Marsha Hansen Critiques Richard Dawkins 0002

Part 2- Clip continues with Marsha Hansen's critique of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• God and Science
• Richard Dawkins
• Christianity
• Is God Real
• Spirituality
• Books

[ahod2000]

Thank you for your excellent critique. It is frustrating when such a well respected scholar does something in the theological realm that he would consider absolutely unscholarly in the scientific realm, such as quoting out of context to reinforce his opinion.

[MarshaERH]

Thank you very much for your comment. I have critics who do not see my points, but I think anyone will benefit from checking the original source documents of the thinkers quoted in The God Delusion.

[RodHullIOnceWasHim]

Also, Dawkins never said Jefferson/Adams "were" Atheists but rather if they had been alive today, in Dawkins's opinion, they would have been...

Presumably, this opinion is based on the fact they had no knowledge of evolution which healthily converted many previously unenlightened deists...

KrokrX is also spot on in that the reason for making these points was to highlight these "seemingly" little know facts about the founding fathers by the religious...

[RodHullIOnceWasHim]

Interesting quote mine from Dawkins there but in no way is the God Delusion built on mere arguments to authority... The most persuasive parts of it (in my opinion) are all highly illuminating and obvious statements of logic and probability...

[LordBalliol]

Well done!

[kyle1946]

Ah, well done on picking up on Dawkins' error. I'd like to see someone pick him up on that in an interview or one of his seminars.

Quotes taken out of context are quite clearly, dirty play. Even Dawkins has expressed that in the past. I would therefore assume that he did not mean to do this, and is simply ignorant of the original text.

Also, it's Prof. Richard Dawkins, not Dr.

Kyle x

[MarshaERH]

Yes, you are wrong. Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic. Darwin explained why it fit his own stance. One can be both an atheist and agnostic, but not necesssarily so. The terms aren't interchangeable. One has to do w/ belief and one w/ knowledge. The distinctions go beyond nuance. It is not a matter of half believing something. Darwin wasn't being coy in applying the term agnostic. Your definition is lacking. On line sources are instantly accessible to find more complete discussions.

[RodHullIOnceWasHim]

An agnostic does not "believe" in God and therefore, all agnostics "are" atheists by definition...

Am I wrong to go black and white here...? Is it possible to half believe in something...?

[MarshaERH]

Where isn't my evidence.? Ideas precede forms. Every quanta, spark of energy, cosmic law, and all harmonies that make physical existence possible & comprehensible reflect God's ideas that are far from nothing. Jesus is far from no one, and hope is far from vain. Your own ability to reflect and be aware are my evidence, even if you do not know it. You have a spirit and are vastly more than the sum of your parts. Even Tom Paine acknowledged his Creator despite being virulently anti-Christian.

[MarshaERH]

You are right in stating Dawkins' opinion about Jeffferson and Adams. I apologize if I was not clear on this idea, though I disagree wth the conclusion.

In my opinion, had Darwin been alive today, he would not be an atheist. In fact, he called himself an agnostic, rather than an atheist after his faith eroded. I think Francis Collins' research would not be lightly dismissed by this man who reflected w/ candor on the great questions that humans have always pondered.

[MarshaERH]

Incomplete quotes that do not represent what the originator intended to convey are dishonest. I encourage my audience to examine the original sources and make up their own minds. Dawkins' case can't be hurt by this if he is not taking quotes out of context or leaving out significant phrases. In fact, it should help his case if the support is there for his ideas. I highly recommend the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams.

[MarshaERH]

In deed , I am talking history and setting the record straight as to what these persons said. I think it useful for anyone to check the original sources of the Dawkins' quotes in The God Delusion and judge for themselves what was stated. Furthermore, reading the Treaty of Tripoli in full is enlightening. Dawkins' does appeal to particular thinkers to make his arguments. Do I harm his cause by saying read each source in its entirety? Why cry foul over my suggestion?

[ruffgreens]

What is your evidence that the Harris quote is blind and misleading?

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion."

-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations