How many of you like Dawkins

[wasmit]

No, I don’t like him. He’s very smug and his arguments are self-aggrandizing, coy, and frankly not very good. An atheist that conducted himself with balance, and that won respect from many people of different belief systems was Anthony Flew. Of course, he finally succombed to an acceptance of Deism, though never a personal god.

When I think of Richard Dawkins, I will always think of the mannerisms that epitomize his false sense of self-importance and inner insecurity in the Ben Stein documentary. Just watch him, it’s so revealing. His too-confident handshake when Ben Stein sits down… his almost whiny and insecure responses to Ben when he asks him, “So, you don’t believe in any gods, right? Do you believe in any of the Hindu gods…” There was no bombshell moment there, (apart from Dawkins absurd tangent into ET seeding of life on earth), it was just the mannerisms, the way both men conducted themselves that struck me. Ben seemed so much more confident and relaxed, though he had nothing to expose Dawkins with.

the Expelled interview was selectively edited to be very one-sided, with ominous music playing in the background in order to garner a negative emotional response. Selected scenes were included such as Richard getting make-up applied in order for him to be seen as vain. Of course, Ben had make-up too, but that was not shown. That film was not a documentary, it was creationist propoganda

 

[wasmit]

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.

What reasons? Can you please explain them here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299482

I haven’t found any so far.

 

[wasmit]

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.

lol

 

[wasmit]

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**(1)**. 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**(2)**.

(1) Specifically what contradictions? Can you please provide demonstration of contradictions in his publications?

(2) Source?

 

[wasmit]

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…

do you mean this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

 

[wasmit]

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

lol

the evolution of life on earth and the existence of a god are completely unrelated topics.

 

[wasmit]

Oh so he can act like he wants because he doesn’t have time for “religious sensibilities” ? I’m a human being as well, and I treat peoples belief systems with respect and dignity…Just because he thinks he’s better then everyone else doesn’t excuse him from practicing common manners…

Speaking of manners, it is worse than rude, it is immoral to do nothing while our friends are being killed, abused and discriminated against due to superstition.

 

[wasmit]

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

In what way?

When one looks up to the sky, the sun seems to move around us, while we stand at a fixed position.

 

[Sair]

So far the only work of Dawkins’ I have read is The God Delusion, but I’d be interested to read more - especially his take on how one goes about constructing meaning and purpose - and for that matter, hope - without belief in some form of spirituality. I speak as someone who was brought up with the belief in an immortal soul and an afterlife, so my worldview has been very much shaped by that perspective. It’s kind of difficult sometimes to read rational and convincing arguments to the contrary!

That said, however, I have great respect for his learning. Although I’ll admit some of his turns of phrase and some of his attitudes do strike me as arrogant and dismissive, I find it necessary to weigh that against the strength of the religous worldview against which he is arguing. Forceful language is necessary sometimes. I don’t think he should be dismissed as being too outspoken. The ideas he is espousing are pretty radical in a world that is largely bound to religion in one form or another. I should think the ideas spread by the early Christian evangelists were pretty radical for their times as well, and where would the church be had they not been outspoken?

 

[theAuthor]

I liked Dawkins at first. He seemed like a clever man with his educated Oxford (?) accent, and some of his arguments gave me cause to ponder. I think he does genuinely believe that Christians cherry-pick the “nice” bits out of the Bible, and that is probably true to some extent. He does challenge Christians to read their Bible the whole way through, and I’m sure many would be surprised about some things that are in there.

The more I listened to/ read of and saw of him though, the less weight his arguments held for me. I think he is guily of what I call “McLogic”…connecting events, people and thoughts that aren’t really connected. I saw a very amateurish documentary that he narrated recently. If I wrote it I would be embarrassed by the connections he tried to make by film editing. I feel sorry for him since seeing that. I’d seen him smug before and confident, but this documentary had him clearly just clutching at straws, desperate.

As for the God Delusion, it has a straw man as it’s core argument: that God must be incredibly complex. This conflicts with the way we desribe Him which is “simple”, by which I take to mean “cannot be broken into simpler, smaller parts”?

I wonder, even if it was infinitely improbable for God to exist, how much more probable is that we and the Universe exist out of nothing? I can’t see how one can be measurably more probable than the other, and yet we know we exist, however improbable that is.

 

[1holycatholic]

Speaking of manners, it is worse than rude, it is immoral to do nothing while our friends are being killed, abused and discriminated against due to superstition.

