The Archbishop of Canterbury Isn't Totally in Left Field...Only Mostly
Hey, what do you know? The Archbishop of Canterbury has actually said something with which I agree:
There is also another post from a later date that argues the same thing here. My posts on the subject (of which I believe there are more if you want to do a blog search at the top) have been the target of much ire from several evolution-focussed blogs over the last couple of years. Guess I struck a nerve.
If you happen to be interested in seeing my thoughts on the Archbishops views, in general, you can check out (as Desi Arnaz would say) dis, dat, and de udder ting. If you don't get that reference, don't worry about it, you're probably below the age of thirty.
The Christian Post reports that the atheist author behind the book "The God Delusion" may be a leading scientist, but he's a poor philosopher, according to the spiritual head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Addressing more than 1,000 people at Swansea University in the United Kingdom, Archbishop Rowan Williams rebutted the assessment of Christianity in Richard Dawkins' best-selling book, saying that atheists had missed the point and failed to understand what Christians actually believe in. "There are specific areas of mismatch between what Richard Dawkins may write about and what religious people think they are doing," said Williams. "Our culture is one that deeply praises science, so we assume because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher," he added. But Williams suggested that assumption that religion is "an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation" was distracting people from "real arguments" over God's existence. The Archbishop did cite Christians as "partly to blame," however, when asked 'Whose fault is Dawkins?'I have said numerous times here that there is a great dichotomy between science and philosophy regarding the great evolution debate. Here, Adkins points to this same idea in dealing with the existence of God. Here is a link to the post I wrote in which I reference Nancy Pearcey's excellent book, Total Truth, to argue that Darwinian evolution is a philosophy of science rather than actual science (as is their claim).
There is also another post from a later date that argues the same thing here. My posts on the subject (of which I believe there are more if you want to do a blog search at the top) have been the target of much ire from several evolution-focussed blogs over the last couple of years. Guess I struck a nerve.
If you happen to be interested in seeing my thoughts on the Archbishops views, in general, you can check out (as Desi Arnaz would say) dis, dat, and de udder ting. If you don't get that reference, don't worry about it, you're probably below the age of thirty.
Technorati Tags:
Labels: Darwin, David C. Price, Evolution, God, Naturalism, religion























0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home