(January 8, 2010 at 8:35 am)Pippy Wrote: 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.
In Dawkin's defence: from his books, I can tell he's the kind of person who judges by what you present to him. Sure, this may be a very narrow viewpoint, but that's his perspective of how the world is: what can be proven, and what can't. And him being a biologist, that's no surprise. But it is a valid scientific viewpoint, and it's shared by many of said 'New Atheists'.
Perhaps 'skewed and incorrect' is a bit harsh? Admitted, I've seen a few clips where Dawkins gets a bit intrusive and overhwelming (note, this happens in interviews with atheists too), but to say "he never asks a theist" is a bit too much.
About freedom of thought, or more specifically speech, perhaps this video can prove my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
"[A] conflict between god and science" is what Lee Strobel fails to see, too. One of his books, Case For A Creator, is still fresh in my memory, where he tries to reconcile Christianity with Science, boldly stating "My road to atheism was paved by science...but, ironically, so was my later journey to God." But two things really disappointed me:
1. Despite claiming to show a balanced viewpoint, he only interviews Christians who, more often than not, talk about sciences waaay outside their area of speciality.
2. Half the book is based on the basal Watchmaker argument!
Of course, this is just one example. Perhaps the Watchmaker argument is sufficient to sustain one's faith, but that's definitely not so to me, or Dawkins for that matter. And he did say he wasn't a hardcore atheist; if someone performed a miracle in his face, he would reconsider his stand.
Maybe it's because of my recent discontent, that I currently have a strong apprehension to admit that religion is compatible with Science, but if you have a fairly reliable book/movie that does so, it would be nice if you could recommend it! Oh, and I will heed your recommendation, I will look for McGrath the next time I leave the house. =x
Oh! To be relevant to the thread. This is a paragraph he earmarked for his own funeral, I find it very impactful:
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place, but who will in fact never see the light of day, outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state! From which the vast majority has never stirred."
~We, the atheist, in creating a purpose for ourselves where there was none, are greater than God himself.~
