Tag Archives: Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins forgets the full title of 'The Origin Of Species'

Posted on by
2

Richard Dawkins is becoming an increasing embarrassment to his less strident atheist comrades. For my part, I am glad to see him doing his bit in inadvertently exposing the threadbare reasons for disbelieving in God’s existence.

It is purely speculation, of course, but I suspect that Richard Dawkins is now driving more people towards Christianity than Rowan Williams is away from it, so congratulations are in order.

From here:

Richard Dawkins has been labelled an “embarrassment to atheism” after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4.

The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin’s ‘The Origin Of Species’ during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn’t go to Church, or read the bible.

Dawkins said an “astonishing number couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament.” But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were “not really Christian at all” was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked “silly little questions” to “trip” people up.

Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Richard Dawkins: Yes I could

Giles Fraser: Go on then.

Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Giles Fraser: You’re the high pope of Darwinism… If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.’ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.

Is Richard Dawkins intelligently designed?

Posted on by
Reply

I have to admit, the evidence from his own lips suggests not.

From here:

“We still don’t know what exactly happened at the time of the Big Bang, 13.72 billion years ago. Cosmologists and physicists now have good ideas which are yet to be proved definitely, that the whole universe came into being as a quantum event out of literally nothing,” he said, according to the Times of India.

“This leaves religion with nowhere to go. Because however difficult it may be to explain the origin of the cosmos, it would be even more difficult to explain the origin of a designer who made the cosmos.

“So you have absolutely nothing to gain by postulating any kind of intelligent designer, because that simply evades the question we’re trying to solve. If you want to believe in some kind of god, don’t look to science.”

There are three problems with this.

First, it confuses the categories of things that have an origin – like the universe – and things that don’t – like God. God, by definition is a necessary not a contingent being: he does not depend on something else for his existence. To look for a cause for the universe’s coming into being makes sense, to look for a cause for God’s coming into existence has no meaning because, in order to be God, he must have always existed.

Second, saying: “the whole universe came into being as a quantum event out of literally nothing” doesn’t solve the problem of how something that requires a cause for its existence arrived, apparently, without a cause: what caused the “quantum event”?

Third, since Richard Dawkins’ atheism is a presupposition not something that has been demonstrated logically or empirically, it isn’t surprising that science can’t help him find something he is already convinced isn’t there. Scientists who do not start out with a belief that God does not exist see a great deal of evidence for a universe that has been designed.

Richard Dawkins to debate Rowan Williams

Posted on by
Reply

The event is actually billed as a “Dialogue” – a mini-indaba, no doubt – and will take place on February 23rd at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. That’s the same venue where Dawkins didn’t debate William Lane Craig.

The fact that Dawkins has agreed to this “Dialogue” is a measure of his confidence that he will make mincemeat out of Rowan Williams.

Judging by this clip, I suspect his confidence is not entirely misplaced:

My favourite part of this exchange comes at the point where Rowan tries to explain miracles, specifically the Virgin Birth:

Rowan: Here you have a long history of preparation for the coming of God in a new way, here you have a particular life, that of Mary opening itself up to the action of God in a certain way and then there is an opening. Something comes through, something fresh happens which is not – if you like – a suspension of the laws of nature but nature itself opening up to its own depths – something coming through.

Dawkins: I’m not sure what that means.

Rowan:  It’s poetic language.

It sounds to me more like a description of a cosmic bowel movement than “poetic language.”

Richard Dawkins announces that he is a Cultural Anglican

Posted on by
2

From here:

Merry Christmas! I mean it. All that “Happy Holiday Season” stuff, with “holiday” cards and “holiday” presents, is a tiresome import from the US, where it has long been fostered more by rival religions than by atheists. A cultural Anglican (whose family has been part of the Chipping Norton Set since 1727, as you’ll see if you look around you in the parish church), I recoil from secular carols such as “White Christmas”, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and the loathsome “Jingle Bells”, but I’m happy to sing real carols, and in the unlikely event that anyone wants me to read a lesson I’ll gladly oblige – only from the King James Version, of course.

