Welcome to Planet Preterist
Search Site:     
Submit an article | Submit a link
3275 articles; 634 encyclopedia terms
 Submit  Links  Exclusives  Forum  Downloads  RSS Feeds New Account
Planet Preterist Blogs
Tools & Links
Login
Nickname

Password

Please create a free account to post in the forums, submit articles, links...etc.
Funny Stuff
"Sometime between April 16 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the world! Millions of persons will perish in its flames and the land will be scorched."
-- The Watchtower magazine
Our Columnists
Catalog Items
News: The Dawkins Confusion
Posted on Thursday, March 01 @ 11:22:12 PST by John

Other by Alvin Plantinga
Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal..." Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, "I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist." Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it's not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) 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. As the above quotation suggests, one 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.

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.

Click here to read the entire article

Note: Alvin Plantinga serves as the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University and currently writes on the topics of Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Philosophy of Religion.


 
Related Links
· More about Other
· News by John


Most read story about Other:
Login

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options
   ^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF View PDF -   Subscribe -   Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 26 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:
Password:
[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]
Re: The Dawkins Confusion (Score: 1)
by Sam on Thursday, March 01 @ 12:51:21 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
I always like reading Plantinga, even though he goes awry in some parts, but not in this article. He gives the standard, biblical answer to the question he raises for atheists: "Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?" His answer is nothing short of divinely revealed revelation knowledge: "From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge." But, he didn't get that information from the senses. He got it from the Word of God, the giver of all Truth. No one can "see" an "image".

Sam


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Dawkins Confusion (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Thursday, March 01 @ 13:23:20 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Quote..“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.”

A very interesting article, it’s obvious this writer has the freedom to pursue these intellectual discussions without being ostracized by his fellow religious adherents. You have to hand it to the Catholics they tend to provide more freedom for this type of work than the typical protestant groups do. Parker if you are napping don’t let this remark wake you up as one cleaned up wart doesn’t purify the whole body ;-)
Of course I recognize that there would be many YEC who would not be too happy with this whole discussion as it obviously assumes an Old Earth and theistic evolution possibilities. We will leave that discussion behind for another day perhaps but the important thing to note is that science is not an enemy of God but it is “naturalism” or no God.

Quote..“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.”

Norm


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Great Stuff!! (Score: 1)
by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, March 02 @ 08:21:01 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Thanks to whoever posted this article. Plantinga is one of my favorite authors. This really sums it up:

"the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God."

Plantinga's views are compatible with other venerable Christian philosophers and apologists who show that modern science is the fruit of the biblical Christian worldview. If you read Plantinga you will see shades of Cornelius Van Til and Francis Schaeffer. It's no surprise that all of these brilliant Christian defenders of the faith are/were old-earth creationists. They applied their Christian worldview consistently,

We should too.

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]


Web site powered by Planetpreterist.com Apache Web ServerPHP Scripting Language

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all original content © 2008 by Planetpreterist.com
You can syndicate our articles using our RSS Feeds