The Dawkins Delusion - the book

[Charity]

I've read mostly McGrath's theological and historical works, although I did read The Dawkins Delusion. The DD is a response to Dawkin's polemics and so you really can't say McGrath is writing an ad hominem unless you paint Dawkins with the same brush. But, no where in The DD does McGrath assert that science proves God.

I've not read it, but if you are interested in McGrath's views this looks like it will be a good start for your studies:

Amazon.com: Science & Religion: An Introduction: Alister E. McGrath: Books

But, I would recommend Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God for an excellent and accessible treatment of this topic.

As far as I can tell even the people that disagree with Dawkins don't all agree on everything.....Francis Collins and Alister McGrath both disagree with Stephen Gould by concluding and by insisting that both science can and should work together and that they are not two separate realms having nothing to do with each other.....

I guess we all can agree but only up to a certain point....

 

[lunamoth]

As far as I can tell even the people that disagree with Dawkins don't all agree on everything.....Francis Collins and Alister McGrath both disagree with Stephen Gould by concluding and by insisting that both science can and should work together and that they are not two separate realms having nothing to do with each other.....

Quite right. And earlier in this thread a link was provided to an article by a scientist who is working on the science of religion (so to speak), trying to elucidate the evolutionary underpinnings of the develpment of religion. Even though an atheist, he is critical of Dawkins discussion about the science of studying religion.

Stephen Gould was not a theist, and really was not very supportive of theist views, but he was more even in his approach the question. He could be condescending about religion in some ways, but he was not polemical or antagonistic.

I guess we all can agree but only up to a certain point....

You can say that again. :yes:

 

[crystalonyx]

Some do, and I equally disagree with their conclusions.

But Alister McGrath, Ken Miller, John Polkinghorne are all scientists who write about the relationship between science and religion without overstepping. They rightly point out that science is not inconsistent with God, rather than that science proves God.

Dawkins wants to say science disproves God and Michale Behe and other ID proponents want to say it proves God. Both sides are overstepping. Both do a diservice to science and religion and simply fuel the fires of polemics that divide us and do a diservice to our students.

I prefer forthrightness to mamby-pabmy capitulation any day. I really like Dawkins.

 

[M O N S T E R]

IMO, the one book in this category that should be air-dropped around the world is Guy P. Harrison's "50 Reasons People Give For Believing In A God".

 

[Elessar]

I prefer forthrightness to mamby-pabmy capitulation any day. I really like Dawkins.

So you prefer unscientific declaration of fact where no fact is proven over the extremely scientific declaration that there is no way to know for sure?

 

[logician]

So you prefer unscientific declaration of fact where no fact is proven over the extremely scientific declaration that there is no way to know for sure?

You evidently have not read Dawkins. He well supports all of his views.

 

[challupa]

You evidently have not read Dawkins. He well supports all of his views.

When Dawkins says there is no God, isn't he referring to a personal, interfering, creator God? I got the feeling he wouldn't completely rule out a deist type God. Am I wrong?

 

[Magic Man]

When Dawkins says there is no God, isn't he referring to a personal, interfering, creator God? I got the feeling he wouldn't completely rule out a deist type God. Am I wrong?

That's true. That is the only version of "God" Dawkins really addresses.

 

[Elessar]

You evidently have not read Dawkins. He well supports all of his views.

I am referring to anyone who presumes to use science to disprove my faith, or my faith to disprove science.

 

[crystalonyx]

I am referring to anyone who presumes to use science to disprove my faith, or my faith to disprove science.

Cannot your faith stand the test of science?

 

[McBell]

Cannot your faith stand the test of science?

I would say it depends entirely upon which definition of the word faith he is using.

 

[Luminous]

I am referring to anyone who presumes to use science to disprove my faith, or my faith to disprove science.

Dawkins uses his faith and all the evidence that goes against your faith, to make his faith the most logical choice. But MY faith is BETTER.

