tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post7603682377662412741..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: Alister McGrath on Richard DawkinsMartin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-34564405046564535092010-04-24T06:13:25.130-04:002010-04-24T06:13:25.130-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Glass Agencies (INDIA)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07358669441943755767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-70821185924629796342010-02-15T10:44:22.054-05:002010-02-15T10:44:22.054-05:00Thank you for that, Martin. I've read your n...Thank you for that, Martin. I've read your new post once (too rapidly) and will come back to it later.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-48435800380201734502010-02-15T05:36:59.202-05:002010-02-15T05:36:59.202-05:00Thanks again, RBH. I have now read The God Delusio...Thanks again, RBH. I have now read <i>The God Delusion</i> for myself, and, although I have some problems with the book, you are correct. Dawkins does not say that he has absolutely disproved the existence of God. I'm sorry.<br /><br />See <a href="http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2010/02/god-delusion-and-disproving-gods.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> for a subsequent post which deals with that matter.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1213950766338170282010-01-05T13:10:21.614-05:002010-01-05T13:10:21.614-05:00Re "RBH": See the Panda's Thumb (whi...Re "RBH": See the <a href="http://pandasthumb.org" rel="nofollow">Panda's Thumb</a> (which seems to be down at the moment; sorry). Search on "Freshwater" for most of my recent posts.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-73274972221270455282010-01-05T08:42:23.855-05:002010-01-05T08:42:23.855-05:00P. S. I agree with your statement on Newton.P. S. I agree with your statement on Newton.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-85796938915678115532010-01-05T08:41:47.661-05:002010-01-05T08:41:47.661-05:00Thanks, RBH, whoever you may be.
I give up. I wil...Thanks, RBH, whoever you may be.<br /><br />I give up. I will read <i>The God Delusion</i> before making any more comments on that book's contents.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-67809957237220123122010-01-04T17:53:25.895-05:002010-01-04T17:53:25.895-05:00I'm fascinated by how in one comment Martin La...I'm fascinated by how in one comment Martin LaBar manages to elide an important qualifier used by Dawkins. He quotes Wikipedia as saying <br /><br />"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator <i>almost certainly</i> does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the <b>face of strong contradictory evidence</b>." (Italics added, bolding original)."<br /><br />Note the "almost certainly" which is from the title of a chapter in <i>The God Delusion</i>. In the very next paragraph, LaBar says <br /><br /><i>I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia is usually fair. If it is in this case, Dawkins believes that God's existence has been disproved.</i><br /><br />Note the loss of the "almost certainly."<br /><br />In addition, since LaBar hasn't read the book but rather depends on a secondary source, he's apparently unaware that Dawkins was quite specific about what "God" he was talking about, and it isn't the ineffable deity of the deists or some liberal theists to whom the <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/articles/463" rel="nofollow">Courtier's Reply</a> is the appropriate response. It's the down and dirty hands-on deity who intervenes in the world at whim, orders the slaughter of men, women, children and livestock of non-Israelite tribes (saving the virgin girls for the Israelite army), and who says he loves us and whom we are to love under threat of eternal damnation if we don't. That has all the moral force of an abusive boyfriend who tells his girlfriend she's free to date other boys, but if she does he'll beat her to a bloody pulp.<br /><br />LaBar wrote<br /><br /><i>Dawkins believes that anyone who believes that God does exist is a fool, regardless of the scientific credentials of the believer.</i><br /><br />How about using the word Dawkins actually used -- "deluded." It's easy for even very smart people with impressive scientific credentials to fool themselves and thus be deluded. See, for example, Newton's theological musings, on which he expended more paper and ink than he did on his science.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-42540067300354753192010-01-04T08:12:33.071-05:002010-01-04T08:12:33.071-05:00Thanks, Dave Rattigan. Perhaps he would. But I thi...Thanks, Dave Rattigan. Perhaps he would. But I think he goes further.<br /><br />Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on his _The God Delusion_:<br />"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the <b>face of strong contradictory evidence</b>." (emphasis added)<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion<br /><br />I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia is usually fair. If it is in this case, Dawkins believes that God's existence <b>has</b> been disproved.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-7179136220604279442010-01-03T18:25:01.136-05:002010-01-03T18:25:01.136-05:00I think Dawkins would say that God's existence...I think Dawkins would say that God's existence cannot be disproved in the same way you can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or the Chocolate Teapot - take your pick).Dave Rattiganhttp://www.rattiganwrites.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-27066781017132618132010-01-03T09:30:19.988-05:002010-01-03T09:30:19.988-05:00Thanks, Dave Rattigan. I don't think so. Dawki...Thanks, Dave Rattigan. I don't think so. Dawkins' point seems to be that God does not exist, in spite of the inability of scientific endeavors to disprove His existence. Dawkins believes that anyone who believes that God does exist is a fool, regardless of the scientific credentials of the believer.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-58790556783369358532010-01-02T20:34:10.256-05:002010-01-02T20:34:10.256-05:00God cannot be proved, or disproved, in anybody'...<i>God cannot be proved, or disproved, in anybody's laboratory.</i><br /><br />Isn't that precisely Dawkins's point?Dave Rattiganhttp://www.rattiganwrites.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com