Thoughts on Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris

[mulimulix]

I've read a bit less than half of The God Delusion. It seemed to me that he spent too much time in ad-hominem attacks, and in addressing the thin, poor, theology of fundamentalists or other extremists and then pretending he had addressed the full range of deep theology.

When it got to his bit on the bible it was of such poor quality it was laughable. When he tries to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth may not even have existed it's worth checking his citation: it turns out not to be an historian but an Emeritus Professor of German who no longer holds that view anyway. In other words he tries to suggest an historical claim that no historical scholar (secular or otherwise) will back up.

He's a scientist (and a good one). His grasp of the historical and philosophical methods (let alone theology) is abysmal, and it shows.

All that said, it's no worse than a lot of Christian apologetic - poor stuff written to appeal to (and sell to) those who already agree with it.

Are you saying that all scientists think Jesus existed? If so, this is not true. I am unsure about Jesus' existence at all, as the only evidence for it is the Bible, and I don't believe that is true.

Basically, the majority of atheists think Jesus may well have existed, but there is little or no evidence to say he did.

The thing is that God let me know the reason why he was rescued. Because he was a good man. If you remember the story by the end of it I did understand those words, it was just initially I was confused, God showed me what they ment. God choose to use the US troops to rescue him but left me with a message I could share with Douglas Wood in future, that he was loved by God. God had seen his good works and would not leave him with out help. The fault really lies with me if I had more faith I could be more helpful, i.e. I could believe God for other situations that are similar. To put my heart of my sleve I really am a very timid person at times, I fear trying to hear from God directly. It is like driving a car I guess if you have never done it before it can be a terror to you, as you practice you are less fearful, eventually you just drive with confidence. At the moment I am still in the a little bit fearful stage.

I am more confident in the recieving words from the bible thing, because I have had greater success with it.

Maybe that is an exageration, I don't pray for everything, I often forget to pray about things. When I get desperate then I pray might be a better way to put it.

But why would god tell you that, then? What advantage came from him telling you those random words?

I know you wouldn't pray for every single thing, but if I truly knew god was willing to interfere in some parts of our lives, I certainly wouldn't pray for anything for myself when there are plenty of other people in more need than me. A story the other day came out saying one guy prayed to win the lottery, then he won the lottery. Whether or not he did actually pray for it, I don't know (he could easily just make it up to get on t.v), but a bigger question is why god would give a pretty well-off guy $1 million when there are billions of people who have almost nothing.

I rely on an electrician to fix my electrical issues. I rely on a medical doctor to fix my medical issues. I rely on a scientist to fix my philosophical issues.

One of the above statements sounds pretty rediculous wouldn't you say?

No, I don't rely on them to fix my philosophical issues; in fact, I don't think I have any philosophical issues.

But he's said such loony things.

Like...?

 

[ebia]

Are you saying that all scientists think Jesus existed? If so, this is not true. I am unsure about Jesus' existence at all, as the only evidence for it is the Bible, and I don't believe that is true.

Basically, the majority of atheists think Jesus may well have existed, but there is little or no evidence to say he did.

no, I'm saying every historian studying remotely that period thinks Jesus existed. You know, the people who are competent to make that call. So universally that Dawkins can't find one that disagrees to cite, so instead of being honest he cites a language professor and hopes no-one notices.


In fact, not only do all relevant historians accept Jesus' existence, the vast majority agree he did and said at least some of the sorts of things the gospels account him doing and was crucified for his trouble.

No, I don't rely on them to fix my philosophical issues; in fact, I don't think I have any philosophical issues.

Like...?

if Dawkins stayed out of history (the method of which he does not understand) and philosophy (which he neither understands nor even thinks is a discipline worth studying) he would talk a lot less rubbish.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

But why would god tell you that, then? What advantage came from him telling you those random words?

I don't mind trying clear things up, did you not understand what I meant I have included the story here then highlighted and will explain why it was important.

