William Lane Craig takes on Richard Dawkins’ and Lawrence Krauss’ documentary movie The Unbelievers.
Richard Dawkins
The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution ~ John West, PhD
One of the philosophical implications mentioned (via Darwin) of “Beehive Ethics”
Read more in these posts:
- Hear Evolutionists/Atheists Themselves on Evil & Ethics (like Rape for Instance)
- Concepts: “Is Reality Merely a Perception?” (Perceptions of Truth)
Another concept often lost on the average person:
“A Matter of Faith On My Part” ~ Richard Dawkins
Via Mariano Grinbank
Stephen C. Meyer Explains Evidence For ID (Physics, Astronomy and Biology)
The original video was removed, so this one is a substitute
Stephen C. Meyer shows evidence of Intelligent Design in physics, astronomy and biology. This lecture is in response to Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists.
The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists ~ Ravi Zacharias (Serious Saturday)
September 29, 2012 – Ravi Zacharias speaks on the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopoher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett) and their inability to use reason and logic. Instead, they use ridicule and mocking as a tactic against religion.
Concepts: “Free Will or Not” – That is the Question
This is a topic I know a bit about, as, it is a common feature required to make distinctions in philosophy and science (and the philosophy of science) regarding naturalism and its influence on epistemology and if we can know truth, moral truth or otherwise. As we read the article we come to a small paragraph that shows me John is traipsing into territory he knows nothing about but makes sweeping statements as if he does. We read:
- Acceptance of an assumption that there is no free will would remove everyone’s responsibility for his or her behavior, and nobody could be condemned to jail or death. Such a thesis also would deny the influence of DNA and of experience in life.
Firstly, popular culture weighs in on this idea that somehow DNA influences free-will?
- “Infidelity – It May Be In Our Genes” ~ Time, August 15, 1994;
- “20th Century Blues” – Stress, anxiety, depression: the new science of evolutionary psychology finds the roots of modern maladies in our genes ~ Time, August 28, 1995;
- “Born Happy (Or Not)” – Happiness is more than just a state of mind… It is in the genes too;
- “Born To Be Gay?” ~ New Zealand Herald, August 8, 1996;
- “What Makes Them Do It?” – People who crave thrills, new evidence indicates, may be prompted at least partly by their genes ~ New Scientist, September 28, 1996, p. 32;
- “Your Genes May Be Forcing You To Eat Too Much” ~ Time, January 15, 1996;
- “Infanticide/neonaticide is caused by an evolutionary imperative” ~ New York Times, November 2, 1997.
In a lecture from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Einstein’s chair) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words: do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms?
Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s maxim rings just as true today as it did in his day,“If there is no God, all things are permissible.” Without an absolute ethical norm, morality is reduced to mere preference and the world is a jungle where might makes right. This same strain of thought caused Mussolini to comment,
Which brings me to the finishing statement from John, “I cannot see how any society could function without assuming we do have free will.” On this we agree, even an atheistic society must borrow from the theistic worldview. In a previous response to My Huizum, I noted Sam Harris’ thinking on ultimate ethics:
- evolutionary psychology (for instance, atheist defender Sam Harris makes the Darwinian psychological statement that “…there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male.”)
So, let us see some popular positions taken by “evangelical” atheists:
Richard Dawkins
(h/t: TrueFreeThinker) – A Statement Made by an atheist at the Atheist and Agnostic Society:
[side note] You may also be aware that Richard Dawkins stated,
- “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”*
* Stated during an interview with Larry Taunton, “Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist,” by Faith Magazine, Issue Number 18, December 2007 (copyright; 2007-2008)
Lewis Wolpert
Dan Barker
Take note also that leaders in atheistic thinking and philosophers of good standing deal with the determinism found in neo-Darwinian/naturalistic philosophies and evolutionary thinking. For instance, from a debate I was in many years ago, Stan said the following:
- “The brain works by firing electric charges that then release chemicals that make others fire electric charges.”
Robots and Cosmic Puppetry: The Scientific Challenge to Freedom
[….]
[….]
