“Postmodern” is becoming the “Attica” of an entire generation. Rather than a statement about excessive police force, it is the cry of a generation that feels it has been oppressed by the assumptions and worldview of its forebears. The language of postmodernism is ubiquitous, but it’s incredibly difficult to explain...
The great (slight exaggeration) experiment is over. The short reason is that we couldn’t get along. It may be for the best though, because it was bound to be nothing but…well, an argument. That’s not necessarily bad, but, I’ll admit, I tend to go for the throat. Sometimes sarcastic, sometimes aggressive, always on point.
I usually enjoy the sport of it, particularly when my opponent is as aggressive and intense as I get. But alas, it was not meant to be. So, here at Power of Suggestion, I will be replacing my criticism of The God Delusion with a criticism of The Case for a Creator.
While contemplating the opening salvo of The God Delusion, I started thinking about the ideas of naturalism, materialism, and physicalism in relation to the scientific search to disprove the existence of God. After a while something was nagging at me…it just didn’t fit, logically.
Many people argue that the basis for Christian belief is circular. But it finally clicked for me yesterday that this crusade undertaken by Richard Dawkins and many other scientists, to effectively disprove the existence of God through science is equally circular.
Dawkins uses the first section of chapter 1, “Deserved Respect” to set up some things; first, good religion and bad religion. For Dawkins, good religion is what he calls “Einsteinian” (aka pantheism, or natural theology), and “supernatural religion” (aka theism, or supernatural theism, a la Borg) is bad. Dawkins liberally,...