Challies on Dawkins
July 27th, 2007Tim Challies reviews “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.
47 Responses to “Challies on Dawkins”
Tim Ellsworth
My book
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Jim T on Do children who die in infancy go to heaven?: David's...
- Tim on The 4th of July in church: Thanks for the link, Mark. I hadn't...
- johnMark on The 4th of July in church: Tim, Thanks for this post. I...
- Cineaste on The 4th of July in church: Happy 4th of July everyone!...
- Nick Fox on The 4th of July in church: Amen, Tim. I agree and I...
- misawa on The 4th of July in church: Toss me on the bandwagon, too....
- Joel Maners on The 4th of July in church: Ditto Tim. We as Christians...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
Has anyone read “The God Delusion?”
Cine,
I have not read this book, however I did listen to a debate between Professors Dawkins and McGrath. The debate took place at something called the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival and it was centered around Dawkins’ book and McGrath’s response (’The Dawkins Delusion’). I did like the way one of the members of the audience accused McGrath of saying something he never did.
During the debate, Professor Dawkins said something very poignant,
Of course, if this ‘being’ reveals Himself and does it by granting us faith to accept not only His existence but His revelation (among other things), and only through this faith can we ultimately answer Dawkins’ question, then I’m afraid folks like Dawkins (who ask his question yet renounce faith, God’s chosen form of revelation, after all He is God, He can do what He wants, when He wants, where He wants,how He wants without our permission) will always be rolling loaded dice.
If you are interested click here and here for the debate (it’s in 2 parts).
Hi Laz, I listened to the entire debate. It was very good. Great link!
I agree with you that atheists “will always be rolling loaded dice” because they don’t make any supernatural claims. Richard Dawkins wrote a letter to his 10 year old daughter Juliet, giving her advice about what and what not to believe. It might provide some insight. Here is the last paragraph.
The full text can be read here.
Cineaste,
I have this book on my “waiting to read” list. Waiting as I have several in front of it. I do look foward to getting to it though. Have you read it? What are your thoughts on it? Would you care to give your opinion as to what were the strong arguments he had as well as what you felt was lacking; that is, if you read it.
j razz
That’s good advice from Dawkins. It’s too bad he doesn’t follow it himself.
“It’s too bad he doesn’t follow it himself.”
Hypocrisy - 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
You’re essentially calling Richard Dawkins a hypocrite based on a sincere letter to his ten year old girl that ends, “Your loving, Daddy.” Wow!
I may never understand, but it’s an interesting opinion nevertheless.
Tim, a question about “Challies on Dawkins.” How am I supposed to reply to you when Tim locks the thread? It’s almost as if he did it on purpose so you could get the last word in.
I don’t know what to tell you, Cineaste. I don’t know Tim, and I don’t know why he locked it.
Que Sera, Sera.
I’m feeling dizzy.
“Some call me — Tim.”
I liked what Prof. Dawkins said,
Even better than this is what another Oxford Professor (CS Lewis) said,
Isn’t Prof. Dawkins’ letter an example of ‘authority’? Unless of course, his daughter doesn’t consider him trustworthy but that is another matter.
Don’t forget to put the Dawkins quote in context…
“Lots of Muslims in this country are prepared to commit murder, purely because the ayatollahs in a faraway country tell them to.”
Dawkins proves his ignorance of Islam.
Lots of Muslims are prepared to commit murder because their holy book not only encourages them to do so, it allows for them to break other “commandments” in the process. That doesn’t make them mindless followers. It makes them fundamentalists.
According to the Koran, if you’re the “infidel”, you’re fair game.
“That doesn’t make them mindless followers. It makes them fundamentalists.”
Pretty much the same thing.
“That doesn’t make them mindless followers. It makes them fundamentalists.”
Pretty much the same thing.
Care to explain?
j razz
Cineaste,
You’ve just chosen to label yourself as a mindless follower….of science.
Fundamentalists have a “home base” to which they can always return to determine truth.
For Christians, it’s The Bible. Fundamentalist Christians believe that The Bible is the source of all truth. We live and die by it. We determine truth from it.
Same for Muslims and the Koran.