That’s one of Dawkins’ straw men.

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
“Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.”
You enumerated other atheist staw men here. You should start a thread for each of them so they can be discussed in detail. :compcoff:

 

[Sair]

That’s one of Dawkins’ straw men.

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
“Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.”

The problem with this article, and with arguing against atheism in this fashion, is that the people referred to were not killed in the name of atheism. They were killed in the name of Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism…or whatever other ideology was held by the leaders of the regime that killed them.

Dawkins and other outspoken atheists are not arguing that religion has killed more people than any other ideology, only that religious ideology has been used to justify many atrocities throughout history. If it wasn’t the reason for them, it at least allowed the perpetrators to sleep at night with a clear conscience, thinking that their god approved of their actions.

Mostly, atheists argue that religious belief is irrational. Hitler’s hatred and fear of the Jewish people was also irrational. The problem with any ideology, religious or otherwise, is that sometimes the ideology comes to seem more important to those in power than human rights and welfare.

 

[reggieM]

(1) Specifically what contradictions? Can you please provide demonstration of contradictions in his publications?

(2) Source?

I noticed the responses to your questions on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=299482

You asked for sources and information. The amount of reference material that was provided for you is more than a person could read in a year of serious study. Clearly, you haven’t really worked on that and you’re looking at internet discussion boards as your only source of data. That’s a fairly typical characteristic of the new breed of internet-atheists.

So, I could give you more links that you could ignore. Or, I could assume that you know how to use Google but you don’t want to since there is nobody who is going to listen to you that way.

You’re looking for God, but you can’t find Him. That’s not something I would go around bragging about. It’s spiritual blindness and a loss of faith (as well as meaning, purpose and hope). You’re going to embrace evolutionary-atheism which proclaims that all of nature is unintelligent processes acting on matter – and everything is nature. This is nihilism – the embrace of nothingness.

I’m bold enough to say that the neo-atheist internet horde is mainly teens and 20s who are rebelling and looking around to mock something. For reasons which are not their fault, they have zero cultural development, no family or community involvement and are steeped in technology and scientism (at best) academically. I won’t mention the impoverished theological and moral foundations (given our semi-apostate parishes in the U.S.).

So, I don’t blame your disorientation, and I amire your pursuit of the 1% chance that you hold out for God in your own mind and soul.

But I’ll suggest that the search for God is something that requires more tools than merely “rationalism” alone. The fact that you limit yourself to human reason is a pre-judging of the nature of the subject. Why put the emphasis on “reason” as if that alone is adequate to understand the Creator of the universe (or even the universe itself)?

Where is your evidence and proof that human reason *alone *is an adequate tool, or even the right tool to use?

There is one of the many contradictions you will find as you pursue this topic (and I hope you will).

 

[1holycatholic]

The problem with this article, and with arguing against atheism in this fashion, is that the people referred to were not killed in the name of atheism. They were killed in the name of Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism…or whatever other ideology was held by the leaders of the regime that killed them.

If those weren’t misotheistic atheist ideologies you would have a point. Those holding non-atheist religious beliefs were tortured, interred, or exterminated precisely because their religious beliefs were considered a threat to those misotheistic atheist regimes.

 

[Peccavi]

Richard Dwakins is my imaginary friend. I know he exists but having never met him I canot prove it. I have seen his image on TV and watched millions bow down and worship his opinions. I have seen them take up the Gospel of Darwin ( without ever reading it or remembering Darwin died a Christian or dipping into his wonderful book on the earthworm) and follow the path of the selfish gene. I have seen this new way bring an end to altruism and help develop of a healthy disregard for neigbours. I have seen the birth of a new culture where life itself depends upon life-style choices; where the rich are filled with good things and the hungry are sent empty away; where the mighty self-reward and supress the humble and the meek; where do as you will is the full letter of the law. I have watched the increased Sunday worshippers flood into the great cathedrals of consummerism.
Yet when I am alone, afraid and weary, my new friend fails to comfort me and in the dark night only the God who comes when the God who was has been abandoned vanishes, only this voice comes to me and is with me until the end of time.

 

[BacaRanch]

I am somewhat familiar with Dawkins’ work. One of the interesting aspects of his philosophy, after the rhetoric is stripped away, that becomes rather blatant is the he is not really mathematically oriented. I have taught mathematics and statistics at local Universities at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

I’ve noted, as pointed out by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Benjamin Wiker, that Dawkins’ weak attempt to use probability theory sufficiently demonstrates he is an academic without a statistical background or much knowledge of physical sciences.

Dawkins’ attempts to persuade the reader that a probability exists that can explain—for example—the creation of life by the existence and combination of certain chemicals evolving from a random process. I don’t know how he really explains the existence of the chemicals in the first place from a physical science point of view in reference to time, but that is another subject. While he throws out some measure of probability (e.g., a billion in a billion chance), he offers no empirical or objectively based relational for the probability. However, be that as it may, under simple hypothesis theory, we would have to conclude the existence of two situations—as Dawkins presents his arguments—which are mutually exclusive and independent. Specifically, we have:

H0 : Life was caused by the correct chemical composition coming together.
HA: God Created Man.

The probability of H0 [Prob(H0)] plus the probability of HA [Prob(H1)] must be equal to one. Specifically, Prob(H0) + Prob(HA) = 1.

Dismissing normal statistical testing processes and ignoring the practice of setting a significance level (e.g., alpha = .001) to base a conclusion upon, Dawkins’ own unfounded estimates suggest that the Prob(H0) = 10^18. Given this situation, what Dawkins’ has actually done is to provide us with an argument that it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 time more probable that Man was created by God rather than Man was created by some random chance of the right chemicals coming together.

To carry his flawed logic one step further, I will use an analogy. Assume that you have placed all the ingredients of a cake on your kitchen counter. This would be analogous to Dawkins’ claim that all required chemicals were present to create life. The question is—in the case of the cake—who mixed the ingredients together in the right quantities and sequence? The cake didn’t come into existence simply because the ingredients were on the counter. Cleary, an external force was required. Dawkins argues it was done by chance. Right.

Frankly, I find that the more Dawkins attempts to justify his conjectures, the more he buries himself in logic flaws. In fact, one could use Dawkins work—if it had an objective basis—to build a very sound statistical analysis that proves there is a God. Who knows, Dawkins may actually end up being one of the greatest contributors to furthering the faith in modern times.

 

[Birdstrike]

What are some of you people talking about?! The Reverend Dawkins is NOT a “brilliant scientist”; in fact, he’s not even really a “professor” at Oxford as he has claimed (he did not meet the qualifications; he merely was a “chairholder”). But cloaking himself in his scientific vestments, he feels free to pontificate on fields he knows nothing about - Biblical accuracy, philosophy, theology, etc.

What Rev. Dawkins IS is a hatemonger and a propagandist. He doesn’t believe in objective morality exists - but somehow religion is “the root of all evil”. Theists are “insane, stupid” or even “wicked” in his view. Raising a child religious is “child abuse”.

He is slick and smooth. But Dawkins and his ilk will usher in the next era of Christian martyrdom, make no mistake.

 

[reggieM]

Richard Dwakins is my imaginary friend. I know he exists but having never met him I canot prove it. I have seen his image on TV and watched millions bow down and worship his opinions. I have seen them take up the Gospel of Darwin ( without ever reading it or remembering Darwin died a Christian or dipping into his wonderful book on the earthworm) and follow the path of the selfish gene. I have seen this new way bring an end to altruism and help develop of a healthy disregard for neigbours. I have seen the birth of a new culture where life itself depends upon life-style choices; where the rich are filled with good things and the hungry are sent empty away; where the mighty self-reward and supress the humble and the meek; where do as you will is the full letter of the law. I have watched the increased Sunday worshippers flood into the great cathedrals of consummerism.
Yet when I am alone, afraid and weary, my new friend fails to comfort me and in the dark night only the God who comes when the God who was has been abandoned vanishes, only this voice comes to me and is with me until the end of time.

This was great – thanks. I’d only question if Darwin died a Christian but aside from that, I think you captured it very nicely.

 

[MzAnnThrope]

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.

How many of his books have you read, how many of his videos have you watched to form this opinion? As far as I can tell you have stated that you base your opinion on Dawkins on the one interview from the movie Expelled. For someone so fond of invoking logical fallacies, if that one interview is all you have to go on, you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

Clue: creative editing.

 

[1holycatholic]

This was great – thanks. I’d only question if Darwin died a Christian but aside from that, I think you captured it very nicely.

AFAIK he was Baptized Anglican, so yes, he died a Christian.

Dawkins, too, was Baptized in the Anglican communion and will die a Christian, albeit as one who rejects the faith.