Post by margybargy on Nov 24, 2009 2:50:37 GMT -5
Nov 22, 2009 0:41:16 GMT -5 @anatheist said:
BTW, I still respect Frank and appreciate that he is challenging the religious right. I just think his attack on Dawkins is out of line. I didn't even get to the part about Hitchens yet.
While I personally think that an attack on Dawkins is out of line... there's really nothing I can say in defense of Hitchens. If there's a problem with New Atheism, to me, Hitchens represents it. The man is an asshole, pure and simple. It pains me to share some of the same beliefs with him.
But it does remind me that the behavior of the messenger does not affect the truth of the message. If Christianity is false, it is not false because some people in some churches are hypocrites and abusers. It is not false because of patriarchy. (Although I do think that the role the Holy Spirit as a unifier can be questioned). Likewise, I do not think that I am "hurting" atheism to admit that the language, tactics and attitude of Hitchens is not one that I endorse.
Haha. I love Christopher Hitchens. He always comes off as respectful to other participants in debates, but he holds nothing sacred that's for sure. It takes brass ones to go after Mother Theresa. I do have to admit, I would not nominate him for Atheist Ambassador. Fortunately, we have other candidates to choose from.
Have you seen any of Pat Condell's videos? Vicious, but true. As you say, the behavior of the messenger has nothing to do with the truth of the message.
Glad you stopped by and commented. I'm going to read Schaeffer's bit on Hitchens now. Insomnia...ugh.
ETA: You're right. There's no defending Hitchens. He's atheism's drunk, crazy uncle. It doesn't mean he's wrong though.
I did find another bone to pick with Schaeffer's treatment of Dawkins. Schaeffer writes:
"A few chapters into The God Delusion Dawkins gets to his main, and only, point: that the Darwinian biological theory of evolution should be applied to explain the entire universe. Dawkins starts his argument by saying, “A deep understanding of Darwinianism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance.” Dawkins then grasps at and pushes his own easy assumptions. But first he tells us how and why he will be making his argument: “Feminism shows us the power of consciousness raising, and I want to borrow the technique for natural selection.”
Dawkins borrows from the science of biological natural selection too and adapts Darwin’s theory of the evolution of life forms into the speculative field of the creation of everything—in other words, cosmology. Dawkins tells us that his solution to understanding how we all got here is what he calls “the Goldilocks zone,” as with the three bears and the porridge: The conditions for life had to be “just right.”
I can't put my hands on my copy of The God Delusion right now, but I seem to recall Dawkins saying that natural selection has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. He explained that natural selection is not based on pure chance as creationists like to claim. Successful adaptations endure, the others do not. The descendants of the successful organism are then likely to adapt again and so on. Nature is not re-inventing the wheel every time hoping to "get it right". It builds on what was there before.
As for the Goldilocks thing....Dawkins was simply acknowledging that life as we know it can only exist in a very narrow range of conditions. But the universe is so vast it's not surprising that these conditions were produced at some point even though the odds were very small. None of this implies a Creator, certainly not the Christian God.