Posted by Anthony on December 19, 2006
One day you receive a letter from an attorney indicating that you are being sued by a foe. The news is traumatic. A million thoughts course through your brain. There a million things to do, but most of them can’t be done until you have more information. In the meantime, you sit and stew in your new reality and you’re more or less helplessness to change it.
Except it isn’t a new reality. The course of events leading up to your reception of the letter have been weeks, maybe months in the making. In point of fact, your reality has been altered at this point for quite awhile. The difference now is simply that you know of the new reality. Is it better to have never known at all? Or, now having known a little, is it better to swallow the bitter cup of knowledge whole? In either case, you’ll be able to do nothing. Is it better to have never known at all?
Here is the the unchanging question faced by Man. It is the tug of conflict between emotions and the mind.  It is contact with the trancendentals, like Joy. Reduced by material man to nothing more than chemical processes, one’s response to learning of a new reality cannot be changed- the processes occur inevitably, via the laws of nature. But a man need not have his identity dictated by changes in circumstances. After all, we are surrounded by ‘new realities’ all the time- things set in motion that we only at that moment become aware of. What really changed other than your knowledge of it? And if knowledge of it can by itself affect your being, surely it follows that one can balance that against other things you know- and so be the master of your mind. To hold onto Joy as it is being snatched away.
That, is in principle, the truth of the matter… but perhaps the severity of the knowledge makes it difficult in practice. Truly the most important battles occur within our own skulls, long before anyone glimpses the manifestations on our faces and in our actions. The fact is, some things are the way they are, and there is nothing you can do about it except to take them the way they are.  “It is what it is” does not mean that ‘it’ changes you. It could- but it doesn’t have to. It could- if you let it. It could- if you wanted it to. It could- if you thought it would be good to be changed by it. It could, could, could… it is what it is, but you are what you decide to be.
Posted by Anthony on December 15, 2006
If you read my last blog entry, you saw that I went after Dawkins for unquestioningly accepting information he has been handed without investigating to see if the information is legit. One can wonder if his whole worldview is based on information handed to him pre-biased, and one can wonder further whether or not we should trust his judgment. In the course of that post I pointed out that just as we may be skeptical of his use of Judge Jones, we can and should be skeptical of his other material, and I included as an example his citation of Augustine through a source (almost certainly biased)- that is, Freeman.
Now, I have not read Freeman’s book, “The Closing of the Western Mind,”*** so I don’t know if Dawkins even managed to quote Freeman’s quoting of Augustine correctly. We’ll have to hope Dawkins’s scholarship was good enough to represent his own fellows. Here is the quote alleged to Augustine via Freeman:
“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.”
Well, my curiosity was aroused to see if Dawkins had been willingly hoodwinked again by a source, so I went looking for this reference. Naturally, Dawkins does not cite where Augustine said it, but we can hope Freeman did. I went through three Google search results pages, scanning through one quoting of this same passage after another by skeptics, none of whom gave where Augustine said it (assuring, therefore, that they all got it from Freeman and he’s on their side, so he wouldn’t lead them wrong, right?!?), until finally I found one. One. I pray to God more atheists had the integrity to try to get to the bottom of the source, but I admit I stopped after the one.
Here is Mr. Pine’s page, and here is the quote: Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on
In my review of Dawkins’s book I have already insinuated that before we turn any attention at all to the man’s arrogance, his scholarship should be questioned. That is to say, we ought not consider his views on religion to be credible even in the slightest. An example to illustrate this surfaced that will run out of order for my reviews, so I am going to address it singly.
On page 133 we have Dawkins going after Behe saying, “Another of Behe’s favourite [sic] alleged examples of ‘irreducible complexity’ is the immune system. Let Judge Jones himself take up the story: ‘In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not ‘good enough.”
Even reading this passage the way that Dawkins presents it shows that not all cylinders are firing properly, here, not for Dawkins, nor for the ACLU, for in this passage the claim that ’science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system’ is clearly distinct from the issue as to whether or not anyone has every talked about it! In other words, even as I read this passage from the ACLU, I detected that the accusation did not match up with what Behe was responding too. Examples like this make me pine for the good ol’ days when we could at least expect that the participants in such deep debates were literate.
Now, the literate reading this will now claim AHA! Guilty of the same thing! Dawkins says that this is Judge Jones but Sntjohnny has chalked it up to the ACLU. Twice! Yes, indeed. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on December 14, 2006
And by ‘good’ I mean in the theological, moral sense.
Over the last five years or so, the sntjohnny household has endured various sorts of troubles that were truly unpleasant. To keep it in context, I should add that at least very little was ‘tragic.’ That has not been lost on me. One of the things that has come out of the experience that I am glad to have is a better appreciation of the nature of generosity. I have always seen generosity as a logical fruit of faith in Christ but I never understood or appreciated the fact that it is a legitimate spiritual gift (see, for example, Romans 8 and 2 Cor 8 ) .
I now understand that the gift of generosity is not mainly about being willing to offer support, but actually getting around to doing it.  In this regards, I certainly know that I lack. I once had a thank you note ready to send out but by the time I sent it, the person had moved. The letter was bounced back to me, and even google has prevented me from being able to track the man down. (Mr. J. Paul, I have a letter for you. Contact me, please).  In the course of time, I have seen how often people have expressed concern for me and my family and then simply never got around to doing anything. On the other hand, even people of limited means who had the generosity ’knack’ acted immediately, with whatever they could at the time.
