Re: tomfoolery
Richard A. Knopp (rknopp@prairienet.org)
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 12:44:04 -0700SZYGMUNT@exodus.valpo.edu wrote:
>
> Art Chadwick wrote, in response to Steve Clark:
>
> ==========================================================================
> Steve says:
>
> >Thus, a Christian can embrace evolution without doing damage to the faith,
> >and, interestingly enough, an atheist can reject evolution without doing
> >damage to her faith.
>
> Without entering into the first issue you raise, I would like some examples
> of atheistic believers. That would indeed be interesting.
> Art
> http://chadwicka.swac.edu
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> Art, is this an attempt at humor or did you really misunderstand Steve's
> message? It seems very clear to me from his post that he was referring
> to the "faith" of an atheist in the sense of her refusal to believe in God.
> I hope this was clear to everyone who read Steve's post. Why then did you
> respond the way you did? It came across to me (correct me if I am wrong,
> please!) as a very picky cheap shot, and more than just a little sarcastic.
>
> This post rubbed me the same way as Neal Roy's post earlier, in which he
> completely misunderstood the sense of a previous post by Brain Harper. I
> suggest those of you who have been firing such "shots" read through a post
> very carefully before you respond. Ask yourself these things:
>
> 1. Do I have anything constructive to contribute? (certainly criticism can be
> constructive if it is expressed in the right way)
>
> 2. Am I assuming something about the motives of the person I'm responding to?
> (usually this is a bad way to proceed)
>
> 3. Am I responding out of anger or outrage or out of an honest desire to seek
> the truth?
>
> 4. Do my words contain more light than heat?
>
> Let's all make an effort to keep this discussion about specific issues arising
> from the creation/evolution debate, and to speak the truth in love as we
> exchange our ideas.
>
> Stan Zygmunt
> Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
> Valparaiso University
> Valparaiso, IN 46383
>
Having read (but not yet commented on) the posts on this system
for some time, I am prompted for the first time to make a point. It
appears to me that a number of comments have been truly ambiguous--that
is, subject to viable alternative readings. The objective--one at
least--is to clarify the intent in the ensuing discussion, not
prematurely (and incorrectly) charge someone with making a "picky cheap
shot."
For example, my own reading of "... an atheist can reject
evolution without doing damage to her faith" is quite different from
Stan's. He says, "It seems very clear to me from his [Steve's] post that
he was referring to the 'faith' of an atheist in the sense of her refusal
to believe in God."
Unfortunatley, it certainly isn't "very clear to me" and
apparently it wasn't "very clear" to Art either. I ask the following
questions not with intended humor or with sarcasm: "How can an atheist
'reject evolution' and have it NOT 'do damage' to her 'refusal to believe
in God'?" If an atheist 'rejects' evolution, what *are* the viable
alternatives (other than entertaining seriously the abandonment of her
atheism)? Aren't these legitimate and even significant questions?
Rich Knopp, Ph.D.
Prof. of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, Illinois