Tag Archives: Richard Dawkins

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Did the Cosmos Arise from Nothing?- “Something pretty mysterious. No science.”

by Bill Lockwood

If the general theory of evolution is true, then the earth and all that is in it, the entire cosmos, popped into existence from pure nothingness. This is how many internationally-acclaimed evolutionary biologists argue. They suggest a very unscientific beg

inning, better known as unsupported faith, defined as a “fairy tale” by their own reasoning.

A year ago, famed atheist Richard Dawkins, in a debate with Cardinal George Pell, once again asserted this “fairy tale.” Pell challenged the “something from nothing” claim that only physicists can understand but can’t demonstrate scientifically. Dawkins responded by proposing a “primeval simplicity” for the origin of the universe. No science at all. Only wishful thinking—the kind of story that should begin with “once upon a time.”

Here are Dawkins’ words: “Of course, it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course, common sense does not allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order

to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe.”

Something pretty mysterious. No science. No formulas from experimentation. No physical proof. Simply guesswork. Material for legends. Yet, since the story-teller is enrobed in a scientific lab coat, people must always believe it.

But not this audience. Dawkins sou

ght to “explain” what was meant by “nothing.” “You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very, very simple.” At this point in the debate, the audience laughs. But scientists who propose fairy tales are not used to being laughed at. So, Dawkins retorts, “Why is that funny?”

As Gary DeMar commented, “Science has become mysticism. It’s akin to the New Age nonsense of ‘the sound of one hand clapping.’ How many times have you heard atheists argue that they can’t believe in an invisible God. But it’s OK for atheists to argue that the cosmos came into existence out of nothing. ‘A physicist said it. I believe it. That settles it.’”

Free Thinkers or Christians: Who are the Real “Idol Worshippers?” 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Free Thinkers or Christians: Who are the Real “Idol Worshippers?”

by Bill Lockwood

According to Greg M. Epstein, humanist “chaplain” at Harvard University, those who believe in God worship idols. At least, this is the essence of his position. This must be the case since Epstein says that “belief in God is … a by-product—of two of the most important architectural features of our minds: archways of our brains that produce the spandrel of faith–what cognitive scientists call ‘causal reasoning’ and ‘theory of the mind.’” In other words, God is merely the product of our imagination.

This is consistently the atheist position. Humanist Manifesto II asserted that modern science “affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces” and that the “total personality is a function of biological organism.” The reason, per Secular Humanism, that “no deity will save us” is because there is no deity. And since idolatry is “to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25)—that which man has created—Christians must be the idol-worshippers for having “created” God in our minds! Thomas Altizer of Emory University popularized the “God is Dead” “theology” in the 1960’s in which he asserted the same in so many words. To Altizer all religion was the by-product of man’s imagination which was is nothing less than humanity “grasping for power.” Idolatry.

Richard Dawkins, who has sensationalized the theory of evolution, tries to get more creatively sophisticated with the entire scenario. Still committed to the belief that religion itself is the creation of the human mind, Dawkins suggests that “religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful” (The God Delusion). This would be, he proposes, like the analogue of steering by the light of the moon for a moth, which produces slavish gullibility. “Religion can be seen,” he concludes, “as a by-product of the misfiring of several of these modules …” of the brain, “equivalent of the moths’ celestial navigation, vulnerable to misfiring in the same kind of way …” (209).

Religion: A Creation of Man?

All of the above proposals are merely variations of the same concept: that religion and belief in God is the product of mechanical pressures in our minds. Two things must here be noted.

First, if all thought, including religious belief, is nothing more than matter in motion–mere mechanical functions– there can be no blame for any product of the mind. If “nature” is all there is, as Humanists maintain, then the thought processes of my brain are merely the haphazard product of purposeless impulses. What is blameworthy about any conclusion that it draws? Thinking itself would be the result of random energy. Dawkins may call it a “misfiring” of brain modules, but who is to be blamed for physical malfunction? There can be no responsibility where there is no free will. Yet, secular humanists refer to themselves as “free-thinkers!” They themselves are not even “free vibrators” if their position is right!

