1. Long live satire

Comment #24416 by Dogbreath on March 6, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Mantel wrote...

"The book does have some weaknesses, though. How religion has evolved is one question that deserves a more thorough (and less biased) discussion than there is room for in TGD. There is also the matter of what role religion plays in society and politics, a matter that is also handled too briefly."

I think you miss the point on TGD. Dawkin's purpose was not to write a book exploring the origins of religious belief. Whatever claims are made about these origins it doesn't make the claims of religion true, and Dawkins is searching for truth.

On another point, admirable though your intention, there's a forum for opening up these kinds of discussion. I suggest you post your views there and enter a focused discussion.

Couldn't agree more with Sue Blackmore - nice injection of reason. There is no shortage of believers desperately seeking to be offended!!

2. Religion and Politics

Comment #24259 by Dogbreath on March 5, 2007 at 3:22 pm

"people would rather vote for a religiously devout microcephalic ax-murderer than for the most admirable atheist"

Sometimes poetry is chilling...but this is depressingly true.

3. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22504 by Dogbreath on February 19, 2007 at 11:56 am

gimlibengloin...posting the same comment twice doesn't make it true. Here's my question to you. Do you think they are saying that evolution and creationism are epistemoligically the same?

And, there is nothing embarassing about scientists wanting to falsify the theory of evolution. It's just that this needs to be done through science, not witchcraft.

4. U.S. 'Satisfied' With Religion's Public Role, But More Want Less

Comment #20524 by Dogbreath on February 3, 2007 at 6:29 pm

The details of the poll are here

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26311&pg=1

5. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20401 by Dogbreath on February 2, 2007 at 8:23 am

5. Comment #20347 by Ohnhai "Tough one this.

While the parents decision not to condone the transfusions was motivated and based upon their religious beliefs, we have to realise that as the legal parents of those children they have a legal right to deny medical treatment on behalf of their children"

So, Ohnhai, the "slippery slope" you are worried about also leads to acceptance and enactment of Sharia law or anything that any wingnut states is part of their belief system. It also permits the enslaving of children and the abuse and control of women.

I have no problem drawing a clear line through this.

6. The Only One in Step

Comment #19451 by Dogbreath on January 27, 2007 at 9:22 am

153. Comment #19332 by gimlibengloin "You need to pay attention. Prof Dawkin's opening page of chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker defines evolution as a process of CHANCE. If you don't believe me READ it, THINK about it, and then REPLY"

Hear's the word for word start to Chapter 3 of the Blind Watchmaker.

"We have seen that living things are too impossible and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance."

So, I've read it Gimlibengloin, and you are a LIAR. Or STUPID. Probably both. It says the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim it says.

7. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19425 by Dogbreath on January 27, 2007 at 5:31 am

Comment #19400 by nine9s "It's rather disconcerting having to defend Haggard while taking Dawkins to task"

I'm puzzled why you feel the need to do it. Especially with Haggard. Can Richard be smug and condescending? Yes, thankfully.

8. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19386 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:31 pm

What are they praying for? The make a whole succession of crappy decisions - it clearly doesn't work!!!

9. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #19385 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I wonder how many students in school experienced the annual abuse of visiting Gideons handing out free bibles? Ever wonder why that was allowed to happen? Ever wonder who organized it? - the same RE teachers who some of the folk on this thread would be quite happy to entrust the teaching of ID and "other theories of creation".

I don't get it. This sounds preciously close the the idea of "teaching the debate" that was so roundly condemned in the judgement at Dover, PA. There is no debate.

10. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19382 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:10 pm

144. Comment #19381 by Sancus

Still not sure I understand Sancus. Let me pick out some puzzling pieces.

"Spiritual experiences are not something that can be readily subjected to peer review"

"Science relies on peer review and a common language. Private experience therefore seems to be outside its realm."

