Tom Gilson

Washington Post: Atheists Don’t Own Reason

Online at the Washington Post, my column Atheists Don’t Own Reason. “New atheists have no business proclaiming themselves the defenders of reason.”

Of course in 800 words it’s impossible to explain a point like this in the depth it deserves. That’s why we wrote a book on it. Just $2.99!

But I have say I owe Richard Dawkins a word of thanks for continuing to demonstrate my point, even on the same web page where mine is published (they are juxtaposed there tonight, at least). I count at least five identifiable fallacies of reasoning in his one short article there. He claims to be the defender of reason, but he continues to violate it. Repeatedly. I suggest we all call him to give up the claim until he can live up to it.On Faith--Dawkins and My Answer

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

6 thoughts on “Washington Post: Atheists Don’t Own Reason

  1. For several years I’ve asked Christians, including pastors, what is the evidence for Christianity. Can they prove God exists and they kept referring me to the bible. Similarly, Muslims would always refer me to the Koran as proof of Allah. Beyond that though, neither side could prove the existence of their God other than “Well, it’s just obvious we are the true ones.”

    Other than exhibiting a display of faulty reasoning no Christian could even begin to show any reasoning ability regarding the existence of God. IF you can show God exists, and without the bible, I’d be more than glad to see it If it is just a case of “Oh, you can believe that the bible is true.” (special pleading) then I don’t see this much-vaunted reasoning you claim to have.

  2. Patrick,

    My WaPo article was not about Christians’ claims to “much-vaunted reasoning.” Other articles here are about Christian reasoning, but not this one. Did you read it? Do you have any response to what I actually did say?

  3. Not wild about saying this… but the article was well-written. Plenty of references, written concisely, and it illustrated reasonable well the point that you were trying to make. Congratulations on a job well done!

    I don’t “like” the article all that much (and many of my fellow non-believers share the sentiment, obviously), but it’s not about what I like or not, is it! It’s rather interesting to me that even a few months ago I would probably be one of those atheists mocking you, and not understanding…

    So, congratulations again, and thank you for the effort that you’ve put in to both the article and this site.

    I mean, of course you’re still wrong, but I appreciate it anyways. 😉

    Could I ask for a favor, though? I would appreciate it if you could point out one or two of the errors that Dawkins makes in his article.

  4. HI, Sault. Thank you for the kind and encouraging words. I mean, wow, I really appreciate it a lot.

    Did you see my next blog post, about Dawkins’ article?

  5. Thank you for writing that next post, I’m starting to read it right now. The email notification was swamped in between requests from Nigerian bankers’ widows wanting to borrow my bank account, replies in French to emails that I’d never sent, and offers for products to increase the size of my man’s hood. (Joke’s on them… I don’t wear a hood!)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this:
Clicky