Is Dawkins controlling the “firing mechanisms” in his brain and I am not? This position empties itself of any possibility of value judgment. And how is “misfiring” of brain modules to be remedied? A good clunk on the head? Perhaps placing of chemicals into the cerebral system. An electric shock? Isn’t it strange how evolutionists from Epstein to Dawkins and beyond write books as if to educate and inform the mind while all the while insisting that beliefs are the result of physical electrical impulses of random energy.

Second, if, as the Humanist Manifesto II states, “the total personality is a function of the biological organism,” this must include any product that flows from my mind, including Secular Humanism itself! Upon what basis would “belief in God” be labeled as “idolatry” while atheism is proclaimed logical? Both positions are the result of random vibrations. Perhaps it is the Humanists and evolutionists who need a jolt or two of electricity. Or, in Dawkins’ terms, who is to say that religion and belief in God is not the proper firing of brain modules in the brain and evolution is the misfire? Interesting it is that humanists can never seem to apply with equal force criticisms against their own position. How can they level the charge of “idolatry” against anyone?

Idolatry is the worship of one’s own creation, yet if humanism be true, humanism itself is the creation of mankind. Or, in the words of Greg Epstein, “belief in Secular Humanism is the by-product of two of the most important architectural features of our minds: archways of our brains that produce the spandrel of faith—what cognitive scientists call ‘causal reasoning’ and ‘theory of the mind.’” Secular Humanism thus becomes idolatry.

Back to Homepage

Will Humanism Save the Planet? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Will Humanism Save the Planet?

by Bill Lockwood

“Laws are always theologically based, whether or not they are so acknowledged,” observes Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction). This is why in the societies of the ancient Near East, laws were always associated with deity. The famous Hammurabi stele, for example, shows the sun god Shemash giving the Babylonian laws to the king. This illustrates the fact that humanity recognizes that law must have ultimacy—be recognized as the ultimate standard—if it is to give any conviction that it must be followed.

Conversely, when people lose the conviction that law must be followed as an ultimate standard, then we have societies degenerating into pragmatism—everyone does that which is right in “his own eyes” (Judges 21:25) — and the breakdown of society itself is near. Right and wrong are only questions of risk and reward and morality is only a matter of personal reflection. As atheist Richard Dawkins put it, “Absolutist moral discrimination is devastatingly undermined by the fact of evolution” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 301).

This is why people who reject the first commandments of the Decalogue (Exodus 20) [“thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc. …] can not be expected to recognize any ultimate significance in the last six [“honor thy father and mother; thou shalt not kill …]. At a society level, when God is erased from a culture, as our political and intellectual leaders are feverishly seeking to do, chaos between people is the predicted result. This is exactly what is occurring in America.

Humanism

Humanism removes God from public or private consideration. “No god will save us,” says the Humanist Manifesto. But that leaves man without any basis upon which to assess any action as ultimately right or wrong. “Ethics are situational and autonomous.” No ultimate savior and no purpose in life. However, people instinctively need a moral base and a purpose for living which cannot be supplied by Humanism itself. Therefore, from the Christian world-view, humanists bootleg some type of value into their system. Not the saving of souls, for the Manifesto boasts that there is no damnation to fear. But we must have “planetary salvation.” What is this?

Greg Epstein, who serves as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and is Executive Director of the Humanist Hub on that campus, a place where atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers connect with each other, authored Good without God. In it (p. 148) he quoted another with approval:  “This [ecological crisis] is a different kind of issue than Christians (or any other humans) have ever faced, and continuing to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life may even impair our ability to see clearly its depths and significance … What is now needed is a reordering of the whole of human life around the globe in an ecologically sustainable manner – something heretofore never contemplated by any of our great religious (or secular) traditions.”

Whatever else might be said regarding Epstein’s sounding of the ecological alarm, it is a purposeful call to arms. His ecological “crisis” demands concerted action and he has proposals to accomplish it. He is seeking to re-infuse into a vacuous world-view some sort of ultimacy—a standard which should be followed with conviction. The words SHOULD and OUGHT are written all throughout Epstein’s manifesto. What of this?

