Has Anbody Read "The Godless Delusion" yet?

[reggieM]

This sounds fantastic! I hope to read it someday soon

I hope you will do that. I’d send you my copy but I want to read it again.

Another one for your list (possibly easier to find in the library also) is Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity”.

He doesn’t address Dawkins alone, but includes modern-atheists like Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Mr. D’Souza is a very skillful writer and he is very well-informed and up-to-date on the scientific questions. He’s a very bright Catholic apologist and I’m surprised at how much knowledge he has on some complex issues spanning the many common attacks against Christianity - prompted by Dawkins’ book and the others.

 

[coolduude]

I hope you will do that. I’d send you my copy but I want to read it again.

Another one for your list (possibly easier to find in the library also) is Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great About Christianity”.

He doesn’t address Dawkins alone, but includes modern-atheists like Hitchens, Dennett and Harris. Mr. D’Souza is a very skillful writer and he is very well-informed and up-to-date on the scientific questions. He’s a very bright Catholic apologist and I’m surprised at how much knowledge he has on some complex issues spanning the many common attacks against Christianity - prompted by Dawkins’ book and the others.

That name sounds familiar. I think he debated William Lane Craig once (I could be wrong). Was he an atheist at one point?

I’ll be sure to look at those books. I love reading about philosophy!

 

[cassini]

Is it worth buying?

A pal of mine did and he told me that Dawkins faith in evolutionism would make him the greatest believer alive if it were Catholicism.

If you want to see what Dawkins believes in then buy it. Personally, I will give it a skip.

 

[reggieM]

That name sounds familiar. I think he debated William Lane Craig once (I could be wrong). Was he an atheist at one point?

I’ll be sure to look at those books. I love reading about philosophy!

I’m not sure if he was an atheist. He has some debates on YouTube. One time he debated Christopher Hitchens (I think) and some other atheists. He is a very intelligent Catholic.

 

[reggieM]

I finally started *The Godless Delusion *(I’m a pretty slow reader…).

The first major point that comes up in the beginning is this:

The claim is that scientific verification is the only valid means of arriving at the truth about reality.
Science can only observe the material/physical aspects of the universe.
As such, there is no scientific evidence of any immaterial substances (of God, of the soul, etc).
Therefore, there is no evidence of the existence of God, and naturalism (materialism) is therefore true.

The authors, Madrid & Hensley, conclude that this error undermines materialism right at the start.

In order to evaluate evidence for the existence of God (or any immaterial substances) we cannot use science which is incapable of evaluating non-empirical evidence.

That was a good start to the book. I hope they go into the many examples of non-scientific evidence which is essential to evaluate in order to understand reality.

 

[Rocinante]

I’m not sure if he was an atheist. He has some debates on YouTube. One time he debated Christopher Hitchens (I think) and some other atheists. He is a very intelligent Catholic.

i think craig is a calvinist, isn’t he? i think that means that he believes that you are going to hell. but i’m not sure.

 

[Rocinante]

I finally started *The Godless Delusion *(I’m a pretty slow reader…).

The first major point that comes up in the beginning is this:

The claim is that scientific verification is the only valid means of arriving at the truth about reality.
Science can only observe the material/physical aspects of the universe.
As such, there is no scientific evidence of any immaterial substances (of God, of the soul, etc).
Therefore, there is no evidence of the existence of God, and naturalism (materialism) is therefore true.

The authors, Madrid & Hensley, conclude that this error undermines materialism right at the start.

In order to evaluate evidence for the existence of God (or any immaterial substances) we cannot use science which is incapable of evaluating non-empirical evidence.

That was a good start to the book. I hope they go into the many examples of non-scientific evidence which is essential to evaluate in order to understand reality.

the is no scientific evidence of material substance either. scientists never found this stuff that was supposed to be at the bottom of everything. what empiricism means is experience. science studies everything that can be experienced. and it cannot study anything that is never experienced in any way. but why would we be interested in anything that is never experienced?

rocinante

 

[reggieM]

the is no scientific evidence of material substance either. scientists never found this stuff that was supposed to be at the bottom of everything. what empiricism means is experience. science studies everything that can be experienced. and it cannot study anything that is never experienced in any way. but why would we be interested in anything that is never experienced?

We are interested in things that are never experienced because reality is comprised of such things. If we reduce reality to only what we experience, then we take a narrow view of life and the universe.

For example, we do not experience the square root of 3. But we gain knowledge from the method of thought that can calculate what we cannot experience.

