Care to back that ludicrous exaggeration up at any point? Just for the sake of clarity you understand.

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

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!

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??

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.

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