Re: [asa] Dawkins is at it again

This discussion reminds me that Duke University basketball fans greet
their University of North Carolina rivals with the friendly greeting :
"Go to Hell, Carolina!"
Don

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> My point was that we Christians are not tortured by the notion of hell. However, we do point to the Lord for people's salvation. I personally do not use the notion of hell in my arguments for the truth that is in our Christian faith.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Schwarzwald
> Sent: Sat 11/8/2008 6:02 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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.
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.