|
Post by unkleE on Mar 15, 2010 7:38:52 GMT
Very interesting, and raises a few questions. I won't raise them here to avoid derailing this discussion, but I might start another. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by foxymoron on Mar 15, 2010 15:38:32 GMT
religion has been wrapped in the cotton wool of "respect" for so long that it is still instantly outrageous to so much as directly criticise it and attack its central tenets This is often said by atheists, Tim, but I presume you wouldn't repeat it unless you had evidence. What evidence is there that this occurs today? I would have thought, based on impression only (and open to correction), that the opposite is the case. Sure, in some parts of the US, christianity (or what passes for it - it often doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus) still gets favoured status, but not in other parts of the US, nor in western Europe, nor in Australia. Some examples .... I agree with Unklee. The idea that religion demands automatic respect and has thus enjoyed some kind of immunity from criticism until now is an atheist myth. It might be different in the US, but intellectual discourse in the UK has as along as I can remember held Christianity to be beyond the pail, the 'lowest of the low', and it has served as a whipping boy upon which an almost infinite of scorn and opprobrium can be safely heaped. I used to do it myself, so I know. Over the last two or three centuries religion has been repeatedly savaged, mauled and trampled underfoot by hordes of influential progressives and free thinkers virtually queuing up to put the boot in. To now characterise it as some sinister parasite that has hitherto lurked invisibly within the system but has finally been revealed by the bright laser of Dawkin's logic, is absurd. I have also wondered (with my sociological hat on) whether the recent upsurge in atheist radicalism isn’t the result of liberal/left guilt and political correctness making it extremely difficult to find a psychologically satisfying hate-figure these days, resulting in anti-theism and anti-christianity becoming the last acceptable prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Mar 15, 2010 19:55:04 GMT
I think my complaint with Dawkins more or less parallels Nick Beale's opinion in "Questions of Truth". Forget the child abuse, terrorism or meme talk, and just look at his book title: The God DELUSION. Belief in God isn't mistaken, it's a "delusion". Alvin Plantinga might as well call himself the grand glaknark of mars as long as he's willing to call himself a rational theist since both proclamations are delusional. That's what boils my blood, it isn't Dawkins' rationalizing, it's his labeling, and I'd imagine that's what gets everyone else going as well. Perhaps more importantly, I believe Dawkins even admits that if forced to choose, many people would pick their religion over science, yet he is actively trying to fan the flames of the science vs. religion "conflict". From a secular POV this is just stupid, why would such an influential figure in science(perhaps this is debatable?) want to encourage people NOT to get involved in science? I don't find much encouragement in the man's dismantling of that group of politicians either... I'm guessing he won't "debate creationists" only because he finds politicians to be a much easier target. William Lane Craig is sitting around twiddling his thumbs but somehow the Dawk has time to argue with fideism advocate Bill O' Reilly. I hardly get the impression that Dawkins was just some poor soul who got arbitrarily picked out of the atheist lineup to be a punching bag instead of a pre-deism Antony Flew or Penn Gillette. If Dawkins really is a victim of "Christian rage", then you'd think there'd be more people like Tim out to champion him rationally than the swarms of hateful Golden Grayling nominees that latch on instead.
From here the argument seems to shift from "Dawkins isn’t mean" to "so what if it's mean, don't be a wussy." Christianity is apparently too protected and people are being too soft and reactive. Personally I don't think Christianity is treated with much respect. It's certainly a juggernaut, and it has a rather unfair edge when voting matters come into play, but as far as nasty words and accusations, there seems to be a lot of leeway with Christian criticism when compared to other lifestyles. As UnkleE pointed out, I don't think "The Homosexual Delusion" would have fared so well. I might also argue that the "everyone deserves scrutiny" argument doesn't really hold in many instances. As a big fan of comedy I've yet to see anyone really willing to take the piss over things they like, save for South Park. After 20 years of religious jokes on the Simpsons without a single swipe at unbelief, I'm inclined to believe that Groening and co. (and many others in the biz) are not truly adhering to the old shock jock canard that "everything is fair game" they invoke so often. Of course there are over-reactive people, I remember a picket line outside of the theatre back in the days of the Da Vinci Code, but these people are mild curios, it seems that they never transcend the exposure of an evening news filler segment. I do however think its okay to say that there is a line to be drawn... I hardly think that everyone needs to "toughen up" enough that they have to go through life with a chip on their shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 15, 2010 20:35:24 GMT
Thank you, Eastshore, for this post showing a clear commonsense view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2010 19:23:12 GMT
Alas, when it comes to evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Craig is on the wrong side of the fence (he's pro ID), which is a substantial weakness. What's up with all those apologists on that issue? The answer lays in the denominations those apologists are part of. More prominent christian thinkers like Craig, Moreland, and Plantinga are evangelicals, whose scriptural interpretation and attitude reject evolution as understood today. I agree that this is a big blunder on their part because they go exactly where Dawkins wants them. Nobody can deny evolution, and if Christianity is incompatible with it, all arguments for Christianity are annulled. I see no reason why evangelicals should support ID anymore, as Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism turns evolution 180 and hurls it back at Dawkins and other atheists; not to mention, it supports the notion of theistic evolution.
