Dr. Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor and author of The God Delusion, reads excerpts and answers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006.
Dr. Dawkins is one of the most divisive figures in the evolution vs creationism debate mainly because his position tends to be offensive to believers. His position is that religion, and people who believe in God, do more harm than good.
It seems to me that anyone, on either side of the debate, who is thrust into a lifelong argument about the existance of God is going to become bitter towards their adversaries.
In one sense, this proves Dr. Dawkins’ argument that religion is actually harmful because it provokes un-winable confrontations. We can see the evidence as follows. The first video is Dr. Dawkins’ actual speech. The second is the Q&A session, which to me is the more interesting of the two in that we can witness the underlying hostility.
Science has its gaps and inconsistencies. Scientists once held to the “steady state” theory that the universe has always existed without a beginning. Now they are steady on the “Big Bang theory” which clearly has a beginning. Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God is different and is in a different category and different from all nature and humanity in that He has always existed (just as scientist believed once that the universe always existed). God is exactly as the Bible describes Him – self-sufficient and self existent. Our universe has not always existed. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but in itself is uncaused because if there is an infinite regresssion of causes, then by definition the whole process has no beginning. So God was created by God to the second power who was created by God to the third power and so on.. So it is actually science that proves His existence through their same old theory of the of the universe.. through an infinite regression of causes.
There is more than sufficient evidence of His existence..Just think… The size of the earth is Perfect! If it were smaller, it’s atmosphere would be impossible as it holds a thing layer of just the right amount of nitrogen and oxygen gasses only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If the earth were any closer to the sun, we would burn, any closer, we would freeze. The characteristics of water are uniquely suited for life.. the human brain, the uniform lawas of nature, the DNA codes that program a cell’s behavior… and the list goes on. All of this did not happen by chance. If non believers, as I once was, would seek Him, they might be in for a very pleasant surprise. I did when I started having doubts and my life is a completely different one from the one I lived as an atheist. I have never felt so much love and peace.. because I was lacking God in my life and that is just was He is all about.. Indescribable Love and Peace.
God Bless
I actually thought many arguments in “the God Delusion” were quite weak. Grateful for your comments on my counter-position, as posted at http://kylierandomthoughts.blogspot.com/ .
I just started to read “The God Delusion”. The first chapter spent the majority of its time on helping us understand what Einstein’s beliefs were about God. I look for the reference sources for the quotes which Richard Dawkins used in regard to Einstein but could find any. Is there a reference source list for these quotes?
Thanks Don
I totally agree with you, hthth. A strange danger to myself is someone else’s intend to become what-ever ‘expert’ on, ‘owner’ of, what my fate is, & if you thus think there’s anything though difficult to be
done about it, it’s an issue, you’re as of now please quite welcome to take up with me, so that I can more easily than up till now of course tell you & e.g. help myself etc. become whatever symbol(s) of, what A Fate is: to be continued, greet’s.
I would love to see Mr. Dawkins in person, I envy you so much!
His books are banned in my house, and those of other members of my family, under the label “Satanic”, which has also been applied to me at times because I draw in lead and charcoal and I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can remember! (I remember being a six-year-old telling my mother that Daddy couldn’t be in heaven because God probably doesn’t exist and he’s dead, not sleeping.)
Mr. Dawkins has an excellent sense of humour, and I like his arguments, because though they can be easily countered, they can’t be countered with a decent argument.
I came first in the year in
Moreover, Karl, do you not see anything strange in hiring a court judge to interprete scientific evidence?
That site is clearly a joke Karl.
Of course not. $10,000 is not even worth the time or energy it would take to litigate anything. It’s chicken scratch.
So claiming that 363,000 people who have ignored the “challenge” are not up to it is as stupid as my saying that 298 supermodels who have not had sex with me didn’t do it because they are scared that I’ll be far too much man for them.
Now, if we up the amount to $10,000,000 and firm up the rules a bit I’d take that challenge.
John
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists like Richard Dawkins.
That is a VERY interesting quote. And I beleive he is correct in a couple of ways:
1 – Although he is very against religion I’ve never heard him say that people should be forced to stop believing in God.
2 – Believers often do expect a free pass. Anything that remotely challenges the existence of God is met with almost disbelief, then harsh criticism of non-believers ensues.
Of course, there are athiests who are just as radical as believers, so while this comment holds true for Dr. Dawkins it cannot be generalized.
It’s very cool that you got to see him in person, even if you didn’t like him much.
John
I had a debate recently online, which came about because it was stated that ‘religion didn’t make for good arguments’. It was actually a really interesting debate, and showed quite clearly the difference between science/logic/reason and religion.
I attended a conference with Richard Dawkins a few months ago. Wasn’t very impressed with him at the time, nor was I certain of his methods for spreading science. But with the increasing pressure from certain groups to bring ‘intelligent design’ into schools and the aggressive (and often rediculous) attacks on science, I’ve started to think science needs actions like Dawkins’. The following quote of Dawkins I charish as one of his best; it’s an answer to the question “What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic?”: