Re: [asa] truth with love award

The only reason I would hesitate (like you) to include Dawkins, is that
in the few (okay -- one) book of his that I've read I got a pretty good
sense that he views all religious adherents as just plain stupid -- if
not generally, then stupid as far as their involvement with religion
goes. And so, unlike Gould, he attacks with a zeal that harbors no
respect whatsoever for anyone or anything "religious" as he defines
it. And like so many other zealous atheists, I imagine (I can't really
know this beyond well-founded suspicion) that he would not allow that
the church or any religion in all of history has ever brought about
anything good. Therefore all his historical knowledge is filtered
through the neat little formula that anything of religious origin equals
or leads to "bad" and anything good in history has happened in spite
of religion. In short he seems to be a passionate ideologue first, and
a knowledge seeker only after that. (Now -- how many of us Christians
could claim the reverse? -- that would be an interesting question.)
Gould is willing to let the cards fall where they may -- or at least I
get that sense. So people like Gould seem to me the much more
trustworthy and objective handlers of knowledge. Dawkins has
extensive knowledge and good contribution, no doubt, but his self-donned
anti-religious leash cripples and imprisons any contributions he would
make to the larger community discussion about religion.

--merv

Iain Strachan wrote:

> Just as a matter of interest ...
>
> Would anyone nominate Richard Dawkins for a "Truth with love" award?
> He certainly has the passion for his subject, and a capacity for awe.
>
> And when it comes to Turkel/Janice/Jonathan Sarfati style rebukes and
> ridicule of opponents ... well, he's a past master of it ;-)
>
> Joking aside, here is an author who cares passionately about the truth
> (or what he sees as the truth). He seems to genuinely believe that
> religion is the source of all evil and wants to rid the world of it.
> Furthermore, he actually thinks we should rebel against our "selfish
> genes" and act altruistically against the evolutionary imperative not
> to. I think it's Francis Collins in his book (I've certainly read it
> recently) who points out that Dawkins himself is inextricably bound up
> with the Moral Law because of this. Dawkins is, I believe also, a
> generous donator to charity and disaster funds. As well as "exposing"
> Christianity (which I'm obviously not keen on), he has also done a lot
> towards exposing the quackery & pseudoscience of much of alternative
> medicine (which I am keen on, seeing how much some of my friends have
> been conned by it).
>
> Perhaps if not an award, Dawkins merits an honorable mention.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 30 17:44:19 2006