On Wednesday, a friend from Seminary and I drove down to University of Texas in Austin to see renowned atheist Richard Dawkins speak. If you're not familiar with Dawkins, he is a scientist who has now moved into the realm of theology, and has recently written a book called "The God Delusion" that has sold 1.5 million copies in the United States. While our original motivation was to get extra credit for Apologetics class, we were both interested to see what Dawkins would have to say.
Dawkins was speaking at 7PM, so we showed up at the auditorium at about 5:45PM, thinking: "How many people really want to see Richard Dawkins?" Boy, were we surprised! Several thousand people had already showed up at that time, and the line to the auditorium snaked on for miles. We estimated that over 3,000 people showed up ... and the auditorium would only hold 1,200 people. At about 6:45, some university staff showed up to tell folks in line that if they did not already have a free ticket, then they would not be able to get in. So we went to the front of the line and bought some free tickets for the lecture from some members of the Longhorn Atheist club. We ran into several of our fellow class members, and they ended up paying to get into as well. So, ironically, the Christians had to pay to see the head atheist.
My synopsis of what Dawkins had to say follows the old joke about athiesm:
Q: "What are the two central beliefs of an atheist?"
A: "1. There is no God; and, 2. I really hate God."
As Dawkins is more renowned for being a scientist than a philosopher, I kept waiting for him to have something scientifically profound to say ... and I kept waiting. I was stunned that there was exactly ZERO scientific content to what Dawkins had to say. Opening up, he stated that there are two ways atheists can deal with Christianity: be conciliatory or be ridiculing. And ridicule he did. Dawkins essentially went on a 45 minute rant about why he hates Christianity. I won't go over every point Dawkins made (because there weren't many anyway), but here's a couple bigger ones:
- "Evolution is more elegant than creationism." In terms of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design, he primarily argued from a point of aesthetics. His highly complex theories are preferable to the plain statement: "God did it." Like saying that a couture dress is prettier than a dress made out of the living room curtains. Fans of "Gone With the Wind" may prefer the curtains. A matter of preference (or complexity) is not proof of anything.
- "There is plenty of proof for evolution and no proof for creationism/intelligent design." A gross over-generalization at best. All of the current serious problems with evolutionary theory were largely not touched upon except for one instance. In the Q&A session, one atheist exposed one glaring problem when he genuinely asked Dawkins how evolution could account for human reason. Dawkins replied, "I don't know and we will probably never know." Surely, this was a frank answer, but it is just one example of the lack of proof and the gaps in modern evolutionary theory.
- He made a giant self-refuting argument regarding morality. He stated that since there is no God and no moral reality, there is no morality that should be held by all persons at all times. Classic post-modernism. In "The God Delusion," he strongly argues that morality evolves and changes with society ("the moral zeitgeist"). However, he went through a list of morals that should be held by all people at all times at the end of the presentation. Essentially, morality is OK as long as it is based on the moral values of naturalism/atheism and not the values of religion. You can't have it both ways.
- "All of the evil in the world would suddenly disappear if we got rid of religion." This argument is a stale atheist oversimplification that really doesn't look at the nature of reality. I'm confident that Christians would readily admit that evil (i.e. the Crusades, Inquisitions) was done in the name of Christianity, and I'm sure that other religions would admit their own short-comings as well. But all evil would disappear if religion were gone?!? I'm pretty sure that the dude robbing Pizza Hut tonight is looking out for his own economic self-interest and is not concerned about his moral standing with God. Also, plenty of evil comes from the realms of naturalism and atheism. Here's just a few of the most serious ones: eugenics, racial hygiene, genocide, human experimentation, forced abortions or pregnancies, segregation, euthanasia and discrimination of the handicapped, mentally ill or anyone else labeled "inferior." Atheism does not create panacea.
- "Hitler was acting on behalf of Christianity." This is arguably Dawkins' scariest argument as he is attempting to re-write history in the framework of atheism. In the book version of "The God Delusion," he tries to pass off Hitler and Nazi eugenics as well as Stalin and Communist mass exterminations as Christians practicing Christian ideals. Regardless of their religious leanings, Stalin's forerunners, Marx and Engels, lean heavily on "Origin of the Species" in the development of their dialectic, turning social class struggle into a form of Darwinism. Eugenics, as made infamous by the Nazi Party, was originally conceived by Sir Francis Galton, who is Darwin's cousin. Also, eugenics is also a horrible part of America's history, and should not be swept under the rug. Don't be fooled ... naturalism leads to many different forms of evil.
- "Religion is child abuse." Just silly.
As Dawkins closed, he read a passage from his book "Unweaving the Rainbow," which he stated that he wanted to be read at his funeral. The passage he read essentially states that one cannot truly live until one understands this life is all there is - we are ultimately going to die with no hope of after-life. As Dawkins was reading this comment, I actually started really feeling sorry for him. Dawkins preaches that we are all going to die, but he is actually reaching for immortality in his own way. For example, he actually made the crowd applaud him a second time at the beginning of the lecture before he would start. He strives to be a monument, an icon ... something that ultimately lives past his own departure from this planet. And this is the greatest fallacy in his whole presentation. He claims to accept the finality of death, but struggles to find a method of his own immortality. The nature of man is to seek out ways to cheat death and live forever. We can find immortality through writing books, giving lectures, garnering the applause of others or basking in our own ego and praise. But as Steve Taylor said, "I'd rather be immortal by not dying."
Walking away from the auditorium, we quickly ran into a Christian group of about 100 kids that were praying on the steps of another building on campus. One female college student was leading them in prayer. I could hear her repeating in a tone of submission: "Father, let Your will be done." Some of the students were crying as they prayed, humbling themselves before God. I could tell they had probably been here peacefully praying during the entire Dawkins presentation. Not protesting ... praying ... submitting to God. I stood there for a while ... listening. The atmosphere of humility was refreshing and soothing coming out of virulent hate and mocking. And I thought to myself: "Are these kids really the evil monsters that Dawkins portrays to be Christians?" No.
Engraved in large letters on the top of the university building they were praying in front of: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Amen.
Matt
P.S. Here is a video that Dawkins showed during the presentation. WARNING: It is extremely offensive.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
What an experience meeting that renown atheist Richard Dawson! Was Katie Holmes there?
I enjoyed the video. It wasn't offensive at all. As a matter of fact, it was pretty much on mark.
Unfortunately, I was not able to complete the reading of your blog post due to my aversion to inanity and self-serving religious tripe.
Good luck to you and yours, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with His noodly goodness.
Good evening, The Higgins.
I applaud your courage in attending Mr. Dawkins speech. I would make one small point. When Mr. Dawkins refers to "Child Abuse", he may be referring to things like stories like this, which is indeed a sad statement on the downside of religious fervor.
Good luck in your Seminary!
trog69, the case you have linked to is very tragic, and something that extreme religious types have to answer for. Faith is not a virtue, especially when it leads to suffering or death.
OMG REV MARTINI PWNZRD JU NOOB! WTFROFLMAO!!!
Seriously. The fact that he took the TIME out of his DAY to contribute so helpfully to this forum MAKES ME SO HOT I CAN BARELY BREATHE!
the dude robbing pizza hut tonight is not evil.
despite any errata you may find with the guy's speech, deep down inside you know he's right.
So apparently aesthetics are objective enough that we ought to take "elegance" as evidence on which to base our whole worldview. But morality isn't.
"Evolution is more elegant" is an objective fact leading us toward a conclusion. "Child abuse is wrong" is just an opinion. It's an opinion he thinks we all ought to hold, but still just subjective opinion.
The best explanation for that upside-down logic is that it's what gets him to the result he wants.
This is trivial, but its Dawkins, not Dawson, as you say in your opening PP. Might want to correct this.
"He stated that there are two ways atheists can deal with Christianity: be conciliatory or be ridiculing..."
And so goes one of the great high priests of rationalism [sic]. But I understand; actually constructing an argument is hard. Why go to all that effort when simple adolescent derision sells books, fills lecture halls and plays so well with the lemming masses?
Enjoyed your post. I listened to Dawkins lecture at KU last year so I can relate to your experience.