I think you might be asking the wrong question here. The question should be about the ability to test and falsify. Whilst science cannot yet test whether the feelings or experiences a person claims are actually being felt or experienced (although brain imaging is helping), science can test the supernatural claims from which these feelings and experiences are said to result. There is a difference, for example, between expressing a claim of awe and wonder at aesthetic beauty (which some describe as a spitual experience), and then claiming that experience as having a supernatural cause. The first is difficult to test scientifically, the second can be. It is the process of testing and falsification that is undergone through peer review.

"Secularists appear afraid to look soft on the idea of forgoing peer review for studying these experiences. But isn't it okay to abandon peer review in the special case of science in one's own private experience?"

If you elect to forego peer review you are really claiming that your experiences lay outside of science because science depends on the ability to test and falsify - this really means that you can believe or experience absolutely anything in your mind and it must be true. And because it is in my mind and I don't have to trouble myself by the restrictions caused by peer review this becomes an evident truth despite the fact that it cannot be tested. This is circular logic that leads nowhere. In summary, the ability to test and falsify is so fundamental to science that, without the ability to do this, it isn't science. So, yes, you can abandon peer review in special cases - it just wouldn't be science and scientists couldn't study it. The one goes with the other.

11. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19380 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 6:08 pm

136. Comment #19326 by Sancus "I do not think it is useful for secularists to say that science cannot be done alone or outside the scope of communication. Perhaps that is the real problem secularism has today"

You've got me here Sancus, I haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about. Could you enlighten me? Are you saying that science just needs better PR or is it a really deep point that my small brain can't grasp?

12. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19356 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Comment #19353 by scooternyc "Every "prediction" has a 50% chance of being correct....

...and a 50% chance of being wrong"

This would be true if you were tossing a coin. According to the website mentioned above she seems to be able to achieve much less than a 50% success rate - admittedly not a very scientific assessment. The problem here is not that every prediction has a chance of being 50% right, but that she sets herself up as being 100% right. Under those circumstances, and with the consequences for the people involved, even a 95% success rate would be potentially catastrophic in emotional terms and be fraudulent.

I love your "supernatural "tosh"" phrase!!

13. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19349 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am

and the link didn't work

14. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19348 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am

Comment #19318 by gimlibengloin "Dogbreath (27)

well, the fact is that Hussein WAS an atheist and it is well known that he modelled himself on Mr Stalin whom I notice you don't mention. Or, Pol Pot or Mao for that matter. And the source on Sky News was one of their politics of the Middle East experts.
By the way check this out on Hitler
www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC"

And your evidence for Hussein being atheist is..? It wouldn't happen to be that poor videophone clip of him reciting the name of Allah as they tried to hood him in the execution chamber, would it?

But, you seem to be trying to assert that one nutcase on a website is evidence of humanist/atheist moral atrocity writ large. Just what what are you trying to say - that all religious believers/atheists are bad/good, or any combination? You just seem to like to find and spread hate.

15. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19316 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:53 am

Comment #19311 by gimlibengloin "Sadaam Husein (Sky news recently acknowledged him as an atheist who merely pretended to be a muslim in order to gain arab support."

Sky News? Well, there's an unimpeachable source for you!! Dream on.

16. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19294 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 5:58 am

Comment #19274 by LookToWindward "calling people 'faith-heads', bashing Bush-voters, and consistently alluding to the high intelligence of atheists - sometimes directly mentioning the corollary (that the 'faith-heads' are unintelligent), sometimes indirectly - is on a par with political commentators calling a liberal a 'pinko' or someone calling a computer scientist a dorky nerd"

There's a clear purpose, in my view, why Dawkins uses terms that others might regard as derogatory - he is trying to debunk their "protected status" in dialog about religion. He is deliberately trying to break down perceptions by using ridicule. I really don't care two hoots if this upsets people, because long-term we need to shift public consciousness and this is a way of doing so.

On your broader point regarding more intelligent people being less religious (or more atheistic), that is a verifiable and testable thesis and is totally justified.

17. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #19293 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

Comment #19239 by andyinsdca "It's Meguiar's business. He/they are free to run it as they see fit. Want to hire only Christians? Go for it. Want to hire only Muslims? Go for it. It's their business and as much as it offends me that they (allegedly) fired a guy for not being a Christian, they are free to do that.

I'm also free not to buy Meguiar's because of this stupidity.

That's what the free market (in ideas and in business) brings us. We cannot and should not enforce our morality on them through the force of government."

cbelt is right, I'd just express it more forcefully. The current case in question in the UK where the Catholic Church is threatening to close adoption agencies because the Government wants to prevent them discriminating against potential gay adoptive parents.

How about in the US where Bush's "Faith-based Initiative" is funneling public money to allow religious (only Christian of course) organizations to actively discriminate against any other believers and no believers in terms of service provision and employment.

If you take the free market concept to logical conclusion you end up creating the circumstances for the KKK to legitimize intimidatory activities against businesses employing blacks and ethnic minorities.

We end up allowing anyone to discriminate against anybody, whether believers or not believers on those grounds. The government has a very clear responsibility to protect citizens from each others beliefs.

18. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19247 by Dogbreath on January 25, 2007 at 7:42 pm

So, according to Sullivan, it's possible for a "truth" to be unverifiable, which is just another way of saying that a "truth" is whatever I say it is!! I think I can see a small hole in that kind of reasoning.

19. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19233 by Dogbreath on January 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Comment #19211 by the great teapot
"every bone in my body told me as I watched( a year ago)"don't trust this man"- It just goes to show the human mind can somehow appear to "Know" more than the intellect. My instinct was correct- aren't they all in hindsight."

I couldn't agree more. I think exactly the same about GWB. But here's the problem...millions of Americans see them differently. They like them. They believe them. This is very worrying.

20. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19204 by Dogbreath on January 25, 2007 at 2:57 pm

The blissful irony of the master peddler of delusion himself living a delusion is too delicious not to enjoy, although in private, not public - we don't want to gloat and be seen to kick Haggard when he is down (so to speak).

We should just not lose sight of this man's influence on tens of thousands of gullible people who have faith in the words he says and whose votes then swing elections, elect viciously prejuduced judges, punitive law officers and enact brutalizing anti-gay and anti-stem cell legislation.

21. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18926 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Comment #18922 by Russell Blackford

"If some kind highly abstract idea (that the universe is sustained by a force of love, or whatever) gives comfort to Andrew Sullivan or anyone else, then I don't really care"

"I'll only care if someone thinks this touchy-feely world picture entails some set of moral claims that clashes with human interests and values, and if it leads that person to oppose to (say) gay rights, stem cell research, or whatever"

I think you've answered your own point here perfectly well. Unfortunately, we cannot control the linkages believers make in their minds that make so many of them step from one to the other. I just think it is dangerous to use the "if it doesn't do any harm" argument, because for every individual for whom it does no harm there are fundamentalist bigots, deploying the same reasoning and coming up with vastly different outcomes. In this sense Harris is absolutely right to go after belief.

22. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18882 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Comment #18880 by Chris Davis "Have any of the logical positivists here assembled ever tried to raise a sprog without this crap?"

I'm so pleased to see you haven't prejudged the outcome!

23. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18867 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 10:00 am

Comment #18863 by Janus "What is there to say about ID beyond, "Well, some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are scientifically illiterate and thinkg Goddidit is a valid explanation"?"

This is my entire point about why this is such a bad move, except for the opposite reason. Just as Janus would find it impossible to "teach" ID, we would be expecting happy clappy RE teachers to present a balanced comparison of Dawkins?

On which planet have we all evolved?

24. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18837 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

We should all be extremely concerned about any proposal to deal with the issues at hand in a way that requires non-scientists to espouse a scientific critique. Let's be really clear about this, I know that the overwhelming majority of RE teachers are practising Christians in the UK. Posts above have already highlighted how unenlightening these teachers can be, even when dealing with the central pillars of their faith. Requiring them to present an issue of this importance in RE lessons is like asking Pol Pot to speak on humanitarianism.

Arming a whole batch of well-intentioned, happy clappy Christians with the power and responsibility to control this debate is very dangerous. Keep scissors away from children.

25. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18757 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Comment #18699 by Filistyn "Having also had quite a number of gay men and women as colleagues and acquaintances, I could not help noticing in probably all of them an emotional and sometimes mental unbalance which to my way of thinking do not make them very suitable as parents, in particular as adoptive parents."

Proof, if we thought we needed it, that atheism (allbeit at Level 6) is no guarantor of reason. An opinion that specific gay couples would be unsuitable parents for adoption is perfectly legitimate. However, setting yourself up as the best judge and jury on this point and applying this viewpoint to prejudice every gay couple is bigotry.

"...was one of a small number of aspects or matters that I found to be lacking in balance and insight..."

Oh dear, you fall foul of your own criticism. My view would be that "balance" with respect to your post would require you to at least acknowledge the presence in society of whole swathes of heterosexual couples who, on the basis of their behavior (including prosecution for abuse) are totally unsuitable as parents.

"I can therefore understand Catholic, Protestant or parents of any other creed - even unbelievers - not being greatly enamoured by the idea that their orphaned children could be interned in a "gay" home. Surely it is their right, whatever their religious views."

I am sure you "can understand" their lack of enamourment, although the use of the word "interned" is inappropriate. However, this last sentence entirely misses the point and possibly relegates your atheism to at least level 4 - the whole point of adoption is that, as parent, you forfeit your rights to parenthood. That's the deal. Having demonstrated that you are personally unfit for parenting, through choice, it seems that haggling over whether a child is placed on one home or another is beside the point.

For me, the key issue is the concept of the loving home. I've come to see through real life examples that this can be achieved regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. I don't accept the "role model" criticisms levelled against gay couples because I've seen no evidence to support these claims.

So although atheism is a "broad church" to coin a phrase, we should be united in reason and evidence. Your post shows neither.

26. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18753 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Comment #18713 by Riley "It was the crowd's eagerness to laugh at the Liberty students -who were not hostile- that I found cruel."

I understand your point, I just disagree. Imagine, in our wildest dreams, that this "debate" took place AT Liberty University. Or, better still, watch the clip of the Root of All Evil where Ted Haggard throws Richard and camera crew out of his church.

I'm not excusing bad behavior, I just didn't see any at Lynchburg. I saw students at Randolph-Macon expressing huge relief and awe at Richards brilliance, in a community dominated and devalued by what Falwell represents - having listened patiently to an orchestrated stream of Liberty students dominate the questions and attempt to steal the show. Context is everything.

I'm sure on questions of principle we would agree, but in terms of method, I saw absolutely nothing at all wrong with the Lynchburg audience response. I applaud them.

27. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18747 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Comment #18743 by DavidJMH "It matters not how the various surveys differ..."

Whilst agreeing with the sentiment of your post, it actually does matter how (and WHY) the various surveys differ. Whilst standard survey methodologies (with strict adherence to stratified random samples) tend to control response deviation to within 6%, many media "straw polls" (and, I'm sad to say, many university research-inspired polls) have no accurate sampling methods, or no sampling at all. Consequently, you might find one survey with 10% support and one with 10% disagreement for the same proposition, and both could be completely inaccurate.

ICM is a respected organization and their methods are published. For the point in time of the survey this will accurately predict the opinions of the population were they all asked. Personally, as a Brit living in the USA, it's the most depressing item I've read for a week. I've come to accept religious nutcases over here as par for the course, but my secular roots in the UK are looking decidedly shaky.

As for MIND_REBEL "Looks like Dawkins should mind his own backyard"

...well, I don't think Dawkins is under any doubt about the nature of the challenge of raising the public understanding of science above the dark ages imposed by "modern" religion. I'm sure he will express his gratitude for your strong and undying support.

28. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #18701 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

So, God created lots of different sized objects, some of which were very hot, but established the constants that would create life on just one of those objects? That sounds pretty compelling to me!!

This might be a sily question, but why did he make them all spherical? You would have thought he'd use more imagination.

29. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells

Comment #18695 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Comment #18687 by RiddleOfSteel "The idea that someone could have taken away our only existence for all time, by destroying our early development, is something which as atheists we should take strong issue."

