An Answer to Richard Dawkins

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Atheist Richard Dawkins responds to a question by turning it around:

[video=youtube;6mmskXXetcg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg[/video]

I thank Dr. Dawkins that he has pointed out that every culture on earth has admitted to the existence of God. That is, that God is 1) All Powerful, 2) All Knowing, and, 3) Everywhere Present. However, Dr. Dawkins is confusing the existence of God with the character of God. A culture, for example, may know of the existence of God, but be wrong about the character of God. Dr. Dawkins' logic is that if A is true then B must be true as well. Such is not the case, Romans 1:21.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Rufus]

If we are wrong we where all fools for Christ, we lost a lot of sinful things that may have been "fun" in this world, but we didn't lose anything in the eternal realm. If Richard Dawkins is wrong than he may have had plenty of fun in this world, but lost all in the eternal realm. Of course than you could argue what if Buddhism or Islam is correct, but hypothetically if the argument is only available between Christianity and Atheism.

I really do think Richard Dawkins is smart in terms of his knowledge of evolutionary biology but he really shouldn't bring himself into philisohpical debates.


Also I wish he would stop demoting the attributes of God found in the Bible down to Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns, compared to the omnipotent, omnipresent, all holy God of the scriptures they can't compare.

 

[Peairtach]

I've never been persuaded that e.g. "Pascal's Wager" is a good argument. Maybe I haven't looked at it closely.

"What if you're wrong?" seems to be another poor version of "Pascal's Wager".

 

[Tim]

I agree. Pascal's Wager is based on the idea that one loses more if they are wrong about a God that does exists, in contrast to if they are mistaken and God doesn't exist at all. It's all about the risk of believing one thing or another.

1. If, in reality, there is a God

cost of believing: repentance and humility
benefit of believing: saved from hell, eternal paradise

2. If, in reality, there is not a God

cost of believing: repentance, humility, missing out on pleasure
benefit of believing: nothing

One then compares "saved from hell, eternal paradise" vs. "missing out on pleasure" and concludes that the odds are better if you "bet on God".

It's actually not a proof, is it?

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

It is a man-centered way of thinking.

 

[Rufus]

Pascals Wager wasn't really something Pascal planned on people reading and using, he wrote it down a scribble of sorts and to get people to think because his mathematic work was being used by gamblers to increase there profit.

 

[jwright82]

Dawkins is completly incompetant with regards to any philosophical. All of the so called new atheists are. I do not have time to critique Dawknins as he deserves but tommorow I will be able to do him "justice".

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Christian theology teaches that homo religious is basically the same, wherever you go. MSH has pointed out that moralism binds much of the religious-world together. Yes, Virginia, there is a set of "core-beliefs" found in the "world's great religions." Its called "THE LAW" and God gave it from the beginning, and wrote it into man's constitution from the beginning. This is the natural man.

And right there, we have the essential divide between "all the world's religions," including moralistic-churchianity, and Christianity. Because Christianity teaches that the Law IS universal, and it universally condemns. The Law is holy, righteous and good (Rom.7:12); and Christianity affirms the truth of it in every honest line. Christianity's solution to man's inability to keep the law is to make an end of the law. Not by removing or eliminating it; but by removing its power to condemn us for our very real, very terrible and blameworthy transgressions. None of that is glossed over; none of it is minimized--our sin is maximized greater than most other religions are willing to admit. And we testify that the answer is not to be found in our balancing or appeasing efforts.

There's nothing remotely like the gospel in any other religion. The cross of Christ continues to be an offense to the natural man, including (perhaps even especially) those who would like to be called Christians for some reason, but who try like mad to make the cross of none effect, 1Cor.1:17.

 

[steadfast7]

Pascal's wager is brilliant. It is an objective way of showing that unbelief is irrational. that's all it's meant to show. Don't hate on the wager because it is not a full exposition of the gospel. It serves the purpose for which it was designed. Pascal was offering an argument for those who thought they were smart according to the world's standards, and Pascal demonstrated that they failed that as well. It is not 'man-centred'; it is contextualization.

