1. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203191 by Paula Kirby on July 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm

ggab7768: Who gives a shit if the outrage was fictitious, what about the apology?

That rankles with me too. But I suspect the answer lies in Realpolitik. I can't say I like it, but I can see why they've done it.

2. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203182 by Paula Kirby on July 2, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Vaal: I have seen humans who are a LOT less clean than any dog!

You wouldn't say that if you'd seen my dog yesterday. She'd found a mud bath and emerged absolutely caked in muck. I seriously considered planting potatoes in her coat and having done with it.

Linda: Hi Paula,
Here is the take on the story from the Telegraph:

As ThoughtsonCommonToad has pointed out, the Telegraph is only "better" than the Mail inasmuch as you get a posher form of bias in it. It's very right wing and I wouldn't rely on its interpretation of this kind of story either.

Look again at how the Daily Mail phrases it: "Tayside Police's new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community." From this you can be absolutely certain that it has prompted a very SMALL number of complaints from members of the Islamic community. Had it been a significant number, the Mail would have written something like "Police switchboards were flooded with complaints".

Note, too, that only "some" shopkeepers in Dundee are refusing to display the sign. Again, had it been a large number, the number would have been given, or much more emotive language would have been used ("Muslim shopkeepers across Dundee are boycotting the leaflet").

The fact that the quantity is not stipulated, even in vague, emotional terms, tells you everything you need to know.

3. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203153 by Paula Kirby on July 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Of course Muslims are offended. The dog should be wearing a burqa.

Seriously, though, I'd echo the note of caution being sounded by a number of other contributors. Any article from the Daily Mail should be viewed with suspicion.

4. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203105 by Paula Kirby on July 2, 2008 at 11:22 am

I have mixed feelings about this story.

Could ANYTHING illustrate better the inanity and sheer irrelevance of the Christian evangelicals than a fuss about the ordination of gays and women? They don't need us to show the world how ridiculous they are - they are making a fine job of it themselves.

And yet ... schism always lends energy to a movement, and there can be little doubt that the evangelicals in the Anglican church are energized just now. They have created a story that is finding a place in the news and so creating publicity for their cause (and we all know that there's no such thing as bad publicity); and the more publicity they can achieve, the more desperate Rowan Williams will be to try to achieve some kind of compromise with them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this split lead to more influence for the evangelicals in the end.

Until now the Anglican church (in the UK, at least) has been relatively harmless, precisely BECAUSE it has been so wishy-washy. But that could change if it starts getting religion ...

5. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #202120 by Paula Kirby on June 30, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Jayday: Do you know if there are plans to release a DVD of the 3 part film Professor Dawkins made for channel 4 in a format that can be played in the USA?

I have no idea, Jayday. Sorry.

6. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201981 by Paula Kirby on June 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Big City: Paula, will the whole clip be on the DVD?

So far as I know, the DVD will contain the whole of the 3-part film about Charles Darwin and evolution that Richard has made for Channel 4. It will also be broadcast on Channel 4 starting in August (I think).

The interview in the video clip here is quite separate from that. The idea was to get Richard talking about some of the things he covers in the film, and give people a bit of a preview of it.

7. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201904 by Paula Kirby on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hourglass Memory: From the video, both of the series bit and where he's sitting with Paula, he doesn't seem to be laughing. He only laughs when Paula mentions the gentle followers of Jesus.

Unfortunately the clip shown at the Festival stopped a little earlier than I'd intended, and so the best bit of this sequence wasn't shown. In it Richard reads out yet another letter from a hatred-spouting Christian (I won't tell you what it says, because it will spoil your fun when you see it - it really is very funny!), and literally can't keep a straight face as he's doing so.

He's interviewed in the film about his reaction to letters like these - and I think your concerns will be allayed when you hear his answers.

8. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201276 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Jamie Walton: That's The DVD right? Due for release on 11/08/2008

Yes, that will be it, Jamie.

9. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201182 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

There's a QuickTime version at the very top of this page now - that works perfectly!

10. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201133 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 5:52 am

Roger Stanyard: No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They're shameless about introducing what is effectively magic into their arguments, too. They have no difficulty in exempting their god from the laws of physics, so it really doesn't matter WHAT evidence you show them, they'll just argue that god magicked it to look that way.

Their whole belief system is based on myth and emotion. And fear too, of course. It seems rather optimistic to expect mere evidence to change their minds!

11. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201115 by Paula Kirby on June 29, 2008 at 4:53 am

Barry Pearson: I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?

Well, I've been called worse, Barry!

12. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #200679 by Paula Kirby on June 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

Muetze: What is this programme that they are showing clips from, and when will it air?

It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think. I was sent DVDs of it as part of my preparation for the interview, and it really is excellent: the best of his TV series so far, I would say. Strong message, astonishing film sequences, great soundtrack; and really gripping all the way through.

13. Lawsuit filed over 'I Believe' plates in S.C.

Comment #196715 by Paula Kirby on June 20, 2008 at 11:15 am

Big City: When Paula says 'Jump,' we say 'How high?'

...from midair

Oh dear. It's safe to land now, I promise! :-)

14. Lawsuit filed over 'I Believe' plates in S.C.

Comment #196702 by Paula Kirby on June 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

Sciros: Paula it would an option among very many.

Sorry, I've probably caused confusion now, since I deleted my question after re-reading the article and working out the answer for myself! Thanks for your reply though! (To Big City too.)

15. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195565 by Paula Kirby on June 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Quetz: Now who can we find to review it.....Paula?

Oh Quetz. Haven't I suffered enough? I thought it was only the loving Abrahamic god who inflicted eternal torment?

16. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195546 by Paula Kirby on June 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Loke / Oystein: Welcome to life without religion! I have sent you a private message, which you can access via the Forum tab above.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194998 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Steve: Brian is only setting aside evolution for the sake of argument, because RtG has concentrated all his arguments on denying evolution rather than making a positive case for design (i.e. HIS designer). It's a tactic. It doesn't rewind the world by 150 years and make arguments without evidence acceptable.

What Brian and others are asking RtG for is a POSITIVE case, supported by evidence, for design in general - and his preferred designer in particular.

Perhaps it's time we stopped flogging this horse?

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194984 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Steve Zara: So, the appearance of design is indeed (in that case) evidence for a designer of some kind.

No, I still disagree with you, Steve. It may have been acceptable before Darwin to assume that appearance of design was evidence of design. That's because there genuinely was nothing else to explain it with.

The situation is different now. We HAVE something else to explain it with. Something that is supported by piles of evidence. Advocating design in a post-Darwinian world is qualitatively different from advocating it in a pre-Darwinian world.

Where there was no evidence for any explanation at all, explanations without evidence were all that was available. But that's not where we are now. NOW, if you're going to claim design, you have to DEMONSTRATE design, for the simple reason that there IS an alternative, that IS supported by evidence. This applies EVEN IF (as Brian has done) we temporarily put aside the case for evolution for the sake of argument.

So far RtG has simply attempted to cast doubt on evolution. He hasn't made any kind of positive case FOR design. We're simply not in the same situation as the pre-Darwinians, so that won't do any more. It wasn't actually a good argument for design, even before Darwin - more of a lazy assumption, really.

What RtG has done so far is the equivalent of a Republican candidate saying people should vote for him because the Democrat candidate has smelly feet.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194958 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Steve Zara: I think what I am trying to say is that the third option: spontaneous appearance of species, only works if it is realised that the spontaneous appearance of a designer is far, far less likely.

Yes, the spontaneous appearance of species is a poor alternative. But it's not THE third option, it's A third option.

But in a sense that's irrelevant, because we evolutionists are not trying to make the case for spontaneous appearance of species. We are arguing from a position that is supported by reams of evidence.

The whole point is that RtG doesn't get his designer by default EVEN IF he chooses to ignore or deny the evidence for evolution. Just because it wasn't A, doesn't mean it was B. A case has to be made for its having been B - and "I don't believe your claim that it was A" doesn't come close to being a case for B.

