Friday, December 9, 2011

More Evidence that Atheism Makes You Stupid

Richard Dawkins is a fool. If you don't believe me, see Psalm 53:1. It is a scandal that such a willful ignoramus should hold a chair is a prestigious university such as Oxford. Only a decadent, declining society could honour such a man.

There is no excuse for treating him with kid gloves. He is actually a totalitarian who would love to make it illegal for Christians to raise their own children in their own faith and he deserves to be marginalized and ignored by the media. That his books sell well and he gets rich throwing bombs at Christians is more of an indictment of the low level of education in our society than a reliable gauge of anti-Christian sentiment in our society.

In his Daily Telegraph blog today, Rev. Peter Mullens has this to say about the Elmer Gantry of atheists:

Richard Dawkins says that David Cameron is “not really a Christian”. The fact is that it is only God to whom all hearts be open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid. So Dawkins has no means of telling whether Cameron is a genuine Christian or not.

We can, however, know that Dawkins is not a proper atheist – that is an intelligent atheist – from his own puerile writing and pathetic attempts at philosophical theology. For example, he writes: “Either God exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question. The existence of God is a scientific question, like any other.”

This is idiotic. Science investigates material phenomena, observable entities in the universe. No competent theologians or philosophers – not even the atheist ones – have ever declared that God (if he exists) is an object in his own universe. Perhaps there is no God, and intelligent Christians readily admit that there may be some legitimate doubt. But if the Judaeo-Christian God exists, then he is the maker of the universe and not an entity within it

It may be that Christians are tragically misled and that there is no God. But before you rush into atheism, you have to know something about philosophical reasoning and how theology works. In other words you have to know what it is about and what it is not about. When he discusses religious belief, Dawkins does not know what he is talking about. And to fire off ignorant opinions is only the first mark of a fool.

To say that the existence of God is a scientific question (in the narrow sense of science as the investigation of empirical reality by experimental methods), is the worst sort of scientism. Scientism is the elevation of science to the status of a religion by saying that only empirical science can discover truth and any truth not within range of empirical science is not important and unreal. Scientism is a heavily freighted philosophy which depends on highly controversial and not empirically demonstrable axioms. In other words, it rests on a foundation of what Richard Dawkins wishes were true.

Dawkins cannot tell the difference between metaphysics, science and religion and so he simply asserts that they all come out to the same thing. In his atheist tract, The God Delusion, he treats the metaphysical arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas in 2.5 pages and actually imagines he has debunked the arguments for the existence of God. In an age of low educational standards but almost universal literacy, he gets away with it so long as he is not called on his stupidity. So it is necessary for those who know how much he does not know to say so openly and loudly.

Mullens goes on to compare Dawkins to David Hume, who was an atheist but not a bitter, old, hate-fulled campaigner against Christians. Anthony Flew was an atheist for most of his life, but he never descended to the hatefulness and spite of a Dawkins. There just is no need of it.

Atheists and Christians alike should join in denouncing Dawkins for his bigotry and stupidity. This intellectual charlatan is merely a poorly-educated, angry, old man with an ax to grind and little intellectual firepower with which to grind. It is very sad to watch.


Robert said...

Craig Carter, you wrote,

"To say that the existence of God is a scientific question (in the narrow sense of science as the investigation of empirical reality by experimental methods), is the worst sort of scientism."

I've not read Dawkins, but perhaps that's not what he meant by "scientific question".

Christians and many other theists frequently claim that God interacts with the universe on multiple levels. Your holy books are filled with instances of his direct intervention in the natural order. You say that God heals and works miracles even today. So while God may not be an "object in his own universe", the property of the God you worship includes influence upon his creation - and that influence should be detectable by scientific means. I think that's what Dawkins means when he says the question of God is a scientific question. Your own claims about God make it so.

Scientism is the elevation of science to the status of a religion by saying that only empirical science can discover truth and any truth not within range of empirical science is not important and unreal.

I don't know about that, but I will say that science has a proven method for discerning truth from falsehood. Religion possesses no such method. What truth has any religion provided that is not merely asserted, or buttressed by faith? The myriad claims of the religious are contradictory - and have been that way for millenia.

Craig Carter said...

You sound pretty confident. So this shouldn't take long.

Prove to me using the scientific method only that Hitler was wrong to exterminate the so-called "lower" races (as determined by his scientists) in the name of eugenics ( a science).

And don't cheat by bringing religion, philosophy, tradition, conventional wisdom or personal, subjective feelings or opinions into it. (They are not part of "science" are they?) Let's see how wonderfully your scientific method works to make the world a better place and fight grave moral evil.

And hurry up because it is a matter of life and death.

Robert said...


You called Dawkins a fool, among other things, for asserting that the question of God is a scientific question. I think your rationale for doing so is flawed and gave my reasons why. Your respond with what is essentially a red herring - asking me to prove, using the scientific method, why Hitler was wrong. How are the two even remotely connected?

Perhaps your challenge was instead directed at my second point: that religion provides no method for discerning truth from falsehood. If that's the case, again, I fail to see the relevancy.

Craig Carter said...

You can't do it can you? Yet you dismiss religion and claim that science replace it. Ridiculous.

Craig Carter said...

Scientism, which you seem to support along with Dawkins, reduces all truth to that which can be demonstrated on the basis of empirical experiments - which is to say that it rules out any reality beyond the physical universe. So there can be no knowledge of God or morality or truth because these things lie beyond the reach of empirical science.

This is to grossly inflate science and misuse it. The knowledge of God in obvious from nature, human nature and conscience. It can be denied, rationalized or fought, but not eradicated. This needs to be recognized by those in the thrall of scientism, which is really a form of materialist philosophy. How can you use the five senses to prove that nothing exists in the spiritual realm? You can't. You can simply assume that nothing exists that you can't see. You think that is just great when it comes to God, but I thought it might make you think twice when you realized that you cannot prove morality any more than you can prove God. I thought that maybe you might scale back your extravagant claims for the power of science when you realize that somethings you want (I hope) are lost as well as some things you don't want (like God.)

Robert said...


It appears you cannot defend your assertions about Dawkins. Rather, your response is to mischaracterize my argument (where did I claim that science replaces religion?) and to raise red herrings.

I believe I provided good reasons why Dawkins would state that the question of God's existence is a scientific question. If you cannot address my arguments, then further discussion is pointless.