The Dawkins Delusion

by brotherdan 181 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Chalam

  You're not usually one to poke fun at anyone.

  Uncharacteristic post? Or do you usually laugh at the expense of other people's hard work?

  -Sab

  My response was sincere. I wasn't poking fun at LWT, just commenting on what I saw in the Dawkins response.

  In fact, I'd go so far as to say what he said was a bare faced lie, either before or afterwards.

  All this talk of "bending over backwards" to accommodate ID is farcical! Why would he do that when he is such a radical evangelist of atheism?

  Blessings,

  Stephen
• 

  undercover

  I will say, BD, that you have a knack for creating busy threads

  Don't let minimus hear you say that...
• 

  Chalam

  zoiks I will say, BD, that you have a knack for creating busy threads
• 

  sabastious

  My response was sincere. I wasn't poking fun at LWT, just commenting on what I saw in the Dawkins response.

  I was referring to Dawkins not LWT.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  Ding, Michael Behe's book has been discredited. His central claim in the book is that systems like the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade are irreducibly complex and that science has not proposed intermediate stages in their development. This has shown to be false in many scientific papers and was a theme of the "Dover" trial.
• 

  brotherdan

  Yeah, I know he devotes a chapter to each of the issues that he considers as evidence against the existance of God. These arguments supposedly deal with the issue that God is a delusion. But his arguments themselves are very disappointing. My disappointment lies in the fact that Dawkins fails to engage with and analyse the best arguments that are proposed for belief in God. There is so little of real analysis that it is difficult for me to really even know where to begin.

  Dawkins main argument against the existence of God is based on evolution and what he calls his "Ultimate Boeing 747 idea. He dismisses the idea that the universe could have been created and designed by a Supreme Being because that Being would need to be even more complex, even more intricate that the universe he created. In other words, God would need to be more complex than the laws of physics, or the human brain or a virus or a Boeing 747. Dawkins argues that such a complex God explains nothing, because something else is then required to explain how such a complex God could himself arise. Now Dawkins draws his conclusion based on his own experience of the world and his belief that complex things can only arise from simple things through natural selection or the laws of physics. But even Dawkins has no experience of things that occur outside of the known universe. It is just not valid to dismiss the possibility of a creator God in this way - and certainly SOMETHING had to exist 'in the beginning' - even if it was just the laws of physics or the quantum singularity.

  I view Dawkins like the eighteenth century Indian maharajah who stated that it was impossible for water to support the weight of an elephant walking across a river. Of course, he had never seen ice - it was simply something that was completely outside of his experience of the tropical climate of India. In the same way, the direct origin of the universe is outside OUR direct experience, limited as we are to living within it.
• 

  nicolaou

  Brotherdan;

  "So here is where my major problem starts to come in to play. When Dawkins begins his examination of faith he defines faith in a way that I think is totally and utterly wrong. He states that "religious faith does not depend on rational justification" and that all religions "demand unquestioned faith". So before he even begins his examination he implies that religious belief is NEVER based on evidence and that it exists DESPITE the evidence. This seems to me the sort of presupposing that the WTS does itself! If it was an HONEST examination he should be aware that religious faith can be based on argument. He may reject those arguments as false, but that doesn't change the fact that his own definition of faith is limited. He sticks to this definition throughout the entire book."

  You have not actually mentioned what this supposed evidence is in favor of gods existence . . . .

  Yes, Dawkins is strident which can be off-putting, but his argumentation is usually sound and I wouldn't accuse him of dishonesty unless you can present the evidence to back up your claim. Dawkins has written books and essays for more than 30 years - he has put his whole thesis into the public domain and anyone can read it for a few $'s (much can be read for free on his website).

  The fact is religious belief is NOT based on evidence and it does exist DESPITE the evidence available.

  There's a reason why believers need FAITH!
• 

  Ding

  I don't agree that Behe has been discredited.

  Criticized, yes, but he has given good responses.

  People who are interested in this topic should be open to reading all sides.
• 

  Chalam

  The fact is religious belief is NOT based on evidence and it does exist DESPITE the evidence available.

  I have all the evidence I need and more :)

  Psalm 19:1-6 (New International Version)

  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;

  the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
  night after night they display knowledge.

  3 There is no speech or language
  where their voice is not heard.

  4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
  their words to the ends of the world.
  In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

  5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
  like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

  6 It rises at one end of the heavens
  and makes its circuit to the other;
  nothing is hidden from its heat.

  Romans 1:20 (New International Version)

  20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

  Blessings,

  Stephen
• 

  sabastious

  My disappointment lies in the fact that Dawkins fails to engage with and analyse the best arguments that are proposed for belief in God.

  I think it's important to figure out what people are referring to when they use the title "God."

  God can simply mean the First Cause, or simply the Creator of humankind.

  You also have to figure out, when a person is referring to God, if they are talking about a proactive God, one that has an ultimate purpose for mankind.

  I think people like Dawkins, when he refers to God, he is talking about a very specific God and not merely the creator of humanity and the earth. He is, indirectly, talking about THE God, the creator of the universe of which has a solidified plan for everything.

  I know he doesn't really say that, but I think that's his mindset.

  -Sab