There is no good reason to believe in a supernatural creator, says a leading British atheist who believes religious explanations of how the world came to be, such as creationism, are petty and outdated – especially when modern science can now offer a better understanding of the existence of life.
Bestselling author of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, defended his atheistic view and contested Christianity in a much anticipated debate with Christian apologist John Lennox Wednesday night in Birmingham, Ala. It was a rare opportunity for Americans to witness two popular thinkers from Oxford University engage in a contemporary spiritual warfare – a friendly one – on the existence of God.
"Neither of us wishes to base his life on a delusion," said Lennox in his opening remarks. "But which is the delusion? Atheism or Christianity?"
Faith is blind. Science is evidence-based.
"Science uses evidence to discover truth about the universe. It's been getting better at it over the centuries," said Dawkins to a public audience. "Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding."
Dawkins was elaborating on one of six major theses presented in his popular book that faith is blind while science is evidence-based.
After discovering Darwinism in his mid-teen years, Dawkins left his Anglican faith, never to return. And he has been defending Darwinism ever since, earning him the label "Darwin's Rottweiler" from the media.
Arguing that religion cuts through trying to understand the universe and provides an easy answer to its existence – attributing the cosmos to a maker – Dawkins says religion isn't really an explanation of how the world came about and "prevents further work on the problem." And he believes advances in science have achieved "an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator."
Some faith is blind, Lennox agreed, but not all faith.
"As I read it, blind faith in idols ... in other words delusional gods, is condemned in the Bible," Lennox rebutted. "My faith in God and Christ as the Son of God is no delusion. It is rational and evidence-based. Half of the evidence is objective, some of it comes from science, some come from history and some is subjective coming from experience."
Further arguing against the notion that science contrasts with religion, Lennox reminded his opponent that science rose out of a theistic background, as Dawkins had also admitted earlier in the debate.
With time constraints, the debate provided little opportunity for a rebuttal from Dawkins, who spent much of his time contextualizing passages used from his book as points of debate.
The Designer is dead
Addressing the age-old topic of who created the Creator, Dawkins said as of now, science doesn't have an answer to the origin of the universe although Darwinism explains how life thereafter came about, he said.
"In a sense, you can say cosmology is waiting for its Darwin," said Dawkins.
Emphasizing that science is always making progress, Dawkins staunchly stated that the "creative designer cannot be a satisfying explanation."
"It's tempting once again to import the easy facile idea of a designer and to say that the designer twittled the knobs of the universe and the big bang and got them exactly right," he said, alluding to the physical constants (numbers) physicists assume to derive the rest of their understanding of cosmology. If the numbers were even slightly different, we wouldn't exist, he said. Continue >>
RSS
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
What I'm wondering merkin & Citizen is why you are posting on a Christian website?? Is it solely for the sake of argument or are you searching for answers?
Anyone noticed I don't believe in the trinity after years of study?
bcootz: It's not an artificial restriction, its a recognition that books of mythology do not qualify as evidence for the truth of the stories they contain.
Asking to prove there is God without the Bible is like saying prove there are single cell organisms without a microscope. It is an artificial restriction. You can be have meaning and even morality (to an extent) apart from Biblical authority, but it is just an opinion at that point and no more valid than any other opinion that would be in conflict with it.
Citizen,
For me to believe that living organisms adapt to their surroundings has in no way shape or form to say that I believe in evolution. Micro-evolution is merely adaptation, and adaptation is in all regards, another great example of the masterful stroke of the Creator.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Jesus is God's attempt to reach man.
Belief is independent of truth. Truth does not need someone to believe for it to be true. God loves you even if you chose not to believe in Him. And yes God loves Mr. Dawkins!
I believe in God, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit and if the world wants to call me delusional and a fool than I praise God in thanks for not being accepted by this world!
Peace be unto you!
Moreover, if you can't recognize that meaning and morality is available outside of your religion, then that religion has narrowed your mind.
dunscotus: You claim god is a necessary basis of my existence? Prove it without using the bible, because the bible is just a book like any other. It has no inherent special authority. If you think that it does, no one else is obliged to respect or agree with that opinion, and I don't.
The debate is on YouTube, divided in 11 parts.
The existence of God is axiomatic. If one attacks an axiom one undermines the bases of one's own existence. The Bible states that such a person is a fool, a person with a morally perverse mind. The more meaningful questions are: Is God good or evil? Is it possible to know God? Has God revealed Himself to humanity at any time in our history? If so what does He reveal about Himself and us? Does He have a purpose in this creation? Can I speak to God? Does God communicate with human beings? Will he communicate with me? How can I know the answers to these questions? If you have decided in your heart there is no God then all the answers to these questions, and more, and a life full of meaning and significance is closed to you. Why would anyone who claims to have a curious intelligence, with a desire to know as much about this life as possible, close that door? God Himself has promised that if we seek Him we shall find Him, if we search for Him with all our heart.
Think of all the qualities you most desire to find in another person and to be yourself. Qualities such as truthfulness, faithfulness, lovingkindness, gentleness, meekness, patience, humility. These qualities are all the qualities of God. If you love these qualities then you love God. If you hate these qualities then you hate God. This is why only God is wholly good. Only He is a perfect manifestation of these qualties we all agree are good. He has eternally defeated evil in Himself and He has provided a Way for us to do the same. This is the meaning of the Cross. Through the Cross we can enter into Him, into His Life, His Truth. He then enters into us and forms in us a perfect union with Himself. This is why we are here. This is the meaning of life. None of this can be yours as long as you believe in your heart that there is no God.
joshuageller,
It takes no more faith to disbelieve in gods than it does to disbelieve in fairies or leprechauns.
There is also no good reason not to believe in a Creator. Supernatural is a term: I consider everything that exists to be natural, whether or not we humans understand it or can understand it.
This is all a matter of faith. The thing that annoys me about atheists is not that they don't believe in God: lots of people don't believe in God, but that they insist that what they are doing is somehow more logical or rational than religion. I believe in God because that is what I believe. It is a matter of faith, not logic. Dawkins doesn't believe in God in exactly the same way, but he won't admit that this is the case.
I'm going to jump in and add my two cents to this agnosticism/atheism debate.
Strictly speaking, everyone is an agnostic. As strong as a person's convictions may be, one way or the other, they are not founded on empirical evidence. Any Christian who has ever used Pascal's wager to defend her beliefs has acknowledged this. The whole enterprise of 'faith' rests on the assumption that this is true. If there was undeniable, empirical, evidence, most of us would accept the facts and terms like theism and atheism would become obsolete. Unfortunately there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God and so we have these titles to describe our varying personal persuasions. It's an odd thing to assert that a person cannot be both an atheist and agnostic. I can't see how an atheist (or a believer) could claim to be anything but, very strictly speaking, agnostic.
Citizen,
How much weight would you like my friend? I have a few pounds to shed :)