Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Reasons *Not* To Become Catholic | Main | I'm (gulp) going to disagree with Fr. Robert Barron »

Wednesday, August 18, 2010


M. B..

"Religious believers often accuse argumentative atheists such as Dawkins of being excessively rationalistic, demanding standards of logical and evidential rigor that aren’t appropriate in matters of faith. My criticism is just the opposite. Dawkins does not meet the standards of rationality that a topic as important as religion requires."

Amen to that. When Dawkins is told, "You're too rational!" he hears instead, not unjustifiably, "You make too much sense for my comfort!" The key to addressing him is showing that he is not too rational, but rather not rational enough. Like most scientific atheists, he is rational only so far as empricism goes. Once the questions go beyond that, he doesn't have the courage to keep asking, but simply waves the questions away.

Thomas Gilson

Dawkins says, "If [God] has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and randomly constructed than the largest brain or the largest computer we know."

God "has" something as a part? Then that part precedes him? God is "constructed"? Who did the building?

The point of my questions here is not to say there's some problem with the Christian doctrine of God. God has no parts, as was clearly noted in the article, and he's not constructed. There are excellent philosophical and theological reasons to think this is so and to allow that it makes good sense.

What I'm trying to point out instead is the kind of "God" Dawkins thinks he's refuting. In a word, it has nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the God Christians believe in. Dawkins thinks that in order to believe in God, we must regard God as not-God (something other than God) and since this not-God is logically absurd, therefore we cannot believe in God. He's the only person I know of who thinks he can refute A by rebutting not-A.

I'm just glad he never held an endowed Oxford chair as Professor for the Public Understanding of Logic.

Mark Brumley

Some Christians may think the case for God is simpler and easier than it is. But there is little doubt that many atheists, including Richard Dawkins, think the case against God is much simpler and much easier than it is. Although Gary Gutting said some good things about Dawkins' book and treated him respectfully, the fact is he clearly thinks Dawkins' argument in The God Delusion is an intellectual embarrassment.


I'd be interested to hear what people think of the posts that follow the article. Whenever I read an article about the existence of God, I take a deep breath before reading the fairly nasty comments that follow.

Thoughts anyone?

God bless you


S Henning

I think both MB and Thomas Gilson wrote excellent responses to Dawkins arguements. What little I've read of Dawkins struck me as very poor reasoning and not even good writing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad