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

[RobbyS]

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.

Dawkins is caught on film in “Expelled” saying that he takes stock in the crazy aliens seeded life on earth theory. The irony is. imho, that the Darwinists propose a scheme that does not make sense without the assumption of a kind of telelogy, with Evolution as a kind of demiurge. To sound a bit crazy myself, may I suggest that they see the hand of the dark god behind it all?

 

[Janet_S]

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.

You can download Dinesh D’Souza’s talk (mp3), “What’s So Great About Christianity?” from the Catholic Answer’s Live website, aired on February 25, 2008:
catholic.com/radio/calendar.php

 

[KatyElizabeth]

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.

Ben Stein was on Glen Beck tonight. He said that after the movie came out Dawkins sent him an e-mail saying that he was just patronizing him by saying that because he thought Stein was stupid.

BWAAAHAAAHAA.

After Dawkins look like an idgit, he turns it on Stein!

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

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!

Psychology-101: War of the Minds.

There are certain psychological devises that one can use to inflict doubt. And it can be used in respect of any topic or philosophy; not just religion.

If one has a tendency to be “insecure”, such insecurities can cause problems in every area of life, including belief. You could have strong reasons for believing something; but because the thing you believe in is of value to you, you will doubt it because you have an irrational fear of losing it. There are those that do not educate themselves because they think that by doing so, they loose faith. The problem with that is, there might be very good arguments out there that supports your faith or belief, but you will never know. I consider it to be a psychological-sociological illness.

Some people become so obsessed with the idea that God does not exist, that they lose their faith, even though they have good reason to believe. You can see an example of this insecurity among socail groups, where people fight for domination in respect of an idea or philosophy. If somebody in that group is insecure, it will not matter that their philosophy is the the most logical; the dominant philosophy will be the one that is advocated by the most dominant mind, tribe, society or group. This can cause persons or societies to become demoralised. You can see why this might make it appear as if somebodies faith is false. Another good example would be something along the lines of Sigmunds idea that faith is just an expressions of humanities desperate insecure desire for a Father. Now; there is no evidence of this, but the mere possibility that it might be true, will send some people into manic depression. Its a psychological trick. The devil is a tricky bugger; he uses these devices to keep your mind off what’s important; and if you worry all the time, you are likely to go insane.

Some people are so insecure, that somebody need only give the impression that they have good arguments, and that alone will cause serious damage even though the person has not yet said anything. Some people have the “gift of the gab”, the power of persuasion. A speech coming form “Martin Luther king” in support of atheism, could be very convincing, but maybe not so convincing coming from somebody who has not learnt art of touching the human soul. I dare say that there are people out there that have never read Dawkins book, but because he speaks with authority, popularity and from the position of a science, they will go into a panic simple because the book exists.

A popular scientist by the name of "Stephen Hawkins”, produced a good TV series. The presenter said at the end, to some extent, that Hawking did not believe in God, and he believed that the universe spontaneously came into existence from nothing. Not only that, the presenter also hinted, that although it was just an idea, this idea was based on Strong Science. The problem with this is that, any body who has very little knowledge of science and philosophy, and do not understand the difference between the two, might be under the false impression that science strongly supports the atheistic world view. Dawkins is also spreading this propaganda.

Continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Continued…

Psychology-101: War of the Minds.

It would not surprise me in the slightest, if we found out that Dawkins himself had an insecurity problem, it would explain why he attacks the faith with such hatred and hard headedness. The sad thing is, now that he has created such an arrogant display of anti-religion, he will find it very difficult to convert; it might be too embarrassing for him to bare. Will he be strong enough to give up all that popularity? Imagine if everybody loved you for your atheism, and you were most happy through your atheism; it would be very difficult for you to give it up. This can be the same for any idea or belief, since beliefs and ideas can be the pride of insecure mind, and can provide a foundation for ones metal security. This is when beliefs become merely survival mechanisms instead of foundations for truth. A true test of faith is when you believe in the face of hatred and suffering; this is because humanity has a tendency to follow ideas that promote their finite and social survival, rather then the truth. In this sense we can understand what God means by separating the sheep from the goat. I have seen people leave the faith as soon as their social lives take a change for the better. They no longer need the crutch.

