by Jesse Hove » April 6th, 2007, 10:07 pm
Thanks everyone for your help on this subject. I think I have successfully formed an Idea on what I specifically disagree with Dawkins and why, as well as what I appreciate about him. However before I get into those specific arguements. First let me say that I agree with Alectos ideas that Dawkins is on the extreme fundanmentalist side of science and I liked the metaphor used as an example of two extreme sides throwing missiles at each other. All this does is cause more people in the middle to feel they are forced to take more extreme sides, and it becomes less about humans together trying discover our purpose and more about "fighting the enemy." As well I agree with Dan, I am sure for you leading more towards the scientific side of the arguement and less toward the relgious side I apologize on behalf of our religious side for our more then likely frequent miss understanding of scientific terminology. On the religious side especially for us "fundamentalists" we get very annoyed with being associated with the Extreme fundamentalist side and then if we are not on that side then we are automatically connected to the Liberal Religious side. Let us get this straight. we the "fundamentalists" are in fact niether in the camp of the extreme or in the camp of the liberal. Unlike the liberal view we do not believe the bible contains any errors. However we are not like the extreme camp. A few verses taken out of context and connected here and there should not be used to support political campaigns and moral codes, and should certainly not be used to create new doctrines and theologies. A doctrine in order to be accepted must thoroughly be maintained through out scripture and be well connected to other doctrines that have already been proven throughtout the bible. While doctrines in our camp do very, I think this is one thing we can ecumenically agree on.
Alright on to Dawkins. Dawkins is obviously a great sceintist. But what Dawkins lacks is an objective study on the complex behaviour of humanity. Anybody who reads the first few chapters of "Mere Christianity" understands what I am talking about. The question being why do Humans have this "natural law" or whatever you want to call it written on our hearts and no other animals seem to have this. It is this more then anything that leads me to believe in a God. This is obviously connected to morals and Dawkins arguement to that is why should we be trusting in Religion when it comes to morals when it has shown to be corrupt so many times in the past? Here he is quick to point out that we should not trust him, but why religion he asks. I hope what he means by him, is biological scientific thought as a whole. While it is a very useful school of thought. A biological scientific rational in accordance to morals would be disasterous. But perhaps there are other schools we could go to, the sociologist the anthropologist perhaps. I think after the enlightment period this is something we have already started to do. And how has it contributed? I think the obvious benefit has been more equality. Has there been any negatives? Definetely. Divorce rates have sky-rocketed, which are tearing children's lives apart. Despite however seperate these sciences are from the biological science. They still seem to engage on a far greater level then before, the idea that are impulses should be trusted. the phrase "It's just natural" is a phrase commonly used as an excuse for our behaviour. Selfishness in one sense or another is peeping it's ugly head out more often then ever before. In the past only a few people were given the good fortune to be able feast on greed and lust all they wanted. Now we all get to! Not that I want to go back to an age of total religious domination. But if anything the past and present have proven is that was most definetely have a sinful nature, something people like dawkins firmly deny. Completely abolishing religion is not going to solve any more problems then it is going to create.
So the 3 main points for me I think are this,
1. Kolbitars agrument (from the influence of Lewis and Chesterton) that both religion and science rely on our own will and logic so neither should be trusted any more then the other.
2. The mystery of our moral code written on our hearts that is so opposite to our impulses
3. What the world would be like if he did'nt have religion atleast giving some kind of influence on morals.
As a sub agruement, The only time he attempts to tackle lewises rational is in Lewises agruement for Christ being the Son of God. Lewis concludes that Jesus is either what he says he is, a lunatic, or something worse. Dawkins argues a fourth option, Jesus could have simply been mistaken. This fits into the 2nd option that christ could have been a lunatic. The reason why Lewis goes much farther then just saying he was just mistaken. Is what exactly Christ did believe. He believed he was the Son of God! He had come to save the sins of the world! Jesus believed he was manskind only hope for heaven. He believed he could heal people, walk on water, raise people from the dead! If Christ believed all this and it was'nt true he was more than just mistaken, he had to be just a little bit not right in the head as well.
Anyway, I don't know if anybody watched the last broadcast on what is a christian? hoisted by CNN. It was on the Creationism Evolution debate and can they be merged. The scientist that supported merged was really good. Can't remember his name though. Anyway! I hope everyones has a good friday of reflection on what Christ has done for all of humanity. And if you arent Christian I just hope you have a good friday!
Love in Christ,
-Jesse