501. Fleabytes

Comment #132209 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

601: So you MUST write a book

You're all being very nice to me!

As it happens, I am seriously thinking of trying to write a book, one that deals with the process of losing religious belief and becoming atheist. I don't think I shall be able to start "proper" work on it until later in the year, but it's not too soon to be starting to gather people's stories.

The book will only work if I can gather together enough deconversion stories - not just looking at the intellectual issues that may have prompted deconversion, but also what the process actually felt like; how friends and family reacted; what was difficult about it, what was easy; and what difference it has made to the way people live their lives now - how they now deal with the things that might once have led them to pray, for instance; what things give them hope; how they cope with the knowledge of their mortality etc etc etc. It doesn't all have to be positive, either - I'd also be interested to hear about aspects of life that are harder without religious belief. It's the full, rounded, human experience of learning to live without faith that I'm looking for.

And where better to find my case studies than on this website? I'm sure there must be lots of people here who have been through this process and have a story to tell. If so, and if you'd be willing to share it, I'd really love to hear from you. By PM would probably be best. If you just let me know you'd be willing to take part at this stage, I'll get back to you with some questions just to get the process started.

Thanks for all the encouragement!

502. Fleabytes

Comment #132167 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 11:44 am

Steve Zara: Saying "but it's supernatural" is just the same as saying "I am allowed to make anything up, and I am not going to allow you to argue back".

Asolutely. Furthermore, it's an utterly transparent attempt to invent evidence to support the belief, rather than to form the belief on the basis of the evidence.

The only evidence (sic) for the existence of a supernatural, simple God who is capable of producing great complexity is that, er, the bible stories REQUIRE such a being to exist. Ergo, he exists.

503. Fleabytes

Comment #132130 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 9:16 am

Mike: When i was a prof in weimar there was a fascist rally.
The students organised themselves and when the fascists walked down a particular street, the students hung speakers outside the windows and played brazilian samba music.

Oh, that's inspired. I wish I'd been there!

504. Fleabytes

Comment #132128 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 9:12 am

mikejswalker: Does anyone believe [David Robertson] does not sincerely believe what he says he does?

I'm convinced that he absolutely believes what he says he believes. I don't doubt it for a moment. This is one of the reasons why I decided that it should be his book, rather than the others, that I should deal with in detail. I think he absolutely believes that the whole of "creation" is the battlefield between God and Satan, good and evil, and that Jesus is the only solution to that battle so far as humans are concerned. I find that an utterly bizarre belief, and like most other contributors here I see that it has desperate consequences for the way he views life and the way he interacts with other people (particularly those who don't share his beliefs), but I have no doubt whatsover that he holds these beliefs with total sincerity.

Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, on the other hand ...

505. Fleabytes

Comment #132110 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:35 am

Robertson, Cornwell and McGrath: An Unholy Fleasome

506. Fleabytes

Comment #132105 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:28 am

Peacebeuponme: Muddled by McGrath : Unclarity, Obfuscation and the Meaninglessness of Theology.

Ooh, I like that! It definitely has potential ...

507. Fleabytes

Comment #132098 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

Peacebeuponme: She hasn't written a book rebutting them, and with the authors' names in the title, which is what Richard was referring to when he criticised McGrath.

Hmmmm, tempting though. How about this as the title if I did:

Letters from McGrath's Angel: Godawful Delusions of a Former Atheist

Other suggestions welcome!

508. Fleabytes

Comment #132091 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 6:32 am

Logicel: Invite also McGrath

Well, I expect he's still got this site listed as one of his "Favourites" from when he used to be an atheist.

509. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132062 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 4:40 am

http://www.esnips.com/web/Hitchindebate

What a talented chap you are, Richard Morgan! How about having a go at a debate with Alister McGrath next? (Should be fairly straightforward - not too many notes required.)

510. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132045 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 2:29 am

This one, like the other one, does indeed open a page. But what do I THEN have to click in order to play the mp3? It certainly doesn't spontaneously start playing, and there is no obvious clue as to what has to be clicked on that page.

