Print
Man and God
by The Times
Be sure to check out the comments on the Times website.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3090488.ece
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?
It has been a good year for atheists. Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion has sold more than a million copies, and between April and June was Britain's fourth best-selling title, beaten only by two Harry Potter books and Gordon Ramsay. Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great also excoriates religion as poison, has been given free rein on television and in debating halls. The success of the filmThe Golden Compass has provoked anguish among Christians over what is perceived as the atheist message at the heart of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Authors such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have found that atheism sells on both sides of the Atlantic. Among both Christians and Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impassioned denunciation of the restrictions of Islam in Somalia have stirred sympathy as well as anger. And the new leader of the Liberal Democratic Party has admitted something unsayable only a decade or two ago: that he does not believe in God.
Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained debate about religious belief. It has been a curiously bad-tempered argument: the books that have spearheaded the militant new atheism have not sought to persuade, reach out or reason. Instead, in the name of reason, they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion. Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed". The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents the fundamentalists and the literalists, the holy warriors and the narrow-minded zealots and denounced them as the bringers of war and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment.
The argument has become highly political. Much of the animus driving the prophets of godlessness is a hatred of the American Christian Right and a fear of its power or a disgust with the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism. Many believers as well as agnostics share that disgust, swelling the atheist camp and magnifying its voice. But as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight. Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse.
How should believers respond to this on-slaught? For some, the immediate reaction has been embattled outrage. Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one. Science, they point out correctly, does not have a monopoly on progress, nor religion on backwardness. Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics? Defenders of the faith have also accused the atheists of the same fundamentalism that they impugn to their enemies: a dogmatic refusal to admit that "progress" has often been the achievement of profoundly religious people including the atheists' iconic Isaac Newton who have been pioneers in science, democratic idealism and human rights.
There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish.
Whether it is on the issue of Biblical authority, human sexuality, church democracy or evangelical absolutism, almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty. For some, the instinct has been to deny division, suppress debate and corral the faithful behind the stockade of religious orthodoxy. It is this very division and doubt, however, that ought to be a strength to underpin faith. For doubt admits the viability of other views, and that is the basis of wisdom and tolerance. Faith has to accommodate to the world around to the evils, the uncertainties, the depths of human misery. Totalitarianism can be as much a danger to faith as it can be to secular society.
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness. It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics. Above all, an ideology for atheism is an ideology that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific. Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds". Similarly, a claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe.
The spiritual dimension goes far beyond mere awe at the sublime, whether it be inspired by nature, beauty, music or human passion something any sentient atheist can, and will, admit to. Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential. Symbolically, it is renewed each Christmas, with reverence and humility. This is the fact we celebrate tomorrow.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3090488.ece
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?
It has been a good year for atheists. Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion has sold more than a million copies, and between April and June was Britain's fourth best-selling title, beaten only by two Harry Potter books and Gordon Ramsay. Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great also excoriates religion as poison, has been given free rein on television and in debating halls. The success of the filmThe Golden Compass has provoked anguish among Christians over what is perceived as the atheist message at the heart of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Authors such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have found that atheism sells on both sides of the Atlantic. Among both Christians and Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impassioned denunciation of the restrictions of Islam in Somalia have stirred sympathy as well as anger. And the new leader of the Liberal Democratic Party has admitted something unsayable only a decade or two ago: that he does not believe in God.
Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained debate about religious belief. It has been a curiously bad-tempered argument: the books that have spearheaded the militant new atheism have not sought to persuade, reach out or reason. Instead, in the name of reason, they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion. Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed". The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents the fundamentalists and the literalists, the holy warriors and the narrow-minded zealots and denounced them as the bringers of war and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment.
The argument has become highly political. Much of the animus driving the prophets of godlessness is a hatred of the American Christian Right and a fear of its power or a disgust with the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism. Many believers as well as agnostics share that disgust, swelling the atheist camp and magnifying its voice. But as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight. Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse.
