Wow! I love Steve Peterman's comments about similar attitudes among
religious vs atheistic fundamentalists. Absolutely correct, in my view.
Dawkins wants to know "why" people believe in God, he just can't fathom
"what it adds" to have faith. This is fundamentalism, pure and simple:
without dead certainty one ought not assent.
My own advice to Moorad comes too late: don't do a debate. As one who is
very familiar with Harry Rimmer, known in his day as the best fundementalist
debater of "atheists", "evolutionists," (aren't they the same?) etc., I
realize full well that people can win the audience without winning the
argument; and that debate very rarely change anyone's mind. The rhetorical
stance one must assume in a typical debate is not in fact conducive to the
discovery of truth, I dare say, and I apply this to political debates as
well as to religious ones.
I have a few times been invited to "debate" someone in one forum or
another. I always decline. One of these days I'll accept, but I'll warn
the people who invite me: OK, I'll do it, but the very first thing out of my
mouth will be the statement, "The debate is over. I lost. My opponent is
surely a better debater, and may also have deeper knowledge of this subject.
Those wanting to hear a debate may leave now. Those interested in hearing
what I think on this question, however, are invited to stay. I might
perhaps have something helpful to say. In any case I'm more concerned about
truth than about winning an argument."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 12:11:00 EDT