1. Comment #252723 by NewEnglandBob on September 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm

What will his advice be?

Roll over and play dead, probably.

He has no facts to use.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

2. Comment #252725 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 2:41 pm

When I read "equip" I thought it'd be with holy water, crosses, crossbows, and other stuff like that.

Other Comments by Sciros

3. Comment #252727 by Linda on September 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Richard you must attend the event unless of course they ban you as being the subject/enemy of their machinations.

This is certainly flattering to the God Delusion and really quite funny.

Other Comments by Linda

4. Comment #252742 by happinessiseasy on September 23, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Thus guaranteeing that anyone who hasn't heard of him or his book by now does.

A whole seminar just for you? Go Dr. Dawkins!

Other Comments by happinessiseasy

5. Comment #252745 by Elwood Herring on September 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi.


Seems Richard is now at stage 3.

Other Comments by Elwood Herring

6. Comment #252747 by Border Collie on September 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

My, oh, my ... an antidote to Richard ... he'll evolve ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

7. Comment #252748 by PaulJ on September 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

This is a seminar for clergy. That the Anglicans believe they need this speaks volumes for the influence and effectiveness of The God Delusion.

But John Cornwell, Keith Ward and David Wilkinson (on the spirituality of Star Wars?)?

One consequence of the current science and religion debate is that it makes theology appear reactive and defensive.

"Vacuous" would be a better word.

How can we bring science alive as a part of Christian liturgy, and the Gospel alive in the light of scientific understanding?

I doubt that you can. There are fundamental incompatibilities here, whatever Keith Ward may say about "developing a scientifically literate approach to theology."

Other Comments by PaulJ

8. Comment #252750 by ukvillafan on September 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

This is a day for clergy of the London Diocese only, so Richard is probably barred, unless he really leads a secret double life.

However, there are several evenings in October when many renowned individuals will be discussing issues relating to religion and science. I suggest anyone close enough, or someone on "our" side of equal renown should gatecrash (these are open events it seems) to join in/listen/report back etc. Follow this links to the St Paul's site

http://www.stpauls.co.uk/page.aspx?theLang=001lngdef&pointerID=23328rb7hwq0Rbrk9T1FaYAPiXLZQplW

there is a link there to a complete programme of events.

Edit: for spelling!

Other Comments by ukvillafan

9. Comment #252760 by mrjonno on September 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Does the C of E still actually believe in god, looking at the interview Dawkins gave their leader I'm not really convinced?

Other Comments by mrjonno

10. Comment #252761 by mjwemdee on September 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Well, well, well. This is extraordinary indeed.
I couldn't help thinking though:

to help clergy counter the influence of the scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins.

in an earlier century, Richard would be dealt with in more summary ways, e.g. the stake or the block. I suppose, in this respect at least, the Church has become more enlightened...

Other Comments by mjwemdee

11. Comment #252765 by tahustvedt on September 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm

I'm not surprised.

I know of a devout christian who goes to meetings in his church groups where they discuss how to best respond to "atheist claims" here in Norway.

Other Comments by tahustvedt

12. Comment #252772 by Tzsak on September 23, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Hm, expecting some inane philosophy of mind to be introduced at some point as 'evidence' of the existence of a spiritual plane. ><

Other Comments by Tzsak

13. Comment #252774 by ridelo on September 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm

No need to gatecrash.

Events are open to people of all faiths and none.

Other Comments by ridelo

14. Comment #252783 by Kiwi on September 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I know RD has a policy of not directly debating theists, but he has made some exceptions in engaging with Rowan Williams and on some TV shows. I just had a fantasy of him going along and confronting all these influential church leaders, and by the end of the intellectual debate, leaving the intellectually honest ones anyway, wondering why they have believed this supernatural nonsense. They then elect RD the new Archbishop and he uses the church infrastructure to promote rational thinking throughout Britain ! Then I woke up... :(

Other Comments by Kiwi

15. Comment #252785 by WilliamP on September 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Well, I wish you luck Anglican Church. Just don't forget to address the question of how the existence of a complex universe is explained by the pre-existence of a complex god. If you don't answer that question, then you are wasting your time.

