Horizon: The President’s Guide to Science: Christian Review against Dawkins
Posted by Mr West | Filed under Beliefs, Christianity
Tonight i watched an incredibly well made documentary on BBC on channel 2 at 9 pm. It was very well shot and the cinematography was outstanding… Please read down and on for my point of view on the content and message.
I started watching it and just liked the look and the way it was put together and wasn’t taking much notice of what content was being said as they had some great shots and montages of equations and cityscape’s
and an interesting way of using screens to show parts of the documentary.
I Have only just got back from and i don’t actually watch much tele?? i know its strange but seems i just don’t as not much of it meets my fancy but this definitely did. It was so nice to watch and see all the uses of clever camera work and shots to make it look so professional and sleek. Below is one of my favorite shots.
The use of blur pull focus and depth of field was excellent and just choosing some great stock footage was also important to the way this moved along.
I didn’t start taking in what was actually being said until they started going into the biology part of this argument and i was shocked to hear what i heard. It was from a particularly biased view point and this was the evolutionist one. I would like to say that I am no scientist and that i don’t know half as much as these clever guys but i do know one thing and that is that God does exists and that he created this world that we live in as you read this.
I found it very interesting that Evolution was presented by Richard Dawkins as a fact and that, I quote, ” In order not to believe in Evolutions you must be either Ignorant, Stupid or Insane” These are very strong words and rather insulting really as though i don’t have a clear line on this i do know that we were created in the Image of God and that means that we did not derive from shell fish.
Earlier in the Documentary he says that “evolution is the only way to explain the illusion of design that we se in the living world” to me this is completely wrong as he is obviously acknowlaging that ther is design but stating that it is an illusion. This seems to contradictory as he would obviously argue against the fact that there is Intelligent design.
What ever the process i believe that we have a creator and that God has intelligently designed every single one of us and that this world surely can have just come about due to chance and that we cant have just morphed into what we are as incredible beings purely out of what is virtually nothing, single cell organisms.
The other really astonishing statement is that he dismisses that every soul is unique and just fluffs away that idea by saying that because something doesn’t suffer it is ok to kill an unborn baby that could grow up to be the next president of the United States. This is a terrible things as if you based life on this fact then it would mean it would be ok to shoot someone in the head with a sniper. Surely that’s ok as the person would not have suffered as they have not know its pretty instant a shot to the head. Surely not??
Also i think that it is very sad that he is ruling out God by saying that the day Darwin brought out the book on the origin of species 150 years ago on a Thursday… does this mean he existed before that??
You can find the video at this link
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dlr2j/b00dlqy1/
I am no obscuratist but i do feel that things need to be addressed as people are being fed one point of view and not the other side of the argument and the truth is that we are are loved and created by God and that he did send his son Jesus Christ to Die on the Cross for us.
Please do let me know what you think and what your thoughts are on the matters above christian or non christian.
I am a chap that really enjoys photography and things that look nice. I am currently on my PGCE year at Bath University which is training me to be a ICT teacher. I love playing rugby and going Kitesurfing in Kenya which is my home away from home.
September 17, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Funny how people think if they just restate and repeat things, it will eventually become fact no matter how little they have to support it.
(Hi, I’m Jordan. I’ve been lurking for a little while now… I believe I found you through Flowerdust.)
September 18, 2008 at 1:00 am
HI jordan,
Thanks for the post… yeah its true.. but sadly these clever guys do have allot of so called research that they can pull out of the bag but its so distorted and so onesided that it doesnt alow for any other points of view…
cheers
September 19, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hey Tim,
Dawkins is a good scientist no doubt but it’s interesting that whenever he is mentioned it is in reference to his philosophical thinking. I think his most famous scientific observation is his belief in memes. I haven’t read his God Delusion book but I have read climbing Mount Improbable which was enlightening but again.. it was more philosophical assertion than pure scientific text.
From what I’ve read Dawkins is a modernist too and just as much as he virulently dislikes new agers (amongst others who ‘suffer’ from religious mania) he really doesn’t like the post-modernist perception of the world either. I think this is down to the belief that reality isn’t there to be studied according to the post-modernist. This is why the humanities or ‘liberal arts’ distinguish themselves from the sciences because to a greater degree.. they are subjective. Dawkins is crossing bridges from empiricalism to subjectivism to back up pre-existing emotional responses to the notion of a belief in God.
Christians since the foundation of the Church haven’t accepted a seven day creation, a fair sizable portion of Jews don’t either. I recommend reading G.K Chesterton’s Orthodoxy as he comments on it (nearly over 100 years ago.. he had no problem with it!) or a more recent “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths” by David Robinson (written for a popular audience).
I don’t think what Dawkins says will some how ‘cure’ people of being religious on a large scale.. for a number of reasons, but I certainly think that it gives space to allow people with emotional qualms with the church (Dawkins himself had issues with the fact he was spanked by nun’s when he was younger) to somehow justify them.. and of course because it’s popular it’s easily and socially acceptable to do take on these ideals.
What Dawkins suggests has implications for people of a religious conviction.. no doubt about it.. which is what Dawkins and his followers leap upon. It also has implications for our human rights, morality, history.. future, politics.. it negates the ‘liberal arts’ or the quest for meaning.
For more info on that.. I would suggest reading “the god who is there” written by francis schaeffer. People like Dawkins negate meaning or the discussion of it entirely…
but these are all words thrown up to result with Dawkins deep seated emotional response to the metaphysical.. he just has a lot of money to throw into this. It’s a good example of “truth is whatevers popular at the time”… some people of course might comment “there is no truth”… Dawkins clearly disagree’s as he thinks there is no God. He’s a philosophical A-level student.
September 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Keith thanks for this… thats an epic comment that is much better than my blog post but im glad that it has sparked of some comments from people…
ill definately look into the references… its verry interesting and you sure do know your stuff on it..
its interesting as he did sound quite post modern on the interview but you say he wasnt… he definately is a modernist and would you say an idealist??
September 19, 2008 at 4:41 pm
What ive heard of him in person suggests that he cites David Hume quite frequently. David Hume was the first philosopher who comfortably called himself an atheist. Him and others like him (voltaire? though I’m not so aware of his writings) came from a period of time commonly known as the enlightenment period.. roughly about 200 years ago. They believe that humanity can only progress forward (like evolution) given time and that by education we can turn ourself from the savage to the noble (this goes with the view that blacks were ‘savage’ because they were not ‘civilised’… funny how that think emerged at its peak in the enlightenment period… it is the ideology of empire, the british empire expressly).
People later realised this was fallible, you can not educate people to live by ‘pure reason’ because people are not reasonable, they are subjective. Mathmatical facts might exist but the meaning we construct and place on existence and being is our own and subject to debate. Hume thought the white man was ‘superior’ to the black man as a result of his ‘reason’. Likewise some reasonable folks think God exist and some people do not.. reason likewise dictates that they cannot both be right.
The enlightenment period was one when they ‘believed’ they could live by reason. The post-modern individual.. like you and me in some respects realise (I hope) that reason is out there… because God is out there.. but we cannot grasp it totally.. you’re reason is different to mine even if not by much.. and everyone in history has been like this. So Dawkins in this sense is both a enlightenment thinker ‘and’ a post-modernist… because everyone and every time has been a post-modern age.. they just haven’t been aware of it or believed it.
However.. we may be post modern folks.. but as Christians we can’t be post-modernists because they distrust or expressly dislike the notion of right and wrong.. they are ‘beyond good and evil’ where as a Christian we are entrenched in such things because of our belief in God. This also means we can be right in some things and wrong in others.. post-modernists can’t help but get involved in the truth concerns because they don’t believe in truth.. their truth is there is no truth.. so they are both post modernists and not post modernists.. I hope this shows the slight contradiction in it’s thinking..
Does that make any sense? I mention this because I believe the reason for belief in God or disbelief does not rely on reason or rationale but a deep seated emotional or psychological response to their understanding or views on the topic. I think it radically redefines the term ‘the miracle of belief’ on the subject.. it’s a miracle anyone can come to believe the stuff we do given this age.
Seriously, read those books! especially Orthodoxy!
September 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I notice mention was made of David Robertson’s book “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths”.
I would recommend that you read this article, written by a woman who has actually reviewed the book in great detail. This is of particular importance if you have read Robertson’s response but not the God Delusion itself, since the review casts light on numerous inaccuracies within Robertson’s book.
richarddawkins.net/article,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby
September 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jonathan – who is the woman you mention and on what specialised personal qualifications does she base her review of The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths? I just like to know where/who what I read comes from.
September 19, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The woman’s name is Paula Kirby. Does she need specialised personal qualifications to review a book?
September 20, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I notice that David Robertson responded with a review of her review. Has this Paula Kirby responded with a review of his review of her review of his book Dawkins Letters iwhich was a review of the book The God Delusion.
September 27, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Tim it’s interesting that you saw this program? was it just before I saw you in Bristol and my mum shouted at me for boring you to death with evolution talk? It would be good to chat about it with you, obviously you know what I think. As for Dawkins, ironically in the scientific world he is very much a deity in his own right!
September 29, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Dawkins is a deity in his own right is he?
Care to back that ludicrous exaggeration up at any point? Just for the sake of clarity you understand.