Professor Richard Dawkins denounces God existence with a bibliographic mass from numerous scientists, theologians, and philosophers. In his second major effort to promote atheism, he again denigrates humanity's limp toward theism. Based on bias, opinion, and idiosyncratic diversity, he pens a non-sustaining apologetic for his long-held promotion of disbelief.
Notwithstanding a great grasp of language, the eminent academician attempts to evaluate an idiom lying far outside his field of expertise. This is not Dawkins' first expedition into the Bible's profuse and puzzling cabala (code). In THE ANCESTOR'S TALE, he leads readers on an intriguing journey from origins of life to evolutionary development within bio-diversity. Dichotomizing science and religion, he states the obvious in science logic: "Where science scores over alternative worldviews is that we know our uncertainty, we can often measure its magnitude, and we work optimistically to reduce it." The observation reeks of logic; yet, in the area of metaphysics, Richard Dawkins forsakes logic to promote unconditional rejection of traditional religion's iconolatry (worship of images or icons). His failure to intercept first century etymologic transformation and convention's interpretative stagnation is revealing: "From a strictly cladistic (phylogenetic relationship and evolutionary histories of organism groups, bw) point of view, however, the vertebrate/invertebrate distinction is an odd one, nearly as unnatural as the ancient Jewish classification of humanity into themselves and 'gentiles' (literally everybody else, bw)." Here, Dawkins strays from science into religion's linguistic trap; for, as is already proven in recent research, 'everybody else' is a capitulation to tradition's 'gentile' rationale!
Early on, in THE GOD DELUSION, Richard Dawkins defines 'perception of reason' as an 'evaluation of thought'; at the same time, he attempts prejudiced opinion as an evaluation of fact: i.e., "I believe God does not exist; therefore, if Einstein and other scientists voice like sentiments, then, it must be so.' In Ben Winter philosophy, two such premises cannot produce a related fact. They can lead only to another opinion. Such is not grounded in syllogistic reasoning. Logic must separate the wheat and chaff of evidence and desire from its synecdoche storehouse and thus earn a place in syllogistic standing.
Proof of argumentation lies neither in discipline tidbits nor in discipline creeds, but rather in the legal-historical immutability of biblical context. Only proof or un-proof found in Bible interior is liable to the efficacy of theism or atheism. Dawkins addresses many shades of belief: theism, deism, agnosticism, and atheism: each holding its own obligation to linguistic limits and not to casual acceptance. Quoting many theorists, thinkers, and philosophers, he fails to include a quote from the renowned Immanuel Kant: "No man has the intellect to deny another man's God."
Dawkins' book is more about cultural inheritance, than proof-positiveness of atheism or factual dismissal of theism. Of either, proof is noticeably absent. But if you like an intellectual read, you might like this book. This critique author challenges either atheist or theist to further debate on the strictness and limits of Bible language and to further investigate syllogistic accountability.
Ben Winter, particles physicist, Bible scholar, and author of "THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified," reveals there 'is' something new under the sun -- that is, for modern Bible students, addressing a correctness of language and true intent of the major Bible topics: solves Bible mysteries, defines Gog and Magog, reveals Daniel He-goat's surprising identity, daring to number the all important Ten Ages. Sign up for FREE book critiques at http://www.winterbriar.com/ and view more articles in blog format at http://blog.thegreatdeception.net/.
