1. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109897 by Will S on January 10, 2008 at 2:36 am

Without wanting to sound too solemn, I thought it was rather encouraging.

Look what happened. RD was allowed, and encouraged, to present an anti-religious point of view, without being subjected to harsh and searching cross examination, and without there being any religious person on hand to put across an opposing point of view.

In other words, he was being given the same privileges which religious people are given all the time, and which it's taken for granted that they should receive.

An interesting step in the right direction.

2. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96116 by Will S on December 10, 2007 at 3:01 am

These programmes are so boring!

In terms of cricket, it's like watching a very accomplished batsman dealing with very slow and easy deliveries. All that could possibly happen is that he nods off at the wicket and gets bowled out whilst asleep.

Can't the religious community find some better bowlers, please?

3. A force for good?

Comment #55081 by Will S on July 10, 2007 at 1:16 am

Now that I've finished tearing my hair, I find that I can, in a back-handed way, take some comfort from this article.

When I was a lad, such an article would have, almost certainly, been condemned by Christian leaders (bishops etc) because the author is (as has been pointed out) a de facto atheist, who (as has been pointed out) misuses the word God.

For example, I recall the publication of the 'modernist' book by John Robinson, 'Honest to God', and reading an article (by C S Lewis, if I remember rightly) which rebuked him along those lines.

But now, 40-odd years later, the article by Vallely which has annoyed so many of us was written as a rebuttal of Grayling's article which put the atheist, anti-religious point of view.

I'd suggest that the fact that Vallely is seen as an apologist for religion, and not its enemy, indicates that religious people have retreated a huge distance.

So, to be optimistic, let's say: One more big push, and the job's done!

4. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53901 by Will S on July 4, 2007 at 3:24 am

It seems that Bizarro has not returned to make further comments. Let's hope that he has at least read the replies. Herewith my two penn'oth:

Creationists are certainly correct in saying that there are many large changes in form or function which human biologists have never observed occurring in nature in living organisms. For example, we have never observed a land animal develop wings and take to the air; we have never seen an animal which breathes through gills develop lungs.

The absence of such observations does not contradict evolutionary theory; rather, evolutionary theory predicts that we're very unlikely indeed to make such observations, simply because of the time required. To put the boot on the other foot, if biologists were routinely discovering such goings-on in nature, it would be strong evidence that present day evolutionary theory was wrong, or, at least, very seriously incomplete.

So the absence of such observations cannot be taken, either as evidence for, or as evidence against, evolution.

What (of course!) is needed is an examination of all the, very extensive and very varied, evidence for evolution. Let's hope that friend Bizarro is motivated to undertake the necessary study.

5. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48772 by Will S on June 9, 2007 at 3:10 am

Atheism is different. It is a form of protest.

It's a good article, but he still can't face the fact that atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God. It seems that he can't quite bring himself to admit that atheists are people who have examined particular evidence and arguments, and come to particular conclusions.

Consider: Would he say that theism, or deism, or belief in alien abductions, or belief in telepathy are 'forms of protest'? I don't think so.

6. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #39085 by Will S on May 10, 2007 at 12:41 am

Re: Comment #38903 by BaronOchs on May 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm

I don't share your sentiment there Will S. Many catholic priests and parishioners think for themselves rather than towing the vatican line and I say good for them. Imagine a world in which they didn't?

But if we believe what McTernan says, then for 30 years he did toe the Vatican line. He went on asking God to do things (heal the sick, deliver fine weather etc) while all the time he (apparently) didn't believe in an interventionist God i.e. he didn't believe that the prayer would, or could, make the slighest difference to the outcome.

That's why I used the word hypocrisy.

7. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38811 by Will S on May 9, 2007 at 8:25 am

Oliver McTernan says: 'I've never believed in an interventionist God.'

What about his 30 years as a Catholic priest, when, presumably, every day of his life, he was praying to God to ... do things ... to intervene?

Is he suffering from amnesia? Or was he, for 30 years, a complete hypocrite?

And, if he's a hypocrite, is it institutionalised hypocrisy? That is, does the Catholic Church tell its priests to go through the motions and to behave as if there were an interventionist God, while realising that there isn't?

I'm puzzled, and, to be honest, slightly shocked. (I've known some Catholic priests) I would like to know the answers to these questions. Seriously, is there a Catholic priest in the house?

8. In Ducks, War of the Sexes Plays Out in the Evolution of Genitalia

Comment #37282 by Will S on May 4, 2007 at 1:35 am

Comment #36890 by Nails on May 2, 2007 "This has got to be one for the Intelligent Designers to explain. If they can quote the eye then we can retaliate with the duck's cock, metaphorically speaking."

Sadly, that will cut no ice at all. They'll just tell you it demonstrates that the designer has a sense of humour.

