The God Delusion
byRichard Dawkins (Goodreads Author)
I am a Roman Catholic but willing to read a book by an anti-religious fundamentalist. I already know my opinion on this but will give a fuller verdict later. The problem with people like Dawkins is that they say there is no scientific proof of God's existence. The fact that science has not proven God's existence does not mean God does not exist. Moreover, science is about discovery which leaves open the notion that God's existence will be discovered and proven by the scientific world in the future; furthermore, it could be argued that God is outside the scope of mankind and scientific discovery. Likewise, the laws of science have always existed but of course at one time or other they were not known to mankind; in other words, there was no scientific evidence for them, e.g. The Theory of Relativity.It is fashionable, in this day and age to ridicule religion and believers in God as simpletons; this is of course complete nonsense to the billions of believers over the centuries. It goes without saying that there are many intellectuals who believe in God's existence, they need to be heard more. A little less arrogance and smugness from the atheistic world would not go amiss ! I would also question Dawkins' status as one of the great thinkers of our age, there is no balance to his argument and moreover there is a bitterness and anger in his tone. Would you want to be persuaded by a man with Dawkins aloof, bitter, angry and unbalanced mind? No. He also uses words like 'pathetic' and 'infantile' in dismissing believers in God.On the other hand, the Pope is a man of reason and goodness and is worthy of respect. Catholicism will never die and continue to exist long after Dawkins. am only 32 pages into his book and Dawkins is making me more of a believer and not persuading me to join the atheistic world.
The following comment by Dawkins shows what a trouble-causer the man is:
'It was my ambition to persuade a member of Britain's respected Hindu community to come forward and bring a civil action to test this snobbish discrimination against polytheism.' Dawkins is not one who brings different communities together but tries to cause unnecessary conflict between them.
Dawkins comes out with the tired old argument that religion is the cause of wars. Not true. People cause wars and they had no religious authority to do so. Moreover, neither of the 2 World Wars were about religion. Both wars were about territory and Hitler was an empire builder; yes, he also carried out the systematic mass slaughter of Jews but this was not the prime reason for WW2. Saddam Hussein's wars were about territory. Stalin was a communist. Other evil tyrants like Idi Amin and Pol Pot can hardly be described as religious. The Irish problem was also about territory and sovereignty and never about religion.
Does the theory of evolution counter the God the Creator argument ? No. First of all, not many people, including Christians would say that the Bible should be treated literally or that it is 100% accurate. Some of the accounts in the book are parables. Furthermore, perception of actual events have to be taken in the context of the time. The same accounts in a modern context may differ. In my view, the theory of evolution actually supports the argument that God was the creator. Evolution suggests that all living things came from one or two organisms. When God created the planet, he started this process. Time should not be taken as literal.The vocabulary we use in the modern world is far more advanced in terms of the vocabulary and number and use of words. We might also have a different interpretation of the same events and describe them differently. Moreover, there are conflicts within the Bible itself, so intelligent interpretation of the Bible is necessary and the best people able to do this are senior clergy. In the Catholic faith, this means the Vatican and the Pope. It is not for the common man to interpret the Bible in his or her own way.
Also, Christianity is also of course about Jesus Christ. Few people doubt the existence of Jesus Christ and that includes Dawkins himself. So let's talk about the undeniable truths also. The Catholic faith is about Jesus Christ and his message as well as belief in God. So even if athiests do not believe in a God and ridicule our belief in God, they can still give due respect to a religion that has at its centre an historical human being whose existence even scientists do not doubt.
Another problem with Dawkins is that he incredibly selects the arguments of those with the opposing view and then (sarcastically) sets out to dismantle those arguments ! What is the likelihood that he has not selected the strongest arguments ! Theologians of the highest scholarship also take part in research and debate within their own circles; the Vatican for example will have had access to information that the likes of Dawkins can only dream of and almost certainly have superior knowledge and understanding of God's existence, religion and the truths and accuracies and interpretations of the contents of the Bible.
Believers in God do so out of faith and not evidence. We neither have the inclination nor need to provide evidence. In this respect, atheists have the upper hand as they spend a considerable amount of time and expense in trying to undermine religion.
There is nothing new in Dawkins book, so what is the point of it ? He says he wants to persuade more people to become atheists. Wow. The importance of religion is that it provides moral guidance for billions of people. Dawkins offers no alternative. Remember, before religion there was no moral or legal guidance; the Ten Commandments began this process.
Oh, I forgot, Dawkins is arguably the most sarcastic and annoying writer you will ever read, whatever your views.
NB: This will be added to or re-edited when I have read the book.
The following comment by Dawkins shows what a trouble-causer the man is:
'It was my ambition to persuade a member of Britain's respected Hindu community to come forward and bring a civil action to test this snobbish discrimination against polytheism.' Dawkins is not one who brings different communities together but tries to cause unnecessary conflict between them.
Dawkins comes out with the tired old argument that religion is the cause of wars. Not true. People cause wars and they had no religious authority to do so. Moreover, neither of the 2 World Wars were about religion. Both wars were about territory and Hitler was an empire builder; yes, he also carried out the systematic mass slaughter of Jews but this was not the prime reason for WW2. Saddam Hussein's wars were about territory. Stalin was a communist. Other evil tyrants like Idi Amin and Pol Pot can hardly be described as religious. The Irish problem was also about territory and sovereignty and never about religion.
Does the theory of evolution counter the God the Creator argument ? No. First of all, not many people, including Christians would say that the Bible should be treated literally or that it is 100% accurate. Some of the accounts in the book are parables. Furthermore, perception of actual events have to be taken in the context of the time. The same accounts in a modern context may differ. In my view, the theory of evolution actually supports the argument that God was the creator. Evolution suggests that all living things came from one or two organisms. When God created the planet, he started this process. Time should not be taken as literal.The vocabulary we use in the modern world is far more advanced in terms of the vocabulary and number and use of words. We might also have a different interpretation of the same events and describe them differently. Moreover, there are conflicts within the Bible itself, so intelligent interpretation of the Bible is necessary and the best people able to do this are senior clergy. In the Catholic faith, this means the Vatican and the Pope. It is not for the common man to interpret the Bible in his or her own way.
Also, Christianity is also of course about Jesus Christ. Few people doubt the existence of Jesus Christ and that includes Dawkins himself. So let's talk about the undeniable truths also. The Catholic faith is about Jesus Christ and his message as well as belief in God. So even if athiests do not believe in a God and ridicule our belief in God, they can still give due respect to a religion that has at its centre an historical human being whose existence even scientists do not doubt.
Another problem with Dawkins is that he incredibly selects the arguments of those with the opposing view and then (sarcastically) sets out to dismantle those arguments ! What is the likelihood that he has not selected the strongest arguments ! Theologians of the highest scholarship also take part in research and debate within their own circles; the Vatican for example will have had access to information that the likes of Dawkins can only dream of and almost certainly have superior knowledge and understanding of God's existence, religion and the truths and accuracies and interpretations of the contents of the Bible.
Believers in God do so out of faith and not evidence. We neither have the inclination nor need to provide evidence. In this respect, atheists have the upper hand as they spend a considerable amount of time and expense in trying to undermine religion.
There is nothing new in Dawkins book, so what is the point of it ? He says he wants to persuade more people to become atheists. Wow. The importance of religion is that it provides moral guidance for billions of people. Dawkins offers no alternative. Remember, before religion there was no moral or legal guidance; the Ten Commandments began this process.
Oh, I forgot, Dawkins is arguably the most sarcastic and annoying writer you will ever read, whatever your views.
NB: This will be added to or re-edited when I have read the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment