1. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52084 by socinius on June 26, 2007 at 5:51 am

Comment #51636 by GodlessHeathen:I have to wonder. When I mention my concerns on this subject I'm told by the secularists, atheists , and liberals around me that I'm overreacting. Tabash's observations here match my own. Among those here, who agrees? With what level of reservation?

I would agree with you. I get the same reaction from friends, family I discuss the matter of the religious right with. The general thinking seems to be they are (a) harmless and/or (b) losing power. One of my major concerns is that over the last 8 years (especially) scores of these people have been seeded throughout the various agencies of our government. An example that should not have surprised anyone, much less the mainstream media, is the 150 graduates of Regent in the Justice Department.

Also, a $27 million creation musuem is nothing to sneeze at or ignore. Examples could be multiplied.

I do not think the religious right is losing power or going away--it may be reorganizing, retrenching, or whatever, but I think it is definitely a threat and requires serious thought and analysis. How to get other well meaning progressives to see or at least consider this issue as a ongoing and serious threat is another question.

2. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #24199 by socinius on March 5, 2007 at 8:24 am

If you want to get a real flavor of Craig's position read the transcript of his debate with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman on the historicity of the resurrection. I warn you however, it is 38 pages in length.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

Click on the first debate link: Debate with Bart Ehrman.

3. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21235 by socinius on February 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.

I find the above quotation very puzzling. I have listened to Richard Dawkins lecture in person, read several of his books including "The God Delusion" from start to finish, and have listened to countless interviews/debates/panel discussions with Dr. Dawkins. If anything, he comes across as someone very willing to listen to criticism of his views and very willing to concede points to his opponents if he believes the criticism(s) to be valid.

What makes such accusations of "immune to argument" and "dogmatic" especially ironic is the free pass given to Dr. Dawkin's religious adversaries. One need only think of the pronouncements of a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson. The documentary, "Friends of God" was recently broadcast in this country (USA). In an interview with Jerry Falwell, he proudly proclaims, "America is a Christian nation and we are going to take it back in the name of God". I don't see how you can be much more "dogmatic" or "immune to argument" than that. Such a statement is breathtaking in its audacity (I know the mind of God and what he wants) and chilling in its implications (a theocratic state).

Such examples of Christian hubris are endless, the hatred and bigotry poured out against gays based primarily on the words printed in a 2000 year old book, the weekly Sunday sermons proclaiming that all human beings are worthless, wretched sinners who are going to everlasting suffering unless they submit to a series of nonsensical propositions: "born of a virgin, rose from the dead on the third day, son of a TriuneGod, and so forth.

When you scratch the surface of most of the "arguments" against gay rights, stem cell research, evolution, etc. you more than likely will find, at their base, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. A doctrine that is based upon the words of Scripture itself: a dogmatic belief.

It's all very puzzling. I suppose it could be objected that the mainstream churches are not like the Fundamentalist churches at all and that it is a caricature to focus so exclusively upon Fundamentalism. Yet, it is very difficult to find content in what mainstream theism believes except to say that "God is love, a mystery, The Ground of Being, That which cannot be Named" and so on and so forth. But what does all that mean or is that question ruled out of bounds? It seems to translate into something such as "profound awe" or some such. It seems pretty arrogant to me to make mystical or vague theological statements and then accuse someone of dogmatism or shallow understanding when they ask what they mean. Again, such a stance seems to share a relation to fundamentalism—you are either in the club and "get it" or you are a shallow reductionist and don't "get it". If you don't "get it" then the attitude seems to be "I'm very sorry for you, obviously you are not sophisticated enough to "get it". How much more pompous can you get.

I think the real objection to Dawkins is that he simply asks both fundamentalists and modernists to put their cards on the table and explain themselves so that the rest of us can understand them and have a basis upon which to judge the truth or falsity of their beliefs. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Of course, that is the whole problem. The Fundamentalist would say something to the effect of "the true Christian cannot submit to the standard of fallen and prideful human reason" while the mainstream theist would shake his head in pity and wonder why the "humanist" can't recognize the "special" character of "religious language" –either you get it or you don't.

I think I'll go with Dawkins on this one.