Dawkin's God Delusion

[gam197]

I never read this book nor do I plan to in fear of losing my faith but I DO know that some brave Catholics read this book and lived to tell the tale. I need help considering whether to read this or not or to read another book that somehow debunks this?

originally posted by Arizonia Mike
Scott Hahn’s “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God” and Patrick Madrid’s “The Godless Delusion” both do an excellent job of dismantling Dawkin’s claims from a Catholic perspective

My issue would not be whether to read or not. There is only so much time in life to take in good material. So wasting time is an issue. I find atheists do a great deal of time talking about Christians.

I have not read but did listened to a debate. As suggested earlier, if this is a book that you are really wanting to read, then do so but read a book or two first as suggested.

Also Peter Plato has given you some good suggestions on some tapes/dvds to listen to.

 

[josh987654321]

Scott Hahn’s “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God” and Patrick Madrid’s “The Godless Delusion” both do an excellent job of dismantling Dawkin’s claims from a Catholic perspective. Prof. Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism” also does so from a Catholic Thomistic viewpoint.

If you are going to read Dawkins, I would recommend reading one of the above works first so you can read Dawkin’s claims from a skeptical perspective.

David Berlinski’s “The Devil’s Delusion” is also quite good, although he is not Catholic - it’s pretty snarky (also quite funny, admittedly) so it’s kind of a guilty pleasure.

I have read Scott Hahn’s “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God” and to be honest I didn’t find it very good. I believe Scott Hahn is awesome when it comes to protestantism, but I feel that he just didn’t do it for me when it comes to answering the new atheism, he mainly just gives the argument of chance, which is a good one but I believe I could sum up his book with this quote from peter kreeft.

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. - Peter Kreeft

I believe the majority of his book simply goes into detail on this quote.

I have not read the other three though.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I enjoyed this book very much and felt it was very thought-provoking.
I hope you lose your fear to read it.

.

Would you you mind if I asked you what you believe Richard Dawkins most challenging argument toward the Christians is?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I was thinking about the same thing… so I bought my copy at a used book store…

ahh I wish Id thought of that

 

[josh987654321]

I would suggest that you listen to this talk by David Bentley Hart on the 'new atheists."

youtu.be/qYWEYuhiWzE

He does a very nice job of simplifying the arguments from the point of view of a professional philosopher to show, precisely, where they fail. If you have the capacity to follow the train of Hart’s logic, you are probably ready to take on one of the atheist authors.

On the other hand, after listening to Hart, you might completely lose any inclination for wanting to read such books since they are so lacking in redeeming quality.

Another book that often gets missed is one written by a computer programmer by the name of Vox Day. The book is called The Irrational Atheist. It is available as a free PDF or ePub at
goodreads.com/ebooks/download/1142464.The_Irrational_Atheist. He takes on the atheist books of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett from the perspective of their “facts” about Christianity. He is very meticulous about issues such as the role of religion as a catalyst for war, crime statistics involving believers and atheists, and the role of atheism in genocide, among other topics.

His precision, for one thing, points out how woefully inadequate the new atheists are in terms of securing the kind of evidence they purport to be so interested in basing their ‘knowledge’ upon.

Thank you Peter

 

[josh987654321]

btw, I though id just quickly share with you all my favourite argument for theism, which is the truth argument.

This for me anyway I believe is one of the most powerful arguments for theism, because without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist or agnostic is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

C.S. Lewis explains it well I believe.

*“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” *- C.S. Lewis

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. - C.S. Lewis

John Lennox also explains it well I believe

*I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Infact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together.* - John Lennox

So It’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim, it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot even trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

By denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[adawgj]

Even this actor Kevin O Brien who was a former atheist and one who reads a lot has a good opinion on the book. Or at least those who follow Dawkins.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t3EvYW2OgOk#t=0

 

[josh987654321]

Hope you like it! The author is Evangelical, not Catholic, but it’s still a very good read.

lol, all the authors of the books I quoted are evangelical and not Catholic, so I don’t think it will be an issue for me

Now I’m curious! I must check it out.

