Print
Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity
by Richard Dawkins
To prepare for my BBC Radio 4 discussion with John Cornwell
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/, I read Cornwell's book Darwin's Angel: an angelic response to The God Delusion
(http://richarddawkins.net/article,761,The-Fourth-Flea,John-Cornwell). I'm not going to write a proper review of the book, but it set me thinking again about a common phenomenon, which I am finding increasingly irksome. This is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there. At first, I thought Cornwell was just another example of this. Now, having finished his book, I am wondering whether I was being too charitable. I am now wondering whether he is actively dishonest.
Magnus Linklater's rather effete piece of I'm-an-atheist-buttery
(http://richarddawkins.net/article,1604,Like-any-half-decent-atheist-Im-fond-of-a-bit-of-religion,Magnus-Linklater-Times-Online) is, I suspect, not deliberately dishonest. He writes
To put it mildly, that gives a misleading picture of the role of the St Bernard in my book. Here's the relevant passage from The God Delusion, and you'll see that the St Bernard was part of a list of the kind of things consolation might mean to anyone. It was a preliminary exercise in tabulating the variety of types of consolation, before I began to tackle the question of whether, as a matter of fact, religion is consoling:
As you see, I was simply trying to sort out two rather different meanings of the word 'consolation', not saying anything (yet) about religion at all. This should have been made doubly clear from the example of the war widow consoled by the discovery that she is carrying the child of her slain husband. Also the weeping child consoled by strong arms and reassuring whispers. Clearly this type of consolation has no necessary connection with religion at all, and equally clearly I am sympathetic to it, and am in no way sneering at it.
Now look at how John Cornwell handles this. He takes up the second of my two main categories of consolation, the one where we might gain consolation from a new way of thinking about familiar facts. Here is Cornwell's account of my philosopher's point about dying slowly as we progress through life's stages. (Don't be thrown by his use of the second person singular, by the way. The whole book is written in the form of an open letter to me.)
Do you see what Cornwell is up to here? First he puts the word "philosopher" in quotation marks, which can only have been intended sarcastically. In a footnote, I attributed the argument to Derek Parfit, who happens to be an extremely distinguished philosopher, author of the book Reasons and Persons, described by another eminent philosopher, Alan Ryan, as "something close to a work of genius". Even if Cornwell didn't see my attribution to Parfit, his sarcastic quotation marks were uncalled-for. How did he know whether I got the argument from a real philosopher that he respects, or not? Why be sarcastic?
Second, Cornwell describes my "philosopher" as an atheist, although I never said he was an atheist and Parfit's point would be just as valid whether he is or not. There never was any suggestion that the argument is an atheist argument, put by an atheist philosopher. That wasn't why I brought it up, not at all. Once again, Cornwell is reading what he expects to see, not what is actually there.
Third, as with the Linklater misreading, Cornwell seems to think that I am offering the (Parfit) argument as an atheistic alternative to religious consolation. Why else would he add the gratuitously sour sentence: "Tell that to a teenager dying of cancer . . ." Once again, I was offering the Parfit argument simply as an illustration to clarify the kind of thing that consolation can mean: the consolation we can derive from a new way of thinking about familiar facts.
Cornwell has a whole chapter called 'Dawkins versus Dostoyevsky'. The entire purpose of the chapter is to reply to what he believes is a misunderstanding, by me, of Dostoyevsky. Here's what Cornwell says:
But, for heaven's sake, I did not claim any such thing. Quite the reverse. Here's what I actually wrote:
I should have thought the irony in my words would be obvious. Isn't it clear from "widely believed" and "presumably" that I was signalling my own scepticism at the widely believed notion that Dostoevsky himself agreed with Ivan.
After a long quotation from Ivan, I wrote:
But now look at Cornwell's traducing of what I said:
See what Cornwell has outrageously done? He has replaced "Ivan Karamazov" in my sentence with "Dostoevsky" in his paraphrase, in order to fit in with his allegation that I attribute Ivan Karamazov's view to Dostoevsky himself. What do you think, is that an honest mistake or deliberate mendacity? Either way, he bases an entire chapter on this one misreading of what I wrote, putting me straight, as he thinks, on Dostoevsky. He even has the cheek to say:
My misreading? My misunderstanding? Please!
But if that is irritating, the following is gratuitously offensive. Cornwell is talking about Dostoevsky's reading of nineteenth century thinkers. He mentions Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Utopian Marxism, and "a set of ideas that you would have applauded – Social Darwinism." Does Cornwell seriously imagine that I would applaud Social Darwinism? Nobody nowadays applauds Social Darwinism, and I have been especially outspoken in my condemnation of it (see, for example, the title essay that begins A Devil's Chaplain).
My final example from Cornwell's book may seem trivial, but I think it is indicative. In TGD I needed, in passing, to explain the phenomenon known as genetic linkage. Having done so, I wanted to point out that, in this particular case, the technical term and the colloquial term happen to be identical. The way I chose to put this was by jesting allusion to the proverbial medical doctor's fondness for technical jargon: "You are suffering from what we doctors call a bellyache." So I borrowed this jocular idiom and said "We doctors call that kind of linkage linkage'. My 'we doctors' construction was an obviously facetious way of saying "The technical name for this phenomenon is 'linkage." Now see what Cornwell does with it:
Tell me, is that or is that not a clear case of out-and-out dishonesty? At very least, it certainly looks suspiciously like petty malice: trawling my pages to find something unpleasant to say. Surely Cornwell could not possibly have been unfamiliar with the doctor idiom that I was parodying. Even if he was, since the topic under discussion was genetic linkage and nothing to do with religion, the implication of his censorious remark is preposterously inapproriate. This is only a small example, but a man who can do that . . . can you trust anything he says? And now, if you look back at the other examples I gave, doesn't it make you less inclined to excuse them too as honest mistakes?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/, I read Cornwell's book Darwin's Angel: an angelic response to The God Delusion
(http://richarddawkins.net/article,761,The-Fourth-Flea,John-Cornwell). I'm not going to write a proper review of the book, but it set me thinking again about a common phenomenon, which I am finding increasingly irksome. This is a tendency for critics to read what their prejudices expect to see in a book rather than what is actually there. At first, I thought Cornwell was just another example of this. Now, having finished his book, I am wondering whether I was being too charitable. I am now wondering whether he is actively dishonest.
Magnus Linklater's rather effete piece of I'm-an-atheist-buttery
(http://richarddawkins.net/article,1604,Like-any-half-decent-atheist-Im-fond-of-a-bit-of-religion,Magnus-Linklater-Times-Online) is, I suspect, not deliberately dishonest. He writes
[Dawkins] compares those who take comfort from traditional religion to people stuck for the night on a bare mountain, who warm to the appearance of a large St Bernard dog, "not forgetting, of course, the brandy barrel around its neck".
To put it mildly, that gives a misleading picture of the role of the St Bernard in my book. Here's the relevant passage from The God Delusion, and you'll see that the St Bernard was part of a list of the kind of things consolation might mean to anyone. It was a preliminary exercise in tabulating the variety of types of consolation, before I began to tackle the question of whether, as a matter of fact, religion is consoling:
Consolation, in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, is the alleviation of sorrow or mental distress. I shall divide consolation into two types.
1. Direct physical consolation. A man stuck for the night on a bare mountain may find comfort in a large, warm St Bernard dog, not forgetting, of course, the brandy barrel around its neck. A weeping child may be consoled by the embrace of strong arms wrapped around her and reassuring words whispered in her ear.
2. Consolation by discovery of a previously unappreciated fact, or a previously undiscovered way of looking at existing facts. A woman whose husband has been killed in war may be consoled by the discovery that she is pregnant by him, or that he died a hero. We can also get consolation through discovering a new way of thinking about a situation. A philosopher points out that there is nothing special about the moment when an old man dies. The child that he once was "died' long ago, not by suddenly ceasing to live but by growing up. Each of the seven ages of man "dies' by slowly morphing into the next. From this point of view, the moment when the old man finally expires is no different from the slow "deaths' throughout his life. A man who does not relish the prospect of his own death may find this changed perspective consoling. Or maybe not, but it is an example of consolation through reflection.
As you see, I was simply trying to sort out two rather different meanings of the word 'consolation', not saying anything (yet) about religion at all. This should have been made doubly clear from the example of the war widow consoled by the discovery that she is carrying the child of her slain husband. Also the weeping child consoled by strong arms and reassuring whispers. Clearly this type of consolation has no necessary connection with religion at all, and equally clearly I am sympathetic to it, and am in no way sneering at it.
Now look at how John Cornwell handles this. He takes up the second of my two main categories of consolation, the one where we might gain consolation from a new way of thinking about familiar facts. Here is Cornwell's account of my philosopher's point about dying slowly as we progress through life's stages. (Don't be thrown by his use of the second person singular, by the way. The whole book is written in the form of an open letter to me.)
The atheist "philosopher's" view you cite argues that when an old man dies, "The child that he once was "died' long ago. . . From this point of view, the moment when the old man finally expires is no different from the slow 'deaths' throughout his life." Tell that to a teenager dying of cancer, and his family.
Do you see what Cornwell is up to here? First he puts the word "philosopher" in quotation marks, which can only have been intended sarcastically. In a footnote, I attributed the argument to Derek Parfit, who happens to be an extremely distinguished philosopher, author of the book Reasons and Persons, described by another eminent philosopher, Alan Ryan, as "something close to a work of genius". Even if Cornwell didn't see my attribution to Parfit, his sarcastic quotation marks were uncalled-for. How did he know whether I got the argument from a real philosopher that he respects, or not? Why be sarcastic?
Second, Cornwell describes my "philosopher" as an atheist, although I never said he was an atheist and Parfit's point would be just as valid whether he is or not. There never was any suggestion that the argument is an atheist argument, put by an atheist philosopher. That wasn't why I brought it up, not at all. Once again, Cornwell is reading what he expects to see, not what is actually there.
Third, as with the Linklater misreading, Cornwell seems to think that I am offering the (Parfit) argument as an atheistic alternative to religious consolation. Why else would he add the gratuitously sour sentence: "Tell that to a teenager dying of cancer . . ." Once again, I was offering the Parfit argument simply as an illustration to clarify the kind of thing that consolation can mean: the consolation we can derive from a new way of thinking about familiar facts.
Cornwell has a whole chapter called 'Dawkins versus Dostoyevsky'. The entire purpose of the chapter is to reply to what he believes is a misunderstanding, by me, of Dostoyevsky. Here's what Cornwell says:
There can be few people alive today who would boast ethical superiority over the novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky. You depict the powerful character of Ivan Karamazov, in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, as believing that if God does not exist then everything is permitted. In other words, a world without belief in God is bound to be a world of unbridled crime and sin. It does of course appear rather a crass viewpoint; and it surely seems odd that Dostoyevsky, as you claim, shared in that crassness.
But, for heaven's sake, I did not claim any such thing. Quite the reverse. Here's what I actually wrote:
It is widely believed that Dostoevsky was of that opinion, presumably because of some remarks he put into the mouth of Ivan Karamazov.
I should have thought the irony in my words would be obvious. Isn't it clear from "widely believed" and "presumably" that I was signalling my own scepticism at the widely believed notion that Dostoevsky himself agreed with Ivan.
After a long quotation from Ivan, I wrote:
Perhaps naively, I have inclined towards a less cynical view of human nature than Ivan Karamazov.
But now look at Cornwell's traducing of what I said:
You are happy to inform your readers, with the neat disclaimer -- "Perhaps naively' -- that you have inclined towards a less cynical view of human nature than Dostoevsky.
See what Cornwell has outrageously done? He has replaced "Ivan Karamazov" in my sentence with "Dostoevsky" in his paraphrase, in order to fit in with his allegation that I attribute Ivan Karamazov's view to Dostoevsky himself. What do you think, is that an honest mistake or deliberate mendacity? Either way, he bases an entire chapter on this one misreading of what I wrote, putting me straight, as he thinks, on Dostoevsky. He even has the cheek to say:
There seems to be a misunderstanding between you and the great novelist, perhaps as a result of your misreading of his work . . .
