This guy is Richard Dawkins. He's an important scientist who has built a reputation for arguing vehemently against God ... or against the existence of God, which is fair enough. He's come out with a book called The God Delusions extending this particularly argument, which is also fair enough. It's funny, though, that he should so passionately express such belief in the importance of not having belief in God in a somewhat evangelistic style.
As with some element of the evangelistic wing, though, Dawkins is not completely sorted in his arguments as this link will highlight if you have a read.
In the meantime it's worth considering again whether or not the existence of God really is that important?
Shalom
da man cd
1 comment:
Dawkins describes himself as a de facto athiest. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there".
He acknowledges that an athiest cannot be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, because it simply isn't provable.
He says an athiest's belief cannot be absolute or total in the same way as a thiest's belief can.
He believes God doesn't exist as strongly as he believes there are not fairies at the bottom of his garden, or celestial teapots floating in space between the earth and the sun.
He believes the evidence against God existing is as strong as the evidence that celestial teapots don't exist. Most of his evidence is evolutionary theory.
I bought the book months ago and I am still reading it. I'm struggling with it because astro-physics, evolutionary theory, probability theory are his evidence. These things are really hard for me to learn and understand.
I am tempted to skip the bits I don't understand, bow to his better judgement, and just believe that he knows what he is talking about. Oh, the irony.
Post a Comment