It’s called ‘The Reason for God’ by Timothy Keller, I accidently got mixed up with the title of another book I have called ‘Reason for Belief’.

 

[josh987654321]

Now I’m curious! I must check it out.

It’s called ‘Reason for God’ by Timothy Keller, I accidently got mixed up with the title of another book I have called ‘Reason for Belief’ by Scott Hahn.

 

[Blitzwing]

btw, I though id just quickly share with you all my favourite argument for theism, which is the truth argument.

This for me anyway I believe is one of the most powerful arguments for theism, because without God, the words true or false simply become meaningless, so the question I ask the atheist or agnostic is if there is no God, why do you believe it to be true?

C.S. Lewis explains it well I believe.

*“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” *- C.S. Lewis

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. - C.S. Lewis

John Lennox also explains it well I believe

*I believe in God because I believe there is evidence for God, for example, in the very fact that we can do science, we believe that the universe is rationally intelligable. Why does a scientist believe it is rationally intelligable? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case? Whereas theism tells me that there is intelligence behind the universe and behind the human mind which fits perfectly with science. So part of the evidence for God would be the fact that we can do science.

Infact the rise of science in the 16th and 17th century came about because people expected law in nature, because they believed in the Law giver (God). So science and faith in God fit perfectly together.* - John Lennox

So It’s not science and theism that are in conflict as most atheists like to claim, it’s actually science and atheism that are in conflict, because atheism cannot even trust the cognitive faculties we use to do science, as C.S. Lewis say’s atheism and science is like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

By denying God, the honest skeptic becomes skeptical of his skepticism.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Tracing a puddle of milk back to a milk jug is not possible because any evidence of its shape is drowned in noise. Evidence of how the solar system came about is not.

He also seems to be conflating “accident” with “random,” as if our brains, materialistic thought they are, are not well adapted to simple syllogistic logic. Lewis’s attempt to use logic here foils his own argument.
defenseofreason.com/c-s-lewis-thinks-about-thinking-and-fails/

 

[adawgj]

Some good books to read on this topic are

“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. (he is a historian and economist)

“Science and Religion” by Allister Mcgrath (he is an Anglican theologian and scientist)

“The Rage Against God” by Peter Hitchens (brother of now deceased Christopher Hitchens)

 

[josh987654321]

defenseofreason.com/c-s-lewis-thinks-about-thinking-and-fails/

Thank you for sharing that.

May I ask, do you agree with Richard Dawkins when he say’s “DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”?

Or that we are nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds? Because if so, than the question is, were you free to object to C.S. Lewis’ argument?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Article:

He claims that a mind which was not designed by a sentient being could not be reasonably trusted to produce reliable interpretations of reality.

Exactly right. How can they be reliable, if your very reason for interpreting what you believe is reality the way you do is because of your DNA make up?
Article:

The objective fact is there is no reason to believe that a natural brain operating purely for “physical and chemical reasons” cannot produce accurate beliefs.

lol, so is he telling me, that a robot that operates completey due to it’s hardware and software can produce accurate beliefs? how could one computer’s output be ‘right’ or ‘true’ and another computer’s ‘wrong’ or ‘false’ when the very reason for their output is due to their hardware and software?
Article:

While there are certainly many instances where humans hold incorrect and irrational beliefs, the fact is that our brains do produce accurate beliefs if we utilize demonstrably reliable reasoning. This is tested and demonstrated every minute of every day as we navigate our lives, managing to act according to sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and experience to perform basic problem solving and not bump into everything around us.

This is simply saying that the majority of us have similar hardware and software, it doesn’t say anything about whether it’s true or not.
Article:

And the ultimate problem for Lewis’s analogy is that we know human brains exist.

Do you? how do you know? don’t you rely on your cognitive faculties? If I said “Brains do not exist” How could you be right and I wrong? according to your beliefs, you simply have different hardware and software to me.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Blitzwing]

Thank you for sharing that.

