[sauron]

Dawkins has long since abandoned reason and resorted to petty, nasty diatribes in making his arguments against Christianity.

I shouldn't say "arguments"--they read much more like pronouncements, and he continues to go virtually unquestioned in England as an "authority" who really can't answer something as simple as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (Dawkins cannot account for why the universe is here. Pretty fundamental, dontchathink?)

Dawkins enjoys this popularity over there because the Church of England has long since abandoned any semblance of Christianity--for those of you who bother to stay informed on subjects like this, you realize what I mean. There is virtually no one over there to debate with him. The press fawns all over him, and he's treated like a rock star.

I encourage all Christians to read (at least) the table of contents of his latest book. It's funny, too, that in the end, his own arguments in it rely upon nothing more than his own personal distaste for submission to a moral Creator. It's quite a letdown, really, as I had expected some "proof" rather than yet another pronouncement from Dawkins.

I found Dawkins' arguments to be self-refuting and contradictory, e.g., he argues (see prior post):

"Everyone knows by common sense that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is moral. You don't need a holy book to tell you that."

Which we contrast with another of his own statements:

"How do I know what is moral? I don't on the whole."

Dawkins should read some C.S. Lewis, particularly Mere Christianity, where Lewis brilliantly explains how everyone--aborigines, cultured modern Europeans, ancient civilized Chinese--divergent, varied cultures throughout time, history, and geographic region, understood the difference between Right and Wrong.

Morality is programmed into us. We are imprinted with it within us. And the source of that morality is eternal. We were made in His image.

Socrates even argued for its existence--sensing that it was real. He referred to it as the "inner oracle," which guides our decisions. He argued forcefully for its existence.

Sauron

[UndauntedR]

Dawkins cannot account for why the universe is here. Pretty fundamental, dontchathink?

Of course he can't... and won't. Dawkins is a scientist and, as a scientist, doesn't make up answers to unanswered questions. He wouldn't disagree with you. He would tell you to your face that he doesn't know... but that "we're working on it". Religion claims they do know. Religion has claimed very many things in the past, but has once again retreated to the gaps in current knowledge of which, "why the universe is here" is currently one.

I found Dawkins' arguments to be self-refuting and contradictory

He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral. In the second statement, he's simply acknowledging that not all moral questions can be answered by that single rule and must be considered in situational contexts. He denounces moral absolutes and acknowledges that morals themselves (which are a product of what he calls the evolution of memes, if you care to read his books) can change over time and between cultures and species. On the whole... he doesn't believe there is one set of morals handed down from a personal god. He does accept that compassion is ingrained in the human condition (via evolution) which leads to the golden rule.