[MD] Metaphysics

[Krimel]

Matt:
I think Mark's right that Dawkins isn't "open to change or challenge," but
Steve's right, too: what are we talking about here?  Do most of us _really_
understand Nazism, or do we basically get on fine dismissing it?
Understanding the nuances of the difference of these kinds of differences of
dismissal (yikes, that's a convoluted thought), is a step to understanding
Dawkins and what we should care about in him.

[Krimel]
I don't think it is at all true that Dawkins isn't "open to change or
challenge". Just because a valid one has not been offered does not mean he
isn't open to one if it is.

[Matt]
I find Dawkins' screeds on religion boring, and useless for my purposes.
But Steve's right: from his perspective, "being an expert on theology is
something like being an expert in Dungeons and Dragons"--except that these
D&D players will kill you occasionally for not playing by the rules.  The
trouble I have with Dawkins is that, after distilling him down to that short
thought, there isn't a lot left in him.  It's basically a repetition of that
thought.  Which is fine for what it is, I guess, except he exacerbates
already hot situations and can make good dialogue disappear.

[Krimel]
I have not found Dawkins or for than matter Dennett particular interesting
in this respect either. But I think classifying them is rigid ideologues
misses the point. Are you familiar with Lee Stroble, Josh McDowell, Francis
Hitchings, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe or William Dembski? These guys are
on the rational edge of the fruitcake fringe and their writings should be
offensive to any thinking person. If Dawkins, or Dennett or Hitchens come
off as "angry" then I would class it as the same kind of righteous
indignation that motivated Jesus to throw the money changers out of the
temple.

I don't hear any of them arguing that people aren't entitled to hold
whatever beliefs they wish but when they start to manipulate the law of the
land to promote their ideology that it another story. Fundamentalism is
powerful force; a kind of terrorism and I appreciate the efforts of a
thoughtful few to speak out against it. 

As for dialog, seriously Matt, you think this issue that has raged from
boiling to simmering for more than 150 years can be resolved by a chat over
coffee at Starbucks? Since the theory of evolution was proposed, evidence
has piled up and, through the process of assimilating new data and
accommodating itself to anomalies evolution is on a firm footing as one of
the longest lived, most robust and best supported theories in all of
science.

What tone would be an appropriate to address the level of ignorance, abuse
of reason, self righteousness and vile rhetoric proceeding from the other
side of this issue? Is it really worth it to "reach for the first-person
perspective of a true believer" when the "true believer" is a suicide
bomber, a TV preacher, or an idiot? I for one have tried and don't really
recommend it to others.