Re: [asa] Re: Dialogue and the bond in Christ

Interesting how you are moving the goalposts.

On 4/1/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd say that you have made your case that Dawkins holds strong
> opinions about (organized) religions but does this culminate to
> hateful bigotry?
>
> Yes, it does, because he fails to make any real effort to engage or
> understand what he despises, as many commentators, religious and secular
> alike, have noted.

Argued perhaps. But as I have shown, often the reality appears
different. And of course, the issue is not really resolved by an
argument from authority.

>
> You have failed to convince me.
>
> Don Quixote had an easier go at the windmills, I guess. I'm pretty
> confident, though, that you would be about the only religious person in the
> universe who thinks Dawkins is really a decent bloke who's just been
> misunderstood.

It's more about the claim of hateful bigotry. Of course, it's often
simpler to change the argument than to address it.

> And now you may have the last word if you'd like; this has gotten absurd.
>
>
> On 4/1/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Finally you seem to have done your homework although we still have to
> > determine how they link to hateful bigotry.
> > I disagree however strongly with your conclusion that Dawkins hates
> > me, or anyone who believes in a deity. He may despise what I believe
> > in, but there is quite a difference between the two.
> > I can surely understand why people interpret Dawkins the way they do,
> > I used to have a similar impression of him. However, much of this was
> > caused not by what Dawkins actually wrote but rather by others
> > interpreting what they believed he stated.
> >
> >
> > As to your first quote, the context is important
> >
> > <quote>p 158:
> >
> > "My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars,
> > murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal
> > label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a
> > 'we' can be identified at all." Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings
> > constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism
> > owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism."
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > Second quote from
> >
> http://richarddawkins.net/article,93,Is-Science-a-Religion,Richard-Dawkins
> >
> > Hateful? Or an argument that faith can be quite dangerous.
> >
> > >
> > > To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as
> > > contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.
> >
> > (talking about organized religions)
> > Followed by: As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held
> > beliefs that are unsupported by evidence
> >
> > > To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like
> littering
> > > the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
> >
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html
> > hateful?
> >
> > <quote>Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the
> > customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable
> > word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for
> > understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not
> > mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they
> > had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it
> > would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
> >
> > It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying
> > source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use
> > of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story
> > and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To
> > fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is
> > like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if
> > they are used. </quote>
> >
> >
> > I'd say that you have made your case that Dawkins holds strong
> > opinions about (organized) religions but does this culminate to
> > hateful bigotry?
> > You have failed to convince me.
> >
> > On 4/1/07, David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Really, Pim, this defense of Dawkins just gets more and more ridiculous.
> > >
> > > How about thise from the Devil's Chaplain:
> > >
> > > "My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the
> smoke
> > > and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day
> of
> > > Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther
> King
> > > impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
> > > hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
> > > first place."
> > >
> > > Or this:
> > >
> > > It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed
> by
> > > the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case
> can
> > > be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the
> > > smallpox virus but harder to eradicate
> > >
> > > Or this:
> > >
> > > To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as
> > > contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.
> > >
> > > Or this from Religion's Misuided Missles:
> > >
> > > To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like
> littering
> > > the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
> > >
> > > Gee, I wonder too how people reach the conclusion that Dawkins hates
> > > religion. Maybe by reading his books and listening to him rant about
> it?
> > >
> > > Let me ask you this, Pim: do you believe in the God referred to in the
> ASA's
> > > Statement of Faith? If so, Richard Dawkins hates you and despises what
> you
> > > believe in -- why are you defending him? If not, what are we talking
> about
> > > here?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/1/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dawkins may not be especially interested in ID, ID is but a part of
> > > > his interests. As to the question of Dawkins hating religion, I wonder
> > > > how people have reached this conclusion. Certainly the response that
> > > > almost everything you have ever heard or read regarding Dawkins seems
> > > > quite insufficient to further the concept that Dawkins is involved in
> > > > hateful bigotry. Furthermore, I have found quite often, that people
> > > > have come to make assumptions about Dawkins which fail to be supported
> > > > by what Dawkins actually has said. In fact, I consider myself to be
> > > > one of the victims of jumping to conclusions rather than relying on
> > > > Dawkins.
> > > > Does Dawkins hate religion? Based on what writings of Dawkins did you
> > > > reach this conclusion? As far as religion being a disease I am
> > > > interested in hearing your sources.
> > > >
> > > > I have done some intensive searching and finally found a somewhat
