“Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God…” begins Philosopher and Theologian Alvin Plantinga`s recent review of The God Delusion; the latest rabid screed by well-know Atheism “evangelist” Richard Dawkins.
In his usual laconic and spry fashion (which I find to be quite charming), Professor Plantinga discusses just a few of Dawkins` many philosophical errors – specifically his circular “begging the question” reasoning, an inescapable facet of the materialist presuppositions.
As R. Albert Mohler highlights, in his own take on Plantinga`s review, it is precisely these set of assumptions that effectively cut Dawkins` own philosophical legs off before he can even attempt to stand on them:
“…naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can`t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science.
People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”
Plantinga also alludes to an issue that I have wondered about (and, I think, my dear friend Benjamin has lamented) – that is, the strange tendency amongst those of some credentials within one particular field of study will seem to feel no sense of hesitance about speaking authoritatively on a matter having almost nothing to do with their particular specialty or background.
In this case, Professor Dawkins` education and professional standing are within the scientific fields of zoology and animal behavior – yet he makes sweeping and hasty generalizations about philosophical issues that, it appears to even someone as “unaccredited” as myself, that his training in Philosophy and Religion (especially Christian Theology) would scarcely even match up to the novitiate learner in such domains.
Perhaps he might contend that, as a non-believer in any organized religion and a scientific Naturalist, he need not bother examining the various claims and/or arguments of the last 6000 years of rational dialogue on these matters in the depth required of a serious thinker.
My chief concern, however, is not so much for Dawkins` particular brand of bluster and rhetoric but of those whom have not the discernment to see through these sort of ideological sandcastles and are too easily shaken by the slings and arrows of modernistic “anti-everything” skepticism, leaving them wallowing in the nihilistic despair which can only follow such an onslaught.
I thank You, LORD, that even as there are the innumerate “Ahabs” prowling the face of the earth – You are ever arising the “Elijahs” that shall stand for Your Name.