Alvin Plantinga refutes Richard Dawkins

Alvin Plantinga weighs in on Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion,”

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal….

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let’s hope for Dawkins’ sake God doesn’t return the compliment.)

The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, “I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist.” Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it’s not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party’s candidate at a Republican rally. More at CT.


UCLA – The Devil is a Celestial Bureaucrat

The Spotlight for UCLA’s website is not on Hawkings, Dawkins or Jay Gould coming to LA or Marilyn Adams (who once taught at UCLA) but Satanologist Henry Ansgar Kelly.

He argues that “The Devil is not God’s enemy, he is just a celestial bureaucrat with a bad attitude.” He claims that the early church made up Satan.



It is not suprising to encounter students at UCLA who believe that they do not exist. We have a poster on the table at Bruin Walk that states “DO YOU REALLY EXIST?” Students would often anwer, “I’ve wondered about my existence,” “I’ve often struggled with that question,” and my favorite answer “No.” Which I would reply, “May I ask who is answering?”

We are living in the postmodern world where we cannot know anything absolutely (not even the statement I’ve just wrote). To answer anything with absolute certainty is pre-modernity which is bigoted. In my course of campus evangelism, there are more atheists/agnostics and the know-it-alls who would challenge us because of our signs (such as IS ATHEISM CRUEL?; IS ATHEISM FOR FOOLS?; TOOTHPASTE AND THE PROBLEM OF ATHEISM).

But we have not encountered any Christians who would challenged us when we have signs such as ARE CHRISTIANS HYPOCRITES?; IS THE BIBLE FULL OF ERRORS? Instead, the atheists and the know-it alls would applaud our signs (but then would quickly get angry when found out that we are defending Christianity).

Where are the “Pauls” on our campuses?

Philosophical Hermeneutics

More resources on Philosophical Hermeneutics.

The previous collection of hermeneutics has been of Andrew Kulikovsky’s site.