It is war???

I was alerted to a book by Michael Poole - "The new athiesism: ten arguments that don't hold water" - as a book that might be interesting in looking at the issues raised by Dawkins et al.  I haven't read the book yet (I will try to find it) - but I did read some supportive reviews of the book.  One review was by Bruce Craven (Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology - ISCAT Online Journal 2010).  He referred to a group of dedicated athiests who were "trying hard to propogate their creed".  It was on this basis that he considered it necessary to reply to their statements "lest some shaky arguments go by default".  He refers to Dawkins and allies as firing "most of their bullets at the Christian God" (as opposed to eg the Aztec god who required human hearts torn from living bodies).  [Actually Dawkins et al from my reading and watching address a full range of religions - including Islam and Spiritualism - as well as alternative theorapies etc.  Their issue appears to more about challenging beliefs that are held and propogated without honestly addressing the evidence).

The war theme (bullets above) is continued as Craven reviews Poole's book "Chapters 2 (faith) and 3 (virus) deal with missiles that could be fired back at athiestic critics".

Hang on!  Is it really a war?  In 2010 are we intellectually fighting about whether the world is older than 10,000 years?  Do we all hold on to our set beliefs so dear that we refuse to discuss in a rational civilised manner and we shoot metaphorical (and in some case real) bullets and missiles at each other over scientific/religious beliefs?

In the Dawkins documentary that I referred to in an earlier blog, I was impressed with the discussion between Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury (or someone of that ilk).  They didn't agree, but there was actually a discussion between the two.  Dawkins continued his questioning of comments made that didn't seem rationale to him, but his interviewee actually smiled and mused without putting up a shield and firing bullets.

I remember reading an article between Bishop Spong (the percevied to be very liberal Episcopalean Bishop in the USA) and a very conservative African Bishop.  They sought to find where the common ground was between their viewpoints with respect to the very controversial issue of ordaining homosexual priests (an issue that was splitting their Church) and the differences (what they could not at all agree on).  Surprisingly there was a good list of agreements - for example the value of relationships and families and the well being of people and the Church.  They gave their views on where they differed as well - and why.  It was one of the most "adult" public Christian discussions I had come across about such a divisive issue.

I would love to see a similar work between say Dawkins and one of his many religious critics.