Professor Richard Dawkins: Intelligent or Ignorant
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and a prominent figure for atheism. Author of the book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins believes that the whole concept of God and Christianity is completely man made for our own entertainment. Dawkins is considered a pioneer for “new atheism” where they believe that the whole idea of religion is pure evil. Richard Dawkins’ beliefs on evolution and the non-existence of God can be seen through his concept of social issues, family, and the nature of God. This paper will be a disagreement piece that will entail a comparison of my beliefs to his; pertaining to Christian principles.
Dawkins stance on societal issues is directly derived from his view of the world. A big social issue that is plaguing our world today would have to be pedophilia; and the effect it can have on our children. However Dawkins’ has a shocking point of view on the situation. Dawkins’ said “the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder, and should not be bracketed with what he called “just mild touching up; recent child abuse scandals have been overblown” (Seto, 2008). It’s crazy to think that Dawkins’ truly believes that these child molestation cases are drawn out and overblown. These kids have suffered greatly for what those perverted people did to them; and their suffering should not be taken lightly. I believe that because Dawkins’ doesn’t believe in Christ, that his moral compass is tainted. Whereas with me I know that God doesn’t want anyone to take advantage of vulnerable Children, and then flip it around to make it seem like it is not a big deal.
Richard Dawkins’ has an interesting stance on the family structure, and what he believes par...
... middle of paper ...
...ith him does that for me. I’m confident in the fact that I was made in God’s image and that his loves and cares for me; and is concerned with what’s going on in my life. I wouldn’t say that makes me needy or incapable of fulfilling myself; it’s just nice knowing you have someone special and powerful on your side.
Richard Dawkins is not a role model for me personally, because his thought process and what he presumes right or wrong; differs greatly from mine. His stance on pedophilia, incorporating family and religion, and the nature of God; is something that I could never see myself believing. God has been way too good to me and I have seen him do so much in my life for me to ever dismiss his existence, and think he is a made up fairytale. God is alive and he is working everyday all across the universe, it is just so sad that Professor Dawkins can’t see it.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
In today’s culture, the idea of there is perfect and divine designer that made the earth and everything that entails with it, really pushes people away. Not only has this idea been conflicted about in today’s culture. It has been especially trivial in past decades, an example of this is seen by H.J. McCloskey. McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism.
Dawkins, Richard. "Quotes About Religion or Atheism." Quotes About Religion or Atheism. Atheists of Silicon Valley, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014. .
Dawkins, who offers an explanation of this seemingly high-convoluted behavior in terms of a simple “evolutionary game theory”. This theory is especially relevant for this essay in terms of how politics can be understood scientifically as it implies that all human interaction and behavior is highly predictable. Political science is just syntactic sugar for “people interacting with other people”; that’s all it is really. Dawkins says that our actions are mainly determined by our genes and we make decisions based on how well that decision will allow our genes to propagate in the gene pool. It is all so simple that it seems reasonable to believe that with a good enough understanding of genetics, we can also understand politics. The notion of our behavior being reduced to a game theory scenario also strongly implies that there is a mathematical quality t¬o how humans make decisions. If
With his provoking work entitled The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins attempts to answer such questions as he proposes a shift in the evolutionary paradigm. Working through the metaphor of a "selfish gene", Dawkins constructs an evolutionary model using a gene as the fundamental unit of selection, opposed to the more commonly accepted belief of the species as the unit of selection.
Goode (Hale 1995, 342-343) argues that the whole concept of a family is rooted in sexual drives and the imperative of reproduction and in the sociological imperative of creating a social being.
“Science proves religious people are stupid and atheists are smart.” This is a somewhat provocative title pulled from an article on a small blog called “The Moral Minefield,” run by a group of Graduate Theological Union students and graduates (Green). This statement is exactly the kind of thing, however, that one would expect Richard Dawkins to wholeheartedly agree with. In fact, he seems to imply this sentiment throughout the entirety of his speech titled, “Militant Atheism.”
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.
Smith, S. R., & Hamon, R. R., (2012). Exploring family theories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
The metaphor behind Dawkins' theory can best be described by his opening statement: "we are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Barlow 193). Dawkins links the natural behavior of unconscious bunches of nucleic acid (genes) to human behavior and personality by calling them "selfish." His use of this term conjures up the image of a separate individual, capable of making decisions to help its own good and disregarding our needs. By calling human beings "survival machines" and "robots," Dawkins suggests some serious moral implications regarding our existence. If we were just robots, it would seem that we would be no longer responsible for our actions, as people could attribute all evil to the gene programmers who created these robots. Also, if our primary purpose were to serve as a "survival machine" for something else, life would seem insignificant. John Maynard Smith writes that Dawkins' book is just about evolution, and "not about morals . . . or about the human sciences" (195). However, the attempt to disengage the selfish gene theory from its moral implications is seriously undermined by Dawkins' metaphors.
In Dawkins’ novel, he aims to prove how the explanation is not a religious answer but a biological and cumulative natural selection. According to Dawkins, the theory of Darwinism is what changed the mystery of our...
Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a particular system of faith and worship or a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion (Oxford Dictionary, 2014). From religion, many new groups, communities and further derived religions have formed. Closely related to religion and with endless controversies surrounding it’s classification as a religion is the concept of Atheism- which is defined as the disbelief or rejection of a deity. Descending from this is a social and political movement in favour of secularism known as New Atheism. Understanding the historical content concerning the emergence of atheism, this essay will then address how various aspects within the field inclusive the goals, structures and approaches have emerged and developed over time in comparison to the original atheist ideals.
Murdock’s idealised view of the family could now be seen as outdated as it is no longer the most common family structure in Britain today although it can still be used as an argument against other perspectives. While there have been many changes to the structure of the family and the roles performed within it, the nuclear family remains an ideal for the majority of people in society.