tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post5097801939537258439..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Why I Said Dawkins is a HypocriteRKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-67071264256056383302012-09-28T08:50:27.619-04:002012-09-28T08:50:27.619-04:00Todd,
In your brief comments, I sense a little of...Todd,<br /><br />In your brief comments, I sense a little of a kindred spirit in you. I see exactly the same thing you see in Dawkins' statements. Dawkins claims to believe there is no absolute right or wrong but then contradicts himself when he holds out the example of harming a child as though it is absolutely wrong. He can only call harming a child “wrong” by first assuming there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. Such a standard only exists if God is real. Therefore, Dawkins can only call Christianity “wrong” by first assuming God is real. Talk about irony!!<br /><br />Like I said, non-believers cannot escape being hypocrites. Their worldview is built upon the sandy foundation that there is no God and so the Bible is not His revealed word. Such ideas cannot stand up to the winds and rain of scrutiny.<br /><br />Thank you for visiting and for your comments.<br /><br />God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-61791836583634919022012-09-27T18:07:13.222-04:002012-09-27T18:07:13.222-04:00What you never hear Dawkins say after a statement ...What you never hear Dawkins say after a statement such as the one about hurting an innocent child is, "But this is merely my own subjective ethical view. It is only my opinion in reference to what I feel is ultimately advantageous to our species."<br /><br />He doesn't ever say that because he really believes it to be an <b>absolute</b> truth of right and wrong, which his belief system clearly does not support. And so he is clearly contradicting himself.Todd Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16154677141382393275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-64897060441055763922012-04-25T06:59:07.783-04:002012-04-25T06:59:07.783-04:00Steven J,
If you want to split hairs over the def...Steven J,<br /><br />If you want to split hairs over the definition of “hypocrite” then go ahead. I think most people would identify someone as a hypocrite if he does the thing that he condemns in others. Jesus said the one who says to his brother, “let me remove the speck from your eye” but doesn't notice the beam in his own eye is a hypocrite.<br /><br />While defending evolution, Dawkins said that even if something is deplorable, it doesn't mean it's not true. When attacking Christianity, Dawkins appeals to how deplorable he believes it is. I don't care if his flip flop doesn't fit the technical definition of hypocrisy (although I believe it could). Anyway, as I said in my post, I'm looking at the word in a more philosophical sense. Since these statements contradict each other, one or the other (or both) must be false. Examining the moral implications of a belief is either a valid argument or it's not – one shouldn't have it both ways. Of course, Dawkins wants it both ways.<br /><br />Now, when you make the comment about God's will and how might makes right, this is an example of how Dawkins might argue. I understand you're using this rhetorically but you asked (paraphrasing), “How is it right that God sends people to hell for not believing in Him?” Indeed, many people believe it's not right for Him to do that. That point has been raised more than a few times. They think it's unjust and morally wrong. Does any of that mean it's not true?<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-27536355104675891592012-04-24T01:37:01.750-04:002012-04-24T01:37:01.750-04:00I didn't, originally, take any note of the tag...I didn't, originally, take any note of the tags you attached to your article. But since you've called attention to them, "hypocrisy" is claiming virtues or beliefs one does not have. It is not merely, for example, to advocate virtues one does not practice (if one does not claim to practice them), nor is it merely holding an inconsistent position or advancing self-contradictory arguments (e.g. "don't put your trust in mere human wisdom" when both of us are <i>Homo sapiens</i> and have only our own wits to tell us whether any superhuman wisdom exists or not).<br /><br />It is also not holding a view different from yours, or even a patently wrong view, on how moral claims can be justified. Dawkins apparently holds that moral claims can be justified by appealing to human nature, but not to what he regards as a non-existent external purpose to human nature or to the wishes of what he believes to be nonsentient and intentionless causes of evolution. As I have suggested before, he sees good and evil as emergent (inherent in the whole but not in the parts or the causes), and peculiar to a few species (or perhaps only to one), and not existing a priori and independently of intelligent life. He may be entirely mistaken on this point, but the position is not inherently hypocritical.<br /><br />Nor is it obviously absurd. What makes God's will good? If it is merely that God is omnipotent and can send us to Hell for disobeying, that is an argument that might makes right. If it is that God has made the universe to accord with His own nature, so that what He approves is good according to nature, then morality would seem to be inherent in nature, regardless of how that nature came about.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com