Other Comments by WilliamP

16. Comment #252788 by LeeLeeOne on September 23, 2008 at 3:33 pm

The participants in this meeting would be better served (and so would everyone else) if it were Physics 101, Math 101, Earth Science 101, Economics 101, etc.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

17. Comment #252827 by Damien Trotter on September 23, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Excellent news indeed. It's an out and out confession they are running scared of rational thought.

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

18. Comment #252831 by Phasic on September 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm

This must be tremendously flattering for Prof. Dawkins.

And I'll be interested to see if they come up with any new arguments for

a) The existence of a Creator God Entity, and

b) Why that Entity is the one described in the Bible (and not, for example, the Hindu texts).

Because really, I think they have to do both.

Other Comments by Phasic

19. Comment #252833 by dvespertilio on September 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

YOU ROCK, RICHARD!

Other Comments by dvespertilio

20. Comment #252839 by Gamma ut on September 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm

he.. heehe..... hahahHAHAHAHAHAH, MUUUWWWAAAHHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHH
HAHHHAHHAAA! ehhh.... HAHAHHHAHAHA
HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA!

You rock Prof. Dawkins!

Other Comments by Gamma ut

21. Comment #252841 by jaytee_555 on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm

"Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins".

Well, that's fair enough. After all, Dawkins has equipped many of us to deal with clerics!

Even after the clerics have had their crash course, we'll still win all the arguments, because our reasoning is based on facts, not faith.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

22. Comment #252843 by rod-the-farmer on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Perhaps our good Professor could offer to submit to the CoE, in advance of their seminar, several points that would invalidate his (Dawkins) claims. They could of course reject his suggestions, but at least that would give them a starting point. As pointed out by others, TGD would help them get a feel for his worldview.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

23. Comment #252845 by Vaal on September 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm

That is interesting. Nice to see the congregation are asking questions after obviously reading TGD and the clergy not being able to address any of its arguments with any confidence.

However, if John Cornwall's counter arguments are as insipid as any of the flea books that have been reviewed here then I wouldn't exactly be licking my lips if I was one of the poor beleaguered vicars.

In fact, upon investigation, Paula has already done a devastating critique on Cornwall's diatribe, describing it as the weakest, and the most asinine of all the flea books she has reviewed.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby#cornwell

I am particularly fond of this quote by Paula..

Suffice it to say that I was genuinely shocked when I read this book: not just at the complete lack of an argument, but at the incredibly spiteful, twisted, distorted nature of the accusations being made

Thanks once again Paula, for reviewing these epistles of nonsense, as I think I would rather stick my head down a toilet for a week.

Other Comments by Vaal

24. Comment #252846 by EvidenceOnly on September 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

The people who know that the emperor wears no clothes need to diligently coordinate their lies about how the fictitious cloths look great on the emperor.

They know that if a large group of people repeats the same lies over and over again, that a large part of the population will start believing that they must be true: "these wise men could not be all wrong at the same time, isn't it".

Guess what: this starts to smell like the Republican talking points.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

25. Comment #252853 by King of NH on September 23, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Ditto, Gamma ut (comment #20)

Seriously, what else is there to say? I guess the fight is on.

Sunday, Sunday, Sunday. Dawkins -vs- Jesus. The battle of iconoclasts!

And apparently, the Anglicans think Dawkins has a good chance, or they wouldn't need the summit to help a GOD beat Dawkins.

I wonder how the good professor feels now that he's entering the hallowed realm of Galileo as a blasphemer to be wary of.

Other Comments by King of NH

26. Comment #252854 by Diacanu on September 23, 2008 at 5:12 pm

King of NH-

And apparently, the Anglicans think Dawkins has a good chance, or they wouldn't need the summit to help a GOD beat Dawkins.

Said it before, but it bears repeating, I love how these people think an omnipotent creator of the universe essentially needs an entourage of bodygaurds.

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #252856 by IanRaugh on September 23, 2008 at 5:34 pm

They certainly do seem desperate. Likely their instruction will just be more of the same arguments that Professor Dawkins has countered many times before.

Sometimes I wish they would come up with new material.

