To be an atheist is all the rage these days. Or at least that’s what you’d gather by a selective viewing of media shows. Since September 11, 2001, a new batch of particularly aggressive and media-savvy atheists have cropped up in popular culture. Their books are selling well. In fact, some of them have stayed pretty long on the NYT best-seller list.
So recently I decided to read three of those books.
The first one I read was The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a very well known biologist and advocate of naturalistic science (the idea that science must be wedded to a worldview that holds that the physical world is all that exists.). He’s an Oxford fellow, and we all know that those who speak with a British accent and hail from Oxford are darn smart and therefore should be listened to, so I was anxious to see what all the hubbub was all about.
Dawkins’ project in the book is to convince us that religion is not only irrational, but immoral and bad for society.
The first two chapters of his book deal with some preliminary considerations (Did Einstein believe in God? No, when he said we would “know the mind of God” in the future, or “God does not play dice” he was using the word “God” in a very poetic, metaphorical sense.) and terminology. The main parts of his book, though, are chapters 3 and 4. In chapter 3 he engages in “deck clearing.” He takes a look at the arguments traditionally raised for God’s existence and finds them seriously wanting. Chapter 4 is the lynchpin of his book. In that chapter, he advances a positive intellectual case for atheism; that is, he advances an argument *for* atheism. After all, the title of that chapter is “Why there almost certainly is no god.” Bold title.
After that, he has to do damage control. Religion has traditionally served as the root of many important things (like morality, wonder, happiness, etc), and Dawkins now has to explain how those things can exist in the absence of religion. In Chapter 5 he tackles the widespread existence of religion itself: if it’s all just a sham, then why is religion so prevalent all over the world? Chapters 6 and 7 deal with morality; he advances an evolutionary explanation of morality and explains how we do not get our morality from the Bible. Chapter 8 details the damage religion has done to society, while he takes on the subject of a religious upbringing in chapter 9. He ends up saying that a religious education is “child abuse.” I am not exaggerating.
He ends the book in chapter 10 by claiming that a proper wonder of the physical world can fill the inspiration gap left by religion.
So that’s his project. What do I think?
I was very disappointed. After reading his book, I find Dawkins is hard to take seriously.
There are many things I could focus on. For example, I could focus on how his evolutionary account of morality is no “account” at all. The “morality” he ends up with is not morality but something completely different: a by-product of our evolutionary past. He only explains how we “behave” in a way that we call “moral.” This is a far cry from real morality. Morality is a deeply true feature of reality that we must submit to in our behavior. It prescribes our actions and attitudes. Reducing it to behavior that our genes have programmed into us is not morality, for it guts morality of things like obligation. Anyway…
Since chapters 3 and 4 are the main parts of his book, I’m going to focus my comments on those places. If he fails in those chapters, the rest of his book is a bust. That is, if he doesn’t dispatch with the arguments for theism and if he doesn’t succeed in convincing us that atheism is a rational position to hold, then he hasn’t “cleared the deck” for an atheistic understanding of reality in all the other key places. Religion is still the king of the hill.
As I mentioned earlier, in chapter 3 he takes on what he says are the main arguments for the existence of God. However, he ends up attacking several conveniently erected straw men instead. I’m a philosophy student. I’ve trafficked in that area for 10 years now. I deal with these things, and I didn’t recognize many of the arguments he addressed. He didn’t even acknowledge the best arguments; he acted like they didn’t exist. Where was the Kalam Cosmological argument? Where was the Moral argument? Where was the Argument from Consciousness?
Nowhere to be found.
He only interacted with one major Christian philosopher (Richard Swinburne), and he only interacted with him limitedly. He quoted him out of context and therefore set up yet another caricature. He pretended all the others (William Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Albert Mohler, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Paul Moser, etc, etc, etc) simply do not exist. When he did quote a Christian, most often it was either from one of his angry detractors (who send him letters), the “men on the street” who call him when he’s on the radio, or unsophisticated preachers and priests.
Alvin Plantinga--he'll kick your a**
The arguments he did address were weak. He made them even weaker by making them into straw men. These are arguments that very learned men spent their lives expounding, defending, attacking, and thinking over. Mostly, Dawkins merely summarized them in a few lines, no more than a paragraph, then dispatched them in a few lines.
