Re: Fwd: [asa] Is you doctor an evolutionist - if so, what then?

Hi Iain,

Sorry I didn't get onto this sooner - I'm painfully aware of using my
fair share of the group's bandwidth!

Let me say that I didn't at any time question Dawkins' honesty - it was
yourself, and not I, that introduced that theme into the discussion.

I think, however, that you were perhaps responding to my use of the term
"smuggling in" as though it implied some deliberate deception on
Dawkins' part?

If so, let me assure you that I use it as an essentially "value neutral"
term - in this respect Dawkins' is no more dishonest than any of the
rest of us. We all introduce ("smuggle in") assumptions which are
neither obvious, nor demonstrated, nor consistent with our basic
principles, but which are fundamentally necessary to bring arguments to
the conclusions we desire to reach.

So the only criticism I'm making with regard to Dawkins (of all atheism
in general, in fact) is the common one of pointing to a perceived
inconsistency of thought. Is this not unobjectionable?

That Dawkins wishes to lessen the amount and degree of suffering in the
world is laudable - but let's not be naive about the fact that Dawkins
thinks that eradication of religion is part of his vision AND that he is
not going to allow religious believers - that's you and me, Iain - to
have any part in shaping or running his "Brave New World" (one should
read the novel in order to get the point of the allusion).

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Iain Strachan wrote:
> Hi, Murray,
>
>> (3) when one is a thoroughgoing evolutionist of the sort Dawkins is, then
>> one's only option IS to base ethics in evolutionary theory - either directly
>> or indirectly. To do otherwise is to smuggle in assumptions which aren't
>> justified on the basis of one's original starting point.
>
> I'm hardly one to speak up for Dawkins, but I get the feeling you're
> doing him an injustice. I think the gist of "The Selfish Gene" is
> that it is a call to arms - we as humans have evolved intelligent
> thought - the ability to plan and imagine and simulate scenarios in
> one's mind, and to take direct action against our selfish genes -
> potentially to stop the destructive progress and endless struggle that
> arises from the evolutionary process of blind, pitiless, indifferent
> nature. In essence Dawkins would want us to rebel against evolution.
> To him it is at the same time an incredibly elegant scientific idea,
> and a horrific process that we are now intelligent enough to do
> something about.
>
> Maybe I've got you wrong but you seem to imply that Dawkins can't be
> moral without some form of intellectual dishonesty.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 2 14:34:25 2008