Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Opinion|Sun, Oct. 28 2007 04:05 AM EDT

The Dawkins Delusion

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.

Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious belief – and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian evolution.

All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in God irrational, backward, and dangerous.

Dawkins set out the basic framework of his worldview in best-selling books including, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and, most famously, The Selfish Gene. Now, in The God Delusion, Dawkins brings his attack on Christianity to a broader audience. Interestingly, Dawkins' new book is released close on the heels of two similar works. Fellow skeptics Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have written similar books released since late summer. Taken together, these three books represent something of a frontal attack upon the legitimacy of belief in God.

There are few surprises in The God Delusion. Dawkins is a gifted writer who is able to popularize scientific concepts, and he writes with an acerbic style that fits his purpose in this volume. His condescending and sarcastic tone set the stage for what he hopes will be a devastating attack upon theism.

Dawkins admits his "presumptuous optimism" in hoping that his book will cause persons to set aside their faith. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down," he asserts. Time will tell.

Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists – indeed all who really understand the issues at stake – are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. "Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply," he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain's Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. According to Dawkins, Rees "goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe.'" As Dawkins explains, Rees "has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a "deeply religious nonbeliever" – moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being. Continue »

Pages: 12345
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Torus makes an excellent point. If one single religion was true, we wouldn't need a book to find out about it; we would be able to learn about it just from living in the world and experiencing it, just as Newton discovered and elaborated on gravity, or Darwin discovering the process of evolution, Mendel discovering DNA, Einstein and relativity, etc. These facts of the world are true no matter what historical period or area of the globe you live in. These are the irrefutable truths of reality.

  • Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:49 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

    Annie - The only way you found out about your god is that some man (or woman) told you. Therefore you are believing the word of man. You didn't discover your religion all by yourself. If this were true (that people found their own gods on their own) then statistically speaking people in Asia would be just as likely to be christians as people in America and Europe. Likewise people in the America would be just as likely to be Jainist as those in India and just as likely to be Shinto as those in Japan. In other words your religion is a product of your environment. This is further evidence that it's cultural and invented.

    Will - The reason Dawkins has such problems with religion is that the fact that people believe irrational things (like religion) extends to other aspects of their lives. It shrinks their minds (do not question!) and hinders the progress of the human race by wasting time on things like intelligent design. There are myriad other reasons; do a google search.

  • Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Why should Mr. Dawkins care if I choose to believe God, that is my choose as well as it is his choice not to believe. He gets very hostile towards those who believe God and I just wonder what causes that hostility."

    You can believe whatever you want. What the religious can NOT do is tell others--whether those of other faiths or no faith at all--what to think or do. Which we see happening all the time. Sometimes they resort to physical force. Thus, hostility.

  • Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:22 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I am so truly thankful that Almighty God has made known the WISDOM of the Ages to children, and to those not so intellectual. It really amazes me but then again, God forwarned us that these days would come. Days of scoffers and men who with their intellect would declare there is no God. "Only a fool says in his heart, there is no God." "God has written the knowledge of Himself on every human heart and men are without excuse."

    I am also thankful that we have a choice to believe or not believe. I would not take the word of ANY man (I have in the past let men do my thinking for me) but praise be to GOD, that HE showed me that I can also think for myself. In fact, He says that "I should work out my own salvation with fear and trembling."
    I am a personal witness testifying today that God, Almighty God, Eternal Creator, The King of Heaven and Earth, my Savior, my Lord, The Ancient of Days, is GOD! I am a living witness to HIS Glory and HIS truth, let every man be a liar, for GOD cannot lie!!! He is not a man that HE should change His mind, nor lie.
    Our God is faithful, honorable and above all, HE IS HOLY!
    I am so priviledged to be able to be HIS Witness, HE took me from the kingdom of darkness and brought me into the KINGDOM OF HIS SON! JESUS CHRIST!
    Glory to you Father God; my prayer is that You will enlighten the eyes of the hearts to see You in all Your glory Father; and that Your Glory will cover the earth! Thank you for Your Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth! Thank you that You are not far from each one who earnestly seeks You!
    Pray that Almighty God will give you Godly wisdom, man's wisdom is but a shadow of the Almighty's. HE is omniscient! There is NO ONE LIKE GOD! and there never will be. HE alone is God!
    For those who don't believe, Jesus said it, even if someone dies on the cross, you still won't believe. That is your choice. Why should Mr. Dawkins care if I choose to believe God, that is my choose as well as it is his choice not to believe. He gets very hostile towards those who believe God and I just wonder what causes that hostility.
    I'm not hostile to him for being a non-believer or any other non-believer.
    When the Lord stands in the Heavens all mankind kneel and bow before Him and confess that He is LORD! For Your Glory Lord God! Annie

  • Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Cosmology is exactly what I said, the study of the universe. This includes but is not limited to origins. As a "philosophy" if you look that up, the principle definition is as related to "rational investigation". The point here is that cosmology, as it's generally understood, does not include the study of the extra-universal.

