Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 14:17:14 EDT

On 5/8/07, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2007, at 10:44 AM, PvM wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree that for that reason the book may be silly but the arguments
> > presented by Dawkins are hardly that silly. I am sure that 'we are
> > asserting' a lot, but from the perspective of a scientific hypothesis
> > of God, this does not seem to do much.
> >
> > Perhaps we should come to the conclusion that neither logic nor
> > science can do much to support our concept of God and that the
> > attempts to infer God's existence through such arguments do a
> > disservice to an entity which cannot be captured by such reductionism.
> > I would be fine with that but religious people have opened up God to
> > scientific inquiry and they cannot just slam shut the door when their
> > approach is turned against them.
> >
>

> Ah... now we're getting somewhere. This may be your use of Dawkins'
> arguments (and he may be arguing this way in part as well)--i.e. in
> arguing against ID. But Dawkin's argument certainly extends beyond
> those who have opened up God to their scientific inquiry.

I'd like to re-emphasize that we are discussing the God Delusion here
in which Dawkins sets out to prove that his God hypothesis is
improbable.

> For now I
> won't delve into the role of "logic" in thinking about God, but I am
> inclined to agree with you that our concept of God does not come from
> logic (reason) or from science, but rather from revelation and God's
> self-disclosure. Of course, we use all human faculties including
> reason and perhaps some aspects of science (observation, etc.) to
> receive that revelation and self-disclosure.

So far I believe we are on the same track

> Will you grant that Dawkins has no sympathy for that view of God
> either? I don't have my copy of TGD with me, but my recollection is
> that early on Dawkins (not just the ID folks) insisted against the
> theologians that the God question should be addressed scientifically
> and that it was wrong for believers to remove the question of the
> existence of God from the realm of science. Most of our complaints on
> this list and in the ASA against Dawkins is on this very point--he is
> addressing questions that are outside the bounds of scientific
> investigation with the tools of science. He is using science to
> answer the question "Does God exist?"

I cannot speak for Dawkins but I believe that he would have no
sympathy for that view of God although, as he has made it clear, a
personal god is not what Dawkins is rejecting.

> Perhaps we can get you, Pim, to tell us how is it that someone comes
> to believe in God? What kinds of "evidence" are persuasive? I'd be
> happy to hear of your personal journey, if you want to put it those
> terms, but generic would be fine if you don't want to go that route.

I believe its a personal journey which leads one to 'discover' God. If
it works for me, it works.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 8 14:18:44 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 08 2007 - 14:18:44 EDT