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....
8 comments
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What about the Fossils - Part 8 (Stasis)

This is part 8 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 Stasis One of McIntosh's main points is the concept of stasis .  This means that things don't change for a long time (things like feathers and turtles).  It seems the point here is: "so evolution is wrong". He seems to be saying that either everything evolves by changing constantly, or his version of young earth creationism is true.  There are many other options of course. It could be that evolutionary theory can explain this.  It could be that aliens made life on earth.  If this were indeed evidence against the current theory of evolution, that would not make it evidence for young earth creationism.  Maybe if every species coul...
3 comments
Read more

Update: What is Knowledge

Back in 2008 I wrote a blog post where I discussed what I use as a working definition of knowledge.  I recently re-read it and realize that I now strongly disagree with that definition. Here is what I wrote: Knowledge, according to Dr. Bahnsen, requires three things. Belief. To know something, one must first believe it to be true. This should not really be surprising or debatable. Basis. To know something, one must have a reasonable justification for the belief. The belief you have must not be based on invalid data or invalid or arbitrary reasoning. Truth. To really know something, that thing that you know has to be true. The thing known must accurately represent the truth of the situation. I got this during an apologetic course I took at Grace Baptist Church.  There are major flaws with this definition.  When applied it can claim as knowledge multiple mutually exclusive claims.  The biggest problem is #3 - truth.  This definition requires for somet...
Post a Comment
Read more