There’s nothing wrong with faith, but it’s important to believe in something that conforms to reason as well as desire. This means that you cannot be lazy of mind, and you cannot fear knowledge, because if you do, that just as good as saying God does not exist. Have faith, and God we give you a reason to believe. He will not give you it, if you do not really want it. We have to chase God; otherwise, wisdom and knowledge will leave us behind. God said he will give a strong illusion to those who sin. That does not mean that God will deceive us; it means that those who do not seek and train the mind in all things holy, will be too weak to see through the deceptions of the devil.

The mind is like a muscle; we must train it to be truly masters of it. When i gave up smoking i didn’t really believe that i would see a day when i would not crave for a smoke, or be able to live socailly with out it. My brain was addicted to smoking and so it was trying to deceive me into thinking that i needed it inorder to be fullfillled as a person. It was a part of my being. “Ideas” or “memes” as Dawkins likes to put it, are no different to smoking; certain ideas can give us a buzz. Atheism can give us a buzz, by given you a false sense of freedom. You might hear some atheists call themesleves “free-thinkers”; there is a pride to being an atheist, its not just a matter of logic.

If you wither in faith, pray for it; in otherwords, if you really want it, you must beg God to help you see. At least, this worked for me.
People would like you to believe that Christianity is irrational. But there are some people who enjoy being rebellious, simply because of the buzz; and to revolt against God is the ultimate rebellion. It is not just a matter of logic, science or philosophy; it is also a matter of influence and desire. Beware of all psychological devices.

 

[KatyElizabeth]

MindOverMatter

That is an awesome post! I needed that. Many thanks!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Dawkins is caught on film in “Expelled” saying that he takes stock in the crazy aliens seeded life on earth theory. The irony is. imho,…

The irony is, Phillip Johnson, one of the guys who invented ID, said the same thing. And they both say it for the same reason; they lack faith that God could actually do it the way He did. Atheists and IDers share more than a belief that science and God are enemies.

that the Darwinists propose a scheme that does not make sense without the assumption of a kind of telelogy, with Evolution as a kind of demiurge.

Someone’s really led you of the path on that one. It’s never been like that. Darwin himself said only that God created the first living things. Johnson might believe it, as he is obviously angry at those who suggest that God is powerful enough to create living thing through nature.

To sound a bit crazy myself, may I suggest that they see the hand of the dark god behind it all?

Imagination is a nice thing to have, but not when it comes to describing the opinions of others.

 

[ehtheist]

Dawkins is possibly the greatest mind in biology today. Some could, rightly, argue that he has no position to talk about religion and I’m fine with that argument. I think another valid argument is that nobody has any right to talk about religion - not priests or anyone. I don’t venture to choose either side of those two arguments for I don’t think they are necessary to this discussion.

Having said that, I’ve read The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins God, The Dawkins Delusion, Case for The Creator (I think the whole case series), the Bible (many times), the Koran, etc., etc. and, in reading the responses here, I’m clear that, for the most part, none of you have read either of them completely.

I’m not an atheist because of Dawkins and I personally don’t like the idea that people claim he is a spokesperson for atheism. The fact that we don’t believe in god does not make us a “group”. I disagree with Dawkins on a lot of things, I disagree with Lee Strobel on a lot of things.

The point that Dawkins makes in his book is probably the most compelling case for giving up faith. Contrary to his hope that believers will put down his book as nonbelievers, I think the book is useless when it comes to converting people who aren’t willing to look at the possiblity that there isn’t a god. One of the earlier posters said it right, the person who was “converted” already didn’t believe. (I will say that I read Lee Strobel’s books while I was a believer - and it made me question too many more things. If you believe what Lee Strobel does, the book might be good to read if you want to nod your head in agreement - otherwise, it makes some pretty silly and completed debunked claims.)

