Seeker, my friend,
I must disagree with some of your observations about Barlow's article. Here's why ...
You said:
Dawkins may not have the religious definition of the words he used, and that is the straw man the author set out to knock down, but his science is correct. Don't like his definition of "faith"? Fine, he used the common one that is apparent to the non-believer from observing believers. Naturally, the believer will disagree and say, "Oh, no, faith is much more complex than that," and then run around saying, "They found the ark, they found the ark!" You can understand why a non-believer will look at this behavior and come to the definition of faith that Dawkins did. None of which has any bearing on Dawkins work in the science of evolution. A speech on a totally unrelated subject does not validate or invalidate his work.
His use of the story of Thomas was quibbled with? Fine, he doesn't know the ins and outs of the Bible as thoroughly as the believer does -- something you would expect. So the author siezes on one phrase he disagrees with and turns it into a diatribe against science.
I find these arguments suspect on several counts:
1) Previously in this thread you acknowledged the importance of respecting precise definitions of words where science is concerned, yet here you exempt Dawkins from just such precision when it comes to theology. In fact, you over-generalize and create a strawman (for Dawkins) by claiming that "the believer will disagree and say, 'Oh, no, faith is much more complex than that,' and then run around saying, 'They found the ark, they found the ark!'" Yes, a precise definition of faith IS more complex than you and others portray, as Barlow indicates when he says:
Reformed Christians realize that this [Dawkins'] definition of faith is a caricature. Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic.
You do not address this at all, giving the impression of holding Dawkins to a lower standard than you hold those who question aspects of evolutionary theory.
2) Barlow's argument clearly is NOTaimed at science, but, rather, at Dawkins' philosophy of metaphysical naturalism--the view that the physical universe, the "cosmos," is all there is (and thus that there can be no God) ... his scienTISM. Barlow takes Dawkins to task not for any issue of science, but for his unquestioning "faith": "faith in logic, of whose foundations he can give no account, faith in induction, upon which he builds science, and faith in the evolving human brain and the evolving human society to more often produce Martin Luther Kings than John Wayne Gacys."
3) Barlow's argument is also aimed at Dawkins' arguments in the area of religion. If a Christian physicist makes an argument for directed evolution, many would no doubt take issue, saying that he is not qualified to speak about biology; likewise, if a Christian biologist makes an argument for a created universe, many will say he is not qualified to speak about cosmology. So can you see why Barlow is correct in taking issue with Dawkins when he makes strident claims about ethical, metaphysical or religious issues, even using theological references imprecisely ("faith") or inaccurately ("doubting Thomas")?
Next, you said:
Morality is better based on Christianity? Nonsense. The author's view of how morality developed leaves out the key development. It isn't just a case of matter developing over time, but of observed and enforced behavior. It absolutely is possible to tell right from wrong without resorting to God's checklist, and humanity figured it out long before there ever was a religion. The author ignores this, and pretends that morality is irrelevant to an evolutionist. That's truly dishonest.
Barlow did not say that "morality is irrelevant to an evolutionist." This is the second instance where you have obviously misrepresented him. He argues against Dawkins' concept of "rational moral philosophy." You have not offered any counterpoints in this connection, but have merely warned us away with your opinion. "Observed and enforced behavior"? Observed and enforced by whom? Parents? Schoolteachers? Employers? Governments? Societies? Cultures? Eras? These may all have different views and standards. How do you arrive at the conclusion "it absolutely is possible to tell right from wrong" with all these possibly conflicting standards? "Humanity figured it out long before there ever was a religion"? When was this? Is this ages-old standard still followed by modern-day society? If this is true, can you respond to Barlow's argument: "At least Christianity provides the ethical tools needed to critique the behavior of its own. Christians can condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. Scientists like Dawkins [note, LIKE DAWKINS, i.e., not ALL scientists], however, cannot even give a coherent reason for why the biological experiments of the Nazis were unethical."
You said:
Finally, he thinks he finds a contradiction in Dawkins' view of the awe of science, without thinking it through enough to realize that both statements are true: there is awe in the world and despair. No contradiction at all.
Here, again, you have apparently misunderstood what Barlow said. He says nothing about any contradiction. Note his actual words (I'm highlighting to help): "I'm not so sure that Dawkins has made his case
that science replaces religion's sense of wonder and awe." Barlow did not say that science doesn't afford a sense of awe. Of course it does. Barlow was taking issue with Dawkins' claim: "The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is
enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise."
Seeker, I've tried to word this post so as not to be offensive or sarcastic. I dread seeing emotion creep into forum threads. I'm sure you'll agree that if we are truly "seeking" truth, then these ought not be emotional, but simply rational and respectful discussions.
Sincerely,
RW