The section below the bit with Richard M's photograph is called "Files". If you click on "N°1 Fingerprints - past time.mp3", that will take you through to another page which shows the normal YouTube-type controls for playing/pausing the file. (First image on the page below the advert at the top.) Hope that works for you.

511. My Argument With God

Comment #132031 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:07 am

Steve Zara: You might as well believe in free will, as if there is free will, you have the choice to do so, and if there isn't free will, it doesn't matter anyway.

Zara's Wager? ;-)

512. Fleabytes

Comment #132030 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:04 am

Rick M: Disingenuous, distorted, ignorant babble. Incredible. I would love to see Prof. D. debate this twit

I think your own post has identified just about all the reasons why Richard will NEVER bother to debate David Robertson!

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

Comment #132028 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 12:52 am

Ian Bamlett: Or why not just to speak to any honest cop who will tell you how much 'faith' they put in an eyewitness unless it is corroborated with other evidence.

Quote from a British newspaper in the early 1980s (can't remember which one now - I read it in a book of quotes): "Eyewitnesses were on the scene within minutes."

514. Fleabytes

Comment #131904 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Quetz: So there you go. David just wants to make us think. And the best way to do that is, of course, to read his book. Paula, how did that work out for you?

Well, yes. I have to confess I had rather a lot of thoughts whilst reading his book. Whether they were of the kind he was hoping for is another question altogether, though, of course.

515. Fleabytes

Comment #131880 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

ScottishGeologist: Paula, If you go here:
http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/AllMedia.aspx?speaker=David Robertson
you'll also be able to chill out and relax while listening to him in Cambridge.

Oh, how lovely - thank you. And it's not even my birthday. ;-)

516. Fleabytes

Comment #131873 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm

For anyone who's interested: David Robertson on YouTube, talking about The God Delusion and his book, The Dawkins Letters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2r1GPGDWrI

517. My Argument With God

Comment #131863 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Radesq: OK so is it mostly the baggage associated with the term free will or is it the question of whether that degree of freedom actually exists that makes you wish he hadn't used the term?

Mostly the baggage. It's a theological term that any religious believer will interpret in a theological light.

I added the bit about the extent to which we can genuinely be said to have free will as an afterthought. I'm very wedded to the idea that I'm free to make choices too. It's just that research seems to show that we make those choices based on our personalities (over which we have no control), the behaviours we have been influenced by as we were growing up (over which we have no control), and our self-image (which may be a function of personality / environment / education etc - over which we again have no or very little control).

518. My Argument With God

Comment #131857 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Radesq: Paula, What is the difference between "being aware of having choices and being able to make them" and having free will?

Ah, I see you got to my post before I'd had chance to edit that bit out. The term "free will" has its roots in theology and is very much bound up with notions of sin. Its opposite is seen as determinism, in which we have no control over our choices at all. Most of us dislike that notion and consequently the religious play on it in order to claim that God must exist, because it's the only way we get to be in control of our choices. I think it's unhelpful of Ricky Gervais to use a theological term to describe a natural phenomenon.

The reason I decided to edit out this part of my post is that there IS a legitimate debate about the extent to which we are genuinely free to make choices at all. The human brain certainly has evolved to the point where it can be aware of having choices and can think it's making them, but there are strong arguments to suggest that, actually, a combination of genetics, environment and life experience strongly predispose us to make some choices and not to make others, which does raise the question of just how free our choices are in practice.

The comment I deleted made it sound simpler and more clear-cut than it seems to be in reality.

519. Fleabytes

Comment #131854 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Radesq:Paula: Zimbabwe you mean?

Oh, good grief. Yes, of COURSE I meant Zimbabwe. It's been a long week!

520. My Argument With God

Comment #131852 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm

I was a little disappointed with this article: I'd have liked him to expand on the hour-long questioning process that led him to discard his religion, rather than just tell us that it happened. As it is, it's just Ricky Gervais telling us that you don't need religion to lead a full life. That's a good message - but I'd still hoped for something a bit more substantial.

Free will, by the way, has no place in his argument. It's an entirely theological concept, necessary ONLY because the religious somehow have to find an excuse for their God potentially hurling us into eternal hellfire.