For you scientific types who aren’t quite sure what you believe, it’s the writings of Dawkins or Darwin or the expert-du-jour of the scientific community (whichever way the wind happens to be blowing that day).
“Care to explain?”
Tony can…
“Fundamentalists have a “home base” to which they can always return to determine truth. For Christians, it’s The Bible. Fundamentalist Christians believe that The Bible is the source of all truth. We live and die by it. We determine truth from it. Same for Muslims and the Koran.”
Cineaste,
I was asking if you would care to explain your equivocation: mindless followers=fundamentalists.
j razz
Cineaste,
You left out the last part of my explanation of fundamentalism.
Your many comments / posts (on several Christian blogs) would appear to classify you as a fundamentalist scientist.
Wouldn’t that make you “mindless”, according to your comment that fundamentalists and mindless followers are the same?
You think mindless followers equated to fundamentalists is an equivocation? Like suicide bombers?
“Your many comments / posts (on several Christian blogs) would appear to classify you as a fundamentalist scientist.”
Really? Like Kurt Wise?
I don’t mean to threadjack–so Tim delete if you wish–but as I wrote in a previous comment, Christianity has a lot evidence behind it. Historical, archaeological, scientific, etc.
I’m curious if Cineaste has studied any of the Christian claims and what exactly he disagrees with/doesn’t believe.
Cineaste,
You referred to me in a post on my blog as a fundamentalist. For us to have dialogued so long and carried on a conversation that I would hardly call mindless, I was curious as to your intended meaning.
Before, you equated me with fundamentalism and accepted the definition of the word as given by the dictionary and its origin. Here you equated fundamentalist with mindless followers and again here you equate them with suicide bombers. So you are giving the impression that you believe fundamentalists=meaning as defined in dictionary=mindless followers=suicide bombers. One of those does not fit with the mode of thinking as seen in your caricatures. Would you label me as a mindless follower? Would you label me as a suicide bomber? Furthermore, would you label Tim as such? What about Klay? What about other Christians on this blog?
That is why I was asking you if you would care to explain and that is what I was asking you to explain.
j razz
Wow! I come back after a few hours to find that I’m on trial.
“That is why I was asking you if you would care to explain and that is what I was asking you to explain.”
No, I don’t care to explain. I don’t see the point. You will believe what you want to believe and there is nothing I can do to change that. All I can tell you is that I view Christians as well meaning and good people who I happen disagree with about religious fundamentalism. If you don’t see it, I’m not obligated to explain why.
“Would you label me as a mindless follower?”
I’m not sure because I don’t know if you’re capable of doubting Christianity.
If you answer these questions, I may have a better idea. If God told you to kill your sons, daughters and family, would you do as Abraham? I know that I wouldn’t obey such a command and I wouldn’t be wrong for disobeying it, would I?
“Would you label me as a suicide bomber? Furthermore, would you label Tim as such? What about Klay? What about other Christians on this blog?”
What do you think j razz? [sigh]
“I was asking if you would care to explain your equivocation: mindless followers=fundamentalists.”
Do you want to retract your equivocation accusation? Don’t you agree that most suicide bombers today are mindless followers of a fundamental strain of Islam? They think they will get 72 virgins in heaven if they kill themselves and other innocents. That sounds “mindless” to me.
“I wrote in a previous comment, Christianity has a lot evidence behind it. Historical, archaeological, scientific, etc.
I’m curious if Cineaste has studied any of the Christian claims and what exactly he disagrees with/doesn’t believe.”
Hi Zoner. This is a topic all by itself but I’d like to discuss it as well. Maybe Tim can post about it? I believe Jesus of Nazareth existed though I am skeptical about His divinity. I also believe the Bible has a lot of historical accuracy though I am skeptical about it’s miraculous claims. “A Tale of Two Cities” was a very historically accurate novel about the events leading to the French Revolution. Tim and I were discussing the evidence for the resurrection on another blog. I pointed out that evidence of the resurrection is from the Bible itself. It demonstrates the Christian argument for the resurrection is also it’s own source; circular reasoning.
