| View Blog
|
|
| Discussing faith and delusion, part 2
|
|
|
I should've known I would be challenged on what I wrote in a comment on my friend's blog (see my post http://www.thoughts.com/rose22/blog/dawkins-120785), but that's ok, I'm fine to do that and the good people on thoughts.com also seem to love to comment on these things.
So here's what happened.
I was challenged on which part of Dawkins' omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe that Dawkins portrays I did not believe in. To which the only response can be that:
- Dawkins sets out a definition of God in those terms but then I think misses the point of each and other concepts like free will (in other words I have strong reservations over the quality of his argument);
- I also think his conclusions on science slide into polemic - if anything followed logically his argument would lead to a conclusion that God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved i.e. agnosticism, not atheism.
A bit of an angry comment followed:
"how can you call yourself a freethinker and then waffle on about religion, surely the very definition of an oxymoron. Dawkins is a light in the dark - if only more people could think for themselves, you should try it. Dawkins has often said that God’s existance cannot be proved or disproved, but you can be fairly sure if you take the time to think about it - as he has, and you have not".
I was a bit upset about this to be honest. You can read my response to this on Jon's original blog http://www.jonworth.eu/atheist-bus-campaign-starts-to-roll/# comments , but to my surprise the following day I received a message via email after it had been swallowed by Jon's blog's junk mail filter...
Sorry if i was a little strident, it's a failing of mine if i post too late in the day. I haven't read Alistair McGrath but i have heard several of his debates, i think with Susan Blackmore, Dawkins and one with the ever-genteel Chris Hitchens. Good of you to try and clear things up and i agree that Jon's blog is probably not the place (sorry). I'm afraid however you have taken more from Alistair McGrath than i ever did. There is no doubting he is earnest, like yourself, but in my view he brings nothing of any substance to the table. It all falls down on faith ultimately. Mcgrath continually speaks of 'my view', or 'it is clear to me', yet what he claims is a long way from what i would require and concequently offers nothing to the debate. Just how have you reconciled the total absence of sensible evidence and taken the road more traveled? Please try to explain this to me as i find it an astonishing leap of faith. For myself i wasn't raised with religion at home, though surrounded by the gentle Anglican's at school. It didn't take much at all to make me an Atheist. Religion lacks even the semblance of evidence to me and honestly don't understand how anyone who has thought about the real facts without predjudice could fall on the side of religion. I am yet to see anything that approaches enough to make me doubt my position. I am open for new information though...
I've tried to reply. It's going to appear here as part 3. See what you think...
|
|
Posted by rose22 on 2008-07-14 06:42:37 | Rating: | Views: 68
|
|
| |
|
|
Email This to a Friend 