Let me give two examples. One “argument” he dispatches with is the “argument from beauty.” He summarizes it like this: “I have given up counting the number of times I receive the more or less truculent challenge: ‘How do you account for Shakespeare, then?’ The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further. But the logic behind it is never spelled out… Obviously… Shakespeare’s sonnets (are sublime). They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn’t. They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Shakespeare. (p. 86)”
That’s it. No premised-out argument, no attempt at charitability. This might do for a small blog; but a popular-level book that is purporting to come from a sharp, keen mind? He must be more responsible.
William Alston
There actually have been attempts to spell it out. Even if there weren’t, it wouldn’t be difficult for Dawkins to think it through. The argument, in its bare form, goes like this:
- There are autonomously aesthetic objects (Shakespeare, for instance, or Beethoven’s music, or the smell of a rose, etc). Defining “autonomous”: There are objects with aesthetic properties that do not depend upon subjective experiences… they are real objective aesthetic properties. These objects have aesthetic properties no matter how people respond/whether or not people recognize these properties… NOT: beauty is in the eye of the beholder… BUT: the object ITSELF IS beautiful, no matter who views/sees it.
- There must be some explanation for these aao’s.
- The explanation for the existence of aao’s is either natural or non-natural.
- If the explanation for the existence of aao’s is natural, it can be given in terms of the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, psychology…laws of nature)
- The existence of aao’s cannot be given in terms of the natural sciences.
- The explanation for the existence of aao’s must be non-natural
You can continue to carry the argument out in a way that leads to a supernatural/God explanation being the best explanation.
Now, that’s a world of difference from Dawkins’ caricature. For starters, the thrust of this argument is that beauty is an objective property (like morality, consciousness, etc) that calls for an explanation. Some explanations are better than others. The explanation theism gives is much better than the one naturalism (atheism) gives. That’s much different from asking “what accounts for Shakespeare” and it’s much different from snarking that “Shakespeare is sublime if God exists and sublime if he isn’t.” Yes, but there still needs to be an explanation…Dawkins is changing the subject.
Even if you don’t think the argument is successful ultimately, the point is that it’s much better than what Dawkins gave.
Secondly, he gives what he calls the “argument from Scripture.” The title he gives the argument is bad, for starters: it leads the reader to believe that the argument’s thrust is derived merely from something being written in the Bible (like those who say, “It’s in the Bible, God said it, and that’s that.”)…which is a straw man…but anyway.
First, he only gives five pages to a subject that people have written VOLUMES on…and most of Dawkins’ treatment is ridicule and fluff, not actually a précis.
Secondly, in this section, he deals with two purported “contradictions” in the Bible, and there is no attempt to even mention some of those who have answered those challenges. People have written answers to these “contradictions” for centuries, and for Dawkins to pretend they don’t exist is irresponsible at best, dishonest at worst.
Third, he says, “Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus’ life. All were copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers generations’ (see Chapter 5) by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas. (p. 93)”
That’s it. No attempt to let SCHOLARS who have thought otherwise have a say. In fact, he gives the impression that all “scholars” agree with his assessment.
This is just bad.
Anytime someone does this with the arguments against his case and won’t address the most powerful arguments against him, its a major red flag. I had trouble trusting Dawkins on anything after reading this sham.
On to chapter four. In this chapter, he gives a positive argument for the NON-existence of God. One big problem with this chapter is that he only gives ONE argument, and he pretends like it’s a “silver bullet.” He pretends that it’s a knock-down argument against theism that can’t be defeated. That should tip you off: anytime someone only has ONE argument for his case, he’s hurtin’. If you do that, it had better be a pretttttttty doggone good argument.
So that I don’t already make this post longer than it is, go here for a treatment of God Delusion chapter 4 (The author also has some good comments on chapter 3.). Or, if you prefer a more concise analysis, see my post linking to William Lane Craig’s comments here.
Another thing about chapter four: He derides those who make metaphysical (as opposed to scientific) claims and speculations, but he makes metaphysical claims and speculations of his own… see, for example, his talk of the “multiverse” on page 145, which has absolutely zero empirical evidence confirming it.
