<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ask a Fundamentalist Christian (The Responses)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:51:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeymind</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72268</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeymind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:09:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72268</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Haven’t you bothered to read him?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes. Great science writer. Writer on history/anthropology/culture - not so much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Haven’t you bothered to read him?</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes. Great science writer. Writer on history/anthropology/culture &#8211; not so much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeymind</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72264</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeymind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72264</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure if it was a deep matter of principle to Dawkins not to unfairly characterize religion, he would have held out against the producers. It&#039;s not a situation like in the newsroom, where headlines get stuck on an article without approval from the writer. With the explanation you quote above, again the best word I can think of is &quot;weasel&quot; - he didn&#039;t care enough to insist, didn&#039;t mind stirring up a bit of controversy, but doesn&#039;t want the high negatives that go along with his high positives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure if it was a deep matter of principle to Dawkins not to unfairly characterize religion, he would have held out against the producers. It&#8217;s not a situation like in the newsroom, where headlines get stuck on an article without approval from the writer. With the explanation you quote above, again the best word I can think of is &#8220;weasel&#8221; &#8211; he didn&#8217;t care enough to insist, didn&#8217;t mind stirring up a bit of controversy, but doesn&#8217;t want the high negatives that go along with his high positives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Carr</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72263</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Carr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72263</guid>
		<description>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

&#039;Dawkins has said that the title &quot;The Root of All Evil?&quot; was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.  His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F</a></p>
<p>&#8216;Dawkins has said that the title &#8220;The Root of All Evil?&#8221; was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.  His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Carr</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72262</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Carr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72262</guid>
		<description>Dawkins didn&#039;t call his documentary &#039;The Root of all Evil?&#039;

Haven&#039;t you bothered to read him?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dawkins didn&#8217;t call his documentary &#8216;The Root of all Evil?&#8217;</p>
<p>Haven&#8217;t you bothered to read him?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeymind</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72260</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeymind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72260</guid>
		<description>Umm, I think calling your documentary about religion &quot;The Root of of all Evil?&quot; could be taken by SOME people to indicate that in general one does not take great care to disassociate oneself from the view that religion is the root of all evil. To be pedantic, the ? could I suppose be taken as a bit of weasel punctuation  - disassociation by linguistic mechanics.

However, these niceties seem to be lost on Dawkins&#039; target audience, as in this marketing blurb for the DVD on skeptic.com:

&lt;blockquote&gt;The Root of All Evil?, by the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is his controversial documentary that complements his bestselling book The God Delusion. Dawkins presents his view of religion as a cultural virus that, like a computer virus, once downloaded into the software of society corrupts many of the programs it encounters. It isn’t hard to find examples to fit this view; one has only to read the dailies coming out of the Middle East to see its nefarious effects.

Dawkins is so compelling in his on-camera narrative style in his cultured British accent, marshalling his facts, examples, and interviews so convincingly that when you reach the end you are compelled to answer Yes! to the rhetorical question posed in the documentary’s title.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm, I think calling your documentary about religion &#8220;The Root of of all Evil?&#8221; could be taken by SOME people to indicate that in general one does not take great care to disassociate oneself from the view that religion is the root of all evil. To be pedantic, the ? could I suppose be taken as a bit of weasel punctuation  &#8211; disassociation by linguistic mechanics.</p>
<p>However, these niceties seem to be lost on Dawkins&#8217; target audience, as in this marketing blurb for the DVD on skeptic.com:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Root of All Evil?, by the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is his controversial documentary that complements his bestselling book The God Delusion. Dawkins presents his view of religion as a cultural virus that, like a computer virus, once downloaded into the software of society corrupts many of the programs it encounters. It isn’t hard to find examples to fit this view; one has only to read the dailies coming out of the Middle East to see its nefarious effects.</p>
<p>Dawkins is so compelling in his on-camera narrative style in his cultured British accent, marshalling his facts, examples, and interviews so convincingly that when you reach the end you are compelled to answer Yes! to the rhetorical question posed in the documentary’s title.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven Carr</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72252</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Carr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72252</guid>
		<description>Of course, Dawkins does not say that religion is the root of all evil.

But why bother with accuracy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, Dawkins does not say that religion is the root of all evil.</p>
<p>But why bother with accuracy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeymind</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72244</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeymind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72244</guid>
		<description>Regarding faith, I think part of the problem may be our old friend polysemy. Faith can mean either belief or trust in/allegiance to a person or cause. Fideism, the idea that reason is opposed to faith, and that faith should always take precedence, is an important strain in Christianity but not the only one.

