How many of you like Dawkins

[Awake]

Actually, it surprises me that anyone would even ask that, unless they had a very arrogant presumption that anyone not bowled over by his arguments must have no exposure to his arguments or to his speaking style.

No, it’s just that many people who I have talked to are only exposed to Dawkins through Ben Stein’s documentary, which I have not personally seen. This seems equivalent to forming an opinion on George Bush based only on Fahrenheit 9/11.

But if you have read some of Dawkin’s books or have been exposed to him some other way, then I can’t discount your opinion.

I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s always like that, and it strikes me as not at all compelling. He says things like, “you’re a Christian because you were brought up to be a Christian in a Christian nation”… just bad arguments. Just stupid, arrogant thinking.

But you do have to admit that the faith a person was brought up to believe is still the number one indicator of what faith that person will hold the rest of their life.

 

[pilchard]

But by that logic, anyone outspoken about any position they hold would have to be considered “uncomfortable with [their] worldview [or with that particular position].” Are you saying that the only “genuine” people are the ones who don’t discuss their positions? That’s just silly.

Though it is a convenient way to dismiss someone whose arguments you don’t want to deal with.

Dawkins, as far as I know, did not have a bad experience with the church, nor does he find Christianity “demanding” (any more than the belief in Thor or Wotan is “demanding”). He has rational reasons for thinking that all religion is false and harmful.

Let’s just say it’s my gut telling me…

The Anthony Flew comparison is a good one - but I’m not exactly presenting a Dei Fidei dyed-in-the-wool belief here. It just comes down to a imple observation: I have met atheists who fly off in a rage when you try and discuss faith with them. Now, I never get in a rage with anyone who is willing to discuss these things - but I suspect (indeed I am sure I have seen) that Dawkin’s does…

BTW - you seem to know an awful lot about Dawkin’s inner life

 

[LutheranDK]

I am reading Dawkins’s books lately and I watch a lot of his videos. I think he’s a rational atheist. How many of you like him? Why or why not?

Dawkins is not exactly a rational atheist. What little I’ve read of him has been one non-sequitur after another, spiced up with lots of other logical fallacies and general hate-speech.

 

[pilchard]

But you do have to admit that the faith a person was brought up to believe is still the number one indicator of what faith that person will hold the rest of their life.

Yes but that is not an occassion to rebuke God - it is an occasion to rebuke ourselves for we have been mandated to “Go out and make disciples of all nations”

 

[Eucharisted]

I love Dawkins! And while I respect his ideas, I do not agree with them nor like them.

 

[Awake]

Yes but that is not an occassion to rebuke God - it is an occasion to rebuke ourselves for we have been mandated to “Go out and make disciples of all nations”

I don’t think he was rebuking God as much as trying to demonstrate that religion is simply a cultural identity.

 

[KestrelRose]

But by that logic, anyone outspoken about any position they hold would have to be considered “uncomfortable with [their] worldview [or with that particular position].” Are you saying that the only “genuine” people are the ones who don’t discuss their positions? That’s just silly.

Though it is a convenient way to dismiss someone whose arguments you don’t want to deal with.

Dawkins, as far as I know, did not have a bad experience with the church, nor does he find Christianity “demanding” (any more than the belief in Thor or Wotan is “demanding”). He has rational reasons for thinking that all religion is false and harmful.

I like it when some says, “This is what I believe and this is why I believe it?”

When someone explains to me what I believe and then step by step explains why I am stupid to believe it, I tend to get irritated.

Dawkins come across to me like the second example.

There are many reasons for people not to believe in the existance of God and many of those reasons are valid.

There are many reasons for people to believe that God IS and cares for us and many of those reasons a valid.

Dawkins sees chance. I see miracles.

Dawkins finds strength in facing the loneliness of the universe.
I find love in the surrounding grace of God.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

No, it’s just that many people who I have talked to are only exposed to Dawkins through Ben Stein’s documentary, which I have not personally seen. This seems equivalent to forming an opinion on George Bush based only on Fahrenheit 9/11.

