Comments on: Reality and “Religion’s Real Child Abuse” http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/ Do Christians "hold the truth?" No, the Truth holds us... Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:50:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mark Sprengel http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12621 Mark Sprengel Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:58:35 +0000 http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12621 I think SteveK is right, they view such disciplines as "soft science" at best so they can dismiss the data with little discomfort and rely on their a priori view of religion in general. I think SteveK is right, they view such disciplines as “soft science” at best so they can dismiss the data with little discomfort and rely on their a priori view of religion in general.

]]> By: SteveK http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12513 SteveK Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:04:12 +0000 http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12513 <blockquote>But as far as I’ve been able to observe, no one has raised a word of scientific objection on this point.</blockquote> Interesting points you make. I haven't thought much about this subject, but you are right, Dawkins is stating an opinion that goes against the research evidence and nobody that I know of in the scientific community has bothered to correct him publicly. Has the outspoken PZ Meyers discussed this on his blog? Maybe it's because these folks don't consider the research evidence to be <i>genuine</i> scientific evidence because it's "soft" scientific data. My theory is that people like Dawkins think religious beliefs have <i>nothing</i> to do with any derived benefit in life. We've heard similar comments from atheists and even from Tony on this blog. They say belief in God isn't required to live a good life. Putting aside the details and where I might disagree with that - OK, but then that means the opposite would be just as true - that belief isn't required to live a horrible life. Either way Dawkins statement would be wrong! I don't know, but if Dawkins et-al think beliefs (religous or otherwise) have no impact on your life, they are sadly mistaken. The irony of holding that belief (more irony!), if they actually did, would be to fall prey to Plantinga's claims about true beliefs and naturalism, <a href="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/08/alvin-plantinga-on-evolution-vs-naturalism/" rel="nofollow">discussed here</a>.

But as far as I’ve been able to observe, no one has raised a word of scientific objection on this point.

Interesting points you make. I haven’t thought much about this subject, but you are right, Dawkins is stating an opinion that goes against the research evidence and nobody that I know of in the scientific community has bothered to correct him publicly. Has the outspoken PZ Meyers discussed this on his blog? Maybe it’s because these folks don’t consider the research evidence to be genuine scientific evidence because it’s “soft” scientific data.

My theory is that people like Dawkins think religious beliefs have nothing to do with any derived benefit in life. We’ve heard similar comments from atheists and even from Tony on this blog. They say belief in God isn’t required to live a good life. Putting aside the details and where I might disagree with that – OK, but then that means the opposite would be just as true – that belief isn’t required to live a horrible life. Either way Dawkins statement would be wrong!

I don’t know, but if Dawkins et-al think beliefs (religous or otherwise) have no impact on your life, they are sadly mistaken. The irony of holding that belief (more irony!), if they actually did, would be to fall prey to Plantinga’s claims about true beliefs and naturalism, discussed here.

]]> By: Sam http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12512 Sam Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:43:07 +0000 http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/04/reality-and-religions-real-child-abuse/#comment-12512 You raise some great questions! This issue, along with some other statements by the new atheists that also run totally against scientific research, have always kept me thinking. * Has there actually been some response that I’ve missed, some scientific or journalistic call to accountability? I have not been able to find many responses to his statement. There were a few, but they were mostly in debates with Christian theologians, if I recall correctly. * If not, what does this say about the consistent application of self-correction in science? Why is it not being applied in this case? Though science is a real field, with great findings and methods, in Dawkins case, the word is used strictly as a piece of propaganda. * What’s really going on? How do we explain Dawkins’s anti-scientific stance on this issue, and the lack of response from the scientific/journalistic world on it? My take is that Dawkins knows that he's not doing science, but is instead engaging in pure propaganda. I think its most likely he's cool with that. You raise some great questions! This issue, along with some other statements by the new atheists that also run totally against scientific research, have always kept me thinking.

* Has there actually been some response that I’ve missed, some scientific or journalistic call to accountability?

I have not been able to find many responses to his statement. There were a few, but they were mostly in debates with Christian theologians, if I recall correctly.

* If not, what does this say about the consistent application of self-correction in science? Why is it not being applied in this case?

Though science is a real field, with great findings and methods, in Dawkins case, the word is used strictly as a piece of propaganda.

* What’s really going on? How do we explain Dawkins’s anti-scientific stance on this issue, and the lack of response from the scientific/journalistic world on it?

My take is that Dawkins knows that he’s not doing science, but is instead engaging in pure propaganda. I think its most likely he’s cool with that.

]]>