Evidence for God from Science

Interesting article.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/27/h ... mentalism/

Peter Higgs has some strong things to say about Richard Dawkins' own fundamentalist approaches to thinking and reasoning.

Not shocking. I think lots of scientists have said basically the same thing about Dawkins and his approach to religion/atheism. I think the general consensus in the scientific community is that he has been a very good scientist, especially in evolutionary biology and genetics, but he is a controversial figure when it comes to his other views.

While I don't necessarily disagree with everything he has to say about religion, I don't like Dawkins himself. I think his approach mimics the radical and confrontational style that many fundamentalist religious people use, and that approach tends to hinder anyone from getting along. It probably explains why he is so popular, though...Ironically enough, the most violently confrontational people in the world of religion seem to also have the most followers. No wonder these theological discussions/debates only end in anger and hate.

Approach of Dawkins is embarrasing.

I think his approach mimics the radical and confrontational style that many fundamentalist religious people use, and that approach tends to hinder anyone from getting along. It probably explains why he is so popular, though...Ironically enough, the most violently confrontational people in the world of religion seem to also have the most followers. No wonder these theological discussions/debates only end in anger and hate.

Yes, is it any wonder that his "radical and confrontational style" and dislike bordering on hatred (of Christians/Believers) is quite popular amongst atheists - especially the New Atheists?

And no one loves a straw man more than Dawkins! He uses the absolute worst examples (from both the distant past and present) of those calling themselves Christians to debunk and ridicule. Typically, he avoids those with any significant scientific understandings/training or that can pose credible intellectual and evidential challenges to his assertions (people like Hugh Ross).

Here's an interesting critique from Hugh Ross - "A Universe from Nothing Critique": http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?n ... e&id=20227 (Here he critiques the book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, for whom Dawkins wrote its afterword, describing the book as "biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism."

I think Dawkins has a talent for putting biology into laymens terms, the Selfish Gene is a great book imo. I think his philosophy/theology is pretty grim.

If all there was to deal with from his atheist perspective was intelligent, loving and thoughtful Christians I don't think the current Dawkins would exist. I see him in his current incarnation as a stubborn, arrogant reaction to stubborn arrogant Christians. I also think he served a purpose in educating Christians at large, he viciously tore down a lot of the rather badly thought out criticisms laid against evolution and allowed people to focus on the core issues.

Proinsias wrote:I see him in his current incarnation as a stubborn, arrogant reaction to stubborn arrogant Christians.

I would like to know which stubborn arrogant Christians. Just curious.

I was thinking about the hate mail Professor Dawkins receives and seems to so relish making available. A quick google or youtube should bring it up but I won't link it as the the one I just watched on youtube has some really nasty language, really nasty.

It's not good to send hate emails.

Hmm. But it's not good to forward it.

There is no question that there are arrogant hateful "Christians". That doesn't excuse or justify hateful arrogant responses.

All Dawkins is in many regards is the personification of everything he claims to dislike in religion, manifested into atheism. He's a reflection of what he claims to stand against.

All Dawkins is in many regards is the personification of everything he claims to dislike in religion, manifested into atheism. He's a reflection of what he claims to stand against.

Ironically and sadly TRUE. But he and many others like him are blind as a bat to that truth.