    I never claimed the singularity was not a problem. In a previous post I even pointed out the "I don't know" aspect of this. All I said was that the theoretical models explain such-and-such and within those models certain questions make sense and certain questions do not. Asking a question about "cause" when trying to discuss an object which may not have temporal properties does not make sense.

    As regards the paper, you found my analogy, good job! In many models of the universe, time starts at the beginning of the universe. There was no time before the universe (the universe has time as a property) just as there is no white before the paper (the paper has white as a property).

    And lastly, as you point out, the singularity is a real problem. Perhaps it was simply a very small intermediate phase of a universe which had no beginning. Certain models can be constructed to fit this. Do you have any problems with a universe which has gone on forever? How about a god which has gone on forever?

    As for checking out reasons.org, I did, and it's funny. Basically it's a weak attempt to apply science to religion. In other words, it's a religious propaganda website posing under the name of science. It does not, however, contain much science. As for Hugh Ross, he's not much of a scientist. A PhD in Astronomy is all very nice (I have a PhD too, impressed?!) but it does not imply any knowledge about the universe's origins. Couple that with his obvious religious motives and the result is worrisome. He lacks evidence of his religious beliefs as does anyone and it's pretty clear that he's just pushing forth his religious views under the guise of science. Basically he's like the intelligent design people, trying to put together a scientific argument that there are holes which must be filled by a god. As such it has all the same flaws. You can look these up.

  • Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:29 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    torus,

    You are right in your assumption that I would say that God resides outside of the Universe.

    'Cosmology is not the study of origins, it's the study of the universe.'

    That is incorrect my friend. Astronomy is the study of the entities within the universe, cosmology on the other hand is the study of the origins and development of the universe.

    The official definition is: the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom. ~ From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmology

    'Your questions unfortunately are meaningless in the framework of a space-time singularity. '

    False. The biggest problem for scientists is the singularity itself. Without a way to explain away how it began, you are left with an uncaused event which is in itself impossible. For every action there is a reaction and for every event, there is a cause within out known space-time. Physics stay the same within our universe. Outside of it... impossible for us to know.

    'Your baseball analogy is flawed because a clock is ticking in the background of the baseball being thrown. '

    Everything we do, everything we attempt to explain has this ticking clock. It is impossible for us to comprehend eternity due to this 'clock'. The analogy is correct. We have a universe that is expanding. What is causing it to expand? What caused it to start expanding in the first place? If you blow up a balloon, it expands. Much like the universe. What is causing it to do so? This is the science of Cosmology.

    'A better analogy would be to ask where the white starts on a blank piece of paper. It doesn't start anywhere, the paper itself is white.'

    You are trapped in your own analogy. Who cares where the white starts? We see where the white starts, it starts at any one of the edges of the paper, even the 'white' had a beginning.

    You see, if something has a beginning, it must have been started by something or someone. Now if you ask the question of who created God... we cannot answer that. God existed before space or time existed, so therefore, God had no beginning as we know it.

    'his is as suggested by the data available, this is not some off-the-wall claim.'

    This 'data' you refer to... I think you should check out http://www.reasons.org and learn from someone who knows more about cosmology, string theory and astrophysics then we would be able to learn in a single lifetime.

    Hugh Ross is an incredible scientist, and a renowned one at that.

  • Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    zenodaddy: One small observation on this of yours: "Before the big bang there was nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no extra dimensions. There was nothing. All of a sudden there was something."
    OK, so if there was nothing before the big bang, how can there have been a God before the big bang? Oh, there can't have been. How can he have said "let there be light" if he hadn't already said "let there be time"? The literal interpretations of both the big bang and the bible, are not consistent.

  • Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Zenodaddy - without time the phrase "come into existence" does not mean anything. Saying "before" the Big Bang is meaningless, as is the phrase "all of a sudden". You try to answer the question by invoking god, which only passes the buck. You would probably say that your god exists outside of time and space (what does "exists" mean outside of time and space?) and has been around forever (what do all these terms mean without time and space?). This conjecture of yours creates far more questions than it answers and has no evidence to back it up.

    Cosmology is not the study of origins, it's the study of the universe. The origin of the universe is only one small part. Cosmology, like any science, only suggests theories which are measurable and fit the available data. It's made the theoretical (and measurable) suggestions which I've given you. Your questions unfortunately are meaningless in the framework of a space-time singularity.

    Your baseball analogy is flawed because a clock is ticking in the background of the baseball being thrown. A better analogy would be to ask where the white starts on a blank piece of paper. It doesn't start anywhere, the paper itself is white.

    Similarly there is nothing "before" the big bang because there is no "before". This is as suggested by the data available, this is not some off-the-wall claim.

  • Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    torus,

    Well written reply. I disagree however.

    'The Big Bang is not something which occurred with a clock ticking in the background, time did not exist until the universe existed.'

    Exactly right. Time did not exist until the universe existed. So therefore, how did the universe come into existence? Cosmology is all about origins, specifically how the universe came about. Before the big bang there was nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no extra dimensions. There was nothing. All of a sudden there was something.

    Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth.

    You see a baseball flying through the air and according to your assumption, nothing hit the ball, it just suddenly and without cause, came into being and flung itself across the sky. I on the other hand, believe someone hit the ball... :-)

  • JC »
    Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:33 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    To Torus:

    Dear one, you are clearly an educated person. May I then ask you this? Can you to tell me of any person that has ever resided on this planet, that could create at least one blade of grass? A flower? An animal? A piece of dirt? Be careful with your answer. For in order to create, we must take nothing and make it something. Otherwise, we are just manipulating creation. This is truth.

    Secondly, your search for the truth led you to religion and science. I can understand the science part, but not the religion, that's weird. Why would somebody want to be oppressed. God never called us to be religious. God is not about religion, he is about relationship. Meanings have been so misconstrued since it was written. Pork was not to be eaten in antiquity. They understood it explicitly. Later, religions missed the entire point. God said to not eat pork because it would have killed them. They knew nothing of sanitary measures or sterilization. Today, well, we know about such things and can prevent a pork-related death. The point is, God is not about religion, but relationship. He loves us and he wants us to love him, but we will not be forced. His is a perfect love.

    Dear one, the knowledge of God (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is not the end of wisdom, it is the beginning. God wants to make himself real to you, but we have to come to Him on His terms, not the other way around. If you search you will find as I and many others have.

    As an educated person, would you take the word of another educated person, perhaps a physician? Read the Gospel of Luke, for he was that physician. He too was an educated man, and did an exhaustive investigation, complete with eyewitnesses. He was not a religious man at all, he was actually a gentile. But after his investigation, he ended up writing 42% of the New Testament.

    Look for Him, not a religion. God says to not rely on our own understanding, as His thoughts are higher than ours.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Perhaps it is a presupposition, thinking there is no metaphysical reality, but not, I think, an unreasonable one. One has to begin somewhere, and I think my view assumes the least. But I simply cannot, in this day and age, understand why people would believe in some other kind of reality. Perhaps there is; however, as far as science can tell, there is none. Introducing a metaphysical reality seems to confuse the issue of reality as we experience it immediately. Apparently there is no way to detect this other reality, so what's the point of it? It seems a leftover from our species' childhood when we understood so much less of things than we do now (altho' of course there is still plenty we have to find, but science will do this; not theology).

    I have not made a statement like "there is no god." Atheism is about a *lack* of belief, not a statement *of* belief. Theists say there is a god and atheism is a reaction to that. I wish there was no word for atheism, just as there is no word for someone who doesn't believe in astrology or ghosts.

    I agree with Dawkins when he said in his book, "There is (almost certainly) no god." Perhaps there is a deity of some kind. I will not state positively that there is not but one can *reasonably conclude* that certain things don't exist without having omniscience. I definitely think, however, that each and every religion is absolutely wrong about reality and about human nature and the earth and life and the universe, and that if there is a deity, it is absolutely nothing like what any religion has ever claimed it was.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:42 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    bcoontz - the way I see it I have only chosen to believe evidence and the scientific process.