|
|
|
Post by acornuser on Mar 18, 2010 0:51:25 GMT
I think this probably ought to be a different thread, but there are theological reasons why it is difficult to deal with evolution. I've been reading the evanevodialogue blog which has been interesting. Plantinga is Christian Reformed Church afaik, which had a big rumble on evolution a few years ago.
Remember, science changes slowly; we still have faculty who think plate tectonics is rubbish. It takes time to change churches, and has to be done carefully lest you set the cat among the pigeons (topics like biblical authority come to mind).
[Also, I think those of us who do accept evolution should be more humble in their claims. Around 50% of Britons do not believe in evolution, and I do not want to have to believe that they "stupider than earthworms".]
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 18, 2010 7:35:05 GMT
The answer lays in the denominations those apologists are part of. More prominent christian thinkers like Craig, Moreland, and Plantinga are evangelicals, whose scriptural interpretation and attitude reject evolution as understood today. I agree that this is a big blunder on their part because they go exactly where Dawkins wants them. Nobody can deny evolution, and if Christianity is incompatible with it, all arguments for Christianity are annulled. I don't think it is that simple Evangelicalism may be a movement with some common identifiable features, but there is also a lot of variation, and the denominations are not clear indicators of position on all matters. F'rinstance, I was sent to a Presbyterian Sunday School, and kept going with the Presbyterians until I was in my 30s. They were pretty Reformed in many ways, but I don't ever recall being taught Biblical inerrancy was part of the package. We were taught (if I recall) the Bible was "infallible", which was defined as reliable on matters on which it taught - which really allows almost anything or nothing because who defines what subjects it actually tries to teach on? I note that Tim Keller, rising young (?) apologist and author of the excellent "The Reason for God" is a Presbyterian, definitely calls himself "Reformed", but on evolution mentions that christians holds various views, and doesn't spell out his own all that clearly (though I would guess he accepts evolution). Even Alvin Plantinga accepts some truths of evolution. So not all evangelicals reject evolution, just some. And I would guess they are mostly in the US where the consequences of accepting evolution can still be dire. (I also think that ID has more in common with evolution than it does with young earth creationism, despite what foes on all sides say, but that's another story!)
