God vs. Science

I actually read the TIME article (Nov. 13th Vol. 168 No. 20) this past week, while I was out of town. The full article can be found here. As well as here, on David's blog, where he provides some thoughtful comments, that far outweigh mine. But this is my response to the article.

Thanks to TIME Magazine for once again, in their semi-annual “Nod to God,” acknowledging that there are more things to discuss than politics and war (though a brief look inside the actual magazine proves that the cover is merely ploy to sell more magazines). Though, I am afraid that TIME cannot escape their presuppositions in order to write anything of value. To which I say, “If you want to change the world and influence thought, become a humanitarian, not a Journalist.” It seems that we usually have this backwards.

David I agree with you when you say, “TIME is largely at fault for the mediocre quality of this debate.” The questions were designed to sell magazines and not to stimulate the mind, which causes both Dawkins and Collins to appear less like scholars and more like radicals for a cause. Both men are obviously well educated, but it is apparent that Collins is a Scientist and not a debater (but I will say that I do agree with him on his stance, though). Dawkins on the other hand seems caught in his own verbosity and rudeness. Hiding behind his PhD, English accent, and Oxford Professorship, he misleads the masses with his fancy rhetoric. America has always been fascinated with this combination; even evangelicals have been known to succumb to this formula, i.e. C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright. Though if either Lewis or Wright have hidden behind this combination, I am unaware of it. But, I have more to say about uneducated, angry Christians (c.f. The Kooks ), as well as Dawkins and other Atheists arrogance than I do about the evangelical positions, I will keep my comments limited on the first and expound on the second.

Dawkins obviously has a “god complex” since apparently any “god” besides intellectualism is ignorance (This is where hiding behind the PhD comes in handy. Whatever floats your boat, you want to be god, go right ahead. Let’s just be certain that YWHW didn’t create the water that keeps us afloat, first). I find it funny to imagine myself so intelligently advanced that I can be convinced out of anything that cannot be proven with logic. . (Though, just because I can’t imagine it doesn’t mean someone else won’t try.) Many claim that Martin Heidegger was a great philosopher, yet you can not prove his theory of Being. He not only had a “god complex” he had a “Christ complex” too, eventually seeing himself as the essence of Being. (Though, I will concede that Dawkins is a better writer than Heidegger ever was). It seems that Atheism is a far riskier position to take, opposed to agnosticism. At least with agnosticism, you cannot be proven right or wrong.

It is interesting that Dawkins claims that humanities’ do-gooding is based on primitive groups of ancient man. Since there was “do-gooding” back then, there must have been “do-eviling” as well. Logically the ability to recognize that which is good must flow from the ability to recognize that which is not. This proves that there was an ability to discern moral right and wrong from very early on. This view however treats doing “good” almost as a flaw; we simply do it because our primitive ancestors did it. But this explanation, if true fails to explain where the ability to discern good and evil came from at such an early stage in the evolutionary process. It seems that morality has been intertwined with man from the beginning.

This moral framework continues to mock the work of Dawkins. Though atheist, Kai Neilson once said, “We have not been able to show the reason that reason requires the moral point of view.” Bertrand Russell said too, “I cannot live as if ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste.” Obviously the roots of moral right and wrong can not be accounted for by the intellectuals of our day. Dawkins further talks in circles in an interview with Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller fame. *WARNING* DO NOT watch/listen if you are easily offended or frustrated, I am NOT kidding!

In Dawkins argument the only thing that makes humans better than animals is the ability to reason. With the ability to reason comes, according to Dawkins a “moral responsibility.” But reason does not lead us to morality, as Dawkins’ colleagues have suggested. I find it funny that he uses an ethic here without any rational basis for it, i.e. “moral responsibility”. Where does this, “responsibility simply because we can reason”, come from? Do you feel encouraged simply because you can reason!? I know I don’t! His naturalistic viewpoint is disheartening and ill-conceived. Dawkins chalks man up into nothing more than random time, matter and chance. When we go so far as to deny the value in man, even the ability to reason becomes meaningless in light of Dawkins argument.

Dawkins belief in Naturalism completely denies any person’s intrinsic value. Without this value we are nothing more than muscle and tissue with the ability to reason. If this is how Dawkins finds worth, then I feel sorry for him. He is obviously a very troubled man and has made it his life’s goal to mock others and claim his “divine” superiority through knowledge and meaningless reason.

National Conference on Christian Apologetics

Hey All,
I am out of town this weekend, as I am going to Charlotte, NC for the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. It should be interesting, though I have mixed feeling about what to expect. My friend Brooks, from school, is going with me. So if anything it will be a fun road trip with him. I will update when I get back.

Peace

In Honor of Today

Since today is Voting Day I thought I would share the story of how I was registered to vote. While this may seem like an insignificant thing, the way, in which it happened to me, I find humorous. Maybe you will to, if you don't its not really my responsibility, is it. :)
As many of you know I attended Virginia Military Institute a few years ago. As a freshman Rat, any upperclassman can stop you inside of barracks at anytime. So needless to say Rats steer clear of Barrack whenever they can, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
I forget where I was coming from, but I was dress in what they call Grey Blouse. This is a uniform that zips up (actually down) in the front with a high collar. I always thought it was our best looking uniform, anyways. I was walking though the Jackson Arch of Barracks (the only arch Rats are allowed to use) where there was a table set up to my left. I paid little attention to it since I was straining (an exaggerated form of attention) I looked straight ahead and was planning on making a mad, "controlled" dash to my room, when I heard the dreaded words, "RAT STOP!!!!" I paid no attention to this since I was not the only Rat around, hoping that the Upperclassman was calling out to some other Rat I continued on my fearful way. Again another loud, forceful shout rang out in the archway, "Rat in the Grey Blouse STOP!!!!" "Crap!" I thought to myself, anyone with a brain could see that I was the ONLY Rat in Grey Blouse for "miles" around. So I was pleased to stop for the "nice upperclassman." This is the conversation that followed. "Rat, are you registered to vote?" What, You stopped me for this?, I thought. "NO, SIR" I replied quickly and politely. "WHY THE HELL NOT!?", He quipped back. I replied, "This Rat is not old enough. (Did I mention that all rats must refer to themselves in third person and I was only 17 at the time?) He retorted, "When do you turn eighteen." In October, Sir!" "Well then you’re old enough. What state are you from?" "Ohio, Sir!" "Then sign this and you'll be registered! Now get out of my face!"
While, I would have been more than willing to register without being told, I find it funny that I was forced to register, no questions, no time to think things over. "Strain and sign the papers Rat."