Some Applause for Richard Dawkins

You never thought you would hear me say something like this, but I’m saying it now. Richard Dawkins deserves some credit for his most recent book, A Devil’s Chaplain. Now, I haven’t even read the book, and probably won’t unless I can find a used copy somewhere. But, I just wanted to give Dawkins his due credit for the title of his book, because this is truth in advertising. I’m guessing that he wants Christians to hate him, and feels he is poking them with this type of book and title. But really, I do have some compassion for Dawkins. A person does not have the intensity of emotions he has on a topic without a great internal struggle of some sort.

Creation on the Web has a review of his most recent tome, and there are some interesting quotes from the review:

Dawkins’ sermons fall apart under close scrutiny, and further, he never even considers deeper philosophical problems underlying his method of argumentation. When Dawkins talks of religions fomenting wars, how does he know on a naturalistic basis that there is anything at all undesirable about war?16 How does he know that there is anything inherently good in ‘truth’? In fact, as Alvin Plantinga has shown,17 there are reasons to doubt whether human thought is even capable of corresponding to reality within a naturalistic framework—the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of naturalism.18

As the late Greg Bahnsen noted,

‘One does not decide whether to form some epistemological viewpoint and theoretical basis for certainty or not; he simply chooses whether he shall do it self-consciously and well.’19

Dawkins has an epistemology. He believes that he is capable of knowing true information by means of the scientific method, but he is entirely without a foundation in naturalism for such a belief. Christians who presuppose Scripture, on the other hand, have epistemological warrant for belief in efficacious reason and science, on the grounds that God is logical and made an orderly universe.20 Small wonder, then, that Dawkins avoids the subject and prefers a surface-level polemical approach. The biblical apologetic not only can withstand his individual ad hoc ‘empirical’ arguments, but even undercuts his entire basis of argument by showing that in order to have a reason to trust reason itself, we must presuppose the God of Scripture.21

Some of the reasoning here is similar to things we’ve discussed previously on this blog.  One can sincerely hope that his intense disdain for all authority, other than materialist science, can soften with time.  All things are possible with God.

Source: Secular Sermons.  Creation on the Web.


Is there a Dawkins?

This is an issue that has been weighing on my mind recently.  I found a video that addresses the question: Does Dawkins exist?

Why the arrogance, disdain, intellectual elitism?

They’re not all that way to be sure, but a sizable portion of the most vociferous naturalistic atheist evolutionists (VNAE’s), come across to me as being arrogant, condescending, and elitist. Now I don’t know about all of the other readers here, but I see very little use in science for these characteristics. Granted, the VNAE’s don’t use overtly arrogant and elitists propaganda in their peer reviewed research, but why do they feel the pressure toward self-elevation, disdain, and intellectual elitism?

Why indeed. I can’t really speculate about any one individual, but it seems to me to be a way for social elevation among the VNAE’s (show me the money? show me the power? show me the fame?). It also seems to be a form of fellowship and social bonding of the VNAE religion. The more elitist, condescending, and arrogant the VNAE, the greater the status among the followers. Just consider the VNAE god (you know who I’m talking about don’t you–odd how that works).