What's wrong with Dawkins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wanstronian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mathematician said:
Because if he wasw a limited object in the universe, whatever else he was he wouldn’t be God. That the creator can’t be part of his creation is an elementary exercise in logic which even an atheist ought to be able to grasp.
Click to expand...
Unless everything is god.
 
wanstronian said:
Because God is not a limited object in the universe.
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
It is a matter of the definition of God – in other words, it is an analytical truth. What are we asking when we ask if God exists? We are asking if there is some being that is a necessary truth, upon which all other contingent truths are based.

The statement “God is not a limited object in the universe” is part of an analytical definition of God; you cannot challenge it, although you can claim that no such Being exists. It is, trivially, true - trivially, because it is just how the disputant is claiming to define a word.
Click to expand...
 
*Because if he wasw a limited object in the universe, whatever else he was he wouldn’t be God. That the creator can’t be part of his creation is an elementary exercise in logic which even an atheist ought to be able to grasp. *

You don’t believe in the Incarnation?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Because if he wasw a limited object in the universe, whatever else he was he wouldn’t be God. That the creator can’t be part of his creation is an elementary exercise in logic which even an atheist ought to be able to grasp. *

You don’t believe in the Incarnation?
Click to expand...
How does the incarnation change what I said? God may temporarily assumed a body which was visible to human eyes, but he still wasn’t (and isn’t) limited in space and time.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
You don’t believe in the Incarnation?
Click to expand...
Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He had divine nature and human nature. The incarnation is a mystery in the sense that we can’t understand how this can occur. If ‘God’ had incarnated who was Jesus talking to when he prayed and referred to His father?

No, God is not and cannot be a limited object in His entirety (but that doesn’t mean either that a piece of Him incarnated either - it is beyond our understanding).

Further, my understanding is that if God (in His ‘entirety’) ever incarnated then the universe would collapse as this would mean a withdrawal of Him from everything else…
 
wanstronian said:
If, however, your “God” is the being capable of all that I described in my post, don’t go stating that he’s simple. All that suggests is that you are.
Click to expand...
There really is no need to become rude and abusive.

St Thomas Aquinas wrote a great deal more than his work on the five ‘proofs’. He is worth reading as a great philosopher and theologian. An online source is: aquinasonline.com/

I would still recommend Davies book however as Aquinas said so much that is useful to get an overview first, as well as an understanding of the context in which he worked. I have my copy from our university library.

I’m not expecting or asking you to be convinced of anything, I’m merely suggesting that you read and think about the whole argument before dismissing it out of hand as Dawkin’s does.

We are creatures, we have finite experience and a finite ability to think and understand. To believe that nothing can be greater than us is…limiting and short sighted.
 
wanstronian said:
That’s an incredibly neat analogy that unfortunately has no place in this discussion. God is not a geometric shape. Analogies should at least be roughly analagous.
Click to expand...
I see. I can’t compare God to a geometric shape, but you have no objection to comparing Him to an orbiting teapot?

God, if He exists, is a lot more like mathematics than He is like a teapot.

OK: I’ll make the point without analogy. We are limited beings; therefore there’s a direct relation for us between complexity and ability to function in various ways. An infinite being would be able to do everything at once, in one single act.

You may not see the cogency of this argument, but you can’t show it to be irrational. You simply assume it to be because it doesn’t fit your assumptions. But your assumptions rule out the possibility of an infinite Being in the first place.

Edwin
 
wanstronian said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
I know that because that is not how God is defined in classical monotheism. If you want to debate the existence of God, it is cheating to substitute some other hypothetical being in whom you don’t believe and argue for the non-existence of that being. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by such shoddy tactics?

The infinite Being of classical theism may not exist. But that is in fact the Being we believe in. So either criticize our faith in that Being or go find someone who believes in a limited God (Mormons, maybe).

Edwin
 
wanstronian said:
All,

I haven’t been around this forum long, but I’ve seen a few disparaging references to Dawkins. Having read “The God Delusion” and found it quite a logical read (with the caveat that it fits with my fundamental view of religion, so I’m aware I’m biased), I’d like to know exactly what it is about Dawkins that people dislike (or even in some cases, like).

