.

I disagree.

Or, I should say, I would agree that Dawkins doesn't need to study "leprechaunology" unless the majority of humanity for the vast majority of human existence believed in leprechauns. I would have to disagree with Dawkins and insist that we look more closely if the belief in leprechauns had become the basis of various moral systems and legal codes. I would disagree if millions alive today claimed that faith in leprechauns had changed their lives for the better, or if belief in leprechauns had become inspiration for much of the world's best art.

If all of these things were true, that the belief in leprechauns was widespread and deeply important to people, I might still simply dismiss it like the old atheists would, content in my personal freedom from the wee folk. But Dawkins doesn't do that; the new atheist isn's satisified with his own personal state. The new atheist needs to prove it to others. And if I, like Dawkins, were trying to prove that leprechauns didn't exist, and that belief in leprechauns was foolish, it would be incumbent on me to at least look at the real beliefs of these faerie-worshippers in order to properly engage them. And further, if I then claimed that belief in leprehcauns was a major cause of war and suffering, if I claimed that teaching children about leprechauns amounted to child-abuse then I might have a responsibility to respond to the objections of my detractors.

This sort of glib leprechaun statement is such a dodge. That sort of belief, in fairies, is so harmless and risible that it doesn't rate a real debate. But then, you wouldn't write books about the "Leprechaun Delusion" if it weren't worthy of debate, would you? So treating the whole theistic mindset, whether Christian or Jew or otherwise, as if it equates with childhood fantasy, is not a sincere attempt at engaging in a debate. And Dawkins has engaged these systems in debate, so the question still remains: how does he respond to Aquinas or the many others who have presented reasonable cases for the belief in God?

Dawkins is primarily a scientist. He's the one who went out on a limb and proposed his theory that runs counter to the Christian theory. But he attempts to do so without seriously examining the Christian body of work on the matter, without inquiring about our intellectual methods (and they do exist.)

If nothing else, it is Dawkins' stature as a heavy-weight scientist that places him in a situation where we have to criticize his objectivity. He's so personally certain of this thing that he refuses to look into it, not even to further the debate, equating all those who oppose him as participating in a childish delusion. And it's that personal certainty that's the problem; it's not at all scientific.

This all in itself doesn't constitute an argument, nor does it touch on the substance of what theistic philosophers would argue if Dawkins were to read them. It is simply an opener to suggest the possibility of a gap in Dawkins thinking.