Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Dawkins-Dembski Briefwechsel II — “Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor. The following correspondence is current and remarkable. The subject hearder “Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime” is Dawkins’s. I’ve omitted the portions of our correspondence not relevant to this theme.

=-=-=-=-=-
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:35:39 -0600
To: Richard Dawkins
From: “William A. Dembski”
Subject: Re: Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime

Dear Prof. Dawkins,

Your response below regarding The Blasphemy Challenge (http://blasphemychallenge.com) is predictable, though thank you for being so forthright in endorsing it. Question: Would you be willing to go further and endorse expanding The Blasphemy Challenge to include blaspheming the God of Islam, encouraging young people in the Muslim world to put themselves on YouTube and say something along the lines of renouncing the God of Mohammed and stating clearly that Mohammed is not God’s prophet since there is no God? I’m sure you could come up with a suitable gift to entice young former Muslims, like a coffeetable book of the recent Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Are you an equal opportunity atheist or do you simply go after the Christian God because we tolerate your antics?

[snip]

Best wishes,
Bill Dembski

=-=-=-=-=-
At 04:59 AM 12/20/2006, Richard Dawkins wrote:

On 20 Dec 2006, at 01:40, William A. Dembski wrote:

Dear Prof. Dawkins,

You didn’t answer the obvious question: Do you personally endorse the blasphemy challenge [[http://www.blasphemychallenge.com]]? Do you find it offensive? May I quote you that you don’t endorse the blasphemy challenge and find it positively offensive?

I had not given the Blasphemy Challenge any thought until you called it to my attention. Now that you have done so, I do not seem to feel strongly one way or the other. As that admirable bumper sticker has it, Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime. So, am I going to send in my own film clip denying the Holy Ghost? No, that is not what Oxford professors do, they write books instead. Do I find it offensive that so many young people are sending in their film clips? No. I hadn’t listened to any of them before you raised the matter. I have now done so, and I must say I find them more charming than offensive. They mostly seem rather nice young people, and they are doing their bit, in their own lively and entertaining way, to raise consciousness and set an example to their peers. I am especially pleased to note how young they are, for organized atheists have, until recently, been noticeably and discouragingly grey-headed. I think we may be witnessing the beginnings of a shift in the tectonic plates of our Zeitgeist. I am delighted to see so many young Americans taking part, in a way that suits their age group better than mine or yours.

[snip]

Richard Dawkins

[snip]

Comments
As far as posting that in a Muslim setting goes, well it probably would not be quite a victimless crime. The victim would likely be the perpetrator. Thankfully we live in a tolerant society, but to pull that stunt in a religiously intolerant country might earn you a beheading. Secularism does not have the roots in the Muslim world that it has in the West.jmcd
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
I am sure Oxford professors have more important things to do than taking on all the various false gods. Taking the major one on and making Him an example is far more efficient and safe. Harrumph.Douglas
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
I can't wait to see Dr. Dawkin's response. I hope you will post it. I predict he will not directly answer the questions.dacook
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski: I LOVE your challenge to Dawkins. Absolutely brilliant. TRoutMac The Intelligent (Graphic) DesignerTRoutMac
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Personally, I don't believe that Harris, Dawkins, or Dennett are motivated in their attacks by a lack of belief in a deity. There's plenty of room for all manner of differing beliefs in each field they're in - why is this one in particular so important? And I don't believe it's owing to something as simple as 'religion enables horrible things'. We've seen that atheism is entirely capable of enabling as-bad or even worse crimes. The world is not going to get any friendlier or more peaceful if atheism, certainly enthusiastic and intolerant atheism, becomes the preferred school of thought. I have to wonder why, by and large, atheists aren't content simply being atheists. So many revel in being specifically anti-Christian - laughing and yelling about how they're infidels, blasphemers, heretics, etc. Why, in a world where nothing ultimately matters and there is no real meaning, is it so important to do away with this one specific manner of faith? Why does Dawkins, who openly equates humanity with bacteria, find this fight so important? I'm willing to bet he doesn't really know the answer to that question. The whole brights movement has the earmarks of a group that hasn't thought the whole thing through. They simply know they don't like Christians (and narrow the definitions of religion to make it sound like Christianity is practically the only game in town), and operate accordingly. Have any evolutionary psychologists done a study on the Brights movement?nullasalus
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
I'm sure Dawkins would love to listen to rock groups like AC/DC since their songs often mock Christianity/church. Also the Holy Spirit is an unnamed servant which doesn't draw attention to itself so you don't "blasphemy the Holy Spirit" by denying the Holy Spirit. That site is pretty lame. The Pharisees was in danger of "blasphemy the Spirit" by blasphemy the works/miracles which Christ did.Smidlee
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil. Dawkins is not content to attempt to adjust society moderately; he wants a radical revolution with Sam Harris. He praises the little darlings (who think they are raging against the machine) for "setting an example." I wonder if he praises those people in London who pants people and put the video on youtube.Collin
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
testJGuy
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
[Off-Topic] Wondering if anyone saw this... Virgin Komodo dragon gives birth This is somewhat relevant to an earlier thread on the Virgin birth and self-fertilization in some species. Now here is what I wonder. It has been brought up by Walter ReMine that sexual organisms shouldn't exist, since changing from asexual to sexual reproduction results in a 50% reduction in "Selfish gene" propagation. By numbers, asexual organisms put twice as many of their genes into the gene pool per reproduction, and so this 50% increase in "fitness" should, by natural selection, cause them to take over the gene pool. (Think of any other trait that would give a 50% increase in fitness!) Yet sexual organisms exist in abundance. Now, we see that some organisms have the ability to reproduce sexually or asexually. Why hasn't the magic wand of RM+NS caused these to switch to a strictly (50% more efficient) asexual mode of reproduction? If the fractional genes possesed by kin can be used to explain altruism in Kin Selection theory, then why does it somehow not apply here? Finally, yes, sexual selection does have LONG TERM benefits. But NS has no foresight. It cannot preserve based on future, long term benefits to the gene pool...especially when the short term prize is so hefty. (A 50% increase in fitness) Sorry I didn't give you credit for first mentioning this here, Atom. I just now (4am, 12/22/06) read your comment here. I got the heads up on the Dragon story in a listserv posting. -DaveScotAtom
December 20, 2006
December
12
Dec
20
20
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply