RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

"Hell is truth seen [learned] too late." John Locke
 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of PvM
Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 6:33 PM
To: Iain Strachan
Cc: Ted Davis; asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a clear difference here. There is empirical evidence that if you
> jump out of a window you'll fall and kill yourself. Such a person is
> clearly deluded. The paedophile who genuinely believes it is all about love
> (if such a paedophile exists) is clearly deeply into self-delusion.
> But you have no such evidence that belief in hell is a delusion. It's just
> an assertion that Dawkins makes. So it's YOUR argument is a straw man.

That's just plain silly. Can you prove that one is more a delusion
than the other? Can you prove that hell exists? I am certain that some
pedophiles are quite certain that it is all about love and that they
are insistent that they are not delusional.

> While we're on the subject (about telling what you truly believe to be the
> truth to someone and as a result them suffering mental torment), take a look
> at the first review of "The Selfish Gene" on Amazon.com by Michael Edwards
> at
> http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199291144/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6167102-3134436?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177796787&sr=8-1
>
> Dawkins told in the Selfish Gene what he passionately believes to be the
> truth. Michael Edwards read it - was totally convinced, found his fledgling
> religious faith totally shattered, and suffered severe bouts of depression
> as a result. He is left a profoundly unhappy person with a God-shaped hole
> that he can't fill because Dawkins has convinced him of the truth that there
> is no God.

> Is his experience not similar than that of the girl who had nightmares about
> her friend going to hell? Therefore is it not also true to say that Edwards
> suffered mental abuse as a result of Dawkins telling what he believed to be
> the truth? If Dawkins had stuck to the science, and not continually plugged
> his message that God is superfluous, then Edwards may well have not been
> damaged the way he has.

So we agree then that such is abuse? I think I have done my work then.
After all, the tu quoque defense never has been a good one.

Of course, one may wonder what in the end caused the depression but
for the moment I am willing to accept that the experience is similar.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1Y0DR3BYD18MP?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Have you read the Selfish Gene ?

What part do you think caused the 'harm'? Or was it the science after
all? And the harm was done at an earlier stage?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 29 10:39:21 2007