RE: Dawkins Tanner Lectures at Harvard

My wish for Dawkins is that he actually became what he claims man is.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Walter Hicks
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:53 PM
To: bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Dawkins Tanner Lectures at Harvard

bivalve wrote:

> >> Dawkins allegedly argued that religion is not itself a direct
evolutionary adaptation but rather is a by-product of cognitive
faculties that are not any more subject to much in the way of selective
pressure. Steven Pinker spoke about this at some length in his
commentary.<<
>
> In conversation at the Geological Society of America meeting, Eugenie
Scott pointed out that, if religion is to be treated as a gene-like
entity, subject to selction, then its overwhelming abundance across
cultures suggests that it is highly adaptive. Dawkins is not especially
consistent.

What do expect, David? Dawkins is just an atheist. He knows nothing of
the spiritual nature of man. Man is a three dimensional being -- body
mind and spirit. All that Dawkins sees is a 2 dimensional projection
-- a shadow cast on the mens-et-manus plane. Like other atheists, he
good at
understanding this activity because he limits his kmowlege to exclude
the most important part. When it comes to religion or spirit, Dawkins
may as well be brain dead. He gets 2 out 3 correct which is a grade of
66.7%. That's passing, but just barely.

IMHO.

Walt

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================