1. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212250 by Gordy on July 16, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Phew! The headline had me worried (especially as it came from the NY Times), but the text was a refreshing surprise.

I think the IDiots are determined to hang on to their Darwin references because it's easier to be seen to attack one man's ideas than to deny the long standing consensus of (almost) the entire scientific community.

2. Breaking the Silence

Comment #193521 by Gordy on June 15, 2008 at 7:00 pm

shaunfletcher >

OK, so Wafa Sultan might not be an atheist and we might disagree with her on that point, but can you seriously doubt that she's a force for good in the world? If Wafa's views were to be widely accepted by other members of her religion, I'm pretty sure the world would be a better place. Good luck to her.

3. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193518 by Gordy on June 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm

So, it looks like Blair did have some influence over Bush after all... *sigh*

And, yes, some forms of Buddhism, such as Zen, don't involve any belief in the supernatural nor any worship of a deity (or even a "dead guy"). As I understand Zen, it's not really a religion, but a simple practice that encourages mental well-being.

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #165679 by Gordy on April 22, 2008 at 3:19 am

Ditto #777 :)

I think I might have worked out what caused some of the confusion though - viral videos usually promote products, not ideas. This one was promoting the movie Expelled, not ID itself. I wonder to what extent it succeeded...

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #152474 by Gordy on March 31, 2008 at 5:53 am

Wolfman>

You're right, an attack on Richard Dawkins does not constitute an attack on all of science. To understand it, you have to look at it from the perspective of a creationist who is out to discredit evolution. Not an easy task given the weight of evidence that supports evolution. They've tried picking at what they perceive to be weaknesses in the theory, only to find themselves being forced on to the back foot as their objections crumble in the face of (for want of a more diplomatic term) the facts.

Honest argument doesn't seem to be helping their cause. I think that's because they're wrong, but they aren't about to admit that. They're hell bent on winning the argument, but they need a different way of doing it. That's where personal attacks on prominent atheists come in. If you can convince people that Richard Dawkins is an evil scientist, people will distrust what he says. If you can make out that PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott and Christopher Hitchens see him as their leader, then people will distrust all of them.

Being right isn't enough to win the debate if you can't persuade anyone else. Altering public opinion is crucial. People don't always have enough knowledge of science to know whether they're being lied to or told the truth. If creationists can convince the public that evolutionists are untrustworhy, they stand to gain support for their ideas. This is a particularly useful strategy when the facts are not on your side!

Also, it would be wrong to think that creationists want to discredit all of science. They're not stupid enough to think they could get away with that. They only want to discredit evolution. (This might amount to the same thing for those of us who understand it, but they don't see it that way.) Richard Dawkins is probably the world's most famous evolutionary biologist and he's an outspoken atheist. A perfect target for this kind of thing.

Does that explain it?

6. Beware the Believers

Comment #152395 by Gordy on March 31, 2008 at 12:03 am

Laurence wrote: "These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist."

That's not what I said. Why would creationists want to caricature their own views? What I asked was how the exaggerations differ from a creationist caricature of scientists. As far as I can see, they don't.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate. Good satire often mixes in a little authenticity alongside the exaggerations. It could even be intended to associate a few good ideas with the exaggerated caricature. People tend to respond to new ideas on an emotional level before they respond intellectually, so negative association can actually be an effective way of prejudicing people against sound rational arguments. I doubt if it's that deep, but whoever made this was undoubtedly very clever, so who knows?

Oh dear, I'm even starting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist to myself now. Maybe I should go for a walk (being careful to check that I'm not being followed, of course). Make up your own minds. I suspect we're all going to find out the truth in a press release on Tuesday. That's Tuesday April 1st, just in case anyone's forgotten... ;)

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #152388 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Laurence wrote: "These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists."

How, if at all, do they differ from the sort of exaggerations you would expect creationists to use to caricature evolutionists?

I'm tempted to invoke Ockham here, but it would be a cheap shot because I can see that there is some real ambiguity. All I suggest is that you consider the simpler explanation before plumping for the more convoluted one.

8. Beware the Believers

Comment #152380 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Rational G>

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, I just don't think so. Look at the constant repetition of "he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree" which echoes the sentiments of the intro. How do you think most people will react to that? Particularly people who don't have a science degree...

