*sigh* All right.
But Dawkins doesn't represent the God of the Old Testament as 'callously indifferent'. Look back at your first quote from Dawkins in this thread. Where is the 'indifference'? Nowhere to be seen. Dawkins' claim is that God, as drawn by the traditions of the people who created him is callous, certainly, but hardly indifferent. This God actively visits horrific calamity on humankind. He is malevolent, not indifferent.
While it is certainly true that natural selection (indeed, the universe as a whole) is callously indifferent - must kill you that Dawkins got this right, eh? - the same is not true of the fictional Jehovah. In fact, in Isaiah, God boast that he is the author of calamity (or evil, depending on which translation you prefer). Since God creates calamity, God could avert or eliminate calamity. Natural selection doesn't have the luxury of this choice.
Now perhaps you'll begin to understand why so few here addressed Wiker's 'argument'. And perhaps you can also grasp that using an ad hominem to answer a strawman isn't such a bad thing.
Boru
Quote:Wiker's point is that natural selection is no less callously indifferent to the sufferings of the weak than is the "God of the OT" as He is commonly misrepresented by atheists.
But Dawkins doesn't represent the God of the Old Testament as 'callously indifferent'. Look back at your first quote from Dawkins in this thread. Where is the 'indifference'? Nowhere to be seen. Dawkins' claim is that God, as drawn by the traditions of the people who created him is callous, certainly, but hardly indifferent. This God actively visits horrific calamity on humankind. He is malevolent, not indifferent.
While it is certainly true that natural selection (indeed, the universe as a whole) is callously indifferent - must kill you that Dawkins got this right, eh? - the same is not true of the fictional Jehovah. In fact, in Isaiah, God boast that he is the author of calamity (or evil, depending on which translation you prefer). Since God creates calamity, God could avert or eliminate calamity. Natural selection doesn't have the luxury of this choice.
Now perhaps you'll begin to understand why so few here addressed Wiker's 'argument'. And perhaps you can also grasp that using an ad hominem to answer a strawman isn't such a bad thing.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
