Two Bits Media of Kansas City

..”If you believe faith is illogical and unreasonable, then so is God. he created faith. Why would he create something we need and then deem it illogical and unreasonable. He didn’t. Somewhere in recent history some “bright light” theologian started that lie……”Richard L Zorek


Two Bits Media of Kansas City


The Way I See It:
The Delusion of The God Delusion:
[c]2007 by Richard L Zorekpublished by what is android tv boxImage result for Richard Dawkins………06.04..07…………Richard Dawkins preface of his book “The God Delusion” ([c]2006 Houghton Mifflin)is very telling. He starts out by observing that many people are brought up or raised in religions, wanted free, but didn’t know they could be free. He says, “this book is for you.” That, in itself, limits his audience. The majority of Christians I know were not raised in religious atmospheres and Dawkins self-charged demographic is the exception rather than the rule. Of course, that doesn’t stop him from pleading a case for ten chapters. But Dawkins also does not make any attempt to differentiate the difference between “religion” and “Christianity.”In Chapter One of his book, he quotes Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot) “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?…..” What an odd statement from Sagan. if he truly believed that than he lived in a scope of limited access to real people in the real world. As a Christian, I find the universe to be an exceptional statement of elegance and wonder. Even the Psalmnist declared “when I consider thy heavens, the works of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained….” he realized how small man was in comparison and wondered “what is man that He would even be able to think about him?”…And the Psalmnist wrote that many centuries before Sagans observation.Related imageHe then quotes Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who writes “Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him……..If you want to say God is energy, then you can find God in a lump of coal.” And Weinberg, an athiest, makes a good statement that is worthy to note. But then, Dawkins destroys the sense of his quote by adding “if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship.” What real Christian uses that as a definition of God or even thinks such an idea when they think of Him? Clearly, Dawkins can’t see past is own presumptions.Dawkins then goes onto mention Stephen Hawking and his book “A Brief History of Time.” I personally read this book several years ago and enjoyed the challenge. Hawking is a real thinker. Dawkins, however, claims that because one of Hawking’s chapters titled “For when we know the mind of God,” that people misconstrued it and led people to believe “that Hawking is a religious man.” I never drew that conclusion, nor have I ever heard of anyone drawing that conclusion. I was impressed that as a scientist, Hawking looked at the possibility, which I think a good scientist should. Einstein did the same. Unlike Aasimov who shut down the possibility altogether. Should science be closing the door on things they dont understand, or be challenged to continue to try and understand? I would think the challenge would be the best way.

Image result for The God Delusion

A letter from someone Dawkins only identifies as a “president of a historicial society in New Jersey” is something Dawkins uses to expose “the weakness of the religious mind.” In part it says “…..As everyone knows, religion is based on faith, not knowledge… …” If the letter is real then it is certainly clear why it was picked for making a weak argument for Christianity. It implies knowledge is not necessary. A ridiculous statement, to say the least. God created knowledge. Why would he than deem it unnecessary? How can one “love” God with knowledge of him? Is it all guesswork? No. A real challenge, however, would have weakened Dawkins position. He also includes a letter he claims is from the Calvary Tabernacle Association in Oklahoma and addressed to Albert Einstein, which is clearly ridiculous, but Dawkins uses it to imply it is the way “Christianity really is.” And if there were any relevance, just for the record, Einstein has been dead since 1955. The delusion is, of course, from the author of this book. If Dawkins book is attempting to address issues relevant to today, someone should probably let him know that Einstein has been dead for over 50 years now. Dawkins goes on to repremand the great thinkers like Einstien and Hawking for using the word “God” even as a metaphor calling it an “act of intellectual high treason,” I would assume because Dawkins thinks only thinkers like himself are smart enough to figure it out