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.

Dawkins on Evolution

I am half way through a series of 3 documentaries by Richard Dawkins on Evolution.  I have always enjoyed his documentaries and the passion he takes to them.  In his documentries, it is interesting to watch him when talking with/observing religious fundamentalists and people involved in hoemopathy etc.  He comes across as genuinely wanting people to explain why they hold their views in the face of alternatives - and evidence that opposes their view.  You see his quizical - even surprised - face when views are espoused that he can't see the rationale, logic or evidence for - and he seems to shake his head not quite believing that people can hold such views.

In the documentary, there are scenes of him teaching older school students about evolution (a cameo teaching role) - his argument being that so little time or effort is put into teaching children at school about the force that has shaped our planet and all living things!  Even in this scene, he appears shocked at how little they know - and how confronting a number of students found the concept.  In another scene, he talks with a senior minister (Bishop) in a Church in Kenya (next to where he lived as a boy) - and again seems surprised at the atttitude of rejecting that mankind is effectively the "5th Ape".  Incindently, the Bishop spoke about his perspective very well - without the usual defensive or aggressive response Dawkins often gets from religious leaders.

Interestingly, while seeing evolution as what has shaped us as a people - he does not see it is a basis - or excuse - for a dog eat dog view of society - or a justification for the strong winning over the weak.  It was interesting to see how he looked at these notions in business and politics.  Dawkins was actually quite swayed by Sam Harris in thinking about how the notion of how morality developed in humans as our brain capacity grew - where we could almost step outside of ourselves and think through consequences in an empathetic way and not driven just by genes survival and procreation.

Dawkins wrote a book on evolution for the everyday reader "The Greatest show on Earth - the evidence for evolution".  This is a good, considered work.  His last chapter is entitled "There is Grandeur in this view of life".  He also has an appendix entitled "The History Deniers".

Why is evolution and our natural origins so threatening to many of those who believe in God?