521. Fleabytes

Comment #131846 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Mussolini was a good Catholic wasn't he? We don't hear his name mentioned in the same tone as the Great Atheist Satans, Hitler and Stalin. I wonder why not?

Yes, indeed. And not just Mussolini: General Franco of Spain; Salazar of Portugal. And how about Robert Mugabe of Uganda?

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

Comment #131825 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 11:51 am

Shrommer: I'm not talking about hundreds of eyewitness testimonies in agreement with Christianity. I am talking about hundreds of eyewitnesses in agreement that Jesus rose from the dead.

No, Shrommer, you do not have this kind of evidence in reality. What you have is a couple of extra-biblical references to the effect that a number of people were CLAIMING to have seen a resurrected Jesus. You can argue that this constitutes evidence of the claim, but not that it constitutes evidence of the TRUTH of the claim.

Our EVIDENCE, acquired through all the millennia of human existence, is that humans, once dead, do not return to life. We know this to be true. We also know that the human mind is highly suggestible and seems to be particularly drawn to unlikely stories (consider our fascination with ghosts, UFOs, astrology etc - we seem to positively WANT to believe the ridiculous and the impossible). Given these two statements of FACT, which is more likely: that a number of people hysterically convinced themselves, or were convinced by charismatic others, that they had witnessed something that they had NOT; or that a dead person really did return to life?

The former is the more probable by several orders of magnitude. This doesn't of itself make the latter absolutely impossible - but it does mean you need far more compelling evidence than a simple reference to the fact that some people were claiming it. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? There is nothing remotely extraordinary or compelling about the alleged evidence that you are putting forward.

523. Fleabytes

Comment #131799 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 10:37 am

Steve:if Paula has the energy and time to continue producing reviews, this section could be added to.

Aaaaarrrrggghhhh!!! Steve, I don't know what I've done to offend you, but whatever it was, I'm very very sorry and promise never to do it again. PLEEEEEEASE don't make me read any more of those flea books!!!!!!!! I'll be good, I promise.

524. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #131771 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 8:02 am

Eric Blair: Whether Bunting believes in the Virgin Birth or not is of no consequence (to me, anyway).

Why didn't RD ask how she stands on abortion, contraception, premarital sex, gay marriage/priests, the infallibility of the Pope, etc.?

Perhaps because these are all matters of opinion, rather than of scientific fact? (The infallibility of the Pope being the exception here, of course.) You're right: the Virgin Birth is not in itself an important topic. The only reason it was important in this context was that it challenged the Bunting to acknowledge that her touchy-feely, airy-fairy, "well, it feels kind of nice to believe this stuff" religion actually entails adherence to specific dogma that she surely knows cannot possibly be true. And what SHE was trying to say was that the Virgin Birth might be true in a spiritual or emotional, rather than a literal, sense. Spiritual or emotional truth in this context clearly meaning "lie".

525. Fleabytes

Comment #131767 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 7:52 am

Mr Darcy: To anyone else out there who has read Robertson's book, I would like to ask this: Paula in her article has stated that Robertson selectively only used quotes which demonstrated that Hitler was anti-religious, and avoids quotes that confirm his religiosity. Dawkins on the other hand uses quotes from Hitler which illustrate both views. Is Paula's summary correct? I know about TGD, but I haven't read The Dawkins Letters.

I realise that a reassurance from me isn't any reassurance at all in this context, but all I can say is that I am perfectly happy for anyone to scrutinise The Dawkins Letters as thoroughly as they wish, and I am absolutely certain that they will not find a single quote that reflects the very mixed messages that Hitler gave on the subject of religion.

526. Fleabytes

Comment #131665 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 1:08 am

David Robertson aka Clearthinker: I find this fascinating and your subsequent quotes from my correspondence to Richard's office. Do you work there? Or were you asked to respond? Whatever it is clearly the case that if you knew of my correspondence and this lead to your response you are not quite the passerby that I had initially thought. Your response is obviously 'the official' sanctioned response. Interesting.

