After discussing with other bloggers and listening to the second debate between Dawkins and Lennox I decided I would share my thoughts and musings on our blogger discussions and the debate. In fact musings in general on atheism. I could split this up into many posts but in a way I already have and will continue to (God willing), here I desire to do an overview of my musings.
(Should you desire to watch the first debate held in 2007 then you can find it under "Something to Highlight" header on the side of my blog...also it will be in "debates" under my "labels". The first debate is in video where as this one is in audio only.)
I do think this debate was more even and better for the debaters to freely exchange their arguments. The first debate, I thought Lennox wiped the floor with Dawkins but this one was a bit more balanced, though nothing new was really discussed.
Firstly I have a number of problems with some of Dawkins' world views and philosophies.
My new logical fallacy invented :)
I decided I would make up my own new logical fallacy, LOL. Well I think it is new?
Dawkins accuses theists of the "god of the gaps" fallacy which basically is placing God in the scientific gaps that are unkown.
My new logical fallacy is "material of the gaps". Dawkins is guilty of this; He assumes that it is most likely that material inhabits unexplained scientific gaps. To me with this view he will forever be an atheist. Why? because he will not accept the idea of God. We cannot scientifically test God so he will never come to believe in Him.
Science is his god even when it is unreasonable and improbable to believe in scientific explanations.
If science as the only way to finding truth then it should stand up to its own testing.
For example: What does "Only those things that can empirically verified have any meaning" Smell like?
Science is a piece to the puzzle but it is not the game I believe God expects us to play. God gave us "reason" as the game to believe something beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. In the opening stages Dawkins stated that it was petty to believe in God and small minded.
I disagree. It is petty and small minded in my opinion for him to not be willing to accept the good probability of there being a God. For him to state that there will most likely be a natural answer to everything is presumptuous.
We all know that where we see design, the most logical answer to conclude is that someone designed it.
If I walked in the middle of a jungle and found 10 leaves perfectly in line, no matter how absurd it would be to conclude that some random person came and placed them there like that, I would be forced to conclude that the probabilities of it "just happening" is highly unlikely and it is most likely that an intelligent mind put them there like that.
The universe is the same. To say it happened by accident and without a guide is not logical and small minded.
This is the logic that God asks of us and I agree with, in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"
2. Dawkins never really answered how he could trust his own thinking to find truth if this world is random.
If our minds are from a random situation of evolution then I cannot trust my thinking to give me an accurate view of the universe. So for Dawkins to say that it is unlikely that there is a God is then trusting his own thinking which by his beliefs cannot be trusted.
But for the theist, to us our minds are designed so that we can believe that our minds can find truth. We also believe that our universe has order and therefore we can study it and trust that it would be consistent and ordered.
3. He doesn't think he has faith
I find this amusing.
The definition of faith in the Bible is: faith is evidence of things unseen.
There is blind faith and then there is faith with evidence. I should not need to expand on those, they are self explanatory.
I cannot see God therefore I have faith that He is. I have faith that He is, because I see His evidence around me and His effects on life. Just as, you reading this post is giving you evidence that I exist...very strong evidence. But you cannot see me, so you have faith that I exist.
It is also unseen that there is no God. So it takes faith to say there is no God.
Every person has their own worldview by there own choice.
Dawkins has chosen to conclude as the above "leaf" example would explain, that the ten leaves fell in a row by accident until he can find the designer and then run tests to see if he is real and that the designer put the leaves in order.
It takes more faith for me to believe that the universe is an accident. There are gaps that science opens and gaps that science closes.
4. He happily states that faith is evil
It also frustrates me how he is happy to declare all the "evils" that faiths have done when he takes away the right for him to decide what is absolutely evil. If I didn't believe in God then I should be the last person to state whether something is wrong because it would be merely my opinion and as Dawkins would say: Dancing to the music of my DNA. Right and wrong would be a delusion.
C.S. Lewis is correct when he states: "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later"
5. He thinks it is improbable that God exists
(Note he says this in regard to a natural formation of God)
Well that is easy to refute. I don't believe in the God he doesn't believe in.
No person believes in created God's or "formed Gods". He cannot calculate the improbability of there being a God. But we can calculate the improbability of our universe happening by an accident.
Well it is getting late and I'm tired, YAWWN.
Those responses of mine are points off the top of my head. I may need to review them later.
Reference to listen to the debate: