I actually met someone whose faith had been shaken by Dawkins!

[DL82]

On a plane back from a recent holiday, I was reading some theology books for an essay for my PhD, and a guy next to me engaged me in a conversation about it. He was wondering whether the book I was reading was pro- or anti- the existence of God, and I tried to explain that it was a little more complicated than that but…

Anyway, he got to explaining to me that he’d been brought up Catholic but had begun to question his faith, and that Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion had really shaken his faith to the limit. He still went to mass and sent his kids to Catholic school, but I think his faith was all but gone. This made me realise how dangerous a badly-written book like that can be to those who haven’t the background to appreciate its’ flaws.

I shared some of my own testimony as a convert to Catholicism, and suggested that he read Ecclesiastes, as I think that has something to say about the fact that doubt is a natural part of faith. All the same, I was a bit confused about what to say. I didn’t want to insult this man’s intelligence by pointing out all the many flaws in Dawkins’ arguments, but it made me really mad at Dawkins. I finally understood what he had done, it wasn’t intended to be a well-written academic critique of religion, it was designed to be a bargain-basement bestseller, alongside Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer or some such, a very intelligent man patronisingly manipulating those he knew were less well-informed in order to hammer home his point and score cheap points against religion.

Only problem is, Dawkins’ cheap points aren’t cheap at all, they are the souls of good men and women, people of simple faith, and those are very valuable indeed!

 

[IvanKaramozov]

On a plane back from a recent holiday, I was reading some theology books for an essay for my PhD, and a guy next to me engaged me in a conversation about it. He was wondering whether the book I was reading was pro- or anti- the existence of God, and I tried to explain that it was a little more complicated than that but…

Anyway, he got to explaining to me that he’d been brought up Catholic but had begun to question his faith, and that Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion had really shaken his faith to the limit. He still went to mass and sent his kids to Catholic school, but I think his faith was all but gone. This made me realise how dangerous a badly-written book like that can be to those who haven’t the background to appreciate its’ flaws.

I shared some of my own testimony as a convert to Catholicism, and suggested that he read Ecclesiastes, as I think that has something to say about the fact that doubt is a natural part of faith. All the same, I was a bit confused about what to say. I didn’t want to insult this man’s intelligence by pointing out all the many flaws in Dawkins’ arguments, but it made me really mad at Dawkins. I finally understood what he had done, it wasn’t intended to be a well-written academic critique of religion, it was designed to be a bargain-basement bestseller, alongside Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer or some such, a very intelligent man patronisingly manipulating those he knew were less well-informed in order to hammer home his point and score cheap points against religion.

Only problem is, Dawkins’ cheap points aren’t cheap at all, they are the souls of good men and women, people of simple faith, and those are very valuable indeed!

The four “Hosemen” as they like to call themselves are three disgraces and a Philosopher.

Dennett isin’t so bad, though I will never understand why he thinks his theories on intentionality make any sense whatsoever.

Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, all men who have credentials and were once respectiable acadamics, now they are on a compaign of strawman arguments, hyperbole, and general non-sense.

I don’t expect that much out of Hitchens and Harris, but Dawkins is a respectiable scientist and has done great work in his field, it’s a shame to see what he’s reduced himself to.

 

[Dameedna]

I shared some of my own testimony as a convert to Catholicism, and suggested that he read Ecclesiastes, as I think that has something to say about the fact that doubt is a natural part of faith.

Doubt is not a part of “faith” its a part of being human. A scientist, “SHOULD” by default doubt his own research and qualify it by his peers. Doubt, isn’t about faith I’m sorry, it’s part of humanity.

Honestly I’m surprised dawkins affected him, because it doesn’t speak to those that can’t be convinced, it usually speaks to those that already have doubts.I think the doubt he feels is healthy and human. He’s lifting the veil on ignorance and superstition.

It’s very painful for a religious person to go through this, so perhaps you can help him to feel better about it, rather than change his mind. Once a mind shifts in that direction, it doesn’t go back, I’m sorry…it just grows further.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I saw the movie expelled and frankly Richard Dawkins did not impress me at all, in fact he was down right funny.

The question he got taken apart with, was how did the first cell come about from non life? Dawkins said in effect that the first cell was planted here by space aliens.