So the story again:

Some time after the second Gulf War an Australian man Douglas Wood was captured by terrorists in Iraq, who made demands for a ransom or he would be executed. I set about fasting and praying for his release, I said to God "You know where he is....tell me". Three words entered my mind ABC, Bizaar and "A-meal". I thought "I am going crazy what has all that got to do with him. Bizaar I though "this is Bizarre". I thought maybe "A-meal" is a town so I searched a map of Iraq for a town of that name, but found nothing that really matched. Some time latter Douglas Wood was freed by US troops who came across his captors. It was not until latter that I actually discovered what the three words meant. I was on a forum libertyunites.us and came across a post by a user called ABC in the post she appealed to the captors to release Douglas Wood because he had gone to a/or the Bazaar and bought food for homeless people and had provided them with "A-meal". I believe God saw Douglas Wood's action too and blessed with an escape from his captors.

So just incase you missed it. Before he was rescuded God told me the words. ABC, bizzar, and ameal. Which at the time meant nothing. So if it finished there then there was no point to it they would just be random words. So at that time I though the same as you, what has that got to do with him , or how is that helpful.

But at the end of the story I found out form ABC's post that he had gone to a Bizzar, and bought a meal for disadvantaged people. So the three words had a definite meaning. The three words them selves make perfect sense by the end of the story.

So you ask why was it important - well it shows me two things, God saw his heart that he was a good man. It also shows me that God's hand was upon him to rescue him.

So to recap:

God said when I asked to free Douglas Wood - ABC, Bizzar, and "a meal". When he was freed I found a post by ABC, that said Douglas Wood went to a Bizzar and bought a meal for disadvantaged people.

Now I am sure you have got all that becasue I have repeated my self so many times. You ask, but, why did God give me the words? I did not know why he told me initially but I do now. It is becase he loves Douglas, and he wanted me to see his good points. He bought a meal for disadvantaged people that is fairly special in Jesus eyes. There is a definite point to it. The point is God loves the guy. God loves you too. Look I want to improve my site. Did you not understand my writting, i.e. the two part message or was it you did not understand God heart in it?

The point of it was God loves Douglas Wood. If you were freed from terrorists and God did it would you not at least like to know it was becasue he saw something worth while in you. Like I said God looks for our good points. He even loves the ungrateful and the sinner. How much more must he be pleased when we do something praise worthy. I sent the above message I got from God to Douglas, so if he got it he would at least know God was looking out for him. Which is what he needed.

I don't think you are a fool, surely you can understand the purpose of God in all of that if you put your mind to it.

 

[mulimulix]

no, I'm saying every historian studying remotely that period thinks Jesus existed. You know, the people who are competent to make that call. So universally that Dawkins can't find one that disagrees to cite, so instead of being honest he cites a language professor and hopes no-one notices.


In fact, not only do all relevant historians accept Jesus' existence, the vast majority agree he did and said at least some of the sorts of things the gospels account him doing and was crucified for his trouble.

I'm gonna have to call bluff on that one. You have a source for the fact? The only scientists that believe Jesus existed with all certainty are the ones that are Christian, and this is not because of historical evidence, that is because of faith.

I don't mind trying clear things up, did you not understand what I meant I have included the story here then highlighted and will explain why it was important.

So the story again:

Some time after the second Gulf War an Australian man Douglas Wood was captured by terrorists in Iraq, who made demands for a ransom or he would be executed. I set about fasting and praying for his release, I said to God "You know where he is....tell me". Three words entered my mind ABC, Bizaar and "A-meal". I thought "I am going crazy what has all that got to do with him. Bizaar I though "this is Bizarre". I thought maybe "A-meal" is a town so I searched a map of Iraq for a town of that name, but found nothing that really matched. Some time latter Douglas Wood was freed by US troops who came across his captors. It was not until latter that I actually discovered what the three words meant. I was on a forum libertyunites.us and came across a post by a user called ABC in the post she appealed to the captors to release Douglas Wood because he had gone to a/or the Bazaar and bought food for homeless people and had provided them with "A-meal". I believe God saw Douglas Wood's action too and blessed with an escape from his captors.

