About Richard Dawkins?

Question

If there are people who have read any of his books and can...with evidence (besides the Bible because that is not evidence) prove that he is wrong...then do so here...simply quoting scripture is clearly not evidence. I am NOT mocking religion here. I sincerely want to know...

The God Delusion makes some really great points, that in my opinion are irrefutable. He makes great sense and can answer questions clearly and concise, unlike my priest are the many others that I have questioned.

I am asking for all religious people to prove your point with logic not blind faith...I am asking for evidence. If you cannot provide any...maybe you should find the answer and come back and answer it then. I do not want to hear religious ramblings...I know the bible, I am a confirmed catholic...please do not preach to me...for I have been preached at enough..I want clear cut answers...if you cannot provide them with evidence.

Answer 1

Some theists would argue that because he doesn't define up front his epistemological position -- one based on observable evidence -- that he's philosophically out of bounds.

They basically argue that there are six senses, and Dawkins is only using five of them.

Answer 2

. That he could be. He has made hundreds of thousands of greenbacks with a manner this is plenty extra effective than that of Phineas Taylor Barnum, a guy who undeniably replaced into certainly staggering. Dawkins isn't yet as materially efficient as replaced into P.T. Barnum, in all possibility by way of fact he's not as clever as Mr. Barnum. Dawkins additionally isn't as ethically good as P.T.Barnum, by way of fact Dawkins peddles his BS on the college, while Mr. Barnum had the decency to limit distribution of the vast majority of his BS to extra perfect locales - alongside with traveling circuses, carnivals, and ten-cent sensationalist "museums."

Answer 3

Private and untestable "revelations" from various supposed divinities abound, continue to mulitply, are mutually contradictory and mutually exclusive and those who adhere to one and not the other do so overwhelmingly because its the religion of their parents and their culture. The OT is clearly the product not of a cosmic overmind, but of a 7th century BC understanding of reality and science. It contains nothing that pre-scientific people of the time didn't know nor any view of science that wasn't the common view of 7th century BC people. It is clearly the work of ancient men, not divine omnipotent and omniscient divinity, and all the same can be said of the Quran, the Sutras, the Gitas, the Analects, etc. People try to bend the metaphors and analogies to meet modern sensibilities, but believers have found these amorphous revelations conducive to such convenient reinterpretation inevery generation, a testimony to their vagueness, not their divine inspiration. i tend to prefer the approach of Carl Sagan in his Gilford Lectures combined in the book: Varieties of Scientific Experience. I think Sagan says all the same things without adding the "screw theists" flavor Dawkins is moved to contibute. Mind you I completely agree with Dawkins on the seriousness of theism as a plague on humanity, but I think his stridency gets him dismissed as a crank by moderate and liberal theists who otherwise have common cause in wanting to neutralize the fundamentalist nutcases before they nuke the planet in an effort to prompt the return of whatever prophet they think will come to save them from doom.

Answer 4

It is futile to ask religious people to prove their points with logic.
They have faith. Having faith means believing what you are told to believe without asking questions, requesting proof, of looking for logical arguments. You just say: god did it, it's the holy spirit at work and god moves in mysterious ways...

Answer 5

I hope The Teacher isn't really a teacher, as an educated person would know not to open there mouth at something they dont clearly understand.

Answer 6

The best reply to Dawkins I've seen is Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books. I'll just put up a link to it, since Eagleton says it much better than I (or, probably, anyone else here) possibly could.

Eagleton begins: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology...."

Answer 7

I'm an atheist and I commend Mr. Dawkins on his insightful perspective on religion.

However, I don't condone his preaching of atheism, which turns atheism into a new religion.

Answer 8

It's clear you haven't found the answers in your religion. No one finds answers in religion, God is not in a religion. Religion is our own personal answer to God. Pure religion is our response to the knowledge that he is a good and holy God. Because it is the communication between man and God, it is also used by the enemy of our souls to delude us into thinking we're good people, and that others aren't, that we've got it made, and also, for some, even that we have no need of our savior. Finding faith in God by believing in his saving grace because Jesus Christ shed his blood for the remission of sin which separates us from God is not delusion. God is real and faith proves him.

Answer 9

I think he makes good points, but I think he has a bit of bitterness to them which might turn people off.

Answer 10

Sorry this is so long. I am sharing from my own experience and don't mean to preach. I am sincerely attempting to let you see a position that works. If you do not agree then see it as my attempt to better understand myself.

Our next breath is proof that God exists. God deals with heart first, head last. There is however a logical proposition we must start with to gain proof.

I agree with you that quoting scripture is not direct evidence, except to the believer. However scripture lays out what is needed for spiritual evidence. Having said this, it is God that finds or proves himself to us and not we who prove God. You will never know how true this is until you make the contact. There is an old saw about male and female -- You chase her until she catches you. It works a little like that.

God deals honestly and logically with the humble in heart but resists the proud. If we want proof to set ourselves over God; we never see him and the people we walk and talk with will know no more than you do, if as much. That is how it works.

Since the evidence is God, we are not going to get some item of evidence we can hand out to everybody and say -- here I have proved God. God redeems us. We are the ones caught and lost in time.

Science works with evidence of God every day. All of us live and move and have our being in Him. The very motions that our body goes through every day come from the spirit that is from God. God speaks to every person every day whether they know it or not. He seals your instructions in sleep at night and is behind every hope you have ever experienced.

By the way faith is not blind -- faith is the vision, or eyes of the spirit. It operates much like intuition. When God puts his spirit with your renewed spirit you get clear cut answers. These answers satisfy heart and head and will stand in the face of death.

I understand your frustration with religious questions; but when you seek truth you must dump the position of others and your own. God only writes on a clean slate. This is not about right or wrong; logic, or best religion. This is about life and death

It is your job to prove God, if he is willing. My only job is to be ready to provide my personal testimoney to those who ask. God is quite capable of proving himself. Proof is found in personal contact. Mommy and daddy can't do it. Priest or pastor can't do it, science and study can't do it. Only God can walk us through it.

Now Jesus in person could not prove himself to everybody! Isn't that so? If we can't make our own contact, why attack people who have? If Dawkins wants to treat delusions let him get the proper degree and hang out his shingle.

Athiests and Christians need to realize that the position of demanding proof, without personal experience and the Word of God, is nothing but a subtle way of negating testimoney that God has given his saints. It places one in opposition to themselves, to Go and to anyone who might care.
----
Do you realize it is "I" (me, the guy behind the avatar, Tommy) it is "I" that am living proof that God exists? If the fact that I exist, with the testimoney of eternal life in Christ Jesus, is not enough, then it's back to the lab with Mr. Dawkins for all of us. I am just one of the proofs. That is the way it works.

It is a shame so many scientists are deep into the workings of life; not knowing or admitting they are in God's laboratory. If one insists on reducing life to logic, and the interaction of proteins, it's a wonder they can find a wife, let alone God.

Perhaps you have heard the quote -- The heart has its reasons. Not scripture but true, for the heart is the mind of a functional human spirit. The Holy Spirit renews your spirit, based on the work of Christ, and then by faith you have a functional contact.
-------
With Hebrews, quoted below, the definition of terms is:
1. God - a concept that there exists an unseen, universal and creative spiritual intelligence.
2. Rewarder -- the concept that this 'God' is capable of giving specific, understandable and knowable rewards to those who believe.
3. Belief -- The willingness to act on an idea or concept.
4. Diligence -- Persevering. Keep looking.

For a definition of belief see Wikipedia on Pragmatism. Concept is a 'mental abbreviation' as defined by Ernst Cassirer in his book Substance & Function and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Definitions of belief in Websters are misleading at best; and worthless when taken together or used to understand scripture in English. Without belief we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

Faith is a matter of heart (heart is the mind of the our spirit) but is an intuitive postulate. Both are human abilites and have nothing to do with the world's great or lesser religions.
Handle words with as much care as you would numbers.

You might enjoy the lectures of Robert Ingersoll from 130 years ago. Ingersoll is entertaining to this day; pokes fun at the clergy, for good reason, and gives out some awesome views of American politics, religion and economics from the Civil War to 1876.