    Partly this was how I was raised (no religion) and partly in my own choices (PhD in Mathematics). At the end of the day though after seeing that all faiths I was ever exposed to seemed to take a very large unproven thing for granted, I came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense to pursue any of them. As a result I have no belief in that department. This does not mean my mind is not open, just that there is no evidence of gods (anyones) before it.

    For a specific example, I read up on Tibetan Buddhism for a while. This isn't even a theistic faith but after all the interesting thoughts (Dharma practice, shunning of attachments) the author (some noble monk) all of a sudden jumped headstrong into reincarnation. Zero evidence. The book lost my interest right there.

    But more than that, whenever religion (any) and science have come into conflict, science (and its attendant reason) have been the clear winner. Creation of life, evolution makes far more sense to me and leaves far fewer unknowns than postulating supreme beings. Structure of the universe, mathematics and physics model things far better than religion, which unfortunately can't even address the issue. Morals are better reasoned out since then I understand why I shouldn't kill or steal rather than simply obeying.

    So at the end of the day religions have never served a purpose for me. I will respectfully keep my mind open of course for evidence to the contrary. Take care.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus: Thanks for being more civil in this post. When talking about atheism or theism, the table has already been set. The binary nature of it wasn't imposed or the "deck stacked." That is just the terrain that we find ourselves on. I appreciate and respect the idea of "I don't know." It is far more appropriate for the topic at hand and was really the point that I was making in the original post. In other words, you choose atheism, though you are sure that you don't know. With all of the possible choices that you outlined and considering the possible consequences of being wrong, I would think that it would behoove you to pair down those possibilities using your reason.
    Most people have the wrong idea of skepticism. They think that it just means to not believe something and then to look for reasons not to believe it. Positive skepticism does its' best not to presuppose, but to try to look at evidence, pro and con, without prejudice. Though it is under constant withering criticism from the unbelieving world, the Bible has withstood challenges to its historicity. People in the first century who were eyewitnesses to Christs resurrection went to their deaths (in many cases horrible deaths) holding on to what they had seen without recanting. Many do so today (see the article on the Cambodian martyrs). But even among those who saw him, "some doubted." Matthew 28:17. Even seeing God will not help you to overcome an unbelieving heart. I believe God made it that way to shame the angels who rebelled, that, though they saw Him and knew Him, they still would not submit to Him. "God chose the weak things of the world (faith) to shame the strong (direct observation)." 1Corintians 1:27. I would just encourage you to not give up on Christainity, but to investigate it thoroughly and without prejudice.
    Will E.: The idea that there is no reality apart from the physical is the philosophy of materialism. It makes a metaphysical statement (that there is no metaphysical reality), but it is necessarily a presupposition. The idea of metaphysical reality is not of itself, self refuting. It merely claims that there is a reality apart from that which is physical. And apparently you missed the point also of the illustration. For you to say with certainty that there is no God, you would have to be claiming omniscience. If you're not willing to make that statement, then you must admit that you don't know. And as I said to Torus, considering the consequences, you should perhaps make a more earnest effort. It won't be spurious and I can't think of a malicious doctrine of Christ.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:11 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    bcoontz - the problem might be your question is not so simple. First, there are different sorts of atheists and agnostics. The best simplification might be those who simply say that there is no evidence for any god or gods. I am in this camp so I will attempt to answer your question.

    I say "attempt" because in truth the question is not binary. Many theists (Christians are especially fond of this) like to put atheists on the spot with the "God or no god" question whereas in truth there could be one god, your god, mabye not your god, many gods, other extra-universal meta-beings, and so on. Attempting to answer the question in the manner it is phrased is stacking the deck, so to speak. It would be like me asking you if my hair is blonde or red and trying to make you choose, when in truth it's neither.

    So to hit the point, I could be wrong, sure, but this does not mean that it's your god I'm wrong about. It's entirely possible that we're both wrong and that there's a pantheon of gods.
    Since there is no evidence I see no reason to do anything in that department.

    A similar point (I'm not the first to make this but perhaps you've not heard it) is that there is a possibility that there is a unicorn behind you which you cannot see. If you turn around he flits away quickly. Everyone else can see him but they'll lie to you about it.

    Do you believe this? Very probably not. Could you be wrong? Sure, you have no evidence that it's false but gosh, it seems really really unlikely, given the present data (none). The way you feel about this scenario is pretty much the same way I feel about god(s).