My misreading? My misunderstanding? Please!
But if that is irritating, the following is gratuitously offensive. Cornwell is talking about Dostoevsky's reading of nineteenth century thinkers. He mentions Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Utopian Marxism, and "a set of ideas that you would have applauded – Social Darwinism." Does Cornwell seriously imagine that I would applaud Social Darwinism? Nobody nowadays applauds Social Darwinism, and I have been especially outspoken in my condemnation of it (see, for example, the title essay that begins A Devil's Chaplain).
My final example from Cornwell's book may seem trivial, but I think it is indicative. In TGD I needed, in passing, to explain the phenomenon known as genetic linkage. Having done so, I wanted to point out that, in this particular case, the technical term and the colloquial term happen to be identical. The way I chose to put this was by jesting allusion to the proverbial medical doctor's fondness for technical jargon: "You are suffering from what we doctors call a bellyache." So I borrowed this jocular idiom and said "We doctors call that kind of linkage linkage'. My 'we doctors' construction was an obviously facetious way of saying "The technical name for this phenomenon is 'linkage." Now see what Cornwell does with it:
You refer to believers as "faith sufferers", and you refer to you and your associates as "we doctors".
Tell me, is that or is that not a clear case of out-and-out dishonesty? At very least, it certainly looks suspiciously like petty malice: trawling my pages to find something unpleasant to say. Surely Cornwell could not possibly have been unfamiliar with the doctor idiom that I was parodying. Even if he was, since the topic under discussion was genetic linkage and nothing to do with religion, the implication of his censorious remark is preposterously inapproriate. This is only a small example, but a man who can do that . . . can you trust anything he says? And now, if you look back at the other examples I gave, doesn't it make you less inclined to excuse them too as honest mistakes?
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, September 6, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 130 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #68272 by mcc on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I've written to the Today program and requested a rematch, this time with more time and an editor/interviewer who has read the works and can arbitrate more effectively. Anyone else fancy sending them an email? It probably will not change anything, but you never know.A lot of people seem to think Richard was too nice, I've got to say I'd have liked to see someone work the argument "religion = irrationality, moderate religion = irrationality that currently does not conjure widespread contempt. Being moderate does not in anyway legitimise the rationality of the position." in front of the Radio 4 audience, particularly as thought for the day (I can hear the sound of spluttering into cornflakes even as I type!) :-)
Other Comments by mcc
53. Comment #68282 by Johnny O on September 6, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I have read a couple of the Flea books in the interests of getting a balance and also to see how religious people respond. From reading them I can only imagine that they are aimed at people who haven't actually read TGD, so that they can have some kind of response to people that have.As to the interview... I can't believe they keep getting away with this nonsense. I wish the interviewers at least had some knowledge of TGD themselves so they can also take them to account for the gibberish they say.
Hearing Cornwell backtracking from a comment he made when Richard was off air, about him stating that "All religion was extremist", was disgusting. You can hear him clearly in the trying to add in the word, "Potentially", when Richard slaps him down again.
I only wish it could have gone on for longer
Other Comments by Johnny O
54. Comment #68287 by Eamonn Shute on September 6, 2007 at 3:57 pm
There is more "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity" (and I think I know which) in an article by Madeleine Bunting at the Grauniad; it has been well and truly trashed.http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html
Other Comments by Eamonn Shute
55. Comment #68297 by CDG1 on September 6, 2007 at 4:42 pm
RICHARD:The "we doctors" misrepresentation is not "trivial", its typical. This slight of hand is an an attempt to make you out as an elitist. He is preaching to his choir and they prefer the tactic of discrediting intellectuals as pompous and arrogant...then they can all shake their heads and write you off. But its not trivial I am sick of it.
It reminded me of the scene in the Root of All Evil, when Ted Haggard tried to describe the complexity of the Eye as reason for a designer, and you rightly said (I am paraphrasing here) "You obviously know nothing about the workings of the eye" And he labeled you Elitist.
Its not trivial and it must be called out everytime!
And Regarding the switching of Karamazov to Dostoyevsky: Have you ever once heard of a reviewer mixing up a character with the author. JK Rowling never has to perform or defend magic, just because of Harry Potter. Clearly dishonest.
Chris
Other Comments by CDG1
56. Comment #68307 by Dr Benway on September 6, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Just saw this Dawkins quote on the left sidebar:"The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'."To be fair to Cornwell, I can see how he'd paraphrase the above with:
You refer to believers as "faith sufferers", and you refer to you and your associates as "we doctors".
Other Comments by Dr Benway
57. Comment #68315 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I don't see any need for a rematch - it seems to me that Richard won the radio debate very clearly, despite the dangers of such debates. The tone was just right - he was courteous, while also demonstrating how Cornwell had simplified and distorted his views to the extent that they were nothing like his actual expressed views in The God Delusion.Cornwell struck me as simply shameless. I suppose a more charitable view might be that he's sincere, but entirely deaf to tone and nuance.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
58. Comment #68316 by CDG1 on September 6, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Dr. Benway, Cornwell is attacking Dawkins because he has the audacity to say "we doctors"? What is the reasoning behind this? Does it address any of the underlining arguments? No it does not. It is an underhanded tactic designed simply to try and discredit Dr. Dawkins for simply being wholly educated on a array of topics. He asserts so much intellectual prowess that people like Cornwell cannot win on the mertis of their arguments and must therefore claim him an elitist.It is a dirty tactic and will receive no quarter from me.
Chris
Other Comments by CDG1
59. Comment #68320 by Theocrapcy on September 6, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Interesting that Cornwell conjured a comparison between a potential secular future with Nazi Germany's intolerance - great way to milk the holocaust for value.And this coming from a Catholic. Tsk Tsk. Do you still celebrate Hitler's birthday in Mass John?
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
60. Comment #68331 by Kimpatsu on September 6, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I think that, as with all faith heads, Cornwall's starting point is that all atheists are evil and nihilistic, and so he is indeed misreading what Dawkins wrote (i.e., he believes that he is clarifying what Dawkins REALLY meant to say, if only Dawkins were more articulate--as articulate as Cornwall himself is). After all, it is simply not possible for an atheist to make a cogent argument on religion, and so TGD cannot contain any cogent arguments, QED. Other Comments by Kimpatsu
61. Comment #68332 by Red Foot Okie on September 6, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hello, all. Been a long time since I posted. I haen't heard the interview/debate, but one thing that I think is happening is that the religious are not really trying to find new converts to their cause, they're just trying to keep people from jumping ship.
It's all about keeping butts in seats. So they tell those people what they want to hear. And if they have to lie or stretch the truth a bit, so what. It keeps the butts in the seats.
Other Comments by Red Foot Okie
62. Comment #68335 by Eric Blair on September 6, 2007 at 10:11 pm
RD is no doubt quite justified in his anger but I'm surprised he's surprised. RD is after all an influential figure and his book tells believers they are out of their heads. Many don't like being told that. (Let's face it, The God Delusion does not really lay the groundwork for a "respectful" discussion and Cornwell is just the latest to get his back up.)I'm not sure suggestions of wilful mendacity help matters. (Then again, I'm not sure where any of these public debates lead...)
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
63. Comment #68341 by Richard Morgan on September 6, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Eric Blair :I'm not sure suggestions of wilful mendacity help matters. (Then again, I'm not sure where any of these public debates lead...)Really?
Oh dear.
OK - public debate is a vital part of any democracy, enabling the airing of conflicting ideas/ideologies, usually allowing people to form intelligent opinions after having seen both sides of the case. That is the theory, anyway.(Could somebody say it better for me please, my grasp of the English language is not what it was, sniff. Dr Benway? Russell Blackford? even pewkatchoo?)
Red Foot Ockie :
I haven't heard the interview/debate, but one thing that I think is happening is that...Thank you for posting a comment, but may I gently chide you on a matter of principle? Never, ever express an opinion on something you haven't fully read or heard or seen. You may be spot on with your ideas, but admitting to not having heard the interview does strip you of some of your credibility.
If listening to streaming audio files irritates you, an MP3 I sent in is now available in the "other" thread.
Incidentally, that doesn't mean we love you any less, but, you see what I mean?
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
64. Comment #68343 by Northern Bright on September 6, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I don't see any need for a rematch - it seems to me that Richard won the radio debate very clearly, despite the dangers of such debates. The tone was just right - he was courteous, while also demonstrating how Cornwell had simplified and distorted his views to the extent that they were nothing like his actual expressed views in The God Delusion.
I agree, Russell, and was pleased to hear RD rebut Cornwell's claims so categorically. Asking for a rematch might be seen as a bit ungracious, considering he won!
I agree with Johnny O as well - I, too, got the impression that Edward Stourton hadn't read either of the books, and would have been able to facilitate the discussion a lot better if he had.
Whenever RD is invited onto the Today programme, it always seems to be just before they're due to go off air, so it's always rushed and always has to stop just when it's getting going properly.
One of the things I have enjoyed about the videos of Christopher Hitchens in action is that these long, serious debates have taken place in the US at all and have been made available to a wider audience. I can't remember seeing an equivalent here in the UK. (Actually, maybe now that the full interviews for The Root of All Evil? have been made available, that might be about to change. Hope so.)
Other Comments by Northern Bright
65. Comment #68348 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 12:16 am
Whenever RD is invited onto the Today programme, it always seems to be just before they're due to go off air, so it's always rushed and always has to stop just when it's getting going properly.
This happens to many guests.... in fact it happens so much has been frequently parodies in comedy shows like 'Dead Ringers'.
Other Comments by steve99
66. Comment #68350 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 12:30 am
Cornwell is attacking Dawkins because he has the audacity to say "we doctors"? What is the reasoning behind this? Does it address any of the underlining arguments?
It does not have to address any of the arguments. That is not the way such debating techniques work. The idea behind this approach is to insist that if someone has to present their message in a rude or arrogant way (Cornwells reading of "we doctors") then their message can't be trusted.
Other Comments by steve99
67. Comment #68354 by 601 on September 7, 2007 at 1:06 am
I do not know if you are interested in advice, but I will be shameless and offer it.At first most of your challengers where sincere, in as much as their perceived conflict between your logic and their emotions interested them into asking for clarification.
With the popular success of TGD however, the game changed. Having essentially passed a peer review (of the rational scientific flavour), your more determined critics were left with few weapons.
The most vital target is the emotional terror associated with losing faith amongst their audience, and can be leveraged with appropriate prose, regardless of the integrity of the argument (as in £1 for 5 minutes). Out of context quote mining and such are just the tools of the trade.
To suggest your critics are mendacious is essentially irrelevant (not to us of course, but for them and theirs).
The strongest response will be ALL positive (just leave out denials and contradictions) and focus on your message. Beware the fool who lowers the debate to his level, and then wins with experience.
For example: In response to the "child abuse" canard, you could say the most frightening fact is that of those who have experienced both kinds of abuse, some claim the indoctrination was worse. And that if the critic is insisting that the religious indoctrination of young children is good for them, then the critic is in need of education in child psychology.
And again, my apologies for the presumption.
Other Comments by 601
68. Comment #68357 by Jiten on September 7, 2007 at 1:49 am
To prepare for my BBC Radio 4 discussion with John Cornwell I read Cornwell's book Darwin's Angel: an angelic response to The God Delusion
Ahh I feel for you! To read such bilge can't have been fun.
Other Comments by Jiten
69. Comment #68363 by beebhack on September 7, 2007 at 2:25 am
"I should have thought the irony in my words would be obvious."Professor Dawkins shouldn't be surprised at Cornwell's apparent literal-mindedness - which, I suspect, is disingenuous. It plays pretty well to his audience. I think it's clear that, often, religionists have little capacity for decoding irony.
Other Comments by beebhack
70. Comment #68368 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:30 am
For example: In response to the "child abuse" canard, you could say the most frightening fact is that of those who have experienced both kinds of abuse, some claim the indoctrination was worse
601, I think that would be a very clever approach. What's easier for a hostile listener to dismiss - a bald assertion of a controversial view, or an expression of concern on behalf of people who've suffered?
