Skip to main content

David Roberston quote

I am reading Robertson's The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths. Thought this quote from one of his letters to Dawkins was very interesting:

“Do you seriously think the evidence for the God of the Bible is on the same level as the tooth fairy? You have not, for example, written a book on the Tooth Fairy Delusion. The evidence for God is on a completely different level. I suspect you know that but again in your rhetorical style the sound-bite put-down works so much better. Let me put it another way – if the only evidence that existed for Jesus Christ was the same as that which exists for the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I and millions of others would not believe in him.” p51.

The idea seems to be that if lots of people believe something, well then the evidence for what they believe must be, if not conclusive, then at least much better than that for e.g. the tooth fairy.

However:

(i) I don't remember Dawkins denying Jesus Christ existed.
(ii) When it comes to supernatural, paranormal type claims, the fact that loads of people believe something does not indicate that the evidence for what they believe must be reasonably good. Millions believe they've been abducted by aliens. Millions believe in astrology and psychic powers. And of course millions - hundreds of millions - of Christians believe the entire universe is 6,000 years old.
(iii) Dawkins even comes up with some interesting explanations for why people will hold religious belief whether or not there's any evidence for theism.

There may be devastating critiques of Dawkins but this isn't one.

Comments

Fergus Gallagher said…
Well, you can see his evidence at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2r1GPGDWrI&feature=player_embedded

I particularly like the killer 'Proof by Look at all the Pretty Flowers' (ca. 6:20)
May 14, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Tige Gibson said…
A person may have existed on whom the character of Jesus Christ is based, but that person would not BE Jesus Christ any more than a person on whom Sherlock Holmes could have been based was actually Sherlock Holmes.

And without actual historical evidence, nothing can actually be said about such a historical person, so you are left exclusively with the myth.

If Conan Doyle based Holmes on a real person, who is to say.
May 14, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Mark Jones said…
"Let me put it another way – if the only evidence that existed for Jesus Christ was the same as that which exists for the Flying Spaghetti Monster then I and millions of others would not believe in him."

But one can say:

Let me put it another way – if the evidence for Jesus Christ was so good then millions of others would not hold different beliefs.

...and we're back at square one; his point is pointless.
May 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Steven Carr said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Steven Carr said…
Is there evidence for the Tooth Fairy?

Matthew 17:27

Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin.



Who else could have left that coin in the mouth except the Tooth Fairy?
May 14, 2010 at 8:10 PM
mas Gigih said…
I'm chasing of information laws. thanks
May 15, 2010 at 5:16 AM
ABC said…
The evidence for God is on a completely different level. I suspect you know that but again in your rhetorical style the sound-bite put-down works so much better. Let me put it another way – if the only evidence that existed for Jesus Christ

Notice the conflation of 'evidence for God' with 'evidence for Jesus Christ' as well - having sufficient evidence to support the existence of an historical figure hardly supports the idea that they were also some kind of divine entity.
May 18, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Billy said…
Robertson has been shown to be somewhat deliberately dishonest in the past concerning his agenda against Dawkins, so be prepared for more of the same http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2285

This is a man who thinks atheist artists are being inconsistent http://www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/node/225 (caution, contains insane ramlings)
May 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more