This is not a discussion about whether or not species appeared out of nowhere, but about what constitutes an argument AT ALL. "You're wrong" does not equal "I'm right".

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194946 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Steve Zara pest :-): A murder victim is found, stabbed in the back. I am not the killer, then it must have been someone else. Saying "he spontaneously ended up with a knife in his back" isn't really something a court would accept.

No problem with this. But RtG is adamant he knows who the someone else is. That being so, Brian's repeated requests to RtG to make the case against his alleged perpetrator are perfectly reasonable.

Your analogy would get as as far as, "It wasn't evolution, so it must have been something else" - NOT "It wasn't evolution, therefore God did it" - which is what RtG is claiming.

RtG is proposing a specific alternative to evolution but has signally failed to make the positive case for it.

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194932 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Steve Zara: RtG should have said "my logic is the same as William Paley's - design is evidence for a designer"

What design?

The conversation was about the fact that debunking evolution (even if it were possible to do so) does not demonstrate design. The creationists don't get it by default - they have to make the positive case for creation, not just declare evolution to be impossible. I declare creation to have been impossible - but that doesn't prove evolution, does it? To conclude that "evolution did it", we need evidence that evolution did it. (Fortunately, there's more than enough of that.)

Anything else is as logical as saying "Well, Paula didn't murder that guy, so Steve must have done it." To convict YOU of the murder, it isn't enough to acquit ME of it.

That aside, though, I think we should all make a few allowances for RtG just now. No doubt his praying is beginning to work and his wings are beginning to bud. I should imagine it's a bit like teething in a baby. No wonder he's a little tetchy and confused.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194545 by Paula Kirby on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 am

Hey, Lying for Jesus has just overtaken Fleabytes! (7763 comments) Brilliant! Great to see that the Fleabytes marathon wasn't a one-off. :-)

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194305 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

RTG:devotion:

1 a: religious fervor : piety b: an act of prayer or private worship â€"usually used in plural c: a religious exercise or practice other than the regular corporate worship of a congregation

I know this is going to come as a shock to you, RTG, but there really is more than one book, you know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devotion

By the way - evidence for creation?

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194293 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm

RTG: I know my prayers and the prayers of others will eventually turn you from your heathen ways and turn you into a much happier spiritual soul.

So why are you still posting on this site, then? Wouldn't your time be better spent in prayer? What an insult to your god to think his response to your prayers will only work if you keep coming back here to check up on his progress! You know, the best demonstration of your faith really would be to pray and then bugger off and leave him to get on with it in his own good time. The very fact you don't do that rather undermines your own professed confidence in the procedure.

And you've got those wings to pray for too, don't forget. Go on, off you go, you're going to be far too busy to post on here.

Unless you feel like giving us that evidence for creation, of course?

25. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194213 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

PM for you, Mixmastergaz

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194143 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm

RTG: how would you know that I actually grew wings?

But presumably you think your god's going to do a good job of giving you wings if you pray for them, don't you? You're not expecting him to fob you or us off with a bodge job, presumably? Maybe you should just add an extra clause in your prayer, asking that your wings and flight should be demonstrated clearly and incontrovertibly so as to stand up to scrutiny of any kind. That should be child's play to a god who can give you wings and enable you to fly in the first place.

Off you go. You've got some praying to do. Or perhaps you're not quite so confident of your assertion, after all?

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194120 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm

RTG: Yes. At least by praying, it would be possible.

Care to prove that? You could, you know. You just need to go away and pray hard to grow wings and fly - then you find an independent witness and get them to film you, clearly showing your wings and clearly showing you flying unaided, and post the film here. Even the most sceptical atheist would be impressed.

Are you on?

Oh no, let me guess. Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test, right?

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194111 by Paula Kirby on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 pm

RTG: Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.

Perhaps you could try praying?

29. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193447 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Scottish Geologist: "I find it odd that UHI allows HTC funding with their dogmatic exclusive stance."