 

[aurora77]

I saw the movie expelled and frankly Richard Dawkins did not impress me at all, in fact he was down right funny.

The question he got taken apart with, was how did the first cell come about from non life? Dawkins said in effect that the first cell was planted here by space aliens.

I was thinking the same thing. Anyone who is considering taking Dawkins seriously must see this clip. My friends and I just left the theater stunned that anyone could actually believe something this bizarre. No God, of course, but yes there are aliens.

 

[Sarpedon]

It’s very painful for a religious person to go through this, so perhaps you can help him to feel better about it, rather than change his mind. Once a mind shifts in that direction, it doesn’t go back, I’m sorry…it just grows further.

If I remember correctly C.S. Lewis came back.

 

[JonW]

Doubt is not a part of “faith” its a part of being human. A scientist, “SHOULD” by default doubt his own research and qualify it by his peers. Doubt, isn’t about faith I’m sorry, it’s part of humanity.

Honestly I’m surprised dawkins affected him, because it doesn’t speak to those that can’t be convinced, it usually speaks to those that already have doubts.I think the doubt he feels is healthy and human. He’s lifting the veil on ignorance and superstition.

It’s very painful for a religious person to go through this, so perhaps you can help him to feel better about it, rather than change his mind. Once a mind shifts in that direction, it doesn’t go back, I’m sorry…it just grows further.

Why couldn’t doubt be a part of faith as well as a part of human life generally? I’m not sure how your example of scientific methodology bolsters your point about the proper place of doubt.

I’m not sure about your assessment of Dawkins. The arguments he uses are not his own. In fact, they are all very old. Most of them are as old as philosophy itself, coming as they do from ancient Greece, including the one Dawkins likes to take credit for. Who made God? Who is he fooling? Dawkins’ book is a popular treatment of a subject whose viability as a popular argument has been dead for hundreds of years. The only interesting work being done on the subject is at the level of technical work in philosophy. Even there the output is meager to nill. What Dawkins has done very successfully is made a lot of money with very little work. If, however, the book has forced complacent people on either side of the issue to think more deeply about their convictions, then Dawkins has actually performed a service. Doubt can serve most fruitfully (in this situation) as a ballast upon which our convictions are formed on either side. Deeper convictions wrought in the gauntlet of doubt make for more informed and fruitful debate, as well as a more fully formed faith.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[OTavern]

Only problem is, Dawkins’ cheap points aren’t cheap at all, they are the souls of good men and women, people of simple faith, and those are very valuable indeed!

The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day is a good starting point for showing the weakness of thought in Dawkins’, Dennett’s and Hitchens’ claims about theistic beliefs.

 

[strngrnrth]

And I thought I’d seen it all after hanging with some folks who took the Illuminatus trilogy as the straight scoop on history and civics…a handful of big-name “new atheists” are claiming free thought, inquiry and skepticism for their side. But they’re the ones expecting to be taken seriously when they’re flying into rages, cherry-picking, inventing figures, contradicitng themselves and swinging wildly at straw men. They use such thought-stopping tactics as overcommunication, changing the subject and intimidation.
I feel for the people who fall for it. I have experienced the confusion of falling for such tactics and I know it can happen to intelligent people. There is a type of person hypnotists call a Grade Five, who is a good learner and usually a deep thinker, an idealist. The problem is, if such a person is in a hypnotic state, his or her resistance goes lower and stays low longer than other types. Reading a highly emotional book might induce a hypnotic state in some individuals. Interestingly, Grade Fives snap the same way less-suggestible people do: experience, logic and reminders of who they are.

 

[Nullasalus]

If I remember correctly C.S. Lewis came back.

Among many others. Lewis just happens to be famous.

Plenty of people have their faith shaken (or restored, frankly) on seemingly fragile points. Many people have just never given much thought to their beliefs one way or the other, and can be blindsided by something as simple as ‘You’re wrong, I’m right, and I insist on this strongly.’ That sounds exaggerated, but I’ve seen it too many times.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There are many Christians, having been brought up on a literalist view of the Bible, who are easy prey for atheists.

