Discussing Dawkins - The God Delusion Chapter 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Summary
In this episode, Mark Lambert and Katherine Bennett discuss the first chapter of Richard Dawkins' book, 'The God Delusion.' They address Dawkins' claim that science and religion are incompatible, and that any scientist who claims to be religious is not truly religious. They also discuss Dawkins' views on Einstein's religious beliefs and the role of nature in religious experiences. Mark and Katherine refute Dawkins' arguments by highlighting the many intelligent scientists who are also theists and the compatibility of faith and reason in Catholicism. They also discuss the positive contributions of Christianity to culture and society.
Keywords
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, science, religion, compatibility, intelligent theists, Einstein, nature, Catholicism, faith, reason, culture, society
Takeaways
Richard Dawkins claims that science and religion are incompatible, but there are many intelligent scientists who are also theists.
In Catholicism, faith and reason are seen as complementary ways of knowing, with faith providing insights that reason alone cannot access.
Christianity has made significant positive contributions to culture and society, including hospitals, schools, the justice system, and the scientific method.
Dawkins' arguments against religion often rely on misrepresentations and straw man arguments.
The rejection of faith and the denial of objective truth can lead to a shallow understanding of what it means to be human and a breakdown in communication and community.
Titles
Refuting Dawkins' Arguments
The Importance of Faith and Reason
Sound Bites
"Science is the thing that impels us to find out more about the wonderful creation that we live in."
"Christianity has unified more people in history in a mission of building a kingdom of truth and love and justice and dignity than anything else."
"The rejection of original sin and the denial of our own role in the brokenness of the world leads to a lack of hope and answers."
Chapters
00:00
Introduction and Overview
08:43
Intelligent Theists: Challenging Dawkins' Assertion
16:37
The Harm Caused by Atheistic Ideologies
24:16
The Importance of Historical and Cultural Context
27:33
The Positive Contributions of Christianity to Society
34:19
The Shallow Understanding of Humanity Without Faith
38:13
The Refutation of Religion as a Force for Bad
47:50
Inviting Atheists to Engage in Dialogue
Great discussion. As a young scientific researcher, I was very much of Dawkins' persuasion. Science could understand most things and it was only a matter of time before the remaining mysteries were solved. Lots of things eventually changed my mind during my late 20s/early 30s. One was reading "The Mind of God" by the physicist Paul Davis which is a clearly argued and devastating critique of "scientific" atheism. (The book was written years before The God Delusion.) The last few decades in science have been of little or no comfort to atheists. More and more mysteries, dark matter and dark energy, cosmic inflation, more and more evidence for the "fine tuning" of the universe and also how unique our Earth appears to be. I tried Anglicanism, but after a few years (and the women priests vote), I became Catholic and have stayed that way.
The opposite is true, belief in both Christianity and Islam is plummeting for the first time. The internet is where religions go to die. We all can now access the counter arguments to the religious superstition that have been pushed for the last 2000 years at least. I'm pretty sure that the last few decades have not demonstrated any god or confirmed the supernatural in any way.
Onyl just now finding the time to get stuck into these -thank you! :)
Great series! Keep it going!❤
I took an introductory astronomy (really a history of science) course around 1980. Fantastic experience.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit who tried to tie in science to Theology. He developed a theory of “evolutionism” which posited that, since we had evolved from the apes, to discover science, technology, medicine etc., we might hope that we might continue to evolve until, finally, we arrive at heaven on earth. As a theologian, he posited that this present earth would, one day, become a heaven. That this process was inevitable, having been set in motion by God. All that we had to do was to sit back and wait for it all to happen. This theology was also universalist - everyone would be saved and would find themselves in this new heaven on earth. This teaching was condemned in 1962 by Pope John XXIII and all of his works were condemned. Pope John even approached the secular book sellers in Rome, since he was Bishop of Rome, and asked if they would, voluntarily, remove his books from their stores. He encouraged other Bishops to do the same. Over time, the Jesuits have tried, on several occasions, to have him reinstated and the condemnations against his works lifted. On each occasion, Rome has declined to comply. However, recently, on his trip to Outer Mongolia, the Pope referred to one of his writings. It was a scientific writing and the Pope did not approve of any of his theology. However, the Jesuits then took the view that their fellow Jesuit, the Pope, had personally lifted all of the existing condemnations against his works. Last Sunday, we had quite a long homily, longer than the eight minute limit stipulated by the Pope, teaching the evolutionist theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I was, to say the least, quite shaken by this. Not only do his works remain condemned by Rome, but the theology itself was addressed and very successfully demolished about a hundred years ago by G. K. Chesterton, who exposed it for the nonsense which it is. The true theology of the Church, of course, is that the present creation is destined to final destruction, to be destroyed by fire, to be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth. Scientifically, of course, this is difficult to explain - no doubt why our Parish Priest prefers the more scientific theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. When we arrive at the point where we can turn up to Mass on Sunday and here clear error and heresy taught from the pulpit, we know that we are in the last days - that apostasy has arrived at “street level” for the ordinary man in the pew in a respectable Catholic Parish.
