Comments on: A review of The God Delusion. By Richard Dawkins. Part 1. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:39:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: John Holmes http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-211962 John Holmes Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:37:07 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-211962 Hello Bill, I must admit that I admire your incredible commitment in seeking to deal with those robots who are, so we are led to believe, like us Christians, the victims of some fluke event that began an unguided and purposeless process that, according to professor Dawkins, only has the survival of the fittest in mind. He also tells us that this being the case there is no justification for ethics etc and we don't have free will. He, like his followers, it would appear, believe that they are gods as they have accidentally been endowed with the truth by the process of natural selection a process that eliminates rather than creates. PS Hitler stated that "Christianity is the product of sick minds" and believed that this was due to a virus that was in need of eliminating as it was deemed to be impeding the process of evolution and human perfection. PSS When the anti-Christian squad draw our attention to the crusades and such things as child abuse they cannot quote a single reference from the New Testament that incites any form of violence or abuse. They certainly haven't any solid reason for objecting to any aspect of human behaviour or beliefs that, according to their faith, are the result of an unguided and purposeless process. John Suffolk, Uk Hello Bill, I must admit that I admire your incredible commitment in seeking to deal with those robots who are, so we are led to believe, like us Christians, the victims of some fluke event that began an unguided and purposeless process that, according to professor Dawkins, only has the survival of the fittest in mind. He also tells us that this being the case there is no justification for ethics etc and we don’t have free will.
He, like his followers, it would appear, believe that they are gods as they have accidentally been endowed with the truth by the process of natural selection a process that eliminates rather than creates.
PS Hitler stated that “Christianity is the product of sick minds” and believed that this was due to a virus that was in need of eliminating as it was deemed to be impeding the process of evolution and human perfection.
PSS When the anti-Christian squad draw our attention to the crusades and such things as child abuse they cannot quote a single reference from the New Testament that incites any form of violence or abuse. They certainly haven’t any solid reason for objecting to any aspect of human behaviour or beliefs that, according to their faith, are the result of an unguided and purposeless process.
John Suffolk, Uk

]]> By: Justun Chan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-137355 Justun Chan Thu, 07 May 2009 17:25:52 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-137355 Being killed in the name of religion or not doesn't change anything. Two thirds of the world's population is religious, so any killing on the earth is basically more probable of being religious. Blaming religion for genocide is the same mistake of blaming any Muslim for being a terrorist. It's ethnic profiling. Does religion have something to offer? I believe so. Can it be easily debunked? That depends if you study it or not. Christianity has stood the tests of time both theologically and through textual criticism. However, does the Crusades and Inquisitions and all the mass genocide blemish its image? Of course. The church isn't perfect. But God is. Justun Chan Being killed in the name of religion or not doesn’t change anything. Two thirds of the world’s population is religious, so any killing on the earth is basically more probable of being religious.

Blaming religion for genocide is the same mistake of blaming any Muslim for being a terrorist. It’s ethnic profiling.

Does religion have something to offer? I believe so. Can it be easily debunked? That depends if you study it or not. Christianity has stood the tests of time both theologically and through textual criticism. However, does the Crusades and Inquisitions and all the mass genocide blemish its image? Of course. The church isn’t perfect. But God is.

Justun Chan

]]> By: Eileen Boyldew http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-76275 Eileen Boyldew Mon, 12 May 2008 09:18:13 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-76275 Dear Bill I have been reading your god-delusion website with interest. I thought your critique of the book one of the best and most readable I have seen - I've been browsing the net over the last couple of weeks, as some family members praised the book. I'm not looking to debate the subject wih them, but I wanted to be informed. By the way, I'm a Catholic. I saw your appeal for help on your part 2 site As I am filled with admiration for the knowledgeable and charitable way you respond to so many posters, I would like to help, in a small way. I don't have much spare time, although I'm retired, but think I could help in the 2 ways you suggested - praying for athiests and replying to them in a kindly way. Let me know what you'd like me to do. God bless. Eileen Boyldew, Canberra Dear Bill
I have been reading your god-delusion website with interest. I thought your critique of the book one of the best and most readable I have seen – I’ve been browsing the net over the last couple of weeks, as some family members praised the book. I’m not looking to debate the subject wih them, but I wanted to be informed. By the way, I’m a Catholic.
I saw your appeal for help on your part 2 site As I am filled with admiration for the knowledgeable and charitable way you respond to so many posters, I would like to help, in a small way. I don’t have much spare time, although I’m retired, but think I could help in the 2 ways you suggested – praying for athiests and replying to them in a kindly way.
Let me know what you’d like me to do. God bless.
Eileen Boyldew, Canberra

