DRDS wrote:Fair enough, but I STILL think he works secretly for Richard Dawkins. Just sayin.
Interesting. I don't work for Richard Dawkins, secretly or otherwise. I wonder why you think I might, and what difference it would make. Do my comments make you think I want to persuade you to become an atheist? If so, go back a few comments and re-read what I have said. Do you think my comments might persuade you to become an atheist, even though I've explained in detail that I'm not? Are you, in fact, not very secure in your faith, and have a horrible suspicion Richard Dawkins might be right? Have you a nagging feeling that cold hard Reason might turn out to be more powerful than warm comforting Faith, and that there is no God after all?
Dear me. Let me try to rescue you. The fact is that the Richard Dawkins Foundation is not very bothered about whether there is a God or not. The "What We Do" page of his website is really about what he sees as religion's lack of 'critical thinking', which, he feels, has led to unkindness towards minorities and the USA's weak response to the problem of global warming, among others. Whether his conclusions are correct or not, he is to be applauded for his unwitting endorsement of St Augustine of Hippo's plea for rationality in about 400AD:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
Augustine knew very well that light comes from the Sun, and was embarrassed by fellow Christians who took the Genesis creation story of light pre-dating the sun as scientific truth. His interpretation was different from a modern view, but he knew very well that if incontrovertible Reason contradicted Scripture, then it was Scripture that must be reinterpreted, not Reason.
As far as I can tell, the only thing I have in common with Dawkins is in my relentless pursuit of reason, and to be fair, that's quite a lot. He thinks little of opinion derived solely from a literal interpretation of a 16th century English translation of a 250BC Greek translation of a two-and-a-half-thousand year old Hebrew collection of even older oral traditions, and so do I. However, Dawkins, I think, believes that when we know a bit more it will become very obvious that there is no God, while I believe exactly the opposite. What's more, I think he will, perhaps already has, come round to my point of view. From his various conversations with clerical giants such as Rowan Williams and Richard Harries, I think he has rethought some of the naivete of his earlier religious polemic. I think that Reason will not triumph over God, it will turn out to be God - or at least one of his attributes.
So my advice is not to worry, DRDS. Read my comments and judge them on what they say, not on what you think my motives might be. Study the Pantocrator of St Catherine's monastery. Does he look beaten up to you? Does your understanding of the theology of iconography suggest that a beaten-up Pantocrator is not a contradiction in terms? Do you think the Pantocrator looks like the man on the Shroud more than any other man? If you do, then disagree with me; it's a matter or personal opinion and I do not deny you yours. Do you deny me mine?