> > > > relevant reference
> > > >
> > > > <quote>"I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the
> > > > mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus...
> > > > Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it
> > > > true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus.
> > > > It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good
> > > > thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped
> > > > out."</quote>
> > > >
> > > > or in full context
> > > >
> > > > <quote>Dawkins: That's a matter of individual psychology and
> > > > motivation and not my province.
> > > >
> > > > Skeptic: You also took a bit of flak for likening religion (I think
> > > > specifically Catholicism) to a virus? Is that still your position?
> > > >
> > > > Dawkins: Yes. I come to it through the analogy to computer viruses. We
> > > > have two kinds of viruses that have a lot in common--namely real
> > > > biological viruses and computer viruses. In both cases they are
> > > > parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of
> > > > machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code. So I
> > > > then ask the question, "What if there were a third kind of milieu in
> > > > which a different kind of self-replicating code could become an
> > > > effective parasite?" Human brains with their powerful communication
> > > > systems seem to be a likely candidate. Then I ask, "What would it feel
> > > > like if you were the victim of a mind virus?" Well, you would feel
> > > > within yourself this deep conviction that seems to come from nowhere.
> > > > It doesn't result from any evidence, but you have a total conviction
> > > > that you know what's true about the world and the cosmos and life. You
> > > > just know it and you're even prepared to kill people who disagree with
> > > > you. You go around proselytizing and persuading other people to accept
> > > > your view. The more you write down the features that such a mind virus
> > > > would have, the more it starts to look like religion. I do think that
> > > > the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a
> > > > particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus.
> > > >
> > > > Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that
> > > > matter), reply, "Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what
> > > > you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you
> > > > just don't like it."
> > > >
> > > > Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't
> > > > make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a
> > > > terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean
> > > > that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it
> > > > stamped out.
> > > >
> > > > Skeptic: So once again the discussion goes back to how do you
> > > > determine whether something is good or not, other than by just your
> > > > personal choice?
> > > >
> > > > Dawkins: I don't even try. You keep wanting to base morality on
> > > > Darwinism. I don't. </quote>
> > > >
> > > > As to Dawkins wanting to protect science against the ID folks, I
> > > > suggest you read Dawkins God Delusion.
> > > >
> > > > See also
> > > > http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/1/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh, COME ON, Pim. I've heard people defend Dawkins on his own
> merits,
> > > but
> > > > > I've never heard ANYONE claim Dawkins is primarily interested in
> > > debunking
> > > > > ID and is otherwise neutral towards religion in general. Everyone
> I've
> > > ever
> > > > > heard or read regarding Dawkins agrees that he hates religion qua
> > > religion
> > > > > -- he sees it as a sort of disease or defect that we should be rid
> of.
> > > > > Either agree with Dawkins or don't, but the idea that he's really a
> nice
> > > > > chap who just wants to protect the integrity of science against the
> ID
> > > folks
> > > > > is beyond incredible.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/1/07, PvM < pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was hoping to hear some support for the hateful bigotry.
> > > > > > The quote provided needs to be, once again, seen in its proper
> > > > > > context as it is followed by
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DawkinsL It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God
> > > > > > Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely
> > > > > > instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face,
> > > > > > 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/1/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am also looking forward to a dialogue with people like
> Dawkins,
> > > > > > > > rather than accusing him of hateful bigotry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No need to make accusations - Dawkins's words speak for
> themselves:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The old testament God is ...
> > > > > > > "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous
> and
> > > > > proud of
> > > > > > > it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
> > > > > bloodthirsty
> > > > > > > ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,
> infanticidal,
> > > > > > > genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
> sadomasochistic,
> > > > > > > capriciously malevolent bully"
> > > > > > > ( From "The God Delusion").
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then again there is Dawkins's frequent reference to believers as
> > > > > > > "Faith-heads". But as you like to use insulting language like
> > > > > > > "Scientifically Vacuous" I guess you don't find Dawkins
> insulting or
> > > > > bigoted
> > > > > > > in spite of the evidence in front of your nose.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice ad hominem. Speaking of being hateful :-)
> > > > > > How frequently does Dawkins refer to the term faith head and in
> what
> > > > > > context? So far, I have found a single book in which Dawkins uses
> the
> > > > > > term. Any guesses how many times he used the term?
> > > > > > Perhaps actually reading Dawkins in proper context may help better
> > > > > > understand his arguments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In any case, you're inconsistent. In one case you say "what's
> so
> > > good
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > dialogue" and in another case you say you want to dialogue with
> > > Dawkins.
> > > > > > > Make your mind up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am pointing out that those who insist on dialogue seem to be
> > > > > > inconsistent... Sarcasm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > > > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 1 19:33:54 2007