So just incase you missed it. Before he was rescuded God told me the words. ABC, bizzar, and ameal. Which at the time meant nothing. So if it finished there then there was no point to it they would just be random words. So at that time I though the same as you, what has that got to do with him , or how is that helpful.

But at the end of the story I found out form ABC's post that he had gone to a Bizzar, and bought a meal for disadvantaged people. So the three words had a definite meaning. The three words them selves make perfect sense by the end of the story.

So you ask why was it important - well it shows me two things, God saw his heart that he was a good man. It also shows me that God's hand was upon him to rescue him.

So to recap:

God said when I asked to free Douglas Wood - ABC, Bizzar, and "a meal". When he was freed I found a post by ABC, that said Douglas Wood went to a Bizzar and bought a meal for disadvantaged people.

Now I am sure you have got all that becasue I have repeated my self so many times. You ask, but, why did God give me the words? I did not know why he told me initially but I do now. It is becase he loves Douglas, and he wanted me to see his good points. He bought a meal for disadvantaged people that is fairly special in Jesus eyes. There is a definite point to it. The point is God loves the guy. God loves you too. Look I want to improve my site. Did you not understand my writting, i.e. the two part message or was it you did not understand God heart in it?

The point of it was God loves Douglas Wood. If you were freed from terrorists and God did it would you not at least like to know it was becasue he saw something worth while in you. Like I said God looks for our good points. He even loves the ungrateful and the sinner. How much more must he be pleased when we do something praise worthy. I sent the above message I got from God to Douglas, so if he got it he would at least know God was looking out for him. Which is what he needed.

I don't think you are a fool, surely you can understand the purpose of God in all of that if you put your mind to it.

I understand, or at least I think I do; it doesn't seem that complicated:

- Man taken hostage by terrorists, god tells you three words you cannot stop thinking about, you then find out those words were relevant to the hostage. Right?

I still do not see how god had a hand in it.

After a quick search on his story, I found some interesting things:

1. Firstly, I cannot find where it says he was in a bizzar, but maybe you have more information than I do.
2. More importantly, it says during his captivity, he was forced to watch the murder of three Iraqis who were captives with him. Where was god for them? It's very easy to say god saved this one guy who escaped (this is always done in natural disasters, but what about the people that didn't? I suppose god did not want them to live.

Source: Douglas Wood - Saxton Speakers Bureau

 

[ebia]

I'm gonna have to call bluff on that one. You have a source for the fact?

the fact of who he cites? Look it up in his own book. I can quote you someone else that points it out, but you might as well check the thing directly in one book as my citation of another.

The only scientists that believe Jesus existed with all certainty are the ones that are Christian, and this is not because of historical evidence, that is because of faith.

it's an historical question - the right people to ask are historians.

 

[mulimulix]

the fact of who he cites? Look it up in his own book. I can quote you someone else that points it out, but you might as well check the thing directly in one book as my citation of another.

No, the fact that 'Most' historians think Jesus existed and whatnot.

 

[ebia]

No, the fact that 'Most' historians think Jesus existed and whatnot.

Proving a negative - that there are none that dont - is always going on impossible. I could cite some historians who say as much, but ...

The best evidence is Dawkins book. He has more motivation than anyone to find such an historian, and access to scholarly circles. Yet the best he can manage is a retired professor of a completely unrelated field who (apparently) has changed his mind anyway.

 

[ebia]

Let's say 5% of relevant historians seriously doubt Jesus existence.

On average Dawkins would need to contact 20 historians to find one. Less if skips over the Christians and Muslims.

Yet he doesn't.

So either his scholarship is extraordinarily lazy or such people are as rare as hens teeth and he is trying to pass off... Either way it doesn't look good for him. He simply has not done his homework on history or he is deliberately misleading.

Reading Dawkins on history or theology is like reading a creationist on evolution.

