William Chirolas -- World News Trust
Sept. 16, 2009 -- I recommend reading the Man vs. God column in the Wall Street Journal, especially the comments after the article -- if you enjoy intelligent commentary. While there are the usual drive-by comments, there are also some very interesting, informative, thought provoking ones.
For me, I found a curious lack of logic by Richard Dawkins, with a walking around, interesting as it was, of the issue by Karen Armstrong rather than facing the question as presented -- "Where does evolution leave God?" Dawkins declares that deist belief, belief that since there was a creation per science -- and the Bible -- it means there was a creator God, is really the belief of an atheist, because if that God does not constantly change the direction of daily life, then there is not a God. Indeed, he calls deist belief "downplaying the existence of God." Say what? Dawkins needs a bit more training in logic as Dawkins' logic is a joke if this is an example of his best thinking.
Dawkins cannot prove "no God" (although he can assert "no need for God in daily life"), so his assertion of "no God" is based on faith, that faith in what can not be proven making his religion the religion of atheism and making atheism as much "myth" as any other religion.
Meanwhile Armstrong talks of myth as equivalent to the meaning of God or Religion, while allowing that because nothing can be proved about "mythos" (momentarily forgetting the Greeks thought "mythos" got them closer to "truth"), we should not believe in a God that interacts in our life, at least not as "hard fact." Yet Armstrong at least understands the topic and the question, saying the "best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder."
Religion is not science. Science does not contradict religion (and indeed supports the existence of a creation God), and evolution can co-exist with a God that acts on our life on a daily basis. The existence of evil and bad outcomes for good people is the slender reed that Dawkins hangs his rants against the existence of God -- as he rejects the believers' humility expressed in the thought that no man can judge the greater plan, and as he forgets that, as Armstrong points out, that suffering is the thing that produces the compassion that lies at the heart of faith. While the atheist may feel compassion, that ability does not disprove the existence of God. There can be no disproof of God, just as there can be no proof of God, at least not via science or scientific thinking.
Dawkins' logic needs a great deal of sharpening, but then there is a school of thought that the atheist is just a disabled person, lacking the ability to sense God's presence or even the ability to deal with finding truth through "mythos," and indeed is a person to be pitied rather than a person to get into a discussion with on "mythos."
***
William Chirolas brings 40 years of real-world business experience in local, state, national, and international tax, pensions, and finance to the world of blogging. A graduate of MIT, he calls the Boston area home, except when visiting kids and grandkids.