May I ask, do you agree with Richard Dawkins when he say’s “DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”?

Or that we are nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds? Because if so, than the question is, were you free to object to C.S. Lewis’ argument?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Yes.
As for Lewis’s argument

“Lewis really starts to err when he denigrates human thought as being untrustworthy unless it has been given by God. We of course use not only thought but also tools, and tools are artificial–not natural, not accidental. So, even if our thoughts are untrustworthy by themselves–and they are–we have been good enough to develop tools that enhance the depth and breadth of our thought. These tools also augment our abilities to apprehend and understand the universe. From our math and logic to our telecommunications and telescopes, we’ve been able to grope our way to discriminating reliable from specious thinking.

The milk-splash crack doesn’t work either because the shape, positioning, speed, and other factors of a milk splash will provide us lots of information from which to establish hypothesis on the jug’s composition and movements.

larrytanner.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/bad-argument-by-cs-lewis.html

 

[josh987654321]

Yes.

So you were free to object to C.S. Lewis’ argument and hence you have free will? and if so, how do you explain that as an atheist considering that you believe your nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds, that your nothing but your DNA and you dance to it’s music?

As for Lewis’s argument

“Put “by the will of God” in place of “by accident” in the passage. You then get the argument that if everything that has happened from the origins of the solar system to the thoughts of human beings happens by the will of God then those thoughts are predetermined by-products of God’s will and there is no reason to believe that any of them are true.

Why do you believe that 'If God did it" than we are still nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds, that we are still nothing but DNA and dance to it’s music? God did more than create the universe, he created us with free will.

The universe may be determined after a first cause, but we are not.

The Big Bang didn’t choose to go ‘BANG’ but we choose whether or not we get up in the morning and go to work.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Blitzwing]

So you were free to object to C.S. Lewis’ argument and hence you have free will? and if so, how do you explain that as an atheist considering that you believe your nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds, that your nothing but your DNA and you dance to it’s music?

Why do you believe that 'If God did it" than we are still nothing more than a make up of chemical compounds, that we are still nothing but DNA and dance to it’s music? God did more than create the universe, he created us, and gave us free will.

Thank you for reading
Josh

What does one mean by free will!? We are simply atoms (not eliminates but uncuttable particles) interacting in the void. Everything happens based on the laws of physics, without inherent meaning &c. This results in me being able to make decisions. We have free will in that we make decisions–although those decisions are ultimately the result of particle interactions–and we don’t have free will in that there are no homunculi inside our heads. There is no real answer because free will has no definite meaning.

 

[Nacho45]

I enjoyed this book very much and felt it was very thought-provoking.
I hope you lose your fear to read it.

.

Perhaps once the posters faith is more solid by researching and studying appropriate Catholic literature and building that faith with prayer and proper guidance, perhaps then. If the poster has concerns, there is probably a good reason for asking and I would suggest waiting.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I never read this book nor do I plan to in fear of losing my faith but I DO know that some brave Catholics read this book and lived to tell the tale. I need help considering whether to read this or not or to read another book that somehow debunks this?

I’ve read most of it…and still have personal faith (I’m not connected to a denomination). It depends on how strong your faith is,how you read it etc and the intentions you have for reading it. I can’t even remember most of what he says, as nothing he said resonated with me. He is the extreme of atheism (and it shows in the book) so I find it difficult to take him seriously, the same way I can’t take extreme religious folk seriously.

I actually read the book with an open mind, willing to lose my faith if I found something compelling enough to do so,my faith is still completely in tact.

You’ve reminded me…I must finish it and reread it.

 

[josh987654321]

What does one mean by free will!? We are simply atoms (not eliminates but uncuttable particles) interacting in the void. Everything happens based on the laws of physics, without inherent meaning &c.

I believe alot of Atheists who hold to their Atheism, do so exactly because they can’t see any meaning to life. That’s why C.S. Lewis gave the excellent quote *“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” *So I would ask you to simply read the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and see just how much sense Christianity makes of the world.