How should believers respond to this on-slaught? For some, the immediate reaction has been embattled outrage. Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one. Science, they point out correctly, does not have a monopoly on progress, nor religion on backwardness. Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics? Defenders of the faith have also accused the atheists of the same fundamentalism that they impugn to their enemies: a dogmatic refusal to admit that "progress" has often been the achievement of profoundly religious people including the atheists' iconic Isaac Newton who have been pioneers in science, democratic idealism and human rights.
There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish.
Whether it is on the issue of Biblical authority, human sexuality, church democracy or evangelical absolutism, almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty. For some, the instinct has been to deny division, suppress debate and corral the faithful behind the stockade of religious orthodoxy. It is this very division and doubt, however, that ought to be a strength to underpin faith. For doubt admits the viability of other views, and that is the basis of wisdom and tolerance. Faith has to accommodate to the world around to the evils, the uncertainties, the depths of human misery. Totalitarianism can be as much a danger to faith as it can be to secular society.
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness. It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics. Above all, an ideology for atheism is an ideology that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific. Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds". Similarly, a claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe.
The spiritual dimension goes far beyond mere awe at the sublime, whether it be inspired by nature, beauty, music or human passion something any sentient atheist can, and will, admit to. Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential. Symbolically, it is renewed each Christmas, with reverence and humility. This is the fact we celebrate tomorrow.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 145 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #103339 by clunkclickeverytrip on December 25, 2007 at 8:10 am
It's time for humanity to be more honest with itself. We are not made or monitored by a supernatural being.This is a simple truth that should be taught to all children in all schools, and eventually in all homes, throughout the world. They can handle the truth.
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
3. Comment #103342 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 8:22 am
Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds".
Yes, they love to portray us atheists as people who don't know what it's like to feel faith - it's so inconvenient for their case that a large number of us are former Christians ourselves.
I'd love to get a feel for how large that number is though. When people register on this site, they're asked if they've read TGD. Maybe they should be asked if they are or ever have been a religious believer too. It would be interesting to know. My gut feel, just from reading the comments here and elsewhere is that probably around 40% of us have. If I'm right, that would be a large minority to write off as "knowing not whereof they speak", wouldn't it?
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
4. Comment #103343 by BMMcArdle on December 25, 2007 at 8:24 am
Each Christmas, Rationality is strengthened by telling children to believe in Santa Claus.When they mature and find out that it is just a story to make them behave a little each year, they can hopefully see the parallels with religion.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
5. Comment #103344 by Dower on December 25, 2007 at 8:30 am
It would be interesting to know. My gut feel, just from reading the comments here and elsewhere is that probably around 40% of us have. If I'm right, that would be a large minority to write off as "knowing not whereof they speak", wouldn't it?
Paula, I am a 62-year-old former lay preacher in a nondenominational Bible-believing church in the heart of America. My Bible studies are what lead me to reject the supernatural and become an atheist. I certainly do "know whereof I speak" as I have been involved in scholarly studies on both sides of the fence.
Other Comments by Dower
6. Comment #103346 by david120wgc on December 25, 2007 at 8:33 am
Hitler was religious and Stalin wanted to replace otherworldly god with this worldly state.The Times misses the point entirely, atheists are objective and evidence seeking whilst the context of spirituality for us meaning a sense of life is a mystical non evidence non objective arbitary assertion by them.
Finally the universe is knowable!
Other Comments by david120wgc
7. Comment #103347 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 8:34 am
My Bible studies are what lead me to reject the supernatural and become an atheist.Music to my ears, Dower. Good for you.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
8. Comment #103348 by kaiserkriss on December 25, 2007 at 8:37 am
For your Stats Paula: I was never a true believer since as far back as I can remember, even though I DID attend a Jesuit school for 4 years. The Priests did their best to get me around, but with each argument they last me further.jcwPS Congratulations Northern Bright for using your full name on this site. In today's bigoted world that takes true courage.
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
9. Comment #103349 by photopedia on December 25, 2007 at 8:40 am
I'm not even going to bother getting into the business of responding to the details in this piece. The very fact that the Times carried this as their main editorial on Christmas Eve speaks volumes for the influence that Dawkins et al have had over the past year.Talk about raising consciousness!
Congratulations to all sceptics, both sung and unsung.