I find it interesting, in fact, that I have seen more action out of people who are relative strangers than people right around me, sometimes people who saw me every day and counted themselves my friends. I once received a very sizable check from a man who was not a Christian, who had never met me, who was opposite me on the political spectrum. In other words, the last person I would have expected to do such a thing. It was eye-opening.  It is not that people don’t care. I think, actually, what happens is that everyone thinks that everyone else is doing something: in fact, when everyone thinks this, it is nobody that actually does it.
It has been eye-opening for me, and it has had this effect on me: even though I know I lack in this particular gift, I strive to do what I can the moment I think of it the moment I have identified a need. I just don’t have the ability to sustain my sense of compassion. It crumbles half the time just because of my lack of organizational abilities. I bet people will relate to this. However, there are more of us than there are ‘generous’ people, and so much good is not being done that only we can do. We’ve got to step it up- especially those of us who are Christians.
This speaks to resource usage, of course, but it also speaks to giving someone a good word, or a needed word. It can be anything, really. Doing the right thing, no matter how small, at the right moment, is the best way to fill the world up with right things. Doing the right thing tomorrow may be beyond the moment. Maybe not- but if not, then do it if it still remains.
There is so much need in the world. We can do much good if only we had the energy and alertness to pull it off. The ‘generous’ among us have it in spades. The rest of us may not have it, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have an obligation then to work on it.
Posted by Anthony on December 12, 2006
The reason why I have decided to address this book beginning with the preface is because it is here that I think we can see at a glance just how far off Mr. Dawkins is from credibly speaking to God as a ‘delusion’ or even ‘religion’ in general. There are three minor points and one major point that I wish to make.
Minor Point 1.
Dawkins is evangelistic in his approach. We read this quote: “”I suspect- well, I am sure- that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parent’s religion and wish they could, but just realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you.”
I think this tells us much about the man. The truth is that you cannot throw a stick in the United States without hitting someone who has left ‘their parent’s religion.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on
Intro
This review is of the preface in particular, and as such I would like to make an introductory comment of my own before launching into some thoughts prompted by Dawkins preface.
There is a school of thought among some Christian theologians, evangelists, and apologists, that a man’s atheism in nearly all cases reflects some emotional undercurrent, some real anger with God, etc. I do not have that opinion. I think that there are perfectly understandable intellectual objections that a person can have, and I think that even if there are emotional objections, they are not necessarily invalid.
In the case of Mr. Dawkins, however, I think we need to make an exception. He himself admits to being sexually abused as a child. Here is a quote from one of his own essays:
“Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power.” http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
You know what, I don’t believe him. Let’s leave aside the issue as to whether or not being molested is far out of the league as being led to believe in hell. Let’s consider the possibility that it was much more of an embarrassment then this lets on, that they didn’t have a good laugh together, that there was no ‘wriggling’ off the knee. Let’s apply a little skepticism here, shall we, and wonder if in fact the real truth is not that Dawkins and his friends had the singular experience of having the only benign example of child molesting in the course of human history, but that in fact this event was far more traumatic then he lets on. Let’s even wonder if perhaps it wasn’t an ‘event,’ but rather a pattern of events- long lasting, and devastating one, can certainly understand why a person would come to be angry with God and with anyone affiliated with God.
It may be that Richard Dawkins is exactly the premier example of an atheist at war with a God whom he insists does not exist, and yet hates anyway. If this is the case, I have deep compassion and sympathy for him. The problem of evil is not grappled with only by atheists. Let me submit to the reader that in the case of Dawkins, his arguments may not be informed by logic, evidence, and reason, but much so from being sexually abused.
That said, I’m going to take him at his word for the course of these reviews. That means assuming that this molestation had little to no impact on him, as he implies. Unfortunately, that means we are going to have to pretend that he really thinks he has logically sound reasons for his views. At least with the sympathy card in play we could understand the phenomena. Without that, we’ll have to stick to his arguments.
If Mr. Dawkins had an experience far deeper than he has let on then I understand and sympathize with his anger. If he hasn’t, my position remains [ad hominem snipped] that he is not much more than a bully. With this behind us, let us proceed.
Posted by Anthony on
I have begun responding to Dawkins’s “The God Delusion.” I have the preface responded to and I am going to be working on a chapter by chapter response. Here, though, is my introduction to my introduction…
——Â
There have been several versions of this document. The reviews of the review have been fiercely critical of anything fiercely critical of Mr. Dawkins, which means that Mr. Dawkins will- again- get away with saying whatever suits his fancy without any Christian telling him in no uncertain terms exactly what he deserves to hear, what he should hear, and what his arguments amount to. Suffice it to say that I don’t like Mr. Dawkins, and that is ok, because he doesn’t like me. The truth is, Mr. Dawkins does not like much of the world, which should give us all pause when we listen to him opine.
I’ll submit just this one example, as reported in http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index_np.html (Salon, not a creationist site) “Yet Dawkins doesn’t shy from controversy, nor does he suffer fools gladly. He recently met a minister who was on the opposite side of a British political debate. When the minister put out his hand, Dawkins kept his hands at his side and said, “You, sir, are an ignorant bigot.”"
Of course, he has said and done much worse than that, but this one comes out of a site that no one can charge is biased in my favor. The reader should know that I am exerting extreme self-control in what follows, and even suppressing my own principles in order not to offend readers, and perhaps maybe Mr. Dawkins himself, who, in my opinion, very much should be offended.
These brief comments should serve to make it plain exactly where I stand in regards to this particular man, and his arguments. Thus, he will get respect in this review, though in my view he deserves little, and his arguments even less.