We cannot experience history either. But we can learn about it.

 

[Rocinante]

We are interested in things that are never experienced because reality is comprised of such things. If we reduce reality to only what we experience, then we take a narrow view of life and the universe.

For example, we do not experience the square root of 3. But we gain knowledge from the method of thought that can calculate what we cannot experience.

We cannot experience history either. But we can learn about it.

let me try to be more clear about what is meant by empiricism. empiricism says that experience is the only reality that we can ever know. metaphysics is dissolved since experience is reality. i don’t know why you would think that we can’t experience the square root of three. when we talk about the square root of 3 we are talking about a set of past present and potential experiences. it is the length of the longer leg in a 30-60-90 triangle where the shorter leg is 1. it is the number that when squared gives you 3. it is the answer i got wrong on the last test. it is lots and lots of other experiences. history is so obviously a set of human experiences that i don’t know why you would have thought to bring it up. i’ve never been to rome but that doesn’t mean that i have had no experiences, no knowledge, of rome.

rocinante

 

[_Locke]

I’m going to finish “The God Delusion” first.

Just curious, how many who are reading “The Godless Delusion” have actually read “The God Delusion”?

 

[Black_Rose]

I’m going to finish “The God Delusion” first.

Just curious, how many who are reading “The Godless Delusion” have actually read “The God Delusion”?

People tend to listen and read material that confirms their opinion and does not threaten to falsify it. People seek to reinforce their beliefs and not challenge them.

 

[awatkins69]

People tend to listen and read material that confirms their opinion and does not threaten to falsify it. People seek to reinforce their beliefs and not challenge them.

Actually, *The God Delusion *is just folly. I read it and it’s just a waste of time. Doesn’t compel me to abandon God at all. The only reason it is popular is because it’s easy, and because of the media popularity of Dawkins and his kin. If you guys want to read an account of atheism that we can take seriously, start by reading Michael Martin’s book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.

On the other hand *The Godless Delusion *isn’t the best ever. It’s a good start for apologetics and the layman who wants to get into this stuff. As others have said, it is sort of based on “presuppositionalism” which I really am not a fan of. But after that, I’d start reading stuff by people like William Lane Craig, JP Moreland. Even Edward Feser’s book, *The Last Superstition *is good.

 

[reggieM]

On the other hand *The Godless Delusion *isn’t the best ever. It’s a good start for apologetics and the layman who wants to get into this stuff. As others have said, it is sort of based on “presuppositionalism” which I really am not a fan of. But after that, I’d start reading stuff by people like William Lane Craig, JP Moreland. Even Edward Feser’s book, *The Last Superstition *is good.

I am enjoying The Godless Delusion. I agree that it’s more for a popular audience than for specialists. I had never heard of a presuppositional approach before, so that’s been interesting. I think Mr. Madrid has a lot more expertise with apologetics against Protestantism so he’s stretching his range with this book a bit.
But most normal people don’t have to deal with atheists all the time, so The Godless Delusion gives a good, solid foundation to meet the need.
So far, I like Fr. Crean’s book better.

Next on the list … Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker: Answering the New Atheism.

I will bet that those guys do a superb job. Everything I’ve read from Benjamin Wiker has been top-notch.

 

[awatkins69]

I am enjoying The Godless Delusion. I agree that it’s more for a popular audience than for specialists. I had never heard of a presuppositional approach before, so that’s been interesting. I think Mr. Madrid has a lot more expertise with apologetics against Protestantism so he’s stretching his range with this book a bit.
But most normal people don’t have to deal with atheists all the time, so The Godless Delusion gives a good, solid foundation to meet the need.
So far, I like Fr. Crean’s book better.

Next on the list … Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker: Answering the New Atheism.

I will bet that those guys do a superb job. Everything I’ve read from Benjamin Wiker has been top-notch.

That’s sort of the thing. Scott Hahn’s book is really not too great. Benjamin Wiker is good, but this is sort of not his specialty either (he’s more of an ethicist). I don’t want to put any of these guys down, because in their respective fields they’re all great. I love Scott Hahn for sure. I also don’t want to seem “elitist” about all of this. I’m glad that Catholic Christians are into defending their faith. It’s just that some books are better than others. This is why I recommend people like Moreland, Craig, Feser, and Kreeft. I think they’re better because they are also professionals in their fields and they really know what they’re doing, yet they present it in a general and accessible way. So Madrid and Hahn are good I think to an extent, but for the best rebuttals to the more popular objections I think it’s better to turn to some of the other guys.

