Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again

Hi Murray,

> 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."

Wise advice. Yes, the main issue is not questioning the valdity of the
anecdotes, but in noting that Dawkins has only anecdotes when the science
does not support him. This is inexcusable for someone whose public image is
built upon science advocacy. Let's also keep in mind that Dawkins speaks as
an amateur when it comes to the topic of child abuse (and it shows).

My tangential point about the story is based on knowing and reading people.
If someone tells me the concept of hell is torturing them, 9/10 times, there
is something deeper and darker from the past that is torturing them.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:52 PM
Subject: 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
>

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 22:21:07 2008