Sydney Anglican,
Russell Powell, says of the TV coverage of Pell and Dawkins Q & A Program that...
Banal twitter comments scrolling on the bottom of the screen are so yesterday...I could have won the bet (if I were a gambling man) that somehow climate change and gay marriage would be raised...Its the first time I've heard the problem of suffering turned on the atheist, rather than the believer...Dawkins trying to define 'nothing' (as in the Big Bag started with 'nothing') was funny to everyone but him...the poll question "Does religious belief make the world a better place?" was posed as an atheist vs believer statement. Rubbish. I'm not sure I would agree with it. Define religion first... The most ironic thing about the night is that, were it not for the reformation, I'm sure Richard Dawkins would not have the freedom he currently has to argue his position. After all, it is the legacy of Protestantism to welcome open, logical querying of the grounds for faith. The reformers opened the way for this lapsed Anglican to tour the world, mocking their beliefs.
Firstly, I'd say to Powell... Define Protestantism...because the Sydney Anglican version is prescriptive, where open, logical querying is not welcomed but only ridiculed! And what did you expect Russell... Climate change and same sex marriage are contemporary issues. I mean Complementarianism is just so 'yesterday'. Actually if you want to be really elitist about it...Sydney Anglicans are so yesteryear!
Sydney Anglican, Russell Powell, says of the TV coverage of Pell and Dawkins Q & A Program that...Banal twitter comments scrolling on the bottom of the screen are so yesterday...I could have won the bet (if I were a gambling man) that somehow climate change and gay marriage would be raised...Its the first time I've heard the problem of suffering turned on the atheist, rather than the believer...Dawkins trying to define 'nothing' (as in the Big Bag started with 'nothing') was funny to everyone but him...the poll question "Does religious belief make the world a better place?" was posed as an atheist vs believer statement. Rubbish. I'm not sure I would agree with it. Define religion first... The most ironic thing about the night is that, were it not for the reformation, I'm sure Richard Dawkins would not have the freedom he currently has to argue his position. After all, it is the legacy of Protestantism to welcome open, logical querying of the grounds for faith. The reformers opened the way for this lapsed Anglican to tour the world, mocking their beliefs.
Firstly, I'd say to Powell... Define Protestantism...because the Sydney Anglican version is prescriptive, where open, logical querying is not welcomed but only ridiculed! And what did you expect Russell... Climate change and same sex marriage are contemporary issues. I mean Complementarianism is just so 'yesterday'. Actually if you want to be really elitist about it...Sydney Anglicans are so yesteryear!
Dawkins would have been roundly thrashed if he'd debated with an intellectual Jensen whose evolution got stuck in the Neanderthal era.
ReplyDelete