Dawkins Helps Expose the Weakness of Modern Day Atheism

On August 7, 2018, Richard Dawkins tweeted:

Historic contingency “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here.” Is this, 1) necessarily true for any dinosaur? 2) Necessarily true only of a dinosaur whose sneeze interrupted its pursuit of the ur-mammal?

and then added:

Why I favour (1):

Think back from own existence. Hyper-improbability of dad’s lucky sperm making it. Multiply up for 2 grandads, 4 gt grandads etc. Ripple outward back to ur-mammal.

Now think forwards. Outward worldwide-spreading causal ripple from any event, even trivial sneeze.

I agree.  Everything is indeed connected.  In fact, a moment’s introspection will tell you this is true concerning your own life.  There are several trivial little decisions you have made over the years that are a necessary part of your history because they are crucial to your identity.   For example, perhaps a split second decision to stop at a fast food place for a milk shake causes you to run into an old childhood friend and you therefore reestablish a connection.  Months later, your friend then plays a crucial role in supporting you through a very difficult time, steering you away from bitterness and toward forgiveness. That decision then helps to frame future decisions which then help shape who you are.

I mention this because it is striking that Dawkins can understand this dimension to our reality, but then, when it comes to the topic of God, he completely abandons it and reverts to superficial, almost childish, thinking.

Dawkins, like most modern day atheists, build their atheism around the demand for evidence.  Supposedly, “there is no evidence for God.”  Therefore, if God exists, He is supposed to pay Dawkins a visit and supply this evidence.  Of course, the evidence can’t be personal or private, because then it could be an illusion.  It has to be public, verifiable, undisputable.  We know this position collapses into incoherency once you ask Dawkins, or anyone like him, what would count as such evidence. For then they are stumped.  They are clueless.  Or they retreat into the logic of God-of-the-Gaps.  And then Dawkins himself is forced to admit that he can’t think of anything that he would count as evidence for God.  That’s what happens when your mind is closed shut and you rely on childish thinking when it comes to the topic of God.

We’ve been through this many times (since atheists have no reply), but let’s now add the new angle on it to illustrate just how pathetically weak the “there is no evidence for God” posture is.  Let’s consider Dawkins’ “no evidence” complaint from his ability, in other contexts, to recognize how everything is connected.  And we can do this with a simple question:

If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here, don’t you think the same applies to a public, verifiable, undisputable miracle designed to get Dawkins to believe in God?

Look, if God gave Dawkins the miracle he wants, all just to convince Dawkins that God exists (assuming that is even possible), don’t you think this would significantly alter the future such that people who would have come into existence would no longer come into existence?  If a dinosaur’s sneeze would do that, it would seem impossible to deny the same for a public, verifiable, undisputable miracle.

This would mean that Dawkins, or a Matt Dillahunty, must think they are very, very special and privileged in deserving of a type of evidence that would likely erase the existence of countless people from the future.

Like I said, childish thinking -it’s all about me and my needs.

If God exists, he exists outside of time.  Creation before Him is past, present, and future.  One big package deal. From God’s perspective, creation is more like a portrait than a movie.  By demanding their own special miraculous evidence displays,  modern day atheists are demanding that Creation itself be radically altered.  And when you take into account all the different types of miracles that various atheists claim to need in order to believe, you have a set of demands resulting in a large set of different, mutually exclusive, Creations.

So if you are an atheist demanding that God supply you with some evidence of His existence, you need to show that you are so important, and your ability to believe the truth is so important, that all of Reality needs to be changed to accommodate your needs.  Why do you think reality revolves around you?

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, God, New Atheism, Richard Dawkins, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Dawkins Helps Expose the Weakness of Modern Day Atheism

  1. Your agreement ain’t.

  2. Dhay says:

    I do not understand much of Richard Dawkins’ Tweets — Michael evidently focuses on, and turns back on Dawkins, the parts which do make sense; I find much of the double Tweet incoherent:

    Historic contingency “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here.” Is this, 1) necessarily true for any dinosaur? 2) Necessarily true only of a dinosaur whose sneeze interrupted its pursuit of the ur-mammal?

    Restructuring, without changing the sense:
    Q1) Is “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here” necessarily true for any dinosaur?

