# So I am reading Richard Dawkins book



## Weston Stoler (Jun 12, 2011)

The "god delusion" and I must tell you I found more straw men in that book then you could find in 20 copies of the Wizard of Oz, However; that is not the point. I want to know If you have read it and if so what arguments would you use against him. He clearly knows nothing of the true God of the Bible or he would have created better arguments against him.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2011)

You aren't the first person to notice his rubbishy reasoning.....! Alvin Plantinga once said something to the effect that he would call Dawkins' arguments sophomoric, but it would be unfair to sophomores. 
There's a very good little book by David Robertson of the Free church in Scotland, The Dawkins Letters. He simply goes through _the God delusion_ chapter by chapter exposing the shallowness and faulty logic.


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> He clearly knows nothing of the true God of the Bible or he would have created better arguments against him.



For that matter he could use to read some real philosophers. He's utterly out of his depth to the point that he's an embarrassment to atheists who actually do philosophy, like Peter Hacker and William Rowe.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 12, 2011)

There is only one argument against God in his book. That would be the problem of evil. (Really, that's the only argument against God _any_ atheist I know of has ever brought to the table.)

The problem of evil, simply put, is "Why would a good God permit evil in the world if He could stop it?"

The answer is equally simple. "Because He wants to."

The driving desire behind God's actions is not the happiness of mankind. The driving desire behind God's actions is His own pleasure. Everything that He does is for His pleasure, glory, and joy. The evil in the world that He permits serves that end. That's why He permits it.

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

(I suppose some especially generous person might say that Dawkins' "God is evil" [or, as I put it, "I don't like God"] argument qualifies as an actual argument. I won't. )


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Skyler said:


> There is only one argument against God in his book.



There's a second: the improbability argument, which is based on a fallacious use of Occam's Razor.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2011)

To counter the improbability argument I'd point out that it's essentially an argument from personal incredulity and as such carries no weight. (they all love invoking "personal incredulity" as a knock-down putdown)


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

JennyG said:


> To counter the improbability argument I'd point out that it's essentially an argument from personal incredulity and as such carries no weight.



But it also assumes that God is necessarily a complex being, whereas Christian theism maintains that God is simple.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 12, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> There's a second: the improbability argument, which is based on a fallacious use of Occam's Razor.



True. So... "I don't like God," and "I don't find God very likely."


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Skyler said:


> So... "I don't like God," and "I don't find God very likely."



More of "the more complex an entity, the more unlikely it is. Designers are more complex than the things they design. The universe is incredibly complex, therefore its designer must be more complex. Therefore a designer for the universe (God) is unlikely."

The trouble, of course, is the second premise, which is completely unfounded, and the first, which is also dubious.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 12, 2011)

I find the concept of "likeliness" to be too relative to really be useful. The likeliness of the existence of something varies depending upon the amount of information and evidence available. Objectively, an entity either exists or it doesn't. There's no "likeliness" about it. The only way we can talk about whether something is "likely" is on a personal, subjective level, and it will fluctuate depending upon the information available, evidence accepted, and what you ate for dinner.


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I find the concept of "likeliness" to be too relative to really be useful.



Keep in mind that Dawkins is a scientist and that probability is a primary tool of scientific inquiry.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 12, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Keep in mind that Dawkins is a scientist and that probability is a primary tool of scientific inquiry.



Right... but he's not in Kansas any more. He stepped off "science" into "philosophy" a long time ago.


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Skyler said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that Dawkins is a scientist and that probability is a primary tool of scientific inquiry.
> ...


 
Yes, but that's the way he's thinking: he's trapped in a scientistic paradigm.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 12, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Originally Posted by Skyler
> Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh
> Keep in mind that Dawkins is a scientist and that probability is a primary tool of scientific inquiry.
> Right... but he's not in Kansas any more. He stepped off "science" into "philosophy" a long time ago.
> Yes, but that's the way he's thinking: he's trapped in a scientistic paradigm.



Actually, evolutionary biology is much more of a philosophy than a science.


----------



## Philip (Jun 12, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Actually, evolutionary biology is much more of a philosophy than a science.



Depends, are we talking about evolutionary biology as a theory about species diversification, or about its co-opting by pseudo-scientific agendas?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 12, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> He clearly knows nothing of the true God of the Bible or he would have created better arguments against him.



