--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Yes, Share, I know you were referring to what > > salyavin said Dawkins said Williams said. My > > point was that you assumed this third-hand > > characterization was accurate, in spite of > > both Dawkins's and salyavin's own wooly-headed > > thinking about theism. > > If I can add my two-pennyworth, I would say it's > a bit *clever* of our Salyavin to attempt to > deflect this debate on to the wooliness or otherwise > of Rowan Williams, ex-archbishop of Canterbury. > > Williams *is* the very archetype of the nice, well- > intentioned but woolly-headed Church of England > theist. Having said that, he is also extremely bright > (and sensitive) and probably has some quite subtle points > to make.
Reprising salyavin's version of Dawkins's version of what Williams said: "Dawkins interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury about his beliefs and was astonished that this king of wooly thinking didn't really believe most of the bible - except as moral teaching - leading Dawkins to ask why he didn't preach science from the pulpit if he agrees with it so much. He didn't have an answer really, part of the weird disconnect that the devout must have these days if they are honest." I can imagine Williams thinking, "Shall I try to explain myself to this boob? Naah. Waste of time and effort. Let him think I don't have an answer. He wouldn't understand it anyway." I'd be willing to bet Dawkins took a chance on Williams on the basis of what Spong had said about him, even though Williams had strongly denied it. > But he is an easy target (superficially). And > "new atheists", especially Dawkins, specialise in picking > on what they see as the low hanging fruit. > > I expect I have seen many of the same TV programs with Dawkins > that Salyavin has seen. Typically the format is that you will > see him debating some carefully chosen redneck. You do *not* > see him in the ring with a serious philosopher or theist > with a thorough grounding in the classics (or even modern > philosophy such as Wittgenstein or Popper). Or perhaps that's > above my subscription TV pay level. > > > It seems to me one would want to know what > > Williams *actually* said before concluding > > there was any danger of a mental explosion > > due to cognitive dissonance, much less that > > such purported cognitive dissonance was the > > "core of this debate" (which debate?--as I > > said, not the debate salyavin and I were > > having). > > > > If you mean the debate between science and > > religion generally, I would suggest that one > > needs to inform oneself thoroughly about the > > nature of the debate before drawing simplistic > > conclusions as to what its "core" is. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy, here's the excerpt from salyavin I was replying to both in > > > suggesting what for me is the core of this debate and in referring to a > > > potential explosion when one entertains both scientific knowledge and > > > belief in one's one skull: > > > > > > Quite right too. Dawkins interviewed the archbishop of Canterbury > > > about his beliefs and was astonished that this king of wooly > > > thinking didn't really believe most of the bible - except as > > > moral teaching - leading Dawkins to ask why he didn't preach > > > science from the pulpit if he agrees with it so much. He didn't > > > have an answer really, part of the weird disconnect that the > > > devout must have these days if they are honest. > > > > > > snip > > > > > > RD met a science teacher at a high school in the UK who believes > > > the earth is 4000 years old. How can you hold both knowledge and > > > belief with exploding in cognitive dissonance. This teacher didn't > > > mind and perfectly understood both positions. Poor RD was stunned > > > into silence. > > > > > > > > > Share again: Of course I have assumed that salyavin meant to write: How > > > can you hold both knowledge and belief withOUT exploding in cognitive > > > dissonance? > > > > > > I say let's hook up that teacher or the ABofC to fMRI so that poor RD no > > > longer has to be stunned into silence by such wooly thinking. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:05 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did the Earth move for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > On the Dawkins topic: for me the core of the debate seems to > > > > lie in understanding the nature of cognitive dissonance or > > > > what you call weird disconnect or wooly thinking. > > > > > > Well, that isn't where the core of the debate salyavin > > > and I have been having lies, no. Perhaps you're thinking > > > of some other debate not currently taking place on FFL. > > > > > > > I say let's hook up the ABofC to an fMRI and see what actually > > > > happens inside his skull when he expresses such a potentially > > > > explosive combo of belief and scientific knowledge. > > > > > > I know you say you're joking about the fMRI, but I'm > > > curious as to why you assume Williams has ever expressed > > > a "potentially explosive combo of belief and scientific > > > knowledge." Or are you joking about that too? > > > > > > > Yep, I'm making a joke and I admit that whenever you make such a point, > > > > inside my head I'm screaming gap, gap, gap! Maybe Dawkins doesn't have > > > > one. Let's hook him up to fMRI too (-: > > > > > >