 

[logician]

Dawkins uses his faith and all the evidence that goes against your faith, to make his faith the most logical choice. But MY faith is BETTER.

Dawkins doesn't use faith period.

 

[Luminous]

Dawkins doesn't use faith period.

: sure he doesn't.

 

[Alceste]

Well what else can he do when he's defending something he can't prove is true? The faith trump is always what religion comes down to. How can it not be? We have no concrete proof.

All my attempts at serious conversations with fundamentalists go like this:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How do you know?"
"It says so in the Bible"
"How does that make it any more true than what's written in other books?"
"Because God wrote the Bible"
"The Bible was written by men"
"God must have used them as his scribes"
"How do you know?"
"Well, that part comes down to faith."

No matter where the debates start (the age of the earth, the immorality of homosexuality, the inferiority of other faiths, my own impending damnation, you name it), that's always where they end, and that's always path they take to get there.

It's refreshing to see someone so comfortable with the fact there is no proof. My fundie friends were very awkward about it, bordering on angry at me for pointing it out.

 

[challupa]

All my attempts at serious conversations with fundamentalists go like this:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How do you know?"
"It says so in the Bible"
"How does that make it any more true than what's written in other books?"
"Because God wrote the Bible"
"The Bible was written by men"
"God must have used them as his scribes"
"How do you know?"
"Well, that part comes down to faith."

No matter where the debates start (the age of the earth, the immorality of homosexuality, the inferiority of other faiths, my own impending damnation, you name it), that's always where they end, and that's always path they take to get there.

It's refreshing to see someone so comfortable with the fact there is no proof. My fundie friends were very awkward about it, bordering on angry at me for pointing it out.

I know how that works. I'm up against that with my birth family more often than not. Bringing faith into it warps the playing field imo because no one can argue with something that can't be seen and is someone's unique perception.

 

[logician]

: sure he doesn't.

If you've ever read any of Dawkin's works on evolution, there's no faith going on here, everything is backed by evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Dawkins doesn't use faith period.

You have a lot of faith demonstrated in that statement.

If you've ever read any of Dawkin's works on evolution, there's no faith going on here, everything is backed by evidence.

We each put our faith in the evidence that presents itself to us.

 

[Charity]

You have a lot of faith demonstrated in that statement.


We each put our faith in the evidence that presents itself to us.

You are so right Patty....everyone puts faith in something whether they choose to call it "faith" or something else.......Faith in the stocks we bought but when they fail it is "bad luck" or misfortune.....

 

[Elessar]

Cannot your faith stand the test of science?

To presume to use science to disprove my faith is meaningless. Because nothing can be disproven any more than anything can be proven. There is evidence to suggest my faith is incorrect. There is evidence to suggest my faith is correct. It is up to everyone to decide, based on the evidence which they see before them, the truth. I have weighed the evidence which has been presented to me - not only scientific evidence, such as the results of experiments, but also the testimony of others to something, and my personal experience.

I admit, there are some who believe blindly. They believe without reason, merely because they have been told to. But not all people of faith are such. I examined the evidence before me, and ruled that G-d exists and that the faith I now hold is the correct one. Mr. Dawkins, and any man, may examine the evidence before themselves and rule that G-d does not exist. That is their issue. It is, however, presumptive of Mr. Dawkins to call my ruling incorrect, and claim that his ruling is correct for everyone and that everyone else's ruling is obviously incorrect. He may attempt to argue in favor of his ruling, saying that he believes it to be accurate and to explain it. It is not, however, acceptable of him to insult me by calling me irrational because I don't agree with him.

It comes down to the same issue as evangelism and proselytizing. The former is okay - to try to spread your beliefs, to convince people of your opinion, and possibly change theirs. Proselytizing, i.e., the assertion of your belief as correct and obvious, and those who disagree with you as fools for not agreeing with you, is what Dawkins is doing - and it is no better than the Christian Right.