If he knew God, he wouldn't be arguing against the existence of Him.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jun 13, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> > He clearly knows nothing of the true God of the Bible or he would have created better arguments against him.
> ...


 
My point was not an actual knowledge of God that we do, just a head knowledge would suffice. He puts up very shotty arguments for evidence against God and thinks that all "Thinking" people should or would and will agree with him. I see a lot of arrogance that even the modern day atheist typically doesn't even have. He thinks that all people with brains should be atheists. History would disagree with him heavily. That includes modern history.

What I found disturbing is that reading the book you would think Dawkins is a philosopher. He is not though, he is a scientist. He knows nothing of how to explain the existance or the non-existence of God. And this shows in his writings.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 13, 2011)

Not only is Dawkins not a philosopher (to put it mildly); he isn't even much of a scientist, if truth be told. What kind of academic discipline is "public understanding of science"?? The chair was created by an admirer, especially to facilitate his atheist propaganda - more shame to Oxford University. It's a long time since he did any actual biology. Popular writing is his talent, and the adulation paid to his intellect is misplaced.


----------



## pianoman (Jun 13, 2011)

yes, as a chemistry major/ biology minor all of the evolution is theory. I can't tell you how many classes I sit in and wonder how can they prove this? There is no way organisms so complex can come from disorder randomly.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 13, 2011)

I haven't read Dawkins, but I do have some familiarity with the question of theodicy. I like the presuppositionalist approach to this question. Someone asks why there is evil if God is all-powerful and all-good. The problem is with the question. If God does not exist, then how can there be such a thing as evil? The only determining factor winds up being the definition of the majority. But the majority of what? Hitler's Germany defined good and evil in a certain way that was repugnant to many others, but it was the majority opinion in Germany. If it is the majority opinion of the world, then who referees that, and determines what the majority actually believe? The atheist has to borrow his definition of good and evil from a world that assumes the existence of God. So he has to use "borrowed capital" in order to attack the thing he's borrowing from. The atheist has no basis for saying that there is such a thing as evil. 

Of course, the atheist will come back with saying, "No, I'm just using a reverse presuppositional argument. I'm just saying that on your presuppositions, you can't argue for the existence of God." But we are not arguing for the existence of God, at least not in the presuppositional model. That would be like trying to prove an axiom. Everyone has starting points that they assume. The atheist assumes that his own reason is paramount. The Christian assumes the existence of God. We are rather arguing that the connection between belief and practice corresponds, whereas it does not for any other world-view. Even on non-presuppositional models, the best we can do is to offer evidence that God exists (and presuppositionalists don't have a problem arguing this way, either: there is only trouble if we say that we are _proving_ the existence of God). 

Take Buddhism as an example here. They argue that evil is natural. And yet they don't live that way. They live as though they are trying to get rid of evil. Hence a fundamental contradiction between belief and practice. Take Islam. They believe that God is a God of grace, and yet their entire religion is based on the works of the five pillars. Ultimate contradiction between belief and practice. The atheist ultimately comes logically to the point of nihilism, where nothing matters. The only logical alternative to believing in the existence of God is suicide, since nothing matters anymore (just read Ecclesiastes!). Now, all these folks would probably argue that there are lots of hypocrites in the Christian religion. Too true. However, if a Christian is living as a Christian should, empowered by the grace of God, there will be no contradiction between belief and practice.


----------



## Philip (Jun 13, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> Of course, the atheist will come back with saying, "No, I'm just using a reverse presuppositional argument. I'm just saying that on your presuppositions, you can't argue for the existence of God."



On the contrary, he'll say "Evil in the world is inconsistent with theism, even if only theism can allow for it." Arguments for the existence of God are irrelevant to the problem of evil.



greenbaggins said:


> The only logical alternative to believing in the existence of God is suicide, since nothing matters anymore



Not if you are an existentialist---just create your own meaning. Why the fixation on logic? So argues Sartre.


----------



## proregno (Jun 13, 2011)

See also the following two sources in answer to Dawkins:

The Dawkins Letters 

The letters can also be read here: The Dawkins Letters by David Robertson Online - Apologetics 315

The Greatest Hoax on Earth


----------