Harris is extremely well read in the major world religions - and we all accept that there are three major world religions (and a number of smaller, less prominent ones), I hope. I don’t think Harris has any greater ability to speak about religion. It’s hardly a steadfast topic with agreed limits and agreed truths. One could argue that it isn’t even something that one can be proficient/knowledgeable or an expert in.

What my post is really about is how quickly we are to talk about a book we have never read and, even more amazing, take a small clip from a movie (that was HEAVILY edited) and take it out of context. (Yes, I have seen Expelled and as much as I wanted it to be good - for the purpose of having people ask questions and be willing to talk about religion - I think Ben Stein did more harm to the movement than good.) When I got home from the theatre, I searched to see what other people thought about Richard Dawkins’ comment about the aliens seeding earth - I came across this - Lying For Jesus.

I suspect nobody will read it but, Expelled, like Michael Moore “documentaries” uses editing to achieve a specified goal. If that is the strongest argument you can make against Richard Dawkins, you are the weakest of opponents to him.

The priest at my wife’s church has read The God Delusion (and Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation) and thought the book was well written - I haven’t heard what he has to say about Sam Harris’ book, yet. The God Delusion serves a purpose for people on both sides of the argument (if one is to assume there are only two sides) - it gets people talking about religion again. If it is all it is cracked up to be, it’ll get more followers.

 

[OTavern]

The point that Dawkins makes in his book is probably the most compelling case for giving up faith.

So what exactly is the compelling case he makes, in your own words?

When I got home from the theatre, I searched to see what other people thought about Richard Dawkins’ comment about the aliens seeding earth - I came across this - Lying For Jesus.

The reply above is damage control, and specifically in reply to the video, targeting motives and methods, but no real substance. In some ways it sums up Dawkins reasoning in the case for atheism he presents - attacks on motives and methods.

I suspect nobody will read it but, Expelled, like Michael Moore “documentaries” uses editing to achieve a specified goal. If that is the strongest argument you can make against Richard Dawkins, you are the weakest of opponents to him.

True, Moore does use editing to achieve a goal and make a point, but that is the thrust of his style of documentary - a smack on the head to get your attention and a few sharp strokes to the brain to provoke thought. The thinking part is left to the viewer. Just don’t make the mistake, like Dawkins does, to confuse attacks on motive and method as the critical element of the argument.

The God Delusion serves a purpose for people on both sides of the argument (if one is to assume there are only two sides) - it gets people talking about religion again. If it is all it is cracked up to be, it’ll get more followers.

I doubt the number of followers is an indication of brilliance or veracity. A more valid indicator would be to take an inverse reading of the fawning or toadying element among the supporters.

 

[Greg27]

Dawkins is a very good public speaker, television presenter and writer, but his expertise is in science rather than theology and philosophy. To give credit where credit is due, Dawkins does present some good grounds for unbelief, but in my view a lot of the time he greatly underestimates the intelligence and subtlety of theistic thinkers such as St Anselm and St Thomas. People like these (and also others like Duns Scotus and Eckhart) were not idiots and had some very interesting and cogent arguments for believing God exists. The unbeliever is obliged to at least consider the arguments of a good theist thinker and consider whether they are possibly true.

 

[Doug50]

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.

Tic Toc, within what you’ve written here is the fatal flaw in Dawkin’s thesis. In the metaphysical world of Naturalism religion (and actually nothing) can be an instrument of evil. Because if evil exists as a realistic truth then Dawkin’s Natualism is false.

IOW if nature is all there is then there is no such thing as evil. Good and evil do not exist within nature. In naturalism there is no such thing as a moral truth or a correct moral way. For naturalism, saying that humans have human rights becomes a fallacy.

Secular Humanism is a con game. Why? Becase secularism assume Naturlism is true while at the same time assuming humans are the beholders of a Universal moral truth.

