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

On 4/3/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re your comments below about the militant atheists who support Dawkins...
>
> I noticed that on the Dawkins website there were a number of pictorial
> tributes to Dawkins on the occasion of his 66th Birthday by his admiring
> fans. Several of these had a manipulated version of the famous painting (I
> think by Da Vinci) of the creation of Adam, with a naked Adam and God in the
> sky touching fingers. In the manipulated image the hand of "Adam" is turned
> round the other way so "Adam" is giving the offensive "one-finger" gesture
> to God. In some of them also "Adam's" head is replaced by that of Dawkins.

> I'm wondering if Pim would not classify that sort of thing ( as I understand
> it the one finger gesture means F*** off) as hateful bigotry. If he does,
> then he must at least admit that Dawkins's writing incites hateful bigotry
> amongst his fans.

I hope you understand the logical fallacies involved with your
argument. First of all, according to your logic, any and all abuse by
Christians should reflect on God. Second of all, there are about 3500
happy birthday wishes, one involves a painting of a finger and God, in
oil. Then there is one which shows Dawkins giving the finger, in the
Adam/God scene and then there are a few which show Dawkins handing the
book 'God delusion' to God.

I am not sure if this hateful bigotry, I was somewhat amused by the
Dawkins handing God his book about the god Delusion but that's just
me.

Did Dawkin's writings incite hateful bigotry? Is Dawkins involved in
hateful bigotry? One may believe he is, but I have found Dawkins far
more reasonable in his arguments than I used to give him credit for.
Until I actually read his work. He is a fascinating science writer.

> If Pim is not willing to concede this much, then I guess the killfile
> beckons because I am becoming increasingly enraged by this ridiculous
> defense of Dawkins.

Ridiculous defense of Dawkins? Dawkins needs no defense. I am
defending Christian integrity here as well as scientific integrity.

> Iain
>
>
> On 4/3/07, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------

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 22:29:50 2007