Atheists and Christians, would you be willing to take the time and comment on something?

Question

I just found this Time article, which contains excerpts from a debate between Francis Collins (Christian, and a scientist) and Richard Dawkins.
It's a little long, but should be easy reading for people from both camps. Would you be willing to read it and share any comments you have?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html

Hmm, I read the whole thing and thought it was very interesting. I even read the opposition's comments without an issue.

Answer 1

Cricket, you say opposition, but you don't say which opposition.

Christians have their belief system based on their faith that the bible is true.

I base my disbelief on the bible is false. We're just going to have to wait to see who's right.

Answer 2

I find it interesting that people only talk of the two extremes on the ends of the issue, Theistic Creation and Atheistic Evolution.

The majority of Christians are neither. The majority of Christians follow the middle ground of a Theistic Evolution.

These Christians have no problem with not talking about God's role in the creation of the universe and evolution in the science classroom. This should be (and is) talked about at home, in church, and in religion classes.

Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact.

One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good.

Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang (that was proposed by a Catholic priest) or evolution or both or neither.

On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas.

As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony.

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

It went through a few pages of it, and I would say that Francis Collins objections are at the level of: I don't feel that's right/ I don't feel comfortable with this thought (e.g. altruism as a result of evolution). Which is no argument at all.
I don't agree with Dawkins that god can be disproven. As you can clearly see in the argument, opinion to what exactly god is responsible for in this world is not even agreed on by Christians (did god create humans, did he create evolution). How can you disprove what is not even defined? Though on the whole Dawkins does better with rational argument.

Answer 4

The lack of answers on this thread is unfortunatley predictable :/

It is essentially a playing out of the arguments we see on here everyday just with two people who know a little more lol.

I tought the most telling comment from Collins came in the last conclusion when he said he needed an answer to "why". I think the concept of us not having a purpose is a very difficult one for people to comprehend, it just doesn't sit well with our egos and that is probably the cause of religion as much as anything. People "need" to know they are important and God is a good way to tell themselves this.

The essentially difference between the two in terms of explaining why things are the way they are is the same difference we bash our heads against day after day on here. Collins says "we don't know something therefore it must God" Dawkins says "we don't know something so we have more to learn".

Unfortunately i think these two ways of thinking just are not compatible. There are quite a few moments in the piece when Dawkins does not sound convincing. But when you look at these parts you realise the reason for this is that Dawkins is having to argue against stupid points.

Time asks a question, Collins literally makes something up on the spot from is imagination (something starting with something like "i could be that...") and Dawkins is forced to disprove this none fact with evidence that doesn't exist because the thing was just made up by Collins. As a result it sounds like Dawkins is reverting to insults and so 'loosing the arguement' when in fact Dawkins is quite right to point out collins is "copping-out".

I think its always going to be like this; you can't have a rational arguement with someone who can make something up on the spot and use them as "valid" reasoning, and someone with faith will always take the scientists lack of knowledge about something as proof of their own beliefs.

Answer 5

Interesting read..a bit "blah" as a debate...I've heard and read far more lively and interesting debates on this topic. However, I did find a few things particularly interesting.

First, I don't think I've ever read this many quotes in one sitting from Dawkins that weren't filled with arrogant, condescending, and insulting comments about people who believe in God. The "clowns" comment is more consistent with his usual style (and I loved the way Collins called him on it).

Even more interesting was that he conceded the possibility of God in two notable spots...particularly at the end of the interview. Yes, he rejected and continues to reject the idea of "Yahweh" as this God, but he did admit that is it possible that there may be a God who is "a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed". Frankly, I found this shocking in the extreme...in one sentence he stepped over the line from atheism to agnosticism!

Even more shocking (to me) is that I agreed with Dawkins on this point. I believe that God (and I do believe he is Yahweh) is a whole lot more complex and incomprehensible than any theology of man. I think the bible gives us a glimpse into this complexity...unfortunately, theology takes these small revelations and tries to put God in a box...people interpret what they read in the bible and try to define God using their own limited perceptions. In that respect, I don't find it at all surprising the Dawkins and people like him reject the theology of Christianity (and other world religions).

For me, the story of God's relationship with man told in the bible is 100% consistent with everything we know about the nature of the universe and mankind. Any perceived inconsistencies are just that, perceived...a result of people (theology) trying to interpret the incomprehensible nature of God through the lens of our own imperfect knowledge and perception. In a way, Dawkins is correct to suggest that God is a delusion...not because God doesn't exist but because so much of what people think and believe about him is a product of their own flawed perception and limited imagination.

Answer 6

There are 2 sides. One is faith in a biblical text and the other is scientific analysis. To even consider debate is like debating when black and white will turn gray. They won't. Ever. You cannot logically debate faith since it has no intelligent or logical parameters. That is not meant to be insulting. But you accept faith regardless of what science has to say. Science is the antithesis of faith. Whatever you believe can be dismantled with facts intelligence and logic. In one sense you cannot have faith in science, you can only have facts, and new facts are discovered daily.

Answer 7

I am a conservative Christian.

I enjoyed the article. As I read it I thought that we can't get past our own presuppositions. If we believe in God then He is outside of nature and beyond scientific discovery. But if someone doesn't believe in God they won't change no matter how improbable their own theory is.

If I'm a Christian and die wrong in my beliefs, I've lost nothing. If I'm an atheist and die wrong, I'm lost for eternity.

Answer 8

All I can say is that it is a debate that will never be won. Religious beliefs are based on nothing more than hopes and wishful thinking. You can't argue it logically and that is the whole point of a debate.

Answer 9

I like the fact that Richard Dawkins ends his debate by saying IF there is a God he is much bigger than we think he is. What a way to give Glory to God. !!!!!

Answer 10

Always remember Religion is different then believing in God & being spiritual.

Answer 11

As a Christian, all I can say is, God is laughing at all of us. We think we are so smart, we have it all figured out. We've been pushing Him out of the picture for years and will not stop until it is a crime punishable by death to even mention His name. Whoa unto all of us. "God uses the simple to confound the wise".