 

[reggieM]

That’s sort of the thing. Scott Hahn’s book is really not too great. Benjamin Wiker is good, but this is sort of not his specialty either (he’s more of an ethicist). I don’t want to put any of these guys down, because in their respective fields they’re all great. I love Scott Hahn for sure. I also don’t want to seem “elitist” about all of this. I’m glad that Catholic Christians are into defending their faith. It’s just that some books are better than others. This is why I recommend people like Moreland, Craig, Feser, and Kreeft. I think they’re better because they are also professionals in their fields and they really know what they’re doing, yet they present it in a general and accessible way. So Madrid and Hahn are good I think to an extent, but for the best rebuttals to the more popular objections I think it’s better to turn to some of the other guys.

Interesting. Thanks.
I guess, if the topic is just this book by Dawkins, then bringing a professional philosopher in on it is overkill because Dawkins work is so confused and lightweight. Moving beyond Dawkins to atheism in general, then something more is needed, as you suggest.

I think Dawkins’ favorite biological theory (off-topic here) is a major problem also so I look for the various refutations of that. In other words, it’s not just philosophical and theological errors, but false scientific claims also (as I see it).

In any case, I think you saved me from buying another book.

 

[WmJackP]

Is it worth buying?

It seems to me that Dawkins may certainly be far too cavalier in concluding that there is simply “nothing”. For example, I did read his book and found the explanation that there is “something” because “nothing is unstable” as being both fanciful and unsatisfying in explaining the reality we encounter----however, having said that, I also believe that Christianity is rife archaic mysticism and hardly explains anything either, notwithstanding how it might “dress up” with its wannabe intellectualism (via Thomas, Chesterton and other favorites of this forum).

For me things have to make sense. Consequently, I always found it amazing that some of the most bizarre notions were accepted by the RC’s without batting an eye—yet, many are so quick to impugn “heritics” for their laspes in logic. Hence, Dawkins ( while certainly, he may be as clueless as anyone in his attempts to figure out the ultimate questions) nonetheless, is subjected to incredibly severe hazings and excoriations. Meanwhile, of course, virgin biths, dead men rising, wine equating with someone’s precise DNA —all of this seems, to some, to be consistent with logic.

How can that be explained except that, on the subject of your belief system, you require zero proof, yet, for competing explanations, you hold your opposition to the most rigerous standards?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Meanwhile, of course, virgin biths, dead men rising, wine equating with someone’s precise DNA —all of this seems, to some, to be consistent with logic.

While these belief might not be consistent with the objective facts of history, none of these things are logically “impossible”. But I don’t think any Catholic has said that wine turns into Christs Dna; so that’s a bit of a straw-man on your part. And as for dead men; of course, dead men cannot rise from the dead by themselves naturally. But it certainly possible that what ever the ultimate cause of life is, perhaps if it had a will it could bring dead men back to life again since it is the creator of life in the first place.

How can that be explained except that, on the subject of your belief system, you require zero proof,

Yet your willing to assert that something is logically impossible without presenting any proof of that. People like Aquinas and many others thought that they did have proof of Gods existence, regardless of whether you agree with their proofs or not.

 

[wanstronian]

But I don’t think any Catholic has said that wine turns into Christs Dna; so that’s a bit of a straw-man on your part.

You are presumably aware that blood contains DNA, and that transubstantiation - the literal turning of wine into the blood of Christ - is a fundamental tenet of Roman Catholic doctrine?

So hardly a Straw Man, then!

 

[Pieman333272]

You are presumably aware that blood contains DNA, and that transubstantiation - the literal turning of wine into the blood of Christ - is a fundamental tenet of Roman Catholic doctrine?

So hardly a Straw Man, then!

All aspects of the bread and wine that can be sensed or investigated scientifically remain the same when it transforms. With some exceptions, that is.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are presumably aware that blood contains DNA, and that transubstantiation - the literal turning of wine into the blood of Christ - is a fundamental tenet of Roman Catholic doctrine?

So hardly a Straw Man, then!

“Physically” speaking, the wine remains wine, and i doubt that any priest would tell you otherwise.

I suggest you study what they really mean when they say that the wine transforms in the blood of Christ. I have always understood it as a spiritual process, not a “physical one” that can be measured by science.

Like i said, “straw-man”