Archive for the Notable Quotes Category

Dawkins v. Lennox

Dawkins: “Atheism is not a faith!”

Lennox: “Of course it is! You believe in it, don’t you?”

The “God Delusion” Debate; Alys Stephens Center, Birmingham, AL; October 3, 2007.

Knowing that the two debaters hail from the same university (Oxford), I expected the “debate” to have all the authenticity of Saturday night wrestling. I was wrong. Apparently this was their first debate with each other, in fact their first meeting. With a book title like
The God Delusion
, I expected Dawkins to be arrogant. Wrong again! Though he was bold in his opinions, he came across to me as gracious and even humble at times. If there was any imbalance in the debate, I am aware of only one occasion: At one time Judge Bill Pryor, acting as moderator, called time on John Lennox. Lennox did not stop, and Prier allowed him to continue.  Immediately afterwards Prier called time on Richard Dawkins, who stopped immediately, sacrificing his point. The debate was spontaneous yet well focused, with obvious points of passion. I made notes as best I could, but I will be studying it again when I
get the DVD.

Finest Hour

On June 18, 1940 Winston Churchill made his
most famous
speech
in an effort to mobilize England against a powerful enemy. There is
one sentence often quoted. I will quote the previous two with it for context:

"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island
or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life
of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then
the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known
and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister,
and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us
therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the
British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still
say, ‘This was their finest hour.’"

If they failed, Churchill predicted "a new Dark Age..
perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." No, I’m not taking
it out of context. He was not speaking of the atom bomb, because he was speaking
of after the war. He was speaking of a Dark Age of knowledge, just as the first
so-called "Dark Age" was supposedly a time of ignorance and controlled thought.
Hitler was using Darwinism as an ideological weapon to control the minds of
people into believing that his was the superior race, and no other had a right
to live and thrive. Science is a "light," and by it people find their way. If
the light is perverted, the people unwittingly and inevitably go the wrong way.

Obstacle to Scientific Progress

"The great obstacle to progress
is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge."

Daniel Boorstin
–historian, former head of the Library of Congress.

Two world views?

“Two world views are in conflict.. two philosophies of life.. one of these two worlds must break asunder.”

There are actually two groups of people in the world: Those who divide people into two groups of people and those who don’t.

I have read that Adolph Hitler made the top statement, but I have only documented the attribution as far as the Axis Powers, in a 1942 publication. In any case, it is a common position predicted by social identity theory. One premise of this sociological theory is that we all tend to consider ourselves to be in the “in group,” and everyone else is in the “out group.” Further we tend to consider all out group members to be alike, hence two groups. As an example, evolutionists seldom distinguish between creationists and intelligent design theorists. Likewise creationists often represent the masses as having only two world views, one Christian and one pagan. The result in both cases is that they can be blind-sides by the variety of attacks by those opposing their view. Evolutionists can pigeonhole scientists as religious and abandoning science, simply because they voice legitimate objection to Darwinian evolution. Some atheists do that. But likewise Christians may think they see softening in the opposition, just because they introduce “spiritualism” into the debate. Ernst Haeckel, whom Darwin cited for his now controversial illustrations of evolution using embryos, professed and promoted Monism (see Politics under Haeckel), an Eastern religious thought. Alfred Russel Wallace, who simultaneously published an almost identical theory of evolution with Darwin, became a mystic in later years. Darwin’s response to this was “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child.” Even though Darwin was displeased with Wallace’s introduction of spiritualism into his theory of evolution, that does not mean that Wallace was any closer to a Christian Worldview. There was still a strict avoidance of direction by a Designer.

The “best” without God

“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which seem to him the best ones.”

Autobiography of Charles Darwin. As compiled and edited by his granddaughter, Emma Nora (Darwin) Barlow,  p.94.