No, I don't work there and I'm not any kind of insider. I was simply asked whether I'd be willing to respond given that Richard was not able to. The response would, of course, be mine alone. I have seen the correspondence because it was forwarded to me - simply to let me know the position, since I had agreed to write the review (indeed, given the very short notice, I had already started doing the reading for it) before you decided to use a former atheist-turned-Christian.

As for my article being the officially sanctioned response, that is quite wrong. When you decided to use a former atheist, rather than an atheist, for the review, I was given the chance to do a review anyway, for this website. I can assure you that the article posted here has not been at all altered or edited from the one I submitted in response to that offer, nor did anyone at any time make even the remotest attempt to influence what I put in it.

In any event, it's not remotely an "official" response, since my connection with this website is a purely informal one. It is my own response, which has been posted here. All sorts of articles are posted here, NOT because they have been "officially sanctioned" but simply for the purpose of stimulating comment and discussion. Mine is no different.

527. Fleabytes

Comment #131661 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 12:39 am

Steven Carr: No wonder atheists can't believe Christianity when Christians simply contradict each other, every time they try to explain it.

I think this is a very good and very important point, and one that illustrates almost better than any other the extent to which God really is created in our image.

Is there really a heaven? Is there really a hell? Is the devil a real entity or just metaphor? Was Jesus's mother really a virgin or was that bit of the story just symbolic? Likewise the miracles, likewise the resurrection itself. Did God really create the world as described in Genesis? Does God really "hate fags", to quote the vile people at Westboro Baptist Church; does he "hate the sin, but love the sinner?"; or is he altogether not as hung up about human sexual activity as many Christians like to make out? Are other religions simply alternative routes to the same God, reflecting differences in local culture and tradition? Or does everything other than a firm belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ a one-way ticket to hell? Does a non-Christian automatically go to hell (if you happen to be talking to one of the hell-believing Christians)? Or not if she's been a good person in other respects?

Is God himself just bursting with love and compassion, a being who longs to enfold us in his arms and comfort us, and who, when he sees "sin", grieves for us? Or is he an angry God, jealous, keeping a record of every little shortcoming and raging over the ever-increasing list?

It is not difficult to find Christians who are absolutely convinced of the truth (and untruth!) of any of these very varied positions. It's not just at the individual level either: church denomination and local culture also have a huge influence over what's taught and believed about God.

Over the last few weeks alone I have seen Christians make all kinds of declarations about God, none of which are terribly consistent: on the one hand the bible is to be interpreted so literally on the subject of God as creator that every last snowflake has been individually designed by him; on the other, the bible is to be interpreted so loosely that, apparently, "hardly any Christians see Jesus as the Son of God anymore."

There simply isn't ONE Christianity: there are almost as many Christianities as there are Christians - the view a Christian has of God is invariably shaped by their own personality, concerns and priorities, which they then blatantly transfer onto God.

And religion allows you to get away with this for the simple reason that none of it is based on anything tangible and objective as evidence anyway, and any subjective feeling you may have might just possibly be God's way of revealing himself to you. (Though different Christians will argue about this too, of course ...)

To return to the topic of the flea books, the difference in the beliefs of Andrew Wilson and John Cornwell was almost comical: Wilson is an evangelical, a bible-believing Christian who sees a biblical quote - ANY biblical quote - as the clincher in any argument; and Cornwell's beliefs are vague, nebulous, polymorphic, all based on perceptions and possibilities and mysteries and unknowables, and he sees the imagination as holding the key to understanding.

Any human who exhibited the kind of multiple personality disorder that Christians unwittingly attribute to their God would be in urgent need of the attentions of a good psychiatrist.

528. Fleabytes

Comment #131573 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Kaiserkriss, that's nice of you, but I don't see myself as having the final word on the question of DR posting. It affects everyone, after all. I was just giving my view since you'd asked.

529. Fleabytes

Comment #131539 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 2:09 pm

He would want to write the foreword!

Why not the whole book, in fact?

530. Fleabytes

Comment #131536 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Taken to extremes, he would declare "censorship" unless allowed to write an appendix to Richard's next book.

Yes, I think you're right! Maybe someone should suggest it? ;-)

531. Fleabytes

Comment #131526 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm

: Perhaps he was hoping that previous accounts would get unbanned so he could say on his site or in the Free Church magazine about how important he is, although I'm sure he would have tried to mask it.