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Atheism" just means lack of god-belief. There are lots of atheists who believe in "metaphysical" stuff like ghosts, astrology, alternative healing, ESP, other dimensions, etc., so the idea that atheism is "making a statement about metaphysical reality" is missing the point; all atheism is is lack of god-belief. What each atheist does after that, philosophically, is up to the individual atheist. Most atheists think it just makes sense--lacking the time to investigate every atom in China, absurd of a notion as that is--to reject all proposed religions and evidences of god(s) as spurious at best and downright malicious at worst.

    But even the concept of "metaphysical reality" is self-refuting, as is the concept of the supernatural. If it exists, it is physical, it is natural, it is reality.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Zenodaddy: In a nutshell you need to get a basic grasp on mathematical cosmology. The Big Bang is not something which occurred with a clock ticking in the background, time did not exist until the universe existed. There is no framework in which to say "before" or "cause" when there is no concept of time.

    If you believe that's a cop out, you're right, but the catch here is that science, which postulates the previous paragraph, is not attempting to cop out, it's simply giving you data. What you do with that data is the fun part. Well, ignoring it is pretty cheap I must admit.

    If you want to ask a more appropriate question it would be "Why is there a multidimensional object in existence of which time is one (or maybe more) dimension(s)?" This is a very good question. Of course the philosophers will leap onto the "There is no 'is' without existence" but I won't go there.

    Of course, the inability to answer the question does not give the answer you would like. It gives no answer. I don't know why there is anything, just as you couldn't possibly say, in your framework, why a god exists. I'm better off, however, because I don't need to toss forth goofy theories involving superhuman entities, I simply say what I know, which is nothing.

    Lastly in truth it would be wonderful if there were a god, to be honest. The thought that I could act nicely and go onto everlasting heaven would be glorious, truly. However I just don't see it being the truth. I see no evidence. I'd also really like it if a million bucks were in my kitchen when I go to get my tea in a minute but I'd bet that's not the case too.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:49 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Whenever I discuss God with an atheist, why is it that they are so quick to condescension and insults rather than answering the postulate posed? Atheism is a direct statement about the metaphysical nature of reality. Atheism means without belief in God, not without belief of some sort and qualifies as philosophy. All people have axioms (presuppositions) by which they live by. Either you missed the point of the first post, or chose to ignore it.
    Is there a possiblity that you could be wrong? Could God be somewhere where you haven't looked? Is there any evidence that you don't know about or evidence that you have missinterpreted? If you are honest with yourself, the answer should be yes. This would mean that you don't know and that you would be an agnostic. If you say no, then you are claiming omniscience.
    The last paragraph was not intended to be evidence (although a witness is evidence). It was meant as an invitation to come to know the God that has revealed Himself to me and many others, but to come humbly, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." Proverbs 3:34 and 1 Peter 5:5. I am also saying that the Bible isn't just a book, it is living and active. Without a relationship with Christ and being in the Word everyday, there is no way for you to know.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    'There is exactly zero evidence of any supreme beings of any sort.'

    Then who or what caused the Big Bang event to start? We know for a fact that the universe is spreading out. How can something spread outward on its own? I do not think it is a lack of evidence for a God that escapes you, I think it is the reality of something or someone who controls your fate that causes you to recoil.

    Just an idea.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you want a good book that refutes Dawkins, pick up "The Dawkins Delusion?" by Alister McGrath.Mcgrath is a former colleague of Dawkins and qualified to speak on the subject of both Science and Religion.The title of this article was probably borrowed from this book.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:27 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Oh bcoontz, do a little research before you start yapping. First off, atheism does not make any statements about metaphysical reality in general. As a philosophy it is about gods (hence the "theos" root) and can mean either the outright denial of those gods or the denial of evidence leading to belief. Keep in mind those are very different things. Outright denial of gods (or anything metascientific) is metaphysically flawed. Denial in evidence is not.

    Second, not every debate about the existence of god ends up in your high-school-level philosophical hole. There is exactly zero evidence of any supreme beings of any sort. Sure, we can attempt to argue outside of the scientific process but the problem is that argument in general is scientific. Having a "metascientific" argument is impossible. All we've got is evidence, or really lack thereof.

    Lastly, your closing paragraph is humorous at best. After attempting a very low-level philosophical shot (second paragraph) you resort to "I have found the word of god proven by the word of god!" which is about as amusing as that age-old joke about looking up "Recursion" in the dictionary and finding "See 'Recursion' ". The bible can't be true simply because it says so in the bible. Believe the bible if you will, just don't try to pull any fancy logical arguments to back it up. They fail.