 

[mulimulix]

Proving a negative - that there are none that dont - is always going on impossible. I could cite some historians who say as much, but ...

The best evidence is Dawkins book. He has more motivation than anyone to find such an historian, and access to scholarly circles. Yet the best he can manage is a retired professor of a completely unrelated field who (apparently) has changed his mind anyway.

Let's say 5% of relevant historians seriously doubt Jesus existence.

On average Dawkins would need to contact 20 historians to find one. Less if skips over the Christians and Muslims.

Yet he doesn't.

So either his scholarship is extraordinarily lazy or such people are as rare as hens teeth and he is trying to pass off... Either way it doesn't look good for him. He simply has not done his homework on history or he is deliberately misleading.

Reading Dawkins on history or theology is like reading a creationist on evolution.

Ok, tell me the evidence these historians have used to come to the conclusion that Jesus existed, noting that the Bible IS NOT a valid historical document.

 

[ebia]

Ok, tell me the evidence these historians have used to come to the conclusion that Jesus existed, noting that the Bible IS NOT a valid historical document.

That's where non-historians start off in completely the wrong direction. To a real historian the bible (or rather the various texts we've put together and called that) are historical data. Same as any other text.

 

[mulimulix]

That's where non-historians start off in completely the wrong direction. To a real historian the bible (or rather the various texts we've put together and called that) are historical data. Same as any other text.

No, that is not true; the Bible is not a historical document. Find me a trustworthy website which says otherwise. I will even ask a doctor in history in the next few days whether the Bible confirms Jesus' existence.

 

[ebia]

No, that is not true; the Bible is not a historical document. Find me a trustworthy website which says otherwise. I will even ask a doctor in history in the next few days whether the Bible confirms Jesus' existence.

Historical data does not mean one takes everything it says at face value. It means you take it as data. All texts are written for a reason and are therefore biased. The historians job is to take the texts and other data he has and figure out what he can and cannot say about the reality that led to those texts being written the way they were and that other data being produced the way it was.

 

[mulimulix]

Historical data does not mean one takes everything it says at face value. It means you take it as data. All texts are written for a reason and are therefore biased. The historians job is to take the texts and other data he has and figure out what he can and cannot say about the reality that led to those texts being written the way they were and that other data being produced the way it was.

I realise this. The Bible, of course is practically a historical document in the way it is a book written in the past, but it does not provide any significant evidence for anything other than there was a book written 2000 years ago about a guy named Jesus. Anything else is unknown.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Firstly, I cannot find where it says he was in a bizzar

He was not in a bizzar (during his captivity) a bizzar is a shop, when he was not a captive he went to a shop and bought sausages for disadvantaged people and provided them with a meal. A user on a forum called ABC told that story, appealing for the terrorist to release him, becasue she said he was a good man. So the three words I recieved ABC, Bizzar, and a meal, referred to that, not a location like i asked for.

God did not tell me where he was he told me what he had done. Obviously I have not explained it adequatly. How would you write it so it makes more sense to peoople like your self?

 

[ebia]

I realise this. The Bible, of course is practically a historical document in the way it is a book written in the past, but it does not provide any significant evidence for anything other than there was a book written 2000 years ago about a guy named Jesus. Anything else is unknown.

Yes it does. A heap of different people wrote more text about Jesus, quite close to his reported death, than almost any other person of that time. That demands explanation. That's exactly how historians piece history together. You have a remarkable range of texts (by comparison with his contemporaries) other data about the movement he inspired, and data about the context. You write a likely reality that explains that. The texts that collected together are called the new testament are valid data in that way and, by first century standards, Jesus is one of the best attested figures going. Excepting his coins and such we have remarkably little contemporary text on Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the known world at the time.

Historians are used to working from small amounts of biased data - at least ones that study the ancient world.

 

[secondtimearound]

No, I don't rely on them to fix my philosophical issues; in fact, I don't think I have any philosophical issues.

