Dawkins and Theology

The problem, Richard, is not your lack of expertise. It’s you complete ignorance about the most basic theological issues. Take your crackpot views about science showing that it is really, really unlikely that God exists because there are no proven Gaps. Your talking point makes the theological assumption that insists God’s existence should be coupled to the failure of science. Sounds like a theologically ignorant position to me, Richard.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Richard Dawkins, theology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Dawkins and Theology

  1. TFBW says:

    Then there’s his other argument — “The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit” — which comes down to God being the most complex (and therefore least likely) conceivable thing. That one makes the theological assumption that if God exists, he arose by random processes. I’ll be generous, and call that assumption “unconventional”.

  2. The Deuce says:

    TFBW:
    Good catch on the “Ultimate 474” argument. Dawkins “reasons” that God must be more complex than anything He creates (an extremely dubious premise based on materialist assumptions), and then concludes that God must be “improbable” because according to information theory, the more complex something is, the more improbable it is.

    But, of course, when a complex object is said to be “improbable” from an information theory standpoint, what we mean is that an object exhibiting a particular complex pattern exhibited by that object is very unlikely to come into existence by chance. So what Dawkins’ 474 argument actually “proves” (pretending for the moment that his premises aren’t entirely wrong and misinformed) is that something like God is extremely unlikely to come into existence by random processes. Well, Dick, thanks for that, um, “insight.”

  3. eveysolara says:

    The point being, why are you so obsessed with flagella when you’ve got a much bigger problem on your hands.

  4. Michael says:

    Then there’s his other argument — “The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit” — which comes down to God being the most complex (and therefore least likely) conceivable thing. That one makes the theological assumption that if God exists, he arose by random processes. I’ll be generous, and call that assumption “unconventional”.

    The ignorance is even more basic than that. Dawkins assumes God is contingent, he assumes that if He exists, He must have come into being. And that is ignorance of Theology 101. Neither is his argument original – it’s just a fancy pants way of asking, “Well, who made God?!” It’s the type of question a teenager would ask.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s