Re: Dawkins dissembles?

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 12:09:40 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Response to Wally Hicks post made June 12th"

    Robert Schneider wrote:
    >
    > > I wrote:
    > > >
    > > > This attempt to appropriate the word "bright" would insinuate that those
    > of
    > > > us who believe in God, the Sacred, a reality "deeper than Darwin," as
    > John
    > > > Haught put it, are "dumb" or "stupid" or otherwise less than
    > intelligent.
    > > > We all must be the yahoos in the pews. So, I am tempted to come out as
    > a
    > > > "bright" myself, and register with the organization that Dawkins
    > provided a
    > > > link for. "I'm a 'bright'," I'd write: "Summa cum laude, Phi Beta
    > Kappa,
    > > > Woodrow Wilson Fellow, published scholar, winner of two teaching
    > > > awards--these are signs of "brightness," aren't they? And I also don't
    > > > believe in the Easter Bunny--but I do believe in God." What would they
    > do
    > > > with that? Say that I wasn't "bright" enough, or "the right kind of
    > > > 'bright',"?
    > >
    > George commented:
    >
    > > The self-designation as "brights" by Dennett seems to me to have an air of
    > > desperation about it. It suggests that they realize that they can't make
    > a go of it if
    > > they simply call themselves atheists. & it's a rather childish designation
    > at that. As
    > > far as substance goes, it's of a piece with Steven Weinberg calling
    > religious believers
    > > "enemies of science." (I wonder if he's ever told his co-winner of the
    > Nobel Prize in
    > > Physics, Abdus Salam, a devout Muslim, that he's an enemy of science.)
    > > I think Dennett _et al_ make themselves look kind of silly by this
    > designation
    > > & that it would be a serious mistake to respond to it by saying "We're
    > bright too."
    > >
    > > Shalom,
    > > George
    > >
    >
    > George, I was simply suggesting that I might do this to tweak their noses;
    > the point of my playing with their self-designation would be to point out
    > its silliness, as you rightly call it. Sometimes a little mockery has its
    > value.

    Bob - I agree, not being (I think) humor-deprived. But like many True Believers, the
    self-anointed "brights" may well be at least when it comes to their beliefs. Besides,
    by definition you can't be a "bright" because you belief in God.
                                                    Your fellow dim,
                                                    George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 12:09:02 EDT