Saturday, September 19, 2009

"God doesn't exist" versus "Isn't God a lovely idea?" Both sides of that debate lost.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a big article supposedly debating evolution versus faith in God. As they put it:
We commissioned Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins to respond independently to the question "Where does evolution leave God?" Neither knew what the other would say. Here are the results.
Having had experience with independent reading of both authors, I rolled my eyes knowing that if they didn't know what the other would say then they just hadn't bothered listening to those well-worn records before.

Glancing through the article I saw that Dawkins, as always, was scornful. I don't understand why that guy is so very angry. As I've said before, a true atheist would laugh at putting so much energy into it.

Armstrong, as always, was vaguely in support of faith as something that ennobles man. Or something. I think she must be a media darling because that way of talking about faith is something the media can get behind. It is the true, personal encounter with God that tends to make them leery. Oh, where is a worthy successor to Billy Graham when we need him? He'd speak it and the media actually would print it.

What brought all this to mind again is that a friend sent me the pdf of the article and then this morning WSJ letters to the editor were dominated by readers' responses. I only see a general link to their letters page, so am going to show you my favorites but all were worth reading.
I could tell which side Mr. Dawkins was on. I wasn't sure about Ms. Armstrong.
Mike Guthrey, Franklin, Tenn.

Mr. Dawkins should leave the God question to others and stick to the evolution-versus-creation debate. Even I, an agnostic scientist, find his commentary polemic and off-putting. It is no wonder the God crowd is gaining in number; they are easier to read.
Katherine Helmetag, Troy, Mich.

As a retired scientist, I know that while parts of evolution are well-explained, there is no scientific explanation of the origin of life. If you accept that life began only because of random events, then you and science are acting on faith. Accepting an explanation on faith isn't a part of science, but is the way to God.
Howard Deutsch, Atlanta
Perhaps the next time that much ink is spilled over the question, the WSJ will go to the trouble of seeking out some people who aren't so predictable in voicing their opinions. Or who actually have fresh input and approaches in discussing the question.

1 comment:

  1. Интересно написано....но многое остается непонятнымb

    ReplyDelete