Skip to main content

Andy McIntosh - Atheism vs. God - Part 1 (Dawkins Quote)


This is part 1 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well.

For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIwh6-KEe0

Note

Andy McIntosh has notified me that he disagrees with my analysis in this post.

Dawkins Quote

This quote appears in a discussion regarding feathers at around 39:30.  Complexity is being shown in the feather.

A quote from Dawkins is shown and discussed


McIntosh comments, 
“That showed that this atheist did not understand what faith was.  Faith is not: believing in something which isn’t there.  That’s what [Dawkins’] definition was.  Faith is: actually trusting in something that strongly indicates that it is there and that there is evidence for it.”

What is actually said by Dawkins in the interview?

This interview can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad_fTX8rEKs

Dawkins states (at around 2:29:32), 
“There’s got to be a series of advantages all the way, in the feather.  If you can’t think of one, then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem; natural selection, well, I supposed that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part, since the theory is so coherent and so powerful.”

The problem

McIntosh says that Dawkins’ Faith is believing in something that isn’t there, while Dawkins’ actual use aligns with how McIntosh defined faith.  Dawkins is trusting in natural selection that has a mountain of evidence.  When Dawkins states, "[...] since the theory is so coherent and so powerful." he is demonstrating the basis for his faith, and it is not blind in his opinion.

The quote is taken out of context, and then misused.

Even if Dawkins had misused the word Faith here according to McIntosh's definition, it is unclear how McIntosh is tying this back into his argument.  How does this undermine atheism?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family.  I have done this for the last 15 years. I believe
8 comments
Read more

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism repre
1 comment
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What About the Fossils - Part 11 (Ammonite and Wood)

This is part 11 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ C-14 Should be Missing McIntosh presents an argument that C-14 should not be found at all in a sample that is millions of years old, but that we do find that - which is a claimed problem with an old earth. Why should it be missing? A single piece of Nitrogen, an atom, has 7 protons, and usually 7 neutrons.  There is this thing that happens to nitrogen where it turns into carbon for a "short" while, then turns back into nitrogen. It starts when N gets hit with a neutron [N+n].  This causes a proton to get knocked out of the atom.  How an atom acts chemically is kind of based on how many protons it has, so this atom now starts acting like carbon [
2 comments
Read more