Sin is doing something wrong in the mind of God. Richard Dawkins apparently doesn't think sin exists. He once wrote, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Is that true? Do good and evil not exist? Is sin only imaginary? What about stealing? What about having sex with someone else's wife or husband? What about murder? What about rape? Does wrong even exist in Dawkins's world? I confess I am a tad confused, but I don't think it's my fault. I think it's because Richard Dawkins tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Richard is famous for making sensational claims and writing books with provocative titles like The God Delusion. He also has the reputation for having this splendid scientific mind that he allegedly displayed while writing books such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, in which he wrote, "Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzee, somewhat more distant cousins of monkey, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired." According to Dawkins (paraphrased) … [Read more...]
A review of The God Conclusion
One of my atheist friends (yes, I really do have them) promised to read The God Conclusion and said he would publish a review when he finished. Amazon (as typically the case) refused to allow him to post the review, so my friend Tony sent his review to me and I'm posting it on my website. Tony is an honest broker, and fair. I like what he wrote, even when he disagrees with me, and we're going to talk about it in further detail on my next podcast. Here is his review of my book: The Introduction offers important context and sketches some of the arguments to follow. Chapters 1-10 of the book constitute a nearly point-by-point response to "The God Delusion" by biologist Richard Dawkins, with chapters 11-15 forming a positive argument in favour of the author's own position, "The God Conclusion".In his Introduction, Leonard recounts personal experiences that have led him to believe in the Christian God. This sets up the tone of the entire work - this is a book that mixes philosophy, science, and theology with personal thought. To my mind, that is what makes it worthwhile. He also sets up some of the themes he will return to later in the text, including that not believing in God is an act of free will rather than unbiased evaluation. He gives Dawkins credit where credit is due for intelligence and erudition, which is a notable thing contrasted to the generally toxic tone dominating the "God debate". He closes the introduction by pointing out that truth MATTERS. In our current age of "post-fact" discourse, this is also a worthy reminder.Leonard offers responses to … [Read more...]
Is Richard Dawkins lying or stupid?
It is really and truly difficult to imagine that Richard Dawkins could actually be a stupid man, and yet there is some evidence to suggest it. On video, no less. I just finished watching a clip named "7 Clever Atheist Flawless Victories", but saying the video failed to deliver would be a major understatement. Why did I even bother to watch it in the first place? My best, most honest answer would be morbid curiosity. Knowing your enemy seems to be a very sound battle strategy and between theism and atheism there is an ongoing war of ideas. Yet despite the video's provocative title, my expectations going in were low and still went unmet. Frankly, there are no new arguments for atheism, and all the old arguments are incredibly weak. Personally, I don't view individual atheists as my enemy. Atheism is my enemy. I don't hate atheists, but I'm not a fan of atheism. Why? Atheism is the enemy of logic and scientific evidence. My book proves that with a comprehensive argument that is utterly devastating to atheism. That's why I like to offer the atheist visitors to my Facebook page a free ebook copy so they can see for themselves and check all my references. Sadly, far too few accept my generous offer, even if they live in a country where I can upgrade the gift to an audiobook. They would prefer to remain willfully ignorant rather than tackle an argument that could (and would) rock their worldview if they took the argument seriously. This particular video promised not only one, but seven different arguments for atheism that were (allegedly) perfect in their … [Read more...]
The morality of God
Recently, a social media friend who is either an atheist or theistic evolutionist asked whether I believed Donald Trump was a Christian or not. He proceeded to offer his own opinion that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are sincere Christians, but Donald Trump is only a pretender. Because I prefer to give honest and direct answers rather than evasive or vague ones when someone asks my opinion, I told him the truth: I don't know if Donald Trump is a Christian or not. In my opinion, yes, Donald Trump is Christian. But I've never met the man in person. Judging what is in the heart and mind of another human being is a job only fit for a God, and that's WAY above my pay grade. I don't even see myself as some minor deity, unlike some people with pretentious (and contrived) last names, and an ego to rival my own. It is almost as big as Trump's ego. At best, I can sit on a jury and judge the actions of another person, but I cannot read their minds to better understand their motives. If someone wants to understand my motives, they only need to ask. Or, I might just come out and tell you, anyway. Why am I writing this short essay on morality and God? The short answer is, I feel compelled, which I shall explain momentarily. I won't earn a penny from writing it, unless one day down the road some magical little money tree sprouts from the fruits of my labor today, because to be brutally honest, ten years after beginning my career as a writing, I'm still trying to figure out the mystery of how to get paid consistently. I sell a few books and novels from time to time, especially … [Read more...]
Selfish genes
According to the scientific definition, a gene is a distinct unit of information, in the form of a specific pattern of nucleotides that comprise part of a chromosome. Roughly translated into English, genes are packets or sequences of DNA (information) that specifically code for one protein, whereas a genome is the full genetic code, or set of rules, for a given organism. For example, the genome of a primate will have specific genes that define the development of fur, arms, and legs, while the genome of a bird will have certain genes that cause development of beaks, feathers, and wings. Both organisms will have genes responsible for developing heart, lungs, eyes, and other internal organs that almost all animals share in common, while also having enough genetic material that a single individual can be uniquely identified out of millions of other people. Only identical twins share the same DNA, but even they can be uniquely identified through their fingerprints. DNA is basically a recipe for how to create an organism from scratch. The average layperson may not be able to recognize an individual gene under a microscope, but any two experts in genetics should be able to identify the specific pattern of a known gene. Most of us have seen enough TV shows like NCIS and CSI delving into forensic police investigative work to know that leaving DNA evidence at the scene of a crime is just about as damning as a voluntary confession—unless the perpetrator can convince the jury that the evidence was planted in an attempt to frame them, the … [Read more...]