    Further and more appropriately it can mean the absence of belief (hence the construction of the word: a-theism).

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:07 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Atheism is a philosophy. It makes the statement that there is no metaphysical reality. This is itself is a metaphysical statement and therefore is self-refuting. For those who admit to a metaphysical reality, but say there is no God, they must have absolute knowledge of that reality to know with certainty that there is no God, which by definition, they can't have.
    An example of this would be the statement 'there is no gold in China'. What would you have to know in order for that statement to be true? You would have to know every atom in the country of China, all the soil and what is under it, what is in every stream, what is in every pocket, drawer, mouth, closet, safe, etc. It is an absolute statement that requires absolute knowledge in order to be proven true. In order to prove it false, all you would need to see is one speck of gold, you wouldn't need to have absolute knowledge. That is where we find ourselves in any debate about the existence of God.
    I have found through many years of reading God's Word, that it proves itself over and over again to be the Word of God. It is not something that you will ever find out without so doing and being illuminated by the Spirit of God. I leave you with this; "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Hebrews 11:6. You're not going to find Him on your own terms. Earnestly seek Him and see what happens.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And when you're standing in front of a god that's not yours and who's about to tell you that you followed the wrong path, what will you say? "Oops!"

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Remember...when you stand before the Lord, keep telling yourself it is just a figment of your imagination. You delusions will be over soon.

  • Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    What's funny is that in four entire pages of article, Mr. Mohler cannot actually refute a single argument of Dawkins'. Once in a while he might say that something is weak or misrepresented but he does not elaborate. Why? He doesn't have a defense, he doesn't have a clue. He knows that Dawkins' arguments are better than any he might put up and so he resorts to straw men and name-calling.

    It's pathetic, really. If you can't argue with somebody (with reason) then don't step into the ring. It only makes you look like a fool.

  • Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply the non-belief in theism. I understand how some people need to believe in God and the Bible to give their lives meaning, but it’s not supported by scientific fact. If we don’t believe in God, a soul, and eternal life, what’s left? Perhaps just the miracle of life itself… That’s enough for me.

  • Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:22 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 2

    All human misconceptions about God are based on: an attempt to approach Him on ones own terms, force Him to possess human vice, reduce Him into an impersonal force only to be easily manipulated by human will, or elevating the created order as equivocal with the transcendent creator as if all physical substance of the universe were eternal. The very fact that atheists have faith in the improbable odds and chance as the "creator" of the universe and life means that they are superstitious by definition. Instead of seeking to know that ONE and ONLY God who created this Earth, atheists sought to condemn Him as evil - in order to justify their lifestyle of defiance.

    Just turn on your TV News. Take a look at all the violence, immorality, horror, marital unfaithfulness and verbal abuse that many people call entertainment. I also see more evidence that the Bible MOST ACCURATELY depicts the human condition when it says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) We see more evidence of an evil, ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive human race, which alone, is responsible for the atrocities and miseries afflicting themselves. We also see that the only example of the only Living God (who is Good because He is Just) is the God of the Bible, who alone, could be responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe and designed all the engineering and purpose within all living things.

    Regardless of a persons occupation and stated beliefs, when atheism and secular humanism is philosophically practiced they have inspired the some greatest miseries on the face of the earth, namely, depression, suicide, moral decay leading to rampant STD's, holocausts, forced euthanasia and sterilizations, violence, selfishness, abortion, infanticide, totalitarianism, drug and alcohol addiction, no moral compass of decency, pornography addiction, molestations, worthlessness, racism, anarchy, the censorship the freedom of speech, the censorship of the freedom of the press, and have inspired governments and schools that limit, censor, criminalize, persecute those who freely express their faith. It really does not matter if people label themselves a priest, a pagan, a teacher, a senator, a scientist, an engineer, a “Christian”, a miser, an American, a Darwinist, a mistake or whatever – when the philosophy of atheism/agnosticism or secular humanism is actually practiced - you can expect some or all of the above mentioned miseries.

    The atheists are only right in this sense: the god, which the atheists have invented in their own minds, does not exist and is merely the reflection of their own evil heart. The atheist’s god concept was manufactured to justify their personal rebellion against the Holy God, who will by nature hold them accountable for their crimes against Him. The atheists’ manufactured god DOES NOT exist. Yahweh, the Bible’s God, subsist necessarily.

    http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links