Other Comments by photopedia
10. Comment #103350 by Verylee on December 25, 2007 at 8:53 am
"Burp"!....regurgitate..Pardon me. Other Comments by Verylee
11. Comment #103351 by Diacanu on December 25, 2007 at 8:54 am
*Skims*Blah, blah, spiritual dimension, sublime experience, blah, blah.
These people are a fucking nightmare.
Fuck 'em, I got new DVDs, and a pork roast in the oven.
Stupidity can't pee on my day.
Other Comments by Diacanu
12. Comment #103352 by zenmite on December 25, 2007 at 8:54 am
"Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics?"The key words to me here are believed to be a scientific ideology and flawed understanding of genetics.
This is precisely why such doctrines as creationism, belief in resurrection and miracles are also just as delusional as Hitler's or Stalin's. They are myths "believed" to be scientific ideology and are based upon a "flawed" understanding of cosmology, physics, biology and geology. I don't really have a problem with those who continue to call themselves believers but understand all those sorts of things as myth or metaphor. That direction heads toward the Einsteinian god that RD makes plain he has no issue with.
"It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics."
In the 4 Horsemen video I think all four authors made it very clear that none of them deny the spiritual dimension or it's persistence. The writer here seems to insist upon a very narrow definition of the word spiritual as pertaining only to the supernatural or magical realm. By that criteria, belief in animistic spirits, kami or fairies would be spiritual.
"Above all, an ideology for atheism is an ideology..."
Is atheism an ideology? Is non-belief in astrology an ideology? Is lack of belief in homeopathy an ideology? This is the same old game of calling lack of belief just another belief. If you don't think too much about it, it sounds good and seems to make sense. Those militant athiests vs those militant religionists, all the same. Seems to make you evenhanded and fair.
I've studied world religions for over 30 years and consider my grasp of the subject a little better than "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The Book of British Birds". Yet I find no problems with the views set forth in Prof. Dawkins or Sam Harris's books. Apparently the only people qualified to comment upon religion are those who've drank the kook-aid themselves. Only those who actually embrace phrenology should be qualified to criticize or comment on it. Only believers in fairies are qualified to understand whether they are real.
Other Comments by zenmite
13. Comment #103353 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 9:00 am
PS Congratulations Northern Bright for using your full name on this site. In today's bigoted world that takes true courage.Thanks, KaiserKriss, but I don't think I can really lay claim to courage. I can't really think of any potentially terrible consequences of having "come out" openly - besides, I was always using my own photo, so it wouldn't have taken long for someone who'd known me to put two and two together if they'd happened upon this site.
I'm sure there are people out there whose circumstances make dropping anonymity difficult or even unwise - but I can't claim to be one of them. For me it was more a question of preferring openness to unnecessary furtiveness - so the alias just had to go :-)
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
14. Comment #103354 by notsobad on December 25, 2007 at 9:03 am
spiritual dimension goes far beyond mere awe at the sublime"
This is just more of the sweet metaphysical bullshit. If anything, religion turns people into shallow simpletons.
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1761/036ax7.png
Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish.
...
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness.
The author and many others use the term 'militant atheist' but I have yet to see a single example of this militancy.
Also, calling atheism ideology or a 'prescription for human happiness' is either lying or severe lack of knowledge.
And how is it totalitarian?
Other Comments by notsobad
15. Comment #103355 by Diacanu on December 25, 2007 at 9:04 am
Yeah, but Paula Kirby is one of those relatively generic names.I've googled, there's only like, 5 of me on Earth.
Terminator would find me pretty quick.
Other Comments by Diacanu
16. Comment #103356 by Corylus on December 25, 2007 at 9:07 am
I'm sorry. I am way too drunk on Xmas booze to respond to this article coherently. Unlike some journalists I never write at length when I feel my judgement is impaired or my emotions stirred.
However, I would point out that:-
a) Some of the misrepresentations in this article border on libel.
b) I cannot see who the author of this article is - accordingly I will direct analysis to the individual who is behind both The Times and Fox News.
c) I would be amazed (and saddened) if at least some Christians are not shocked and appalled at the venom and bile directed towards a significant proportion of the population at what they themselves deem to be the season of 'goodwill'.
Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one.Nothing like a bit of bellicose imagery to go with the slaughtered fowl.
Dreadful.
P.S. However, I am glad to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali get some wider publicity. Maybe a few more people will read her books because of this.
Other Comments by Corylus
17. Comment #103357 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 9:09 am
Yeah, but Paula Kirby is one of those relatively generic names.Well, yes, but to be fair, there's only one of me where I work ;-)))
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
18. Comment #103359 by Georich on December 25, 2007 at 9:15 am
Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness.
Ahh, that will be the doubt and unknowingness that is so commonly shown by the faithful. When will science and rational thinking ever admit to the same...
Ooops yeah.
Other Comments by Georich
19. Comment #103360 by Corylus on December 25, 2007 at 9:19 am
DiacanuI've googled, there's only like, 5 of me on Earth.
Terminator would find me pretty quick.
Heh. There's only four of me and two of those are very obviously dead.
Come with me if you wanna live :P
Other Comments by Corylus
20. Comment #103361 by Steve Zara on December 25, 2007 at 9:28 am
I am way too drunk on Xmas booze to respond to this article coherently.
I am also somewhat full of Christmas "cheer"; however...
I think Richard Dawkins should feel extremely proud of what he has achieved. I have never seen the religious in such a defensive mood. And, it is astonishing how even the most moderate criticism becomes labelled as "bad-tempered" and "militant". It is astonishing how simply asking "please could you actually provide some evidence for what you say" turns out to be such an effective attack on religion.
The article misses the point of Dawkins' "attacks" completely. The driving force is not a hatred of the American right (although this can help for some people), or some desire to define how people can be happy (even though many are happy because religion backs up their views that women and gays are inferior).
It is simple. It is that religion is simply not true.
And truth matters. In a world where individuals need to understand what is going on around them, in areas such as biology, sexuality, disease, and climate change, religion is a serious problem, as it has its own agendas.
Incidentally.. I am fortunate to be born with an uncommon surname. There is only one of me.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
21. Comment #103363 by mikecbraun on December 25, 2007 at 9:36 am
"This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness. It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics... Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The Book of British Birds"."Strange, I never caught a whiff of a prescription for happiness in any of these extraordinarily militant (sarcasm) books that we all enjoy. Spiritual leanings are rather unscientific, in that they cannot be quantified or observed in the same way that genes can be. They also are rather unevolved, as modern-day theists seem to be no more enlightened than their Iron Age counterparts (those who seem to be are actually held in check by our secular societies and their own cowardice that keeps them from putting their money where their mouths are). Since when did persistence of a belief really count for anything anyway? There are morons who still believe that people of a different skin color are subhuman. Do we feel this is legitimate, my dear author? Is it true because it has persisted for so long? I would hope not. And as to the last point, I guess the author forces himself or herself to have no opinion on anything they are not an expert in. I trust they have read every religious text that ever was and have experienced every sort of religious experience there is... no? How's that for the pot and the kettle, then?
Other Comments by mikecbraun
22. Comment #103364 by smithyboy on December 25, 2007 at 9:46 am
I only ever used a screen name because when I first signed up it seemed to be done the thing. But it is nice to know real names, so I'll use mine from now on: Mark Smith. (Not that it gives much away, being so common!)Other Comments by smithyboy
23. Comment #103366 by Arcturus on December 25, 2007 at 9:50 am
"Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness."Ok, but are you willing to act on your doubt? Faith's doubt is a fake one. People doubt, they get scared of the unknown and of the chaos, and then rush back under the wing of God.
I hear many saying that doubt has straightened their faith. But I think that's because they are scared.
Instead what they should do, is embrace the unknown. I prefer to live with the unknown rather than with an illusion of the known.
Other Comments by Arcturus
24. Comment #103367 by Steve Zara on December 25, 2007 at 9:55 am
so I'll use mine from now on: Mark Smith.
A warm welcome to you, Mark!
I really don't feel that anyone should think they have to give their true names. This is not about "outing", and for some, being atheist, or even simply posting on a forum like this, could be a problem.
Incidentally, it is nice to see this silly article being ripped to shreds in the associated comments.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
25. Comment #103369 by agn on December 25, 2007 at 10:00 am
Let us just look at one of the rhetorical devices applied here:"Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impassioned denunciation of the restrictions of Islam in Somalia have stirred sympathy as well as anger"
First off, Ayaan's considered criticism of Islam as such is belittled as being "impassioned", and only, presumably, valid for Somalian affairs.
Thereby, by a conjuror's grip, without any argument of substance at all, the writer has pushed her to the sideline as an emotional woman who may deserve our sympathy, even perniciously inflame our "anger", but not essentially bringing an "objective" view of her birth religion into the public sphere.
The writer could just as well said she has unjustly slandered Islam, since that is what he onviously thinks she have done, and what the other "militant" atheists have done.
Other Comments by agn
26. Comment #103371 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:03 am
A warm welcome to you, Mark!
Seconded!
And I agree with Steve's other comment too - there shouldn't be any pressure, and for some people there will be good reasons why using an alias is the right thing to do.
Still, it would be nice if people who don't have any reason to fear the consequences "came out" too. I'm sure there are lots more out there who only signed up with an alias in the first place because it seemed to be the normal thing to do here - I was certainly one of those.
But absolutely no problem if people don't want to.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
27. Comment #103372 by Verylee on December 25, 2007 at 10:08 am
Thank you for pointing that out Steve...even though it would not be a problem for me to "reveal" myself. I have only just joined up and there is a certain comfort in anonyminity. As in "What! Who? Me?...I never said that"!! amongst others! Other Comments by Verylee
28. Comment #103373 by smithyboy on December 25, 2007 at 10:11 am
Help though. I can't find how to change my user name. I've gone to edit account details and it doesn't seem to be an option.Other Comments by smithyboy
29. Comment #103374 by Steve Zara on December 25, 2007 at 10:12 am
Help though. I can't find how to change my user name. I've gone to edit account details and it doesn't seem to be an option.
I just created a new account, and I believe Paula did the same thing.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
30. Comment #103376 by Red Foot Okie on December 25, 2007 at 10:17 am
These kinds of articles smack of desperation, to me.I mean, there are so much better arguments that the author could have brought to bear, but instead they went for the low-hanging (and easily debunked) fruit. However, those better arguments are still not right, and are more technical and complicated, so I suspect the author knew he's lose his target audience.
In the end, it's a fluff piece, designed to keep butts in seats and the deeply entrenched religious deeply entrenched.
Other Comments by Red Foot Okie
31. Comment #103377 by robotaholic on December 25, 2007 at 10:18 am
there have been many monsters -big deal -that doesn't make it true that there are invisible people with superpowers like angels demons and faeries Other Comments by robotaholic
32. Comment #103378 by garhung on December 25, 2007 at 10:26 am
This is a leading article by The Times? The Times? The arguments in it are full of logical fallacies (as many posts here have pointed out) and the blatant mispresentation of Prof. Dawkins is so appalling. (Or, if the writer hasn't read the book by Prof. Dawkins, so unprofessional.)I am a Chinese from Hong Kong. I thought we had bad media only in Asia but obviously I was wrong. When has the British media started to sink that low?
Other Comments by garhung
33. Comment #103379 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:29 am
Thank you for pointing that out Steve...even though it would not be a problem for me to "reveal" myself. I have only just joined up and there is a certain comfort in anonyminity. As in "What! Who? Me?...I never said that"!! amongst others!And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, Verylee. You're quite right - it can be a bit daunting posting in a public forum at first. If anonymity helps whilst you get used to it and gradually feel more confident about doing it, that's absolutely fine.
And I really like your alias too. I always want your posts to start with the words, "...I say unto thee ..."
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
34. Comment #103380 by bluebird on December 25, 2007 at 10:34 am
Paula, trying to chase you down *pant pant* to say thanks for the great photos. In one week a certain famous Scot will help usher in 2008...We got to view this last night thanks to clear skies: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071223.html
*********
Strange little article; anyway.......
