1. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116426 by johnosouthall on January 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I found it amazing that John thought he could win an evolutionary debate against Dawkins - does he not understand anything?

I thought it was a pleasing interview although I was disappointed that the question to listeners was not 'does it matter if you do have faith?' rather than 'does it matter if you don't?'

2. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104694 by johnosouthall on December 29, 2007 at 6:13 am

"It seems that you can interpret his intention whereas it's foolish for someone else to attempt to do so."

I never said it was foolish nor even suggest it. I merely hinted that your absolute conviction that 'the ambiguity was deliberate' was misplaced. I am not naive - its obvious the Archbishop is promoting theism. And I didn't suggest that this was necessarily praise (at least not only praise) for Dawkins either.

All I said was that its extremely doubtful that he was implying that Dawkin's on some level believes in God (via the ambiguity of his sentence.) That would be both foolish and underhand.

I didn't for a moment suggest he doesn't have theism-promoting reason for its inclusion. He may well be suggesting 'Atheism is just a wilful refusal to acknowledge reality' (because to the faithful awe and God go hand in hand) but there is nothing remotely underhand about that. He is not misrepresenting Dawkins by sending out such a message, just churning out the same old dogma as usual.

3. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104685 by johnosouthall on December 29, 2007 at 5:50 am

Yes of course its for a purpose. He's trying to promote theism, big surprise. But my point is there is nothing underhand about it as suggested earlier (in the above posts.)

And there's no contradiction. Examine your logic.

4. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104681 by johnosouthall on December 29, 2007 at 5:44 am

"I am absolutely convinced the ambiguity was deliberate."

I'm not so sure. Dawkins is probably the most prominent atheist in the world. Any deliberate play on words to dupe the audience into thinking Dawkins is anything but this is likely to backfire even amongst the faithful.

It is one thing asserting your views but a foolish one indeed to assert anothers which are well known to be contradictory. And, as you say, the Archbishop is "far from intellectually lacking."

Rather I suspect he was rather pointing to a shared awe of the universe.

As for potentially implicating that Dawkins is blinding himself to reality well he's been saying that all along hasn't he? He may be wrong but there's nothing underhand about that.

5. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104660 by johnosouthall on December 29, 2007 at 5:07 am

""whom he described as being in touch with the "amazement and awe" of God's creation"

How is it possible for the good Professor to be in touch with something which he himself says DOES NOT EXIST?"

I think he means that Dawkins is in touch with nature which in *the Archbishop* believes is God's creation. From the Archbishop's perspective Dawkins is in awe of God's creation despite not recognising it as being made by God.

It is a bit like an atheist saying 'the man shook hands with a preacher who had evolved from apes.'
The preacher may not believe that he evolved from apes but we do and may phrase our sentences in a potentially misleading way as a consequence.

In this sense it is plausible that the Archbishop is not intentionally misrepresenting Dawkins position. Perhaps we should not be so harsh. Then again the ambiguity may be deliberate.