Re: [asa] dawkins and collins on "Fresh Air" interview program

PvM wrote:

> So let me ask you a question: Who is doing more damage to religious
> faith? Dawkins or ID which argues that science has shown the existence
> of a Designer? By making such a statement ID has made design
> falsifiable, or so it claims, and thus anytime science closes a gap,
> God becomes less relevant.
> ID has been a gift to Dawkins and he has aptly turned it in a weapon
> against that which ID claims to defend. Perhaps ID was nothing more
> than a knee jerk reaction to Dawkins but their response has played
> into the hands of Dawkins rather than propose a serious alternative.
>

Since we preach Christ crucified, we already speak what
is viewed as "foolishness". We were off to a good start
from the beginning if we measure our faith in terms of
the world.

I agree that the ID position is not helping things; particularly
when the rhetoric has been vociferously aggressive but the delivery
quite paltry. I think it would be better that we just follow Jesus
and live lives that show our repentance of worldly ways. At least
that way, we might at least do what is right when our name is called.

Nevertheless...

You can argue that Dawkins' views are nuanced
such that he does not literally _hate_ Christians,
just religion.

However, the issue is not limited just to what Dawkins'
thinks or doesn't think. The direction of his works
tends to be antichristian, and this is what his
followers will pick up. If Dawkins was perhaps
nuanced, his followers are less likely to be so.
And this is largely what I have observed.

Increasingly militant, one gradually gets the
impression from the hoipolloi on skeptic lists
(where it's "cool" to be an atheist), that some
people actually think the world would be a better
place if that "thing" was cut out. Moreover,
I of read people who would actually conflate
rape with religion. Should I then suppose that
eating or relieving oneself also a crime? (I guess
that the latter most also have came as a result
of evolution.) But propagating ones genes
through a highly antisocial act of aggression
hardly equates the two and I seriously doubt that
there is a strong selective advantage for rape.
Yet this is the kind of retort you can encounter
(as the Wired magazine article reports).

And should I expect it will stop at that?

So exactly who is more noxious is hardly an easy
answer to assess in a bigger picture.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 3 12:55:10 2007