First, this is precisely what his world-view disallows. If there is no god, and ethics are completely and truly “situational” and “autonomous”—arising solely within each individual—then Epstein’s should and ought have no more value than for him to say “I itch.” When he says “What is needed …” we must remember that his convictions on the subject are nothing more than the combination of atoms bumping into one another. Only physical sensations brought about by physical chemical reactions. There is no real value in this.

Second, as all atheists, Epstein criticizes religion and specifically a God-centered world view. Religion is somehow to blame in what he calls our current “ecological crisis.” But if Epstein is correct in his basic world-view then my religious belief is produced solely by matter in motion, just as his world belief is produced. Whatever we believe and do cannot be the fault of religion since religion is only the product of matter in motion. No moral fault can be laid at the feet of those who “continue to worship a God thought of as the omnipotent savior from all the evils of life …”

Where did his matter get the right to criticize my matter or even to speak about the earth being treated justly? Why blame Christianity? Why even speak about “global injustice?” There can be no such thing as injustice unless man is more than matter in motion. Of course, the particular arrangement of matter in motion known as Greg Epstein cannot help making these judgments since he is not a rational being but only matter responding to the brute force of matter.

Back to Homepage

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Richard Dawkins Cannot Live with His Own Theory

by Bill Lockwood

With all the authoritarian haughtiness of a religious priest he claims to despise, evolutionist Richard Dawkins publicly rebukes Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for his belief in Creationism. As unbridled arrogance does to every heart in which it resides, Dawkins cannot see that the worldview which he champions logically disallows such criticisms. If Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution is a fact then Carson can no more help himself from arriving at his conclusions than a rock rolling down a hill can freely choose to stop rolling.

Interview on CNN

Dawkins was recently interviewed on CNN by Fareed Zakaria. Reflecting upon Creationists generally and Dr. Ben Carson specifically, he lamented: “This fills me with despair. This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” Dawkins could barely contain himself. After adding how “deeply depressing” was this situation, he continued: “I mean, that’s a disgrace. … [F]or a very senior eminent distinguished doctor as he is to say that is even worse. Because of course, evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.” “He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject,” he continued. “That is a terrible indictment.”

This is mild-mannered Dawkins. The Oxford professor had this to say in 1989 regarding the ‘Ben Carsons’ and creationists of the world: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Filled with Despair?

Why should the professor be filled with despair? The “Fundamental theorem of his own subject” (evolution) is that matter in motion is the sole reality. We must assume that he understands its implications—unless the “terrible indictment” falls upon his own head. What is that fundamental theorem of matter in motion? Everything in the universe has strictly material origins and is explained solely on mechanistic grounds.

For example, Thales, the ancient Greek philosopher, sought to explain natural phenomena without recourse to “the gods.” His oversimplification was apparently that everything is composed solely of water. This extreme position differs not from the Dawkins’ of the world who propound the theory that everything is reducible to chemistry and all motions are explained by mechanics. It is a philosophical assumption of what Elton Trueblood called the “Nothing But …” theory.

Therefore, per Dawkins’ own system, which eliminates everything except “matter in motion,” thought processes in the brain are explained by the same assumptions. Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with anyone’s beliefs. Why then, be frustrated or filled with despair, Richard Dawkins? The movement of atoms in Carson’s brain are no more responsible for the electrical impulse called “Creation” any more than the movement of grey matter in yours can help becoming an evolutionist.

And all of this time you supposed evolutionary theory was based upon scientific fact to which all reasonable minds must come! No, no. The only way to change the functioning of a mechanistic machine such as the brain is to either bang it on the head or add different chemicals. I guess in the end Dawkins’ despair and frustration with Creationists is to be explained on the same basis. No reasoning. No rational conclusions drawn from evidence. Just chemicals squirting through the labyrinths of grey matter in the Dawkins cranium. He cannot help it. Does Richard Dawkins ‘understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject?’ Apparently not.

Back to Homepage