If each individual would do what is best in their own eyes, guess who’s interest each person would consider best. Their own. Darwin’s astute observation can be further delineated by Emile Durkheim’s that society is the ultimate constraint to mankind’s behavior. With this, the best that a godless mankind can be hoped for is Machiavellian: Everyone will do what is in their own best interest, which may include convincing others that one is doing what is best for others. Note this is not necessarily the same as doing what is best for others as individuals or society at large. If lying and false impressions achieves that, so be it. The net? Society and mankind (and ultimately the individual) loses if their is no perception of supernatural accountability beyond himself. So the answer for the faithless person is to convince everyone else that he or she believes in god and that everyone else should believe in god, for their own sake. I’m afraid there is a lot of that going on out there.

But let me take a deeper track: What about the truth? Does it make sense for a biology to evolve without god in a way that requires a belief in god by its highest form in order to function at its best? The answer to me seems simple: No.

Embarrassing Quotes

 

I appreciate the response to “Religion and Life” (Apr 26, ‘07) by an honest atheist. He offered some interesting thoughts, including several embarrassing quotes as accusations against faith in God in general and Christianity in particular. One was Preacher Richard Furman’s 1823 statement in support of slavery. I would like to offer a quote of my own: In reference to the two opposing sides of America’s great Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address, “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.” Many Christians throughout history have stood on opposite sides of issues and defended their positions (rightly or wrongly) from Scripture. Most were victims of their cultures. In any case, rejecting Christianity or God in general, based on selected anecdotal evidence (cherry picking) is easy. Would it take me long to find equaly nasty quotes by atheists such as Hitler or Stalin? Christians are humans and some can always be found with their foot in their mouth. I recommend a more compelling challenge: Find for me an atheist (or follower of any other religion for that matter) who has established an institution of giving to others to compare with any of the orphanages, hospitals, homeless shelters, and disaster relief agencies established by Christians. There is no Atheist General Hospital; no Buddhist Disaster Relief Agency.  Find it, and then I will consider if Christianity is less compelling as a positive life force than any alternative belief system.

What Next?

 

On March 25, 1807 King George III signed into law the abolition of the slave trade for the entire British Empire, the climax of a 20-year struggle by a handful of dedicated men and women to bring a nation to awareness of its own atrocity. When William Wilberforce got the news, he turned to his cousin Henry Thornton and asked riley, “Well Henry, What shall we abolish next?” His reply: “The lottery, I think.”

Source: Bury the Chains, last pages of Chapter 21.

(Might I suggest that there is either a moral law that links it all together, or there is no basis at all for morality.)

Religion and life

In Bury the Chains, a book that details the struggle to outlaw the slave trade in England, it is noted that a time came when “evangelicals” arose and began saying that true Christians should live every day free from sin. This was a radical concept, to which Lord Melbourne, future prime minister of England, responded, “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade your private life!”

Today, society pushes Christians to hold their religious beliefs to their personal lives, and makes it “politically incorrect” to take faith into public life. During Melbourne’s time it was the opposite, in that religion was public only, and not personal. Neither allows religion to be real, because reality requires total permiation of life and being. That which we compartmentalize we do not really consider real.

Evolution and Ethics

Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) makes the following observation in his essay “Evolution and Ethics;” indeed it is the theme of his essay:

“[t]he practice of that which is ethically best–what we call goodness or virtue–involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive.”

Huxley is acknowledging that the concept of evolution is diametrically opposed to the concept of ethics, but that ethics nonetheless should be our pursuit. He argues that we must work hard for the social good, and the work is because it contradicts our nature. He does not acknowledge however, nor can anyone defend, how blind evolution could lead an organism (over millions of years) to a condition where its progress depends on contradicting the process that brought it about.

Dogma vs. Dogma

“Perhaps materialism was liberating philosophy when the need was to escape from dogmas of religion, but today materialism itself is the dogma from which the mind needs to escape. A rule that materialism should be professed regardless of the evidence … is he equivalent of a rule that science may not contradict the teachings of a church …”

(emphasis in the original) Phillip E. Johnson, 1998, Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, Page 56.