Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautio...

On the matter of censorship, I am not familar with the
case, so it is finally between you and Ted. Neither
party seems to be entirely acting as an _individaul_
here, and in that sense, neither is innocent. It may
have arose independently, it may not have.

> On 1/28/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> > PvM wrote:
> >
> >
> > Note that 1. the issue was not about censorship 2. the issue was not
> > about religion per se.
> >
> >
> > It seems from the exchanges that 1. it is (though I'm not clear this is
> > a genuine case of censorship as such) and on 2. I was mainly
> > responding to what you said....
>
> What part exactly suggests that this was about censorship.
>
> > > When atheists start a movement which insists that science can show the
> > > absence of a designer, it is time to object similarly to such an abuse
> > > of science.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think you actually mean what you said here. If this
> were
> > the case, then even "The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of
> > evolution reveals a universe without design" already meets what you
> > wrote without quoting another word. But I think what you meant to say
> > (and how I first read it) was "to prove God does not exist". But this is
> > also a little problematical these days with titles such as "The God
> > Delusion". I have not read this one, but so far, the comments from
> others
> > are consistent with my past impressions of his less strident
> > writings that I have read.
>
> One may have to more carefully read Dawkins to come to realize that he
> is not arguing that science can disprove 'God'. Even quoting the
> Blindwatch maker's title does little to meet the requirement as
> correctly interpreted by you as ''disproving God"
>
> >
> > I've also spent some time on skeptic lists. I got enough of the view
> > that "the world will finally be a beautiful place if only we could lop out
> > that thing in the brain". Well, who knows, I suppose we wait on the
> > second coming, though at least we are trusting God and not man.
> > But as to lopping things off, I suppose castration may some benefits
> > too.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps if you can quote from Dawkins then we can see what Dawkins et al.
> > driving at.
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you really see me as such a duff that I would dare to
> > comment on Dawkins without ever having read _at least_ one
> > of his books in my whole life?
>
> I did not say this. I was hoping for some actual quotes that would
> allow us to determine what Dawkins really has said. I too had read a
> lot of Dawkins, and I also believed that Dawkins went across the line,
> so to speak. And yet, in discussions I have come to realize that
> Dawkins' claims are far less controversial than they may at first
> appear, and that certainly he is not arguing that God can be
> proven/disproven by science. Which is what ID claims to be showing.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 17:56:39 2007