Our friends at Digg have posted yet another Dawkin’s link which has quickly risen to the top of the dung heap. I read through a number of posts and surveyed the usual anti-religious sentiments of a number of the posters, but noticed that there are some real questions as well.
I would like to point out that when Dawkins was asked, “In the beginning was… ?” his answer was “simplicity.” That sounds all smart and cool, for sure, but the question is at the heart of the entire discussion on the existence of God. That’s because it is the “existential question.” While evolution talks about how we got where we are, the question of HOW DID WE GET HERE AT ALL? – and WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HERE? are not answered by Dawkins. It’s real nice and clean for him to claim that ‘simplicity’ is the scientific answer, but it’s a complete dodge of the real issue.
If simplicity was all that existed in the beginning, what made it unsimple? I would say that the thinking person would see right through this and conclude that, in fact, Dawkins made no point at all that supports a scientific view. A scientific answer might be, “We have no way of knowing,” or “That’s beyond the scope of science,” but to say that our existed has come about via simplicity is just too…. well, simplistic!
powered by performancing firefox