From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 16:41:59 EDT
Howard, sorry you missed my point, I have tried to
restate it more clearly below.
--- "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
wrote:
(SNIP)
> 1. Dawkins/Dennett: Higher intelligence among NAS
> membership.
>
> 2. Scott Jorgenson (with agreement from Blake
> Nelson): The human hubris that
> often accompanies praise for intellectual
> accomplishment.
Actually, *my* point was entirely different. People
who enter certain fields tend to come from particular
backgrounds, they self-select. A lot of NAS members
are academics, choosing to be an academic is another
self-selection method that again tends toward
particular backgrounds (e.g., Watson going into
science for the express purpose of bashing religion).
Once in the academic millieu, powerful socialization
forces are brought to bear on whatever belief system
is there to begin with to shape it toward peer beliefs
both in graduate school and after.
So, my point is not at all about intellectual hubris,
although sometimes that accompanies academics (being
one) IMHO. ;)
> 3. Yet another possibility: Intelligent persons who
> are well acquainted with
> what the sciences have learned about the
> evolutionary history of the
> universe see that the majority of Christians choose
> to ignore that
> scientific evidence and cling to some form of
> episodic creationism
> (entailing the rejection of the RFEP, and asserting
> that at least some life
> forms required episodes of form-conferring
> supernatural intervention to
> actualize). Given their informed judgment regarding
> the credibility of the
> scientific concept of evolution, and given that the
> example set by the
> majority of Christian theists entails a rejection of
> that informed judgment,
> these intelligent and well-informed persons are less
> inclined to join with
> the theists.
Sure, but this is just ignorance on the part of the
person using some christians to tar the whole belief
system and it is somewhat lazy not to follow up on
one's prejudices (which the opinion you described
above is if one believes it applies to all
christians.)
> There was a time when I joined the chorus of persons
> who were quick to
> demonize those awful atheists as the epitome of
> stubborn arrogance and
> extreme hubris. Perhaps it is now time to listen
> more respectfully to learn
> what they themselves would say. It's just possible
> that their choices have
> been made thoughtfully, humbly, and on the basis of
> warranted
> considerations.
I don't demonize atheists, per se, but many --
P.Atkins and R.Dawkins -- spring to mind are so
apparently ignorant about religious belief and so
virulently antagonistic, that it is hard to believe
their choices were made humbly (if they were, they
seem to have gotten over that impulse). And I do read
what they say. Just as I am taken aback at the
misrepresentation that YECers undertake, I am taken
aback by some of the things atheists say, because in
both cases they make at least inferentially dishonest
statements.
By the way, as Michael Ruse (no theist) wonderfully
said about Richard Dawkins at one of the CTNS
co-sponsored Vatican conferences (I think the video is
somehwere on the counterbalance.org website), "he's
pig ignorant about theology" (or something to that
effect). Having read Dawkins extensively, I believe
Ruse is right, Dawkins appears to be pig ignorant
about christian theology.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 16:42:38 EDT