Then if he got banned again, it would provide an ideal opportunity for him to play the martyr once more.

I suspect that too. He'll twist and distort what happens on this forum, whatever it is. But that's not a reason for us not to behave in a way that's fair and reasonable, and giving him the right to reply is both of those things, it seems to me.

532. Fleabytes

Comment #131521 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Steve Zara: Which is why I am deeply suspicious of his motives

Well, so am I. But this is the site where his book has been analysed and criticised in considerable detail, so I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be able to post a reply here.

The only argument there ever was for not allowing him to post was his consistently offensive, personally abusive, twisting, distorting, evasive style. IF he wants to actually deal with the criticisms that have been made, and IF he's able to do so with just a normal degree of civility, why not? The one thing I will say about my own review is that I made a sincere effort genuinely to engage with the points he made in his book. It will be interesting to see whether he returns the compliment.

533. Fleabytes

Comment #131505 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Have just been catching up with the comments posted in the last couple of days. I haven't been able to read the latest ones in detail, and I haven't yet read David's response to my review properly, so will respond to that separately, probably over the weekend if I get chance.

However, I did just want to respond to 2 posts from earlier pages in the thread. The first was that someone asked whether I, too, would welcome David's being unbanned so as to allow him to respond to my review - and my answer is an emphatic yes. It's only fair to give someone the right to reply, and I was very pleased to read Richard's post confirming that this was going to happen.

The second was David's own remark about Richard's having been offered (and having declined) a 1000-word article in the Free Church of Scotland magazine (thus supposedly demonstrating the Free Church's commitment to free speech).

I can actually comment on this in some detail, since it was this offer to Richard that indirectly resulted in the long review that has now appeared here.

Richard was indeed invited to submit a 1000-word response to 3 of the fleas - David Robertson, Andrew Wilson and Alister McGrath. Note the word limit. That's 330 words per book. In subsequent correspondence, the 1000 word limit was reduced to 900 words - 300 per book. To convey some kind of idea of how little that is, I had written 215 words as at the end of that last sentence.

Moreover, the request was sent to Richard just 6 days before the deadline for submission of the finished article.

As might have been expected, he was not able to read the books and write a review on them in such a short space of time. However, he did (via someone else at RDF) ask if I would like to take on the task instead and, meanwhile, the following response was sent to David:

I am afraid that Richard has too many other deadlines to be able to do a thorough job by the end of this month. We do however have someone we could recommend to write such a review if you so desire.

In other words, David was offered an alternative - not just a flat "no". This elicited the following response from him:

I'm afraid that I have plenty other people who would be happy to write a review - and as I kind of suspected that this would happen I have already asked a former president of the National secular society to write a review. (From Richard's point of view this may not be such a good thing as apparently he has been enlightened and become a Christian!).

So, contrary to the impression that David tried to give earlier, although Richard himself was unable to take on the task, he did offer an alternative; but David had already lined up a former-atheist-turned-Christian to do it instead and therefore did not accept. So much for his commitment to having a response from an atheist!

I would also come back to the point that the offer of 1000 words (later 900) to respond to the criticisms contained in three books was not overwhelmingly generous. You will note that there are no word limits imposed on David in his response to my review.

534. Fleabytes

Comment #130058 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

MPhil, what can I say? You are clearly quite mad. Thanks for the laugh! :-)

535. Fleabytes

Comment #130051 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 am

Steve Zara: I have a suggestion... rather than look for minor holes in the cosmological section of the attack on Robertson, why don't I go for just that section of his work myself as well, and it will seem more like a combining of forces

I'd really like that, Steve - it would add a lot. Thank you.

BAEOZ: Paula, what is the Baggini book you've read?

It was "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", from the Oxford University Press (excellent) Very Short Introductions series.

536. Fleabytes

Comment #130046 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:14 am

You forgot my harp ;-)

537. Fleabytes

Comment #130024 by Paula Kirby on February 19, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I decided to wait a little while before posting on this thread, as I needed to wait for my blushes to subside! You're all very kind with your comments - thank you.

