JavaScript DHTML Menu Powered by Milonic

God new evidence

GOD: new evidence

Contents

Misquoting Dawkins?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

A third objection that people have raised to our video 'A contradiction at the heart of atheism?' is to claim that we are misquoting Richard Dawkins.

I will come to a more specific response to this objection in a moment, but first, it is worth noticing that there is a basic misunderstanding here: the point of the video is not about Dawkins (he is just an illustration). The point is that there is a problem for atheists when they want to have real right and wrong, without any grounding for it. They want to have their moral realist cake and eat it. But, as Andy Bannister says:

If you deny the existence of God, any moral values you advocate for are nothing more than your personal preference.

Dawkins is a good example of this, because if his claim that there is no good or evil in the universe is true (there are no objective morals), then his claim that religion is evil can be nothing more than his personal preference - and why should we care about that?

However, I think the claim that we are misquoting Dawkins is wrong. This claim can go down one of two paths:

But how are we mis-representing him in these short quotations? If you read the quotations in their wider contexts, how does this change what he means?

First meaning

Maybe we can agree that in the first quotation, Dawkins is saying that there is no objective right and wrong 'out there' in the universe.  This seems to be what he is saying. If you read the quotation in its wider context, this still seems to be what he is saying. If you think this is not what he means, please explain why. Call this 'meaning 1.'

If this is so, there can be no things that are really bad or really good.  Everything is just a matter of personal preference and subjective opinion.

Second meaning

Maybe we can also agree that when Dawkins says that religion is evil, he is just giving us his subjective opinion about it, or his personal bias against it. (Call this 'meaning 2.). Again, if you think that this is not what he means, please explain why. But if it is just his personal preference, why should we care?

When he calls religion evil, Dawkins is trying to move us rhetorically with the idea that there really is something objectively bad about it.  In other words, he is trying to capitalise on meaning 1 above to give some weight to his use of meaning 2.

Or perhaps he's just confused.

 

only search
'God: new evidence'

Site map


Want to find out if God is real, and to connect with him?
Try Praying

Or get the app:


If you have a question chat now


Give to support our work


Keep in touch:

Facebook Facebook
TwitterTwitter
Get our quarterly newsletter 'In Focus' by email
* indicates required

Privacy Notice

Interesting sites

Bethinking

Christian Evidence Society

Christians in Science

Professor Robin Collins

William Lane Craig - Reasonable Faith

The Demolition Squad

Fixed Point Foundation

Professor Gary Habermas

Professor John Lennox

Reboot

Mike Licona - Risen Jesus

Saints and Sceptics

Test of Faith

Peter S Williams

‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.’
- Nobel Prize-winning scientist Arno Penzias