Which brings C.S. Lewis to mention how he was not able to connect the idea of “evil” to the world as an atheist:
William Lane Craig, who debated Sam Harris, works through this in his post, “Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape.” One can see from Sam Harris that ethics is not something that “ought” to be adhered to. In an article and from a debate between theist William Lane Craig and Same Harris, we can zero in on what naturalism says
William Lane Craig Discusses Sam Harris’ book, “The Moral Landscape”
So we can see that even the person mentioned in John Van Huizum’s article, Sam Harris, in reality rejects his premise that free will exists. John does say though, that we must (we meaning any society, secular or not) must assume it to be true. Thus, John is borrowing from the Judeo-Christian worldview and really arguing for the coherence of it (and the incoherence of the opposite), and not of atheism… unbeknownst to him! John neglects to tell us “the rest of the story” (Paul Harvey), or more likely doesn’t know the story to begin with.
- Simple enough… as above. REMEMBER, Dr. Provine is an evolutionist… a neo-Darwinian proponent following his worldview to its logical ends/consequences.
The `High Pope of Darwinism` (Richard Dawkins) Is Caught in Tactic He Himself Uses Against Christians (UPDATED)
What a great point! from the video description:
Richard Dawkins and Giles Fraser discuss religious life in Britain, on the Today programme on BBC Radio (14/02/12).
Whilst declaring his incredulity that Christians do not know what the first book of the New Testament is, Fraser deftly counters by asking Dawkins what the full title of The Origin of Species is…
Here is the comments from The Blaze:
The epic clash between the two men, which was carried live on BBC Radio 4 in England, was centered upon a recent poll that purportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The controversial study was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which is run by the well-known non-believer. Among the findings, the study alleges that Christianity has lost its standing in the European nation. The study apparently found that nearly two-thirds of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament (Matthew).
Fraser, though, took issue with this indicator, claiming that it was improper for Dawkins to assume that a failure to name this book means that these individuals aren’t Christians. It was at this point that the priest asked the atheist to name Darwin’s well-known evolutionary book.
“Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’, I’m sure you could tell me that,” Fraser said.
“Yes, I could,” Dawkins responded, clearly indicating that he was ready for the challenge.
“Go on then,” Fraser poked.
And this is where the situation turned awkward, as Dawkins simply couldn’t make his way through the book’s elongated title.
“‘On The Origin Of Species’ … Uh. With, Oh God,” Dawkins stumbled. “On The Origin Of Species.’ There is a subtitle with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”
Fraser, of course, seized upon the opportunity to make his point that not being able to name a book doesn‘t necessarily have anything to do with one’s deeply-held beliefs and convictions.
“You’re the high pope of Darwinism,” he said. “If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.‘ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.”
There is a lesson in this, however, pointed out to me via a cyber friend who has a wonderful apologetics site, he says this as an instruction both to me and to others:
Seems that the recent fracas with Dawkins and Fraser is good reason to lay down some brother rebuking of UK “Christians” more than an occasion to focus on Dawkins.
Shudder to think but I tend to agree with him more than Fraser. Since when is a Christian a person who self identifies as one? Can I call myself a tennis player if I have no tennis equipment, reject tennis rules and never get out on the court and play?
UK Christians have only themselves to blame for the fact that a personage such as Dawkins can call them out on their lack of possessing anything to do with Christianity except for an empty label. Fraser’ view comes very close to affirming that Dawkins himself is a Christian as Dawkins refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” meaning he rejects the same things that UK Christians do, he accepts that which they do (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but sees cultural benefits, etc.
Great points!
Dawkins Refuted by Roger Penrose
On the Run ~ Richard Dawkins, Polly Toynbee, and AC Grayling ~ William Lane Craig’s 2011 UK Tour (October 17-26)
Richard Dawkins Calls Islam One of the Greatest Evils
Some Thoughts on Richard Dawkins via Rational Responder
A Panel Debate On Whether Or Not the Universe Has Purpose
Apologetics315 h/t (presentation begin around the 8:30 mark.) ~ English and Spanish throughout.
Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkin
VS
Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
- 3 of 3
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3