Dawkins: Writing
In recent discussion of Dawkins’ “Arguments about God’s existence”, a controversial issue has been whether he offers a strong and valid argument about religion. Some argue that his paper is filled with false assertions about religion and the existence of God. From this perspective, Dawkins is proving that God doesn’t exist on false claims such as heredity and Agnostic beliefs. On the other hand, however, others argue that his arguments stem from logic and reason. That one needs evidence to prove that something exists and a lack of evidence against God not existing doesn’t prove that God does exist. According to this view God doesn’t exist and Dawkins proves it with logic. In sum then, the issue is whether his argument is valid or not valid.
My own view is that Dawkins’ arguments that God doesn’t exist are strong, they have direct premises that back up his conclusion. Although some might object that God does exist based on their own beliefs through religion, I would reply that Dawkins provides a strong argument against God existence through his examples. This issue is important because it brings attention to how we should …show more content…
Dawkins claims, “they appeal to faith” and “faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because the lack of evidence” (e). Dawkins is explaining the phenomenon that we call faith. He describes that people back-up religion with faith even though faith shows a lack of evidence. We must therefore question whether faith is good enough to be evidence of Gods existence. My own view on faith is that it is not a strong enough argument for proof of Gods existence. I agree with Dawkins that to believe something to be true there must be some kind of real evidence. I believe that most people would agree that evidence should be required to prove God exists but many people would argue there is no evidence against God’s
In recent discussion of Dawkins’ “Arguments about God’s existence”, a controversial issue has been whether he offers a strong and valid argument about religion. Some argue that his paper is filled with false assertions about religion and the existence of God. From this perspective, Dawkins is proving that God doesn’t exist on false claims such as heredity and Agnostic beliefs. On the other hand, however, others argue that his arguments stem from logic and reason. That one needs evidence to prove that something exists and a lack of evidence against God not existing doesn’t prove that God does exist. According to this view God doesn’t exist and Dawkins proves it with logic. In sum then, the issue is whether his argument is valid or not valid.
My own view is that Dawkins’ arguments that God doesn’t exist are strong, they have direct premises that back up his conclusion. Although some might object that God does exist based on their own beliefs through religion, I would reply that Dawkins provides a strong argument against God existence through his examples. This issue is important because it brings attention to how we should …show more content…
Dawkins claims, “they appeal to faith” and “faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because the lack of evidence” (e). Dawkins is explaining the phenomenon that we call faith. He describes that people back-up religion with faith even though faith shows a lack of evidence. We must therefore question whether faith is good enough to be evidence of Gods existence. My own view on faith is that it is not a strong enough argument for proof of Gods existence. I agree with Dawkins that to believe something to be true there must be some kind of real evidence. I believe that most people would agree that evidence should be required to prove God exists but many people would argue there is no evidence against God’s