I get the strong impression that the comment you've quoted has not come from a Christians Together regular, but from a fellow atheist. That was certainly how I interpreted it, anyway.n

30. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193330 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 11:02 am

Epeeist:So copyright theft is fine, presumably providing you are only stealing from atheists.

Well, funny you should mention that. A quick look at the Christians Together website's own terms and conditions makes it clear that material from there may only be quoted elsewhere provided its source is clearly acknowledged and a url/hyperlink to the original page provided! (http://www.christianstogether.net/User/TermsAndConditions.aspx)

Now, who was it who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" again? :-)

31. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193326 by Paula Kirby on June 15, 2008 at 10:43 am

Christians Together: Paula said:
"I suspect you're rather wasting your time looking for help from us."

Sadly Paula it is beginning to look that way. Thus far (as I'm sure any objective reader would agree) all that my bona fide request has brought (with possibly one exception from someone who is "miles away from Scotland") are body-swerves, side-tracking, objections, spurious alternatives etc. etc.

Actually, Colin, your request has brought clear explanations of why we're not interested in helping you.

Let me recap:
1. Very few of us here are from Scotland, so you are dealing with a target audience of maybe four or five people
2. Even fewer have anything but contempt for David Robertson as a result of his behaviour on this site
3. There are objections in principle to participating in an evolution vs creationism "debate" at all.

[EDIT: It's rather like prayer, Colin: sometimes the answer is "No".]

I'd rather you didn't quote me as if we were in agreement if you're then going to attempt to give my words your meaning rather than mine.

And, talking of quoting me, I see that you have lifted my report of last week's UHI theology lecture and put it on your own website (http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=114100) without acknowledgement of where it came from - despite 2 requests from a guest on your site to provide a link. I have now posted the information he was looking for - but I wonder why you yourself didn't?

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193066 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Goldy: One person praying for me is an annoyance - millions is an imposition that can directly and adversely affect my life.

How? I can see how millions of people believing in prayer could directly and adversely affect your life, simply by the influence they could exert on public policy etc - but how would their actual praying make any difference to you?

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192895 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Steve Zara: You will note as well that Paula did not threaten me with physical harm or everlasting damnation for disagreeing with her.

Oh, don't spoil my fun. I was saving that up for later! ;-)

Seriously, thanks for your thoughts in #7149. Fascinating stuff and, yes, it all makes sense.

How will the creationists react when we find out for sure, you ask? Oh, I think we can hazard a pretty good guess at that. At that point they'll argue that THAT has no meaning, because we still can't say what caused Big Bang. And when we've discovered what caused Big Bang, they'll say that THAT has no meaning because we still can't say what caused whatever it was that caused Big Bang ... and so on ... and so forth ... ad tedious, predictable nauseam.

They NEED to believe that God did it. We know that because they keep telling us how depressing and pointless their lives would be without that belief. So they will go on believing it in the face of all the evidence, and they will go on pretending that it's we atheists, and not they, whose lives have a huge void that needs filling.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192853 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 4:09 am

Steve Zara: Paula. I am very sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you. I hope it is going to be in an interesting way.

Steve, it is always interesting when you disagree with me! No apology required, especially when I'm venturing into areas about which I only have the most rudimentary knowledge.

But I'm not sure, reading your post, that we're really disagreeing - I suspect that it was just my sloppy non-scientist's use of scientific terms that's causing the difficulty. I was assuming that the cell WAS the first self-replicating system (as I said, I'm not a scientist!) (Actually, my correspondent was also assuming this, as it was he who had raised the issue - and he IS a scientist, albeit a physicist, not a biologist. And his science is trumped, of course, by his fundamentalist Christianity. However, I digress.... )

If entities earlier than the cell could self-replicate, then I have no difficulty in seeing how the concepts of evolution by natural selection might extend back to them too.

But presumably there must have been a point before which self-replicating thingummyjigs didn't exist? In which case, the process by which they came into existence could not itself have been evolution by natural selection?

