What Is The Clock Clue In Hidden Books...
Arts & Literature0 min ago
The Dawkins Delusion
42 Answers
By Alister McGrath.
Anyone here read it? Picked up a second hand copy for 50p and started reading it (27 pages so far...its only 65 pages in total) and I see nothing but ad hominem attacks on Dawkins and calling atheism 'a belief' so far. No doubt I shall endeavour to finish it (tedious as it is) but has anyone else read it?
Anyone here read it? Picked up a second hand copy for 50p and started reading it (27 pages so far...its only 65 pages in total) and I see nothing but ad hominem attacks on Dawkins and calling atheism 'a belief' so far. No doubt I shall endeavour to finish it (tedious as it is) but has anyone else read it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Attacking a writer rather than attacking the argument just shows that you haven't got any counter-argument at all. Which is more or less the same as agreeing that your enemy has a better case than you have, and you haven't a leg to stand on. Calling a writer a fool and an illiterate is no substitute for analysing and unpicking his arguments, and providing logical explanations of all those points he has got wrong. Calling me a fool would just make me laugh; explaining where my logic really is wrong, however, might quite hurt my pride, and would make me rethink my reasoning from first principles.
Yes, I do have this book – dual authorship – Alistair McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath. Appropriate title I thought because where Dawkins is concerned the authors are, without doubt, delusional. I paid rather more than 50p for my copy, but having read it I can only conclude that at 50p you wuz robbed!
McGrath is a trier though. Another of his gems of wisdom, written in a similar vein, sits gathering dust on my shelf, ‘Dawkins’ God; Genes, Memes, and the meaning of Life’. After that I don’t think I bought any more of his illustrious works. You know why.
McGrath is a trier though. Another of his gems of wisdom, written in a similar vein, sits gathering dust on my shelf, ‘Dawkins’ God; Genes, Memes, and the meaning of Life’. After that I don’t think I bought any more of his illustrious works. You know why.
Say, "Thank You," for me being the brave the brave Christian who wonders out into the midst of the sandy amphitheatre, to risk my all in the face of the beying hoarders of sharp clawed and lethal jaws of the angry packs of wild atheists waiting to tear me apart.
After all, my posts liven things up around here.
After all, my posts liven things up around here.
-- answer removed --
Have you ever asked yourself why I believe what I believe? Do I have a mental illness as has been alluded to on here? Some say they are sorry for me because in their view I am so simple minded. (Naomi). Rather insulting don't you think? But I take it on the chin with good humour. The least I can do.
We never get away from the old question of the beginning of the universe.
A universe from NOTHING. That is , NO THING. Now debate THAT please. I would welcome the challenge.
But please don't begin with the old idea of a quantum vacuum with virtual particles etc etc.
Please begin with NOTHING. That is NO THING.
A universe from NOTHING. That is , NO THING. Now debate THAT please. I would welcome the challenge.
But please don't begin with the old idea of a quantum vacuum with virtual particles etc etc.
Please begin with NOTHING. That is NO THING.
Theland, //Some say they are sorry for me because in their view I am so simple minded. (Naomi).//
I do feel sorry for you but not because I consider you to be simple minded. That’s something I’ve never said so stop misrepresenting me and stop playing the victim.
I’ve attempted many times to discuss the origin of the universe with you but you get stuck on the same question every time. Nevertheless, I’ll ask it again. There may have been a creator, but how do you know who or what it was?
Here is a list of creator gods.
https:/
Which one is the right one and why?
I do feel sorry for you but not because I consider you to be simple minded. That’s something I’ve never said so stop misrepresenting me and stop playing the victim.
I’ve attempted many times to discuss the origin of the universe with you but you get stuck on the same question every time. Nevertheless, I’ll ask it again. There may have been a creator, but how do you know who or what it was?
Here is a list of creator gods.
https:/
Which one is the right one and why?
We-ell, I've had a couple of glasses of very good wine, but here goes.
Both Theland and beso can be consistent with the start of the universe being from nothing (or no thing)
The Big Bang theory proposes that the start was from literally nothing. Really nothing at all. A quantum fluctuation split nothing into a positive thing and a negative thing. From there things expanded.
Theland has heard this 'explanation' before and tells us not to start with that, but it is the accepted theory of most scientists, so if we are discussing science and religion, we have to go from there.
On the other hand, beso's assertion is that god/God could not begin from no thing. True, that. Because it depends on a personal concept of God/god. People have all kinds of concepts of God/god. All of them are valid/true, since the aspects of faith are essentially personal.
The difference between science and faith (did you notice the switch to an unjustified assertion?) is that science requires a body of evidence from both theory and empiricism and practical observations and any proposed theory has to be compatible with all of the preceding. Faith merely requires a declaration that one believes a certain set of assertions.
Faith is more difficult, because one has to – deliberately and consciously – let go of all rationality and accept that there is some entity or concept that is greater and more powerful than anything that our puny human imaginations can conceive.
So faith is compatible with science. So long as faith does not try unsuccesfully to explain things that science has successfully explained - God remains the 'god of the gaps'.
Today's science has no concept of the difference between life and not-life (tell me the difference between a human that is a second away from dying, and a corpse a second after death. We can discuss ECGs or heartbeats, but these are mere manifestations. Not any kind of explanation of what it means to be alive). Science has no agreement on what consciousness might mean. Science cannot (yet) tell us how our minds affects our physical health.
Where science is unable to offer good explanations of various phenomena, we use faith to 'explain' them.
500 years ago, we did not know about bacteria, viruses or the blood circulatory system, so we invoked God to explain why some people died after crude surgery, or after being bitten by fleas carrying the Yersinia pestis organism.
The world has moved on, and now we know why all of that stuff happens. Maybe, in future, science will explain consciousness. Maybe it will remain in the realm of faith.
In the end, faith is a personal choice. Think Zen Buddhism. Zen is the essence of faith. It destroys the myth that religion or faith ihas a logical or rational basis, but requires a 'leap of faith'. You make a personal choice to reject rationality; to embrace a mythology.
That's neither good nor bad. it simply is.
But the result is that debates between those of faith, and those who rely on the rationality of science are ultimately fruitless and pointless. We argue from entirely different standpoints.
So for the new year, can we spend a moment just being friendly to each other and spreading a bit of peace, joy and harmony :)
Both Theland and beso can be consistent with the start of the universe being from nothing (or no thing)
The Big Bang theory proposes that the start was from literally nothing. Really nothing at all. A quantum fluctuation split nothing into a positive thing and a negative thing. From there things expanded.
Theland has heard this 'explanation' before and tells us not to start with that, but it is the accepted theory of most scientists, so if we are discussing science and religion, we have to go from there.
On the other hand, beso's assertion is that god/God could not begin from no thing. True, that. Because it depends on a personal concept of God/god. People have all kinds of concepts of God/god. All of them are valid/true, since the aspects of faith are essentially personal.
The difference between science and faith (did you notice the switch to an unjustified assertion?) is that science requires a body of evidence from both theory and empiricism and practical observations and any proposed theory has to be compatible with all of the preceding. Faith merely requires a declaration that one believes a certain set of assertions.
Faith is more difficult, because one has to – deliberately and consciously – let go of all rationality and accept that there is some entity or concept that is greater and more powerful than anything that our puny human imaginations can conceive.
So faith is compatible with science. So long as faith does not try unsuccesfully to explain things that science has successfully explained - God remains the 'god of the gaps'.
Today's science has no concept of the difference between life and not-life (tell me the difference between a human that is a second away from dying, and a corpse a second after death. We can discuss ECGs or heartbeats, but these are mere manifestations. Not any kind of explanation of what it means to be alive). Science has no agreement on what consciousness might mean. Science cannot (yet) tell us how our minds affects our physical health.
Where science is unable to offer good explanations of various phenomena, we use faith to 'explain' them.
500 years ago, we did not know about bacteria, viruses or the blood circulatory system, so we invoked God to explain why some people died after crude surgery, or after being bitten by fleas carrying the Yersinia pestis organism.
The world has moved on, and now we know why all of that stuff happens. Maybe, in future, science will explain consciousness. Maybe it will remain in the realm of faith.
In the end, faith is a personal choice. Think Zen Buddhism. Zen is the essence of faith. It destroys the myth that religion or faith ihas a logical or rational basis, but requires a 'leap of faith'. You make a personal choice to reject rationality; to embrace a mythology.
That's neither good nor bad. it simply is.
But the result is that debates between those of faith, and those who rely on the rationality of science are ultimately fruitless and pointless. We argue from entirely different standpoints.
So for the new year, can we spend a moment just being friendly to each other and spreading a bit of peace, joy and harmony :)