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-69542 Bill Muehlenberg Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:46:06 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-69542 Thanks Jamie It all boils down to what is true and what is not. The truth claims of Christianity can be weighed and assessed, and a good case can be made for Christianity’s truthfulness, coherence and relevance. I have sought to make that case here, as have others. It is a question of how open-minded you are, and if you are really willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Jamie

It all boils down to what is true and what is not. The truth claims of Christianity can be weighed and assessed, and a good case can be made for Christianity’s truthfulness, coherence and relevance. I have sought to make that case here, as have others. It is a question of how open-minded you are, and if you are really willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Jamie Talbot, Vic http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-69074 Jamie Talbot, Vic Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:39:19 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-69074 I'm really tired of religious people assuming that atheists don't believe in anything, how they're spiritually lost and how their lives are empty. And on top of that we're supposed to have no sense of moral values. It's really insulting. I also don't understand why the burden of proof is apparently on the atheist and not the believer. We're the lost souls that need guidance, remember? There are hundreds or religions out there. Pitch yours to me. Help me decide. But remember, I don't do leaps of faith and if you have no scientific evidence, I'll come up with my own spiritual answers, and they, like scientific theories, would naturally be replaced if better ones came along. For such is life and it's fantastic. PS: I read some of the Bible. But I stopped when men started knowing women. I just lost interest. I’m really tired of religious people assuming that atheists don’t believe in anything, how they’re spiritually lost and how their lives are empty. And on top of that we’re supposed to have no sense of moral values. It’s really insulting.

I also don’t understand why the burden of proof is apparently on the atheist and not the believer. We’re the lost souls that need guidance, remember? There are hundreds or religions out there. Pitch yours to me. Help me decide. But remember, I don’t do leaps of faith and if you have no scientific evidence, I’ll come up with my own spiritual answers, and they, like scientific theories, would naturally be replaced if better ones came along. For such is life and it’s fantastic.

PS: I read some of the Bible. But I stopped when men started knowing women. I just lost interest.

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-53659 Bill Muehlenberg Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:10:31 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-53659 Thanks Dave There are plenty of good reasons for faith available. You might start with Antony Flew’s new book, if your mind is really open. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Dave

There are plenty of good reasons for faith available. You might start with Antony Flew’s new book, if your mind is really open.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Dave Brown http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-52978 Dave Brown Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:51:17 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-52978 John, as I understand your post, you mean that religious faith is not based on rational thinking, and as such, is impervious to logical argument. Maybe you meant that about <i>atheist</i> thinking but I don't think so. Anyway, if I understood that correctly, than you can not dismiss Dawkins's book as simplistic arguments, They are <i>rational</i> arguments. If you want to declare your beliefs to be impervious to rational argument -- to be, ergo, <i>irrational</i>, that's your business. And if your God cannot be defined, then I supposed that is indeed beyond rational argument. This is an excellent example of the orbiting teapot analogy described in Dawkins's book, or the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World." When you assert something that no conceivable test could prove or disprove, you are, in Wolfgang Pauli's words, "Not even wrong." John, Bill, anyone, on my own blog I reviewed this book, and ended with an open invitation to anyone capable of raising <i>rational</i> objections to it, anyone who can explain, <i>logically</i>, why to believe in any particular religious faith. I've not seen it done. Dave Brown John, as I understand your post, you mean that religious faith is not based on rational thinking, and as such, is impervious to logical argument. Maybe you meant that about atheist thinking but I don’t think so. Anyway, if I understood that correctly, than you can not dismiss Dawkins’s book as simplistic arguments, They are rational arguments.

If you want to declare your beliefs to be impervious to rational argument — to be, ergo, irrational, that’s your business. And if your God cannot be defined, then I supposed that is indeed beyond rational argument. This is an excellent example of the orbiting teapot analogy described in Dawkins’s book, or the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s “Demon-Haunted World.” When you assert something that no conceivable test could prove or disprove, you are, in Wolfgang Pauli’s words, “Not even wrong.”

John, Bill, anyone, on my own blog I reviewed this book, and ended with an open invitation to anyone capable of raising rational objections to it, anyone who can explain, logically, why to believe in any particular religious faith. I’ve not seen it done.

