The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

Beliefnet ^ | 12/05 | by Laura Sheahen

[tbird5]

The renowned biologist talks about intelligent design, dishonest Christians, and why God is no better than an imaginary friend.

British biologist Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself defending evolution and fighting what he sees as religiously motivated attacks on science. Dr. Dawkins sat down with Beliefnet at the World Congress of Secular Humanism, where his keynote address focused on intelligent design.

You're concerned about the state of education, especially science education. If you were able to teach every person, what would you want people to believe?

I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.

Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we can’t evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I'm a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside. I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.

[Elsie]

Is every person born in Egypt and raised in an Islamic culture, or Indian in a Hindu one, similarly doomed because of his love of sin and rejection of God, if he has heard the Word of Christ and instead gone with his own training and family background?

According to the book; yes.

---

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

---

Paul addressed this also:

NIV Romans 10:11-17
 11.  As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
 12.  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
 13.  for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
 14.  How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
 15.  And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
 16.  But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"
 17.  Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

 

but......

 

NIV Romans 2:11-16
 11.  For God does not show favoritism.
 12.  All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
 13.  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
 14.  (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
 15.  since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
 16.  This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[Elsie]

I will pause before posting next time. :)

And I will read hundreds of posts before I respond to any!

NOT!!! ;^)

[Elsie]

Then of course there's the difficulty of the cases where people pray and believe with all their guts, and the person simply dies.

Bt,dt.

---

(Hint: we are ALL gonna die from something, at sometime.)

[Except them dudes alive when HE returns!]

[Balata]

Bump to read.

[shempy]

Attack somebody else, ass-wad. I was just stating an opinion and attacked no one. You and your 3 teeth and 6 IQ points can take a leap. I am a dumb-ass for agreeing with Dawkins while you are a genius who doesn't even know when to use "you're" versus "your". I suppose that isn't important when you are speaking in tongues or handling snakes. Still, it really is something your uncle-dad should have taught you instead of letting you chew on the lead based paint you peeled of the trailer walls.

[Joe 6-pack]

May I recommend CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity"? I think it would address many of your doubts and questions.

[Elsie]

I agree with everything he said in this interview.

An OPINION?

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I've read it. It's been many years ago, though.

I think Lewis himself was struck by some of the difference between his own theology on paper and the realities of real life. He's certainly portrayed that way in the movie Shadowlands.

BTW, within the next few hours I'll be sitting in a theater enjoying the big-screen version of what is now his most famous work. :-)

[Luke Skyfreeper]

LOL. With both barrels. Well-deserved, in my opinion.

[Elsie]

 

They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable^* theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible^*  church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.

 

 (^* translation: the rest of you are fools!)

 

 

You ain't alone.......

---

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Yes, the poster stated an opinion. He agrees with Dawkins, and all of his conclusions. It's an opinion.

I come to a different conclusion, but honestly I feel I have more in common with thinking atheists who may agree with Dawkins than with people who call others dumbasses simply because they stated an opinion the (rude theist) poster didn't agree with.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

At least it was stated with far more subtlety and finesse than, "So you admit your a dumbass?"

[Elsie]

I come to a different conclusion...

I am getting confused. are you agreeing with Dawkins or the one who POSTED the article?

Or should I butt out and let you guys fuss at each other? ;^)

[Lazamataz]

The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

Here. Let me correct this headline:

The Problem with God is the interview with Richard Dawkins.

[Elsie]

None can observe MY misspellings when I talk.... ;^)

[caffe]

Chill

[Joe 6-pack]

Enjoy the movie...I saw it last Friday and will be catching it again tonight.

Hopkins' portrayal in Shadowlands is very good, but it's not quite the sense I get from a synthesis of Surprised by Joy, Mere Christianity, Aboliton of Man, etc.