In connection with my work, someone sent me a YouTube video yesterday. They sent it because they thought I'd be interested to find out about the "pecha kucha" style of PowerPoint presentations demonstrated in the clip (I organise a number of business events & conferences and have banned PowerPoint presentations because they're nearly always so dire!) The clip demonstrates the pecha kucha approach by using it in a presentation on how to increase people's willingness to comply with signs in public places. The way, according to this presentation, is to engage their emotions, not just their brains. As an example, the video contrasts the effectiveness of a sign just saying "Pick up after your dog" and one saying "Children play here. Pick up after your dog." The first is a bald instruction. The second engages their sense of responsibility.
Neither pecha kucha nor public signage is remotely relevant to our discussions here - but the issue of engaging people with our message is, it seems to me, so here is the link in case anyone would like to take a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZOt6BkhUg
Other Comments by Northern Bright
71. Comment #68373 by irate_atheist on September 7, 2007 at 3:05 am
John Cornwell is, at the very least, fiduciarily challenged. Other Comments by irate_atheist
72. Comment #68378 by AdrianB on September 7, 2007 at 3:25 am
Richard Morgan - public debate is a vital part of any democracy, enabling the airing of conflicting ideas/ideologies, usually allowing people to form intelligent opinions after having seen both sides of the case.I agree, and one only has to follow the story of Jonathan Edwards to see that hearing the argument from the other side can have an effect, at least in a person willing to listen.
I am like many here in that I was willing to listen when I moved from being a Christian, to a Deist, to an agnostic and finally atheist. I say finally atheist because I suspect that is where most of us that arrive here will remain. I still listen though and I am willing to change my mind if there is some good evidence to convince me.
Cornwell is an example of somebody is unable to listen and only hears what he wants to hear. Until very recently I used to make the same mistake with some investments that I owned. I would own shares in ABC or XYZ, and would post comments on bulletin boards about how wonderful the companies were, whilst ignoring and attacking negative comments, and simultaneously watching the share price evaporate. Delusion comes in all walks of life.
Also, I don't underestimate the fact that most of the chief "liars for God" are in some way in the paid employment of religion. It's tough to find employment in the real world.
Other Comments by AdrianB
73. Comment #68383 by Tridhos on September 7, 2007 at 3:40 am
From Judge Jones UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. DOVER AREA SCHOOL CASE.
It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.
Nothing new in those with strong religious convictions telling porkies
Other Comments by Tridhos
74. Comment #68420 by BicycleRepairMan on September 7, 2007 at 6:14 am
Just saw this Dawkins quote on the left sidebar:
"The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'."
To be fair to Cornwell, I can see how he'd paraphrase the above with:
You refer to believers as "faith sufferers", and you refer to you and your associates as "we doctors".
After searching Google, this phrase, and thus Cornwells paraphrase, seems to be taken from Dawkins 1991 Essay "Viruses of the Mind"
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
That makes Cornwells paraphrase in this case slightly more relevant, but it is still pulled out of context, and the "we doctors" phrase is still obviously meant as a joke. There is also a dishonesty to take this out of its context, which was that Dawkins was setting up his essay as a thought experiment, and analogy, where religion was compared to a virus in order to play with the idea, and see how far the analogy could go, so to speak, Dawkins was not just saying "religion is a virus, let us doctors fix you" it was an analogy. any person with average intelligence should see this
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
75. Comment #68439 by gr8hands on September 7, 2007 at 7:27 am
There IS a book "Liars for Jesus" --http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Jesus-Religious-Alternate-American/dp/1419644386
Other Comments by gr8hands
76. Comment #68482 by Student Grant on September 7, 2007 at 8:43 am
I'm reposting this from the link to the original article.Don't be frustrated people. The fact that the supernaturalists constantly have to resort to dishonesty in responding to The Dawk/Harris et al is symptomatic of two things; 1. The weakness of their case 2. The fact that they are unaccustomed to having to defend their delusions.
Expect them to twist and manipulate the facts and you won't be disappointed. Remember that the religious mind can justify almost anything in defending its own version of 'truth' (including, in extreme cases, mass murder). Telling a few 'white lies' to misrepresent an opponent's position wiould not even register as being morally questionable.
Committed delusionists like Cornwell will probably never be influenced by rational argument, and they are not who we should be seeking to address. There will be many listeners to The Today Programme who will read TGD and the responses of the flea circus, and discover for themselves who is telling the truth and whose pants are on fire. The more exposure RD/TGD/the flea circus receive, the better. Bring it on.
Other Comments by Student Grant
77. Comment #68490 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 9:33 am
I'm familiar with the meditation: conscious lie? unconscious lie? honest misunderstanding? It comes up now and again in the setting of some personal or professional relationship --often enough that I think it might be part of the human condition.I find the meditation painful. Resolution one way or another is generally preferable to endless ambiguity. With resolution I can sort my contradictory feelings. I'll detatch from the conscious liar, whom I'll rarely trust again. I might pity the unconscious liar. And I may seek to mend fences where there's a misunderstanding.
But what if I'm wrong? How will I feel if I write off an honest person as dishonest, and ruin a valuable relationship? How will I feel if I allow a liar to get the better of me a second time, and the second injury is far worse than the first?
Experience has taught me to avoid the temptation to prematurely resolve the ambiguity one way or the other. Best to give others the opportunity to clarify their intentions. Sometimes good people have contradictory impulses, which they can work through if they don't feel under attack.
Reasonable people ought to accept a request like, "I don't think you understood my point. Allow me to try again" or "You seem to be saying X, which I find objectionable. Can you confirm your position?"
Ask 'em for a repeat. Give 'em enough rope. The ambiguity will resolve itself in due time.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
78. Comment #68497 by Foggy29 on September 7, 2007 at 10:09 am
Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but having listened to Mr Cornwell's misrepresentations yesterday, I think it's worth pointing out an extract from John Humphrys forthcoming book, printed in The Sunday Times, 2nd September 2007.(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367028.ece)
On hearing about this book, I initially thought that he might be on the track to 'enlightenment'. Unfortunately, Mr Humphry's comments in the article regarding "atheists like Dawkins", and his earlier appearance on the Richard and Judy show (I had the misfortune to catch the interview when I was on holiday recently, but can't remember which day), also appear to be an exercise in misrepresentation. Therefore, I expect that any representations made to The Today program on RD's behalf are unlikely to succeed. For people who are are unaware of him, Mr John Humphrys is one of The Today program's main presenters and pretty much has the status of national institution, though he was thankfully absent for the RD/Cornwell fiasco.
