RE: Dawkins
January 8, 2010 at 8:35 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2010 at 8:36 am by Pippy.)
I don't think you should take his word on it.
For all the Dakwins I have read, you should try Dawkins God by Alister McGrath. It does a very good job of arguing Dawkins in his own ring, of supposed "logic and reason".
Faith is the great cop-out.
OK, says who. Dawkins, who himself is not faithful. So is it possible that he misunderstands faith? Certainly possible. So then others who are believers politely point out that it is in fact not a cop-out. That his definition of faith is incorrect. That faith has nothing to do with excuses form evaluating evidence. Faith can be, but does not have to be in ignorance of evidence. And then the New Atheists he spawned get all stirred up.
Believe me, Dawkins is clearly misunderstanding faith and religion. As a faithful person it is very obvious to me. And his arguments are all so weak, because they use his own skewed and incorrect views as definitions. He never asks a theist to help him define theology, he only gnashes and snaps at them. He demands freedom of thought only to try to deny it to others. He says his beliefs are somehow scientific, and thereby as special pleading should be taken as right, as correct. He sees a conflict between god and science that a lot of us believers do not see.
My turn. "The fact that religion may console you doesn't of course make it true. It's a moot point whether one wishes to be consoled by a falsehood."
See the fallacy? It's right there. Doesn't make it true = Falsehood... Weak.
For all the Dakwins I have read, you should try Dawkins God by Alister McGrath. It does a very good job of arguing Dawkins in his own ring, of supposed "logic and reason".
Faith is the great cop-out.
OK, says who. Dawkins, who himself is not faithful. So is it possible that he misunderstands faith? Certainly possible. So then others who are believers politely point out that it is in fact not a cop-out. That his definition of faith is incorrect. That faith has nothing to do with excuses form evaluating evidence. Faith can be, but does not have to be in ignorance of evidence. And then the New Atheists he spawned get all stirred up.
Believe me, Dawkins is clearly misunderstanding faith and religion. As a faithful person it is very obvious to me. And his arguments are all so weak, because they use his own skewed and incorrect views as definitions. He never asks a theist to help him define theology, he only gnashes and snaps at them. He demands freedom of thought only to try to deny it to others. He says his beliefs are somehow scientific, and thereby as special pleading should be taken as right, as correct. He sees a conflict between god and science that a lot of us believers do not see.
My turn. "The fact that religion may console you doesn't of course make it true. It's a moot point whether one wishes to be consoled by a falsehood."
See the fallacy? It's right there. Doesn't make it true = Falsehood... Weak.