 

[Tim]

Dennis, please don't use expressions like "hate on" - I don't think anybody here has made any hateful statements.

I still think Pascal's Wager is man-centered because the choice comes down to what is better for me, rather than what is really true. It demonstrates nothing about reality itself, only about one's process of thought.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Thanks for all of your input, and, I especially appreciate Rev. Buchanan's post.

Pascal's wager is problematic. However, it is true that Dawkins is wrong. I think it gives Pascal's wager more authority than some might care to admit. There will come a day when Dawkins will stand before the Judgment Throne of Jesus Christ. At that time he will realize that he was wrong. I hope that he may repent and believe in Jesus before that time.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[steadfast7]

I apologize for the term "hate on". It's an expression that we use that doesn't connote actual hate.

I still think Pascal's Wager is man-centered because the choice comes down to what is better for me, rather than what is really true. It demonstrates nothing about reality itself, only about one's process of thought.

I would argue that God is not opposed to the kind of reasoning that says, "I will decide a course of action because it is best for me." Jesus commands us to "store riches in heaven for yourself" and "come onto me and I will give you rest," etc. God asks Israel, "why will you not turn from your ways and live?" etc.

To me, Pascal is using baby talk with the unregenerate fool who says in his heart there is no God. He is meeting him on his terms and demonstrating his folly. I think it's brilliant.

 

[JennyG]

I'd agree with Dennis. We know Pascal's wager is not a proof ,let alone a full statement of the Gospel.
In context though, which means when interacting with complete unbelievers, I believe it was always and is still pretty unanswerable.
You would know that from the energy atheists put into attacking it.
And in that clip, it was glaringly obvious that Dawkins didn't answer it:
he did one of his tried and trusty comedy turns for his fans, but as Rob pointed out, studiedly ignored the real attributes of the God he was actually being asked about.

 

[athanatos]

Dawkins is using an argument from relativism that could easily be thrown back at him, yet again:
If belief is because of your environment and not because it is actually representative of reality, then how can you explain the belief that justification is contextual? Or to put it another way, if you believe something because of your cultural background, then wouldn't you, Dawkins, just believe something else if, say, you were not raised in a secular humanist Western society?

Rebuttal is paraphrased from Reason For God

 

[Peairtach]

I'd agree with Dennis. We know Pascal's wager is not a proof ,let alone a full statement of the Gospel.
In context though, which means when interacting with complete unbelievers, I believe it was always and is still pretty unanswerable.
You would know that from the energy atheists put into attacking it.
And in that clip, it was glaringly obvious that Dawkins didn't answer it:
he did one of his tried and trusty comedy turns for his fans, but as Rob pointed out, studiedly ignored the real attributes of the God he was actually being asked about.

To be honest, I haven't studied Pascal's Wager closely. It sounds rather weak to me.

For Pascal's Wager to be valid, it must be shown that Christianity is the true religion, otherwise, if hypothetically-speaking Islam is the true religion, it is Christians that are betting on Christianity that are going to an Islamic Hell. Christianity and atheism aren't the only options.

 

[Rufus]

Dawkins is completly incompetant with regards to any philosophical. All of the so called new atheists are. I do not have time to critique Dawknins as he deserves but tommorow I will be able to do him "justice".

Many of them argue from emotion i.e. my uncle was a Christian and he was so mean and he abused children and had no fun and he died depressed because he never got to do this or that and it ruined his life.

 

[Peairtach]

Dawkins is no philospher. His book "The God Delusion" is more of an atheist rant than a reasoned atheist philosophical treatise.

A number of noted atheists said they were ashamed of "The God Delusion".

The "rise" of the so-called New Atheism may be just further evidence of the breakdown of the Enlightenment project and faith in it. While it was going well, their was no need for such strident "evangelistic" atheism.

