Someone challenged the idea that Rev. Dawkins’ ideas are contradictory, but there is a very clear example of it. Unintelligent natural laws cannot produce morality, as Dawkins knows. Then in the next sentence he offers his moral outrage against religious belief.
For some reason he doesn’t blame evolutionary processes for the things he doesn’t like.
Not long ago I would have scoffed at that idea, but I tend to agree with it now.
A little Wiki goes a long way
This may or may not be correct. What Richard Dawkins is, is an Evolutionary Biologist. I would not expect him to be “oriented” towards mathmatics.
But, how well informed are you on Evolution and Biology?
The argument is that natural processes are enough to have brought about life. That would be Abiogenesis, a branch of biochemistry, and not Evolution. You are correct, a cake obviously must have had a cook to bring it into being. Life is not a cake.
No Evolutionary Biologist has ever said that a cake comes about by chance. Not even Dawkins.
Can you go out into the googles–unless you have some of his books to hand–and share with us his logical flaws? I’d be very interested in reading them for myself. A handful of examples would be adequate for a start.
In the matter of atheism itself (which, in its various forms, is far more serious and substantive in its arguments and questions than Dawkins manages or dreams of managing) I would have to agree. As for theology, he is completely inept and apparently willfully ignorant. Whether we are speaking of theology, religion, or atheism, Dawkins remains a hack. His specialty is strawmen, oversimplifications, and an obnoxious rhetoric fueled by ignorance and bigotry sharper than that he claims to despise from religion. He is the quintessentially religious man without faith.
Well they certainly don’t present a major intellectual or theological challenge! Theologians and Scientists together work on the interface between religion and science at places like the Center for this at the Graduate Theological Union, etc. Dawkins has, as far as I can tell, neither the respect of first ranked scientists nor of theologians doing SERIOUS work in the field. Scientific naturalism is bankrupt as an approach to reality as a whole. As for the rest, I think Taunton is wrong. While Dawkins might LIKE to see such a thing happen in some dark corner of his heart, I have no sense, despite his rhetoric, that he would go that far or allow others to do the same. What is true, and Taunton sees this, I think, is that Dawkins seems unable to lay aside a hatred which distorts his vision of reality and his appreciation of truth, whether scientific or theological. He also apparently fails to realize he has already fallen into his own religiosity and is doing precisely what he says he hates.
That’s an interesting psychoanalysis.
(1) Specifically what contradictions? Can you please provide demonstration of contradictions in his publications?
I agree that he has no aptitude for philosophical thought (much less theological) but he is one of the most prominent voices of evolutionary-materialism today. That is the mainstream, most-popular view in the scientific culture, so Richard Dawkins does have a lot of respect from that sector of academia.
Yes, certainly. But again, scientific naturalism is the default, mainstream and overwhelmingly most common philosophical position adopted by the scientific culture today.
His contradictory opinions.
Aren’t there enough internet pages that do that to your satisfaction already?
Dawkins Lennox Debate, October 3, 2007
Dear Birdstrike,
Whoa! That is not a good paraphrase. That is not what what that means at all.
That is hardly what is being said here. In discussing a matter intelligently a common frame of reference needs to be established. The establishment of this common frame, common philosophical and linguistic perspectives, is what scientists and theologians are working together to establish. Openness on both sides needs to be allowed for, terms need to be defined, and this is especially true with theological terms like God, faith, etc. (Dawkins rarely realizes what caricatures of these things he puts forward as normative for theology. Most of us would never recognize what he proposes here.)The limits of what can be known with science needs to be admitted. The possibility that there are some things science CANNOT examine or analyze even while scientists affirm them needs to be recognized (for instance love, justice, meaning, intelligence, that the world is intelligible and can be known, the reality of transcendence, etc, etc). Meanwhile, theologians must be sure they are not substituting naive scientific ideas based on religious beliefs or the misreading of Scripture as a science text. All of this and more is implied by the Archbishop’s statement.
Again, the Archbishop is merely insisting on what is necessary to FIND TRUTH in a discussion with another person. Dawkins’ definitions of basic terms: God, religion, faith, etc, to say nothing of his fractured logic, etc, are so far from what believers recognize that there is no basis for common discussion here. The comments have nothing whatsoever to do with moral (or philosophical) relativism (except as implicit criticism of these) and everything to do with a common search for truth. One cannot discuss something with someone speaking acompletely different language.