A couple of comments were left on the post Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad. I offer the following responses:
Bad suggests that “One can claim faith beliefs to justify good things, but the method can be equally employed for bad with equal measure: the method is simply capable of anything, assuring nothing.” I would argue that faith beliefs can be used to justify good or bad, but to truly discern whether the motivations are pure or not must be examined from a view of the whole. Christianity is a religion that takes Jesus as its central figure. Thus, living out a life in a way that would be pleasing to Jesus is extremely important. And, if we look at Jesus’ sayings, it is hard to establish that Jesus was about anything other than love. Thus, if one is able to use the Christian worldview to incite violence or hatred, then it would be obvious that the intention was misplaced. If you immerse yourself in the words of Christ himself, it is difficult to find any reason to fault this worldview.
The problem comes when certain texts are taken out of context or when they are adopted in a less than honest manner. I’ve tackled some of the heavy lifting on this topic already in a previous series entitled What Are We Fighting For? In this series, I provide an overview of the “Christian warrior movement” and how the Christian Scriptures have been hijacked to justify violence throughout history. It is disappointing to see how the Bible has been twisted to support events such as the crusades. Check out this series for an in-depth examination of this topic.
If we are to look at Jesus and sincerely ask what he expects of us, we find a clear outline of the sort of moral life that we should live. By contrast, what does science provide in terms of a moral bearing? I’d argue that science is silent on this front. Like I argue late in this series on Dawkins, science is great for providing us with some great tools for surival, science definitely lacks the tools to help us discern how best to use these tools.
So, as Ed asks in his counter to Bad in the comments section of Part 8, “Tell me, what clear side would scientism or evolutionism take on that subject? And on what grounds?”
Todd
Todd H Dow 
One reply on “Responses to Dawkins Comments – Part 2 of 4”
hmmm…interesting reading…it seems that often times certain groups tend to hope for any form of institution to fail…good moral views can be used to commit bad acts as they say…however this line of thinking has some flaws…Jesus presented us with a message…my personal favorite version is given to us by Mathew…and he says a few interesting things…one key tidbit of info is the statement that here is a book with all the information on how to live your life…to him who takes away words ill take away his place…and to him who adds words i will add the plaques…in addition we are instructed that narrow and difficult is the way to paradise and wide and easy is the way to fall from his grace…so whats the point? the point is im giving you an instruction manual, and with it you can overcome all of lifes problems and it will guide you to be the best person you can be, but it is not to be altered and you are to read it and read it and read it and apply it and try to fully understand it and life it…ie it is not to be MISAPPLIED to achieve ssome outcome that you do not truthfully in your heart feel is good…now knowing this we can read through MAthew and we are given quite an intelligent laying out of how to be the best human being we can be…hmmmm it seems Jesus was prepared for any doubting Thomas…we are not given a list of moral rules and regulations that according to modern day naysayers can be directed in the direction of wrong doing…in fact, we are given a blueprint of how to open our eyes to truth and right…take those candlesticks out from under the bushels i say and let them shine…
peter