A refutation of Richard Dawkins

When he makes his attacks on Christianity, Richard Dawkins doesn't have an epistemological leg to stand on. Given his worldview he has no basis for the criticisms he makes.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'New Scientist has posted several articles recently about the subject [free will]. In one, MacGregor Campbell promoted the answer from some secular neuroscientists that free will is an illusion.
The video states without criticism that “every choice you have ever made was predetermined billions of years ago at the moment of the big bang...” [1.]

- That my friends is the ugly reality of materialism. A consistent application of its message would entail the death of all we consider human.

In other words, Einstein formulating his famous equation was just a matter of physics; a moment predetermined at the moment of the big bang. This show us the falseness and inadequacy of materialism to provide the foundation for a livable worldview.

If my every 'choice' was predetermined, it wasn't a choice then was it?

Notice how materialists will tell you how evil the Bible's message of predestination is... but then have a secular version of their own? They don't seem to find anything evil about that. Ever wonder why that is? (I don't think you'll have to ponder the question long to get an answer.)

Christianity asserts that both God's predestination and man's freedom are possible. How this can be we don't know; we must accept God's word for it, accept that he is much more wise than we, that he comprehends the true nature of reality while we do not.

There can be no freedom for the materialist; not if he's honest.

That the materialist believes this metaphysical view, but then goes on to criticize Christians makes no sense at all. e.g. the anti-theist campaign of Rich Dawkins. [2.] There's utter hypocrisy in 'preaching' change to people who aren't free. You have no right to criticize someone if they bear no responsibility for their behavior. Dawkins shows himself to be an intellectual buffoon. On the basis of his very own worldview, he has no basis for criticizing anything. If all was determined at the moment of the big bang he should shut his cake hole.

How this scenario can explain the fact I'm a creationist and Dawkins is a materialist I don't know. Was the Big Bang undecided about the origins issue, and what had caused it? Maybe MacGregor can tell us :=}

2. 'As scientific justification for these radically deterministic views, the narrator says, “Many neuroscientists think that what we call free will is just the result of electrical and chemical signals in the brain, explainable ultimately by the laws of physics.” [1.]

- I take it this means there is no free will.
If there is no free will how could you know this? i.e. how could you know anything? If you're not free to accept or reject an idea about X, you can't be said to know X. All you have is an opinion. We see here that m. destroys the ability to have knowledge. If we do have knowledge (and I think we do) it's only because materialism isn't true.

If there is no free will, all my opinions were forced onto me; the outcome of a chain of reactions going back to the Big Bang, and thus I have no knowledge, and can acquire no knowledge. i.e. not in the sense we think of knowledge. (My opinion might be correct but I couldn't be said to know it. I wouldn't be able to justify holding it... as I had no choice in the matter.)

If neuroscieentists had no free will why would their opinions be worth listening to? They're not speaking trruth to the universe, but are only repeating opinions, are only repeating opinions under duress.

If there is no free will it's hard to imagine how creativity is possible. Doesn't creativity depend on freedom?

If there were no free will it's hard to see how people could even think. At best we would be animal type robots. Isn't thinking evidence for free will?

The language here is confusing. If free will is the 'result of' electrical and chemical signals it would still exist... but I don't think this is what the author means. I think he's claiming free will is an illusion. (If it was merely an illusion how would you know this?)

3. “Free will: the illusion we can’t live without.” [1.]

- An illusion we can't live without is a strange kind of illusion isn't it? We normally think of an illusion as something we don't need; as something we can easily live without.

One wonders how X can be an illusion if it's necessary for our survival. Isn't that too a strange kind of illusion? Isn't the fact we can't live without it evidence the claim is false?

Scientists can't tell us whether we have free will or not. Scientists can't tell us whether all acts were predetermined in the big bang. The belief the lab coats can answer all questions is a delusion; a delusion called scientism.

In terms of biblical creation, an 'illusion' we can't (honestly) live without isn't an illusion; not God, and not free will. (The same goes for truth, moral truth, love, reality, Design, the mind, etc.)

4. 'freelance writer Dan Jones again gave the scientific edge to neuroscientists who present the “manifest truth of determinism”. [1.]

- If materialism were true, there would be no truth. The concept is meaningless in a universe determined by matter in motion. A little reflection shows this I believe. (I guess science types don't think they have to study philosophy anymore. Maybe they think they can discover philosophical truths in the lab, or see them in a microscope.)

To acquire true knowledge a subject must be free of the cause and effect chain of material determinism. He must transcend the mere flow of matter. If he doesn't transcend matter, his opinion is just the 'opinion' of matter on matter; ie. it's not a truth claim but a chemical reaction.

Can there be truth without error? but if all is matter in motion there can be no error. ie. how can a chemical reaction be an error?

If the Big Bang produced richard dawkins what produced the big bang? Something very strange must have been going on :=}

This notion plays havoc with our theories of causation. It reduces all causal agents to one; ie. the big bang is the cause of everything.
eg. Q. What caused me to spill my coffee? A. the big bang. (Since the cosmologists can't tell us what caused the big bang, the final cause of everything is a mystery.)
Q. What caused X, Y, or Z? A. Who knows? Stuff happens.

If you reject God and creation, this is the hopeless position you find yourself in. i.e. the cause of all things is unknown. God is thrown out in favor of the unknown. This is an unknown that will never be known; so the only alternative to creation is to have no answer at all.

Addendum;
5. 'He made matter-of-fact statements claiming materialism is scientific truth, such as Francis Crick’s remark, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.”

- When you read phrases like 'nothing but' you know you're being fed some reductionism.
Crick is wrong. The most vital aspect of a human being is not the matter he's made of (e.g. neurons) but the information that has coded that matter. i.e. you are matter plus information; you are informed matter. (You are information made incarnate.)

I deny the claim matter in motion can compose true (specified, complex) information. We only know of one source of life giving information.

Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. Scientists Invade Religion Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/21/2011
2. Squawkin' Dawkins as I call him.
- Although Dawkins speaks of the 'god delusion' in reality, given his metaphysics, everything has to be an illusion. His model of reality claims that only matter exists, and that reality exists at the invisible level. He claims man is a 'robot slave' that is manipulated by genes. Every thought of man then is gene given; has its source in the gene's desire to reproduce, and thus can't be trusted to reflect reality. Given all this he has no way to posit truth or reality. Everything must be an illusion given that metaphysics and that epistem0logy. When he looks in the mirror he sees an illusion. When he looks out the window he sees an illusion. There cannot be something called reality for such a worldview.