If Mere Christianity, was tough to reconcile you may want to try the book that Lewis cites as the primary influence in bringing him back into the fold of the faithful: GK Chesterton's Everlasting Man. Chesterton is a little more blunt than Lewis, but every bit as humorous...a tremendous intellect. Lewis's theology is one thing on paper...A book that somewhat puts it into action, and that has made a strong impression on me, has been:

The author combs through the works of Lewis and Freud and juxtaposes their text so that the contrasts in their worldviews are clearly apparent. I finished the book thinking what a bitter, meaningless life the atheist must lead, wondering why so many expend so much rage and anger against an entity they allege does not exist.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

LOL. Here's my position:

I understand a lot of the dialog at the intellectual/ reason level between athiest apologists and Christian/ theist apologists. God knows I studied it enough a few years back. Probably hundreds of hours' worth.

Faith is not an easy thing for me. Intelligent athiests, like Dawkins and others, have a lot of perfectly valid arguments for their position. They may or may not be right, but at least they usually (though not always) have intelligent, well-thought-through reasonable arguments.

Christians and other theists too often don't engage these arguments. Too often they simply respond with something like, "Yeah, well you're a dumbass!" Or they respond by quoting a bunch of Bible verses that don't actually address the intellectual issues. Well sure, if the atheist accepted the Bible, then voila! But logically speaking you can't just simply accept what you're trying to prove. That method leads to instant proof of anything you like.

> Let's assume that the writings of Reverend Moon are God's inspired word.

> Therefore, the Unification Church is the Way.

See, we proved it!

It's no mystery to me that athiests get somewhat disgusted and make statements like "any respectable theologian sees things this way" when what they so often get from people claiming to be Christians is the intellectual equivalent of "you're a dumbass" (at worst) or (more often) shoddy, ill-reasoned arguments. Not that atheists are immune from putting those forth as well, but on the whole (and with a few notable exceptions like William Lane Craig who's superb on the Christian side) they do a much better job than the theists.

There are reasons for this of course, and they generally seem reasonable from the Christian point of view. But part of it is that often Christians are subconsciously quite afraid to actually engage the arguments because of fear: deep down inside, they're very, very afraid that maybe the atheist is right. So this holds Christians back from taking an honest hard look at the evidence.

And it's not easy to do so, of course. This is a topic that you can study for years, literally, and never get to the bottom of it.

So to sum up: I'm a theist. I definitely count myself a Christian, and I'm confident God does too (assuming of course that he actually exists, lol!) -- although some dogmatic Christians would condemn me because I no longer buy into some standby doctrines like conscious eternal torment. This is my ultimate conclusion although there have definitely been times when I've been very close to being an atheist.

And as a thinking person I have far more respect for honest, thinking atheists than I do for Christians and theists who don't engage the arguments but who choose instead (whether it's couched in Christian terms or not) to simply label people who don't agree with them as "dumbasses."

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Thanks for the book recommendations!

It's entirely possible that I may well get back to serious consideration fo these issues at some point in my life. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately depending on point of view) at the present time I'm deeply into far more "practical" and immediate concerns: building a business, getting into good shape financially, and so forth.

As far as the movie is concerned, wow! I'm looking forward to seeing it. How was it? Was it as moving as the book?

It's a moving story. I'm so looking forward to seeing it!

[SupplySider]

Is every person born in Egypt and raised in an Islamic culture, or Indian in a Hindu one, similarly doomed because of his love of sin and rejection of God, if he has heard the Word of Christ and instead gone with his own training and family background?

According to the book; yes.

Thank you for posting the Bible verses. They're wonderful and I certainly wouldn't try to argue against them.

I can't see, though, how the hundreds of millions of religious people in those cultures can be dismissed as rejectors of God and lovers of sin.

They worship God in the way they know best. Every African and Asian who has read about or has been explained to about Jesus, but regularly attends his traditional place of worship instead and loves God in his own way, is actually rejecting God and loving sin? And for this, he's bound for eternal damnation?

Some of these folks may encounter an articulate and sensitive missionary who speaks the local language well, and convinces them. Others may encounter someone less skilled, with poor language abilities, and are not convinced. This decides eternal life or eternal torture?

Again, I can't imagine a God so cruel, and have to believe those verses can be taken wrongly.