When taking about the existence of God you are philosophizing. It's not deductive reasoning, it is inductive and so one has to philosophize to state thier case, which is what dawkins did in the God Delusion, Harris in The End of Faith and Hitchens with God Is Not Great. I'm not saying the argument against God isn't strong, I am saying these are weak philosophers (only Harris has any philosophical credentials) and in terms of athiest phiolosophers you can do a lot better.

 

[Varicose Brains]

As some have said, I agree that Dawkins is bad at philosophy. He's much better when he writes on his own turf - evolution and biology. His writings on evolution were enough evidence for me that God cannot exist; if evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no Eden and no talking snake and therefore there is no such thing as original sin which pretty much throws the rest of the Bible into disarray.

I'm currently reading Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" just now. It's pretty good although a bit ranty in parts. He's a great writer, however I doubt this particular book of his would be enough to convince a theist that "God is not great", or indeed, doesn't exist at all.

I haven't read Harris yet but I've seen him in some Youtube videos. I'll have to pick up his books sometime.

 

[mulimulix]

He was not in a bizzar (during his captivity) a bizzar is a shop, when he was not a captive he went to a shop and bought sausages for disadvantaged people and provided them with a meal. A user on a forum called ABC told that story, appealing for the terrorist to release him, becasue she said he was a good man. So the three words I recieved ABC, Bizzar, and a meal, referred to that, not a location like i asked for.

God did not tell me where he was he told me what he had done. Obviously I have not explained it adequatly. How would you write it so it makes more sense to peoople like your self?

Ohhhhhh, I see. I knew he was not held hostage in a bizzar, I thought that was where he was originally abducted. Ok, sorry about that. I see what you are saying now. I still do not see the point in god telling you that information, though. Was it simply to tell you how good a man he was?

Yes it does. A heap of different people wrote more text about Jesus, quite close to his reported death, than almost any other person of that time. That demands explanation. That's exactly how historians piece history together. You have a remarkable range of texts (by comparison with his contemporaries) other data about the movement he inspired, and data about the context. You write a likely reality that explains that. The texts that collected together are called the new testament are valid data in that way and, by first century standards, Jesus is one of the best attested figures going. Excepting his coins and such we have remarkably little contemporary text on Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the known world at the time.

Historians are used to working from small amounts of biased data - at least ones that study the ancient world.

"A heap of different people"? Name one author who wrote about Jesus while he was still alive, or even 20 years after his death. This is vital missing information.

As some have said, I agree that Dawkins is bad at philosophy. He's much better when he writes on his own turf - evolution and biology. His writings on evolution were enough evidence for me that God cannot exist; if evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no Eden and no talking snake and therefore there is no such thing as original sin which pretty much throws the rest of the Bible into disarray.

I'm currently reading Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" just now. It's pretty good although a bit ranty in parts. He's a great writer, however I doubt this particular book of his would be enough to convince a theist that "God is not great", or indeed, doesn't exist at all.

I haven't read Harris yet but I've seen him in some Youtube videos. I'll have to pick up his books sometime.

You get it! Whenever I explain that if evolution is true, there is no original sin and thus, Jesus was pointless, they shrug it off like it's no big deal. Thank you for getting it!

 

[ebia]

As some have said, I agree that Dawkins is bad at philosophy. He's much better when he writes on his own turf - evolution and biology. His writings on evolution were enough evidence for me that God cannot exist; if evolution is true then there was no Adam and Eve and no Eden and no talking snake and therefore there is no such thing as original sin which pretty much throws the rest of the Bible into disarray.

You realise that most Christians don't recognise that false dichotomy and don't have a problem with Evolution as a scientific theory?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Was it simply to tell you how good a man he was?

Yes that was the reason. God loves him. As for the others you mentioned (in a previous post) that were killed be aware God loved them too and could have saved them eternally visit this website to see how God can speak to people as they are about to die and save them himself. This guy died, and as he was dying God spoke to him, gave him a message, and he became a born again christian. After he met Jesus in heaven he was sent back to tell his story. www.aglimpseofeternity.org