 

[Tic_Toc]

Dawkins is very convincing, I’ve found. He does indeed make some very good points. I don’t think you can argue he’s misinformed or anything, at least on some of his claims. I mean, religion HAS been used as an instrument for evil, and some very religious people are very close minded and follow what leaders tell them blindly. However, it depends on how much you believe and how much faith you have. Him bringing up doubt in people isn’t bad; people totally ignoring those doubts and blindly believing is bad.

 

[Ignatius]

On a plane back from a recent holiday, I was reading some theology books for an essay for my PhD, and a guy next to me engaged me in a conversation about it. He was wondering whether the book I was reading was pro- or anti- the existence of God, and I tried to explain that it was a little more complicated than that but…

Anyway, he got to explaining to me that he’d been brought up Catholic but had begun to question his faith, and that Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion had really shaken his faith to the limit. He still went to mass and sent his kids to Catholic school, but I think his faith was all but gone. This made me realise how dangerous a badly-written book like that can be to those who haven’t the background to appreciate its’ flaws.

I shared some of my own testimony as a convert to Catholicism, and suggested that he read Ecclesiastes, as I think that has something to say about the fact that doubt is a natural part of faith. All the same, I was a bit confused about what to say. I didn’t want to insult this man’s intelligence by pointing out all the many flaws in Dawkins’ arguments, but it made me really mad at Dawkins. I finally understood what he had done, it wasn’t intended to be a well-written academic critique of religion, it was designed to be a bargain-basement bestseller, alongside Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer or some such, a very intelligent man patronisingly manipulating those he knew were less well-informed in order to hammer home his point and score cheap points against religion.

That’s pretty sad. Dawkins’ arguments are weak and to follow his outlook is to be without purpose and without hope. How could anyone ever fall for it.

 

[Sarpedon]

I mean, religion HAS been used as an instrument for evil, and some very religious people are very close minded and follow what leaders tell them blindly.

True, but this doesn’t ultimately address the question at hand. God exists or does not exist independant of how people react to the concept.

To say that God does not exist because people can do bad things in His name is like saying that nuclear fission is false because people can do very destructive things with it.

 

[OTavern]

I mean, religion HAS been used as an instrument for evil, and some very religious people are very close minded and follow what leaders tell them blindly. However, it depends on how much you believe and how much faith you have. Him bringing up doubt in people isn’t bad; people totally ignoring those doubts and blindly believing is bad.

The same issues arise with almost every human endeavor. You say religion has been used as an instrument for evil…

So has science: Nazi promoted genetic experimentation, development of weapons of mass destruction, development of means of torture and warfare, environmental impacts, etc.

So has politics: genocidal regimes, dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, restrictions of civil rights, germ warfare, etc.

So has economics and business: attempts to control water and food supplies, market monopolies, raping of the environment for economic gain, inhumane working conditions, child labour, etc.

The case Dawkins brings up against religion can be raised against every human endeavor. The common factor is not religion, it is human ill-will. Wherever greed, lust, hatred, avarice, envy, sloth or pride take hold, all human endeavor, even the most high-minded, can be hijacked towards evil.

The evil is not integral to religion as Dawkins claims, he is merely seeking, and unfairly I might add, a scapegoat on which to pin the blame. He could just as easily have found the same ills present in science and spent an equal effort on defaming science, he simply chose not to for his own prejudiced and misinformed reasons.

Dawkins has no real cogent argument that cannot be, with equal force, applied to human life in general. He may as well be advocating for the end of humanity because humans cause all kinds of ills for both rational and irrational reasons.

His point that the critical problem with religion is its foundation on “faith” is a clear misunderstanding of faith as being “blind” assent to dogma. As others have pointed out this is the “strawman” Dawkins attacks. Commitment to one’s religious beliefs need not be blind, but based upon valid and critical reasoning. In fact, spiritual growth can only occur with such rigorous assessment of one’s current spiritual “state.”

The difference between scientific critique and religious (or philosophical) critique is that the latter realms are based upon a wider sphere of knowledge and logic than one restricted to an experiential base as science is.

Dawkins is simply unwilling to admit the existence of wisdom that does not follow the “scientific” method. This could be an error of “narrow-mindedness” that Dawkins himself may be guilty of. He may be a scientific dogmatic fundamentalist who cannot admit that truth may be of a larger realm than sensory data limitations impose.

