1. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100754 by Alan Stewart on December 19, 2007 at 9:29 am

Well, I thought the interview was more interesting than is generally claimed. The desire to help others, even though they are not kin is surprisingly common in humans, and deserves a rational explanation. Richard took the opportunity to explain how behaviour like this might be hard-wired into a social species like ours, and might be the misfiring of an evolved characteristic.

Pitching it at this level is likely to soften up an opposition which incorrectly assumes that selflessness or altruism can only arise when individuals are deferential to the "divine plan".

2. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47948 by Alan Stewart on June 6, 2007 at 5:37 am

It was quite extraordinary to hear this extended discussion. In the spirit of fairness, a well-known critic of TGD had the opportunity to set out his stall.

I've always believed that such exchanges should place clarity of expression as the single most important feature of any challenge.

McGrath was really frustrating: Try as I might, I couldn't really understand the points he was apparently trying to make. As a communicator, I feel he totally failed to convince me of his point of view. Therefore, I've concluded that there wasn't really any reasonable defence of his position, and I haven't changed my belief about him at all.

Contrast this with the recently published discussion between Lawrence Kraus and Dawkins in Scientific American (who mostly agree!). That discussion was hugely enjoyable and illuminating, and would I think allow any reasonable person to gain a clear sense of different perspectives?

3. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45719 by Alan Stewart on May 29, 2007 at 4:29 am

Opportunity missed?

It's a real pity this long awaited discussion was so frustratingly short. Winston is a much respected establishment figure in the eyes of a great many people. During a subsequent vote on a debate in Oxford in March; Dawkins, Hitchens and Grayling successfully persuaded a sizeable number of the audience that their opposition's case for the usefulness of religion was less than tenable.

A high profile public discussion with someone like Robert Winston, focusing on this rather weak and contradictory defence of all things religious might win over a far greater number of the silent majority who haven't really given the matter the serious thought that it deserves.

Both RD and RW use the language of reasonable men. Surely our position can only be strengthened by a direct appeal to the hearts and minds of an increasingly sophisticated and secular population here in the United Kingdom?

4. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23753 by Alan Stewart on March 2, 2007 at 1:15 pm

This article reads like drivel. I for one, haven't a clue what philosophical points the author is trying to make. Do others agree? I think I reached about 1/3 way through before giving up.

5. Faith

Comment #23161 by Alan Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 3:08 pm

This article is a hugely unfair criticism of the stand that atheists like Dawkins, Dennett and Harris have taken. Of course they aren't "fundamentalist" in the commonly understood sense. It has been written from ignorance, or in a foolish attempt to bend over backward to appease those of a spiritual disposition. However, the alleged comment about the woman with the "stupid face" has emerged yet again. If Richard did say it, I would say it was ill-advised and has been counter productive in this war of words we are all engaged in. Even our most eloquent spokesperson slips up from time to time! Atheist arguments are well grounded and reasonable. To retain the intellectual high-ground we should avoid stooping to personal criticism, even when caught off-guard.

6. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18843 by Alan Stewart on January 23, 2007 at 6:51 am

Truly outrageous! This is a UK survey! Is this really what the general public think? This maps out clearly the enormity of the task ahead for the RDF. We need to start thinking of ways to counter this almost unbelievable level of scientific ignorance.