 &quot;Faith isn&#039;t believing without proof - it&#039;s trusting without reservation.&quot; William Sloane Coffin

It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt.-- Fyodor Dostoyevski

Doubt isn&#039;t the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. --Paul Tillich

Faith is the refusal to panic. --David Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Belief is reassuring. People who live in the world of belief feel safe. On the contrary, faith is forever placing us on the razor&#039;s edge. --Jacques Ellul

Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.--R. Buckminster Fuller

Christianity is not a message which has to be believed, but an experience of faith that becomes a message. --Edward Schillebeeckx

I guess it&#039;s this kind of faith, or sort of existential faith, that I value. To stake out a philosophical space, a system of values, and say, this is what I believe and resolve to make real in my life. I guess it is not so different from my ancestral roots in the Mennonite faith:

&quot;True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding faith, I think part of the problem may be our old friend polysemy. Faith can mean either belief or trust in/allegiance to a person or cause. Fideism, the idea that reason is opposed to faith, and that faith should always take precedence, is an important strain in Christianity but not the only one.</p>
<p> &#8220;Faith isn&#8217;t believing without proof &#8211; it&#8217;s trusting without reservation.&#8221; William Sloane Coffin</p>
<p>It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt.&#8211; Fyodor Dostoyevski</p>
<p>Doubt isn&#8217;t the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. &#8211;Paul Tillich</p>
<p>Faith is the refusal to panic. &#8211;David Martyn Lloyd-Jones</p>
<p>Belief is reassuring. People who live in the world of belief feel safe. On the contrary, faith is forever placing us on the razor&#8217;s edge. &#8211;Jacques Ellul</p>
<p>Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.&#8211;R. Buckminster Fuller</p>
<p>Christianity is not a message which has to be believed, but an experience of faith that becomes a message. &#8211;Edward Schillebeeckx</p>
<p>I guess it&#8217;s this kind of faith, or sort of existential faith, that I value. To stake out a philosophical space, a system of values, and say, this is what I believe and resolve to make real in my life. I guess it is not so different from my ancestral roots in the Mennonite faith:</p>
<p>&#8220;True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: monkeymind</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72237</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeymind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-72237</guid>
		<description>Regarding Richard Dawkins&#039; excuse for not being more conversant with the best thinking on religion:

&lt;blockquote&gt;I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That would indeed be a vaiid excuse if Dawkins confined himself to disproving the existence of God. But he goes farther than that, accusing religion of being the &quot;root of all evil&quot;, a  mind virus, etc. It&#039;s where Dawkins crosses over from being a scientist/logician to a cultural critic/historian, that he loses credibility for me. He ignores how the best thinking in religion such as Sufi writings, OT midrashes, etc illuminate the human condition. For godess&#039;s sake, one huge branch of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, agrees that god does not &quot;exist.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Richard Dawkins&#8217; excuse for not being more conversant with the best thinking on religion:</p>
<blockquote><p>I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise.</p></blockquote>
<p>That would indeed be a vaiid excuse if Dawkins confined himself to disproving the existence of God. But he goes farther than that, accusing religion of being the &#8220;root of all evil&#8221;, a  mind virus, etc. It&#8217;s where Dawkins crosses over from being a scientist/logician to a cultural critic/historian, that he loses credibility for me. He ignores how the best thinking in religion such as Sufi writings, OT midrashes, etc illuminate the human condition. For godess&#8217;s sake, one huge branch of Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, agrees that god does not &#8220;exist.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wade</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-71982</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wade</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-71982</guid>
		<description>Belief in spite of seeing nothing was and still is promoted as the highest virtue because of the  constantly embarrassing absence of God.  Other virtues such as kindness, fairness, truthfulness, thoughtfulness or tolerance make for a nice community but they don&#039;t keep bringing people and their denarii back to the temple.  The priests would have to go out and get honest work.  Convince folks that belief trumps behavior and you have a guaranteed income.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Belief in spite of seeing nothing was and still is promoted as the highest virtue because of the  constantly embarrassing absence of God.  Other virtues such as kindness, fairness, truthfulness, thoughtfulness or tolerance make for a nice community but they don&#8217;t keep bringing people and their denarii back to the temple.  The priests would have to go out and get honest work.  Convince folks that belief trumps behavior and you have a guaranteed income.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-71977</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/24/ask-a-fundamentalist-christian-the-responses/#comment-71977</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;But of course, Jesus’ didn’t rebuke Thomas. In fact, he honored his request for more proof.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

After which, he said:
&quot;Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.&quot; John 20:29

It&#039;s the second part of that verse that we - conservative evangelicals - were taught about repeatedly. In fact, I was often told that Jesus was addressing that remark to all his followers who came after the ascension and who would not get the &quot;proof&quot; that Thomas got, but would instead get a special blessing for believing on faith alone. 

I guess we needed a consolation prize. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>But of course, Jesus’ didn’t rebuke Thomas. In fact, he honored his request for more proof.</p></blockquote>
<p>After which, he said:<br />
&#8220;Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.&#8221; John 20:29</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the second part of that verse that we &#8211; conservative evangelicals &#8211; were taught about repeatedly. In fact, I was often told that Jesus was addressing that remark to all his followers who came after the ascension and who would not get the &#8220;proof&#8221; that Thomas got, but would instead get a special blessing for believing on faith alone. </p>
<p>I guess we needed a consolation prize. <img src='http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/4 queries in 0.011 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 305/313 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-02-14 13:11:17 -->