Clearly, Dawkins is making a bid for the job of Archbishop of Canterbury when it falls vacant on Rowan’s retirement next year. It should be a good fit after he grows the requisite whiskers.

Richard Dawkins is an incompetent atheist

Posted on by
Reply

According to Peter Mullen here:

Richard Dawkins says that David Cameron is “not really a Christian”. The fact is that it is only God to whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid. So Dawkins has no means of telling whether Cameron is a genuine Christian or not.

We can, however, know that Dawkins is not a proper atheist – that is an intelligent atheist – from his own puerile writing and pathetic attempts at philosophical theology. For example, he writes: “Either God exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question. The existence of God is a scientific question, like any other.”

This is idiotic. Science investigates material phenomena, observable entities in the universe. No competent theologians or philosophers – not even the atheist ones – have ever declared that God (if he exists) is an object in his own universe. Perhaps there is no God, and intelligent Christians readily admit that there may be some legitimate doubt. But if the Judaeo-Christian God exists, then he is the maker of the universe and not an entity within it.

That is why science can make legitimate pronouncements on whether bigfoot, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters – and even Greek gods who were believed to be a part of the natural universe – exist, but not God the Creator, whose actuality is independent of his creation.

Richard Dawkins to guest-edit the New Statesman Christmas issue

Posted on by
Reply

The New Statesman inviting Richard Dawkins to edit the Christmas edition of its magazine is as sensible as Switzerland nominating Moammar Khaddafi to sit on the U.N. human rights council.

From here:

We have no reindeer, but four horsemen; no single star of wonder and no astrologers bearing gifts, but a gifted star of astronomy who knows wonder when she sees it; no kings from the east, but the modern equivalent of a king from the west; and wise men – and women – all around the table. Please join us at the feast.

Four horsemen bearing gifts of pitiless indifference, nihilism, God hatred and meaninglessness each wrapped in a disguise of enlightened rationalism.

Merry Christmas.

Richard Dawkins illustrates the atheist’s moral dilemma

Posted on by
2

In this audio clip, Dawkins is cornered into admitting that, without God, morality is arbitrary. Dawkins’ reluctance is born of that fact that, just like everybody else, he really doesn’t believe that morality is arbitrary. If he were as reasonable as he would like us to think, he should acknowledge that humanity’s innate belief in non-arbitrary morality is evidence for God’s existence.

But he’s not that reasonable.

The Immanent Dawkins

Posted on by
Reply

From the Android Market:

Finally, the wit, passion and intellect of the author of “The God Delusion,” “The Greatest Show on Earth,” is available right at your fingertips.

With the Richard Dawkins App you’ll have access to the latest news, audio, tweets and even HD video all within one app.

Never before has there been a Richard Dawkins app, and this is will be one you’ll surely love.

This is the application I have been waiting for: since I have an Android tablet, I will be able to take Dawkins with me wherever I go. I’m so excited. I think I’ll have to break out in song:

What a friend we have in Dawkins,
All our doubts with him to share.
What a privilege to carry
Disbelief to Dawk in prayer.

There, that feels better.

 

Richard Dawkins expounds on the beauty of his religion

Posted on by
1

Questions like “why do I exist?”, “does my life have purpose?” are religious or philosophical questions that science doesn’t claim to answer. But Richard Dawkins seems to think that science does answer the questions of purpose and meaning.

However one views this, it is odd and can only mean that either Dawkins’ quest for purpose is microscopically shallow or that science has become his religion – or, as I suspect is the case, a combination of both.

The complete video from which this version of scientism’s answer to an Alpha invitation – delivered with all the bright-eyed fervour Dawkins can muster – is extracted can be found here.

At the end of the interview, it sounds as if the interviewer says: “Bishop Dawkins, thank you very much”? Obviously a Freudian slip.