This is perhaps one of the best arguments against masturbation I've heard. It is a logic with no beginning. If the point of conception is the beginning, the period of early cell division and multiplication is accorded exactly the same rights as a fully functional human being. This is nonsense.

Let's be clear about the religious cause of stem cell research opposition - it is because Christians believe that within the first three days after conception the "soul" is created. We are in the ludicrous position of halting the most meaningful research this century because religious extremists believe that microscopic cells with the potential to form life (although most are destroyed) have more right to protection than a crippled 18 year old, or a suffering Alzheimer's patient. This is perverse logic and atheists should have nothing to do with supporting it.

30. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18681 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 11:23 am

18661 by Riley "... it struck me as cruel and sad."

I think this stretches credulity. "Cruel?" Dawkins quite rightly pointed out why labelling dinosaur bones as 3000 years old "debauched" the "university" concept. That he did so following a painstaking explanation of the various steps that would need to be followed to more accurately date the rocks that surrounded these bones struck me as more than fair. His exortation to students and faculty of Liberty University to "leave and go to a proper university" revealed honesty in the face of about an hour of hostile, erroneous questioning.

"Sad?" The sad part is that it is necessary at this point in the 21st century to have to directly confront the manifestations of irrational belief when they stand as lies in the face of scientific fact.

It seems to me that the double standard of not being able to expose religious belief is very well entrenched. What exactly was "cruel" or "sad" about what Dawkins said?

31. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18679 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 11:11 am

Pob, it is not for RDF or any charity to step in to deal with the Catholic Church's ultimatums. The state needs to accept its statutory responsibilities and stop foisting them off on uncontrolled, unregulated and unlawful church organizations.

32. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18678 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 11:06 am

fatduck, do we know from this graph whether the items scored were mutually exclusive? In other words, whether you could score "yes" to "absolutely believe in a God" and "yes" to "having a correct knowledge on evolution?"

Knowing this would give a very different interpretation of the results.

33. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18655 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 8:20 am

I'm somewhat wary of data from single point surveys with no clear reference to methodology of data collection. It's not that I don't think this data is accurate, but that I have no way of knowing.

gallup.com has very powerful data sets over time on wide areas of religious belief (unfortunately most of it US-based) that shows, at least over the last 4 years, religious belief, church attendance, whether religion is seen as a force for good or bad etc. is largely unchanged. These are the needles we need to see move if all the work of Dawkins, Harris et al is not to be in vain.

Of interest at Gallup is data from their world poll, and specifically their muslim poll, that shows the strength of religious belief particularly in so-called Muslim countries. The most negative attitudes towards the concept of western democracy or civilization (however they are described and perceived) are held by the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia, a country that GWB courts and favors as a staunch ally!!!

34. Sex and the Single-Minded

Comment #18366 by Dogbreath on January 20, 2007 at 5:33 am

As Sam Harris quite rightly states, it is a lifetime of religious moderation that has allowed this kind of extremism to flourish. As wacky as this is, this guy has flown right in...in full view!!!

35. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18270 by Dogbreath on January 19, 2007 at 8:16 am

The difference between intellectual honesty through science is that our minds are open regarding the origin of the universe...we simply don't know (if I see proof of the big God through evidence, I sign up now). Scientists put forward ideas that are then tested as a means of increasing our knowledge.

The religious mind has the arrogance to claim that it "knows" the origin of the universe, despite the lack of evidence. It is one thing to declare that we have no clear answer (the scientific response), and an entirely different and intellectually dishonest position (the religious viewpoint) to claim that the absence of scientific evidence = God created it. It is also clear that, despite scientific discoveries that challenge belief at a fundamental level, the religious mind can not be changed. Will a religious mind still believe in God when all the aspects of origin of life have finally been uncovered? We all know the answer to that one.

36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18254 by Dogbreath on January 19, 2007 at 6:12 am

down_under - You are wasting your time unecessarily. Neither Shaun nor THEO can answer those questions. There are two problems. First, by asking them we presume the presence of a supernatural creator. Second, if we accept that, then any attempt to attach logic and reason to what a supernatural creator might do is pointless.

