We wanted to highlight this compilation by Paul Manata - The Philosophy of theFrom the Confessing Evangelical:
Andrew Rilstone saves the rest of us the trouble by providing a major-league, must-read fisking of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. Douglas Adams fans will enjoy the list of post titles:
Posted by
oddXian
at
9:05 PM
While many in the church today, who having bitten off the principles of the world rather than swallowing the word of God, fail to recognize it, the truth remains that CHRISTIAN SKEPTICISM is not only our great heritage and long standing tradition, but also our Christian calling! (Swordbearer: Christian Skepticism – Our Great Heritage and Calling; July 07)
The key is how the different schools of thought withstand internal critique. Naturalism struggles with internal critique, because it is inductive by nature. Any of its conclusions can be viewed with skepticism, because we can never examine all the evidence in all relationships in all senses. It further refuses to admit to its own metaphysical components. For example, how can the naturalist prove the laws of logic by use of the scientific method, without being viciously circular? It is a metaphysical assumption held to by a groundless faith. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
If you say that God is “unnecessary in everything we know about”, how do you know that? Do you know “everything we know about”? Who are “we”? How did you come to know the meaning of the word “be”? You said that you don’t know where the universe comes from. How does that remove the necessity for God? At the very least, it is equally an explanation as any other if you don’t know. So then God is not removed from everything we know about, since the universe had to come into existence in order to exist. (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
You mean to say that you actually have evidence that the universe wasn’t created? That would be monumental. Can you point us to this evidence? (Puritan Lad: Team CS and the clash of the worldviews!; July 07)
Posts
2 comments:
I am not all that convinced by this review. While it is entertaining, the reviewer does not get to the crux of the matter with Dawkins, he seems to skirt the peripheries, and this quote from the review shows why:
"That said, if you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection – as everyone sensible does..."
While he disagrees with Dawkins conclusions on the theology side, he actually agrees with Dawkins on the scientific side.
As far as I can determine, the reviewer is a Roman Catholic, and holds to the brand of theistic evolutionism espoused by the Vatican.
Thus he speaks of creationists in terms equally as disparaging as Dawkins, while still maintaining that Dawkins got it wrong.
I find it fascinating that we have never seen a complete reconciliation of the random processes that make up evolution with the creative and purposeful fiat of the Christian God. The Vatican is intentionally vague, hoping to avoid another run-in with science.
All other explanations involve compromise, either on the sovereignty of God, or a denial of the mechanisms of evolution.
The reviewer here takes it no further than papal assertion, and it dilutes much of the impact of the review.
ow! I missed that - thanks for pointing it out, August.
Post a Comment