Steve Zara, I do appreciate the thoughtful impulse that led you to withdraw your posts challenging some of the science - but it really wasn't necessary, I promise you. I am no scientist (though eager to learn) and make absolutely no claims to a deep scientific understanding of the universe. The cosmological section in this article was the one I felt least confident of, and I am only too happy for you or others to correct anything in it that's not right. Please keep it coming - I won't be remotely offended, and I know I will learn something.

As for those of you who've suggested that my sanity survived this close encounter with an infestation of fleas, well, yet again, you're very kind, but I suspect you might not have thought that if you'd been able to see me whilst I was actually reading the damn things!

In all seriousness, it was only (re-)reading the books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and (sorry, Steve) Stenger in between that kept me going at all. Oh, and the Baggini is excellent too. It was truly like coming up for air. They're all great books anyway, but what struck me when reading them in the context of the fleas was their sheer warmth and generosity, the way they all embrace and affirm life and people and learning. The flea books felt mean and petty and suffocating by comparison.

538. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129713 by Paula Kirby on February 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

The Bishop: I am praying for you all.

Er, why? What exactly do you think it will achieve? Are you just praying vague, woolly things such as that we eventually see the error of our ways, or are you praying for something specific, such as, say, that at least five of us will convert to Christianity by the end of March?

It would be helpful to know, because then we could keep you posted with the results. But perhaps you're not interested in actually testing whether prayer works - perhaps you prefer to just believe that it does, regardless of the available evidence.

539. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128977 by Paula Kirby on February 18, 2008 at 11:52 am

Cartomancer: Aww shucks, I had a fiver on Paula Kirby and wooter tying the knot first...

Ah, well, now you mention it ...

540. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128695 by Paula Kirby on February 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Good heavens, Richard Morgan, who would have thought that beneath that gruff exterior there lurked such a big softie! Good for you!

541. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128694 by Paula Kirby on February 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Yorker, I'm so very sorry to hear about your daughter. What a terrible thing to have to go through. But I'm so very, very delighted to hear the news about you and Veronique, and am so happy that you'll have that togetherness to help you get through.

Many, many congratulations to both of you - wonderful news! Thank you for sharing it with us.

542. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126981 by Paula Kirby on February 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

HourglassMemory: And I loved hearing Richard saying "Let me finish! Let me finish!" almost like a kid. (and I don't mean this in any indirect insulting way. It just reminded me of a child whose lolipop had been taken)

I thought he was remarkably patient with her - I'd have snapped much sooner in the conversation. Did you hear how often she butted in, interrupted, wouldn't let him articulate his point, refused to hear him out before rushing to put her own views forward yet again? It's not just rude (though it IS rude - very): how can you have a sensible debate with someone if you're not prepared to listen properly to what they're saying?

As for her nonsense about there being truths that are not based in evidence or fact, I can't help wondering how she can possibly be sure that they are "truths" since she has just rejected out of hand the only means we have to assess the question.

If simply having a feeling about something is enough to constitute truth, then presumably she would have to accept as "true" every feeling ever held by anyone, ever, no matter how crazy, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how mutually contradictory. There can be no defence against ANY claim. I just don't understand how an intellect of even average capacity can fail to spot the ridiculousness of such a position.

543. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126300 by Paula Kirby on February 13, 2008 at 12:17 am

Chris H: How did Hitchens manage to extend the debate for five more minutes? It seemed like the moderator had no idea how to end the debate.

It was simply because the moderator had addressed his final question specifically to Rabbi Boteach and hadn't given Christopher Hitchens the opportunity to comment too. Besides, I think that by that stage of the proceedings, the moderator had started to despair of ever being able to control the two of them anyway. Poor chap!

544. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126125 by Paula Kirby on February 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Oh, that was bliss. Perfect entertainment. Christopher Hitchens in great, floor-wiping form. And as for Boteach - could you ask for a greater comic character? For bluff, bluster and sheer, downright blundering you just couldn't beat him.

"Richard Dawkins is one of the last people to believe in gradual evolution?" Seriously - when did you last laugh so much?