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Mar 19, 2010 15:28:11 GMT
Alas, when it comes to evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Craig is on the wrong side of the fence (he's pro ID), which is a substantial weakness. What's up with all those apologists on that issue? When you construct a dichotomy between ID and "evolution", what exactly do you imagine is the difference between them?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Mar 29, 2010 11:36:07 GMT
I wssn't surprised in the slightest. The guy is the epitome of old fashioned courtesy, which is why I find the nonsense about how he's "offensive" and "rude" and "angry" and generally a horrible, horrible man so absurd. ;D newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html"Should the pope resign?" No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.Methinks the prof has decided to ditch the old fashioned courtesy and let rip
|
|
|
Post by trav10 on Mar 31, 2010 11:54:44 GMT
I note that Tim Keller, rising young (?) apologist and author of the excellent "The Reason for God" is a Presbyterian, definitely calls himself "Reformed", but on evolution mentions that christians holds various views, and doesn't spell out his own all that clearly (though I would guess he accepts evolution). Even Alvin Plantinga accepts some truths of evolution. Yes, Keller accepts evolution. You can find out more about his views on how to reconcile evolution with his understanding of the Bible here: www.biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 10, 2010 23:52:00 GMT
I wssn't surprised in the slightest. The guy is the epitome of old fashioned courtesy, which is why I find the nonsense about how he's "offensive" and "rude" and "angry" and generally a horrible, horrible man so absurd. ;D newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html"Should the pope resign?" No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.Methinks the prof has decided to ditch the old fashioned courtesy and let rip Sorry, but there's nothing discourteous in calling a spade a spade. As an ex-Catholic myself I know first hand how vile the Church's handling of the paedophiles in their ranks has been. As kids we'd know that there were certain Christian Brothers at our school who you wouldn't want to find yourself alone with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt too many eleven year olds had to collectively learn that survival skill just to make it through their schooling without being raped or molested. Then there would be whispers about an "incident" and the Brother in question would simply vanish - "Brother XXX has taken up a new position and won't be with us for the rest of the year." They'd simply move these twisted perverts on to another school and sweep the whole thing (and the victims) under the carpet. They wouldn't call the police. They wouldn't march the bastard to the authorities. Their whole concern was to "avoid a fuss" and protect the bloody Church. So sorry, but now that this vile policy of covering up the rape of children had found its way to Ratzinger's door, as it should, the whole lot of them deserve everything they are getting. You know I will stick up for anyone if I think what they are copping is unjustified. But the Catholic Church deserves this. Last night a reporter from Rome said the Vatican was "considering" a policy where all reported cases of child abuse should be referred to the police from now on. "CONSIDERING"?! And "FROM NOW ON"?! What deluded, reality-insulated and morally-bankrupt planet are these people from?
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 11, 2010 5:45:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Apr 11, 2010 6:42:08 GMT
While Dawkins' comments are predictable, and much of the media appears to be motivated by anticatholic sentiment rather than concern for children, I too wish the Catholic church would reexamine its governance. A priest in Brisbane recently got stripped of his job and banned from practising anywhere in the world for "performing unorthodox mass" and "disrespecting the church hierarchy". This was a man who by all accounts was a conscientious priest and minister to his practitioners. His atrocities, such as blessing homosexual unions and (horror of horrors) allowing females to preach prompted a strong and swift response, whereas priests who rape children keep their jobs and are protected. No form of governance will prevent all wrongdoing, but I hope the next pope will allow the rank and file a greater voice in church governance.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 11, 2010 7:03:28 GMT
While Dawkins' comments are predictable, and much of the media appears to be motivated by anticatholic sentiment rather than concern for children, I too wish the Catholic church would reexamine its governance. A priest in Brisbane recently got stripped of his job and banned from practising anywhere in the world for "performing unorthodox mass" and "disrespecting the church hierarchy". This was a man who by all accounts was a conscientious priest and minister to his practitioners. His atrocities, such as blessing homosexual unions and (horror of horrors) allowing females to preach prompted a strong and swift response, whereas priests who rape children keep their jobs and are protected. No form of governance will prevent all wrongdoing, but I hope the next pope will allow the rank and file a greater voice in church governance. The knee-jerk anti-Catholicism in some of the commentary is pretty clear and some of the online comments on news articles are unadultered Jack Chick-style bigotry, pure and simple. On the other hand, many Catholic commentators and online fora are retreating behind the "O woe is us - the Church is the victim of wicked bigots and atheists!". That's self-indulgent nonsense. Good priests and the Catholic laity do not deserve to be tarred with collective condemnation, but the chickens of an ugly and - let's be frank - TOTALLY EVIL decades long policy of secretiveness, obstruction, cover ups and lies are coming home to roost. And so they should. So enough of the whining and victim nonsense. That garbage from the Pope's chaplain comparing the condemnation to anti-Semitism, for example, was vomit-inducing. The hierarchy needs to take this on the chin or it will just get worse.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 12, 2010 15:28:53 GMT
Sorry, but there's nothing discourteous in calling a spade a spade. Or in this case, there is nothing discourteous in calling 'a leering old villain in a frock' the head of a 'tinpot fiefdom' based on 'profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating' and 'child-raping'. Good priests and the Catholic laity do not deserve to be tarred with collective condemnation, but the chickens of an ugly and - let's be frank - TOTALLY EVIL decades long policy of secretiveness, obstruction, cover ups and lies are coming home to roost. Amen to that.
|
|