Feel free to tear this apart - I make no claims to real understanding on this subject, and would like to know more!

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192832 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 2:51 am

Received the Gift: Without knowledge of the origin of life, how can one even consider understanding the process in which you claim life evolved?

I had this discussion with someone else just recently, so I shall simply copy here the email I sent to him:

It's certainly going to be fascinating once scientists find out how the first self-replicating cell came into being, and it's going to be a hugely important contribution to our scientific understanding of life - but it won't strengthen the case for evolution by natural selection because BY DEFINITION evolution by natural selection only takes place once the self-replicating cell is there. So whatever process caused the first self-replicating cell it's NOT going to be evolution by natural selection. Knowing how the first self-replicating cell came into being won't strengthen the case for evolution by natural selection and NOT knowing doesn't weaken it.

They are two different processes.

To say that it's not worth talking about evolution by natural selection because we don't know yet how the first self-replicating cell came into being is just silly. The evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming and not remotely undermined by the fact we don't yet know what happened before it - just as our evidence for Italian's descent from Latin is not remotely undermined by the fact that we don't yet know what the first ever language was.

Just because you don't know how something got from A to B doesn't mean you can't be confident of how it got from B to M provided there's enough evidence for it. Though it will certainly be fascinating once the A to B bit has been discovered too. I hope it's in my lifetime.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192804 by Paula Kirby on June 14, 2008 at 1:44 am

Received the Gift: I truly am trying to understand why this discussion resulted in most of you displaying such an animosity and heartless attack on Christianity. Why are you so afraid. This display has to be the result of some uncertainty in your subconscience mind. Why do you feel so threatened? Jesus is near whenever you call for him. Only he can fill this void in your heart. I challenge you. Just ask.

And if we reacted with hostility to someone who came in here trying to advocate Hitler as a role model, would it be because, subconsciously, we were afraid we might be secret Fascists?

37. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192474 by Paula Kirby on June 13, 2008 at 6:21 am

Steve Zara: "Considering Miracles: Cheques and Balances"

Thank you, Steve. I was in need of a good laugh, and your post came along right on cue!

38. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192451 by Paula Kirby on June 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

Christians Together: I can't believe that those who so actively participate in the this on-line message board are all unwilling/unable to defend your viewpoint in live discussion.

I think you may be encountering problems on 2 fronts. The first is that this is an international site. I can only think of 3 active participants who are based in Scotland (though there may be others I'm not aware of, of course).

The other is your choice of David Robertson as one of the speakers on the religious/creationist side.

As I said to you on the phone when you first asked me, I personally have no interest in debating David Robertson because, to judge from his behaviour on this website, he is devious, sly, dishonest, aggressive, and lacking in decency or integrity. There is simply no point in debating such a person.

I have no reason to believe I am the only person on this site who has come to this conclusion.

Others have also pointed out the inherent flaw in the way the debate is being formulated - as though atheism and evolution were somehow two sides of the same coin. There are also objections in principle to debating with a creationist AT ALL, as it merely plays into the hands of those who wish to claim (quite erroneously) that there is actually any scientific controversy on the subject to debate.

Although I can only speak for myself, of course, I suspect you're rather wasting your time looking for help from us.

39. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191686 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I agree that it's horribly vague and highly unlikely to result in any government action. I've still signed it, though, for the simple reason that it's an opportunity to let the government know that an increasing number of us are fed up to the back teeth with religion. Being supportive of religion has tended to be seen as the safe option for governments - the more of us who sign petitions such as this one, the sooner I hope they'll realise that times have changed and that standing up to religion will not necessarily be a vote-loser.

40. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191658 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Barry Pearson: Are you saying that he objects to the concept of "be tolerant towards people with other views, but if those people display intolerance, be intolerant specifically to their intolerance until they cease being intolerant"?

He objects, I think, to anything that doesn't accept that Christianity has the one-and-only Truth.

He literally said that the facts discovered by science mean nothing unless placed in the context of God as ultimate creator, and that someone who became a Christian yesterday had more real knowledge than the most brilliant professor in Oxford. I wrote this down verbatim.