All this should tell you that the rest of his book is highly suspect.
In conclusion, he promises big things, but never comes through. He relies heavily on caricature, ridicule, name calling, and loaded language, but has little substance. There are better defenses of atheism out there.
22 responses so far ↓
jrshipley // December 8, 2008 at 8:53 am
There are countless books written for popular audiences from a religious perspective that give short shrift to counter-arguments. In fact, most Christian books give absolutely no attention to objections that Christianity is involved in moral absurdities and repugnancies (e.g., vicarious atonement through human sacrifice). To be sure, Dawkins has written his book for a popular audience and does not, for instance, go into the intricacies of Plantinga’s modal ontological argument, which would not be accessible anyway to someone without philosophical or logical background. I think it’s a bit much to suggest intellectual dishonesty simply because he’s written a popular book with popularized versions of arguments. He’s done far more than the typical popular book on religion does.
Furthermore, your dismissal of his position on morality is hasty. You take for granted that moral facts are supernatural, thereby begging the question. Dawkins is giving a response to an argument for that position. The argument is that moral conviction is widely and deeply held, hence it must correspond to some transcendent fact. Dawkins counters that the fact that moral convictions are widely shared and deeply held has an alternative explanation in evolutionary psychology. You’ve got the dialectic completely confused and you beg the very question at hand. Furthermore, even if there are transcendent moral facts they are, as Plato showed over 2000 years ago in “Euthyphro”, independent of divine command. But then, it would be unfair for me to expect you to address the Euthyphro dilemma in a blog post that is not a scholarly publication (just as it is unfair for you to hold Dawkins to the standards of scholarly journals).
My point is not to say that you don’t raise some interesting counter-arguments. You do. But your suggestion that Dawkins is being intellectually dishonest are not reasonable. If you were looking for counterarguments to many of the popular arguments given for theism, a popular book is the place to turn and I think that’s what Dawkins has provided. If you were looking for counterarguments to Plantinga’s or Alston’s technical philosophical arguments then you ought to have turned to academic philosophy journals, however.
Susan // December 8, 2008 at 8:59 am
Being an atheist is not “all the rage” these days. More than 90% of Americans are superstitious. The vast majority of them specifically Christian (though 2/3rds of humanity are of course NOT Christian – all doomed by your loving god I’m sure).
Personally, as a loving and dedicated parent and humanitarian. Who doesn’t need carrot and stick, threat and promise to behave well to my fellow humans . . . I’m not worried. If despite being a good person I get tortured for eternity for not flattering and praising him? Then you worship evil. Me, I don’t live in such a dark universe.
But for fun, here is something I put together:
———————————–
———————————–
The Bible is the infallible word of our Lord. If you are a TRUE Christian, you follow these these commands:
Who You Should Kill
–Unruly or rebellious child. Deut 21:20-21
–Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev 20:9, Ex 21:15
–Worshipers of other gods. Deut 13:6-11
–Psychics, witches. Lev 20:27, Deut 13:6-11, Ex 22:18.
–Those who do not believe in Jesus (parable). Luke 19:27.
–Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 (Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.)
–Those who are accused by at least two people of wickedness. Deut 17:6.
–The children and babies of enemies. Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29.
–Adulterers. Lev 20:10.
–Homosexuals. Lev 20:13.
–A woman who is not a virgin when married. Deut 22:13-21.
–Those who are careless with murderous livestock. Exodus 21:29.
Who You Should Hate
–Those who eat crab or shrimp. Lev 11:10.
–Those who sacrifice an animal to God that has a blemish. Deut 17:1.
–Those who remarry the same person after divorce. Deut 24:4.
–Homosexuals. Lev 18:22.
–Those who are proud. Prov 16:5.
–A woman who wears pants. Deut 22:5.
–A man with long hair (Jesus?). 1Cor 11:14
–Those who call others fools Mat 5:22
Should we still do this stuff?
–All OT laws still apply in NT. Matt 5:17-19
———————————–
———————————–
You don’t dare to try and FILTER and pick and choose from the word of God right? You don’t pull that nambie-pampy “out of context” silliness with passages you don’t like, but then wholeheartedly accept those you DO like? That is SIN!