Is it his methods? Is it his writing style? His enthusiasm for atheism? Is there a problem with his conclusions? Is he ignoring some branch of science in his ruminations? Is it his propensity for the occasional inflammatory comment?

Or is it just that he doesn’t believe in God and you do? (if you do, that is)

I’m asking because I like to understand all aspects of an argument, not because I want to start a flame war!

Thanks
W
Click to expand...
I think Daniel Dennett, himself an atheist, offers some nuanced criticisms of Dawkins. I would recommend Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon over anything by Dawkins. Much of Dawkin’s core ideas (memes) is in that book. I have not read Dawkins so maybe I shouldn’t judge, but I think Daniel Dennett strives to be balanced and scientifically impartial. The impression I get from Dawkins is that he is prone to rhetorical flourish, imprecision and exaggeration.

I don’t think The God Delusion changed anyone’s mind. But Daniel Dennett’s book Breaking the Spell contributed to changing my mind. C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis also contributed in a different way. And I think Dawkin’s probably knew his book wouldn’t change anyone’s mind. One theory that is floated is that he wrote the book to galvanize atheists and agnostics. So I wouldn’t say there is anything wrong with Dawkins. I just think his ideas need refinement.

Learning about memetics (better explained by Dennett than Dawkins I would imagine – Dennett actually has an article on memetics in the Encyclopedia of Evolution which is a standard text for evolution scientists) and the other things I mentioned led me not only to reject my fideism and then lose my Christian faith but has also helped to refine and shape my own theism. I am now inclined to the theory of physics that identifies reality with mathematics. I’ve found that plugs metaphysical holes in my metaphysics. I also am inclined to identify this mathematics with God. At least then I won’t have to worry about doubts raised by others.
 
wanstronian said:
It seems that Dawkins won’t debate philosophers on the rationale that they will use this to gain scientific legitimacy. This is not an unreasonable stance for him to take; but it has the unfortunate side effect of*** making him seem afraid.*** Perhaps he has chosen which, for him, is the lesser of two evils.

For us prurient spectators, it is a frustrating denial, whichever side you might be on!
Click to expand...
…"making him*** seem afraid"? Why, aren’t “prurient” spectators ever really*** afraid? They “damned” well should be.(if you know what I mean)

Fear is the opposite of Faith. So… which side are you guys on again?
 
WillieWonka said:
One doesn’t have to understand anything about traditional theism to discuss the existence of God. Do you think there is*** an orbiting teapot***?
Click to expand...
Why don’t you “pour out” , then we can discuss it, shall we?😛
 
wanstronian said:
All,

I haven’t been around this forum long, but I’ve seen a few disparaging references to Dawkins. Having read “The God Delusion” and found it quite a logical read (with the caveat that it fits with my fundamental view of religion, so I’m aware I’m biased), I’d like to know exactly what it is about Dawkins that people dislike (or even in some cases, like).

Is it his methods? Is it his writing style? His enthusiasm for atheism? Is there a problem with his conclusions? Is he ignoring some branch of science in his ruminations? Is it his propensity for the occasional inflammatory comment?

Or is it just that he doesn’t believe in God and you do? (if you do, that is)

I’m asking because I like to understand all aspects of an argument, not because I want to start a flame war!

Thanks
W
Click to expand...
Simple, he places ALL his FAITH in evolution. If evolution were true, EVERYBODY would be convinced. As EVERYBODY is not convinced, and there is a deposit of scientific study out there rebutting it, Dawkins simply has another ‘god’ he believes in.
 
cassini said:
Simple, he places ALL his FAITH in evolution. If evolution were true, EVERYBODY would be convinced.
Click to expand...
Clearly not.
As EVERYBODY is not convinced, and there is a deposit of scientific study out there rebutting it
Click to expand...
Ooh, where? Can you provide a link?
, Dawkins simply has another ‘god’ he believes in.
Click to expand...
Yes - an observable, measurable, repeatable, empirical god. We call it science, and it’s rather good.
 
wanstronian said:
Clearly not. Ooh, where? Can you provide a link?Yes - an observable, measurable, repeatable, empirical god. We call it science, and it’s rather good.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s the new god, something from nothing science.
 
The title of this thread is, what’s wrong with Darwkins.

Answer**:** He is a fundamentalist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top