Ryan: Doubting Dawkins

Nicholas Ryan added thoughtful 40 seconds video on Vimeo on Richard Dawkins’ ideology.

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the mine that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is , at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E Housman put it:

For nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

–  Richard Dawkins (November 1995′s Scientific American p.81-85)

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Ryan: Doubting Dawkins

  1. That’s a good question brapgronk, but if God works all things for good, then is it ultimately relevant if either a sorrowful or joyful event brings one closer to a saving truth? I’m trying to be delicate and refrain from “christianese” here, therefore, maybe it’s best to explain an eternal perspective in regards of God giving us what we need not so much want. I believe it is a practical requirement that we, mankind, live for and with hope. Yet an intimate God that meets mankind in their time of suffering with a promise of indestructible life redefines the parameters of hope with an eternal perspective instead of an imaginative yet dismally temporal perspective offered by this single man, Dawkins. I respect Dawkins creativity of merging concepts of math, physics and science, yet his casually leaps in explaining the beginning of life to those of gravity, especially as of late, have been a bit desperate in simply trying to sell books. Your comment seems to typically bait those, especially of Christian faith, into explaining the impossible – the orchestration of God. I cannot and find comfort in saying “I don’t know” in a God I cannot put into my little, mental box. Finally, please understand I respect your good question and truly believe that you and I are seeking the Truth in answering the why’s in this thing called life. Peace, Chris

  2. So for those who don’t agree with Dawkins, was the boy hit by the bus because it was God’s will (either to allow it or not to prevent it)?

  3. Agreeing with Dawkins is embracing despair. That 40 second video was powerful beyond words. Insightful post my friend…post on!
    His,
    Chris

Comments are closed.