Richard Dawkins Interview
December 14, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Beliefnet recently posted an interview with Richard Dawkins called “The Problem with God.” It is a fascinating discussion, and I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Briefly, I find the following problems in Dawkins' responses:
1) Overlooking epistemological issues. He says, “I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.” Is this possible? Dawkins fails to acknowledge the difficulty of how one interprets data and evidence. He is being far too simplistic here.
2) Inconsistent appeal to authority. While we cannot accept things by revelation or faith, he admits that he accepts things from other scientists: “Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we can’t evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I'm a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside.” So, Dawkins still accepts some things as true because others tell him that they are true. These truth claims are supported by an appeal to authority (in this case, scientific expertise). Amazingly, in the next sentence, he says, “I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.” Does he not see the inconsistency here? The difference is not one between authority and evidence; the difference is one of between type(s) of authority.
3) A misunderstanding of science. When asked, “There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?” He replies: “It’s certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think it’s a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.” Here, he fails to recognize the philosophical basis of science and falsely equates science with naturalism and materialism.
4) A theological naiveness. Answering a question on Intelligent Design, he says, ” … it doesn’t explain where the designer comes from. If they’re going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—'these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?'–well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.” All one has to do is to differentiate between contingent and necessary (incontingent) beings. This kind of question makes me wonder how much he reads or interacts with those who differ with him.
Again, these are just some quick thoughts. But they do point to some fundamental flaws in the thinking of atheists like Dawkins. I only wish that the interviewer was willing to challenge Dawkins more on some of his answers!
Related posts:
- Richard Bushman Interview
- Interview with Richard Abanes about Tolle, Part 1
- Book Review: Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him by Richard Abanes
- Interview with Richard Abanes about Tolle, Part 4
- Interview with Richard Abanes- Part One: Marketing
- Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Four: The Seeker-Sensitive Movement
Posted in 
content rss
December 14th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
So what I'm understanding is this: Now there are three things that are non-negotiables when it comes to being a 'confessing' Christian in relationship to the culture:
1. Must be anti-Gay marriage
2. Must be pro-life
3. Must not question intelligent design
Anything else? Just want to make sure I have the the right things down in fear that I would not be condemned.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Hmmm… Where did you get this out of what I am saying? But to address your concern: confessing Christians are those that repent of their sins, believe in Jesus Christ and His redemptive work alone for salvation, and submit to His Lordship in their life. Of course, this submission to Christ as Savior and Lord includes accepting His Word as inerrant and sufficient.
So I ask: Does God's Word not speak about marriage and the proper relationships between men and women? Is God's Word silent on the sanctity of human life? Does God not reveal Himself as Creator? Denying these things is a failure to understand and to submit to the revelation of God.
In light of these things, could a person be a Christian and be pro-gay, pro-choice, and anti-ID? Sure. But they would not understand what their Savior has revealed about these things! And this is a serious problem–one that should not be encouraged but corrected.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Well, getting a little off-topic from the post but I don't see 1, 2, or 3 as being necessary in the way some see it. Certainly the Bible must inform our understanding of God's desire for our lives but that must be filtered through the understanding that the unsaved mind is darkened to such understanding. We should not permit homosexuality to stand unchallenged in the church, we should seek to preserve the sanctity of life in the church and we should seek to recognize God as our creator in the church. But we can not expect those outside the church to understand or accept what we know to be the truth in the church. We must not stop in our proclamation of the truth and our encouragement of the unsaved to accept the truth, but we should not expect them to comprehend or live by those truths.
I see some serious flaws in the modern politcal Christianity that has taken hold in many quarters and see it as a fundamental danger to the liberties of this nation, but I see the agendas of groups such as the ACLU and others to be equally as dangerous and concerning. There is a fine line to be walked between proclaiming the truth in love and using the truth to establish tyranny over not only the conciensce but the behavior of others.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
This may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you are saying. I just do not understand why you would think any of these things after reading my post. I said nothing about political activism. Were you simply trying to vent?
In my post, I was trying to show the errors of atheists like Dawkins in their arguments against Christianity. I hope that you have found it helpful.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
“Of course, this submission to Christ as Savior and Lord includes accepting His Word as inerrant and sufficient.”
I'm not sure this an “of course,” assuming by “His Word” you're referring to the Bible. I would say whatever words Jesus Himself uttered are inerrant, and one who claims to be a Christian should believe that. However, I see no convincing reason to hold Christians to believing the Bible we have today is inerrant and sufficient.
We should also clarify what we mean by intelligent design. If it's simply that God created/designed the universe, then that seems necessary for the Christian worldview. However, if we're referring to the contemporary debate over Intelligent Design (an ideology promoted by folkds like William Dembski, et. al.), then I see no reason to require Christians not to question it. In fact, I think we've questioned some aspects of it here.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
I talked with John about this via email and I want to clarify my point here about inerrancy. I personally hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. My point is that it should not be held as an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Denying the doctrine can lead to dangerous ideas, but denying it does not do so necessarily.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Getting back to the post, Dawkins serves well as a proto-modern man. He is atheist to the core, his philosophical foundation is utilitarianism, nature is his god and science is his religion. He is a model materialist.
In every interview he gives and every book he has written, he delights at jabbing faith as unscientific ignorance, mythology, wishful thinking. He cannot imagine a true scientist who would embrace religion.
And, he believes that Darwinian evolution is properly the answer to every deep question about the nature of life. He holds that Darwinian evolution necessarily nails the lid on God's coffin, because it provides a totally naturalistic explanation for all that we are and know in life.
As you point out, he is not always consistent in following his own logic. He does call us to have faith in “authority” when authority is science, but he doesn't trust political or religious authority. He idealizes science — it is, after all, his religious faith, so he always speaks lovingly about it.
Christians need to read Dawkins and understand his arguments. In his view, God is self-refuting, so it makes no sense to even consider God's existence. Evolution proves that life grew up from material causes, life exists and thrives all around us, therefore God does not exist because evolution is true.
He's an interesting character. Deluded, but interesting.
December 15th, 2005 at 9:56 am
I think this is dangerous ground. The Pharisees, too, made conditions for sanctity like 1, 2 and 3 above. And they claimed that God's Word–as they interpreted it–put their views in the right on these matters. In their case, 1, 2 and 3 were Healing on the Sabbath, Eating with Sinners and Claiming to Be/Believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah. So, I would think that we modern Christians would beware of the Pharisaic impulse to condemn based on what we think Scripture says. Yes, Scripture does say “thou shalt not kill” and so we should not kill the unborn. Yes, we know from Scripture that the Lord created the heavens and the earth (exact timeframe is not given us to know, apparently). But as for relations between men and women, if we were to follow scripture, we'd have to decide between the Old Testament injunctions about how to treat many wives, and Paul's statement about being a husband of one wife; perhaps we should, as Christians, pray to the Lord, try to act with integrity ourselves, and leave off prescribing a path for others to follow. As for homosexuality, the Bible is not clear on the subject, so I would think a Christian would be wary of condemning anyone based on their flawed understanding of inconclusive “proof texts”.
Vicky