Religions of the world spontaneously combusted yesterday after Richard Dawkins’ eloquent deconstruction of God, spirituality and everything at the Atheist synod in Melbourne, Australia.
Buddhists were seen running screaming from the room, Catholic nuns fainted enmass, Hindus renounced yoga in favour of cigarettes, porno and British accents and Muslim imams were heard muttering, “There is no God but Nature and Dawkins is the Messenger of Nature.” Wars have ceased, torture is a distant memory (cough, cough, Sam Harris), and everyone, everywhere is now basking in intellectual supremacy. Overnight, it seems, Atheists have achieved a Godless nirvana and all is now right with the world.
What precipitated this astounding turn of events you may ask? Well the switch from reason and logic to personal abuse and hyperbole of course. The Pope is a Nazi, Steve Fielding is less intelligent than an earthworm and sophisticated theologians are no better than fundamentalist wingnuts. Of course [90% of world population collectively slaps their foreheads]! How could we have been so blind all these years! We must bow to this superior wisdom!
A note for the earthworms, this is sarcasm.
Curious Christian 
The funny thing about Richard “Putting the Dork into” Dawkins is that even though I am a man of logic, reason and evidence (whilst still totally a Christian), I feel uncharacteristically disinclined to engage with him. Normally I tend to enjoy a good debate on the relative merits of atheism and religion, but Mr Dawkins inspires no defence, only contempt. The appropriate response would seem to be “What a tool.”
Great comment, Matt!
LikeLike
I heard Dawkins lecture on Radio National the other night, and I’m not surprised that lots of people would think his arguments sound, as he is matter of factly quite persuasive in the delivery of his material.
However, at times, I also think he posits the same kind of argument as he claims his detractors/opponents propose i.e. the assumption of the existence of what they try to prove.
I may sound ignorant, but what if instead of things developing from the quintessential simple to the massively complex, it was the other way around. Perhaps both processes happen with sychrony and syncopation, and perhaps with synergy also?!
It reminds me that many people think polytheism came before monotheism, but some scholars refute this and claim that monotheism was the primogenital belief which “mutated” over time into polytheism. Not sure exactly where atheism and pantheism fit into this picture…
Just a few thoughts that sprang to mind when contemplating St Dawkins…
LikeLike
Ummm… Stephen Fielding obviously IS less intelligent than an earthworm.
LikeLike
What a joke…try reading an informed view:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10185
LikeLike
> I may sound ignorant, but what if instead of things developing from the quintessential simple to the massively complex, it was the other way around.
You don’t necessarily sound ignorant. Ignorance is no shame; what would be shameful is if one were to wilfully stick to ignorance in the face of opportunities to learn. Asking questions and honestly seeking the truth is a good way.
What it does sound like is that you’re asking a question, but not exploring what the answer might be.
Indeed, what *would* it imply if things developed from the massively complex to the quintissentially simple? What would we expect to see as evidence of that, and how would we test it? What evidence is there in the world that supports that view, and what evidence contradicts it? How would you consistently and logically explain the evidence?
LikeLike
Brian, you call that an informed view do you? Ok, we obviously disagree on that so how about straightening me some EVIDENCE to back up the secularization thesis that “religion was disintegrating on its own”. Globally relevant evidence that is. All ears.
LikeLike
Simon, where or not Stephen Fielding is or is not less intelligent than an earthworm is not something I particularly care about. What I care about is the misconstrued notion that he is somehow representative of Christians collectively. I’ve never voted for him. And I am obviously not to be alone. So, I’m just wondering when the ‘intellectuals’ are going to graduate from straw men.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ben, you are exactly right that I was asking a question and not exploring what the answer might be… I was only posing a couple of questions that it would probably take at least a PhD to answer.
I am ignorant of a lot of information, and as you suggested, there are a few questions that provide a blueprint for constructing a good argument in regards to practically anything a person would wish to explore.
If I want to find something out, there are many avenues to pursue for relevant facts and figures, but the conclusions one comes to often have to rely on intuitive skill and perhaps spiritual insight/inspiration, as well as analytical prowess.
By the way, everyone, there is a REALLY GOOD DEBATE coming up on Sunday night 21st March, 2010 (AESDST) on Sydney’s Hope103.2 radio station between the Principal of the Baptist theological college and an “Atheist Evangelist” who is an “ex-Christian”. If anybody is interested you could google Hope103.2 radio and there will be podcasts available if unable to listen live on Sunday night… The show is called Open House with presenter Sheridan Voysey (male).
LikeLike