Not only did theology have a place in a modern university, but a university had no business calling itself a university unless it taught theology. And remember - he meant theology, not religious studies: ie. he meant studies founded in the assumption that God exists and has revealed himself to us.

This was Christianity in militant form.

41. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191476 by Paula Kirby on June 11, 2008 at 3:18 am

UHI held their second public lecture in this series on "Religion and Science" last night, and I thought you might like to hear about it. It was the second of three - interestingly, in order to redress the "balance" after Richard's talk in April, they are holding not one but TWO talks by theologians!

Last night's was the inaugural lecture of the new Professor of Theology at the Highland Theological College. (In October we're getting Dr John Lennox.)

The topic of his lecture was, "Is there a place for theology in a modern university?" And oh boy, it was quite an experience. The preacher, sorry, lecturer is a minister in the Church of Scotland and delivered something that was less a lecture and more a sermon: the intonation, the pacing, the dramatic intakes of breath, the gestures - everything. I kept expecting the congregation, sorry, audience, to utter "Amen" at the end of his sentences. And I was totally outnumbered, of course. You can tell just by LOOKING at the audience. You can up here, anyway. The women wear frumpy clothes and clearly don't approve of hairdressers; the men wear dark suits and frowns.

I have to say the theology prof did a quite remarkable job. I went into it quite convinced that the answer to his question was No, there is no place for theology in a modern university - but he managed to leave me not just convinced it had no place there but was an absolute DISGRACE to a modern university. This man is an unabashed, unashamed proselytizer and spent the hour of his sermon defending the right of Christianity to take a proselytizing role.

He started off by quoting Richard's letter on "The emptiness of theology" (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,88,The-Emptiness-of-Theology,Richard-Dawkins), and I was interested to watch the audience as he did so. Deep silence. I wondered about applauding at the end of it, but didn't really fancy being lynched. Then he went on to say that some theologians share Richard's view that theology has no place in a university - because it should not be subject to the scrutiny and validation of secular academic bodies, and should only be taught by the church!

Next we had a detour via tradition - ancient universities were founded by the church and theology didn't just have a place in them but was at the very heart of them. The University of Beijing, we were told, recently decided to set up a dept of Christian Theology because ALL the great universities of the world had one.

There then followed a vigorous defence of theology as opposed to religious studies: religious studies was a sociological discipline that studied religious places, people and traditions; theology, by contrast, was based on the belief that God really exists and that he has spoken to us and chosen to reveal himself to us.

This he attempted to justify by lambasting the Enlightenment. Those who claim that theology has no place in a modern university are usually working on Enlightenment presuppositions, notably that human reason is the final criteria (sic - I'm quoting verbatim) for decision-making. He saw the Enlightenment as signalling the move towards secularism, and declared this to have been damaging to an integrated and unified system of knowledge (one that incorporates the supernatural as well as the natural, I suppose he meant). He declared that this had even had a negative effect on some theologians, who had, as a result, created a theology that abandoned belief in the incarnation, the resurrection, miracles, and intervention by a supernatural God. We were given to understand that this Wouldn't Do.

He then amused me by referring to Notre Dame - I can't remember why he referred to it because I was too distracted by his pronouncing it "Notre Dayme", with a long "a". What a shame he didn't study a proper subject during his own university days.

Anyway, he then enlisted postmodernism (of all things) in his support, delighting in the fact that postmodernists have challenged science and declared the objectivity of scientific method to be a myth. Dawkins, apparently, presents himself as someone unencumbered by presuppositions and Christians as people who can't move for them, but his atheism is every bit as much of a presupposition as the preacher's belief in God. Dawkins' presupposition, he claimed, is that everything that exists came about by chance ... Yes, I nearly screamed at that point too and was only saved from doing so by the fact that my jaw then hit the floor as he went on to say that we must challenge the notion that because theology is based on faith it cannot be a science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He then went on to argue at some length that theology should be seen as science. (So you see it was not without its entertainment value, after all.) The thing is, he explained, you have to adapt your method of enquiry to the nature of the object being studied. God is a living, real being in trinity who has chosen to make himself known to us, and the nature of our enquiry must reflect this. (I wrote all this nonsense down verbatim in my trusty notebook.) He then quoted at length someone called Torrance who had written about the interface between religion and science and been awarded the Templeton Prize for his pains. (He announced this in awed tones as though it actually meant anything.)