9. Archive Hour: BBC and Religion

Comment #36026 by Will S on April 30, 2007 at 1:20 am

Interesting programme! To my mind, the obvious omission was that there was no mention of the sheer dominance which the Christian churches used to exercise over the BBC, and the sheer volume of religious (i.e. Christian) broadcasting. There were certain periods on Sundays when it was so organised that you couldn't switch on BBC radio or television without encountering a religious message.

In 1955, an academic, Margaret Knight gave two short talks entitled 'Morals without religion' on (I think) the old Home Service - and all hell broke loose. The vultures weren't satisfied until there had been an additional programme in which she debated the issues with a religious representative.

Times have changed, thank goodness! We'd be well advised not to forget that.

10. The Empty Wager

Comment #32995 by Will S on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 am

I'd seriously like to hear a religious person's comments on the following conjecture. (I don't suppose for a moment that it's true, but it seems to be at least as likely as most religious positions.)

Suppose there is a deity and that s/he values above all other virtues intellectual integrity and proper respect for evidence. Suppose that s/he has deliberately created a universe from which decent evidence for his/her existence has been carefully exluded. S/he is now subjecting us humans to a test. If we retain our integrity and remain life-long atheists, we'll be wafted to Heaven to enjoy eternal life among the saints (Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell et al)

On the other hand ... if we succumb to temptation, and believe, against the evidence, that there's a God, we're consigned to Outer Darkness, along with all the religious apologists, popes etc.

Under Pascal's Wager, that makes atheism the desirable position - only it has to be sincere atheism, of course.

11. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32452 by Will S on April 17, 2007 at 5:33 am

'A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered.'

But if what someone calls 'God' is, actually, only an aspect of his/her own personality, or a set of ideas planted there by some other other human being (parent, teacher, priest) then that person's universe becomes even more ego-centred. S/he will have even less reason to query the rightness of his/her own attitudes and ideas.

Cue: chorus 'With God on our side...'

12. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31107 by Will S on April 11, 2007 at 3:12 am

I'm an atheist, but that doesn't stop me feeling sorry for Mum.

Surely, most of us, at some time in our lives, have been pitchforked into an unexpected situation, and we have reacted in an irrational, emotional, totally inappropriate way. Looking back, we thank our lucky stars that nobody was around with a video camera......

Relevant questions:

(1) What did Mum have to say to sonny boy later on, when she had got over the initial shock. For example, did she apologise (as she certainly should have done) for her initial outburst?

(2) Was the video camera set up in advance with the intention of recording that particular confrontation? If so, who did it? If it was sonny boy himself, then, to my mind, he himself doesn't come out of the situation too well.

(3) What's the background to all this? For example, if Mum had any genuine religious beliefs, would her first reaction be to tell the lad that he would have no Christmas presents? I have enough respect for (some) religious people to conclude that that wouldn't be the first reaction of a genuinely religious person.

13. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30624 by Will S on April 9, 2007 at 4:15 am

It's surprising how often the argument comes up:

'Regardless of whether it's true or not, people ought to believe in Christianity, because it's good for them, and good for society.'

What interests me is not so much what atheists think of this argument but what Christian believers think of it.

Is there any believer out there who would care to comment? Do you welcome people who take this line, or do you regard them as dishonest? I'd be interested to hear.

14. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26125 by Will S on March 17, 2007 at 5:02 am

To be candid, I think there is a kind of logical consistency here.

As I understand it, the traditional Christian view is that it's OK to be gay – just so long as you don't do anything about it. In the same way, it's OK to experience an impulse to steal, so long as you don't actually steal. (I disagree very strongly with the traditional Christian view of homosexuality – but that's not the point.)

So, if homosexuality is to any significant extent genetically determined (as I understand it, this is also highly controversial – but let's assume it for the sake of argument), then a traditional Christian might see homosexuality as a kind of birth defect, and, if it's possible to 'correct' it in utero, this would be desirable, in order to spare the unfortunate sufferer constantly having to make choices between sin and sexual frustration, and to allow him or her the possibility of a 'legitimate' (i.e. heterosexual) sex life.

In a word, this looks like valid logic, based on faulty, and deplorable, premises.

In the same way, I recall, as a lad, seeing a TV film of some pyschologists trying to 'cure' a homosexual (who had volunteered for the treatment), using aversion therapy. If (repeat, if) you accept the premise that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be cured, then I can't see any way of faulting what they were doing.

15. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #24017 by Will S on March 4, 2007 at 8:31 am

Re. Comment #23998 by Sean Mc on March 4, 2007 at 4:38 am

Will S, what Craig actually says is that faith stems from the "witness of the holy spirit", which transcends the "shifting sands" of actual evidence.

I don't think that's what Craig actually said in the recording, but if that's what he means, why doesn't he just say so? Why pretend he's presenting rational arguments when, really, he's relying on what he believes to be a direct revelation from God?

