From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Aug 22 2003 - 02:47:27 EDT
Blake wrote (in part):
> In such popularizations, it is easy to take gratuitous
> swipes at what you dont like as Dennett, Wilson,
> Dawkins, Provine, Atkins, Weinberg, et al. do...
> please name some theistic science popularizers who
> actually include their theism in their works? (Does
> Russell Stannard, who is one of the few theistic
> popularizer who I can think of that has written books
> popularizing science rather than addressing a
> particular sicence/religion issue directly, talk about
> God in his Uncle Albert series?).
>
> I think, like the discussions of YEC in some christian
> denominations, the deck is stacked very heavily in
> giving press and a forum in a university to those with
> the biggest axes to grind... I am reasonably certain
> that if a theist approached their area of interest in
> class the way that some atheists do, they would be
> censured by the administration simply because the
> academy is sensitive to proselytizing and the advocacy
> of theistic views, it is not sensitive to atheistic
> proselytizing.
>
Actually, there is one notable exception (which by no means disproves what
you are saying). John Polkinghorne, in his book "The Particle Play", a
popular science book on particle physics, does refer to his Christian
beliefs in the very last chapter of the book. In it, he refers to the pique
of the believer when an atheistic science promoter, who otherwise does an
excellent job, can't resist taking a poke at religion. He therefore
permitted himself the small indulgence of describing how what he saw in
physics (specifically the surprising relation of mathematics - a human
"creation" to the universe), related to his own beliefs, in particular the
Logos doctrine.
I think Polkinghorne seems to have got away with this, perhaps because he is
such a highly respected physicist (now an Anglican priest). As a result,
certainly in the UK media, one often sees Polkinghorne being asked for his
opinion in order to counter people such as Dawkins. Furthermore, he seems
to be able to do it with grace and respect, rather than the rather testy
outbursts that often characterise Dawkins' behaviour. Dawkins seems kind and
reasonable when he has the stage to himself, but put him on a programme in
debate with religious people - as I saw on one late night discussion with a
Christian and a Rabbi - and his irritation is all too apparent. In this
particular case it was the Rabbi who got it in the neck; but it so happens
that the Christian involved is a friend of mine - who has had several
encounters with Dawkins - all of them extremely unpleasant. Alas, it seems
to me that far too many Christians (on either side of the debate) behave in
a manner very similar to Dawkins - just getting irked and sarcastic with
those who disagree with them. Some of the more heated debates I see on this
list make very unpleasant reading, for example.
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 22 2003 - 02:49:58 EDT