homeabout usarchivelinkscontactsearch  
       
 

January 21, 2007

Richard Dawkins: His Way or the Highway?

smartalek on February 18, 2007 08:03 PM EST writes:
" I would quite like to keep my hope that there is a benevolent purpose behind the universe."
Why is this necessary?
Just what is so frightening or unmanageable about a universe in which it is up to us to find our own meaning, and to work to create benevolence where the world does not provide it to us, giftwrapped or spoonfed?
Do you really have such little faith in yourself, and in other humans? Are we that weak? That lame? That worthless? That useless?
If we are, then God or no God, we are lost. But if we are strong enough and intelligent enough to stand on our own feet, what need have we of anything or anyone else?
I have no idea whether there is or is not a God. Neither do you, if you're honest. "Faith" is just what you choose to believe, and thus far, the actual evidence is inconclusive. But if we aren't, ourselves, what we must be to survive and build a moral world for ourselves and each other, I don't see how any God can do it for us either.
....................................................................................................................................
Archana on February 5, 2007 12:43 AM EST writes:
There was a great piece on Dawkins and the "new atheist" movement on NPR's On the Media recently - I'm sure the podcast is still available.
....................................................................................................................................
Bob Cornwall on January 25, 2007 12:45 AM EST writes:
The problem with Dawkins isn't that he doesn't raise important issues, but that he, like Sam Harris, is so full of bluster that you find it difficult to take him too seriously. Fortunately there is a happy medium between the Jerry Falwells and the Richard Dawkins of the land!
....................................................................................................................................
Caleb on January 22, 2007 02:27 PM EST writes:
Scientist, Maybe - But Philosopher He Ain't

Dawkins is ultimately confronted with the cold hard fact that God cannot be scientifically disproved anymore than a religious person can prove Godýs existence. In an effort to win his debate, Dawkins is careful to craft his arguments on one particular ideological and literal representation. These idols he can smash, and some believers, unhappy with their spiritual life, will mistake these idols for their God.

While Richard Dawkins succeeds in pointing out the limitations of religious literalism, he continually misses the opportunity to value poetry and ambiguity both in his own understanding of the natural world and in other peopleýs understanding of the spiritual one.

Growth comes from the willingness to change and deeper knowing only comes from remembering we know nothing at all. While the students at Liberty, crying in the halls, will eventually remember the love of their God, Dawkins will be preparing - again - to prove how just how much he knows.
....................................................................................................................................
Les on January 22, 2007 01:59 PM EST writes:
Debate?

Has Dawkins participated in a debate with any significant Christian apologists, such as Ravi Zacharias?

There are no "air tight" arguments either way, as much as atheist and Christian fundamentals would like there to be. So I'd be curious so to what a Dawkins v. Zacharias meeting would be like.
....................................................................................................................................
JM on January 22, 2007 01:00 PM EST writes:
Great essay, and the video clip from Lynchburg at Dawkins' site is worth a look. My favorite part was when someone in the audience asks what he makes of Liberty University teaching that the Earth is just a couple thousand years old, rather than however many billion years old. Dawkins says that the error is comparable to saying that the distance from New York City to San Francisco is just 28 feet. "Not a trivial error," he says.
....................................................................................................................................
ben redmond on January 21, 2007 03:18 PM EST writes:
great article

Thanks Ben - alot to think about, and well written as always.
....................................................................................................................................

Name:

Email:

Subject (optional):

Comments:


Characters left:

Human being confirmation:


Please type the letters you see above into the field below
*
Subscribe to this comment thread:

 
             
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Copyright © 2017 SoMAreview, LLC. All Rights Reserved