Post by bjorn on Sept 24, 2008 12:27:54 GMT
When I studied Dawkins for my book on the new atheists (and New Agers) last year, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that he is both begging the question all over the place (and makes puzzling errors again and again) and not philosophically informed (or even inclined). He is thoroughly uninteresting to anyone into a rational debate on the question of God.
Unklee stated it very well above. A universe without God would be a very different place, if a place at all. RD's lack of imagination or impulse to think the issue through is peculiar.
One result is that while TGD (especially chapter 3 and 4) is on the curricullum at several Christian Universities in Norway, it comes with a warning that while he may be rather typical among evidentialists, he is not even close to being a top atheistic thinker. Just so that students don't understimate the atheistic position.
Unklee stated it very well above. A universe without God would be a very different place, if a place at all. RD's lack of imagination or impulse to think the issue through is peculiar.
One result is that while TGD (especially chapter 3 and 4) is on the curricullum at several Christian Universities in Norway, it comes with a warning that while he may be rather typical among evidentialists, he is not even close to being a top atheistic thinker. Just so that students don't understimate the atheistic position.