Commenting on:
Richard Dawkins book: The God Delusion
I have to admit to being in total disagreement with Richard Dawkins—and
for the full treatment of why, you need to read my book: Reality
Check: Science Meets Religion. This page is an outline of why we differ
so much.
Richard Dawkins has put forward his strong opinion there is no God in
books such as The God Delusion. His opinions are so strong he
clearly pities those who do believe in God. And that, by the way, comprises
over half the population on earth. Around 30% of world population are
Christians and around 20% are Muslims. Then there are other religions
believing in one God. This proves atheists are in the minority. In fact,
only around 16% are non-religions, agnostic (hedging their bets) or atheist
(opposed) [more].
Dawkins believes chance was the only influence in the development of
our universe and our world, that we are just lucky to have come into being,
and that anyone who believes in God is seriously deluded. His arguments
tend to focus on pouring scorn on religion because it cannot prove God
exists, or because ancient religious texts lack the sophistication required
to gel with modern science. My book majors on demonstrating the opposite:
that there is compatibility between science and religion.
I even show how the most modern thinking actually allows for a location
for Heaven. M-Theory (String Theory) models the world as a great number
of dimensions beyond those of time and our space: giving scope for other
space-time worlds such as the heavenly realms. Interestingly, when Jesus
was asked about the Kingdom of Heaven, he replied: "The Kingdom of
God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say ‘Here
it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the Kingdom of God
is within you." (Read Luke 17:20-21.) Please note Jesus
used the present tense. I think he perhaps had his tongue in his cheek
when he said this, for there was no way he could explain that Heaven actually
interpenetrates our own space-time world. So, in much the same way radio
waves interpenetrate us, so do these additional dimensions, and that is
where Heaven must lie.
The people at the time of Jesus had no understanding of dimensions, and
Heaven being up in the sky was the only concept they could grasp. There
would have been no point in Jesus trying to explain the reality, for it
was way beyond their grasp. But now, with science admitting creation is
far more complex than what we see around us, there is the chance of a
great advancement in our understanding: if the scientist can put aside
his differences with religion. Maybe black holes are where our space-time
world breaks down; maybe they are tears into another world, and that is
why matter seems to vanish through them.
Dawkins talks of the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit', which is this. 'A
God responsible for the creation of the universe would be at least as
complicated as that universe. Therefore it, too, requires a designer:
ad infinitum. So the argument for the existence of God is a logical fallacy.'
Its name is an allusion to astronomer Fred Hoyle's statement that: 'The
probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance
that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to
assemble a Boeing 747'. I do not think Dawkins chose this analogy very
wisely to substantiate the case against God since it is admitting it would
take something far greater than chance to create it; which would, of course,
be God.
In my opinion, the major point that Dawkins misses is that, be logic
and definition, a creator can never be part of his creation. If God is
the creator of the space-time world then he must exist beyond that space-time
creation. So when Dawkins rebuts arguments for God with statements such
as 'It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri',
he clearly overlooks this fact. That is not a scientific approach, therefore
he has no grounds to suppose that is an argument there cannot be a God.
We may not be able to prove there is a God but, in my book, I offer proof
that mind is separate from space-time—and that is where you will
also find the mind of God: which is the same as saying that is where you
will find God: although not in a spatial sense.
Radical thinking? Not really. I just pull together a synergy of many
separately understood concepts into a wonderful whole that will allow
an atheist or agnostic to see why it is logical to believe in God, and
why a believer can stop worrying about apparent contradictions between
their faith and science. As a Christian, I use the Bible to help demonstrate
my points, but this book is equally applicable to other monotheistic (single-God)
faiths. And I provide internet links to substantiate every aspect of my
proposals.
FInd out why this is something too important to ignore.
Click here to find out how to buy this book.
Back to top |
Click here for BUY options
READER COMMENTS:
"The most abstract of concepts are communicated in a clearly digestible form… There is a tremendous need for the genre represented here: arguments which transcend the physical world. For many, if not most, the task of adequately preparing oneself to respond to such questions is simply too daunting. I appreciate the scholarly professionalism and the extensive referencing… [The author] rises to the challenge of what most would consider an extremely difficult calling." (James Revoir - Authonomy)
"This is a very intriguing piece. I believe there is a significant demand for such discussions... I especially appreciate the inviting style, which will definitely be a plus for more skeptical readers." (Faith Rose - Authonomy)
"The survey of arguments both for and against the existence of God provides the reader with a way to better compare and contrast different viewpoints… Presenting the strengths and weaknesses of all of these different viewpoints was one of the things I liked most. I was really interested to read these chapters because, as a mathematician and a Christian, while there may be perceived conflicts between science and religion, I believe there are no conflicts between the structures and systems of the universe and God. This book also explains things very well… [and is] accessible without sacrificing scientific integrity… I think the book will be enjoyed by many and will encourage lively discussion." (David Bortress - Authonomy)
"Extremely well written, researched and set out. Every point is very clear. The analogies are extremely imaginative and very effective. The passion in this work is powerful and every paragraph is thought provoking. The arguments are well thought through and persuasive... I would suggest that everyone reads it and think very carefully about what you say." (Gareth Naylor - Authonomy)
|
