This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Yet another flea

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Jos Gibbons

The Godless Delusion

You could probably write a computer program that could generate parodies of a given book title. It would do the title–writing work of pretty much every flea ever.

Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley

So it's come to this – apologists who have to team up to write a flea. (Although technically it's not the first example – Alister McGrath cowrote his with his wife, which is surprising considering (a) his being a former Oxford Professor and (b) it being just about the shortest of all the fleas.)

today's atheistic debate

Why name the debate for one of the sides in it? Do we call the creation–evolution controversy the creationist debate, or the debate over the best approach to economics the Keynesian debate? (To name the debates for another side in them would be just as dumb.)

Madrid and Hensley make plain the truth of God's existence and the foolishness of the atheist-naturalist worldview.

(1) So they'll provide evidence that “God exists” is a true statement, will they? If they do, it'll be the first time it's been done in thousands of years of apologetics.
(2) Atheism doesn't have a world view; it's just the absence of theistic conviction.
(3) How would one find evidence for the failings of a naturalist approach to accounting for the phenomena we detect in evidence through explanations whose veracity is tested with recourse to further evidence?

Most books that take on the current spate of atheists look at the inner contradictions in their arguments—and there are many.

Such as?

Madrid and Hensley try another, more fruitful approach.

Is that demonstrated with recourse to how readily reading it has caused people to let go of their prior position that The God Delusion makes a good case for its theses, compared with the success in this regard of other approaches?

They look at the contradictions of the atheists with themselves, showing their arguments against God are at embarrassing odds with their own everyday experience and actions, their own deepest assumptions, and their own moral compass.

That would require that experience provides empirical evidence for a god, that atheists act in a way that would be impossible if a god did not exist, and that atheists' assumptions and morality would be similarly impossible in a godless universe. But since the existence of a god is not a theorem in any scientific model, none of these things can be true if the phenomena in question – our experiences, our actions, our assumptions, our morality – have scientific explanations, which they all do.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:45:27 UTC | #894337