Theology, apparently, is based on actual and objective knowledge of God. (At this point I drew a big smiley face in my notebook, though only because my drawing isn't good enough to do someone pulling their hair out.)

There followed a plug for the Highland Theological College's particular brand of theology - i.e. reformed, or Calvinist, theology. Apparently this is the only truly scientific theology, because it is based entirely on the revelation of God. So that's ok then.

Christian theologians are more honest than scientists, apparently, because at least they declare their presuppositions in advance. And those who say that theology has no place in a modern university are relativists, who say we're not allowed to declare anything as objectively true !!!!!!!!!!!!

(Can you imagine how I wriggled and squirmed throughout this utterly ridiculous lecture? Can you imagine how I heaved sigh after sigh of frustration? And can you imagine how close I came to walking out about halfway through?)

He went on to lament the present day tendency to tolerate anything except lack of tolerance - the insistence on openness and relativism. (I would have had more sympathy with this view, had he not previously enlisted the very Postmodernism that underlies it in order to attack science.) He set up the debate very much as an opposition between relativism and "the truth of God's self-revelation" - which I suppose wasn't so unreasonable given that he'd utterly dismissed the Enlightenment notion of truth based on evidence.

Christianity, apparently, is the means of integrating all knowledge - without a God-centred worldview we cannot have full knowledge of anything. Allegedly. I just loved the fact that he then went on to say that when early scientists started studying astronomy, they got it all wrong because they insisted on putting this Earth at the centre of the universe. Yes, that's right, it was scientists who started that nonsense about the Earth being at the centre of the universe. Nothing to do with the religious lot! (Just remind me what happened to Copernicus again ...)

He used this as the base from which to argue that the facts discovered by science may be true, but they can only constitute real truth if placed in the context of God as the ultimate creator. Without this, science can make no real contribution to truth.

He went on to say (with a knowing, wink-wink look at the audience) that the most brilliant professor in Oxford, if he be an atheist, has less real knowledge than someone who became a Christian yesterday. It is impossible to develop an integrated system of knowledge without God.

He finished off by arguing that theologians should play MORE of a role in universities and in national debate generally. Apparently the poor things have been excluded from national debates on issues of national identity and ethics etc, and aren't allowed onto the committees that advise government on such issues. Poor things. I really had no idea they were so badly done by.

There weren't many questions. The first was the most the interesting: Was there a place for 6-day creationism in a modern university? The answer was that theologians are divided on the question (so much for God having revealed his truth!), but that individual theologians should have the right to reach conclusions based on scripture, and have them respected.

The next question was whether there was any room for Shiva in the university! The answer was so nonsensical, it could have been composed by Edward Lear. "Any attempt to provide an account of reality and the significance of human beings has a place at a modern university, provided it gives a coherent account of reality." Ahem. Follow-up question: Would he be prepared to expand the Highland Theological College curriculum to incorporate other theologies? Answer: No!

So all in all it was an Experience with a Capital E. I'd fully planned to ask a question at the end, but honestly - where was I to start? The man had done nothing but spout complete nonsense from beginning to end. He's also a professional preacher, and had the advantage of being on the stage with the microphone - he'd have had the last word in any exchange. I decided it just wasn't worth it.

So I went home and unwound with a large glass of Remy Martin instead.

42. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #190049 by Paula Kirby on June 8, 2008 at 9:28 am

Irate Atheist: To which I can only ask -

1. Are you creationists?
2. Do you claim that evolution is false?

As I understand it, the plan for this debate is to have an atheist and an evolutionist on one side and a Christian and a creationist on the other.