So either you are a TRUE Christian, and you’ll follow those loving commands from God. Or you are doomed to be tortured in hell forever! Oh Glory!
———————————
Note: This is a satire written to show what a horrific work the Bible is, please don’t actually hurt anybody! And generally “Christians” who are suprised by it . . . HAVE NOT EVEN REALLY READ THEIR OWN BOOK! Folks would kill and die in fits of rightousness over a book they don’t even KNOW?! And of course they want to pick and choose what they think the “real” word is! Many stories from the OT, and the 10 Commandments and etc — THAT is all ok, but the bats*it crazy commands? Well he is much *nicer* now apparently?! Anyways, crazy. But again, please – don’t hurt anybody!
Rich Bordner // December 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Hi JR,
Welcome! Thanks for taking the time to leave your comment. I hope you stop by again!
Now, as to what you wrote. I’m not expecting Dawkins to go into the intricacies of Plantinga, Alston, et al. I understand its a popular level book. However, its not too much to ask for him to give a fair premised-out argument from his opponents, rather than a mere paragraph length caricature. I mean, c’mon, I didn’t even recognize some arguments he was touting.
Also, while he doesn’t need to write something with the sophistication of *God, Freedom, and Evil* (one of Plantinga’s books), he does at least need to acknowledge that Alston, Moreland, et al exist. It is intellectually irresponsible to just interact with the average angry letter writer and the misinformed priest or preacher when one struts around saying that all of Christianity (religion, in fact) is a sham. What’s more, he pretends that that is the best Christianity has to offer! If you’re gonna interact just with a man-on-the-street argument, fine, but acknowledge it and, when you’ve defeated it, just claim that *that particular argument/arguer* is a sham, not the whole enterprise.
This is exactly what I’ve done in my response to Susan–I recognize that there are many more sophisticated defenses of atheism out there (or more accurately, attacks on theism)…your comment represents one, perhaps.
The fact that its a popular level book means that its all the more important for him to give charity. Instead, all he gives is loaded language and straw men. This is the material of weenie small time bloggers, not Oxford dons who purport to enlighten the masses.
Thirdly, I know that many Christians do much the same as Dawkins. I wasn’t claiming otherwise. I mean, who hasn’t heard this one: “Evolution! Ha! Anyone with a brain can see design in the world. I mean, haven’t you seen the way a banana is curved to fit the hand? Design, right there!” Christians who espouse this must do better; I acknowledge that fully.
I know Christians make arguments like that. But that doesn’t excuse Dawkins. A little more charity and a little less caricature is not too much to ask.
Next, I never claimed that morality is supernatural. I happen to think that, yes, but I didn’t make that argument in my post on Dawkins. Rather, I said that morality is a deeply true feature of reality that we must submit to in our behavior. I argued that it is prescriptive. It has a binding oughtness to it. Theists and non-theists alike can see this if they pause to think of it. This is what morality is like. All worldviews must either explain how that can be, they must explain it away, or they must change it to something else. What Dawkins did is the third option, but this is not giving an account of morality. It’s just giving an account of behavior we happen to call “moral.”
That’s my argument, but it is a far cry from begging the question that moral facts are supernatural.
Lastly, on Euthyphro, see one (or more!) of the following links for excellent theistic treatments of the Euthyphro dilemma:
1
2
3
Rich Bordner // December 8, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Susan,
Thank you as well for commenting.
First, I think you misunderstood my first line. After I said being an atheist “is all the rage” I said “at least that’s what you’d think by a selective viewing of the media.” That second sentence makes a difference–my point was that a small batch of very evangelical atheists are utilizing the media to try to make theistic belief passe’ and unthinkable. Their books have sold well, and they are all over the media.
I looked up some of the passages you cite, and I have no clue how you can make them out to be saying “who you should kill” or “who you should hate.”
Here are a few examples:
Luke 19:27–The *Parable* of the ten talents. Jesus is *telling a story* about servants who were given a certain amount of money to invest. Two of the servants invest the money and get a return, the last one kept the money laid away.
In v26, Jesus gives the overall point. He quotes the king in the story: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. v27–But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them over here and kill them in front of me.”
–I ask: where in that do you get that the Bible commands Christians to “kill those who do not believe in Jesus”?
