RE: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins

Schwarzwald said:
"I'm pretty sure I recall Dawkins, as well as Dennett, explicitly mentioning that they have no interest in rational debate or persuasion on these issues, but hope to belittle, humiliate, and shame people out of their religious beliefs. Interesting tact for people who talk about the prime importance of reason."

Yes- I read this from Dawkins on his webpage (his friendliness to the approach of using sarcasm, humiliation, etc.). It doesn't have much to do with reason, but everything to do with politeness, or better, "the fruit of the spirit."

The most noble people are those who can handle things academically- that is- politeness and respect in the midst of fierce debate (Obama is a great role-model for this, I think). State your viewpoint, facts, etc., but do it politely. There should be zero tolerance for personal attacks.

...Bernie

________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:42 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins

Not to mention that the idea can be turned around on the atheists. Atheism (particularly the stern materialism of Dawkins, etc) entails belief that what is responsible for the introduction and sustaining of humanity, the universe, morality, etc is at heart a blind, purposeless, unconscious, ateleological force. If theism (or even some varieties of non-naturalism) is correct, then atheists believe in something as unreal as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well - what they believe to be the true power and nature of reality does not exist as they think it does.

So Bernie's point, if he has one here, isn't exciting. "If someone believes in something, and that thing does not actually exist, it's the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny." Or, "If someone believes in something, and they're wrong, they're wrong." Great. If we're going to go a step further and say "If someone believes in something, and they're wrong, they're wrong - and people who believe in things that are wrong are looneys", alright - the majority of people, and the majority of scientists, have all been a bunch of looneys.

Either way, I'm not sure this is a 'blunder' made by atheists. My guess would be that it's a conscious smear tactic, an oversimplification made in the interest of stifling reasonable debate and inquiry. I'm pretty sure I recall Dawkins, as well as Dennett, explicitly mentioning that they have no interest in rational debate or persuasion on these issues, but hope to belittle, humiliate, and shame people out of their religious beliefs. Interesting tact for people who talk about the prime importance of reason.

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 15:36:25 2009