Dave Brown

]]> By: john mathai http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-20419 john mathai Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:27:26 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-20419 Dawkin's delusion I have just commenced reading this book and I can sum it up in 2 words, DAWKIN'S DELUSION. I think Dawkins attempt to discredit the wisdom of the ages is noteworthy but it is a bundle of simplistic arguments against God who cannot be defined. It is like an ant trying to explain the origins of man. I however have increased in knowledge of how the atheist camp thinks and argues and for this I am thankful. No amount of rational arguments can shift strong belief that is not just based on rational thinking. It is more then that. It is spiritual and only the spiritual can see while the rest continue like the blind man, going round in circles. John Mathai Dawkin’s delusion

I have just commenced reading this book and I can sum it up in 2 words, DAWKIN’S DELUSION. I think Dawkins attempt to discredit the wisdom of the ages is noteworthy but it is a bundle of simplistic arguments against God who cannot be defined. It is like an ant trying to explain the origins of man. I however have increased in knowledge of how the atheist camp thinks and argues and for this I am thankful. No amount of rational arguments can shift strong belief that is not just based on rational thinking. It is more then that. It is spiritual and only the spiritual can see while the rest continue like the blind man, going round in circles.
John Mathai

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-15944 Bill Muehlenberg Fri, 18 May 2007 23:05:21 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-15944 Thanks Martin But it is exactly because you are not God that you think as you do. You think you are simply good enough. Thus you have a low view of sin and a high view of yourself - just what will keep you out of heaven. Jesus said he came for the sinner, not the (self) righteous. He said the sick have need of a doctor, not those who think they are well. The biblical view is that all of us are sick; none of us measure up. All our own righteousness is so much rubbish. But of course such an assessment cuts across human pride and selfishness. Thus those who find themselves missing out on heaven will find they have only themselves to blame. One either allows God to be God, or one foolishly pretends that he or she is God. I am afraid the universe is only big enough for one God. Or as C.S. Lewis put it, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done’.” It has nothing to do with “supping up to him” but everything to do with humbling ourselves, recognising our overwhelming need, and bowing to the rightful boss of the universe. But as long as we pretend we are the boss, there is no hope. And what does it mean anyway for an atheist to be moral? If morality has to do with doing that which is right, then finding out what is right and then doing it is the first step. And letting God be God would be top of the list, it seems to me, not fooling ourselves into thinking we are the king of the castle. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Martin

But it is exactly because you are not God that you think as you do. You think you are simply good enough. Thus you have a low view of sin and a high view of yourself – just what will keep you out of heaven.

Jesus said he came for the sinner, not the (self) righteous. He said the sick have need of a doctor, not those who think they are well.

The biblical view is that all of us are sick; none of us measure up. All our own righteousness is so much rubbish. But of course such an assessment cuts across human pride and selfishness.

Thus those who find themselves missing out on heaven will find they have only themselves to blame. One either allows God to be God, or one foolishly pretends that he or she is God. I am afraid the universe is only big enough for one God.

Or as C.S. Lewis put it, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done’.”

It has nothing to do with “supping up to him” but everything to do with humbling ourselves, recognising our overwhelming need, and bowing to the rightful boss of the universe. But as long as we pretend we are the boss, there is no hope.

And what does it mean anyway for an atheist to be moral? If morality has to do with doing that which is right, then finding out what is right and then doing it is the first step. And letting God be God would be top of the list, it seems to me, not fooling ourselves into thinking we are the king of the castle.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: martin bennett http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/comment-page-3/#comment-15923 martin bennett Fri, 18 May 2007 16:12:56 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/12/29/a-review-of-the-god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins-part-1/#comment-15923 Lets pretend that you are God. Who would you ask the gate keeper to be allowed into paradise. a) The guy who has spent his whole life supping up to him in order to gain entry? b) An athiest who was moral for moral's sake? I know which I would choose. Be a man. Except the fact there is no God. This is it you are going to die, the end. Now go forth and be good, for goodness sake! Martin Bennett Lets pretend that you are God. Who would you ask the gate keeper to be allowed into paradise.

a) The guy who has spent his whole life supping up to him in order to gain entry?

b) An athiest who was moral for moral’s sake?

I know which I would choose.

Be a man. Except the fact there is no God. This is it you are going to die, the end. Now go forth and be good, for goodness sake!

Martin Bennett

]]>