I actually found myself in tears on my way to the car after the event. This man is the Billy Graham of atheism, yet Graham's message is love and empathy. Dawkin's is hatred and ridicule. It's so very sad.
i bet a pound to a penny all of you creationists were sworn in during your primary socialisation stage (0-7yrs).
if so, how can you trust an idea embedded into your psyche at an age
where you had no reason or ability to doubt it ?
do you really need a book to keep you from doing wrong?
can you unshakebly trust secondary evidence (eg. the book) ?
science and logic > lies and magic.
belief = psychosis
how about listening to my music for proof of evolution?
http://www.myspace.com/thetenable
Wow, way to create a straw man of what Dawkins had to say. I guess it's easier to knock down straw men then real men. But then again, you're Dembski's student, apparently, so it's not a surprise: you learned from the straw-man-creating master.
So Dawkins states that religion is a form of 'child abuse.' But he further states that morality is a naturalistic process and that there can be no absolute moral code. Does anyone else see the self-defeating logic here? If what he thinks is 'child abuse' immoral, he cannot state that in an absolute manner. That is, teaching religion cannot be immoral in in all cases and times. Therefore, since teaching religion to children cannot be immoral, it must be moral to teach religion. And thus, we have disproved his original premise. QED
For the person who stated that science+logic > religion or whatever tripe he was spewing. Please get a clue before you make all atheists look dumb, instead of just yourslef.
That is, teaching religion cannot be immoral in in all cases and times. Therefore, since teaching religion to children cannot be immoral, it must be moral to teach religion
How did you get from 'not immoral in all cases...to 'teaching religion CANNOT be immoral'? Quite a leap in stupid you made there.
phil,
now let's not get tense homosapien,
you wouldn't say that to my face, would you ?
anyrode, you're the one who's just been proved (by the guy after you) to be the dumb one, haven't you ?
whereas all you did was ridicule me without rationale. sounds familiar to original topic ?
ok,lets put it this way - christians + muslims + jews = psychotics.
atheists dont huddle for security in groups.
be an individual, not a clone.
Details on 'my leap of logic here...'
A. Given the premise teaching religion is child abuse which in this context is immoral.
B. Dawkins has stated that there are no absolutes regarding morality - its naturalistic and can be changed at any time.
Then it follows that
C. You cannot call A immoral since there is no absolute morality to adhere to.
Thus, his original premise which is that teaching children about religion is child-abuse is illogical and self-refuting.
And anon.. Please... reading comprehension for the loss. I was not lumping all atheists in the stupid category, just your inane comments.
It's hard to believe he's still playing this "Religion is child abuse" theme. It's demonstrably wrong--completely, totally, and provably wrong. (Not that religions never do anything bad, but that in general--the typical outcomes for children of Christian families--he is wrong.
He's wrong in ways shown through scientific investigation, toward which, as Oxford's "Professor for the Public Understanding of Science," he ought to at least be somewhat sympathetic. But as in the case of aesthetics and morality (see the 5:02 am comment here) it doesn't seem to serve his purposes to acknowledge it.
I love Ric's little Straw Man attack post. Wow, what to say about a carefully reasoned and precise ad hominem attack?
Instead of calling people names, sir, why dont you back your argument up with some fact?
"All of the evil in the world would suddenly disappear if we got rid of religion."--Dawkins
This is a common canard.
The Godless liberals in Communist China made religion disappear. The evil during and after the Cultural revolution was not motivated by religion, but secularism run amok.
Between Chairman Mao and "Uncle" Joe Stalin, the body count is staggering.
According to the naturalist, the universe and everything in it is nothing more than matter and energy cobbled together by some combination of random chance and amoral, non-teleological natural law. Neither the matter itself nor the forces that shape it are capable of planning, thinking or giving a damn about anything that is created or anything that happens after the making. Given this, what does “morality” mean?
Here’s Wilson and Ruse’s answer: "Morality... is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends... ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding."
Indeed, Dawkins himself is consistent with this thesis when he says: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
So, according to the experts themselves, there is no good, no evil, no design, and morality is an illusion. Furthermore, it’s been fobbed off on us--the person who thinks his moral sense is even real, much less binding in any way, has been duped by the Blind (and deaf, dumb and mute...) Watchmaker. If Dawkins were to employ his terminology consistently, he might call this The Morality Delusion.
The problem of course for Dawkins is that he thinks he can call child abuse "wrong" having just established that wrong does not exist. The secondary problem is that he doesn’t recognize the contradiction. A tertiary problem is that his many disciples seem to accept his view of “rationalism,” in which ridicule, derision and adolescent references to Flying Spaghetti Monsters constitute an argument.
-SteveB
To the poster who said..
"ok,lets put it this way - christians + muslims + jews = psychotics."
and
"atheists dont huddle for security in groups."
I find it interesting that this person can't discern the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. To the degree that atheists profess certainty that there is no God, they are involved in faith rather than science. Unless I've missed the absolute proof that there is no God, they profess to know something that they cannot prove. Sounds like religion to me.
Here is a video that Dawkins showed during the presentation. WARNING: It is extremely offensive.
As far as I can tell, Bridgstock treated religion about as delicately as Jon Stewart treats politicians and pundits. Is the Daily Show "extremely offensive" as well?
Or are you offended because because Bridgstock made fun of religion, rather than some other topic? If so, can you explain why religion should receive special immunity from criticism?
arensb - Christians, Jews, and anyone of fun will be laughed and mocked and ridiculed until the last days. I, as a Christian know this. However, it doesnt mean that we need to go actively looking at content that openly mocks our beliefs. Thus, I think the warning.
Christians, specifically have nothing to fear. Even less so from these kinds of spurious attacks. Lets call everyone names and state (as fact!!) how wrong Christians are about their beliefs. Oooooh, now that is such a good argument that I need to rethink my entire religious viewpoint. When one of these atheists really get some factual information and wants to debate these points then we can have a legitimate discussion and debate. Until then, its pretty much cannon fodder.
@ mike t,
maybe i should've said agnostic then.
cause there's a distinct difference between the assertion
'i believe there is no god',
compared to simply saying 'i don't believe there is a god'. The former statement implying an active engagement with non-belief and the latter merely confirming no particular belief is registered by the individual.
Personally, i reckon (is that the same as believe?) that the human brain is not powerful enough to adequately comprehend the creation of the universe, so why bother trying, when there are more pragmatic matters afoot for the responsible man ?
Moreover, i don't think creation can be expressed through either language or maths which renders both science and religion ineffective in their aims to describe the purpose of life.
To that end, it is an arrogant conceit for someone to think they could possibly know how the universe was created, and a folly to trust a 2000 yr old book..
i mean come on man, "you cannot be serious..."
phil, less of the cheek sunshine, all you have done is call names, where's you're evidence or any sign of your higher thought, eh ?
And i don't no why you lot are getting so heated on here, for one it's not reality, it's cyberspace and secondly it's not exactly a serious issue we're talking about, here is it ?
Anon... I actualy have more respect for agnostics than outright atheists, since they at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that they dont know everything. Fact and evidence are what matters in this discussion, not sound-bites and close-minded name calling.
As far as the ad hominem goes, I will apologize if you think I was being too aggresive with my characterization of your statements. However, when I read something that is obviously wrong, and I think lacks thought or comprehension, I will call it stupid. When you state that logic +science > religion or whatever equation you gave, you obviously havent thought very hard about either logic, science, or religion. What does Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Planck, Huygens, Euler, etc... have in common? Thats right, a deep conviction in a supernatural Being. Since you seem to know more than the man who discovered classical electromagnetism, please share with me what scientific theories that you think disprove a religious viewpoint. And please, give me some real science, not evolutionary claptrap. Since you think that you know more mathematics/logic than the man who invented number theory, proved the fundamental Theorem of Algebra, invented modern analysis (Calculus), etc.. etc... please give me a logical or mathematical argument that disproves God.
Neither the matter itself nor the forces that shape it are capable of planning, thinking or giving a damn about anything that is created or anything that happens after the making. Given this, what does “morality” mean?
This is such terrible logic. This is the fallacy of composition: to reason that because the single parts of a construct do not possess some quality, the entirety of the construct cannot possess it. By this logic, since no single note on a guitar string possesses harmony, strumming a chord cannot create harmony. That's just stupid.
Or if you prefer, your logic dictates that because the cells that make up my face are not individually tiny eyes, it is impossible together for them to create an eye. Duh.
Although neither matter nor the universe have innate morality, morality exists among human beings and is no less important or real because of it.
mate,
there are NO facts or evidence(apart from secondary) to support christianity, or am i missing something here.
i thought your religion depends on faith which precludes the need for evidence.
why should anyone bring any more evidence to the table to thwart when your belief when you have none yourself other than a 2000 yr old book?
as for the scientists you mentioned, as I initially stated, if your are indoctrinated into religion during your primary socialisation, you have been cheated of your right to decide for yourself. given the periods most of your scientists were alive, it is highly likely they had the fear of god whipped into them one way or another.
look, if no-one taught you about the book as a kid, do you really think you would've just picked it up as an adult ? and if not, is that not a little spurious ?
yes you do get born-agains, but they are typically trying to escape from some criminal or antisocial type behaviour patterns and tend to take their psychosis with them into christianity but under a new guise.
wheres my evidence you say ?
where's yours i say ?
(oh yeah, you don't need any, you've got faith)
^ that was to phil btw
To anonymous:
If Dawkins were agnostic, you might have a point (in regards to what this particular topic is about), but he ain't.
If you hadn't said (essentially) that everyone that believes in God is psychotic, you might have a point.
An agnostic would not declare that everyone that believes in God is psychotic because the agnostic admits that he/she might be wrong.
The only basis you could have for concluding that everyone that believes in God is psychotic is if you had proof there is no such being.
You don't have that proof. So, you are left with an illogical position.
You and Dawkings can avoid these logic traps but refusing to exceed your knowledge (something those that profess an interest in science are supposed to know).
To anonymous:
When you say those that believe in God don't need proof, you are partially correct. In the end, there is a faith element involved.
I personally believe that the universe and life show evidence of design. I also believe that you don't get what we see in the universe and in life for free. I believe that to be a reasonable inference from the evidence. Now, whether that designer is "God" (and what flavor thereof) is where faith/religion come into play, but merely observing the obvious (that a designer is needed to account for this universe and the life we see in it), is reasonable, rational, and defensible.
If you believe (have certainty) there is no God, you are also involved in faith. Don't be afraid to admit it.
Anon... First you state that science+logic > religion. I state that this is not true - look at the historical record of science, give a few examples and state that these men, who were by all accounts intellects of the first rate (arguably the most intelligent men ever with regards to Gauss and Newton), and you state that it doesnt matter that they were religious because they were brainwashed as children. I find the logic of that statement fairly incompatible with your previous equation. You cannot state that science + logic > religion, since the science that you depend upon here was actually founded by religious men. And further, you could argue that brainwashing these men in religious dogma as children was actually benficial to mankind overall....
You are riding a slippery slope of logic, sir, if I may say. You may think that 'real' science started and ended with Darwin, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Anthony - you state that innate morality exists, and I agree. But if you look at the original article, you will see that Dawkins does not believe this to be true. So are you stating that Dawkins is wrong? That there is some absolute measure of what is right or wrong? If so, I applaud your intellectual honesty. Now, tell me how, given this premise, can you defend the statement that raising children in a religious environment is the same as child-abuse?
However, it doesnt mean that we need to go actively looking at content that openly mocks our beliefs. Thus, I think the warning.
What I was really asking was, if you had posted a Daily Show clip on a forum frequented by Republicans, would you have warned that "it is extremely offensive"? If not, what's the difference here? Why does religion get a special exemption?
And besides, isn't it okay to ridicule beliefs that are, well, ridiculous? Like when Scientologists talk about spacefaring DC-10s, or Heaven's Gate cultists think there's a spaceship hiding behind a comet, or when Christians think the creator of the universe has nothing better to do with his time than to appear on a grilled cheese sandwich?
What about when the Pope and other Christian leaders live in opulence while claiming to follow the teachings of someone who said to sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor? Isn't it fair to point out the hypocrisy?
Christians, specifically have nothing to fear. Even less so from these kinds of spurious attacks.
If the "attack" were merely spurious, you wouldn't have called it "very offensive". Kent Hovind's videos are wrong on just about every point, but I find him by turns either exasperating or tragically funny, but not offensive.
Lets call everyone names and state (as fact!!) how wrong Christians are about their beliefs.
Well, let's see.
Christians say that abstinence-only sex education programs reduce the number of teen pregnancies. They're wrong.
Christians say that dinosaurs and humans lived together. They're wrong.
Christians say that they can drink poison with no ill effects. They're wrong.
Christians say that prayer is a good way to cure disease. They're wrong.
Christians say that Jesus and YHWH are the same person, except they aren't, and you're not supposed to understand that. That's an obvious mindf**k.
Christians have said that liberals and homosexuals are responsible for 9/11 and hurricane Katrina. That's ludicrous.
Christians say that I deserve to be punished forever because of something a distant ancestor of mine ate. That's monstrous.
Oooooh, now that is such a good argument that I need to rethink my entire religious viewpoint. When one of these atheists really get some factual information and wants to debate these points then we can have a legitimate discussion and debate.
Well, the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods. And here, it's really up to theists to provide the evidence for their beliefs. Do you have any?
"All of the evil in the world would suddenly disappear if we got rid of religion."
I highly doubt he actually said that. Whenever he talks about his documentary "Root of all Evil?" he always mentions that he didn't like the title because "Nothing is the root of all anything."
"Religion is child abuse."
Again, I think you're misunderstanding what he was actually saying. Dawkins always talks about 2 things as child abuse; teaching children about hell and labeling children with religious views that they can't possibly hold. (i.e. a baby doesn't know squat about Jesus)
As for the morality arguments that have been going around the comments, I can only point out that any God-based morality is inherently subjective. Did God have a choice in what he made moral and immoral? If so, he could have made anything moral so there's nothing really inherently moral about it. If he didn't have a choice, and moral things are simply moral in their own right, we don't need religion to know them. Plus, which religion's morality should we choose? Which interpretation of that religion should we choose?
Moral questions really have no meaning without living, thinking people. They're simply the rules we have to promote the well-being of each other and society. The specifics end up being murky in practice (and somewhat subjective) but they should always trace back to that principle.
Arensb - my statement regarding the offensiveness of the video was simply an attempt at understanding a point of view - namely that it openly mocks our beliefs. To some people, that is offensive. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, it was spurious (that is, of a deceitful nature or quality).
It's funny the way that atheists always state that the burden of proof is always on the theist to prove that God exists. Prove that He doesnt, sir. I have looked at the evidence and made up my own mind about the issue. I am not here trying to convert you. I am arguing the logic used by Dawkins and the rest of the atheist crew posting here.
Anthony,
Admittedly, "Duh" is an impressive line of argument (but sadly, not surprising); maybe my mistake was in assuming that you’d be able to read more than the first paragraph, because you clearly didn't get it.
OK, we’ll make it simpler: What do you think Wilson and Ruse mean when they say that morality is an illusion and just an adaptation? Answer that one and we’ll go from there.
-sb
Phil:
It's funny the way that atheists always state that the burden of proof is always on the theist to prove that God exists. Prove that He doesnt, sir.
Well, yes: the burden of proof is on the one making an assertion. If I say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, is it your job to show that he doesn't exist, or mine to show that he does?
Theists claim that there exists one or more gods. It's up to them to demonstrate the truth of their claims.
Having said that, "God" is one of those vague amorphous terms that can mean anything you like. There are people who say that God is love, in which case I believe in that god, though I don't see any need to worship it. Others say that God is the totality of the universe, in which case I believe in that god as well, though, again, I fail to see the need to worship it.
Other types of gods are disprovable: if you claim that God is an intelligent being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and wants me to believe in her/him/it, then clearly such a being doesn't exist.
So if you want to convince someone that a god exists, the first thing you should do is define what you mean by that.
I attended the Dawkins talk, but it was scarcely recognizable from your account.
Certainly you are entitled to your beliefs and you are even entitled to misrepresent people and positions contrary to your beliefs. However, it weakens your position when you do so.
Removal of religion will not remove evil from the world, but a lot of unnecessary and awful things would go away. I doubt that removal of religion is even remotely possible, and I am not convinced it would be a good thing, but it would be good if it had a less prominent role in deciding political and social issues.
Interesting post (I found it through Uncommon Descent)! You referred to a Steve Taylor song (Am I in Sync?) -- Steve was actually quoting Woody Allen:
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying."
I think there is hope for Richard Dawkins; If Christ saved Paul, and indeed if He saved me, He can save anyone. We should pray for Dawkins even as he persecutes Christians.
Derek I have a tiny question for you, and all the Christians. According to the polls, there are some 250 million Christians in the US right now. Please explain how the vast majority is somehow "PERSECUTED" by a infinitesimal group?
That's a fair question, trog69. Persecution means "To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs." So it doesn't really have anything to do with the size of the groups in question.
I think Dr. Dawkins does harass Christians with ill treatment, mainly insults. But I'm not whining about that, just addressing your question. Thanks.
Post a Comment