- Buy this product and stream 90 days of Amazon Music Unlimited for free. E-mail after purchase. Conditions apply. Learn more
The Dawkins Proof Paperback – 17 Oct 2011
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Customers also shopped for
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Of course, under an atheistic worldview, there is nothing outside of materialism. If this were true then our thoughts would be the result of matter obeying fixed laws of nature. As the author correctly concludes (many times in the book), there is no basis for morality or for rational thought in an atheistic universe. I have heard major evolutionists say that there is no such thing as freewill in humans. Some are even glad.
They call themselves "free-thinkers", but under their worldview there can be no such thing.
I don't recall seeing this oft-quoted depressing Dawkins diatribe in the book, although I may have missed it:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Dawkins says very plainly that there is no good and no evil and yet he constantly tries to moralise. He claims that parents who raise their children in a religion are guilty of child abuse. (What is instilling in them the lie that they are rearranged pond scum then, living a blind, pitiless existence?)
I would say that the Professor is extremely confused. He believes that his brain, which he reckons has been crafted over billions of years from unthinking goo, by time, chance and natural processes, can determine right and wrong via the fixed laws of physics and chemistry in a universe which he claims is devoid of good and evil.
Even the most ardent 'atheist' really ought to be able to understand how ridiculous Richard Dawkins' arguments are and to reject them out of hand and look for an alternative reason for what life is all about.
If they want to be true to themselves as well as to their Creator then they will accept that man is not the ultimate arbiter of truth; of right and wrong. We have seen all too often what happens when dictators take that attitude. The laws and redeeming sacrifice of Christ are totally important. It means that we are accountable to Him, which is the real reason people declare themselves 'atheists' so that they can sin without guilt, but it doesn't work that way in practice; the truth is written on the fleshy tablets of our hearts.
The whole premise is fundamentally circular since the author already believes that morals and reason are immaterial in source and by his definition Atheists believe in only a material world, which effectively denounces atheism since in such a model it cannot account for morals and reason. However, this conclusion depends on whether you believe that morals and reason are immaterial in source in the first place and since Atheists believe they are not the argument goes nowhere.
The author also falsely claims that morals and reason have to no meaning in a materialistic view of the world and it is this that provides the evidence as to why morals and reason are not products of a material world. But the fact is it is people that give meaning to things not the things themselves and any meaning we attribute to something is no more meaningful to any meaning we attribute to a God. At the end of the day all we know is that things carry personal meaning and no more than that and we know this because we experience it. Any meaning beyond this is purely arbitrary whether attributed to God or something else.
Given this there is no evidence provided in this book beyond personal belief and religious rhetoric to support the claim that morals and reason are immaterial in source, and this is really all this book offers. I could go on but to sum up this book is very weak and proves absolutely nothing