Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and bigotry.

On 4/7/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/7/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seek and though shall find something that matches your views about
> > Dawkins and PZ Myers.
> > What a waste of time and effort.
> >
> > And btw, faithhead seems to be a term reserved for those undetermined
> > by reason. As a Christian I have found that my faith and my views of
> > science are quite in agreement.
> > Even if I am a faithhead, so what. Should I let others dictate how I
> > view myself?
> >
> > PZ Myers' postings on science are pieces of art, as is much of
> > Dawkins' work. Their viewpoints on atheism are as relevant to me as
> > Dembski's musings on 'science'. With the understanding that Dembski is
> > doing quite a bit to harm to science and faith alike. I could not care
> > less about the damage Dawkins et al do to atheism
>
>
>
> Yes, but they also do much damage to faith as well. I read a particularly
> sad review on Amazon of The Selfish Gene, where the reviewer, who gave the
> book five stars, wished that he had never read the book. He had been at a
> time when he was on the verge of finding some sort of faith, but read
> Dawkins's brilliantly clear explanation that showed him beyond doubt that
> there was no God. This triggered around 10 years of depression.

There is little one can do about an outstanding science writer making
a compelling scientific case for evolution. Of course when Christians
have created a false duality, like ID is doing, then science can do
significant 'damage' to faith, but that's not because of science but
because of the particular kind of faith based beliefs that science has
shown to be wrong.

> Further more, if you read the reviews of TGD on Amazon you'll see many many
> reviews where people have said that this book has been a revelation to them
> - that it has improved their confused lives no end because it has enabled
> them to become atheists. There is no question that this book is achieving
> its aim of turning people who had previously sat on the fence into atheists.

Yes, in areas of faith, there will undoubtably be converts to either
side of the fence. Perhaps our side needs more compelling arguments?
Or perhaps we are running into a situation where well intended people
have created a situation where science can actually reject faith.

In the Dawkins Delusion, the author writes about ID:

"It is not an approach which I accept, either on scientific or
theological grounds. In my view, those who adopt this approach make
Christianity deeply -- and needlessly -- vulnerable to
scientific progress."

> > It's good to hear though that some on this group who have outspoken
> > against Dawkins are finally reading his materials.

> I don't know who you mean here when you say "are finally", but for your
> information, I read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and River out of
> Eden a long time ago. I also watched Dawkins's series of Royal Institution

Excellent scientific books. But I was referring more to his recent
writings about atheism.

> Lectures "Growing up in the Universe" when it was first broadcast on the
> BBC. I formed my own opinion, without reading what other Christians had got
> to say, that Dawkins was on a personal crusade against religion - and that
> his tone is often strident, sarcastic and petulant. As far as an opinion of
> Dawkins is concerned - he is a brilliant, if occasionally somewhat
> patronising, writer. He explains the science extremely well, and if he
> stuck to the role of popularising and explaining science without pushing his
> own personal philosophical agenda, then I wouldn't have any problem with
> him; indeed I would be an admirer.

And yet refer to Dawkins as writing hateful bigotry, often without
much to support their arguments other than to point to the behavior of
Dawkins 'admirers'.

> > I am for instance quite persuaded that much of the nonsense said in
> > name of Christianity (Creationism, YEC especially and Intelligent
> > Design) needs to be rejected in name of science and Christianity.

> I agree with you. But I wonder how you would advocate dealing with the
> three people in the home-group that I lead with my wife, who are sympathetic
> to YEC-ism? I take it that the PZ Myers recommendation is off the table?
> It was one of the YEC people who asked me to do a presentation on the
> different views on it. I prepared a Powerpoint presentation which gave
> details of what evolution is; what Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent
> Design are, and what Theistic Evolution is. I decided the best solution was
> to tread carefully, as it would be poor leadership to diss the opinions of
> others in the group. It was inevitable that my own views came out to the
> extent that I described "creation science" as being largely wishful
> thinking.

Excellent approach

> Now Dawkins, as an atheist would wish to have no dialogue with these
> "clowns" (see the Time magazine debate with Francis Collins). But I can't
> do that as a Christian. These are people who genuinely feel that evolution
> undermines faith. On of them, who is a surgeon doing PhD research into
> genetics, could not accept that chimpanzees are our cousins. I can't go
> telling him he's stupid to believe that, can I? Nor am I going to make much
> progress by saying that I utterly reject this nonsense of ID and
> Creationism. Can you not see that such language simply antagonises people?
> And that's my problem with Dawkins as well.

Dawkins is much more concerned with the organized aspects of religion
than what particular individuals believe. In other words, he may not
dislike the sinner as much as the sin, to use a metaphor.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 7 13:51:58 2007