I appreciate this comment. I asked Mark about his referencing him in the previous video on this series, but he never replied to my knowledge. The reply doesn't appear either even though it is in my history. I will post the reply I had to Mark in another reply to your comment.
This is what I said to Mark: "Pierre Teilhard De Chardin had a lot of bad things going on. I am not a fan of that guy. Hs ties to New Age movements, occult, globalists, along with many elitist zeitgeist type moral thinking are not well."
I am curious if you could post some references on this topic?
It seems to me his ideas work well with the globalist left's views about climate and global governance. His idea of evolution seems very similar to many people who want to merge humans and technology (gene editing, chipping, etc.) such as Yuval Noah Harari or Elon Musk. But it is not just human and technology it is also governance, currency, the internet of things, etc.
I can see a potential situation where the Catholic Church leadership promotes this as well. The interpretation of Revelation 20 as the here and now could lead to someone claiming a singularity of humans and tech with global governance for the purpose of evolution of mankind is someone the kingdom of God in fulfillment. There is an article on the American Magazine speaking of a digital "noospere" of universal interconnectivity sounds an awful lot like the blockchain and internet of things and people with a digital currency. Then creating this global entity those who oppose it could be spoken of as resisting Christ who evolves mankind into this singularity and related to Rev 20:7-10. There is a parallel to that passage in a way but by the antichrist in Rev 13:13 the same passage discussing the mark of the beast. The beast is pretty plainly a global government and currency. Revelation 13 seems to much more accurately describe this thinking, but I can see a deception claiming this to Rev 20 and God kingdom by design through evolution as you mention de Chardin postulated.
"Vatican observers say it would not be surprising if Teilhard made an appearance in an encyclical on the environment that Francis is currently writing"
"Teilhard argued, for example, that creation is still evolving and that mankind is changing with it; we are, he said, advancing in an interactive “noosphere” of human thought through an evolutionary process that leads inexorably toward an Omega Point - Jesus Christ - that is pulling all the cosmos to itself."
- David Gibson America Magazine May 22, 2014.
It is interesting also that Pope Francis and other Jesuits are speaking of him in a positive light......
The big problem with atheism is that it lays claim to logic and reason, except that one cant logically prove that something doesnt exist
I think you can prove some things don't exist - for example the hypothetical element phlogiston, or the hypothetical planet Vulcan (which was once inferred in order to explain irregularities in the orbit of Mercury). But God is beyond the realm of empirical science. He is the "first cause" or "unmoved mover" contingent on nothing else that St Thomas Aquinas pointed out was logically necessary for anything to exist.
Atheists are not claiming that a God doesn't exist though. They just don't accept the theist claim that one does exist. All the gods might exist, but we don't give tentative agreement that they do. We need good evidence before we accept the claim, and there has never been good evidence for any god, anywhere, at any time. That is the rational and reasonable position.
Good morals can occur without faith and may not occur without true faith. But without true faith no ones has to agree with anyone else and there is no possible resolution to conflicts in many cases without power and force. True faith gives a standard whereby to discern.
Wars arrive from unresolved or unresolvable conflicts not religion. Conflicts can occur for any number of different reasons. Religion may be one reason but it is far from the only one. True religion tries to resolve conflict peacefully if possible. Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers.
Daw's proposition that a rational person cannot be religious rests, like all such, on authority: The authority of evidence or a priori dictum which overcomes the need for falsification. I can think of nothing but God for the latter and the former requires a close definition of the term Evidence, which is absent in Daw's.
Religion, Reason and Science: It appears that the problem with this topic is often people think they are talking about TRUE Religion, PEFECT Reason, and ERROR FREE Science when in reality pretty much all of us are imperfect in all of these areas in varying degrees. What "science" says today will likely be considered false tomorrow (especially in the soft sciences) many of us think many or most others are unreasonable a sign clearly, we aren't either, and while the Catholic faith is true religion us Catholics often fall short, misunderstand or misrepresent our own faith.
Atheist argument consists entirely of the Sneer. Atheists maintain Christianity is irrational but their examples are disingenuous and always devolve to the Sneer. Atheists maintain the onus is upon Christians to prove their faith, but this forestalls the need for atheists to make cogent arguments of their own, of which they have none. It may be that, having listened to some of his recent talking, that R.Dawk's has not made a rational comment on Christianity in his career. The question before us, is why he and others of his kind have had the field to themselves so long and with apparently great success when they lack the Imperial Regalia, so to speak?
Hence the sophistry of "Atheism is not a religion/belief" or "I have no belief in God". They avoid saying "There is no God", even though it's what they really mean, because they know (or have found out the hard way) that it's not a defensible position.
Theist arguments fail for one reason, the lack of good evidence. I think that's the insurmountable flaw in your argument.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Well, it's definitely not a religion or a belief. It's the rejection of your claim. It's the non-acceptance of your claim without good evidence. A non belief can't be a belief by definition.
@@philiphumphrey1548 atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hairstyle and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
@@philiphumphrey1548yep. They also tend to be ignorant of theist arguments of substance, and content with feeling cleverer than the more simple religious people that are not versed in philosophy and apologetics. What kind of puffed up ego is content with feeling superior in those circumstances?
Great content! Belief in God, it seems to me, is not a question of intelligence, problem solving ability, but of wisdom and, I think, desire. Anyone so disposed as Dawkins has an ulterior motive, albeit unconscious, probably, for letting themselves off the hook. He sounds like someone with such a tortured conscience that he's trying desperately to convince himself and as many others as he can to get on board, because misery loves company.
God bless you!
Poor Dawkins has not recovered from not been given that train set he really, really wanted for his 4th birthday.
16:00 the cause of war is own fallen nature and tendancy towards division.
Religion is obviously not the root cause of most wars, as is an old trope claimed by some. Were that so, logic would folloow that removal of religion would remove wars, no? Ah we know that is not the case though. And that fact underlines the truth that it is a deeper issue at the heart of man. And that thing is our fallen nature.
so sad fir richard dawkins and all his ilk.. because the voice of reason is God in genuine science.
A few decades on Earth and we know everything! Ha!.......Not possible, very provable!........
Tyranny is unrestrained freedom. Who has more freedom the average person in any civilization or the Tyrannical leader?
Kim in North Korea or the average person in North Korea? Kim in North Korea or the average US citizen? Biden the leader in the US? The Tyrants are always the freest but it's clear they are slaves to that freedom. Unrestrained freedom always comes at a cost, a very high one. This is the principal of sin its unrestrained freedom whereby one becomes enslaved. You will be a slave to Christ who is love or to sin, the love of one's own self. But who shall free you from the misery of yourself? Christ sets you free!
"The Catholic Church has never supported slavery?" Hmm The papal navy was crewed largely by slaves, most of them Muslim. I doubt that this represented indenured servitude. Mark conveniently obfuscates on a number of points. Hitler was quite accomodating of Christianity on his route to power, and in fact, his success n the 1933 election was largely due to Catholics prelates advising people to vote for him. Afterwards, of course, when he gained power Hitler was happy to trash the Church, just as he was happy to tear up the pact he had made with Stalin. In a broad sense, any prevailing idealogy which is built around the veneration of a sovereign figure may be called religious. As Hitchens pointed out North Korea is a very religious society - the state has taken the place of God and the Kim family is accorded a semi divine status. One of Dawkins'points that has been carefully misinterpreted is his perception of the apparently numinous. He willingly admits to being awestruck by the magnificent prolixity of the universe and being deeply moved by its beauty. He also admits that man may not posses the intellectual capacity to gain a full understanding of the origin and operation of the cosmos. His objection is that the "explanations'" devised by theocratic elites do not provide any useful answers to any of the questions that arise from consideration of these issues. And of course there is the matter of that "objective truth" which seems to vary so much for one religion to the next...
Dawkins elides being impressed by the size of the universe, with the universe as creative act. He is entitled to his opinion that the universe and all the immutable laws that govern it came into being in one moment for unknown reasons, however the human response to a purposeless and unconscious accident, and the vision of a divine architect are categorically dissimilar. But let's be honest here, Dawkins' involvement in the subject is not that of lofty disinterest and academic austerity, but an anti-God polemic that uses all and any emotional triggers he can apply to the question.
@@borderlands6606 There is no doubt the Dawkins' work is a polemic, and I would think that he would agree with this assessment. It should be remembered that religion is a subject that arouses strong passions, and many apologists are just as passionate as is Dawkins in advocating their views. Dawkins' hostile characterization of God can be substantiated by unconscionable behaviour of the deity of the Bible. I also think that invoking a concept of the universe springing into being in an instant is deceptive. It suggests, a la the Book of Genesis, that universe originated in a relatively complete and complex form. The Big Bang model - which is not necessarily the origin of the universe but rather the beginning of our current instantiation of it - proposes that the early universe was very simple, and that through an evolutionary process more complex forms emerged. As La Place and later, Hawking, have opined, advanced cosmological models have no need of a god.
@@AlgyPug The difference is of course, that Dawkins is presenting himself as a rationalist alternative to irrational religion, while using similarly emotive language and imagery. He would argue that as a "lumbering biological robot" (his words) he is not responsible for what he thinks and says, because his responses were determined in the star dust of the big bang. Which means believers had their predispositions determined in the same ontological firework. The big bang theory was originally proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and astronomer.
@@AlgyPugHawkins's opinions are only quantitively different from anyone else's and cannot be set against theology proper. The rest of your entry is argument from presumptions. Anyone can put such stuff together with as much merit and it forms the entirety of what passes for atheistic thought.
@@luciadegroseille-noire8073 "quantitatively different?" What does that even mean? "Argument from presumption?" Don't you mean argument from presupposition? As for theology neither Dawkins nor Hawking claimed to be theologians - their view was that the universe and its operations could be explained much more accurately (but not necessarily perfectly) by intellectual disciplines other than theology.