http://richarddawkins.net/article,644,Richard-Dawkins-interview-with-Paula-Zahn,CNN-Richard-Dawkins
Dawkins: "people should be free to believe whatever they like, to
write whatever they like, within reason"
Dawkins: "Neither I nor any atheist know ever threatens violence"
As to cows in Wisconsin versus healthcare in Cuba, may I point to the
use of growth hormones, antibiotics all in the name of improved milk
production versus healthcare statistics in Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba. Just to show that
there are many sides to the story.
We are however getting further and further away from the issues which
are that as Christians we have to be careful how we portray those who
disagree with us. Otherwise we end up giving them more power over us
and more power over others as they can point to our ignorance as an
effective argument against not only our position but in favour of
their own.
I personally believe that people assign far too much to Dawkins and
that we have to be careful not to be seen as creating strawmen or
bogieman scenarios where we assign positions to Dawkins which are just
plain outrageous and unsupported.
Again, this is just my personal opinion and yet I have seen some on
this group already falling victim to such behavior. That's unfortunate
and a fair warning to others.
In http://richarddawkins.net/article,914,Brian-Lehrer-interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Brian-Lehrer-Show-Richard-Dawkins,
Richard Dawkins talks to Lehrer and answers many of the questions
people have raised on this group.
Enjoy.
Phil:
>He wants a "clean break" from "heritage religion." He is talking
about the right of parents to pass > their religion to their children.
He wants the state to intervene so that parents cannot do that any >
more. He wants the state to have a role in giving the children
freedom from their parents'
> religion. This directly contradicts what you say (falsely) below.
I realize that it may take an effort to comprehend Dawkins' position.
In this case you claim that Dawkins wants the state to intervene to
pass their religion on to their children. And yet the article clearly
presents quite a different viewpoint than the one you want to impose
upon it
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,625743,00.html -
Children must choose their own beliefs
<quote>In particular, it is normal and pleasing that parental impact
should be strong. I'm not talking particularly about genes, but about
all the influences that parents inevitably bring. It is to be expected
that cricketing fathers will bowl to their sons - or daughters - on
the back lawn, take them to Lords, and pass on their love of the game.
There will be some tendency for ornithologists to have bird-watching
children, bibliophiles book-loving children. Beliefs and tastes,
political biases and hobbies, these will tend, at least statistically,
to pass longitudinally down generations, and nobody would wish it
otherwise.
But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens. Where
we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey will
take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby. </quote>
Dawkins then focuses on the public education
<quote>But what do we do? We deliberately set up, and massively
subsidise, segregated faith schools. As if it were not enough that we
fasten belief-labels on babies at birth, those badges of mental
apartheid are now reinforced and refreshed. In their separate schools,
children are separately taught mutually incompatible beliefs. </quote>
to come to the final conclusion
<quote>Please, I beg you, strongly discourage the use, in all
ministerial documents and inter-departmental memos, of phrases that
presume theological opinions in children too young to have any. Please
foster a climate in which it becomes impossible to use a phrase like
'Catholic children', 'Protestant children', 'Jewish children' or
'Muslim children' without wincing. It only costs two words more to
say, for instance, 'children of Muslim parents' or 'children of Jewish
parents'. </quote>
> Now I wish that children in non-Christian religions had some choice even while young. That is
> because I truly believe that all religions are NOT equal. I believe Christianity alone is correct
> and therefore it would be best if all children hear the gospel, along with their parents. On the
> other hand, Muslims feel the same way about educating everybody's children into Islam. And
> others like Dawkins presume that all religions are false and so they want children to have a
> secular education to help them get free from all religions and to make a "clean break" from "
> heritage religion." This raises the old question, who gets the right to determine what children are
> taught? Do the Christians get to decide? Do Muslims? Does Dawkins? We as a society have
> already fought this battle over the past 200 years and we have agreed that it is the parents who
> get to decide for their own children. The state was taken out of the equation.
But not in the UK where state schools are in fact religious. So your
presumption that the state is taken out of the equation is exactly
that which is the point of Dawkins' argument, it isn't. What if we
were to expose our children to all viewpoints and have them decide?
Are we doing our children a favor by indoctrinating them with our
beliefs?
To understand that there are many gradations, should we allow children
to be beaten because that's what the religion teaches, should we
allow children to be circumcised because that is what the religion
teaches? Boys and girls alike? Surely one can appreciate that there
are no black and white instances. Do parents get to decide for their
own children? Always? Should the state have no responsibilities to
ensure a solid education?
> Dawkins wants to overturn this, and he is using unworthy arguments by trying to pick out the
> worst examples of religion and then broadbrush all the same. His main arguments seem to be
> religious violence (ignoring Marxist and other violence) and fear of hell. Now I don't teach any
> violence to my children, but I have on a few occaisions mentioned to my children about the "dark
> place" (where I could not avoid it), or I have said that it is sad when people don't get to know God
> when they have died. I never paint any pictures that would be terrifying to children. Dawkins
> would have us believe that all Christian truth is horrifying to children, and he does so as a
> strategy, because that is the **wedge** (like the ID "wedge") that he is using to convince society
There you go again, making presumptions about what Dawkins beliefs,
when in fact his position is far more subtle, and perhaps often lost
on listeners and readers.
> to take freedoms away from religious people as a class and put education of children more
> completely into the hands of a secularized state. He is also using the "labeling" argument about
> children as another wedge to try to take freedom away from religious families.
I understand your fears but they are creations of your own more than
based on the reasoned position of Dawkins.
> He is a sad, sick, evil man. I have no problem in stating this obvious fact.
Your viewpoint of him shows such a man and yet, it seems to be mostly
a creation of your own mind.
Unless we can find the strength to try to understand Dawkins and
correctly represent his position, we will be doomed to lose the
argument.
<quote>Here at Oxford, we teach students not to base generalisations
on one anecdote. We also teach them to admit it if they are
conclusively shown to be wrong. 'New' Labour? You'll be really new if
you now depart from all political precedent and apologise.</quote>
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,319461,00.html
As to his position on 'christian child'
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350176
<quote>"Religion should be something for children to choose or not
when they become old enough to do so," Dawkins said. "The child is not
[naturally] a Christian child, but a child of Christian</quote>
Moorad:
>I certainly cannot prove the existence of God. The Christian faith is
based on the truth of certain
> historical events, viz., the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Faith, with its
> accompanying doubt, is an integral part of being a Christian. However, Dawkins claims that God
> does not exist; otherwise why call oneself an atheist.
Seems that you are not very familiar with what Dawkins really claims.
In fact, I'd say that your position based on a strawman, somewhat
undermines your credibility as you seem to be arguing against what you
believe Dawkins' position is.
> He is certain about it; otherwise why write the God Delusion book. Tell me who is the one
> intoxicated with pride, Dawkins or a Christian?
If you were to ask Dawkins, probably neither one. However, lest we
forget the original argument about truth, we should consider what
Dawkins is telling us. Pride comes in many shapes and forms, and we
should make an effort to not let our pride lead us to make assertions
and accusations which are just unsupportable by fact, or at least have
remained unsupported.
Remember your claim?
<quote>The benefits of Christianity, as you pose it, is the truth
nature of it. Dawkins is burning with pride, the Great Sin, by
claiming to know that Christianity is false.</quote>
Your 'logic' and 'argument' suffers from an unsupported assertion
about the truth nature of Christianity and a somewhat dubious claim
about Dawkins and his position on Christianity. I believe that
Dawkins' position is better stated as "there is as much evidence to
support faith in fairies as there is in a god, any god". Does he claim
that christianity is false? Or is his position a little more subtle?
The Christian truth is true for you, and Dawkins has no problems with
such a position, as he explained to O'Reilly. Dawkins also reminded us
that some consider atheists to be evil, devilish creatures and are
quick to stereotype atheists.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think that a self professed atheist
stands much chance in this country to run for public office?
President? What does that tell us?
And here I am, again feeling compelled to defend Dawkins not because I
agree with his position but because I see how people are making
uninformed claims about Dawkins.
For instance on the existence of God
<quote>Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I
live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
</quote>
and
<quote>A friend, who was brought up a Jew and still observes the
sabbath and other Jewish customs out of loyalty to his heritage,
describes himself as a 'tooth fairy agnostic'. He regards God as no
more probable than the tooth fairy. You can't disprove either
hypothesis, and both are equally improbable. He is an a-theist to
exactly the same large extent that he is an a-fairyist. And agnostic
about both, to the same small extent.
</quote>
Compare for instance what Dawkins wrote and how it was portrayed:
<quote>IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left
and right would not have found the idea of designer babies
particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used
that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for
comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is
responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single
particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray
from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is
even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for
running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be
impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic
ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities"
apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in
practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at
least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for
musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it
is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed
them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would
probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should
stop being frightened even to put the question?</quote>
http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
versus
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime's genocidal project "may not be bad"
See how uninformed we must look to a third party observer.
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 17:03:52 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 29 2007 - 17:03:52 EDT