Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

David wrote

I don't think, either, that there's any need to wring our hands about
what we faith-heads have done to make Uncle Richard so crotchety. This
is far, far beyond the defensive response of a fair-minded person put
off by fundamentalism. Let us make our "yes yes and our no no" here:
Dawkins is a hateful bigot, a scoffer, someone about whom warnings are
appropriate.

Bill responds

Indeed, in part Dawkin's perceived crotchetiness may be due to a couple facts

1. Christians like Francis Collins have taken him on publicly and made some good points
2. Christians haven't gone away

Of course it may as well be due to some of the attacks he's experienced from the Christian community, and that's unfortunate. Let's treat him politely, listen to his views, and respond with good theology.
 
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

----- Original Message ----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:55:48 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

Pim said: Seek and though shall find something that matches your views about
Dawkins and PZ Myers.

This effort to defend Dawkins and now PZ Myers -- forgive me for being blunt -- is by far the dumbest thing I've ever read on this list. It is also, even taking into account occasional link-dumping from conservative sites, the most transparent effort at trolling I've ever seen on this list. And we keep taking the bait!

Not even the people who really like Dawkins try to defend him as some kind of miusunderstood, fuzzy Uncle Richard who only wants to help religious folks think about their faith more clearly. It is just beyond incredible.

I don't think, either, that there's any need to wring our hands about what we faith-heads have done to make Uncle Richard so crotchety. This is far, far beyond the defensive response of a fair-minded person put off by fundamentalism. Let us make our "yes yes and our no no" here: Dawkins is a hateful bigot, a scoffer, someone about whom warnings are appropriate.

I do of course agree with Wayne that our response to Dawkins as a person must be gracious and loving, but yet it must also be lovingly firm, particularly at the level of ideas. And I agree completely with George -- nothing Dawkins or the so-called "new atheists" are saying is new. Read the Church Fathers' responses to the atheists and pagans of their day, and you will find the very same arguments -- right down to the supposed coup de grace of "if God made the world, who made God?" The same old demonic lies that will recycle themselves until the Lord returns.

On 4/7/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Iain Strachan
 

To: George Murphy

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:26 AM

Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins and PZ Myers and their 'attitude'

On 4/7/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com
> wrote:

I haven't read a great deal of Dawkins' work but agree that he writes quite well about science. Also -

(a) Christians need not get themselves quite so exercised about the recent spate of atheist books, as if they represented some sort of Armaggedon-like Final Battle.

Intelligent positive presentations of the Christian faith will be much more helpful than frenzied defences.

Well, it's certainly worthwhile getting to know what is written in them and if you agree with it or not. At least two of my daughter's schoolfriends are reading TGD and making aggressive atheist noises at her - she needs to be prepared as to what to say, for example.

Well, yes, but it's more important for Christians first to have a mature understanding of the Christian faith. The best apologetic is a clear presentation of the foundational claim of Christianity - again I'll reference my PSCF article at
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF9-00Murphy.html .

My point wasn't that Dawkins et al should be ignored but that there's nothing really new or apocalyptic about this recent wave of anti-religious arguments. Much of it is standard Enlightenment stuff of an extreme variety & even the business about Darwin making it possible for one to be an intellectually consistent atheist is overstated.

So while Christians certainly need to deal with it, it isn't a sign of the end of the world.

BTW, has anyone pointed out that Dawkins' argument that "God" would have to be complex in order to create a complex world is just Dembski's supposed "conservation of information" notion in atheist garb?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

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 15:30:31 2007