Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again

Concern is different. I think most Christians are concerned about their fate
and others' in that context. If you mean why isn't it a constant point of
terror - my own response is that trust in God and a sincere, rational faith
speaks against such things. The same faith that speaks of punishment also
speaks of a God who is just and merciful, tremendously so. As with most
other things, ultimately I place my trust in God and do what I'm able in the
meanwhile. I would suspect others have similar (if not exactly similar) ways
of approaching the question.

And I have to thank Mike Gene for shooting down Dawkins so thoroughly on
this point. I think most people can recognize it's an inane claim at first
blush, but it helps to be thorough.

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Moorad said:
> " How many Christians are truly worried about hell? I am not."
>
> I'm not worried either, but maybe that is our problem. If we really
> believed people would be tormented and lost eternally, why wouldn't it
> concern us???
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:34 PM
> To: Murray Hogg; ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
>
> How many Christians are truly worried about hell? I am not. Can you really
> have someone become a Christian for fear of hell? I doubt it. It is the love
> of Christ and the need of union with that love that turns people into
> becoming Christians. This is what Christians teach their children. Humans
> are causing all sorts of sufferings to other humans and I hear nothing from
> Dawkins about such instances of abuse. Dawkins is haughty and a rabid
> anti-Christian and if he is worried about hell, it is because he fear and
> knows that he may end up there!
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 7:37 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
>
>
>
> Hi all;
>
> Schwarzwald:
>
> Simply at the level of apologetic argument I'd agree, however I'd like to
> keep hammering on the value of remembering the pastoral issues at stake.
>
> In this respect, Bernie makes a hugely important point with respect to the
> damage done to some individuals by religious communities, but contrary to
> Dawkins I disagree that atheism is the solution to the problem. Indeed,
> something Dawkins misses but which McGrath has pointed out, is that in
> instances of spiritual, ethical, physical or other forms of abuse,
> Christians have always been able to offer a positive response on the basis
> of our own religious faith. Being MORE Christian rather than LESS is always
> the proper response - hence the need to be the church semper reformanda.
> Which, you'll notice, is a Christian theological principle - which suggests,
> firstly, that we need to take our faults seriously, second, that we need to
> respond to them in Christian love and wisdom, and third, (I'm sure you'll be
> glad to hear!) that we don't need Dawkins to tell us how to suck eggs.
>
> Bernie:
>
> I sympathize with your remarks at the level of pastoral response, but
> philosophically I think you miss the point. One thing that's critical to
> note is that this discussion has NOTHING to do with whether God exists or
> not - it's really a form of Pascal's Wager: an argument as to what would be
> "better" to believe given the relative pay-offs.
>
> In essence, Dawkins is arguing that (1) the psychological pay-off for
> religious belief is overwhelmingly negative (whether or not God exists),
> that (2) the psychological pay-off for atheism is at least neutral (whether
> or not God exists) therefore (3) rejection of religious belief results in
> maximal psychological pay-off (whether or not God exists), therefore (4) one
> ought to be an atheist to accrue maximal psychological pay-off (whether or
> not God exists).
>
> Now, I agree with you 100% that we ought not to kid ourselves that
> everything in our religious communities is rosy, but in terms of simple
> logic, Dawkins argument indeed doesn't work because it's an argument about
> psychological health and the scientific studies indicate that he's simply
> wrong to argue for an overwhelmingly negative psychological impact of
> religious belief - and this REMAINS the case whether or not God exists.
>
> So pastorally I see a major problem requiring attention here - but as an
> argument against the psychological value of religious belief it doesn't
> work. As an argument against the existence of God it's simply a non-starter.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray.
>
> Schwarzwald wrote:
> > The bottom line simply doesn't work. As I've pointed out, there are
> > plenty of undeniable (by most atheist and christians alike) facts about
> > the world that would be cruel/abusive to tell a child, especially
> > depending on context. Further, if the cruelty depends on the truth of
> > the matter, then raising a child with atheist beliefs is cruel if there
> > is a God - and no one can say whether or not it's actually cruel,
> > because none of us are privy to that certain and demonstrable knowledge
> > on the question. This before noting the problems with right/wrong or
> > cruel/kind under an atheism-as-true perspective.
> >
> > And keep in mind that many people who leave one faith or another don't
> > do so entirely because of the faith itself. I'm sure some people may fit
> > the bill, but there are many, many people who are bitter about
> > christianity because of their experience with other christians
> > (hypocrites, etc), with political stances, or otherwise. Mike's done a
> > good job of pointing out where Dawkins' claim must go for it to be true,
> > and why it fails.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> > <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> > There are a lot of people who leave Christianity and feel abused by
> > it. Many are quite bitter about it... damaged goods. You can read
> > their "falling away" testimonies here:
> >
> > http://exchristian.net/
> >
> > Bottom line- if there's no God- it is cruel to say there's a God who
> > will send you to hell if you don't accept his imaginary son. On the
> > other hand, if there is a God and the gospel is true, a person loses
> > out on an abundant life in Christ if he rejects it.
> >
> > If someone yells "FIRE" in a movie house during your favorite movie,
> > would you be upset? It all depends- on whether the fire is true or
> > not. If true, you'll thank them. If false, you'll hate them for
> > wrecking the movie. Same exact thing... only different.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Iain Strachan
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:24 AM
> > To: Nucacids
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for presenting this evidence. It confirms what I've known
> > through empirical observation for a long time; which is why Dawkins's
> > comments on child-abuse were the most offensive in the entire book as
> > far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > In my voluntary work ( a telephone support line for the suicidal) I
> > get to talk with appalling regularity with people who have been
> > sexually abused as children. The damage it does is permanent - I do
> > indeed get to see the lack of self-esteem, the feelings of guilt
> > (victims often think it's their fault), the depression, the
> traumatic
> > flashbacks when the victim re-lives the abuse vividly, and the
> > suicidal thoughts.
> >
> > But on the other hand, I can count on the fingers of no hands the
> > number of times when I've spoken to a person who was traumatized by
> > being taught about hell.
> >
> > Dawkins's approach is shameful in this part of his book - as you say,
> > it ignores the evidence, and, it seems to me, is deliberately using a
> > highly emotive subject (child abuse) to make his point. I was quite
> > disgusted by Dawkins's claims, so it's good to see real evidence that
> > counters it. Dawkins is without excuse for his sloppy scholarship
> > here.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Iain.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com
> > <mailto:nucacids@wowway.com>> wrote:
> > > Hi Bernie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "If Dawkins was right, then he would have a very good point. If
> > there was
> > > no God heaven, or hell, then it could be mental torture on kids."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is incorrect. Real child abuse and mental torture bring
> > about changes
> > > in the brain and body that are detectable later on in life. For
> > example, if
> > > you meet or know someone who has a low self-esteem, who has poor
> > social
> > > skills, who battles depression, and who suffers from a variety of
> > ailments
> > > (migraines, skin problems, digestive problems, anxiety issues,
> etc.),
> > > chances are good that this person was abused as a child. But
> > don't take my
> > > word for it, look to science:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Childhood maltreatment strongly predicts poor psychiatric and
> > physical
> > > health outcomes in adulthood. This overview of the literature
> > shows that
> > > individuals who suffer abuse, neglect, or serious family
> > dysfunction as
> > > children are more likely to be depressed, to experience other
> > types of
> > > psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both
> medically
> > > explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk
> > behaviors than
> > > their nonabused counterparts. (Arnow BA. 2004. Relationships
> between
> > > childhood maltreatment, adult health and psychiatric outcomes,
> > and medical
> > > utilization. J Clin Psychiatry. 65 Suppl 12:10-5.)"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence that teaching children about hell results in
> > these
> > > adult outcomes. Dawkins, writing as the Professor for the Public
> > > Understanding of Science, ignores the extensive scientific
> > literature on
> > > child abuse and its effects. What's more, there is also a large
> > body of
> > > scientific evidence that shows a religious upbringing is
> > psychologically and
> > > developmentally positive. An there are studies which show
> > religious people
> > > are less likely to engage in child abuse:
> > >
> > > "Religiosity and the socioemotional adjustment of adolescent
> > mothers and
> > > their children.Carothers SS, Borkowski JG, Lefever JB, Whitman TL.
> > > J Fam Psychol. 2005 Jun;19(2):263-75.
> > >
> > > This study assessed the impact of religiosity on the
> > socioemotional and
> > > behavioral outcomes of 91 adolescent mothers and their offspring
> > over 10
> > > years. Religiosity was defined as involvement in church and
> > contact with and
> > > dependence on church officials and members. Mothers classified as
> > high in
> > > religious involvement had significantly higher self-esteem and
> lower
> > > depression scores, exhibited less child abuse potential, and had
> > higher
> > > occupational and educational attainment than mothers classified
> > as low in
> > > religious involvement; differences remained when multiple
> > factors, such as
> > > stress and grandmother support, were held constant. Children with
> > more
> > > religious mothers had fewer internalizing and externalizing
> > problems at 10
> > > years of age, with maternal adjustment mediating this
> relationship.
> > > Religiosity, through increased social support, served as a
> > protective factor
> > > for teenaged mothers and their children."
> > >
> > > Dawkins also ignores these data.
> > >
> > > Thus, there is a profound hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty
> > in Dawkins
> > > message. On one hand, he claims science has disproven the
> > existence of God,
> > > yet there are no scientific studies that attempt to determine
> > whether or not
> > > God exists. On the other hand, there are plenty of scientific
> > studies that
> > > undercut his "religious upbringing as child abuse" message, and
> the
> > > scientist ignores these.
> > >
> > > 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.*
> > >
> > > Bottom line: Even if hell does not exist, there is no evidence
> > that such
> > > belief generates the effects typically associated with child
> abuse.
> > > Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that strong religiosity
> > during
> > > childhood has a positive effect on development.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Dehler, Bernie
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:54 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins is at it again
> > >
> > > If Dawkins was right, then he would have a very good point. If
> > there was no
> > > God heaven, or hell, then it could be mental torture on kids.
> > However, if
> > > Dawkins is wrong, then he'll burn in hell for it... likely... but
> > that would be
> > > God's call.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...Bernie
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------
> > Non timeo sed caveo
> >
> > -----------
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> > <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> > <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 8 18:02:51 2008