Other Comments by Foggy29
79. Comment #68512 by Quine on September 7, 2007 at 11:29 am
The debate about religion encompasses so many people of different cultures, ages, and levels of economic and educational backgrounds that no "one size" of argument or style of personal persuasion is going to "fit all." Instead, there is an ecology of discussion that has many ecological niches. Some present evidence from science about the cosmos and how our brains evolved and work. Some present anthropological theories about the development of belief systems in cultural context. Some work with the reason of logic and philosophy. Some argue against superstition and debunk charlatans and hypocrites. Some try to work from within to expand tolerance and understanding. There are many ways, including some room for those who just make stink (thankfully, we only have a few of those).It is often said that you cannot change minds by just presenting facts. Although there is some truth to this, as I said above, there is a place for this. Sometimes you don't have to change minds, you just need to prevent minds from locking up in an uninformed state. Presenting facts to young people before they have made up their minds has a much bigger effect than after. (An ounce of prevention is worth ...)
Given the subject is religion, it is natural for people to use religious metaphors. Thus we have folks talking about "converting" people to Atheism as if it were a belief system. The point is that it is not a belief system, but rather, the lack of a belief system. Further, Atheists do not get points, or a higher position, in the "next life" for bringing in "converts." Although there is in most of us an empathetic concern to help educate humanity, primarily, Atheists just want the religious to stop inflicting the consequences of their superstitions on us, and other innocent bystanders. This sets up an intrinsic asymmetry that partially answers the question "If religion is wrong, why have we had it so long?"
There is no good reason to have a central voice, person, or style in this discussion. It is an ecology, let us each go after a niche.
Other Comments by Quine
80. Comment #68514 by flying goose on September 7, 2007 at 11:31 am
Heard the debate, I didn't think RD came over badly, neither did he seem defeated in his argument despite being cut off.That all said my comment would be this, the media, any media, seems to thrive on conflict. Judging by the heat above the first causality of that conflict is courtesy, the second, attentive conversation. Truth, if there really is a truth out there to be 'dis covered' remains obscured by point scoring and vitriol.
Other Comments by flying goose
81. Comment #68517 by flying goose on September 7, 2007 at 11:40 am
re my above. I am really refering to the responses to madeline bunting, not to most of the above. Not really used to this yet, sorry. Other Comments by flying goose
82. Comment #68528 by 601 on September 7, 2007 at 12:44 pm
@Northern Bright: I enjoyed the YouTube link, and imagined a sign outside the conference room "This presentation follows the 20 slides @ 20 seconds each pecha kucha principle."To be clear, I would divide the audience into three groups:
- Fanatical fundamentalists
- Religious moderates
- Quiet atheists and agnostics
- Atheists who too often don't count
The good doctor D has focused TGD and now the OUT campaign at the third quiet group, to encourage them to make some noise. And the four horsemen are doing well in this critical effort.
However, the strategy for the moderates must be different. I would propose to leverage their religious doubt with "relax, you are halfway to peace and freedom, it is safe to keep going in this direction." The key here is the emotional component, as they are likely immune to rational argument.
There is an interesting and successful technique for counseling addicts, where you discuss only their sober times, to avoid any reinforcement of the bad habit.
Other Comments by 601
83. Comment #68536 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm
However, the strategy for the moderates must be different. I would propose to leverage their religious doubt with "relax, you are halfway to peace and freedom, it is safe to keep going in this direction." The key here is the emotional component, as they are likely immune to rational argument.
601, once again I agree with you 100%. Each of the groups you identify will require a different approach, and moderates are most likely to respond positively to moderation. Your emphasis on the need to reassure them that it is safe and decent to go down this path is extremely perceptive, I think.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
84. Comment #68551 by Teratornis on September 7, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Perhaps no two humans (theists included) have precisely the same cognitive biases, and thus a diverse group of people will show diverse responses to a particular argument. It would be interesting, if it were possible, to undertake a scientific study of which logical arguments against theism can get through the cognitive filters of particular theists. If a method could be found to profile a given theist's potential receptivity to various arguments, one might tailor one's approach more productively than the intuitive (or maybe just random) methods we currently apply, which run the risk of merely fatiguing and turning off those who happen to be unreceptive to the arguments one happens to try.Nobody can be completely irrational and survive in the world for very long. That means the theist's defenses against rational thought must allow some leakage. The trick is finding just where the moat doesn't stretch all the way around the castle, that is, the spot where the connection to objective reality remains.
Note the analogy with protein coats on viruses matching receptors on particular cells. I doubt that even Osama bin Laden would be immune, if one could find just the right arguments. After all, bin Laden has to be a very pragmatic, intelligent man to have plotted so many successful terrorist attacks, and to elude the world's best-funded intelligence agencies for years. He certainly must be smart enough to follow complex chains of inference.
Other Comments by Teratornis
85. Comment #68566 by Friggertool on September 7, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Heard the interview driving to work. Thought Richard did well to hold his ground so well in the light of what seemed to me (who has read TGD) against someone I could only help think had read a second or third-hand synopsis by a godist. To one who has read and absorbed TGD the [entirely false] accusations about religion being, in Richard's view, worse than buggering a child, were frankly staggering. If not libelous. I was brought up as a catholic and never buggered. Well, not in the physical sense. Other Comments by Friggertool
86. Comment #68575 by walk on September 7, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Northern Bright, you said (66.)"One of the things I have enjoyed about the videos of Christopher Hitchens in action is that these long, serious debates have taken place in the US at all and have been made available to a wider audience."
It IS difficult here in the US for an atheist. After a day of talking to faith-heads of one degree or other (I have friends who are "post-christian spiritualists", mainstream Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons(!), etc.), I just CAN'T WAIT to get to my computer and listen to, or re-listen to, one of Hitch's or Dawkins' beautiful recitations, (the longer the better).
Most of my friends won't discuss religion with me anymore (my fault), and it's been wonderful to find this website and the great community here.
Other Comments by walk
87. Comment #68592 by Eric Blair on September 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Eric Blair: I'm not sure suggestions of wilful mendacity help matters. (Then again, I'm not sure where any of these public debates lead...)
Richard Morgan wrote:
Really?
Oh dear.
OK - public debate is a vital part of any democracy, enabling the airing of conflicting ideas/ideologies, usually allowing people to form intelligent opinions after having seen both sides of the case. That is the theory, anyway.(Could somebody say it better for me please, my grasp of the English language is not what it was, sniff. Dr Benway? Russell Blackford? even pewkatchoo?)
I'm not questioning debate in general but these debates. What exactly is "the case"? That God exists? That religion is bad?
Do they actually change anyone's position? More likely, we go away just more entrenched in our previous position and bearing a little more animosity toward the other side. Maybe "better prepared" for our own "debates" which likewise don't change minds.
Sorry, I may be cynical but I sometimes wonder about the point of debating whether John Cornwell or some other willing dupe is a fool for believing what they believe. Or, rather, the particular set of arguments they put forward today are silly.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
88. Comment #68594 by mandrellian on September 7, 2007 at 5:59 pm
It really shouldn't surprise any of us that the self-appointed defenders of the faith cherry-pick and wilfully mistranslate books like TGD to suit their own agendas - they've been doing it to their own Bible for centuries, so it makes perfect sense that they approach any other book - especially one that challenges their hardwired dogma - in the same way. But that it isn't surprising should make it no less a cause for concern and no less outrageous.The sheer dishonesty on display really does boggle the mind (of a rational person who's read the book and understood it) but I'm sure we're all aware that they're not written to convince atheists of anything - they're there for the millions of faithful who haven't, and never will, read Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris or Dennett and just want someone else to read it and fight their (already lost) battle for them.
I think the sheer number of these half-baked, so-called "refutations" of the atheist position demands its very own volume, much in the vein of Al Franken's "Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them" - a response to the transparent right-wing bias of US mainstream media commentators such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Coulter.
Other Comments by mandrellian
89. Comment #68596 by tommcc on September 7, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Not read cornwall book, does he have anything to say about first part of TGD? Does God exist?.It must be obvious to cornwall, God created everything (including cancer). God loves you and you will go to heaven (subject to status, terms and conditions apply).
Tell that to a teenager(hope he has been baptised) dying of cancer, and his family!
Consider yourself consoled.
Other Comments by tommcc
90. Comment #68598 by Shuggy on September 7, 2007 at 6:33 pm
... when an old man dies, "The child that he once was "died' long ago. . . From this point of view, the moment when the old man finally expires is no different from the slow 'deaths' throughout his life." Tell that to a teenager dying of cancer, and his family.What CAN you tell a teenager dying of cancer that would console them, for heaven's sake?! What do they tell teenagers dying of cancer? "So long as you believe that Jesus died for your sins and put your trust in Him totally, you will go to Heaven and be with God and His angels."
What do you say when the teenager says "Well, actually I can't believe that."? "Oh, in that case you're going to Hell, to suffer eternal torments."
Actually, I think I'd rather take what consolation I could from the first thought, even it its limited form, "The child I used to be is dead, but that's all right."
It's certainly dishonest to take a consolation intended for one circumstance and use it in quite another, like telling the parents of a dead baby "Well, she had a good innnings," or "celebrating the life", as happened here recently, of a baby abused to death by her own family.
I agree, it's hard to tell whether this is malicious or stupid. I'll charitably say stupid, because some people just never grow past stupid arguments.
Other Comments by Shuggy
91. Comment #68600 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Just by the way, Parfit has every reason to be pissed off, not only that he is described as a "philosopher" with scare quotes around the word, but also because his theory has been misrepresented. Parfit does not claim that his theory of personal identity/personal survival should be consoling to someone who faces imminent death. Whatever the merits of the theory, it is meant to tell us not to worry too much about the prospect of our own eventual deaths in the (perhaps) distant future. It shouldn't bother me too much, Parfit would say, that, if "I" live to a ripe old age, someone not all that much like me as I am now might die in 30 or 40 years time - however, I still have every reason to get out of the way of oncoming trucks or to be distraught if I am diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.It's all supposed to follow from Parfit's idea that our survival over time is a matter of degree.
Here is Parfit:
Egoism, the fear not of near but of distant death, the regret that so much of one's only life should have gone by - these are not, I think, wholly natural or instinctive. They are all strengthened by the beliefs about personal identity which I have been attacking. If we give up these beliefs, they should be weakened.
This is clear. He thinks he can weaken "the fear not of near but of distant death".
Admittedly, I'm not at all sure I agree with Parfit's metaphysical theory, and I realise that the idea is subtle and difficult to grasp. I'm not sure that I fully "get" it myself, even though I've had to teach it a few times. I'm not even sure whether my understanding of it exactly matches Richard's.
But all that said, Cornwell is surely dishonest or incompetent when he characterises the theory in the way he does. Parfit knows very well that it cannot console a teenager dying of cancer, and Cornwell should know that Parfit knows it.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
92. Comment #68620 by Westhaking on September 7, 2007 at 11:19 pm
My misreading? My misunderstanding? Please!
I loved this line! Props to RD for continuing to outsmart and outclass his critics.
Other Comments by Westhaking
93. Comment #68672 by captain underpants on September 8, 2007 at 4:29 am
irate_atheist -Could you, for the benefit of the vocabularily challenged, explain what "fiduciarily" means?
Other Comments by captain underpants
94. Comment #68861 by irate_atheist on September 9, 2007 at 1:16 am
Capt. Underpants -fiduciarily: adv. In a manner which is based on trust or confidence.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
96. Comment #69299 by Michael on September 10, 2007 at 11:50 am
TGD is not a gentle condemnation of religions. He shows them all to be intellectually empty. If you kick the believers 'where it hurts most' you can't expect the articulate to take it lying down. The gloves are off and the Cornwells are going punch below the belt whenever possible. Why not distort the truth, for after all isn't that what religions do, isn't it?RD cannot be surprised, for all his flees need their religion. We can only be sorry for them.
