Murray said:
"And the evidence is that there is NO correlation between theism/atheism and scientific competence one way or the other."
Good points below- but a focus on your sentence above. As a NIH directory, he may help set priorities, such as regarding stem cell research, which seems to have a Christian religious component in the debate. Therefore, a man's religious convictions as NIH director could impact quite a few things. There's probably not a whole lot of other issues, though. But like the supreme court nominee, and people focusing on abortion, sometimes it only takes a hot-button topic to bring up religious concerns.
Mike said:
"I fail to see why the opinions and feelings of a political activist and culture warrior should matter here."
Dawkins has a much higher profile than you give him credit for, esp., I think, as being the first holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, which he recently left. That, and his popular books on science/religion, give him quite a platform. As he said, there are many 'fleas on his back' making money from him... writing less popular follow-up books, etc. He's in the big time. I like some of what he has to say.
David Clounch said:
"I myself have very little patience with your questions. Perhaps the distinguished ladies and gentlemen on the list relish answering apologetic questions about Christianity. "
Then why do you respond? As you say, why not let someone with interest respond? If I'm not welcome on the ASA listserv, that's fine with me... no hard feelings. From my end, I'm still learning and looking for answers, but if others aren't interested, that's no problem for me to move on to somewhere else where like-minded people are (like-minded in the sense of looking for vigorous intellectual discussion on religious/science issues; not like-minded in the sense of agreeing on a worldview or religious stance).
David Clounch said:
"I think you have it a bit wrong. Its more a matter of the enemies of Jesus at the time proclaiming that he existed. Not the Christians. And then there are the Roman historians too. A disinterested third party. So its not a matter of Christians making wild claims that a fantasy Jesus existed in history."
I didn't mean Jesus as a historical person, but Jesus as God and now sitting in heaven. Atheists believe that Jesus is a myth, like Zeus or Santa. So for them Jesus = Santa is reasonable. Either side can't prove their case- it is all about examining the evidence and making the best conclusion from what one considers as the facts.
It relates to the ASA because the ASA is into discussing how science bears on theology, science as well as history and philosophy. I think it is obvious to intellectuals that science and history needs to be consulted to understand truth; some fundamentalists insist on a narrow-minded "bible-only" approach which is fatal to a valid conclusion, I think. Some fundamentalists talk as if philosophy is man's wisdom, of the flesh, evil. I strongly disagree, as I hope William Lane Craig (OEC Christian philosopher) would agree with me on that. The ASA is making a great contribution to the Christian community as espousing an intellectual approach to the issues, which I appreciate, and is sorely needed within Christianity.
...Bernie
________________________________
From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
Murray said:
"I think I missed the distinction between Ted's argument and yours. ;)"
Here's the argument: Ted said:
"God and Santa Claus are not close equivalents. Period."
My point- they are EXACT equivalents if atheists are correct. If atheists are right, Jesus doesn't exist anymore than Zeus does. If Christians are right, of course, there are no similarities.
I think you have it a bit wrong. Its more a matter of the enemies of Jesus at the time proclaiming that he existed. Not the Christians. And then there are the Roman historians too. A disinterested third party. So its not a matter of Christians making wild claims that a fantasy Jesus existed in history.
Another area where you have it wrong...
Atheism is not based on ex-religionists who changed their minds. If it is based on that it is in real trouble - even more trouble than most of us think. The charges you bring are just complaints atheists make. Excuses really.
May I suggest you might want to sign up with a Muslim group and get in *their* face about what a farce their prophet is (may peace be upon him). Test your atheist courage?
I myself have very little patience with your questions. Perhaps the distinguished ladies and gentlemen on the list relish answering apologetic questions about Christianity. I myself am more interested in questions of issues from within the Christian world view. There is enough diversity there to choke a horse. If we had a forum then the moderator could assign a category "apologetics for doubters of Christian claims". I'd never ever look at that. It hasn't got to do with science.
As far as the personal pain of the death of your children, I really think you owe all of us an explanation of how atheism solves that issue. I previously suggested you take a look at RC Sproul's "Surprised by Suffering", or Larry Crabb's "Finding God" or maybe even CS Lewis's "The Problem With Pain" as Christian approaches to addressing the issue, but you have ignored anything those writers have and instead accelerated peppering list members with questions that challenge Christianity. (If the answers of those writers aren't sufficient then why not tell us why.) This complaining that atehism is superior doesn't strike me as something someone who was hurting or seeking would actually do. If you have all that pain and yet think atheism should prevail then the onus is upon you to show how the problem of pain is answered with atheism. Not be lobbing grenades at Christianity. It all seems a bit disingenuous - like it was an excuse.
All that church talk was obviously just some form of churchianity. Well, there's lots of that going around these days. I prefer the honest approach of Christopher Hitchens.
He is not into churchianity at all.
...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 Murray Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:59 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins
Bernie,
Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Ted said:
> "God and Santa Claus are not close equivalents. Period."
>
> I think you are missing the point. Obviously you believe in God, so for you, they are totally different.
And THEN;
> Where the analogy breaks down is that many people really do believe in God. But no adult really believes in the E.B.
I think I missed the distinction between Ted's argument and yours. ;)
Blessing,
Murray
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.
Received on Thu Sep 3 15:26:54 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 03 2009 - 15:26:54 EDT