http://www.religiocity.org/2008/10/23/rowan-versus-richard-dawkins/ political theology in the city Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.religiocity.org/2008/10/23/rowan-versus-richard-dawkins/#comment-14939 Tim Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:38:45 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=293#comment-14939 Matt, Please elaborate. I'm not sure what the fatal flaw is. Jesse and I watched it and thought Rowan held his own ok considering the context. Matt,
Please elaborate. I’m not sure what the fatal flaw is. Jesse and I watched it and thought Rowan held his own ok considering the context.

]]> http://www.religiocity.org/2008/10/23/rowan-versus-richard-dawkins/#comment-14762 Jonathan Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:30:19 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=293#comment-14762 On the last point, Dawkins is fond of making incredibly aggressive comments, which are just empty blasts of wind, such as, 'Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can f--k off.' On the last point, Dawkins is fond of making incredibly aggressive comments, which are just empty blasts of wind, such as, ‘Science is interesting, and if you don’t agree, you can f–k off.’

]]> http://www.religiocity.org/2008/10/23/rowan-versus-richard-dawkins/#comment-14758 Jonathan Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:26:15 +0000 http://www.religiocity.org/?p=293#comment-14758 What's the fatal flaw here? I think his take on the miraculous is spot on: 'It is not, if you like, the suspension of nature, but the opening of nature itself opening up to its depths...' It is poetic language, as he says, but nature itself bears a poetic character, if it is conceived of as creation. Perhaps you mean that Williams doesn't challenge Dawkins's failure to realize the social construction of his concept of 'nature' or that he gives him a pass on 'fact' and 'value' or on the neutrality of secular reason? I suppose that makes his position look relatively weaker, but had the challenge been issued, you can bet that Dawkins would have edited those bits out. One of Dawkins's most alarming qualities as an evangelist for atheism is his utter lack of a sense of fair play. What’s the fatal flaw here? I think his take on the miraculous is spot on: ‘It is not, if you like, the suspension of nature, but the opening of nature itself opening up to its depths…’ It is poetic language, as he says, but nature itself bears a poetic character, if it is conceived of as creation. Perhaps you mean that Williams doesn’t challenge Dawkins’s failure to realize the social construction of his concept of ‘nature’ or that he gives him a pass on ‘fact’ and ‘value’ or on the neutrality of secular reason? I suppose that makes his position look relatively weaker, but had the challenge been issued, you can bet that Dawkins would have edited those bits out. One of Dawkins’s most alarming qualities as an evangelist for atheism is his utter lack of a sense of fair play.

]]>