This is seen as approaching the questions from both the religious and the scientific points of view. The implication of this, it seems to me, is that creationist arguments are going to be put forward as though they held any kind of scientific standing.

What interests me most about this is the automatic assumption that Christians will be opposed to evolution. I know many Christians (though admittedly not here in the Highlands) who have no difficulty whatsoever accepting the truth of evolution. It's just that they assume that God directed it.

I was a Christian for years and cannot recall a single time when evolution was challenged either in the various churches I attended or by the other Christians I knew. I can't help wondering whether my greater awareness of anti-evolution views these days is simply due to the fact that I've moved to a more religiously fundamentalist part of the country, or whether it really does reflect a genuine rise in creationist "thinking". I HOPE it's the former, obviously.

43. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #187226 by Paula Kirby on June 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm

ChristiansTogether: Sorry Paula, I didn't communicate well - mea culpa. What I was wondering was if you could point me to a couple of folk (in Scotland) who would be prepared to participate in a debate (venue Inverness) with a chairperson of mutual acceptability.

LOL! "That's not my phone call you're describing." :-)

44. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #179576 by Paula Kirby on May 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm

bitsphere: One tiny critique though, the sofa should have been given to the guest interviewee rather than the interviewer. A known protocol

We were going to be the other way round, but the cameraman asked us to swop over because of where the camera was located. If we'd stayed as we were originally, the camera would have had a much better view of me than of Richard. Which wasn't really the object of the exercise! :-)

45. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178497 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Artful: So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

Who says there is one?

46. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178492 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.

47. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178350 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

Just obscene.

I cannot begin to imagine how it must feel to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable - let alone something to be proud of.

48. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178331 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:39 am

Epeeist: The thing that gets me is the dishonesty of much of the so called arguments that theists seem to put together.

Yes, I can relate to that. But do they REALISE they're being dishonest, do you think? Sometimes it's so blatant that they surely MUST be aware of what they're doing; but I think many Christians
aren't being knowingly dishonest at all.

I think what gets me even more than the dishonesty is the snideness. The almost audible sneers. And the smugness, too. Highland Christianity is not a pretty thing.

49. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178329 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:31 am

riandouglas: I'm curious as to whether that is not exactly how our "side" appears to the "opposition"?
I don't think it is, and I don't think I think that simply because I feel like I'm "one of us". Basically, is there some objective method of comparing arguments to show that one is tragically flawed?

Well, I think theists DO find us vicious and offensive; but I think that's less because we actually ARE vicious and offensive than because they find our disbelief offensive in itself.

As an example: last week I was rung up by the editor of the Christians Together website. As a follow-up to Richard's event in Inverness, he is hoping to arrange a formal debate between Christians and atheists later in the year, and he invited me to be one of the two atheist speakers.

It turned out that one of the two Christian speakers is going to be - guess who! - our very own Dial-A-Flea, David Robertson.

I responded that I had no interest in debating David Robertson, since I'd had numerous encounters with him via this website and had read his book, and found him to be an aggressive, abusive, dishonest debater.

I later received an email from the would-be debate organiser saying, "I understand what you are saying that you don't personally like one particular person's style, but if I can (gently) say, there are some who might not like the style of other panellists who might be involved.... "

I thought this was very revealing, because at that point the organiser had no idea at all who the atheist panellists were going to be, let alone what debating style they might adopt (I was still thinking about the invitation at that point, and subsequently declined it). So the organiser had no reason whatsoever to think that the atheist panellists might be offensive. The only possible source of offence at that stage, therefore, had to be the panellists' views, rather than their style of debate.

Contrast this with my David Robertson comment, which was specifically about HIM and his ACTUAL debating style; and not about his views at all.

50. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178312 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 7:00 am

scottishgeologist: "Free Church Continuing"

It's no good. I simply can't stop myself thinking "Continuity IRA" whenever I hear this term. Not that far off the mark, I suppose, since I also always think of the Free Church Continuing as being what you might call the paramilitary wing of the church.