 

[steadfast7]

The wager is not an argument for Christianity per se but of belief in general. Logically speaking the atheist should believe in any deity, even at random, to secure himself some potential stake. Being essentially a monergist, Pascal knew that a person could not believe at will and so suggested that the seeker go to church, spend time in the company of believers with the hope of eventually believing sincerely. Great advice!

 

[Peairtach]

The wager is not an argument for Christianity per se but of belief in general. Logically speaking the atheist should believe in any deity, even at random, to secure himself some potential stake.

But it's a valid point that if you pick the wrong deity, you're in - or may be in - a worse position than the atheist.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, what if Dawkins chose to become a Hindu?

 

[steadfast7]

I'm not sure that choosing a wrong religion is worse than atheism, although that's worth discussing. But that was not Pascals concern. Just like Anthony Flew embracing theism, that's a huge leap, much to the disdain of Dawkins.

 

[jwright82]

Dawkins is completly incompetant with regards to any philosophical. All of the so called new atheists are. I do not have time to critique Dawknins as he deserves but tommorow I will be able to do him "justice".

Many of them argue from emotion i.e. my uncle was a Christian and he was so mean and he abused children and had no fun and he died depressed because he never got to do this or that and it ruined his life.

If you plan to do apologetics than remember your insight. We do not just touch the mind but the heart as well. Deal delicatley with emotional people, we should not be biligerent torwards unbeleivers.

Dawkins is incompetant because he doesn't understand the issues involved in the philosophy of religion. He says that the christian needs god to do the right thing but the atheist needs to do the right thing because it is right. This completely misses the logical problem involved in regecting God's existance and how we now arrive at a moral code.

Think about it like this. If God doesn't exist than we become the top of the food chain morally speaking. But which person or culture has the right theory of morality? Without a God above to command us we are left to abritrary assertions by people.

He also completly regects the need to study the systimatic theologians of the christian faith. Although this may at some point be o.k. it leaves you open to the charge of irrellivance. By that I mean that if you criticize a Roaman Catholic theology than that critique is irrellivant to me as a Reformed Confessional christian.

---------- Post added at 08:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

Those are just two reasons why he is incopetant as a philosophical thinker.

 

[Weston Stoler]

Christian theology teaches that homo religious is basically the same, wherever you go. MSH has pointed out that moralism binds much of the religious-world together. Yes, Virginia, there is a set of "core-beliefs" found in the "world's great religions." Its called "THE LAW" and God gave it from the beginning, and wrote it into man's constitution from the beginning. This is the natural man.

And right there, we have the essential divide between "all the world's religions," including moralistic-churchianity, and Christianity. Because Christianity teaches that the Law IS universal, and it universally condemns. The Law is holy, righteous and good (Rom.7:12); and Christianity affirms the truth of it in every honest line. Christianity's solution to man's inability to keep the law is to make an end of the law. Not by removing or eliminating it; but by removing its power to condemn us for our very real, very terrible and blameworthy transgressions. None of that is glossed over; none of it is minimized--our sin is maximized greater than most other religions are willing to admit. And we testify that the answer is not to be found in our balancing or appeasing efforts.

There's nothing remotely like the gospel in any other religion. The cross of Christ continues to be an offense to the natural man, including (perhaps even especially) those who would like to be called Christians for some reason, but who try like mad to make the cross of none effect, 1Cor.1:17.

Going to facebook

 

[NB3K]

The question given to Dawkins is flawed. Since when do the people of God ask the unbeliever "what if you are wrong?". We should triumph against the unbelievers by telling them that they prove the Bible to be true. They refuse to acknowledge GOd as God and give him no honor! For this reason God has given them a reprobate mind to do nothing but store up wrath for themselves on the day of wrath!

 

[steadfast7]

Although we know the truth of God certainly, Dawkins does not. In the scriptures, God often invites people to reason from their own perspective. This is a part of God's condescension to man and it is completely acceptable. To ask Dawkins What if you are wrong? is to expose the flaw from within his own standards of reason.

