Senseless to argue faith - Rated 
This book just confirms that faith is not rationally explicable. Faith is held based on personal revelation rather than logical or rational argument /proof. It is pointless claiming otherwise. We all base our lives on personal experience and the influence of what we have seen and done. Life has this way of twisting and prejudicing our minds - it is in fact quite a biological process, since what organisms do best is adapt to their environments. What the scientist always strives to do is back up interpretations of the world with evidence such that others may gain the same interpretation based on the same data. As Popper demanded, any such interpretation by definition must be refutable, otherwise it is not scientific (meaning that if new data/evidence were to emerge, the interpretation MUST be revised to accommodate reality). You just CANNOT apply this process to religion, or any worldviews based on personal revelation or dogma.
It is hard to approach life in a rational way, since so much that we experience day-to-day needs to be digested by our brains and emotions, and we are not computers but very susceptible beings that are constantly trying to come to terms with not feeling "just right" for whatever reason, e.g. due to relationship or career problems. Many of us find solace in the belief that something is "in charge", either because it started everything (designing the physical laws etc to let the world evolve after the trigger) or because it is watching over us. For me, this can be viewed either as reverent belief based on revelation and sincere prayer, or is can be viewed as delusion: there is really no way of telling, *objectively*.
I would just ask all people, whatever they believe, to let others live as they choose. Life is hard enough without insisting on imposing your own view of the world on those that have a different one, even if you do feel it will make them better people. Healthy debate and discussion without enmity or insecurity - is that possible? Well, I suppose that is probably my own personal delusion ;-)
A clear and successful defense of the Catholic worldview - Rated 
Fr Crean has written an excellent book that explains clearly the flaws in Professor Dawkins' arguments. It communicated very clearly the fundamental differences between the two camps and uses a consistently reasoned approach to analyse Prof. Dawkins arguments:
The beauty of the Catholic worldview, as espoused so well by Fr Crean, is that it incorporates both scientific understanding of the universe and human experience in the fullest way. It is also non-dogmatic at the outset in that it is open to whatever conclusions reason points to, including the existence of the metaphysical (in the sense of something "beyond the physical"). The weakness of the atheist-materialist worldview, as espoused by Professor Dawkins, is that it incorporates a dogmatic statement at the outset without justification: that there is no metaphysical existence. When addressing questions of the metaphysical therefore, it is not equipped to deal with them rationally, because it will not acknowledge even the possibility of its existence. In order to assert that the metaphysical does not exist, its proponents do not use reason. They either remain silent or resort to forceful re-assertions of their prejudice in order to hide the lack of reason and to silence those who have a different point of view.
As he states at the outset, Fr Crean is a response and he is not aiming to establish the basis of Catholic thought. So the general format in his book is first a clear statement of what Catholics do believe on a particular issue and then an analysis Dawkins' arguments against it with a view to examining the truth of them. It should be stated that the Catholic worldview can be justified in reason, but for the reasons given, there is no obligation on Fr Crean to provide it in this context.
Fr Crean describes in step-by-step logic his response to Professor Dawkins main argument (from complexity) to support his claim that faith in God is a delusion (see below). As we know, Professor Dawkins does attack other things also in his book; and he tries to undermine some (but not all) of the rational proofs for the existence of God. I am thinking of things such as the existence of miracles, the truth of the bible, the authority of religions and the Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas. Fr Crean explains well why Professor Dawkins is unsuccessful in trying to undermine these other things too.
Fr Crean reinforces his points, quite legitimately, with speculation as to what Professor Dawkins might say at various points. It is done to try to anticipate counter arguments or to take the logic of Professor Dawkins through to its natural and absurd conclusion (sometimes amusingly so). Regarding the argument from complexity: Fr Crean explains that Professor Dawkins' argument is based upon the assumption that all that exists behaves in the way that the material universe does. Therefore, Professor Dawkins uses a circular argument - its conclusion is, in effect, one of its assumptions. This reduces the argument from complexity to a red herring. In order to be valid, those who use it must first prove by another means that there is no omniscient, omnipotent being that exists outside the universe, brings it into existence and sustains it. A being which, as it is not material, is indivisible and therefore simple in that sense. This is the debate of centuries and I am not aware that any new argument has been provided in this regard.