Second example: Leviticus 26:29 Read the whole passage. It is about the punishment Israel will receive if they break the covenant and disobey God.
v27: “If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places…”
–I ask: where in the world do you get that God is commanding Christians to kill children and babies of enemies?
Third example: 1 Cor 11:14
In a section on appropriateness in worship, Paul says, “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”
Sounds to me like the same thing as saying in *our culture* “guys, don’t show up to church in a dress, ok? Its appropriate for women, but not for you.”
Where did you get from that that the Bible commands Christians to “hate men with long hair?”
Susan, did you even read these verses? I’m not going to bother going through every one, because its not worth it.
Afterall, by the looks of it, it appears as if you didn’t give a second thought to this list at all. Why should I?
It looks like you merely copied them from some crack-pot atheist website. The danger of making lists like this is that some people will actually look up the passages and call your bluff. If you want me to take you seriously, you have to do better.
And your attempt to try to make context reading “namby-pamby” is…well, I don’t know what to call it, but its definitely not persuasive. Susan, all you are doing is name calling and using loaded language without argument, which is the very same thing the “New Atheists” do themselves.
Reading things in context is something we do naturally all the time outside the Bible, so why do you cry foul when we try to do it with the Bible?
Let me illustrate. Lets say I get a letter in my email from a girl I just took out on a date. It begins:
“Rich, I had fun last night. You are cute and funny.”
Pretty good, eh? Not so much. The letter continues:
“Funny looking, that is. You are only cute in the sense that my pug is cute. I had fun because it was such a riot laughing…at you. Your breath smells like garbage and you have enough backhair to make a pine forest. Please stay away from me, you dweeby, socially-retarded stinko.”
Read *out of context*, the first line looks promising, but read *in context* it has a totally different meaning. We do this all the time, and for good reason–meaning in the written and spoken word flows from whole to parts. You can’t just rip a verse out of context and try to make it look like whatever. You especially can’t get away with not even quoting the verse, but just announcing the reference in a list and slapping some title on it like “who you should kill.”
Are you kidding me?
And your last jab about “please don’t hurt anybody” is frankly childish and patronizing. If you want to discuss contrary views on this blog, you are welcome to. Bring the heat. But don’t talk down to me. That will get you banned.
Susan, the confidence and, yes, arrogance you display is not warranted by the strength of your arguments.
Neil // December 9, 2008 at 3:15 am
For starters, that point demonstrates that the basic facts are misunderstood. Jesus is fully God and fully man and went to the cross willingly.
Neil // December 9, 2008 at 3:31 am
Whatever the properties of the universe and eternity are, we all live in them.
You miss a foundational element of Christianity: It is not a carrot and a stick by any stretch. You are a sinner — and so am I, and so is everyone else — so there is nothing you can do on your own to win God over. Nothing. If you want a pardon for your sins then you need Jesus.
Hell isn’t torture, it is punishment. Severe punishment, to be sure, but commensurate with the crimes it is addressing.
Dealing with Balderdash « The Pugnacious Irishman // December 9, 2008 at 7:12 am
[...] Dealing with Balderdash Yesterday I wrote a post on Richard Dawkins and one of his latest books titled The God Delusion. [...]
jrshipley // December 9, 2008 at 7:33 am
Rich, I suppose that I’m less surprised than you to find that Dawkins is more of a polemicist than a philosopher. In your response you write that “It is intellectually responsible to just interact with the average angry letter writer and the misinformed priest or preacher. What’s more, he pretends that that is the best Christianity has to offer!” I don’t think that what you say in the first sentence is intellectually dishonest. If bad arguments are widely held reasons then it is a perfectly respectable thing for a polemicist to knock them down. As for the second sentence, this is (if true) somewhat irresponsible. However, I would hasten to distinguish the best that Christianity has to offer by way of philosophical argument from the best that generic theism has to offer. The distinction between so-called revealed religion and natural religion dates to Aquinas, who despaired that his Five Ways supported theism in general but did nothing to support Christianity over Islam (for instance). Plantinga, if I recall correctly, offers arguments for theism but none whatsoever for Christianity in particular other than a defense of epistemic conservatism for the beliefs one inherits from one’s parents. That is, he attempts to defend his epistemic right to go on believing the dogmas he was taught but offers no positive reasons for unbelievers. (I’m going off memory of an article I read years ago, so forgive me if I’ve got something incorrect about Plantinga’s view).