I view Dawkins similarly to either a dumb attorney who doesn’t fully understand law or as an ambulance chaser attempting to con others…but then again con others is not wrong or evil in his naturalism. Maybe he’s simply spreading his memes to bring about the kind of world he desires.

How do I emphasis this simple point more??? Naturalism is not only a-theisitic it is equally a-moral. No god or moral right and wrong actually exists within metaphysical naturalism.

If you believe people are capable of any real act that’s evil then you ipso facto reject Dawkin’s claimed metaphysical view of reality, Naturalism.

 

[Nullasalus]

Incidentally, I just finished reading (yet another) book about this topic: The Irrational Atheist. I think many here would appreciate it, as Vox Day addresses the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens (and to a lesser degree, Dennett) based primarily on secular grounds.

irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html

I don’t agree with everything he says, but nevertheless, he’s highly recommended. And his book is free to download in pdf form.

 

[GonQPat]

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.

I lapsed into Aheism, and at the age of 47 returned to Catholicism. But then, I was exposed to that usual tidal wave of criticism that is directed at the Catholic Church.

Also, an older brother of mine had joined an Evangelical church and he said that the Catholic Church is unbiblical. My response to that comment was an exchange of e-mails with my brother. But, in my e-mails I asked him some sticky questions. For example, I said that a heresy is, firstly, based on passages quoted from the Scriptures, and secondly, is convincingly plausible, but still an untruth. So my question was, “How does one distinguish between what is plausible and what is the Truth?”

I subsequently collated a collection of my e-mails and had them published as two books, which are listed on my web-site. Moreover, my books are addressed to any fellow parishioner who is not a qualified Theologian, and who is standing in the church pew besides me.

 

[AntiTheist]

Tic Toc, within what you’ve written here is the fatal flaw in Dawkin’s thesis. In the metaphysical world of Naturalism religion (and actually nothing) can be an instrument of evil. Because if evil exists as a realistic truth then Dawkin’s Natualism is false.

Based on what I know of Dawkins, I doubt very much that he thinks “evil” is some sort of supernatural force that exists outside of the minds of people.

More likely, he thinks “evil” is the label that people put on actions that are generally harmful to the broad goals shared by people in society, goals and values that have developed slowly through thousands of years of civilization.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is also very painful for an atheist to admit he has been mistaken - sometimes for many years - and how he has misled others but he learns to accept the fact that he is not infallible!

Antony Flew is a recent example of an eminent philosopher who was courageous enough to admit towards the end of a long life that much of what he had written was either untrue or misleading.

 

[_Locke]

Antony Flew is a recent example of an eminent philosopher who was courageous enough to admit towards the end of a long life that much of what he had written was either untrue or misleading.

Could post the link please? In December 2004 Flew stated that he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, despite his conversion to deism. I don’t want to hijack the thread for something else, I’m just interested.

 

[buffalo]

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!

Send him a copy of this:

The Irrational Atheist

 

[Rocinante]

(i suspect that many of you would agree with many of dawkins’s arguments against the truth of every religion except for one.)

apparently these books do convince from time to time, but i suspect that it would be unusual for any one book to change someone’s mind any more than a republican is likely to convince a democrat to switch parties in a single conversation. such things happen, but probably only over time and in accordance with life experiences.

 

[Rocinante]

on a related note, i recently saw an abc news report interviewing ministers who have lost their faith after reading the new atheists but cannot find other work because the only employable skill they have is from seminary.

abcnews.go.com/WN/atheist-ministers-leading-faithful/story?id=12004359

they interviewed two of the ministers that participated in this study:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf

 

[davidv]

(i suspect that many of you would agree with many of dawkins’s arguments against the truth of every religion except for one.)

You suspicion is not well grounded. The Church teaches that all faith communities have truth, some more than others, with the CC having the fulness of the Truth.

apparently these books do convince from time to time, but i suspect that it would be unusual for any one book to change someone’s mind any more than a republican is likely to convince a democrat to switch parties in a single conversation. such things happen, but probably only over time and in accordance with life experiences.