I
itinerant1
Guest
Musings…
The teapot story was never that good to begin with, much less that it should be repeated, and more than once, by Dawkins. But Dawkins is a dogmatist if there ever was one. He is a militant dogmatist at that. There are two kinds of people in the world, as Chesterton observed, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. He said, “I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.”
In the matter of God and His existence, its just a matter of which dogma one adheres to: theism or atheism. The atheist, in a fit of self-contradiction, will decry the dogmatism of the religionists. But dogmatism is not, in itself, some kind of evil. Cardinal Newman once noted that “What is invidiously called dogmatism and system, in one shape or the other, in one degree or another, is necessary to the human mind.”
Extreme Darwinism is a dogma. And as Stephen J. Gould admitted, “We taught catechism.” Of course, teaching catechism has no place in science, but there is an ideology grafted onto Darwinism that makes it more than just science.
Atheism is dogmatic in the religious sense. It is grounded in a type of faith. Jacques Maritain once said, “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must vanish away, and it is itself a religious phenomenon.”
Russell’s teapot story is motivated by his prejudice against Christianity. One does not find, or, at least I did not find any compelling arguments against Christianity in Russell’s book “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Perhaps the problem was that Russell’s personal life, a rather promiscuous one, was not consistent with orthodox religious teachings, or the natural moral law. I don’t know. But it is worth noting that Russell almost despaired of the survival of the human race as he reflected on the aftermath of WW II. This is understandable with the rise of the total state during the 20th century; the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, Japan, et al., and the U.S. The U.S. frequently violated just war doctrine with its barbaric fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, for example. What impacted Russell the most, I believe, was the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This leads to my point that Russell finally concluded that the only thing that could save civilization is “Christian charity”. Russell’s conclusion shocked many people.
Russell’s teapot is not worth much time. Instead, one needs to consider the historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. Also, just in regard to the existence of God, or a supreme being, there are the classical philosophical demonstrations from ancient Greece, which were taken up by Aquinas. Russell was never able to provide an adequate refutation of these philosophical proofs. Regarding the existence of God classical philosophy has the philosophical proofs. And atheists have been unable to formulate adequate counter-arguments to the five-ways demonstration.
When all is said and done, the theists have the philosophical demonstrations, while atheists only have a cute little teapot story to pass on to future generations.
However, as Jay Leno noted, atheists are not very good at passing on their beliefs to the younger generation. There was an atheist who married a Jehovah Witness. When their child was grown he went about knocking on doors, but he did not know why.
The teapot story was never that good to begin with, much less that it should be repeated, and more than once, by Dawkins. But Dawkins is a dogmatist if there ever was one. He is a militant dogmatist at that. There are two kinds of people in the world, as Chesterton observed, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. He said, “I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.”
In the matter of God and His existence, its just a matter of which dogma one adheres to: theism or atheism. The atheist, in a fit of self-contradiction, will decry the dogmatism of the religionists. But dogmatism is not, in itself, some kind of evil. Cardinal Newman once noted that “What is invidiously called dogmatism and system, in one shape or the other, in one degree or another, is necessary to the human mind.”
Extreme Darwinism is a dogma. And as Stephen J. Gould admitted, “We taught catechism.” Of course, teaching catechism has no place in science, but there is an ideology grafted onto Darwinism that makes it more than just science.
Atheism is dogmatic in the religious sense. It is grounded in a type of faith. Jacques Maritain once said, “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must vanish away, and it is itself a religious phenomenon.”
Russell’s teapot story is motivated by his prejudice against Christianity. One does not find, or, at least I did not find any compelling arguments against Christianity in Russell’s book “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Perhaps the problem was that Russell’s personal life, a rather promiscuous one, was not consistent with orthodox religious teachings, or the natural moral law. I don’t know. But it is worth noting that Russell almost despaired of the survival of the human race as he reflected on the aftermath of WW II. This is understandable with the rise of the total state during the 20th century; the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, Japan, et al., and the U.S. The U.S. frequently violated just war doctrine with its barbaric fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, for example. What impacted Russell the most, I believe, was the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This leads to my point that Russell finally concluded that the only thing that could save civilization is “Christian charity”. Russell’s conclusion shocked many people.
Russell’s teapot is not worth much time. Instead, one needs to consider the historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. Also, just in regard to the existence of God, or a supreme being, there are the classical philosophical demonstrations from ancient Greece, which were taken up by Aquinas. Russell was never able to provide an adequate refutation of these philosophical proofs. Regarding the existence of God classical philosophy has the philosophical proofs. And atheists have been unable to formulate adequate counter-arguments to the five-ways demonstration.
When all is said and done, the theists have the philosophical demonstrations, while atheists only have a cute little teapot story to pass on to future generations.
However, as Jay Leno noted, atheists are not very good at passing on their beliefs to the younger generation. There was an atheist who married a Jehovah Witness. When their child was grown he went about knocking on doors, but he did not know why.
