Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006:
TIME: “Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?”
DAWKINS: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
See, this forum; A Mission to Convert (Dawkin's "God Delusion").
David Quinn & Richard Dawkins in an interview with Ryan Tubridy on the Ryan Tubridy Show: The main subject of contention was Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.
From the transcript:
Tubridy: “. . . Let’s just talk about the word if you don’t mind, the word delusion, so put it into context. Why did you pick that word?”
Dawkins: “Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.”
The very title of Dawkins’ latest book is as clear a demonstration as one would want that Dawkins deems religious people (most particularly Christians) to be delusional, or worse (misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and capriciously malevolent), and the book’s title likewise makes it manifest that the existence of a god is what he considers them to be delusional about.
And Professor Dawkins grounds his reasoning in Science.
Now, what is the expiration date on your memory? When will you again not remember that Dawkins has said, “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”?
Next week?
Tomorrow?
“Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.”
So what? All literature scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages. It’s superiority is the reason why the KJV came in time to be accepted over its many competitors. McGrath does also predict the demise of the KJV translation, saying that when a translation requires a translation (which the KJV is coming to), then it’s time for a new translation of the original.
“What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24).”
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
“That’s why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel”
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
“I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.
Again begging for the last word. Oh, the humanity of it all! Surely you can survive the stress and trauma of such a wicked accusation (not the accomplishment – simply the accusation). Very well. For the sake of all suffering humanity, you may have the last word.
I think you have comprehension issues. The question asked was "if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion", and his answer was "no." Dr. Collins, who is a believer, said pretty much the same thing.
Dawkins argues philosophically against the probability of God's existence, and never states with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just that the l;likelihood, logically, seems small that he does.
In the other example Dawkins states "I think God is a similar delusion.” (my emphasis). That is an opinion not science. Show me where Dawkins uses scientific proof that God doesn't exist.
Clearly, Dawkins never did. Nor does he assert that God is a delusion based on any scienctific proof.
If you (or the NIV) wish to substitute “only” for “but,” then you have to explain the deletion of “not.” It’s a translation thing.
Your comprehension is obviously an issue. But let's see what the original language says (I hope you have Greek fonts):
ουκ [not was] απεσταλην [I sent] ει μη [except] εις [to] τα [the] προβατα [sheep] τα [the] απολωλοτα [lost] οικου [house of] ισραηλ [Israel]
IOW, he was sent to no one else except the sheep to the lost hosue of Israel. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to the Gentiles, not to you or me. To the Jewish people who were dispersed from the northern Kingdom of Israel. Another YHAOS misconception bites the dust.
So when you deny that the OT refers forward to the NT, you mean it doesn’t refer forward only when it fits your argument?
Give me an example and I will show you that the only way the OT points towards the NT is backwards, after the fact, through the NT.
Again begging for the last word.
Me begging for the last word? LOL! Never. Please continue, by all means!