tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post4379250746172142651..comments2023-10-29T06:41:23.910-07:00Comments on Halfway There: A framework for peaceZenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-67023588797645290042007-04-16T19:07:00.000-07:002007-04-16T19:07:00.000-07:00I don't know much about Dawkins' writing, having n...I don't know much about Dawkins' writing, having not had a chance to read it yet, but I think the arrogance bit sticks pretty easily. Evidence? There's video I saw in which he interviews Ted Haggard, one of the most immediately unlikable people I've ever seen on TV. The two get into an argument and, though Dawkins comes out as the calmer and more likable of the two, the margin of victory is pretty slim given the competition. Worth watching, if you can stomach it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-42573090862684421372007-04-16T16:08:00.000-07:002007-04-16T16:08:00.000-07:00Stogoe: "So many people bandy about the supposed '...Stogoe: "So many people bandy about the supposed 'Dawkins Arrogance', but as has consistently been shown, no such thing actually exists."<BR/><BR/>Let's see now. A brilliant man writes a book on religion. He writes few paragraphs in its second chapter about the Trinity. Does he bother to say anything substantive? Nope. Instead, the great rationalist takes a dump on reason and serves up a false assertion followed by an assertion that is either laughably false or badly phrased followed by another false assertion bolstered by a fallacious appeal to Thomas Jefferson's authority.<BR/><BR/>When the great rationalist writes on the Bible, does he think, "Gee, my religious readers might consult apologetics resources. I should anticipate their arguments and make it clear that I'm not that easily refuted"? Nope. Instead, when he writes something correct about the Lukan census, he does an incomplete job and writes stuff that can be apparently refuted by the bog standard apologetics. He also cited a source that recycled 19th claptrap and contradicted itself in a way that would have been obvious had he done the research. He even gets little stuff wrong, like referring to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as the "Gospel of Thomas."<BR/><BR/>Dawkins writes like he didn't care about getting it right. That is a mark of arrogance.<BR/><BR/>Cath: "It is said that Malcolm X made it easier for the establishment to admit Dr. King existed and so to the conference table."<BR/><BR/>An interesting supposition, but I think it underestimates how Dr. King combines both the confrontational and conciliatory roles.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-12557224487904391522007-04-16T13:11:00.000-07:002007-04-16T13:11:00.000-07:00I think that both are needed, Confrontation to sho...I think that both are needed, Confrontation to show that there is a problem and then those who pour oil on the sea to calm it down. <BR/><BR/>It is said that Malcolm X made it easier for the establishment to admit Dr. King existed and so to the conference table. The idea is right, but it was said by a union organizer so I may(probably do) have the wording wrong. <BR/><BR/>Sea of Galilee reference intended<BR/><BR/>CathAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07184219742211027282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-19046718473659630262007-04-16T09:26:00.000-07:002007-04-16T09:26:00.000-07:00Oh, JJ[condescending head shake activate!]. So ma...Oh, JJ[condescending head shake activate!]. So many people bandy about the supposed 'Dawkins Arrogance', but as has consistently been shown, no such thing actually exists. Go on back to your hole now. Maybe Mooney and Nisbet will believe you when you talk about the 'Dawkins Arrogance'; they'll probably listen to your concerns, as they're as afraid of public, vocal certainty as you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-32465931519886400082007-04-16T06:25:00.000-07:002007-04-16T06:25:00.000-07:00One problem I see here is a false dichotomy where ...One problem I see here is a false dichotomy where you have the shock troops on the one side and the nice guys on the other. What about people like Martin Luther King? Unquestionably, he was assertive and brought racial tensions out in the open--and paid for it with his life. Yet he didn't offer anyone any <I>good</I> reasons to hate him. This is something that cannot be said about Dawkins. One could, for example, easily make the charge of arrogance stick to him. It wouldn't be too hard to contrast the boldness of his rhetoric with the sloppiness that creeps into his arguments.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.com