#2 "At an intellectual and logical level it really misses the mark" (15). Robertson emails Dawkins about each of his chapters in "The God Delusion" to talk about his issues with them and defend his beliefs. Why everyone can agree with the fact that Dawkins is a very intellectual being I as well have issues with some of his arguments. His theories on what Christians argue as God given or representations of God's work are very real arguments for scientists, its when he begins to argue against the Bible that he sounds like a completely uneducated politician. Dawkins uses a bunch of outliers to show that all Christians must have this philosophy and therefore be evil or ignorant. Frankly, if thats they way everyone were to analyze a particular group of people, that would mean that they could just use Dawkins to say that all atheists are arrogant, hypocrites who use invalid reasoning to come to absurd conclusions. So I can say that I understand the frustration that comes from Robertson, but I would also say that whenever Dawkins is talking about his philosophies, it is quite apparent of his intellect.
#3 "Constants like the speed of light, the force of gravity and electromagnetism all need to work precisely together for there to be life. Apparently there are fifteen such constants. Wonderful and incredible" (70) This is probably the one problem I have with Robertson and many other intelligent Christians. They all argue that we have this sense of God no matter their beliefs or mental state, we are all supposed to have this sense that there must be a creator because the possibilities of this world being so perfect as it is is impossible without a divine creator. Because time does not exist and is just a tool we use to explain issues, it would be foolish to say that we should believe in God because we are here right now. Quantum physics talks about alteration of these constants so slightly that there could be potential an infinite number of worlds like our own. This is just to say that because life exists does not actually give good reason behind the existence of God. The issues I see behind Dawkins and Robertson are like this: Dawkins is painfully bad at arguing against the Bible, so painful it is hard to say that I respect him as an intelligent person; however, the same follows Robertson. When he tries to use evidence to show for a divine creator it makes his defense earlier less compelling because while he understands his beliefs as well as Dawkins understand science, nether understands the arguments of the other to make it seem as though one side obviously has something the other does not. I respect both of these individuals and their understanding of their own beliefs, but I cannot say that either made me believe that they actually know how to argue against the other which made me somewhat sad while I read each chapter.
Robertson emails Dawkins about each of his chapters in "The God Delusion" to talk about his issues with them and defend his beliefs. Why everyone can agree with the fact that Dawkins is a very intellectual being I as well have issues with some of his arguments. His theories on what Christians argue as God given or representations of God's work are very real arguments for scientists, its when he begins to argue against the Bible that he sounds like a completely uneducated politician. Dawkins uses a bunch of outliers to show that all Christians must have this philosophy and therefore be evil or ignorant. Frankly, if thats they way everyone were to analyze a particular group of people, that would mean that they could just use Dawkins to say that all atheists are arrogant, hypocrites who use invalid reasoning to come to absurd conclusions. So I can say that I understand the frustration that comes from Robertson, but I would also say that whenever Dawkins is talking about his philosophies, it is quite apparent of his intellect.
#3 "Constants like the speed of light, the force of gravity and electromagnetism all need to work precisely together for there to be life. Apparently there are fifteen such constants. Wonderful and incredible" (70)
This is probably the one problem I have with Robertson and many other intelligent Christians. They all argue that we have this sense of God no matter their beliefs or mental state, we are all supposed to have this sense that there must be a creator because the possibilities of this world being so perfect as it is is impossible without a divine creator. Because time does not exist and is just a tool we use to explain issues, it would be foolish to say that we should believe in God because we are here right now. Quantum physics talks about alteration of these constants so slightly that there could be potential an infinite number of worlds like our own. This is just to say that because life exists does not actually give good reason behind the existence of God. The issues I see behind Dawkins and Robertson are like this: Dawkins is painfully bad at arguing against the Bible, so painful it is hard to say that I respect him as an intelligent person; however, the same follows Robertson. When he tries to use evidence to show for a divine creator it makes his defense earlier less compelling because while he understands his beliefs as well as Dawkins understand science, nether understands the arguments of the other to make it seem as though one side obviously has something the other does not. I respect both of these individuals and their understanding of their own beliefs, but I cannot say that either made me believe that they actually know how to argue against the other which made me somewhat sad while I read each chapter.