As David Silverman said recently, "the change of season is the reason"... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071222.html
Other Comments by bluebird
35. Comment #103383 by JanChan on December 25, 2007 at 10:52 am
Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed"
I don't remember Dawkins using the word "cockeyed" in The God Delusion. Ignoring the possible misquote, this sentence has got to be the worst quote mine ever. The author obviously can't differentiate the god of the old testament from the believers he supposedly created.
You'll also wonder when journalists will learn that neither Stalin nor Hitler was scientific.
Other Comments by JanChan
36. Comment #103384 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:53 am
Paula, trying to chase you down *pant pant*
You've found me! Glad you liked the pics. You're right - the moon was startlingly bright last night. I took a few photos of that too, with the skyline in silhouette beneath - but nowhere near as good as the one from NASA. Hope you've got your breath back now ...
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
37. Comment #103386 by walk on December 25, 2007 at 11:36 am
I think it's kind of cool that us posters here today are celebrating Christmas by blogging the truth!Steve (29), I was wondering about the method of name change also. Most sites give a prompt about "you've already registered an account under that email address". Once again kudos to Josh, Richard and RD.net for being the greatest site on the web!
Some of you know that my real name is Steve Walker. I'm keeping my screen name, however, just 'cause I like being called "Walk". It's a nickname my bandmates gave me some years ago.
Cheers to all!
Other Comments by walk
38. Comment #103387 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 11:40 am
Most sites give a prompt about "you've already registered an account under that email address".Well, this one did too, actually! Luckily I had a second email address I could give.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
39. Comment #103389 by hopeful on December 25, 2007 at 11:52 am
Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed".Assuming the writer is referring to TGD, I wonder if this is supposed to be quote of a single section of text, or is this a list of words picked out from different parts of the book (undoubtely out of context)?
I did a quick leaf through my copy and I couldn't find it.
Other Comments by hopeful
40. Comment #103390 by rod-the-farmer on December 25, 2007 at 11:54 am
Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics?
I suppose we should be grateful the author did not trot out the time-worn claim that Hitler was an atheist. And this is the first I have heard about a flawed understanding of genetics, by Stalin. Anyone else heard of this ? I must have missed that chapter. But more of the same old stuff, thankfully along with some slightly supportive comments. It would have been interesting if the author had done the research to see if any of those "flea" books had anywhere near the commercial success of our Four Horsemen. Maybe someone else can provide the details ?
Much of the animus driving the prophets of godlessness is a hatred of the American Christian Right and a fear of its power or a disgust with the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism.
I think an additional point could be made here that some (many) of us are disgusted also with the American Christian Right. I watched the TV program again the other day, where an American atheist lived with a xian family for 30 days. I found the husband (who could not for the life of him understand how she could raise children without God) just plain creepy. If it had been me, I would have installed a lock on the bedroom door. The atheist mom was far too polite, especially when in the bible study session.
Defenders of the faith have also accused the atheists of the same fundamentalism that they impugn to their enemies: a dogmatic refusal to admit that "progress" has often been the achievement of profoundly religious people including the atheists' iconic Isaac Newton who have been pioneers in science, democratic idealism and human rights.
I don't think I ever heard atheists say that religious people cannot and have not advanced human knowledge. Where we object is that SOME of the religious nutters seek to PREVENT new knowledge, saying "We already know the answer to that question from a 2000 year old fairy tale (sorry, holy book). No point in pursuing that line of inquiry any further."
And the concept of "atheist ideology".....hah. I agree with those who compare this to non-belief in astrology. etc. My hobby is car racing. Maybe I will "come out" more visibly and put a sign on it "Racing For Atheists". I am thinking of starting an Atheists Association. Membership is one small coin of little value. What do you get for that ? Nothing.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
41. Comment #103391 by rod-the-farmer on December 25, 2007 at 11:56 am
Oh...I forgot....Happy Newtons Birthday to all.... Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
42. Comment #103392 by walk on December 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Paula (38),Oops! That makes sense. I was wondering about that. Well, RD.net is still the best!
Other Comments by walk
43. Comment #103393 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Well, RD.net is still the best!Couldn't agree more :-))
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
44. Comment #103396 by The Truth, the light on December 25, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I can't let the following statement pass without comment:"The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents the fundamentalists and the literalists, the holy warriors and the narrow-minded zealots and denounced them as the bringers of war and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment."