 

[The_Catholic]

On a plane back from a recent holiday, I was reading some theology books for an essay for my PhD, and a guy next to me engaged me in a conversation about it. He was wondering whether the book I was reading was pro- or anti- the existence of God, and I tried to explain that it was a little more complicated than that but…

Anyway, he got to explaining to me that he’d been brought up Catholic but had begun to question his faith, and that Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion had really shaken his faith to the limit. He still went to mass and sent his kids to Catholic school, but I think his faith was all but gone. This made me realise how dangerous a badly-written book like that can be to those who haven’t the background to appreciate its’ flaws.

I shared some of my own testimony as a convert to Catholicism, and suggested that he read Ecclesiastes, as I think that has something to say about the fact that doubt is a natural part of faith. All the same, I was a bit confused about what to say. I didn’t want to insult this man’s intelligence by pointing out all the many flaws in Dawkins’ arguments, but it made me really mad at Dawkins. I finally understood what he had done, it wasn’t intended to be a well-written academic critique of religion, it was designed to be a bargain-basement bestseller, alongside Dan Brown or Jeffrey Archer or some such, a very intelligent man patronisingly manipulating those he knew were less well-informed in order to hammer home his point and score cheap points against religion.

Only problem is, Dawkins’ cheap points aren’t cheap at all, they are the souls of good men and women, people of simple faith, and those are very valuable indeed!

Don’t worry, God will never lose His flock. If people are truly searching for the truth, which is He, they’ll find it. The Lord promises

 

[strngrnrth]

The same issues arise with almost every human endeavor. You say religion has been used as an instrument for evil…

So has science: Nazi promoted genetic experimentation, development of weapons of mass destruction, development of means of torture and warfare, environmental impacts, etc.

So has politics: genocidal regimes, dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, restrictions of civil rights, germ warfare, etc.

So has economics and business: attempts to control water and food supplies, market monopolies, raping of the environment for economic gain, inhumane working conditions, child labour, etc.

The case Dawkins brings up against religion can be raised against every human endeavor. The common factor is not religion, it is human ill-will. Wherever greed, lust, hatred, avarice, envy, sloth or pride take hold, all human endeavor, even the most high-minded, can be hijacked towards evil.

Indeed. So has art: So has recreation: So has family life: So has popularity: So has athleticism: It could go one literally all day and not be done.
And none of these other endeavors forbids greed, lust avarice etc., as most religions do. So with religion, at least those who use it for evil are the ones not following the instruction manuals. Therefore, it isn’t religion per se that causes harm, but the refusal to take religion seriously enough to read and follow the directions.

 

[OTavern]

…none of these other endeavors forbids greed, lust avarice etc., as most religions do. So with religion, at least those who use it for evil are the ones not following the instruction manuals. Therefore, it isn’t religion per se that causes harm, but the refusal to take religion seriously enough to read and follow the directions.

This is precisely why I question the ultimate aims of Dawkins. It ought to be clear that most religions are established to counter those evil tendencies in human activity. Why does Dawkins blandly dismiss that reality to merely point at the corruption present in some religious activity when a vastly more representative view would reveal great historical good coming from religiously inspired actions?

If Dawkins is sincere in his attempt to find the real source of the problem, then he ought to portray a fair and justifiable history of the impact of religious faith. He simply does not do this. As a scientist, his ultimate commitment should be to unbiased, unencumbered, objective and impartial assessment. This is clearly not true in much of what he writes.

 

[rwoehmke]

Check out R. D’Souza’s book “What’s Good About Christianity”. He takes on all four of these “new” prophets and goes into what he thinks are some of their motivations. Amazon among others have it in stock.

 

[strngrnrth]

If Dawkins is sincere in his attempt to find the real source of the problem, then he ought to portray a fair and justifiable history of the impact of religious faith. He simply does not do this. As a scientist, his ultimate commitment should be to unbiased, unencumbered, objective and impartial assessment. This is clearly not true in much of what he writes.

Not even close. If he’s really hoping people will see him as an objective scientist, he needs someone to give him a reality check. He’s an emotionally-driven hatemonger, plain and simple.