Catholic Exchange

The Atheist Leap of Faith &#0151 Atheists, God and Reason

In a recent issue of Scientific American, arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss discussed the relationship between science and religion.

Dawkins, whose latest book, The God Delusion, is only one of a slew of recent books attacking religious beliefs, prefers an "in your face" approach. He once wrote that "if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane." He then added "or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that."

In his discussion with Krauss, Dawkins stood by his statement, calling it "a simple and sober statement of fact."

For his part, Krauss prefers to "reach out" to people and "understand where they are coming from" — not so that he might learn from them: Like Dawkins, he assumes that the people in question have little, if anything, to teach him. Rather, his goal is to "seduce" them into "understanding" and accepting scientific truths.

Thus Krauss says that "telling people…that their deepest beliefs are simply silly — even if they are" is counterproductive.

As you may have inferred from the "even if they are," Krauss does not deny that religious belief is "irrational." He simply thinks that religion is too deeply ingrained to be done away with. Better to help people "moderate" their beliefs and "cut out the most irrational and harmful aspects of religious fundamentalism."

All of this begs the question: "Is faith, in particular, Christianity, irrational?"

Neither Dawkins nor Krauss comes close to proving this. Instead, Dawkins and Krauss simply assume that materialism — the idea that there is nothing besides matter — is true. Thus, what makes a faith "rational" is whether it can be proven empirically.

Dawkins and Krauss do not offer any arguments to justify their assumptions. They do not tell us why materialism is true: Instead, they ask you to take its truth as a given — in other words, on faith.

Speaking of faith, what Dawkins means by the word faith is, to put it politely, idiosyncratic. His technique, on display in the Scientific American piece, is to find the most extreme, fringe Christian positions and ascribe them to all Christians. He then cites these beliefs as proof that all Christian faith is irrational.

Reading their discussion or anything else associated with Dawkins and what is being called the "New Atheism," you would not know that many of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by people of faith — not scientists who happened to be Christians, but people whose faith inspired and informed their scientific endeavors.

The work of physicists like Krauss would not be possible without Michael Faraday's work in electromagnetism. Faraday was a devout Christian who believed nature to be intelligible because it was created and upheld by a God who made Himself known in both His Word and in nature.

Rodney Stark, the eminent sociologist, writes that Christianity rescued reason. Christians saw reason as a gift of a rational God, and it could, therefore, be used to explore the universe and world that God had made. This belief made modern science possible.

If you meet someone who says your Christian faith is irrational, ask him to explain the basis of his faith.

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I think we are being bamboozled by the Dawkins Delusion. I have never seen Mr. Dawkins, all I know about him is from a particularly inane book that has his name on the cover. How do we even know he is a real person, not some media creation like Milli Vanilli? No one has proved his existence to my satisfaction. I will not accept eye witness accounts of people who claim to know him or to have seen and heard him, nor will I judge him by the book associated with his name, because I have no proof it was issued on his authority. If I don't believe he exists obviously I don't have to believe anything the book says. The credentials claimed by this "author" include claims of associations with prestigious universities and top names in science. It is entirely absurd to suppose that anyone with those credentials could have propounded such an illogically framed and eratically defended thesis. No, I refuse to be deluded. There is no Richard Dawkins. He is a figment of your imagination.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hold on a bit.

    Catholics can hold that evolution occurred.

    God bless,

    NoelFitz.
    _________________________________________________
    In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
    _________________________________________________

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't know if this little story is true–I saw it a short time go in an Italian Catholic web site:

    A well-dressed man with the look of a country gentleman boarded the train. Once comfortably settled, he took from his pocket a Rosary and began to pray silently as the beads slipped slowly through his fingers. A young fellow who was travelling in the same compartment looked with well-intentioned compassion upon this deluded speciman of humanity: "Don't tell me that in this day and age you can still believe in that sort of thing!" –Certainly I do–responded the gentleman–don't you?–. "Certainly not! and now that science can explain everything!" exclaimed the young man. –Oh, well, I don't really know that much about science–says the gentleman, and with the glimmer of a tear in his eye.

    The young man, with real compassion now, moves towards the gentleman: "Oh, that doesn't matter; if you give me your address I can send you all sorts of reading material!"

    The country gentleman takes a visiting card from his pocket and hands it to the young man whose eyes open wide seeing the name on the card. The country gentleman was Louis Pasteur.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I believe in evolution, and I believe that it was God's doing.

Leave a Reply