    A1) A particular dinosaur was specified, so It cannot be necessarily true for any dinosaur. (It’s possible Dawkins is limiting the scope of “any dinosaur” to those few in the picture he presumably had in mind or sight when Tweeting — no, I don’t see such a picture on his FaceBook page — but the same comment applies.)

    Q2) Is “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here” necessarily true only of a dinosaur whose sneeze interrupted its pursuit of the ur-mammal?

    A2) First Dawkins tells us it’s a particular dinosaur, “the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree”, then it’s any (“a“) dinosaur sneezing while pursuing that particular ur-mammal. But whatever, it’s not necessarily true — if the (or “a”) dinosaur pursuing the ur-mammal had not sneezed, it might nonetheless have tripped, had a heart attack … and so on.

    Which leads me to a question of my own: Q3) Does Dawkins Tweet sober?

    *

    Contrary to his second Tweet’s claim to explain why he favours his (nonsensical) Q1), it’s plainly based on his original claim, assumed true, that “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here”; that is, it’s not based on either subsequent question, not even if we assume they were meant to be rhetorical questions.

  3. TFBW says:

    Dhay asks, “Does Dawkins Tweet sober?”

    It’s not Dawkins’ sobriety which is the issue here: its his fundamental ineptitude in relation to philosophy.

  4. Dhay says:

    > Historic contingency “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here.”

    Historical determinism: “As we all of us actually are here …we can conclude that the “second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree” definitely did sneeze.”

    Overview: “Garbage in, garbage out.”

  5. Dhay says:

    Odd, I thought ‘survival of the fittest’ had been discovered to be not survival of individual animals such as that single pursued ur-mammal; I thought it’s all about the survival of genes in the gene pool, in the population, not the death of one instantiation of a particular mix of genes: I’m told genes are the smallest units of evolution, so let’s call them … why not call them ‘selfish’ (as in ‘self-ish’) genes; er, didn’t somebody write a book explaining all this.

  6. TFBW says:

    Looking at it another way, Dawkins’ question contains within it the presupposition that the fittest (or the carrier of the fittest genes, if you prefer) might not actually survive. Tell me more about this “unfortunate demise of the fittest” theory, Dr Dawkins. Is survival of the fittest merely a tendency, not a law? Has this tendency been measured? Have we ever come up with a fitness metric which is independent of survival so that the correlation can be measured at all? Indeed, does the survival determine the fitness, or is it independent? Is it not so much “survival of the fittest”, as we are always told, but rather, “the fittest survivor?” It seems to me that it doesn’t matter which dinosaur pursued which mammal, because the fittest survivor survived, and consequently here we are.

    Ah, but if the fittest survivor had been a different fittest survivor, would the “we” be the same “we?” That’s the question he’s ineptly trying to ask. In order to answer that, you’d need to have a scientific theory of Personal Identity, and no such thing exists. Personal Identity is not genetics, or else identical twins would be the same person (rather than two extremely similar people). Nobody has ever isolated a physical aspect to which Personal Identity can be reduced. As such, Dawkins’ Darwinian claptrap can tell us nothing about the answer to this question, even if we grant his implicit Physicalist presuppositions. That is, of course, unless we defer to Sam Harris, in which case the “I” of Personal Identity is an illusion, and Dawkins is asking a nonsense question, since the “we” is merely the plural of the “I” that is an illusion.

    If Dawkins had a clue about philosophy, he’d take this opportunity to notice the metaphysical poverty of Physicalism.

  7. stcordova says:

    Even more so than the dinosaur that sneezed, if God had thundered with might and power and lit up the skies by sending 10,000 legions of angels just before Jesus was arrested, Christ might not have died on the cross and thus we would not have the forgiveness of sins and Salvation. So your analysis is quite spot on in many ways, Mike. God has his reasons for hiding!!!

    I can think of one reason he’s hiding from Dawkins….Dawkins is getting set up to “look the fool” on Judgement Day, he’ll be toyed with and laughed at and held up as an example of a clown who thought he was wiser than the Almighty. So God has his reasons for keeping things hidden, just as he did when Jesus was taken before Pontius Pilate, so to in the present day…

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.