I don’t have a brain the size of a planet and I’m not even that intellectual. I’m not well educated and I don’t even have a degree so if you’re looking for well thought out counter-argument to Richard Dawkins…look away now!!!
I bow to the greater intelligence of this man but I don’t have to agree with him and, you may be surprised to hear, neither do a great deal of other equally intelligent people. As with many things, those that shout the loudest, get heard the most. It doesn’t mean that those who shout the loudest have the right answers. For every Richard Dawkins there are hundreds of other equally intelligent people who disagree to some extent or other. Do we hear these voices? Let us also not forget that there is a world of difference between intelligence and wisdom.
I love the story a friend of mine used to tell of a guy he took sailing one day. This guy was among the most intellectual people you would be likely to come across. During the course of their sailing trip they discovered they had a small gas leak and this guy took it on himself to seek out the source of the leak. He came back on deck saying that he’d found it. My friend asked him how he knew where it was located and this guy beckoned my friend to follow. He took my friend to the source of the leak and explained that he knew it we coming from this weld in the pipe because every time he lit his lighter and held it to the weld the leaking gas blew the flame out!! My friend quickly removed the lighter from this guy and fixed the leak. It could have ended up far worse!! Intelligence but little wisdom.
Richard Dawkins would have us believe that when it comes to God, evolution, Darwinism, science etc. he has it all sown up. After all he does have a reputation to uphold!! It would be difficult for him to come out and change his view on many issues. However although his main belief seems to be…
…all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection…Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
in 2008 he did say that:
“A serious case could be made for a deistic God.”
Melanie Phillips, as reported in The Spectator magazine, said…
“This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn’t believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion (above).”
Melanie Phillips goes on to say that…
“Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?
So it seems he is willing to believe in some things where there is no evidence of existence and yet argues that evidence is all important. He also says that he is in search of truth. However, in watching him take part in various debates it seems he is very free in twisting the truth and making false statements. For someone who, if we believe him, holds the truth in such high regards it is a little strange.
There is no time to go into details here but to me there are many cracks in Dawkins’ arguments against God. For some reason he is very anti-religion and echoes John Lennon in imagining a world with no Religion. A world without 9/11; 7/7; the Crusades; Northern Irish unrest; the Middle East Situation etc. It seems easy to agree with him. However he discounts the other side. What about a world without World Vision; Islamic Aid; Traidcraft; Cafod; Christian Aid; to name just a handful of faith based organizations in a sea of Religious organizations tirelessly working to make lives better. You can’t say something is wrong because you don’t like it or disagree with it. It’s very easy to look at the negative sides of religions, pick at their faults and therefore discount them. Even taking Christianity there have been many things done in the name of it that are abhorrent. There are things in the Bible that are difficult to come to terms with, things that even Christians don’t like. However, it doesn’t mean that, just because we don’t like what He allows or does, that God doesn’t exist.
What I found interesting in one of the debates I listened to was that Dawkins had the final word as summed up his thinking by saying words to this effect… If you walk into a garden, everything points to there being a gardener. Darwinism shows us that this doesn’t have to be true. Now that sounds like a good point of view. If you walk into a garden there is a possibility that there isn’t a gardener a creator behind the order, complexity and design that you find there, but would you believe it? If I took you to the formal gardens of a Stately home and showed you them and then told you what you were looking at was just derelict land that was left to it’s own devices and this is what nature created – you would think me crazy. Even though you might think it could be even remotely possible you would not believe it, you could not believe it.
Though I personally may not be able to convince you that Richard Dawkins is wrong in his beliefs, I would urge you to acknowledge that there is the possibility of him being wrong. Below you will find just a couple of links to a debates and an article that I hope you’ll find useful in exploring further the subject of “What If Richard Dawkins isn’t as right as he thinks he is?” However, where does that leave us? If Richard Dawkins and all his intelligence can’t disprove God or even put forward a convincing case for His non-existence what are we meant to think.
Now, I’m not suggesting just because someone can’t disprove God it means that He must exist, of course not. I am however saying that it is enough to make you think. Many scientists would have us believe that science has once and for all buried God. I would say that they have tried and will keep on trying. But God is not dead. I would say that if Richard Dawkins is wrong we have a lot of searching still to do.
Are you prepared to search along side us?
“Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?” by Melanie Phillips – Spectator Magazine
***Please note that the “Possibly related posts” are not necessarily ones with which we agree nor endorse, unless they come directly from this site (whatifdotdotdot.wordpress.com). These posts are automatically generated by WordPress and are not in any way selected by us.***
What If... 