Look at this whole verse:

"Now the machine of our making, sees culture ripe for the taking,
'cuz I'm the rappinest, rabidest atheist who,
unlike the Catholic, the Muslim or even the Jew,
believes that no God but science could ever be true,
hell, if I was dyslexic I'd even hate "dog" too."

If that's pro science then I'm missing something. It looks to me like a creationist parody, deliberately equating science with religion. Whose message is that? Not ours, surely.

I could go on, but I don't think for a minute that I'll be able to change your mind. I'm not even certain that I'm right, but I'm almost certain. Please at least be aware that, whatever the source, there is plenty here for creationists to use against us.

9. Beware the Believers

Comment #152373 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Some people seem to think that if this were a viral ad for expelled it would be more obviously pro-ID or more directly linked to the movie. I don't agree.

I think it aims to raise consciousness about the central claim of Expelled, i.e. that scientists are being sacked for their beliefs. We know this isn't true, but this video is intended to make it look like there is some real contoversy to be addressed.

The aim is simply to help create the conditions in which people might think that Expelled is addressing a real problem. Our opponents do not have a case, but if they can create the impression that they do it should help to promote both the movie and their overall aim of attacking evolution. That's not to say it will succeed, but I'm almost certain that's the intent.

Is it entertaining? Of course it is - it has to be to encourage people to spread it round the internet. That's how viral advertising works. It's very cleverly done and genuinely funny in parts. It really doesn't matter whether the Expelled team are creative enough to put this together or not. They're quite capable of commissioning someone else to do it for them.

I admit I could be wrong. I'm just saying what I see.

10. Beware the Believers

Comment #151953 by Gordy on March 29, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Thank you, TwiddleFlare. I'm glad it's not just me who can see that.

11. Beware the Believers

Comment #151777 by Gordy on March 29, 2008 at 11:13 am

reinis>

The humour is not lost on me, and I could be wrong about the intent. I'm not about to get into a slanging match about it though.

12. Beware the Believers

Comment #151766 by Gordy on March 29, 2008 at 10:44 am

reinis>

Of course the video is meant to be perceived as cool but if you listen to what it's saying I think the scientists are being ridiculed and portrayed as greedy, bullying establishment types. You might not agree, but that's how I see it.

13. Beware the Believers

Comment #151754 by Gordy on March 29, 2008 at 10:14 am

If this is part of a viral marketing camapaign, its target seems to be teenage/twenty-something YouTubers. It may appear pro-science to a scientist, but I think it's clearly aiming to portray science as authoritarian and elitist- just the sort of qualities your average teenager loves to rebel against.

Think about it. Whoever did this appears to know a thing or two about what they're doing. I won't go as far as to say it must have been "intelligently" designed, but...

14. Beware the Believers

Comment #151737 by Gordy on March 29, 2008 at 9:27 am

This looks like it's part of a viral marketing campaign for "Expelled". The production's quite professional and it's not obviously promoting anything, but they get the scientist being grabbed and the word "Expelled" up right near the start. It probably cost a fair bit to make - I wonder who paid for it?

15. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151443 by Gordy on March 28, 2008 at 5:53 pm

I find this report disturbing (just as the writer clearly intended me to). If an 8 year old really said all that, it's almost certainly because she's repeating what a trusted adult has told her. She probably doesn't fully understand what she's saying. She's too young to. To that extent, this is no better than religious indoctrination. It's no use trying to defend it by saying "Well, at least they're being indoctrinated with the truth." Every religious group believes that too.

Nails: "Kids think freely anyway, so let them be kids."

Quite. They are no more atheist kids or humanist kids than they are Christian kids, Muslim kids or post-modernist kids. Let them just be kids.

16. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150955 by Gordy on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Viva Sue Blackmore!

First time I've heard her speak but I hope it won't be the last. She made her points very eloquently and convincingly, and avoided showing any annoyance in the face of some pretty stupid provocation (such as McGrath's point-scoring, willful misunderstanding that she was ascribing consciousness to memes). Wonderful!

I went straight out and bought "The Meme Machine" and am getting stuck into it now...

17. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150347 by Gordy on March 26, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Happy Birthday, Professor Dawkins!

Thanks for everything you've done to promote reason and thought. You've helped make the world a better place.

All the best,

Gordy :)

18. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147660 by Gordy on March 21, 2008 at 4:56 am

Bonzai >

Fair enough - I was wondering where that came from, but now I can see what you're getting at.

Incidentally, is left handedness genetic? I didn't know that...

19. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147572 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Bonzai >

"like fetal alcohol syndrome" !?
You're not exactly doing yourself any favours with that analogy! Some people might see it like that, but personally I don't think homosexuality should be compared to a disease or dysfunction, and I'm sure you don't either. Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects...

"Whether we could change or not is besides the point. Why should we in the first place if we don't think there is anything wrong with it?"
I agree entirely. Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier.

20. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147527 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Bonzai >

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that choice had anything to do with whether or not homosexuality should be considered good or bad. I think it's a dangerous misconception because choices can be made and unmade. The idea that homosexuality is a choice that can somehow be reversed underpins what the Mercy Ministries and others like them are trying to do. Dispelling this myth would make it harder for them to justify what they're doing.

That's all I was trying to say. I'm very sorry if I offended you - I certainly didn't mean to.

21. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147514 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 7:36 pm

AtheistAspy >

I agree, it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is normal or not (and even if it did matter, given that at least 5-10% of people are gay, it is normal as far as I'm concerned). But I do think there is a dangerous misconception that homosexuality is a choice. It may be for some, but most gay people I know just always knew that they were gay. They didn't choose it any more than I "chose" to be heterosexual.

The reason I wrote what I wrote yesterday was to try and demonstrate that at least one of the developmental events that can predispose an individual to homosexuality occurs before birth. This can hardly be considered a choice!

Unfortunately, I got so caught up in the explanation, I forgot to relate it back to the topic... What I wanted to say was that the idea of trying to "cure" homosexuality makes about as much sense as trying to "cure" a giraffe of having a long neck.

22. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147100 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 7:50 pm

I'm not convinced by the "gay gene" theory. I think there is probably more than one mechanism for the development of homosexuality because there are a variety of homosexual phenotypes, e.g. masculine and feminine gay men or women. Why should we get this variety if it's caused by a single gene?

The most illuminating evidence I'm aware of relates to the masculinisation of the brain and genitalia. The default developmental pathway for a human foetus is female. Males become males because they are exposed to testosterone in the womb. Without this exposure to testosterone, even XY individuals would develop as females. As with many developmental processes, there are critical windows of opportunity for testosterone to masculinise the brain and genitalia. Crucially, these windows of opportunity occur at different stages of development. It is therefore possible for the developing foetus to be exposed to testosterone when the genitalia are open to masculinisation, but not when the brain is open to masculinisation as these two events occur at different times. The result could reasonably be described as a female brain in a male body - or a woman trapped in a man's body.

The scientist who first published evidence for an unusually high number of gay men having the female brain pattern was Simon Le Vay at Berkeley in (if memory serves) the mid '80s. It is important to note from his results that not all gay men have female pattern brains, nor is every man with a typically feminine brain gay. The development of homosexuality is almost certainly multifactorial and, as I mentioned above, there is more than one gay phenotype to be accounted for.

Interestingly, one possible mechanism is that maternal stress can depress foetal testosterone production. A (gay male) professor at university suggested this as an explanation for, e.g., the unusually high number of gay men born in Germany in the immediate aftermath of the second world war. I can't quote any evidence to back this up, but it's an interesting idea and one which suggests why homosexuality might have a survival advantage in certain circumstances. Men fight for access to women and tend to kill competing males, particularly in inter-tribal warfare. The hypothesis is that since gay men aren't competing for women, they are less of a perceived threat and so less likely to be killed.

I'm afraid I know less about developmental mechanisms that could account for lesbianism. Masculinisation of the brain but not the genitalia is possible if an XX individual is exposed to testosterone at the appropriate time in the womb, but I have no evidence to confirm that this is likely to result in a lesbian adult.

Forgive me if there are any deficiencies or inaccuracies in the above. I wrote it all from memory, and it's along time since I studied this at university! I'm pretty sure the broad thrust of it is correct, but I'd welcome a fresh perspective if anyone would care to offer one.

23. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146496 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 6:26 am

Epinephrine>
Sorry, I should've checked that myself - thanks for pointing it out. Does this mean that they've shown a significant difference between Christians, non-believers and members of other religions? It still says nothing about the validity or otherwise of religious beliefs, but how long before someone tries to use like that? I dread to think what Dinesh D'Souza et al will make of this...

Richard Morgan>
Thanks, but I don't drink so I'll settle for a cup of tea!

24. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146455 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 5:27 am

Richard Morgan >
Ipanema beach sounds great, but I'm not sure about the caipirinha... they eat people, don't they? ; )

25. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146385 by Gordy on March 19, 2008 at 2:58 am

I think people might be missing the point here. As far as I know, the study doesn't differentiate between religions, it just claims that religious people are happier (on average) than non-religious people. This may well be true, but it's not because they're right and we're wrong. They can't all be right, because they all believe different things!

So, since it doesn't seem to be a direct consequence of what they believe, maybe we should be asking why religious people are happier than non-religious people. It may be that they're lying, as some people have suggested, or it may be a real effect. Either way, we shouldn't feel threatened. Let's at least approach the question scientifically and with an open mind. Rejecting the conclusion of the study simply because we don't like it is hardly a rational response and has no place in "an oasis of clear thinking"! I'm not suggesting that's what everyone on here has done, but one or two of the above posts do appear to be knee-jerks...

26. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146247 by Gordy on March 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm

notsobad,
You might well be right, but I was thinking more, for example, are Muslims happier than Christians? etc. Since most religions make contradictory claims, it follows that they can't all be true. If only one religion made people happier, it could be taken as evidence for the truth of that religion. If, on the other hand, all religions make people equally happy then, whatever the reason might turn out to be, it can't be because they're all true! The effect must be due to something else, like involvement in a community, etc.

For anyone who's interested, Jonathan Haidt considers this in "The Happiness Hypothesis". Well worth reading, imo.

27. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146219 by Gordy on March 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Nothing new here. There are plenty of possible explanations for it, but it doesn't even suggest that religions might be true. If they could show that one religion in particular made people happier than all the others, then they might be onto something... ;)

28. The atheist delusion

Comment #144375 by Gordy on March 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Originally posted this on the Guardian thread, but I thought I'd share it here because it so clearly illustrates the intellectual dishonesty that is ingrained in the whole piece:

John Gray wrote: "Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors."

So he doesn't believe there is (strictly speaking) even a theory of the survival and replication of ideas/concepts based on their fitness for the environment they find themselves in. Interesting, because he later goes on to say:

"A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come."

Perhaps he could explain why these ideas are "less likely to survive in years to come" without reference to meme theory. If concepts and ideas are not subject to a form of natural selection, what are the criteria that enable him to make predictions about which ideas will survive and which won't? What is the mechanism for this differential survival?

Or perhaps the only reason Gray objects to meme theory is that Professor Dawkins used it to try to explain why religions have survived for so long as ideas despite not being true, and he can't think of an honest counter-argument.

29. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #136295 by Gordy on February 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm

@ JuxtaMonkey

I hesitate to suggest it on here, but one of my favourite days out in London is visiting St Paul's Cathedral (cringe!) and the Tate Modern. Despite the main use the building is put to, St Paul's is a stunning piece of architecture and well worth seeing. The Tate Modern is a converted power station housing a fantastic collection of modern art. They're just across the river from each other and you can walk between the two via the Millenium Bridge. Just a suggestion...

30. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128474 by Gordy on February 17, 2008 at 4:44 am

robotaholic -

I can understand your frustration at the apparent anti-U.S. tone on this site, but I really don't think it's intended that way.

I'm in the middle of reading "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore - not because I want to store up ammunition with which to berate the next American who crosses my path, but because I think the issues it deals with are relevant to the whole world. The main theme of the book is how the changing nature of mass media has affected the capacity for genuine public debate in the U.S. I'm interested in the situation in the U.S. partly just because it's interesting, partly because it will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world, but also because I think there's a very real danger that the same thing could be happening elsewhere too.

Why has the decline in informed public debate happened faster in the U.S. than elsewhere? One possible reason is the influence of organised religion and the associated promotion of faith - belief without evidence. (DON'T QUESTION RELIGION! Oh, and don't question the president either. Or any of his friends... In fact maybe you should just stop questioning things altogether and accept the gospel according to Fox news. Amen.) That's of huge interest to most people on here, for obvious reasons.

