From: "Bryan R. Cross" <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
In response to my question about whether he disagreed with Dawkins
statement about evolution making it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist, Bryan answered,
> Because I agree with Augustine that being an intellectually fulfilled atheist is a
>contradiction in terms. Therefore, nothing, not even Darwinism, can make it possible.
My followup question: Why worry about challenging Dawkins-like
thinking by arguing about whether Darwinism requires intelligent
direction?
I know you didn't quite argue that, but you posed it in a way and
defended ID in a way that did not reveal that bedrock belief and it
makes me think that you would like to challenge Dawkins-like thinking
on the premise rather than on the fact that the statement could not
possibly be true.
Blessings!
Joel Cannon wrote:
> > From: Bryan Cross <crossbr@SLU.EDU>
>
> > > > Dawkins writes, "Darwin made it possible
> > > >to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." If Darwinism requires intelligent
> > > >direction, then Dawkins couldn't make that statement.
> > >
> >
> > In response to David and Joel, of course, I wasn't agreeing with Dawkins's
> > statement, just giving an example of the way in which Darwinism is typically
> > portrayed by scientists as needing nothing more than law and chance. Neither the
> > existence of atheists prior to Darwin nor the religious beliefs of Darwin himself
> > nor the identification of the argument from design with Christianity are relevant
> > to my point.
> >
>
> Bryan:
>
> Do you diagree with Dawkins statement? Why?
Because I agree with Augustine that being an intellectually fulfilled atheist is a
contradiction in terms. Therefore, nothing, not even Darwinism, can make it possible.
- Bryan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 17:45:36 EDT