So, to repeat my question above, what is the evidence of a supernatural creator? If I can evaluate and test the evidence I can better determine the extent of the delusion, if any.

37. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18175 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Shaun, I ask out of genuine interest - what evidence exists for your God? The "designer" drivel above does not constitute evidence. I understand that you believe that God exists, but belief without evidence is delusion. Help me understand why you aren't delusional.

38. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18155 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 3:49 pm

So this is where the religious nutters are posting.

39. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18146 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Pantore: "Religion is a danger to humans that's obvious but it isn't as dangerous as the tornado of greed that's roaming around on this planet triggered by capitalist-extremists."

Would they be "religious capitalist extremists?"

I suppose we could all look at the degree to which various groups pose a threat - top of my list would be errant chimpanzee sitting in my front room with a hand grenade. But pointing a finger at greedy capitalists isn't half the explanation that irrational belief is. At least I can reason with a capitalist extremist...I think. I can at least begin to understand the basis for why they might think and act like they do, even though I might disagree with them.

Problem with religion is that this kind of reasoning and disagrement is impossible. That seems to be a very stark difference and places religion in a totally different category of threat. I don't see many capitalist extremists blowing themselves up in crowded shopping areas or flying into buildings.

40. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18071 by Dogbreath on January 18, 2007 at 6:50 am

Pantore: "Iraqi's are not killing Americans because they believe in a god , they kill Americans because they(USA+their lackey state UK and even Holland -where I live) marched into their country with 3rd Reich-style agression.
People should read more about politics."

What a devastating analysis this is. Unfortunately, Iraqis were not the ones flying planes into buildings, bombing embassies around the world, or showing an unhealthy interest in train services of Madrid or London. Sadly, points also missed by Bush and Blair.

So, not sure which books you would want us to read. My guess, however, is that I could accurately predict the reading material of the perpetrators of these appalling acts!

41. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16783 by Dogbreath on January 8, 2007 at 6:23 pm

The question that interests me is whether such actions render faith indefensible for these abused famlies? Priests claim to directly commune with God. The Papacy is built on divine affirmation. I suppose this must mean that God was silent on these issues. Were the priests able to carry out their disgusting activities under a cloak of secrecy from God, or did he punish them? I suppose that, over the last few years the Pope has had a never ending series of dicussions with God where God has been lecturing him about how wrong this kind of behavior is?

On another level, I don't need the guiding hand of any religion to know that this behavior is morally wrong. I don't need a God to let me know whether this behavior is good or bad.

42. Questionable Mission

Comment #16635 by Dogbreath on January 7, 2007 at 6:48 pm

scooternyc "Unfortunately we are going to have to get a Democrat in office in order to end this crap."

I understand and support the sentiment, but do you think this last batch of so-called Democrats will make a difference? Most got to the table by supporting gun laws, opposing equal rights for gays and touting their religious faith. We'll get an indication if they do the sensible thing and try to roll back Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives."

I know you are referring to the Presidency, but I'm not very hopeful.

Hilary might do it...Obama certainly wouldn't!!!

43. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16166 by Dogbreath on January 5, 2007 at 6:58 am

I always find that brain cells are best used in pairs yet, depsite super Pat being a very poor example of evolution, he is hugely influential through his media output. He is widely reported in the US and holds a big audience. The real danger is that he actually believes what he says. I regularly travel on the train to NY and sit next to bible fawning Christians who hang (unfortunately not literally) on his every word.

44. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15842 by Dogbreath on January 3, 2007 at 10:08 am

I suppose we are talking about the same religious leaders who represent thinking that has enabled such widespread death and suffering from the spread of HIV in Africa? Good to have those folk on your side.

45. The problem with secularism

Comment #15645 by Dogbreath on January 1, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I just had to send this email to Phillip Blond. I'll post his reply if I receive one.

Dear Mr Blond,

I rarely respond to published articles, but the co-authored article referenced above represents such poor academic reasoning that it serves only to undermine the aims of a college that I thought had made good attempts to elevate its status in the academic world. It worries me how this manifests in your presentation to and assessment of students in your tutelage.