Look, Cineaste - you’re not on trial. By the nature of this environment we’re all participating in, dialog is to be expected. I’d say you’ve done an excellent job gaining respect from the core participants of this site. I don’t see anyone interrogating you; only continuing the natural path of the discussion. For you to abruptly cut it off undermines the relationships you’ve built here.
In my heart of hearts I believe, we’re alike. Neither of us really cares what the other believes. Neither of us will lose sleep over it. However, we both believe that the discussion is fruitful, correct? If the only thing (from my perspective) is that I learn the thinking of an atheist or strengthen my own beliefs by having to defend them - so be it! If either of happens to move the other a little towards our own belief system, then maybe we’ve “won” a small trial for “our side” (which ever that may be).
I’ve very much enjoyed your perspective on things. You’re (likely) going to be the minority on this site, but that’s not cause to be defensive. I believe we and our benevolent dictator will coral anyone that makes personal attacks. Why? Because you’ve gained a level of respect by your participation here.
I’d like to hear your answers, Cineaste. Ideally, I think it benefits all when it’s public, but maybe that’s too uncomfortable. If so, I’m sure we could work out a way to continue it more privately.
By the way, I’ve quietly watched some of the OTHER dialogues and believe they’ve taken a tone that we’ve not hit here. Let’s keep it that way, no?
“For you to abruptly cut it off undermines the relationships you’ve built here.”
Well Jason, please understand. He asked me if I would label everyone on the blog as a suicide bomber. I just don’t want to dignify that with a response.
“I’ve very much enjoyed your perspective on things.”
Hey man, likewise.
I get a perspective here that I can’t find on richarddawkins.net
Cineasste,
It really was a genuine question I posed. I just asked you if you would care to explain what you meant. Don’t read into it as I did not have any ulterior motives.
j razz
I meant Cineaste, not Cineasste.
j razz
Cineaste, we can both read the entries here and see that the asking of “other Christians on this blog” was only the last in a series of questions. While you certainly can’t speak to everyone here, and I’d perhaps agree that JRazz shouldn’t send others to you critique, since the dialog was between yourself and JRazz, it seems perfectly reasonable to continue that thread limited in scope to its immediate participants.
Perhaps it would be valuable for you not to respond to someone personally, but rather abstract them. What are a set of criteria or questions you’d want answered to know if someone was a “fundamentalist=mindless follower=suicide bomber” as you equate them?
Thanks for replying Cineaste. The Cubs are in first. Do you now believe in God? =0p
“Perhaps it would be valuable for you not to respond to someone personally, but rather abstract them. What are a set of criteria or questions you’d want answered to know if someone was a “fundamentalist=mindless follower=suicide bomber” as you equate them?”
Religious Fundamentalist - “Fundamentalist Christians believe that The Bible is the source of all truth. We live and die by it. We determine truth from it. Same for Muslims and the Koran.” - Tony’s definition
If this is you, move on to…
Mindless follower - Do you ever doubt your faith? See my question about Abraham’s dilemma above. Are you a conscientious objector to unreasonable demands such as killing your own family for God or flying a plane into a skyscraper for God?
If you answered no to both, move on to…
Suicide bomber - Are you a willing murder in God’s name?
If you answered yes, then you are a religious fundamentalist, a mindless follower, and a suicide bomber.
Now, tie this back to Laz’s quote of Dawkins…
I liked what Prof. Dawkins said,
“But first, I must deal with the two other bad reasons for believing in anything: authority and revelation.
Authority, as a reason for believing something, means believing in it because you are told to believe it by somebody important. “
Even better than this is what another Oxford Professor (CS Lewis) said,
“Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority… A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” - from Mere Christianity
Then I said…
Don’t forget to put the Dawkins quote in context…
“Lots of Muslims in this country are prepared to commit murder, purely because the ayatollahs in a faraway country tell them to.”
I’d rather have mindless fundamentalist suicide bombers listen to Dawkins over Lewis about this.
Cine,
Let’s put Dawkins letter in context, isn’t he writing to his daughter as an ‘authority’?
If you believe what Dawkins says aren’t you believing it
based on ‘authority’?