Other Comments by Michael
97. Comment #69461 by Susac on September 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
Richard, I'm afraid that the tone of your above article was somewhat naive.Willfully disregarding the meaning and intent of the writer is the MEAT AND DRINK of religious apologists. Mr. Cornwell is simply practicing the intellectual dishonesty, character assassination and obfuscation that are standard issue for faith heads.
I believe there are some basic assumptions that we non-believers have about how people think that make it hard to communicate with people of faith. Since people of faith don't make these basic assumptions their reasoning seems incredible to us.
The most common assumption that we make is that authority has no purchase on the truth. For a faith-head authority IS the truth.
A more basic thing that we skeptics don't commonly get is that in order to have faith; you have to be ready and willing to believe your own lies. Faith REQUIRES that you deceive yourself in order to work. We don't think like that.
What Mr. Cornwell is counting on is that his readers will simply accept his authority and use it as validation for their own self deception. Ad-hominid attacks on you are part of the strategy, since tearing you down is de facto building him up. He doesn't need to beat your arguments; he only needs to gain the emotional support of his readers. He expects to win through politics, not reason. Unfortunately, this is a VERY realistic expectation. This is one of the defense mechanisms of the virus of faith.
In short, faith is fundamentally dishonest.
Other Comments by Susac
98. Comment #69971 by Northern Bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm
When I get my copy of Cornwell's book, I'm planning to go through it line by line and cross-reference it to what's really written in TGD. Two columns: "What Dawkins wrote" and "What Cornwell claims Dawkins wrote", and post it on this forum for reference.
I started doing this ... but reading Darwin's Angel with that much attention to detail just proved too painful to bear. It is a seriously bad book.
I have had some fun, however, creating this review, which I have just submitted to Amazon.co.uk:
With angels like these, who needs demons?
A Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte to "The God Delusion", by John Cornwell
It would be hard to find a better illustration of the old proverb that one shouldn't judge a book by its cover than this latest offering from John Cornwell; for the cover of Darwin's Angel is really rather beautiful and worth looking at. Sadly, any hope that its contents may be equally rewarding is destroyed from the very first sentence, which confidently informs the reader that "One of the most beautiful conceits of mortal wit is the idea of the angel; for angels exemplify, symbolise, and render intelligible the dynamic mental capacity known as imagination." (They do WHAT?)
Assuming that you are able either to untangle that particular piece of mangled logic or to put it aside as unimportant and press on regardless, the rest of the book continues in much the same vein.
Cornwell pounces on every instance in The God Delusion where Dawkins has dared to pronounce on the nature of religion, and gleefully proclaims it to be not what the religious believe at all. He does this, however, with more predictability than clarity, for having ploughed through the entire book I am left none the wiser as to what he thinks the religious really do believe. It would appear that they believe whatever they are able to imagine (which of course varies from believer to believer), and that we should respect their imagination by acknowledging that it's just possible that it may have hit on something resembling the truth. On this basis, I see little option but to conclude that there are roughly 6 billion deities alive and active in today's world and that there's precious little point in thinking about any of them, since any conclusions we reach will be wrong in 5,999,999,999 out of 6,000,000,000 cases.
The angel in Cornwell's book, it must be said, displays a surprisingly spiteful streak and I felt that Richard Dawkins had been rather unfortunate in having this particular seraph assigned to him as his guardian. Would you feel your reputation and wellbeing were in safe hands when entrusted to someone who regularly went considerably out of his way to show you in the worst possible light? Who consistently twisted and distorted your words, actions and motives? Who felt no compunction in resorting to frequently repeated personal jibe and insult? And who patently hadn't read your book (or at the very least, not with any intention of understanding it) before attempting to demolish it publicly? (And, moreover, who was so inept, that he failed, even then?)
No, this angel is mean-spirited, snide, ungenerous, sneaky and, one suspects, downright dishonest. His outbursts of barely comprehensible evasion, self-justification and defamation might almost be comical (but for their signal lack of warmth, humanity or truth), but they hardly form a coherent or credible response to a well reasoned, logically impeccable argument, such as can be found in The God Delusion.
This angel is also strikingly insular. Despite his ability to "ring the earth in a trice", it would appear that he prefers to remain in the polite confines of the theology reading room at Jesus College, Cambridge. Certainly he has not ventured to the USA recently, for he regularly asserts that the fundamentalist religion decried by Dawkins only exists in a small minority of believers, and that the majority of religionists accept evolution and a non-literal interpretation of the Bible without demur. This is one angel who really should get out more.
Cornwell is an ex-seminarian, and it is impossible to escape the impression that he has spent so much of his life contemplating his navel that all his thoughts now get caught up in the swirling vortex of it, landing dizzy, confused and incompletely digested in his gut, where they mingle with bile and re-emerge later in the only biologically possible form via the only biologically possible route.
Darwin's Angel is a perversion of language, intellect, integrity, decency and, in all likelihood, religion too. Nevertheless I have given it 2 stars: one because the cover really IS rather lovely, and the other because, as an atheist, I take my consolations where I realistically can and it is, at least, mercifully short.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
99. Comment #69974 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Northern Bright What a lovely review! (I have gone to amazon and marked it 'helpful')
I do hope RD reads it - even if he can't comment on it.
Other Comments by Corylus
100. Comment #69975 by Northern Bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm
What a lovely review! (I have gone to amazon and marked it 'helpful')
Thanks Corylus! I wouldn't mind betting there'll be plenty of people out there who'll disagree with you though! :-) (Do Christians issue fatwas?)
Other Comments by Northern Bright
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #68270 by Major Bloodnok on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm
That would be me. (Thanks for finding a link to the cartoon - you can't normally find Larson cartoons the interwebs.)
I can't help but wonder if they really do hear things the wrong way - that there are trigger phrases around which they build their viewpoint, whilst the surrounding context becomes just so much noise.
Other Comments by Major Bloodnok