Do you believe those two statements are synonymous?

They aren't synonymous, but I also don't think it's accurate to suggest Dawkins and certainly not Harris are anything but true blue atheists. The epistemology of science demands some degree of agnosticism about everything, even about such things as whether the earth is round or flat. It goes with the best explanations for the data we have, and so it would be a scientific overstep to claim anything with "certainty."

Here's a brief breakdown on the strength of Dawkins' atheism:
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html

If we suggest that Dawkins is an agnostic because he's left open the possibility that the earth might be flat, pigs might fly, and God msy possibly exist, the only true atheist would be the dogmatic atheist, who rejects the existence of God regardless of the evidence, but that would reject the scientific epistemology most atheists rely upon

@Isaiasb does not participate in his own topic!
What's the purpose of presenting your position on a subject, ask for comments, etc. if you are not going to respond to them?
I also find it quite rude to not reply to comments from participants to yor topic who are addressing to you.

That's an F !

They aren't synonymous — Hanover

I appreciate your honesty, not that it was a big ask. I don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. I'm not a new atheist fan, by the way, I'm just partial to truth.

You're making a strained epistemological argument. — Hanover

If we suggest that Dawkins is an agnostic because he's left open the possibility that the earth might be flat, pigs might fly, and God may possibly exist, the only true atheist would be the dogmatic atheist, who rejects the existence of God regardless of the evidence, but that would reject the scientific epistemology most atheists rely upon. — Hanover

I think this is exactly right.

don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. — praxis

The same problem arises from the atheist camp in trying to define theists as fundamentalists and then attacking that weakest form of theism.

I will add that, as many people have pointed out, usually in vain, the new atheist depiction of God is remote from the conception of deity maintained by philosophy of religion. Dawkins often states that a 'creator' must be 'more complex' than what it creates, so if God created the Universe, he must be fantastically complex (not to mention BIG!) It's a thoroughly anthropomorphic image, much more characteristic of folk beliefs in sky-fathers than anything held by actual theologians. It is really a kind of 'straw God' argument - attacking a kind of deity that few but the most stubborn fundamentalists hold to. Maverick Philosopher has written many blog posts on this, for instance:

If someone asserts that there there is a celestial teapot orbiting the Sun, or an angry unicorn on the far side of the Moon, or that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' one will justifiably demand evidence. "It's possible, but what's your evidence for so outlandish a claim?" It is the same with God, say many atheists. The antecedent probability of God's existence, they think, is on a par with the extremely low antecedent probability of there being a celestial teapot or an irate lunar unicorn, a 'lunicorn,' if you will.

But this is to assume something that a sophisticated theist such as Thomas Aquinas would never grant, namely, that God, if he exists, is just another being among the totality of beings. For Aquinas, God is not an ens (a being) but esse ipsum subsistens (self-subsistent Being). God is not a being among beings, but Being itself. Admittedly, this is not an easy notion; but if the atheist is not willing to grapple with it, then his animadversions are just so many grapplings with a straw man.

Why can't God be just another being among beings in the way an orbiting teapot would be just another being among beings were it to exist? I hope it is clear that my point is not that while a teapot is a material object, God is not. That's true, of course, but my point cuts much deeper: if God exists, he exists in a way different from the way contingent beings exist. — Maverick Philosopher

Personally, I don’t appreciate lies whatever camp they come from. Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest form of theism. Not important though, just curious.

Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest for of theism. Not important though, just curious. — praxis

That in its Christian form, it presents as a naive literalism, where it is argued that the text is the inerrant word of God and it can be understood by a direct interpretation of the words on the page. It's a 19th century creation that is believed by church members, largely in the South, despite it not being taught in most seminaries.

For example, arguments against Creationism are taken as arguments against theism, where only the weakest form of theism demands Creationism be accepted

I will add that, as many people have pointed out, usually in vain, the new atheist depiction of God is remote from the conception of deity maintained by philosophy of religion. — Wayfarer

You don't seem to understand that Dawkins wasn't too concerned about the people who engage in critical thinking regarding the notion of God, as in philosophy of religion. He was more concerned with people whose ability to engage in critical thinking is stunted by religious beliefs.

Dawkins often states that a 'creator' must be 'more complex' than what it creates, so if God created the Universe, he must be fantastically complex (not to mention BIG!) It's a thoroughly anthropomorphic image, much more characteristic of folk beliefs in sky-fathers than anything held by actual theologians. It is really a kind of 'straw God' argument - attacking a kind of deity that few but the most stubborn fundamentalists hold to. — Wayfarer

That is just misrepresentation. Have you even read what Dawkins has to say? You come across as a fan of Dawkins detractors, rather than as someone who has charitably read what Dawkins has written.

Do you think that the degree to which religion stunts people's ability to engage in critical thinking is not something to be concerned with?

Dawkins often states that a 'creator' must be 'more complex' than what it creates... — Wayfarer

Human creations such as AI are rapidly moving toward disproving this principle. Once they get the quantum computers figured out, watch out!

It’s the characterization of ‘weakness’ that I don’t follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism?

Have you even read what Dawkins has to say? — wonderer1

It is exactly what he said: 'Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.' But I'm done debating Dawkins, I shouldn't have brought him up - I reference him only as an exemplar of what used to be called 'new atheism', although it's no longer new, and hardly mentioned on this forum.

I shouldn't have brought him up — Wayfarer

You should be honest when bringing him up. It’s probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest.

I haven’t misrepresented his views.

It’s the characterization of ‘weakness’ that I don’t follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism? — praxis

Perhaps its followers find that it provides a meaningful way of life. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their views in that regard

But, to the extent a literal fundamentalist wishes to maintain a scientific worldview, that person's epistemology is not internally consistent. Either we look to the universe for empirical evidence and go with our conclusions or we read the Bible and just accept it. Attempting to make the evidence fit the Bible is not a scientific approach.

A fundamentalist who argues with Dawkins that they have a stronger scientific basis in support of Creationism than he does for evolution is silly. That makes that effort, as I say "weak" and therefore subjects theism generally to ridicule, despite that that brand of theism just being a weak form susceptible to attack due to its particular unsupportable claims.

You should be honest when bringing him up. It’s probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest. — praxis

The irony. :groan: You are the one misrepresenting Dawkins, and you are doing so with bald assertions, apart from sources or quotes. Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are truly absurd at this point.

But I'm done debating Dawkins, I shouldn't have brought him up — Wayfarer

The manner in which you brought him up is pertinent. The "conflict hypothesis"—that religion and science exist in an inherent conflict—has now been dead in the water for quite some time. Yet, as you pointed out, folks like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris cling to this outdated hypothesis with all of the emotion they can muster. I don't think this is controversial or even overly interesting, but it is true and pertinent to a thread on the topic.

Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. — Leontiskos

No. attributed claims to Dawkins without source or quotes, then when called on it said, "But I'm done debating Dawkins, I shouldn't have brought him up...", rather than attempt to back up his claim.

I think that I should first back up a bit and point out that atheists such as Harris don't go after fundamentalists because they're easy targets. From what I gather, he's concerned with fundamentalism because he generally considers it the most dangerous (think 9/11) form of theism.

It's interesting to contrast religious liberalism/fundamentalism and science/scientism in terms of power or weakness.

I think everyone can agree that science is valued for its explanatory and predictive power, that it provides a structured framework for identifying and solving problems, that it facilitates technological advancements, etc etc.

I'm not sure what value scientism has as a philosophical position though I think it can interfere with the practice of science by limiting exploration, slowing scientific progress and paradigm shifts, underestimating theory and subjective experience, and neglecting moral and social issues that may arise in science.

Science has power, or rather it has high value. It's unclear what value scientism may have, and it can have a negative impact on science, essentially weakening it.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism.

Does science not sometimes contradict other science? Does religion not always contradict other religion? This is your starting point. Your journey is yours and yours alone.

Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. — Leontiskos

Except for the quote that addresses my complaint.

To quote myself (which includes me quoting Dawkins):

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says things like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. — praxis

Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well?

For all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. Can you?

Dude I’m a student with a life, I’m not chronically online waiting to debate people. I like posting essays I’ve already written to help with dialogue and see if I need to make changes. I also like hearing other people’s perspectives but that doesn’t mean I need to respond.

If it’s inherently a singular persons search, is it the science that changes from person to person or the religion?

But they do overlap in some instances, like people claiming the Bible says the earth is flat or that unicorns exist (both are verses out of context or mistranslated). The Bible speaks on a Leviathan but we can’t scientifically prove its existence. So it’s important to understand that religion overlaps on interpretation of science in both the atheist and religious side

But they do overlap in some instances, like people claiming the Bible says the earth is flat — Isaiasb

That is not an overlap, it's a contradiction, and 'flat earthism' is pretty poor choice, as there are actuallly people who believe it, and will insist on it despite all available evidence. It is that kind of thinking which gives religion a bad name. More to the point are those who are both scientifically literate and religious, like Georges LeMaitre, who discovered what is now called 'big bang cosmology'.

all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. — praxis

Just peruse the wikiquotes page for Richard Dawkins quotes. There are plenty of examples. He might not use the exact phrase but throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion, and it's not the least intellectually dishonest to say that. :brow:

He might not use the exact phrase — Wayfarer

I did a page search for "science disproves God" and nope, it's not in any of those quotes.

There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer

There are no examples of him saying what you claim he says, that science disproves God.

throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion — Wayfarer

And he probably doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. What does that have to do with you saying that he claims that science disproves God?

He doesn't claim that science disproves God. Your saying he does is dishonest.
Your failure to admit the truth is also dishonest.

It’s a valid paraphrase of what Dawkins and Dennett are on about. Not my problem if you can’t see it.

Do you think that the degree to which religion stunts people's ability to engage in critical thinking is not something to be concerned with? — wonderer1

Religious discourse is a special type of discourse. It's meant to instruct the people in religious themes, praise the religious doctrine and the religious figures, proselytize to outsiders. It's not meant to encourage critical thinking as critical thinking is understood in secular academia.

And clearly, people apparently want and need this type of discourse, otherwise there wouldn't be such things as scientism.

Religious discourse is a special type of discourse. It's meant to instruct the people in religious themes, praise the religious doctrine and the religious figures, proselytize to outsiders. It's not meant to encourage critical thinking as critical thinking is understood in secular academia. — baker

Just as religions must conflict if each claims to be the only correct ideology, science and religion must conflict when their domains overlap if either wants to be seen as legitimate. Religion's static dogma contradicts science's logical and dynamic nature. Scientists know their place – they rarely ever touch philosophy, unless it is directly relevant to them. Any scientist sincerely claiming to have solved the meaning of life would be laughed out of the field.

On the other hand, many old-world religions constantly encroach on science's legitimate territory, promoting preposterous and destructive claims. When this occurs, science has a responsibility to disprove religion and put it in its place. That is the only way for the two to coexist. And if they cannot, science will inevitably win, because it is adaptive and produces tangible results that benefit all of society.