God knows he is right from his standpoint, and from all others as well.

 

[Peairtach]

Although we know the truth of God certainly, Dawkins does not. In the scriptures, God often invites people to reason from their own perspective. This is a part of God's condescension to man and it is completely acceptable. To ask Dawkins What if you are wrong? is to expose the flaw from within his own standards of reason.

God knows he is right from his standpoint, and from all others as well.

Well the (young?) lady gave Dawkins a hostage to fortune by asking the question, "What if you're wrong?" It might have been alright if she was able to reply to his answer, but since it was just the informal Q and A session, she could not, even if she had a good reply.

 

[Tim]

To ask Dawkins What if you are wrong? is to expose the flaw from within his own standards of reason.

But, Dennis, I still don't see exactly what flaw you think this exposes!

What standard of reason is Dawkins employing and where exactly does he go against this?

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

By the way, of course, I think Dawkins is completely lost, I just don't see how Pascal's Wager exposes the flaw.

 

[steadfast7]

But, Dennis, I still don't see exactly what flaw you think this exposes!

What standard of reason is Dawkins employing and where exactly does he go against this?

Dawkins flaw is simply that, as an atheist, he has no absolute basis for his knowledge of anything. The best he can do is hope that he is not wrong. The Christian (or any theist, for that matter) stands on much firmer ground.

Well the (young?) lady gave Dawkins a hostage to fortune by asking the question, "What if you're wrong?"

Well, in keeping with the wager, a theist's still has much better odds than the non believer. That's what the wager is meant to illicit - a sense of probability.

 

[py3ak]

Dawkins is no philospher. His book "The God Delusion" is more of an atheist rant than a reasoned atheist philosophical treatise.

A number of noted atheists said they were ashamed of "The God Delusion".

The "rise" of the so-called New Atheism may be just further evidence of the breakdown of the Enlightenment project and faith in it. While it was going well, their was no need for such strident "evangelistic" atheism.

Theodore Dalrymple has expressed some disdain for the new atheists.

I would question the bolded phrase, though, Richard. For one thing, Christianity is supposed to be evangelistic - but that doesn't reflect a weakness in our position. I suspect the conditions are now such that abrasive atheists are free to be abrasively atheistic in public and in the press because the societal reprobation of atheism is weakening.

 

[Peairtach]

I suspect the conditions are now such that abrasive atheists are free to be abrasively atheistic in public and in the press because the societal reprobation of atheism is weakening.

Fair point. There are no doubt a number of factors behind the atheism of today.

 

[Tim]

But, Dennis, I still don't see exactly what flaw you think this exposes!

What standard of reason is Dawkins employing and where exactly does he go against this?

Dawkins flaw is simply that, as an atheist, he has no absolute basis for his knowledge of anything. The best he can do is hope that he is not wrong. The Christian (or any theist, for that matter) stands on much firmer ground.

I agree that Dawkins has no epistemological basis for his belief, but I don't see how Pascal's Wager addresses that. I would use other questions to get at that fatal deficiency in Dawkins' argument.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

To get at epistemology, you need to ask questions about certainty of belief (like "how sure are you?). Pascal's Wager only addresses outcomes of situations that are hypothetical within the argument of whether God exists. I suppose you could use Pascal's Wager to introduce the problem, but it in itself doesn't seem sufficient to point out a weakness because it makes no assertions about Truth. It only leads someone to compare how desirable are different outcomes.

From Wikipedia:

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, note 233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. It is not optional.
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

According to point three, there is no employable reason in this scenario. But, both we and Dawkins would agree that we can use reason in our argument. I maintain that Pascal's Wager is not very useful.

 

[steadfast7]

For a person like Dawkins, the wager is helpful in presenting the probalities for favourable outcomes, not only in this life, but the possible life to come (from Dawkins perspective). The wager is simply pure logical reasoning extended over eternity rather than just the present life.