So, in short, I think Dawkins is perfectly within his rights to author polemics against popularly held reasons for religious belief, I think that a case can be made that he gives philosophical arguments for generic theism a bit of short shrift, but I’m not at all convinced that he gives short shrift to arguments for Christianity in particular.
I appreciate the links on Euthyphro and I will take a look, but unfortunately I cannot afford the time to engage a detailed discussion so this will be my last post. Here are short responses:
(1) This is a long and detailed argument that takes the traditional position that goodness is part of Gods character. In this response to the Euthyphro dilemma God’s being is divided into will and character. The commands come from the will and the reasons come from the character. I find myself in complete agreement with Martin that this simply puts the question to why God’s character is good, again raising an external standard. Copan cleverly responds to this with a version of the ancient Third Man argument. However, this doesn’t resolve the problem with divine command theory. Rather, it generalizes it to a problem for moral realism in general. But that’s Martin’s point! Theism gains no advantage over generic moral realism.
(2) I don’t think that the argument given responds directly to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It’s a version of the ontological argument that if successful shows that God is necessarily good, not that goodness is not a standard independent of God.
(3) I merely skimmed this one. I didn’t find anything that directly addressed the ED. I find these debates between atheists and theists over who’s been more cruel throughout history a bit tiresome. Hitler perhaps was a bit influenced by Nietzsche’s thought (if so, he misunderstood Nietzsche but that would be a digression). He was certainly also influenced by the fascist political philosopher Carl Schmidt, who was a Catholic. Furthermore, surely many of the German people were influenced by Christian antisemitism. Said Martin Luther: “Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.” On this we can likely agree, however, Dawkins goes too far in identifying religion as the root of all evil. That seems to me to be a rather hasty generalization: take Stalinism as a counterexample. Religion is only the root of some evil. The Inquisition burned heretics at the stake in the public square. They called it the “acts of faith” and the Church considered itself to be opening the gates of hell for the people to have a look at the wages of doubt or disobedience of Church authority, which the Church took to be derived from God’s divine commands. I find the notion of hell morally repugnant in the first place, and make no different judgment regarding the Inquisitors and their mythical boss. To be sure, other evil has its root in greed or lust for power. I think that very little evil has its root in simple non-belief, however.
jrshipley // December 9, 2008 at 7:47 am
Neil’s post hits the nail on the head. A foundational element of Christianity is that eternal torture/severe punishment is commensurate with the ordinary transgressions that make us all sinners. For instance, we sometimes lie. It is a foundational element of Christianity that commensurate punishment for this is eternal suffering. Furthermore, Christians believe that there is nothing except vicarious atonement through human sacrifice that can save us through hell.
Of course, unlike Neil I find this all terrifically bizarre and morally repugnant. Just take the notion of vicarious atonement by itself. Would any judge allow me to volunteer to serve some one else’s prison sentence? Of course not. In any context except religion we would find the idea that justice is served by an innocent person taking the punishment for someone else’s crimes ridiculous. It’s only weekly brainwashing, in most cases beginning in childhood, that gets anyone to accept this fundamental Christian doctrine.
Rich Bordner // December 9, 2008 at 8:08 am
JR,
I meant “intellectually irresponsible.” That was a typo on my part.
Of course Dawkins is within his rights to attack popular arguments, but if he’s gonna do that then his level of confidence is certainly unwarranted. I mean, check out the title of chapter 4: “Why there almost certainly is no god.” That’s a tall order for a book that mostly deals with very quick comments about man-on-the-street stuff.
I’m not surprised at all at Dawkins…but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to take him to task for sloppy thinking, especially when he tries to cull believers into non-belief.
On your comments on the articles (Thanks for taking a look at them, btw….I know you must be busy):
Copan notes that explanation must stop somewhere. The theist stops with God, the non-theist stops with nature, calling morality a “brute fact.” Just on that note, God is more a fitting stopping point than nature. Have you taken a look at nature lately? Mackie was right–moral properties are “queer” in a naturalist universe. They don’t fit at all. This is one advantage theism has over atheism.
on 2 and 3–hmmm, I’m gonna have to go back and check those out….I’m thinking that maybe I didn’t link the right URLs.
“A foundational element of Christianity is that eternal torture/severe punishment is commensurate with the ordinary transgressions that make us all sinners.”
–Sin is no small thing. We typically brush most of our sins away, thinking they are no big deal (“ordinary”), but we forget that they are tantamount to rebellion against the Creator of the Universe. What we do harms other people and ourselves, God’s own creation. He doesn’t take that lying down. The fact that we think our sins “ordinary” shows that we have a rather small view of God and an overly-nice view of ourselves.
” Furthermore, Christians believe that there is nothing except vicarious atonement through human sacrifice that can save us through hell.”
–Again, this misunderstands the nature of the cross.
At any rate, thanks for the exchange.
Rich Bordner // December 9, 2008 at 8:15 am
PS–as far as your distinction b.w Christianity and Theism in general, the arguments for the historical resurrection of Jesus are pretty strong, IMO, as well as an analysis of the Bible as an accurate historical collection. Check out some of Craig’s stuff for things like this.
Neil // December 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
You are kidding, right? You think that churches and parents brainwash kids with the concept of vicarious atonement? I only wish they tried! Far too many Christians (authentic and not) are clueless about the Bible and still say that “good” people go to Heaven.
The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church. And why isn’t it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and such?
I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still don’t buy the macro-evolution lie. No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!
Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing. But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.
It is amazing and sad the things people invent to avoid the reality that they will be accountable for their lives. Their pride keeps them from accepting a free pardon in Christ.
Skeptics Answered: Evil=Evidence *for* God « The Pugnacious Irishman // February 18, 2009 at 11:34 pm
[...] Book Review: The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins [...]
Skeptics Answered: no Evidence for God? « The Pugnacious Irishman // February 26, 2009 at 10:44 pm
[...] The way she starts out reminds me of ye old artful dodger Richard Dawkins. [...]
Jason Bogdan // March 6, 2009 at 8:59 am
@Neil
fully God = 100%
fully man = 100%
100% + 100% = 200% ???
For starters: Get your maths right, mate.
Trinity (3 = 1) is just another of those logical impossibilities that betray twisted minds.
Your basic facts just do not add up!
Jason Bogdan // March 6, 2009 at 9:45 am
As I said, twisted minds. Indeed, “not by any stretch”. It is quite blatant that heaven = carrot and hell = stick.
Neil // March 6, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Gee, Jason, you really showed me. You are an amazing guy. No one has addressed those in 2,000 years of Christianity. Why didn’t we ever think to ask those questions?
Rich Bordner // March 6, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Jason,
Thank you for adding your thoughts. However, while I have approved your comments, I have edited them a bit.
I kept the critique of Neil’s claims but removed your personal attacks.
Basically, I cannot allow you to take a personal vendetta against Neil over to my blog. You might not agree with what he says or does, but he is my friend, and I cannot allow you to make those personal attacks on my watch (Actually, I can’t allow it for anyone, friend or no). You are welcome to add your thoughts and enter in to the debate vigorously, but when you cross the line like that, I will edit your words (or totally remove the comment) every time.
Jason Bogdan // March 7, 2009 at 12:46 am
Hi Rich,
I see your point. But why do you allow Neil to personally attack every single evolutionary biologist by falsely calling them liars (the makro-evolution lie”)?
Since Neil has not been trained as a biologist and has relatively little knowledge on science in general, he is not qualified to criticize the theory of evolution. He is the proverbial cave-man challenging Einstein on relativity.
The Devil is in the Details: Nightline Faceoff on Satan « The Pugnacious Irishman // March 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
[...] The God Delusion Book Review [...]
Craig/Hitchens Post-Debate Analysis « The Pugnacious Irishman // April 5, 2009 at 7:34 pm
[...] The God Delusion book review [...]
Craig/Hitchens Debate: an Atheist’s Thoughts « The Pugnacious Irishman // May 4, 2009 at 10:01 pm
[...] The God Delusion book review [...]