I think the best part of Lewis’ quote is,
This applies very well to Professor Dawkins.
“…isn’t he writing to his daughter as an ‘authority’?”
Yes, he is.
“If you believe what Dawkins says aren’t you believing it based on ‘authority’?”
Yes, but remember what he said about that in the letter?
“This applies very well to Professor Dawkins.”
I don’t think so. He only jibs at religion. In other things, like biology, he is himself an authority. I wouldn’t describe him as a “know nothing.”
I didn’t call him a ‘know nothing’, I accept (on authority, lol) that Prof. Dawkins is highly educated and a talented writer.
Lewis is making the point that a person who dismisses authority when it comes to religion, if they were consistent, would ‘have to be content to know nothing all his life.’
This is what I applied to the current Oxford prof.
“Lewis is making the point that a person who dismisses authority when it comes to religion, if they were consistent, would ‘have to be content to know nothing all his life.’”
Can you explain?
Sure, Lewis is saying that 99% of things we believe in we accept on the basis of authority, right?
Yet when it comes to ‘religion’, authority is dismissed for well, pick your reason. Though to be sure the most popular one Cine, is the one which the Apostle states,
I think I’ve quoted this before in another post. Until God grants the gift of faith, it will be impossible for anyone to accept the things of God.
Experientially, I can attest to what St. Paul is talking about. Before my conversion in 2003, the Gospel was utter nonsense, why?
Because I was a ‘natural man’ and had not been enabled to accept the ‘things of God’. What St. Paul was inspired to write is not true because it is my experience (as well as the experience of people I know personally) but our experiences do validate what he wrote.
This is my story, you can accept it or reject it, it is your choice but I cannot help but speak of what happened to me.
You will no doubt (because of you’re presuppositions) delve into some naturalistic explanation for what God has done in my life and the lives of those I personally know. I would have in my former state, because I accepted the authority of others who said that the Bible was rubbish. This is what Lewis was talking about, folks who are willing to accept things on authority when it comes to things outside of ‘religion’.
Yet take out the fine-toothed comb when it comes to ‘religion’ and authority. If the same comb were applied to everything else they accepted by authority then they would ‘have to be content to know nothing his life.’
Hope that helps.
Well said, Laz.
I equated “born again” to mean freaks before I became a Christian. My story is very much like yours.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would ever call myself a born again Christian. But that is indeed what I am.
I liked what you said about naturalistic explanations. That is why I earlier pointed to the number of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, many of which only could have been fulfilled by Him.
“Sure, Lewis is saying that 99% of things we believe in we accept on the basis of authority, right?” Yet when it comes to ‘religion’, authority is dismissed for well, pick your reason.
There is only one reason I dismiss religion. Lack of evidence. This was addressed by Richard Dawkins in his letter to Juliet.
I trust scientists more than Ayatollahs, Priests and Pastors because scientists can back their words up with evidence. It’s authority grounded in evidence and not authority based upon wishful thinking, like Mary’s ascent and Jesus’ resurrection.
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
By this rational, you too must consider yourself a “natural man” for you do not accept things of the Spirit of Allah, Zeus, etc. for they are foolishness to you; and you cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. You need material evidence to believe in Zeus, Allah, Leprechauns, Fairies, etc. but you don’t hold your own God to these same standards you hold the others to.
“Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.”
Lack of evidence? I don’t know about religion Cine, but St. Paul already stated why you and other natural men reject Christianity.
Cine are you a scientist? If not, when was the last time you spoke with a scientist?
The Resurrection is grounded in evidence but as Tim noted in Challies’ post, you have chosen to reject that evidence which I do not find surprising based on what St. Paul said regarding the natural man. If you can demonstrate that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you will have killed Christianity.
Thank you for proving Paul’s words on the ‘natural man’ so eloquently.
Here is an essay titled “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead: 4 points of Historical Probability” if you care to read it.
“I don’t know about religion Cine, but St. Paul already stated why you and other natural men reject Christianity.”
Christianity is a religion. And, you are also a “natural man” regarding Allah. You don’t believe in Allah for the same reasons I don’t believe in the Christian God. I’m just being consistent by not believing in either.
“Here is an essay titled “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead: 4 points of Historical Probability” if you care to read it.”
Point 2 of this essay: (2) The tomb was empty.
Atheist: I don’t understand why so many people believe this resurrection story.
Theist: Oh yeah? Well, how do you explain the empty tomb?
Atheist: What empty tomb? That’s part of the same story. You can’t use it as evidence for itself!
Theist: So, what happened to the body then?
Atheist: I just told you. The so-called empty tomb is part of the resurrection story. It’s not valid evidence. That’s like saying the Yellow Brick Road is evidence for the existence of the Wizard of Oz.
Theist: But, the tomb was empty. How do you explain that?
Atheist: Oh for Pete’s sake!
(*Dialogue from Jesus and Mo)
Mark Moore also uses testimony from the Apostles. Again, I must point out that evidence of the resurrection is from the Bible itself. It demonstrates the Christian argument for the resurrection is also it’s own source; circular reasoning.
“If you can demonstrate that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then you will have killed Christianity.”
This is like saying, “If you can demonstrate that Vlad the Impaler did not rise from the dead, then you will have killed the myth of Dracula.” I’ll stop believing in Dracula when you show me Vlad’s bones! BTW, Vlad’s tomb is also empty.
Jesus’ miraculous resurrection is not my claim, it’s Christianity’s. So why should I have to demonstrate that Jesus did not rise from the dead when the burden of proof rests with Christians? The miraculous resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. Christians are convincing themselves that what they believe as a matter of faith is actually knowledge. Muslims are convincing themselves that what they believe as a matter of faith (Muhammad’s ascension into Heaven) is actually knowledge.
You didn’t answer the scientist question…
Until you understand why every time you say something like this,
you prove Paul right, you will be a ‘natural man’. What I and Zoner once were. We presented our separate accounts and you ignored them, of course you can’t prove that we are telling the truth so why bother…
Cineaste,
Concerning using the Bible to show evidence for historic events as evidenced in the Bible and the yellow brick road for the Wizard of Oz, what excludes scientific journals or research papers from falling under the same category? The Bible is a collection of writtings that happened independently of one another over thousands of years and they were collected and bound together in the Bible. Scientific journals are the same, except that they are not cohesive over such time periods.
I am pretty sure you have encountered this question before and I just wanted to see what the difference is from your perspective as it would seem it would have to be different or else you would not hold to science.
j razz
I guess what this all boils down to for me is this:
There is a lot of evidence that points to Christianity being truth. Evidence that we have tested. We don’t accept anything on face value and we aren’t mindless. Surely the heart has its reasons the mind knows nothing of, but I also know why I believe what I believe. As my pastor likes to say, you don’t have to check your brain at the door to accept Christianity. Is it a mix of faith and reason? Of course.
You may choose to disagree with or reject the evidence for Christianity. I would just say that you should make certain you have studied the claims of Christ very carefully and know why you do or don’t believe. And maybe you have already done that.
Hi j razz, check out the Dawkins quote in the post labeled August 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm. I think it answers your question.
“Scientific journals are the same, except that they are not cohesive over such time periods.”
I don’t agree. Leucippus and Democritus came up with atomic theory long before Christianity existed. Our English word “atom” comes from a Greek word “atomos” meaning the smallest unit of matter.
“They knew that materials on earth, such as rocks, water or sand, are stable. For example, rocks don’t just appear and then disappear. The early Greek scientists also could see that if they broke a piece of gold into two pieces, it was still gold (same color, soft metal, etc.). But they asked, how small could a piece of gold become by repeated breaking and still remain gold? They deduced that when it became as small as a single atom, it would still be gold. But if anyone could break that single atom into smaller pieces, the gold atom would cease to exist. And we know that if there was anything left, it certainly wouldn’t be gold.”
This remains as scientifically true today as it was 2500 years ago. You can conduct an experiment to verify if you are skeptical.
You can conduct an experiment to verify if you are skeptical.
I will email you my address so you can send me the gold chunk.
I am leaving town in a few minutes for a wedding so I will be out of pocket.
You guys have a good weekend.
j razz