Dawkins Revisited

I guess I needed to come back to Dawkins given that my previous post was somewhat tangential to the actual topic.

Where to start - well there is the fact that, by his own admission, he has never actually spoken to a serious theologian (well he doesn't believe in theology does he); the self referencing statements directed back to his own books; the fact that he believes that anyone with any kind of religious belief (no matter how slight) is mentally ill & should have their children removed (yes seriously); that religion itself is a virus which should be destroyed; the fact that he honestly believes that "science & atheism" together can be the basis for a new utopia (in the 20th century science and atheism accounted for the murders of 10s of millions of people - Hitler, Stalin & Mao anyone?); the fact that he purports to be arguing from a basis of science when he is clearly arguing about a philosophical world view - either a major category error or at best disingenuous; his definition of faith - "belief in the absence of evidence even in the teeth of evidence" - I don't think that that would be any serious theologian's definition "these things are written that you might believe" - i.e. that your faith might be based on evidence; his misrepresentation of the history of science - modern science is historically traced back to the Hebrews (predating the Greeks) who because they believed in one God who governed through laws - believed therefore that his creation was equally governed by laws that could be understood rationally; that Darwin, Galileo & Newton were never atheists (quote from Darwin - “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879) in fact the history of the development of science is closely associated with people of faith; that there are historical records which are still in existence that demonstrate that the famous discussion between Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce was not the whitewash that Dawkins would have us believe - Darwin himself described Wilberforce's paper against his 'Origin of Species' as 'uncommonly brilliant' because it, to quote Darwin 'picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties', Wilberforce himself was an amateur scientist, had a first class degree in mathematics and was Vice President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and although a theologian, didn't argue from a theological position. The outcome of the debate, rather than being 'overwhelmingly on the side of science and the great conception of evolution' was actually seen to have been a draw. To say that 'Wilberforce was annihilated by Huxley' is simply a lie and doesn't [ironically] stand up against the actual evidence. Darwin himself said that the debate had done good by 'showing the world that a few first rate men are not afraid of expressing their opinions'; then there are 'memes' - 'cultural replicators' which Dawkins has postulated to explain why religion is still in the evolutionary mix - of course (ironically again) there isn't actually any evidence for them. I could go on as Dawkins himself does at great length....

There are some really great resources for those who are interested - some you pay for some are free (yipee). The excellent - I could not recommend this site highly enough - http://www.bethinking.org/ is an absolute treasure trove of Christian apologetics resources. The best thing is you can download stuff onto your iPOD and listen to it in the gym, as you drive around in your car, walk the dog etc. etc. - how fab! Both John Lennox and Alister McGrath have talks on the subject of Dawkins - so if you want to listen to people who know what they are talking about [then you don't have to take my word for it] - check them out.

They also both have books (by the way if you're reading this and it was you I lent my copy of 'Dawkins God' to - could you return it please!)

'> and '>"

John Lennox is Research Fellow in Mathematics at Green College, University of Oxford and Senior Fellow of the Whitefield Institute. He recently was part of a live debate with Dawkins in Birmingham Alabama and is shortly to debate with him again in Oxford. Download his bethinking session on this link

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/god-and-richard-dawkins.htm

Atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, commented, ‘I would like to see Dawkins take Christianity as seriously as he undoubtedly expects Christianity to take Darwinism. I would also like to see him spell out fully the arguments as to the incompatibility of science (Darwinism especially) and religion (Christianity especially). He has also written, ‘The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why'.