Dawkins Demolished

[Simon]

I'd be utterly astonished if anyone else on this forum sincerely believed I actually meant Hitler's liking for Bruckner compensated for killing millions of people

Surely "anyone else with a couple of obvious exceptions believed... etc."

[John Skelton]

Hitler had great plans for Linz http://www.spiegel.de/international/...578785,00.html - architecture was another of his interests. Bit like Prince Charles .

[MrGongGong]

I hereby invoke Godwins law and the thread should be closed immediately

[amateur51]

Surely "anyone else with a couple of obvious exceptions believed... etc."

Steady Simon

[Simon]

Surely "anyone else with a couple of obvious exceptions believed... etc."

"And Pat! .... ...."

[ahinton]

Elgar ? nope never heard of him
I always thought it was Spanish for "The Station"

That's an old gag, initiated, I believe, by the late Fwank Muir - and, in any case, it should have been not Spanish but Catalan for "the station"...

[ahinton]

I hereby invoke Godwins law and the thread should be closed immediately

"God wins therefore Dawkins is demolished", as in?

Anyway, that'll decision will be up to Fwench Fwank, methinks...

[Maclintick]

It isn't that. It analyses the arguments Dawkins uses and what the author regards as Dawkins' 'Wikipedia knowledge' of some of the other disciplines he ventures into. It points out his wide use of rhetoric rather than rationalism to press his view, and that some of his arguments are identically flawed like those he seeks to destroy. It claims that in scientific fields outside his own area of expertise he blunders; and that he distorts the arguments and beliefs of his opponents.

This doesn't mean that he isn't 'right' but that he is himself too much of a fundamentalist to be a convincing advocate for his cause.

Up to a point, FF, though far from “The Dawkins Delusion” representing a “surgical” demolition of the eponymous RD’s original work, one finds in the Mc Graths’ thin tome very little reasoned rebuttal of Dawkins’ main arguments against the existence of God . In fact there’s no real no real equivalence of ambition or achievement between Dawkins’ polemical blockbuster and what is essentially an extended pamphlet - an ad hominem denunciation of one world-famous Oxford academic by a rather more obscure brace of same.

The McGrath’s main charge against RD seems to be that he’s shaky on matters of theology. Quite honestly, what do you expect ? You can’t expect the world’s foremost atheist to engage with the niceties of Trinitarianism or to go head-to-head with Aquinas on the nuances of angelic pin-dancing.

The McDuo then castigate RD for his equation of God as an infantile superstition to be ranked alongside Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but fail to acknowledge that millions of functioning adults adhere to the numerous placebo-religions of our popular culture, from homeopathy, crystal healing & associated New Age Nonsense to the fast-multiplying nutritional cults, each with their own fast-buck-turning guru. Such irrationality obviously puzzles and vexes Dawkins, but is not over-troubling to the McGraths, uncritical as they are of off-the-peg D-I-Y approaches to spirituality. For them, questioning the validity of the cherished tenets of others is at best very bad form, and at worst borders on psychological abuse. They adduce the fact that more people are adopting religious beliefs as proof that those beliefs are justified – tautologous, n’est-ce pas ?

The McGraths are smart enough not to challenge Dawkins’ central contention that the whole of creation can be explained without the need for the primary creator Himself, and so they switch their main thrust to the charge that D is insufficiently respectful of the delusions of large numbers of credulous theists, who demand that their views are not only respected, but granted intellectual legitimacy merely by force of numbers.

Damningly, and possibly indicative of a desire not to offend their most powerful constituency, the McGraths are curiously silent on the pernicious effects of American-style fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.

Nuff said. Back to the music…..

[french frank]

Anyway, that'll decision will be up to Fwench Fwank, methinks...

I've just checked the House Rules and can't see anything about Godwin's Law. Just don't call each other Nazis, okay?

Up to a point, FF

Not sure what you mean by 'up to a point'. You've quoted my entire message (which was a response to RT's Msg #15): I said no more and no less. It wasn't me who used terms like 'surgical' and 'logical'. I merely said : "It seemed to make sense to me but when I mentioned it to a Dawkins supporter a couple of days ago he couldn't stop laughing."

I wanted to suggest in the message you quote which starts 'It's not that' that it wasn't 'arguing against the non-existence of God ', merely taking issue with some of the arguments which Dawkins adduces. If I remember, McGrath said that his 'pamphlet' would probably be read by believers (and a few agnostics) whereas Dawkins work would be read by atheists (and a few agnostics). We agnostics can only be accused of having minds that are too open!

The McGrath’s main charge against RD seems to be that he’s shaky on matters of theology. Quite honestly, what do you expect ?

I would expect him to be a little less dogmatic when discussing theological matters.

[amateur51]

I would expect him to be a little less dogmatic when discussing theological matters.

Hey, cut the Prof some slack, french frank - he's a man in a hurry!

After all he knows there's only one chance at this life

[vinteuil]

... it's the Dawkins manner as well as the dogmatism that grates, of course. Danny Finkelstein discussing the recent survey was nice - "Richard Dawkins, God bless him, added his contribution yesterday deployed with his usual becoming humility, the trait that makes him so loveable."

[MrGongGong]

Is it possible to change the title of this thread
as it's clear that Dawkins was NOT "demolished" in any way , shape or form ?

[John Skelton]

The sort of idiocy exemplified by

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but

for me takes the problem with Dawkins well beyond 'dogmatism' or 'manner'.

[teamsaint]

petrol on a fire really.

one bad thing, one worse thing, and something possibly as bad.

if people like dawkins think that aetheism is the answer to Africa' problems, they might usefully look at the benefits of state sponsored aetheism as practised by the soviets and the chinese, and the benefits that their interventions brought to their countries, and parts of the rest of the world.
That's not to defend the record of the churches or Islam, by the way.

[MrGongGong]

petrol on a fire really.

one bad thing, one worse thing, and something possibly as bad.

if people like dawkins think that aetheism is the answer to Africa' problems, they might usefully look at the benefits of state sponsored aetheism as practised by the soviets and the chinese, and the benefits that their interventions brought to their countries, and parts of the rest of the world.
That's not to defend the record of the churches or Islam, by the way.

But it is trying to defend them isn't it !!!!
A bit like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" type of argument .........

Stalin didn't believe in god
Stalin was bad
therefore believing in god will make you good

or even

I bet Harold Shipman went to sunday school