If he tells Wolpert and the rest of us that he's had a revelation, then we can decide whether or not to believe him. Why confuse the issue?

16. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23993 by Will S on March 4, 2007 at 3:42 am

Where on earth does Craig see his argument leading?

He argues for extreme scepticism: there's absolutely nothing which we can be sure of (for I might just be a brain in a vat etc etc)

I was waiting for his 'Therefore.....' - which never arrived.

How does he hope to get from extreme scepticism to an elaborate and detailed theology?

As far I can see, the best he can do is to say that, since there's no rational foundation for any set of beliefs whatsoever, then - yah, boo, sucks - his beliefs are just as true, and deserve just as much respect, as anybody else's.

Has he really overlooked the obvious corollary? By the same token, his beliefs are just as false, and deserve just as much derision, as anybody else's.

17. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23659 by Will S on March 2, 2007 at 1:27 am

Curiously, I find that I'm a bit out of sympathy with most of the comments posted here.

For I've become something of a connoisseur of anti-TGD reviews, and this strikes me as being one of the best - better, for example, than Terry Eagleton's well-known review in The London Review of Books.

Now, before you all leap on top of me, let me say that the general standard of anti-TGD reviews is not very high. (In fact, it's so low that it was a pleasant relief to encounter Plantinga's) All I mean is that if Richard Dawkins ever means to pick one particular review to refute at length, he could do worse than pick this one. It puts the anti-TGD arguments about as strongly as they can be put - that is, not very strongly at all.

On one particular point, I do have some sympathy for Plantinga. The terms 'simple' and 'complex' are horribly slippery, but surely he's right to say that, if you define 'God' as 'whatever it was that produced the universe', then 'God' might be simple. For example, we know for sure a case where something simple (or should I say 'simple'?) that is evolutionary forces, produced something complex (or 'complex'?), that is living things. So it doesn't seem to be out of the question that something similar might apply to the universe. Indeed, TGD, on page 158, points 5 and 6, actually envisages this possibility.

The objection to Plantinga is, of course, that any such simple 'God' would seem to bear absolutely no relation to the God of Christianity, and would probably be what Dawkins calls an Einsteinian God.

18. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #19996 by Will S on January 31, 2007 at 3:16 am

One of the things which this disgusting video illustrates is a point which RD has made several times: 'reasonable' religious people assist the extremists.

For the propagandist could work on the assumption that his wretched little victims had already been taught that there was something 'special' about the Bible; that it's not book like any other book, but the word of God. Had he not been able to do that, he's have got nowhere.

19. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #19795 by Will S on January 30, 2007 at 12:53 am

Why should n't the Catholic church be able to provide a service to the public which is in line with their own beliefs.
(Although I would agree that it should be privately funded if they do)

Agreed - this kind of issue where liberty of conscience is pitted against public policy is often very difficult.

But have you considered the following? Suppose a privately funded adoption agency, which received no government money at all, announced that it wasn't going to consider, say, black people, or Jews, or Muslims as adoptive parents.

Would you, in those circumstances, say? -

If they want to live in a fantasy world who are we to stop them.

I don't know, but I suspect that you wouldn't.

If you wouldn't, then I think you're going to find it very difficult to justify the necessary distinction.

Will

20. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17859 by Will S on January 17, 2007 at 4:28 am

Just to be slightly serious: isn't it striking how the various denominations are constantly squabbling over the management of these sacred sites? If Christianity really is a religion of peace, reconciliation and love, surely you'd expect them to be able (at least there if not anywhere else!) to work out a sensible way of going about things.

OK - if you're a Christian reading this, your knee-jerk reaction is likely to be that I'm a nasty atheist who's making a nasty debating point. But think about it. In all seriousness, isn't there an indication here that there's something wrong with the underlying ideas?

21. Creationism Song

Comment #17766 by Will S on January 16, 2007 at 2:15 am

It would be good to know what was going on in the mind of that kid on the left, wouldn't it? She certainly doesn't look convinced.

22. The Nodder

Comment #16811 by Will S on January 9, 2007 at 12:45 am

I need a lottery win and I shall then get a copy of 'The God Delusion' into every hotel room in the world...

That's a brilliant idea. Also, how about leather bound, gold-edged copies of TGD printed on India paper for thoughtful relatives to present to kids when they reach puberty?

On Gideon bibles: At one time, when I used to travel more than I do now, I toyed with the idea of printing some special self-adhesive inserts. Gideon bibles, of course, have right at the front a list of recommended readings. I thought it might be helpful to overlay this with an alternative list of recommended readings e.g. some of the nastier examples which TGD quotes, and also a section of erotica.

23. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16319 by Will S on January 6, 2007 at 3:57 am

They - call them secular fundamentalists - are anti-God, and what they really want is the eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth.

But, by the same token, believers want the eradication of atheism, and all atheists, from the face of the earth.

Both objectives, in themselves, are entirely honourable. What matters is how each side sets about achieving its objective. It's only at that stage that any question of 'totalitarianism' can arise, for it's perfectly in order to attempt to 'eradicate believers' by getting them to see that that beliefs aren't true, or to attempt to 'eradicate atheists' by getting to realise that there is, after all, a God. What, of course, wouldn't be in order would be to attempt the 'eradication' by using guns, prisons, rubber truncheons, economic pressure, childhood indoctrination etc etc.

Where is the evidence that atheists use, or want to use, 'totalitarian', or any other illegitimate means to promote their cause?

It's shameful that a, usually decent, paper like the Guardian should publish incoherent, possibly rabble-rousing, nonsense of this kind.

24. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16291 by Will S on January 6, 2007 at 1:11 am

Where does Schulman himself stand? He gives the impression that he's a theist, yet he writes:

The new atheists fail too often simply for want of charm or skill. Twenty-first century atheism hasn't found its H.G. Wells or its George Bernard Shaw, men who flattered their audiences, excited them and persuaded them by making them feel intelligent.

This sounds more like an atheist grumbling that his/her fellow atheists are not doing a good publicity job.

When I read these, ostensibly, anti-atheist articles, I often suspect that the author is, actually, sitting on the fence, and is confused about his/her beliefs - is hankering, perhaps in a rather despairing way, after theism, and has qualms about seeing it robustly attacked.

It wouldn't surprise me if, in a couple of years, the same author were to write an article along the lines, 'Dawkins the Liberator'.

25. Religion does more harm than good - poll

Comment #14658 by Will S on December 24, 2006 at 1:13 am

The trouble is that when you ask people if they are 'religious' or 'Christian', you're asking vague questions, and much depends on what the words mean to the interviewee. For example, for many people, 'Christian' simply means 'moral' and has little or nothing to do with belief in supernatural beings, holy books, etc.

It would be interesting to see a survey which, instead of asking people whether they were 'Christian' or 'religious', tried to home in on specific beliefs: do they believe in a God who listens to, and answers prayers; do they believe in a life after death; etc?

I'm sure that it would, in practice, turn out to be rather difficult to design such a survey, in particular framing the questions so as to minimise the likelihood that they'd be misunderstood, but it would certainly be worth attempting.

26. The problem with secularism

Comment #14358 by Will S on December 22, 2006 at 6:13 am

It took the combined efforts of two philosophers to produce this 720-word masterpiece?

27. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14302 by Will S on December 22, 2006 at 1:36 am

Ah! Memory lane! I heard (from a reliable source, I think) that a man who, many years ago, taught me Russian had become an Orthodox monk, and was living on Mount Athos.

He was a very agreeable man, and, even if his world view is somewhat disordered, I do hope that nobody has clobbered him with a sledgehammer or a crowbar. (I certainly can't see him doing any of the clobbering.)

28. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13671 by Will S on December 19, 2006 at 4:21 am

Didn't RD say in the New Zealand interview that he has made two more programmes for Channel 4 to be transmitted later, dealing with modern superstitions like telepathy, dowsing, homeopathy, etc?

If so, then I suppose that broadcasting the Liddle programme might be justified in terms of 'balance' or 'fairness' or something. I'd have thought, though, that the anti-Dawkins brigade might (with some justice!) complain that Channel 4 should have put up a stronger opponent.

29. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13652 by Will S on December 19, 2006 at 2:48 am

Comment #13648 by Diplo

You say: 'Teaching about religion is compulsory in UK state schools, but certainly not being taught a religion.'

Am I out date on this? (If I'm am, I'm delighted to hear it!) Surely, the daily 'Act of Workship' remains compulsory in all UK state schools, doesn't it? If so, this clearly goes beyond teaching children about religion.

As I said before, it's probably not very effective indoctrination, and, as I understand it, many schools break the law by failing to have a daily Act of Worship. However, surely, the intention behind the law is still indoctrination.

30. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13642 by Will S on December 19, 2006 at 12:55 am

It's certainly odd for me to read this - I live in the UK where the teaching of religion in state schools is compulsory!

Actually, there's an up-side as well as a down-side to this. The general effect, I think, is that, because it's compulsory, the teaching of religion is generally (but with exceptions) pretty anaemic and ineffectual. My impression of it is that much of it gets done in a apologetic sort of way by teachers who are not really committed to it. For example, I don't think that, in the UK, many schools would teach that Noah's Ark was a physical reality, as opposed to a symbolic story. And even fewer schools would teach that Noah had dinosaurs on board.

Perhaps you US atheists should campaign for compulsory religious teaching in US schools, so as to bring the level of religious belief closer to what it is over here! (Only joking)