Regarding the nature of consciousness and the division of an idea: to develop the idea that something complex can originate from something simple, Fr Crean provides a philosophical discourse that is derived from the Catholic worldview. As such it incorporates both the material and the metaphysical and so accounts for both human experience and current scientific knowledge. If find this very convincing. I design things all the time as part of my work and Fr Crean's description of the design of a cathedral relates very well to my experience of the design process. I never hold every detail of what I design in my consciousness at a single moment and so the idea of every detail of a cathedral does not exist. However, during the design process I do address different details of it at different times and each of these constitutes a complete idea of part of a cathedral. To be able to order all of these ideas of parts of the cathedral in a coherent way, I need an idea that contains the essence of the whole cathedral. This is the idea of a cathedral as described by Fr Crean. All the ideas of parts of a cathedral unfold from this original idea and so from a simple thought unfolds the complexity of my cathedral.
Crean's arguments are flawed from the start - Rated
Thomas Crean's logic is hopelessly flawed. He mis-quotes Dawkins, then he re-drafts his interpretation of what Dawkins says and then he attacks this mis-draft.
Crean says Dawkins' refutation of the existence of God is based on arguments around complexity. That was just one of Dawkin's arguments, not his sole argument.
However, addressing the complexity argument: Crean says a design or idea of a cathedral can be simple even if the cathedral is complex. What utter bollocks. A vague image of a cathedral in one's mind can be simple, certainly, but an idea or a design that fully captures what the cathedral is, or is going to be, is as complex as the cathedral (exactly as Dawkins argues). The idea or design must encompass every single feature of the cathedral right down to the size of the door hinges and colour of the floor tiles - any simpler idea or design isn't an idea or design of the cathedral at all but instead is an idea of part of a cathedral (or perhaps an idea of the overall form or function of the cathedral).
Crean then bases many of his subsequent arguments on his extraordinary fallacy that an idea can be less complex than the physical object it represents. Crean provides no argument whatsoever for his assertion that an idea or design is simpler than the object it represents. He makes various, completely unsupported statements about an idea about a cathedral not having a "south facing wall" when in fact an idea or design absolutely does encapsulate the idea of a south facing wall (it's why some buildings in NZ have their windows facing the cold south - their ideas and designs came from the northern hemisphere.... the designs did indeed encapsulate the idea of a south facing wall).
Crean says (P19) that "Dawkins... might say, an idea or an act of volition, seem very simple considered in themselves"... and then attacks this statement that Dawkins didn't make. I can't imagine Dawkins making the above statement because Dawkins would not have accepted that "an idea or an act of volition, seem very simple...." because Dawkin's whole argument is that an idea or an act of volition are complex.
Crean over and over again asks questions for which he implies there is no answer (and therefore Dawkins is wrong) when in fact there are perfectly straightforward answers. For example Crean says that if electrical impulses constitute a thought, then what do 3/4 of the same impulses represent? He says (without any evidence whatsoever) that there can't be 3/4 of a thought.
Why on earth not?
3/4 of the impulses will produce a different thought - exactly what science - and Dawkins (I'm sure) - would say - no problem at all - yet Crean then goes on to construct his argument based on his complete fallacy that there can't be 3/4 of a thought.
I really have tried to read Crean's book with an open mind, but his logic is so pathetically flawed that I feel embarrassed on his behalf when I'm reading what he's written.
Friar Tucked. - Rated
An exellent riposte to the God delusion drawing on the philosophical tradition of St Thomas Aquinas (Scholasticism). A Clear and rational defence of metaphysics in the face of Dawkins Materialist rhetoric although, as Thomas Crean points out, in the last chapter of the God Delusion our author seems to have converted to Platonism!
Exposes Dawkins ignorance and naive handling of any suject that lies beyond his specialised area of study (Zoology) and a curious over reliance on his local branch of Waterstones for referece material.
Once you cut away the angry empty rhetoric of the God Delusion all you are left with is the toxic mixture of Nihilism and Misanthropy that lie at the (dead) Heart of that profoundly irrational book.Dawkins maybe an Atheist but he certainly isn't a humanist (using the word in its broadest sense).
The fact that this book forms a coherent rational argument is enough to defeat Dawkins assertion that the Religious are inherently irrational.
yawn - Rated
I read the first chapter online and while articulate and well written, the Friar's "counter arguments" consist of no more than the standard religious gobbledegook.
To paraphrase: God cannot be explained by materialists because He is spirit. Spirit is beyond the realm of science and physical laws, therefore all argument against His existence is invalid.
I'm sorry but this is the same airy-fairy fluff that is proferred by all those who cannot see that God is imaginary. Man invented the idea of God and this insult to human intelligence does nothing but beat on the irrational dogma drum.
|