As Ravi Zacharias says ‘Atheism is bankrupt for answers’

Futhermore can faithless, rebellious, atheistic, unbelieving men and women possibly say that Jesus Sacrifice at the hands of His executioners was not true, so that they could unleash their rage against Him?

No one can possibly deny it and prove their denial. And why do you believe that He did so? no one dies for anyone who is not intensely loved.

This results in me being able to make decisions. We have free will in that we make decisions–

Yup. Anthony Flew address it well in his book “There is a God” how the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind.

although those decisions are ultimately the result of particle interactions–and we don’t have free will in that there are no homunculi inside our heads.

I beg to differ, like I said, the Big Bang didn’t choose to go Bang, but we choose whether or not we greet our neighbours with a smile or brush them of as inferior or meaningless.

There is no real answer because free will has no definite meaning.

I could give you a dictionary meaning of the term, but I don’t think that would do it for you, so I am not sure what kind of definition you are after.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Peter_Plato]

What does one mean by free will!? We are simply atoms (not eliminates but uncuttable particles) interacting in the void. Everything happens based on the laws of physics, without inherent meaning &c. This results in me being able to make decisions. We have free will in that we make decisions–although those decisions are ultimately the result of particle interactions–and we don’t have free will in that there are no homunculi inside our heads. There is no real answer because free will has no definite meaning.

Unfortunately for you, claiming that “everything happens…without inherent meaning” is an incoherent position to take.

Consider what it means to believe something to be true (including that “Everything happens based on the laws of physics, without inherent meaning.”)

If a proposition (like yours) is to mean anything, it must mean that we have sufficient reason for believing (i.e., are rationally justified in believing) that the proposition is true. It also means that these reasons are sufficient as the cause or explanation for our acceptance of the proposition.

Yet, if things happen, in reality, “without inherent meaning” then your claim is that there is NOTHING in physical reality that could possibly serve as a sufficient reason or cause for our accepting the explanatory value found in nature regarding any conclusions we might attempt to make about the physical world.

Yet, what reason would we have for accepting your contention that NO reasons ultimately exist in physical reality? You are making a “brute claim” concerning where our reasons for believing anything are not to be found. We have no reasons for having reasons, according to your position.

Simply put, you are cutting off the branch of the tree that supports any weight of what you have to say on the matter. In other words, your position is self-defeating.

It’s like saying, “Believe me, you have good reason for believing that everything I have to say is true, except of course, this statement.”

Edward Feser makes this point in defense of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) contra the position of Keith Parsons on “brute facts” in nature, which I read to be similar to your claim on the “ultimate meaninglessness” of physical reality.

Consider that whenever we accept a claim as rationally justified, we suppose not only that we have a reason for accepting it (in the sense of a rational justification), but also that our having this reason is the reason why we accept it (in the sense of being the cause or explanation of our accepting it). We suppose that our cognitive faculties track truth and standards of rational argumentation, and that it is because they do that we believe the things we do. But if PSR is false, then we can have no justification for supposing that any of this is really the case. We may in fact believe what we do for no reason whatsoever, and yet it might also falsely seem, again for no reason whatsoever, that we believe things for reasons. And our cognitive faculties may have the deliverances they do for no reason whatsoever – rather than because they track objective truth and standards of logic – and yet it might also falsely seem, for no reason whatsoever, that they do track the latter.

In short, either everything has an explanation or we can have no justification for thinking that anything does. No purported middle ground position, on which some things have genuine explanations while others are “brute facts,” can coherently be made out. If there really could be unintelligible “brute facts,” then even the things we think are not brute facts may in fact be brute facts, and the fact that it falsely seems otherwise to us may itself be yet another brute fact. We could have no reason to believe anything. Rejecting PSR entails the most radical skepticism – including skepticism about any reasoning that could make this skepticism itself intelligible. Again, the view simply cannot coherently be made out.
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/03/an-exchange-with-keith-parsons-part-iv.html#more