[Dean's World] Ron Coleman: Contra Dawkins

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ron Coleman:
Contra Dawkins
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1189355192.shtml


   I haven't read The God Delusion; I find its premise offensive. So I
   cannot comment on its arguments. But here is From Alvin Plantinga of
   the University of Notre Dame, who gets paid, I suppose, to read things
   like this, and he seems afterward to come to a similar conclusion:

     The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly
     philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better
     term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of
     social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful
     effects. . . . [O]ne shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and
     thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule,
     mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding. (Could it be that his
     mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman
     on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a
     promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads. .
     . .

     The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his
     belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That
     is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a
     broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both
     naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict
     with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like
     Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion
     because they think there is a conflict between evolution and
     theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is
     between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in
     God.

     The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really
     doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God
     mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

     The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to
     its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about
     human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep
     self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and
     there is excellent reason to reject it.

   I found this via the [1]Tradition online journal, which is affiliated
   with the "centrist" orthodox Rabbinical Council of America.

References

   1. http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=100897