RE: [asa] Nailing sacred things to the wall... and idols

Ted's link says:
" I also see evidence for theism in various anthropic phenomena discovered by cosmology; in the persistent human belief in a meaning for existence that goes beyond our own time and place; in the equally persistent belief in "right" and "wrong" as moral categories compared to considering "good" and "bad" simply as attributes of things that happen; and even in aspects of the biological world, such as the progressive development on this planet of an extraordinarily diverse and interrelated system of organisms, which in some respects mirrors (in my view) the Trinity itself."

I'm surprised you brought in the Trinity... not sure what you mean by "... which in some respects mirrors (in my view) the Trinity itself." BTW- that was one LONG sentence! ;-)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Davis [mailto:TDavis@messiah.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:43 AM
To: PvM; Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Nailing sacred things to the wall... and idols

I fail to see, Pim, what PZ was hoping to accomplish, other than to underscore his long-held views about the utter absence of any redeeming social value in the utterly false (as he sees it) and stupid belief in God. Illustrating his general view by making fun of Roman Catholics, the largest Christian body in the world, seems only to preach to his own choir, wouldn't you say? If he wants to be an arrogant jerk, well that might ordinarily be something that might affect only one or two a few other persons. But he clearly wanted to parade that character trait to a much larger audience. I'd say that he succeeded, perhaps beyond even his expectations.

It's hardly surprising that he received a nice pile of letters from angry Catholics. He's a smart guy, Pim, surely smart enough to have expected it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he wanted to use those very letters, further to advance his agenda. I certainly would not regard this as just an unhappy accident. Would you?

I myself have gotten what I can only call the intellectual equivalent of hate mail, incidentally, a pair of letters with no return addresses and signed only with first names (no surnames) after I published what I thought was a reasonable, respectful, non-provocative exchange I had with Phil Johnson in the Reports of the NCSE. Phil had responded to my review of three ID books, including one of his own, here
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/9021_phillip_johnson39s_respon_12_30_1899.asp

and, my reply here
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/3716_edward_davis_replies_12_30_1899.asp

I was astonished, frankly, to get anything at all from atheists with that short reply, directed to Phil and (I hoped) also to his friends in the ID movement. I didn't expect that at all--certainly not from Phil or any of his friends (and I got no such from them), but esp not from any atheist readers of that journal who might be following the little exchange with my fellow Christian. They surely knew I wasn't even thinking of them (in this case) as the audience for my message, and I absolutely said nothing that any reasonable person would take offence at. Disagreement is one thing, and of course I knew that a lot of readers would disagree with some or all of my comments; I'm always fine with that. But the authors of those two letters were absolutely incensed that I dared even to suggest that there might be reasonable grounds for being a theist.

Though apparently written independently in different parts of the country, the two letters are strikingly similar. Both were printed by hand, one entirely in large block letters on the back of a discarded internet printout, the other on a sheet of yellow notebook paper. One is just so loathing that I won't quote it here, but the other has the following passage that is relevant to talking about atheists and science:

[The evidence for "god" is no better than the evidence for Zeus or Santa Claus. "God" is an unseen, silly myth just like them, and totally superfluous. You think, "we are made in the image 'god'?" What "god"? Where?
        Order is the prerequisite for life itself and, like the habitability of the Earth, the result of chance, not "god." It is a fallacy to suppose our ability to comprehend the world (or our intelligence) is "hardly necessary for our evolutionary survival." Only an unlimited capacity to understand, hence innovate, could guarantee the survival of a hominid species in a competitive world of progressively better brains. In a cosmic Evolutionary universe, the true meaning of existence is antithetical to Christian lunacy. The PROGRESSIVE development of organisms is not evidence for theism but its opposite. Intelligence is the product of a physical brain which requires a physical body; both required billions of years to evolve. Christians would have us believe that PERFECTION (superintelligence) existed at the very outset, without ANY prior development, or physical existence! No rational person should believe that (or the "Trinity" b.s.!) The true meaning of our existe!
 nce, in a progressive Universe, is to become all powerful someday, NOT to degrade ourselves by kneeling before a silly myth.]

I could write a great deal about this particular view, elements of which (at least) PZ would surely agree with--but I won't specifically attribute any of them to him without his saying so. I'll just put it out there at this point and let it speak for itself--or the author for himself.

Happy reading.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 13 17:48:47 2008