Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again

Hi Mike,

Just a wee comment on the below - which I hope doesn't come across as too negative;

As a matter of rhetorical strategy (and of pastoral concern!) I'd suggest not going down the path of questioning the substance of the woman's account, nor asserting that Dawkins accepts it "on blind faith."

Rather, I think it would be better to point out that here, as in so many other instances, we have a clear case of Dawkins cherry picking his data to paint a picture quite at odds with the normative experiences of religious believers AND, in this particular instance, to bolster an argument quite at odds with the scientific conclusions.

In that respect this is, as per the subject line, a case of "Dawkins is it again"; for presenting the religiously pathological as though it were the entire story seems in large part to be his stock in trade.

I only mention the point because it seems to me we don't want to fall into the error of denying that religion, at least in part, proves to be a negative experience for some people in some circumstances. We do, however, have a right to question whether the harm so caused is a necessary consequence of religious belief and practice itself. More particularly, we have the right to ask whether Dawkins' "case studies" are able to sustain the weight of the sweeping anti-religious claims which Dawkins builds upon them.

I'd only urge that we be careful not to deny, or diminish, genuine criticisms (or genuine instances of negative experiences) in order to further an apologetic end. Such an approach seems to me risk appearing at best quite insensitive and at worst quite disingenuous.

I hasten to add that this is a comment upon how things APPEAR when one questions the veracity of claims about personal experience rather than an implication that you yourself sit somewhere on a spectrum between insensitive and disingenuous.

Blessings,
Murray

Nucacids wrote:
> What he instead offers in his book is rhetoric and anecdote. He tells
> the story about a letter he received from some unknown woman who got
> over her sexual abuse, but is still tormented by hell beliefs. Of
> course, there is no effort to substantiate this account; Dawkins trusts
> it on blind faith. But even if the story is true, I’d bet this woman
> has many monsters in her past and her mind has decided to “blame hell”
> as a defensive mechanism. It’s often easier to lash out at an idea than
> relive the hellish experience that can come from *people.*

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 20:53:06 2008