Let's start with posing a question. Is intellectual honesty and religious belief (of any variety) a mutually exclusive combination? You should ask this question of your students. It's a question worth posing because your co-authored article reveals considerable intellectual dishonesty as you resort to superficial inaccuracies and misattribution in your denunciation of writers such as Dawkins and Harris. Why intellectual dishonesty? Well, take these points.

1. You accuse Dawkins in "The God Delusion" (which I recommend you read by the way) for declaring "that religion is irrational without ever explaining the foundations of reason itself." Well, this simply isn't true. Dawkins offers a very clear explanation for the foundations of reason as evidence-based. The process of reasoning is the evaluation and testing of evidence, the publication of findings and the subjection of these findings to peer review. It's called the scientific process. I should point out that in making your criticism of Dawkins' failure you fail to provide your own explanation of the foundations of reason. I would enjoy reading this.
2. You state that Sam Harris in "The End of Faith", "has to falsify history by claiming that Hitler and Stalin were religious in order to make its case for the malign influence of faith." Well, this isn't true either. I suggest you read page 101 and consider the words that are actually written, not as you might want to imagine them saying. For example, "…while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Of course, this is leaving aside the point that Hitler was publicly proclaiming his Catholicism in 1934 and again in 1944, but you have clearly set up yourself as the authority on who is, or is not, religious so these proclamations may matter little to you. The point Harris makes, which you may choose not to accept, is that the cultish and slavish nature of totalitarian regimes is almost indistinguishable from certain religions. It's not that difficult a point to understand and it is intellectually dishonest to twist meaning in a direction that is not stated by Harris.
3. "…the latest developments in biology, physics and philosophy (there have been recent developments in philosophy???) all open the door to a revivified theology and a religious metaphysics." I think you are way out of your depth here and an obvious question would be to ask to which developments are you referring? You appear to be claiming, in one unsubstantiated statement, that whole branches of scientific endeavor (of the kind that religious folk usually discount when it seems to make discoveries that undermine the claims of religion) to support the revivification of religion. So what are these developments, and have they been submitted for full peer evaluation and retesting?
4. "Darwinism is close to being completely rewritten." And, "…it had been assumed that forms of life are the product of essentially arbitrary processes…" You really need to read Darwin and the subsequent research before uttering highly inaccurate statements like these. The basis of Darwin's theory of evolution based on natural selection remains largely intact. It has been tested and refined through subsequent research and discoveries that have built on his initial thesis. It has not been completely rewritten in the same sense as the modern versions of established religious texts – the same texts that, in the case of Catholicism, can elevate the concept of "virgin birth" from a mistranslation of a word from ancient Hebrew to Greek. It is inaccurate to posit that Darwin described an "arbitrary process." Natural selection is ordered and sequenced – there is a system and method that drives it – it is the antithesis
of arbitrariness.

I would be fascinated to attend one of your philosophy classes, if only to witness the verbal gymnastics you must perform to be able to claim that "…secularism reinforces rather than overcomes both religious fundamentalism and militant atheism." By the way, what is "militant atheism?" Are you referring to those who challenge the privileged position religions bestow on themselves? Or do you use it in an attempt to denigrate those who argue (see also your reference to Dawkins' book as "…barely literate polemic…") against belief on the basis of evidence? These are important questions and you should face up to them rather than resort to juvenile banter. Let me ask you to consider this. Are fundamentalist Muslims attaching bombs to themselves and killing and maiming innocent bystanders because they have read "The God Delusion", or because they believe in the absolute truth of their faith? Do you believe the absolute truth of your faith, or do you pick and choose the bits that are more acceptable to you?

I rarely get to visit Lancaster these days. Living in the US I get to see the damage done to society by the purveyors of the religion you so desperately seek to maintain. When I pass the gates of St Martins again it will be with the feeling that you have contributed nothing to the academic advancement of the institution. The college deserves more and so do your students. You could, of course, open a dinosaur museum and label the bones as being 6,000 years old, but that wouldn't be pioneering work!!!

Barry England