But if you have read some of Dawkin’s books or have been exposed to him some other way, then I can’t discount your opinion.

But you do have to admit that the faith a person was brought up to believe is still the number one indicator of what faith that person will hold the rest of their life.

I really honestly don’t find him the bit compelling. He has two arguments. The first argument is that there could not possibly be a God, as if there were, He would be an exceedingly poor designer or have a sadistic nature.

The second argument is that religion is the root of all evil, and the antithesis of human progress, which springs forth from human inquiry and knowledge.

He sets up false dichotomies from false assumptions. If his assumptions are challenged, he becomes highly agitated. I am not sure why. It would interesting to know what makes his mind tick.

Actually, he does have a third argument, which is that evolutionary proceses are such brilliant explanatory paradigms for the natural world that nobody can continue to regard the Bible as anything except myth. But, that isn’t even important in the larger scheme of things so I tend to ignore the argument. It really doesn’t get to the heart of the matter at all.

 

[dumbseeker]

As a matter of fact reading a third of The God Delusion prompted me to read more about the early Church, the Church Fathers, etc. – only serving to strengthen my beliefs. The God Delusion certainly didn’t convince me to turn to atheism.

Why and how did the book strengthen your faith?

 

[reggieM]

Dawkins is not exactly a rational atheist. What little I’ve read of him has been one non-sequitur after another, spiced up with lots of other logical fallacies and general hate-speech.

He’s clearly not a philosopher. His ideas are shallow, and that is understandable since he considers science as the only valid means of knowledge. Science is the study of material things – the superficial aspects of reality. Dawkins takes a similarly narrow view of life and does not recognize his own contradictions. As most atheists, he is unwilling to follow the consequences of atheist-materalism to their logical conclusions (he relies on many Christian assumptions in his own, ill-defined philosophical system).

To his credit, his atheism is actually much weaker than his attitude might portray it. Over the last year, he stated that the proposition of an “intelligent designer” was a “reasonable” but false idea.

To his credit, he has stressed many times that nature “appears to be designed for a purpose”. He claims that evolution can explain this “illusion” but he does admit that it is mysterious and counter-intuitive to believe that evolution can create the “illusion” of “purpose and design”.

He strikes me as the type of guy who will make a death-bed (or near that time) conversion. His hatred of religion is childish as is his outrage about things that he doesn’t understand (God’s power and purpose, the meaning of death and suffering, etc).

The film, Expelled, exposed Dawkins at his most vulnerable, and that was humorous. Again, he appeared like child who was confused by his own arguments. Clearly, he has not considered his own atheism in any real depth.

But he’s making millions with his books because people enjoy the angry-atheist who is not as nasty as the stereotype.

I find him pathetic, for the most part. He’s basically just an Anglican who took that brand of Protestantism to its logical conclusion in many ways.

 

[pilchard]

NIce post Reggie M… Only thing I would add is that we need to take him seriously and “tackle” him because of his exposure and his influence. Who knows how many people have embraced atheism directly because of his books and his interviews and his prime time TV series…

All of this makes him more than fair game.

As they say in the GodFather - nothing personal - strickly business…

 

[driscll_books]

Francis S. Collins, in his book, “The Language of God”, states: “the major and inescapable flaw of Dawkins’ claim that science demands atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside nature, then science can neither prove or disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason”.

 

[LutheranDK]

I find him pathetic, for the most part. He’s basically just an Anglican who took that brand of Protestantism to its logical conclusion in many ways.

You just HAD to include some kind of non-RC bashing in an otherwise intelligent response. Sad, and pathetic

 

[williamric]

I am reading Dawkins’s books lately and I watch a lot of his videos. I think he’s a rational atheist. How many of you like him? Why or why not?

As an Atheist, I don’t think he’s particulary good… He seems to be a nice guy, maybe a bit outspoken, but really I try not to care about such trivial things

 

[williamric]

www.richarddawkins.net

I spent a considerable time on this forum, probably the worst Atheist forum I ever went on… The discussion was ridiculously immature…

 

[MegaTherion]

To his credit, he has stressed many times that nature “appears to be designed for a purpose”. He claims that evolution can explain this “illusion” but he does admit that it is mysterious and counter-intuitive to believe that evolution can create the “illusion” of “purpose and design”.

It is counter-intuitive.

It’s also counter-intuitive to think that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

But evidence shows us that it doesn’t matter what we might at first hastily conclude. And that’s the point with evoluton.

It sounds like you don’t know very much about evolution.

 

[MegaTherion]

Francis S. Collins, in his book, “The Language of God”, states: “the major and inescapable flaw of Dawkins’ claim that science demands atheism is that it goes beyond the evidence. If God is outside nature, then science can neither prove or disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith, in that it adopts a belief system that cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason”.

Atheism is not a position of faith – it is the lack of belief in gods.

Science cannot disprove the Christian god, just as it cannot disprove the Hindu gods, the Zoroastrian gods, the Roman gods, Cthulhu, and leprechauns. There are millions of supernatural things that science cannot prove wrong.

But we don’t accept any of those things because there is no evidence whatsoever for any of those things. It’s not an “act of faith” to disbelieve in the Hindu myths or the Roman myths. It’s a rational position based on lack of evidence.

Atheism does not require faith.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

It sounds like you don’t know very much about evolution.

It sounds to me like you are saying that anyone who disagrees that evolution demonstrates there is no God is wrong.

It also sounds to me like there are lots of people who have been indoctrinated to think their educations in the biological sciences make them more highly evolved life forms, and therefore their dogmatic assertions should be taken at face value, while others’ dogmatic assertions should be questioned.

 

[MegaTherion]

It sounds to me like you are saying that anyone who disagrees that evolution demonstrates there is no God is wrong.

I never said that evolution demonstrates there is no god. It’s impossible for evolution to demonstrate that – just like it’s impossible for evolution to demonstrate that there are no Hindu gods, Roman gods, Zoroastrian gods, etc.

I was responding to the insinuation that Dawkins statement that some aspects of evolution are “counter-intuitive” in any way lend credence to the idea that the world was “designed” by a force other than natural selection.

I was pointing out that it is counter-intuitive (yet true) much in the same way that the “earth goes around the sun” seems counter-intuitive (yet is true).

their dogmatic assertions should be taken at face value, while others’ dogmatic assertions should be questioned.

No. There are no “dogmatic assertions” in evolution. No one accepts evolution as the fact that it is because Dawkins (or some famous scientist) says so. It is accepted on the weight of its evidence.

Now, if you are not inclined to study the massive amounts of evidence for evolution (practically everything we have ever learned about life supports common ancestry), we have set up bodies of experts that review each other’s findings based on evidence.

That’s why a layman can accept findings that come through this peer-review process, and it is not an act of faith in the slightest. Because any reasonable person can go and review the evidence and will come to the exact same conclusions.

 

[reggieM]

Atheism is not a position of faith – it is the lack of belief in gods.

The evolutionary-scientist, Francis S. Collins, disagrees with you. As is common, the opinion of one evolutionist conflicts with that of another.

I think you should post your scientific credentials at this point, given that Darwinian evolutionists like to claim that anyone who is not a biologist (especially “molecular biologist”) who has recently (no more than 3 years ago) published peer reviewed papers in approved scientific journals, is “qualified” to offer opinions on evolution. Such persons “lack credibility”.

So – let’s hear your credentials and links to peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary theory.

Science cannot disprove the Christian god …

You’re using the term “prove” with regards to science and all of the evolutionists on CAF repeat ad nauseam that “science cannot prove anything”.

So, perhaps you’re not quite up to date on the latest trend in evolutionary concepts. Or, perhaps you disagree and think that science does “prove things”.