"Why did life only happen here?" - Wow, this man really does have some kind of insight not granted to us lesser mortals. All those millions upon millions of galaxies, and he knows for sure there's no life in any of them. That's so impressive.

"Mutation must always be beneficial for evolution to be true". Er ... not THAT easy to reconcile this with his claim to have actually studied evolution. Unless it was Answers in Genesis that he studied it from.

And some other gems - too perfect in themselves to require any further comment from me:

"Morality is antithetical to evolution because evolution is all about the survival of YOUR genes."

"If evolutionists are not racist, it's only because of the Ten Commandments."

And my personal favourite: "For evolutionists, time becomes a euphemism for God ... Time will save us from exploding galaxies."

This man should give up the rabbi nonsense and become a comedian. At least that would serve a useful purpose.

And finally - the moderator. Didn't you just love him?!!! Couldn't you just SEE him lose will to live during the Q&A?

But hats off to Christopher Hitchens for this performance. I have never seen anyone so comprehensively, wittily, mercilessly trounced. Wonderful stuff.

545. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125187 by Paula Kirby on February 11, 2008 at 3:49 am

I am entirely with those who are expressing their thanks to Richard Dawkins and wondering who on earth is going to be up to the task of replacing him ... but, since his retirement is still some months away and since (thank goodness) he has promised us that he has no intention of ceasing to roar, I'd like to focus my comments on Charles Simonyi himself.

If anyone has just skimmed his manifesto above, it's well worth reading in full. It is an outpouring of love of science, love of knowledge, the desire to educate, excitement at the wonders of the world and a generosity of mind that are reminiscent of Richard's own writings. The clarity of the vision, the willingness to be flexible in its implementation, the dedication to real scholarship (and the implicit rejection of anything resembling "dumbing down") and the wisdom of recognising that the ability to educate and communicate is even more crucial to the impact of this post than scientific knowledge alone - these are all rare and remarkable qualities.

Business has a bad name (often undeserved, I might add), big business even more so; but in my work I deal extensively with all three sectors - private, public and academic - and there is no doubt that there is NOTHING so effective at making things happen as a fired-up entrepreneur! How wonderful to see the sheer drive, determination, energy, vision and commitment that make for successful business applied to something as worthwhile as the promotion of science.

The words of Charles Simonyi's manifesto are absolutely right: the dearth of effective information flow between science and society is dangerous. Thanks to Richard Dawkins for tackling this issue so effectively in the last 12 years or so; good luck and best wishes to his successor, whoever that is; but let's not forget to express our thanks to Charles Simonyi too - without his vision, commitment and generosity with his resources science would face an even tougher struggle in the battle against unreason.

546. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124877 by Paula Kirby on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

bujin: We need Pat to have his own regular 5 minute slot on national TV! Maybe just after the news or something.

Or how about having him as a regular on Thought for the Day? That would wake a few people up!

547. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121831 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 8:05 am

Quetzalcoatl: I had considered that, but Wipeout's spelling and grammar is far better. Unless Wooter has taken Remedial English 101.....

Ah, but don't you remember how his style suddenly improved once before? We know he's not averse to getting a little help from his friends.

548. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121825 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 7:58 am

Quetzalcoatl: ... is as painful to read?

Well, yes - but what I really meant was that I thought Wipeout's post might possibly be seen as evidence for reincarnation.

549. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121778 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #121686 by wipeout on February 4, 2008 at 2:02 am

A Wooter by any other name ...

550. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121498 by Paula Kirby on February 3, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I have sent the following letter to the Telegraph:

Sir

Any medical practitioner who puts her religious beliefs, however sincerely held, before her duty to protect her patients from preventable infections is clearly a danger to the public and should be removed from post immediately ("Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'", telegraph.co.uk, 3 February). It is time to stand up to those who view their religion as the ultimate trump card.

Maybe others would like to write in too?

This seems to be a Sunday Telegraph article, rather than Daily Telegraph, but I've sent my letter to both addresses, to be on the safe side:
dtletters@telegraph.co.uk and stletters@telegraph.co.uk. You need to include your full postal address and phone number (although these won't be published).