A Mission to Convert (Dawkin's "God Delusion")

New York Book Review ^ | January 11, 2007 | H. Allen Orr

[hocndoc]

At the risk of saying too little about so much, I do have a couple of points that I'd like to point out about this excellent review and critique of Dawkin's poor attempt at framing religion as delusional and teaching our children as abusive.

First, please note Dr. Orr's references to Dawkin's own religious (Judeo-Christian) and Victorian worldview, as well as the biologist's bias, assumptions and frank acknowledgment of a "Mission to Convert."

Second, the major weakness in all of the Creator vs. Science debates was pointed out by that same C S Lewis book that Dr. Orr cites: in Miracles, Lewis reminds us that the Creator of this Universe is Super - natural. He works outside of the Laws of Physics/Nature as we know them.

[hocndoc]

I've snipped some of the introduction, but couldn't bring myself to delete anymore of the review. Good commentary, here.

[MarineBrat]

...he argues that rearing children in a religious tradition amounts to child abuse.

There you have it my FRiends. The future of liberalism and the new spearhead of religious persecution.

[My2Cents]

Psalm 34:8 states, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." The confirmation of the validity of faith in God is found in the exercise of it. Dawkins is someone who has apparently never exercised faith, and yet he speaks about this topic as if he were an expert. There's another psalm which says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'" The only thing Dawkins proves by his "polemic" is that he is a fool, and speaks of what he does not know.

Darwinists berate "non-scientists" for even commenting on the veracity of the theory of evolution. Why should we tolerate a nonbeliever telling us that belief is absurd?

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur.

Heh heh.

[colorado tanker]

From this review, it appears Dawkins is seriously out of his element and makes a bunch of banal arguments. He seems ignorant of the history of Christian theology and doesn't engage the major apologists and philosophers

I think I'll pass on this book.

[Always Right]

Perhaps we should just inform Muslims that Richard Dawkins book attacks Islam.

[BaBaStooey]

[My2Cents]

the Creator of this Universe is Super - natural. He works outside of the Laws of Physics/Nature as we know them.

A point I'm willing to recognize, but then you have folks like Dawkins who believe that unless something can be brought into the lab and observed, it doesn't exist. A militant adherence to materialistic science as the source of all knowing and truth is a militant commitment to ignorance, at some level. C.S. Lewis also used to refer to this world and reality as the "shadowlands," that what exists at the Super-natural level is the true reality, and we touch and experience that reality as we align ourselves with it. To be blunt, when someone like Dawkins shakes his fist at the notion of God, he's living a lie.

[BipolarBob]

"The Age of Reason" all over again. History doomed to repeat itself almost in a predictable manner. Dawkins fails to answer 4 important points. Where does life come from (if not God)? The age of the universe? The orgin of the universe? How can he de-bunk creationism on the grounds that God is too complex for him to understand? That is absurd. Of course God is much more complex than he is even capable of understanding.

[UpAllNight]

--To be blunt, when someone like Dawkins shakes his fist at the notion of God, he's living a lie.--

Why?

[My2Cents]

The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way.

Dawkins actually has a pretty good gig. What other person can plumb the depths of their own dark psyche, spew their prejudice onto paper, and have it become a best seller?

[My2Cents]

If God is real, and as I pointed out earlier in quoting the Psalm, the proof of God is in the faith encounter with Him, then Dawkins' denial of God is false. If he's based his life upon a foundation of atheism, and yet God exists, then Dawkins is living a lie. If he doesn't get control of his hatred, he could end up like Nietzsche, cursing God from a padded cell.

[Jeffrey_D.]

Reminds me of an old joke.......


Science vs God:

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the 'beginning'."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well", says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God,

"Get your own dirt."

[betty boop]

In short, only complicated objects can design simpler ones; information cannot flow in the other direction, with simple objects designing complicated ones. But that means any designer God would have to be more complex —and thus even more improbable— than the universe he was supposed to explain.

This "proof" against the existence of God as creator of the universe is likewise "proof" that chemical evolution cannot be the source of complexity that we observe in the living world. For the physical-chemical laws are "simple", i.e., have very low information content; while even the simplest of living systems, bacteria, are enormously complex (i.e., have high information centent). So we can just forget about abiogenesis....

...which is actually a theory I'd have thought would be close to Dawkins' heart, as a "God substitute" -- e.g., abiogenesis moots the idea of a divine creator. Yet in his desire to bump off God, Dawkins has to bump off abiogenesis as well. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

[UpAllNight]

--If God is real, and as I pointed out earlier in quoting the Psalm, the proof of God is in the faith encounter with Him, then Dawkins' denial of God is false. If he's based his life upon a foundation of atheism, and yet God exists, then Dawkins is living a lie. If he doesn't get control of his hatred, he could end up like Nietzsche, cursing God from a padded cell.--

If, If, If, IF, IF. IF's don't make him a liar.

IF God is not real, then you are the liar?

[capitalist229]

Many people want to reserve judgement.

Too bad He won't.

BUMP

[newheart]

"Why should we tolerate a nonbeliever telling us that belief is absurd?"

We tolerate the unbeliever commenting about belief for the same reason that God has not chosen to simply end his little "experiment" with creation. Because it is not his will that any should perish. In time and under the right circumstances brought about by the Holy Spirit, even the confimred atheist like Dawkins can be brought to faith.

If, in fact, we should not tolerate the non-believer, I would be curious to know what form "in-toleration" would take.

[UpAllNight]

--Yet in his desire to bump off God, Dawkins has to bump off abiogenesis as well.--

Not in the least.

[UpAllNight]

I think the error is your logic comes from taking him out of context.