Dawkins and Harris do no such thing. Both authors talk about religious moderates and their role in giving a platform (albeit unintentional) to religious extremists.
On a positive note, the fact that The Times is writing an editorial about the "threat" of atheism is a great achievement. I'm not a Times reader, but I suspect in past years the Christmas editorial would have been a lot more traditional (ie: uncritical Christian message).
Perhaps some UK locals can confirm or otherwise.
Other Comments by The Truth, the light
45. Comment #103397 by Shane McKee on December 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Paula, I'm another former evangelical Christian. I agree with you in that I think there are a lot of us who actually know our former religion (and its experiences of "spirituality") very well indeed. From that perspective, I can tell you that RD's criticisms of Christianity in particular are spot on target. The excuses we get in return are simply rubbish defence mechanisms, not arguments per se. But it is drivel like this that religion is built upon, and is the core of that load of cobblers that gets called Christian Apologetics. Other Comments by Shane McKee
46. Comment #103401 by Double Bass Atheist on December 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm
From the article:How should believers respond to this on-slaught?
How about producing some evidence?!?!
Oh, and whether religion has ever inspired anyone to do anything positive (art, music, etc.) has absolutely no baring on any god's supposed existence.
Comment by walk
I think it's kind of cool that us posters here today are celebrating Christmas by blogging the truth!
I completely agree with you! This website is a "Zeus-send" I can't think of a better way to spend this day!
Paula Kirby I, too, asked you a few days ago on "The Christian God is not to blame" thread about your alias name change from Northern Bright. Thank you for your answer. For what it's worth, I agree "standing up and be counted" and the like. However, in my case, I work for a devoutly Christian company here in the US. My atheism would cost me my job. That simple reality pisses me off to no end, but what am I to do if want to keep the job I've held for the past 14 years?
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
47. Comment #103402 by FightingFalcon on December 25, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Paula - I'm a former Traditional Roman Catholic (e.g. those who reject Vatican II) who studied intensely the Christian faith and Roman Catholicism specifically for many years. I too am an Atheist who feels confident that I know the Christian faith - indeed, I would argue that I know better than many Christians....Atheists are Atheists for a reason. While I know many Theists who respond with "I'm not really sure" when I ask them why they believe, very few (if any) Atheists are unsure why they don't believe. We came to the same conclusion after years of introspection, research, a search for knowledge, etc. No one becomes an Atheist by accident.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
48. Comment #103403 by The Truth, the light on December 25, 2007 at 1:10 pm
No one becomes an Atheist by accident.
Well, yes and no. We're all born atheists. A common path is:
1. Born atheist.
2. Indoctrinated as children.
3. Question beliefs.
4. Come to the conclusion it's all a load of bollocks and return to being an atheist.
Other Comments by The Truth, the light
49. Comment #103404 by roach on December 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Terrible article.Other Comments by roach
50. Comment #103406 by home8896 on December 25, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I teeter back and forth about using my name. There is only one of me, though buried beneath a blogging program and other fictional online characters and pseudonyms - unless you combine it with my last name, which draws up one page of info through an obituary and a site I registered at several years ago. Yet, I was fired for having a webpage online in 2000 where I poked fun at my job and the customers there (a hidden and small free webpage that I used as a blog before the word "blog" was in major circulation), and so my paranoia is through the roof. I live near the creation museum and though not everyone buys into the crap in that place, they are all very hardcore believers here. I've got myself trapped because my life circumstances didn't offer me a decent path since childhood. I'm starting over at the very bottom, and dare not chance it. And I am angry that my nonbelief should even be an issue at all. I take refuge here, but I will do so semi-anonymously. I've left clues in places for people who know me, but you won't find me here just by googling my name.(how'd I end up on top of both pages here?)
Other Comments by home8896
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye."
Richard Dawkins
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
Richard Dawkins
"...the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes."
Richard Dawkins
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Kluge
Gary Marcus
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #103338 by home8896 on December 25, 2007 at 8:07 am
Also, let this article be a lesson about "highlighting" "words" "individually" in "quotes." It's annoying and unprofessional.
Other Comments by home8896