I've recently finished The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. As a result I've spent many of my idle moments arguing with him in my head. (RD, I mean, not God.) Gandahusband often catches my lips moving and hands gesturing into thin air, mid 'debate.' He thinks perhaps I have lost my marbles. Perhaps I have? So to lay it to rest, I've decided to commit some of my God Delusion-related responses to blog, probably in several parts* because there is quite a lot of it. The sub-headings that follow aren't quotes: they are just how I've summarised RD's arguments, albeit a bit crudely. I am not as clever as him.
1. There is no God. Scientific evidence tells us so.
I admit, when RD talks about science, he has the upper hand. I am not a scientist, and in the science part of the book (the first few chapters) some - not all - of his arguments are quite convincing. He is right when he talks about biological natural selection and the overwhelming evidence for it. (I'm a theistic evolutionist, by the way, but open to persuasion.) But he also takes his Darwinism very literally and extrapolates it to areas where the scientific evidence is at best weak or questionable. He admits it. In cosmology, as opposed to one big bang, he talks of the 'tantalisingly Darwinian' theory of an explosion of 'multiverses', resulting in mutated 'daughter' universes which are constantly adapting to survive the physics. Or to explain why religion has survived so long, he talks about 'memes': beliefs that are replicated (like genes) through the generations. As I mentioned earlier, he admits the evidence isn't there yet, but the 'tantalisingly Darwinian' comment strongly suggests he wants it to be true. Something you believe to be true without all the facts is a faith position. (RD hates faith.)
2. Scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that counts.'Evidence' from scripture is only hearsay.
Forensic evidence is not the only admissable evidence in a court of law. There is also witness evidence. The New Testament is witness evidence. Consider this example. Caesar's account of the Gallic War was written 950 years after the actual event, and there are 9-10 existing copies. Scholars don't dispute the historical authenticity of this text. The first extracts of the New Testament appear 30-310 years after the events they describe, and there are 5,000 surviving original Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin and 9,300 others. The life, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus are recounted by the Jewish historian Josephus. Tacitus and Suetonius (Roman historians) also mention him. Even RD concedes he probably existed -but still this kind of evidence doesn't really count. God doesn't exist because we can't see him through the Hubble telescope, stick him under a microscope, grow him in a petri dish, or come up guarenteed in a double-blind randomised control trial. (Incidentally, 90% of the God RD is attacking in the book is the Christian God. Odd position for someone working on the presumption that all religions are the same. Why not share out the vitriol?)
To be continued. You are probably bored by now and I have children to look after.
*I will have have froth-and-bubble posts in between, don't worry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good post. Looking forward to reading more.
I had a wonderful teacher in college. He was a Jesuit with over 30 years of learning. Jesuits never stop learning.
I am a scientist and an atheist, and I cannot, or can longer relate to people who emote. I don't operate on feeling, but on thought.
I was "forced" to take Father Talkin (we said it was a good name because he never stopped TALKING) OT course.
I already had my fill of bible studies that were disoriented and disjointed.
His was a revelation. I realised that you CAN be highly educated and discuss religion or beliefs in a scientific manner and that it doesn't make either science or religion incompatible.
I cannot remember the man's name now but I will send it along later. He's a theologian who thinks that science can explain God. And he's very reasonable about it.
There's a difference between dogma and belief.
Father Talkin made me less hostile to the Christians I knew (in fact had been one of) who had turned me off because of the emotional aspect of their belief. It was their way or the highway. And there was no room for tolerance.
That's extremely unattractive to me.
If one rejects what doesn't fit into one's belief simply out of fear of being wrong, or because it doesn't fit without first giving it a respectful hearing, then I think it's a great loss.
I hope you understand that I'm not being argumentative with you nor do I wish to start an aggressive debate.
I respect and appreciate that your thoughts are coming from a deep place within and you write well about it.
Post a Comment