Other Comments by IanRaugh

28. Comment #252863 by quantum_flux on September 23, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Oh great, I smell a witch hunt brewing.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

29. Comment #252866 by Diacanu on September 23, 2008 at 6:04 pm

quantum_flux-

Oh great, I smell a witch hunt brewing.

Or, a witch brew hunting!

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #252879 by phasmagigas on September 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm

its almost comical especially as according to several fleas, dawkins position is a typical unsophisticated godless diatribe, these guys must have not actually noticed just how weak RD's arguments were!!

they seem desperate to hang on to their skirts and easy life.

i suppose they are trying to figure out the best stock answers so that 101 theists dont give 101 variously contradicting and varied answers to any one question from their flock.

religion: just make it up as you go along and you'll still be right.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

31. Comment #252885 by Dispiracist on September 23, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Kiwi

Religions do anything to survive when fatally threatened.

If atheism ever becomes fashionable, churches become deserted, and Sharia law looms stronger, it's reasonable to expect that Richard Dawkins could be installed as Archbishop of Canterbury, should it be politically convenient. It's got nothing to do with theology or belief. It happened to Edmund Blackadder.

This might be where Christianity sprang from in the first place. The Roman government officially switched away from Zeus the father of gods (Theus pater aka Jupiter, whether pronounced with a 'th', 'z', or 'd' - it's all linguistically identical) to Deus etc. And only recognising one son; plus various saints, angels and demons to replace the various demi-gods and lesser gods. The reason could be that changing the names around seemed to be popular thing to do at the time and created the illusion of progress. (The same guys stayed in charge behind the scenes though.)

Other Comments by Dispiracist

32. Comment #252887 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Theus pater aka Jupiter

Iove (gen. Iovis) is Jupiter's name. Think 'By Jove'. It may be a corruption of Deus/Theus, but I think Theus seems like a latinization of Theos which is cognate with Deus.


The -piter is a corruption of father (pater)
So, Iove-pater became Iupiter (Jupiter).

Father Jove. ;)

Anyway.

Other Comments by Brian English

33. Comment #252890 by Goldy on September 23, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Deus, Zeus, Tiwaz, Tiw, Theos, etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyeus)

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #252894 by hien on September 23, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Please, it would be great if this site would follow this and reveal how will they try to counter Dawkins.
This is very interesting.

Other Comments by hien

35. Comment #252906 by Quine on September 23, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Comment #252894 by hien:

Please, it would be great if this site would follow this and reveal how will they try to counter Dawkins.

We should send Paula. However, even if we decided to pay her, I don't see how we could collect enough to get her to agree do it.

Other Comments by Quine

36. Comment #252907 by Diacanu on September 23, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Send me! Send me!

...no, I'd have a tourettes fit 5 minutes in, and start throwing punches 2 minutes after that....

Other Comments by Diacanu

37. Comment #252913 by Mbee on September 23, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Are they open to questions and suggestions for their study day? (This could be fun), or are they going to just keep rehashing the same old stuff.

I would like to ask what evidence they have found in the last 1000 years or so to support their beliefs compared to what science has discovered in the same period. Any religion worth contemplating must be compatible with scientific fact. Perhaps they should ask Richard to rewrite the Bible and correct any errors.

Edit: Roy_H - Note the last line was humor ;<)

Other Comments by Mbee

38. Comment #252926 by Roy_H on September 23, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Comment #252913 by Mbee
"and correct any errors. "
Are you familiar with this site?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

it tears it (plus the koran and book of mormon ) to pieces!

Other Comments by Roy_H

39. Comment #252927 by Laurie Fraser on September 23, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Send Diacanu! Send Diacanu!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

40. Comment #252932 by beanson on September 23, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I think this could be rather productive in the sense that most clergy have, I expect, not actually read any of the "New Atheist" (TM) books or seriously engaged with any of the cogent arguments against their irrational stance. I am inclined to imagine that most would prefer to bury their heads in the sand believing that others have the logical arsenal to demolish the atheist position.

This may act as something of a wake up call to those clergy who are honest enough and not completely hobbled by catechism when they percieve the completly insubstantial, asinine nature of
christian apology

Other Comments by beanson

41. Comment #252935 by Rawhard Dickins on September 23, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Perhaps they'll realise that their utterly ungrounded doctrine is hopelessly flawed.



...and perhaps stop indoctrinating children with it?

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

42. Comment #252936 by SteveN on September 23, 2008 at 11:36 pm

This is great for another reason besides the free publicity and tacit admission of the serious problem posed by Richard to the CofE. Having a 'flea' present arguments against the God Delusion to a bunch of clergy will have one of two effects. The intelligent ones (or maybe I should say, those capable of rational thought) will realise that the best on offer from their side is just hot air and no substance. The others will think they are now armed with good arguments and will joyfully take on the skeptics, only to be shot down in humiliating flames. It's a win-win situation!

Oops, just noticed that Beanson has said something similar in post #40.

Other Comments by SteveN

43. Comment #252938 by Raiko on September 23, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Banned in Turkey, feared by the bishop of London! PZ Myers must really work harder to catch up with that. (kidding)

It sounds to me like they're not exactly trying to equip anyone against anything other than reality. I am waiting for "How to keep your delusions - a holy 7-step guide by the bishop of London."

Really, it's not in atheism or Richard Dawkins where their problem lies.

Other Comments by Raiko

44. Comment #252939 by DamnDirtyApe on September 23, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Will only make us stronger.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

45. Comment #252940 by Quine on September 24, 2008 at 12:05 am

Okay, we should send Hitchens; he would munch them all right up. Look here for his latest adventure in just this very activity.

Other Comments by Quine

46. Comment #252942 by dblbassbill on September 24, 2008 at 12:12 am

Their could not be a better form of flattery Congrats prof. dawkins your arguments are so powerful that the clergy do not to discuss what is the best way to teach their ideas. but what is the best way to deny yours. Your arguments are so poignant that despite the fact that these clergymen have already been trained in the knowledge of the christian viewpoint, that their knowledge is not sufficient to deal with the truth. your arguments require special training to equip clergymen with the power to withstand an assault on their ideas. Thank you for the good work.

Other Comments by dblbassbill

47. Comment #252943 by Pertwee's Bouffant on September 24, 2008 at 12:17 am

This is great news. Sounds to me like a form of military training: how to deal with landmines, etc. Perhaps a whole term in the seminary will have to be devoted to exorcising "Dawkinsism" from the flock for future regiments of priests.

Just another reason why I love RD.

PS Thanks for the link, Quine. Always a pleasure to read about Hitchens in action.

Other Comments by Pertwee's Bouffant

48. Comment #252946 by a non e-moose on September 24, 2008 at 12:24 am

win!

Other Comments by a non e-moose

49. Comment #252947 by scottishgeologist on September 24, 2008 at 12:25 am

Funny that they need a seminar to "equip" them to deal with RD.

I thought they already HAD the ultimate in tools to deal with atheistic criticism - ie the Bible, supposedly the inspired inerrant word of God, the only rule for life and faith.

It would be intersting to see the theological make up of those who attend. The Church of England and the Anglicans in general are such a broad church. Will it be diehard Calvinists? Or quasi-papist "bells 'n' smells" types? Richard Holloway style crypto-atheists? Or just middle of the road Vicar of Dibley types?

I am sure that when the massed ranks of "equipped" theo-stormtroopers come marching out that Dawkins, Harris, Meyers et al will immediately hoist the white flag

Man, it is just SO exciting......

Fascinating that they feel the need to launch this sort of counter-offensive.

We're winning......

:-))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

50. Comment #252953 by AdrianB on September 24, 2008 at 12:39 am

Comment #252765 by tahustvedt

I'm not surprised.

I know of a devout christian who goes to meetings in his church groups where they discuss how to best respond to "atheist claims" here in Norway.

I once posted of arriving early at the church hall to help set up for my daughter's girls guides session. It meant eaves dropping on the earlier Bible reading meeting. It came as quite a surprise to hear them discussing how they were going to respond to posts on this very site!

(If you're reading this … you know who you are)

One can only imagine that once you have reached this stage in debating tactics, that deep down you must understand the delusional nature of your thinking?

Other Comments by AdrianB