The current political climate in the States horrifies me, but I know that about 50% of you voted the other way. Of course I don't blame all Americans, but it's still legitimate to say what I think about what's going on there. If us Brits and Europeans are coming down hard on your country, it might be because we're afraid that we're heading down the same road. Please don't take it personally. On the issues that matter, I'm pretty sure most users of this forum are on your side :)

31. The argument from oranges

Comment #128402 by Gordy on February 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Can anyone imagine how offended this guy would be if atheists came up with an equally inaccurate parody of the creationists' story? ;)

32. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127879 by Gordy on February 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm

On a related note, has anyone on here read "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore? I'm only about half way through it but I'm interested in his analysis of the changing nature of the public arena for debate. Amongst other observations, he identifies the move from print to TV as pivotal because it restricted the ability of ordinary people to contribute to any public debate and paved the way for the flow of information to be controlled. The examples he expands on are quite chilling in their implications.

Now, I realise Al Gore may not be exactly unbiased in his assessment of the current administration, but what I've read so far is largely a matter of public record so I'm inclined to believe it. I'd be really interested to hear the thoughts of any U.S. residents who've read it.

33. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127285 by Gordy on February 15, 2008 at 6:11 am

I am bemused by the argument going on here...

"Survival is the lowest form of power"? That seems like an odd definition of power to me, Mr. Bergson, but I can see how you might make a case for it. What exactly do you mean by "depend on" when you say "all (believed) truth does depend on power, as does lying."?

Steve Z's making more sense to me!

34. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125258 by Gordy on February 11, 2008 at 6:32 am

How about Steven Pinker? He's been mentioned a couple of times already on this thread, and with good reason. In my opinion he is one of science's great communicators and well capable of putting complex ideas forward in a way that is both engaging and understandable. I'd love to see him reach a wider audience.

35. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #90368 by Gordy on November 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

27b-6 wrote "I'm confident that an intelligent person like you can quickly find the passages you mention, make your own comparisons and come to your own conclusions – so I'll leave you to it!"

Yes, I could, but I'm interested in your interpretation. You cite these passages in support of your argument without explaining why you believe them to be relevant, even when specifically asked to (by me). You accuse Professor Dawkins of misrepresenting the Christian view of original sin, but decline to tell us what you think the correct view is.

As I think I demonstrated above, you misrepresented Professor Dawkins views by claiming that he believed the stealing of the apple to be symbolic only of itself, despite the fact that only a couple of pages earlier in the same book he quite clearly stated otherwise. I don't know you, so I don't know if this was an honest mistake, or not. I'm not going to jump to conclusions about your character just because I disagree with you, so I'm not going to assume that everything else you wrote is equally unreliable. At the same time, I have to be alive to the possibility that it might be... I'm hoping that by asking you to expand some of the points you made in terms that a layman can understand we might be able to advance the discussion.

My own perspective comes from being brought up in a Christian society and regularly attending an Anglican church as a child/teenager. Atonement for original sin was certainly one of the beliefs I was exposed to then ("We are born sinful..." etc). As Bonzai points out, it appears to be central to Catholic belief also. So, whether or not you believe it to be central to the Christian faith, it would appear that atonement for original sin is something that a great many mainstream Christians believe in. As such, it is a legitimate topic for discussion in The God Delusion. In order to discuss it, we need to agree what it is. If Christian scholars can't agree on a definition, the best anyone else can do is to look for a consensus of mainstream opinion on the subject. For my own part, I agree with smithyboy that Professor Dawkins' "overall view is pretty fair when it comes to what a very large number of Christians believe." If you disagree, please tell us why.

Atheists often complain that defenders of religion refuse to be pinned down to specific beliefs, perhaps so that they can always resort to the "That's not the religion/god I believe in" defence whenever criticised. I'm giving you the opportunity to prove us wrong! If Professor Dawkins has misrepresented your beliefs, tell us what you really believe.

smithyboy wrote: "Hebrews is indeed anonymous, as 27b-6 says, but what is interesting is that it probably only got included in the Bible because the early church thought it was written by Paul. The church believed for a very long time that it was authored by him, and it was only relatively modern scholarship which recognised that its language and style were so different from his actual writings that it was probably by someone else."

Thank you! If this is the case, I think crediting the authorship of Hebrews to Paul is perhaps an understandable error.

27b-6 wrote: "Why doesn't God just forgive us – because omnipotence does not mean "able to do anything" but "able to do anything that is logically possible" (a mistake which Dawkins makes more than once). St Paul et al take the view that it is not logically possible for a just God to simply overlook injustice without being himself unjust."

Well, there are a number of claims made in the Bible about miracles that most of us would consider to be logically impossible, e.g. raising the dead. Perhaps you can see how atheists' confusion arises: How are we supposed to know which logically impossible things God can do and which he can't?

I know all this might come across as hostile, but it is intended to provoke not just an honest exchange of views, but an exchange which is accessible to all. We might not end up agreeing, but at least each of us might understand the other's position a little better. And we can agree about Alister McGrath, if nothing else! :)

36. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #90258 by Gordy on November 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Hi 27b-6,

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I still don't quite follow your logic. The "apple scrumping" incident has to be interpreted either literally or symbolically. I think we agree that a literal interpretation makes little sense, so we are left to interpret it as symbolic. It does not, indeed can not, then follow that it symbolises only itself. If that were true, it would cease to be symbolic and we would be left with a literal interpretation. Professor Dawkins clearly states in the passage I quoted that it symbolised "knowledge of good and evil." It seems, to me, unfair to ignore this and to then claim that Professor Dawkins believes the symbol didn't symbolise anything.

On a broader note, I am not a scholar of theology so one thing that would help me appreciate your argument would be knowledge of the sources that you mention but don't expand upon. In particular:

27b-6 wrote: "As a theology graduate you will know that the closest the New Testament gets to an idea of original sin is Romans 5:12-21, but St Paul's comments here bear little more than a passing resemblance to Dawkins remarks. He does not quote this passage but does quote "Paul" in Hebrews 9:22 – but as a theology graduate you will know that St Paul didn't write Hebrews!"

What does Romans 5:12-21 have to say about original sin?
How does this differ from Professor Dawkins' remarks?
Who did write Hebrews?
Why is Hebrews 9:22 any less relevant than Romans 5:12-21?

27b-6 wrote: "Perhaps, as an ex Anglican, Dawkins could have used the definition of original sin in the thirty nine articles but he doesn't."

What is the definition in the thirty nine articles?

27b-6 wrote: "He just makes up his own definition."

If this is based on your assertion that "Dawkins treats the apple as a symbol which doesn't symbolize anything," then I'm afraid I have to disagree for the reasons outlined above.

Most people who use this site (indeed, most people!) are not scholars of theology. If you want us to understand your arguments, you're going to have to elaborate. Come on, help us out a little, please! (I'll happily do the same for you if you have any questions about developmental biology.)

Finally, I disagree with your assertion that "this is not worthy of an Oxford professor". It's not for me to judge, but as long as Alister McGrath's standards are considered acceptable then I imagine Richard Dawkins has very little to worry about...

37. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #89464 by Gordy on November 20, 2007 at 9:11 pm

27b-6 wrote "Original sin is defined by Dawkins as "apple scrumping" the effects of which are passed down in the semen. He recognises the taking of the fruit was "symbolic" but in an attempt to out literalise the literalists appears to claim that it doesn't symbolise anything apart from itself. A symbol which isn't a symbol! I challenge you to find ANY theologian who takes this view of original sin. If I have misrepresented his views then I apologise – but I can't see any other way of interpreting what he says."

You really can't think of another way of interpreting what he says? OK, let's take a look at it in context (TGD, paperback edition, p.284-5):

"Their sin - eating the fruit of a forbidden tree - seems mild enough to merit a mere reprimand. But the symbolic nature of the fruit (knowledge of good and evil, which in practice turned out to be knowledge that they were naked) was enough to turn their scrumping escapade into the mother and father of all sins."

I struggle to think of a way to paraphrase this to make it clearer. Professor Dawkins makes the importance of the symbolic nature of the fruit abundantly clear. How did you manage to arrive at the interpretation that he believes original sin to be simply the stealing of an apple?

38. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #89449 by Gordy on November 20, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Brilliantly incisive! A real antidote to the frustrations induced by listening to McGrath, DeSouza et al's meaningless, inconsistent and ill-informed squirming. Thank you, this was a genuine pleasure to read.