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

>
> > 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.

I'm sorry Pim, but I will have to stand by my comment that you're reading
Dawkins with rose-tinted spectacles. The anti-religious digs are apparent
in his work right from the Selfish Gene onwards. I've no problem at all
with a science writer making a compelling case for evolution. Francis
Collins does so extremely well. So does Lynn Caporale in "Darwin In the
Genome" - incidentally a text that makes it far more compelling than Dawkins
ever has done. But the anti-religious rhetoric is there right from the
start. Dawkins is incapable (and unwilling) of divorcing the science from
his own philosophical perspective. Someone reading Caporale's book would
not be pushed in any way towards the idea that this means there's no God.
But with Dawkins you are pushed that way, and that's precisely what Dawkins
intends. He is a very successful evangelist for his position.

> 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've just told you - it's there in Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker and in
River out of Eden. According to Alister McGrath the tone has become more
shrill over the years, and with the increasing stridency of tone, the
quality of the work has diminished. Since even H. Allen Orr has panned
TGD, ( I get the impression that Orr is either an atheist or at least a
strong agnostic), then I'm not holding out much hope. Furthermore, some of
the Amazon reviewers, even atheists who give the book five stars, are
inclined to point out that bits of it come out as a rant. (And some approve
of the ranting).

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.

Disagree. Why use the term "died-in-the-wool-faithheads" if it's the
organised aspects rather than the individuals that he doesn't like. A
friend from my church, quite a distinguished scientist who went on to lead
the Church of Scotland project on Religion, Science and Technology met
Dawkins on a TV discussion program. When Dawkins found out that my friend
was a Christian, he treated him with nothing but disdain.

Iain

-- 
-----------
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.