51. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76922 by automath on October 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I think this article shows the level of ignorance that science and it's teaching are up against in the UK.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2184632,00.html

-o-o-o-o-

There are a lot of interesting opinions on here, but I do find them, and even my quickly penned points, to be missing the bigger picture.

I'm also finding it rather worrying that instead of trying to oppose creeping religious indoctrination. People are instead having a go at teachers and either wanting them removed or suggesting they leave. How is that going to solve anything? These teachers need support, not criticism for having the odds stacked against them.

PsyPro

Thankfully. I find that not all pupils take on such an attitude to learning.

BullShifter

Professor Michael Reiss is also an Anglican Priest, who has written a book for science teachers on how to address creationism in science lessons. There appears to be elements of the Discovery Institutes Wedge strategy in this thinking. It gives some credence to the myth that creationism is a valid theory.

I'm not convinced that his quote regarding an equal respect for all beliefs is anything but sincere. It is a very typical Anglican stance at this present time. One that is usually used to devastating effect when advancing ones opinion.

I share some of your concerns around the curriculum, and the pressure is just as intense at the secondary level. With an average of 35 children (lets not mistake these for students at a university) time constraints on achieving delivery of the curriculum in a satisfactory manner to all is to put it mildly a tough challenge.

I also share your fear that science can become mechanised in its delivery, a throw back to times when that little quote might have held more sway. Myself I had a ex-Professor of Physics that couldn't teach to save his life. I was lucky/self motivated enough to attain an 'O' level but I was one of three out of a class of about thirty that did.

On another note, just look at how science has been undermined at the primary level, maybe this is one reason for more believing in creationism up to the age of 11! I'm not shifting blame but it is an area that needs to be revisited. Science as just another 'way of knowing' is not going to help future generations, as I do think it is probably the most important 'way of knowing' we have at our disposal.

52. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76415 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:54 pm

3. by fides_et_ratio

If teachers are afraid of teaching something because students might not want to hear it, they really should find another job.

They shouldn't be placed in this position in the first place. They need firm objective support from the school they are at and a government that doesn't kowtow to every so-called religious sentiment going.

7. by fides_et_ratio

You just can't do it, the only way you could stop your kids oing to science lessons would be to stop them going to school. Which is illegal, unless you taught them at home which is legal as long as you teach the curriculum I think.

There isn't an need outside of state schools to teach the national curriculum, therefore home schooled children do not have to learn about evolution or anything else a parent doesn't want to teach them. There is also no legal binding on parents to send children to school as long as they insure some form of education in line with their age and abilities.

53. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76408 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hey Robert Maynard you haven't been in a typical science classroom in the UK have you. You'd be lucky to get them to pay attention in the first place.

Actually it is not a teachers job to undo religious indoctrination (you'd probably end up being sacked these days), even if they could. Most university students lack critical thinking skills, how would you teach an 9 or 10 year old such skills?

And no, showing other beliefs to be inferior and bloody stupid in context is not dogmatism. It's called approaching knowledge in a honest way. It would seem that, this idea of respect for all beliefs is much more corrosive than darwins dangerous idea.

54. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76404 by automath on October 5, 2007 at 6:06 pm

"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others,"

What a pile of shit!
By approaching religion in such a relativist way in the first place is what led to one apparently having to respect all beliefs equally! What utter bloody rubbish. You'd think some of these people have never really lived. I tolerate a belief in creationism but I'll never be able to respect it and in part that comes from what it does to innocent children, our society as a whole and the future of our search for knowledge.

55. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72754 by automath on September 22, 2007 at 5:06 pm

(The test, called the moral foundations questionnaire, can be taken online, at www.YourMorals.org.)

Well, I glad to see that the tests confirm my self image. But I do think that since I've spent a lot of time working on myself then I could have predicted these results. Which kind of brings me to a mainly nurture stance to morality.

56. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72028 by automath on September 20, 2007 at 7:09 am

I always wonder what had become of Mary Midgley, did she have some fall from fame after a review of the selfish gene?

I think she has a knack for misrepresenting any situation and I don't fully understand why she does it!

There are certainly questions that some people would rather couldn't be answered by science. And they go to great lengths to poison the well of knowledge for all. People are not be persuaded by ID it is being indoctrinated into them from birth and are being hoodwinked by charlatans with the clever use of affective language.

Anyway, I better read the piece and some comments before I add any more.

57. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #70000 by automath on September 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm

64. Fanusi Khiyal

There are way to many pin-head, egotistical buffoons who will mouth off about Christianity

Yea I never fancied full blown organised religion for precisely that reason, even Jebus had a thing against it.

That Bill Donohue certainly comes across as one of these pin-head, egotistical buffoons, but there again most establishment type Roman Catholics do.

I don't see many people winning emmys and praising mohammed for it. I think that was partly the point Kathy Griffin was trying to make. Far too many people thanking Jebus when in fact he had dick squat to do with it. So she is addressing a long standing insult to human dignity.

Yes, what she said can be twisted to make a point about the violent tendencies some followers of Islam have developed. Is Bill Donohue suggesting that threatening violence to win an argument is morally correct? It certainly comes over that way. No wonder governments are trying to cut back on civil liberties with fruit cases like this on the loose.

58. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69030 by automath on September 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

oh I hope that hasn't upset the sensibilities of too many fascists! There again, since thinking seems beyond them, I suppose they'll rub it off by believing it's that ranting Hawkins once again.

59. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68850 by automath on September 8, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I haven't read any further than this so far

Many of America's top-selling books right now are angry, in-your-face, atheist manifestos.

So I'm left wondering if you guys over the pond have had a few book launches I haven't heard of as yet? I'd certainly like to get my hands on these angry, in-your-face atheist manifestos, so if someone can provide me with a web link I'd be grateful, Thanks.

Ah ha not to worry I've just realised this writer is an Adherent of the Repeated Meme.

60. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68843 by automath on September 8, 2007 at 11:18 pm

I haven't read any further than this so far

Many of America's top-selling books right now are angry, in-your-face, atheist manifestos.

So I'm left wondering if you guys over the pond have had a few book launches I haven't heard of as yet? I'd certainly like to get my hands on these angry, in-your-face atheist manifestos, so if someone can provide me with a web link I'd be grateful, Thanks.

61. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68591 by automath on September 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Northern Bright says

A remarkable book in so many ways, The God Delusion may well also hold the distinction of being the most misrepresented book ever written.

I was almost in agreement with you, then a split millisecond later the image of a book called the bible came to mind. I'm sure the more religious would make something of this, maybe it was revealed to me? tut tut I shouldn't encourage them :(

So maybe we could probably call it the second most misrepresented book ever written?

62. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #67895 by automath on September 5, 2007 at 4:51 am

For legal reasons, we weren't allowed to use the Ted Haggard footage.

Well there's a surprise :)

63. Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

Comment #67687 by automath on September 4, 2007 at 11:05 am

Excellent.

Down with Education to Hell with Truth.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/ejn/ejn_comics/pages/comic_EJN_N14.htm

64. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67513 by automath on September 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Let me see if I have this right, according to John Humphrys we should play this down so as not to upset the Buchanans and the millions like them, after all we don't want to draw peoples attention to the realities of the world around them.

65. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67424 by automath on September 3, 2007 at 11:48 am

"IanG
Unless you really believe that calling a child a "Christian" child is as bad as sexually abusing the child."

I fail to see why you feel the need to hold it up against sexually abuse. Are there not other forms of abuse that are just as damaging to a developing child?

In part the labelling and indoctrination by the parents/religious leaders/writers are fuelling the exponential rise in extremism we are now witnessing. Lightly pointed reminders over the years don't appear to have worked. Maybe pointing out that labelling children is akin to child abuse might actually make then stop, think and reconsider what they are doing!

Hence our current situation where anyone with a belief in belief can put their fingers in their ears and shout lalalala at the "arrogant fundamentalist militant atheist". There's nothing quite like denial to support a delusion.

66. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67413 by automath on September 3, 2007 at 11:06 am

Nice to see the more militant religionists keeping up their campaign of hatred against the atheist. I can think of nothing that supports the extremists more than these militant 'moderates'.

The style of argument is intriguing as it has the usually smattering of truth surrounded by the overwhelming volume of verbal diarrhoea, misrepresentation and outright lies that are usually characteristic of these emotive arguments.

If I assume that she believes what she has written then it provides quite an insight into the workings of her mind. She thinks in stereotypes and believes in the normal religionist clichés of Dawkins, atheists and materialism. It really is quite shocking to realise how two dimensional her mind really is. It certainly makes one doubt the self-aggrandizing claim of being humble and self questioning.

Three interesting points I would allow myself more time to think about would include her usage of the term imagination, especially in the unfettered context she likes to map it back onto reality. Another would be her usage of words that are attempting to add a meaning to an emotional response to something. The last being what she has been taught to believe about materialism as the profane other, and how that has coloured what she is now capable of believing. The last might give some insights into how muslims in general have reacted to western society and how this has stirred the other religions up over the preceding 15 years or so.

All in all I'd recommend that she had a good long detox of belief, but it'll come as no surprise to hear that her 'faith' won't allow that.

67. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65396 by automath on August 24, 2007 at 3:32 am

What's all the fuss about? There appears to be a lot of mountains being created from mole hills! Does this stem from a basic lack of thought about what is being written or just the limitations of the medium upon which we find ourselves.

68. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64910 by automath on August 22, 2007 at 10:08 am

Hardly any of the religions I've been associated with over the year are listed, there's no Spiritualism, Mysticism, Satanism or Jedism.

It also a fair point that the question is badly worded as neither atheism nor it's sub-category agnosticism are religions. They could have more easily had none as an option. I'm sure someone will make some point out of that at a later date.

69. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64396 by automath on August 20, 2007 at 1:08 am

At the danger of sounding smug and superior I'll express my thinking that this is an excellent article.

70. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63765 by automath on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 pm

In a perverse kind of a way, Mark makes an excellent point, even though I am left with the question. Why?

I've obviously misjudged this person as someone who was capable of independent, individual and rigorous thought.

Maybe you had to put food on the table?

71. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63170 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

Judy- We're losing our belief in God
Richard M- (gesturing towards Dawkins) Well, that's because of him!

lol, I heard Judy but missed Richard M's reply, as I was probably wondering how Richard D was going to answer that one :p

After listening to it several times now, it actually gets better.

Judy - That's because We're losing our faith in God

Richard M - (gesturing towards Dawkins) Well, that's because of him and his book!

(not word perfect, done from memory!)

72. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63166 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 10:39 am

Just showed this to my other half, they've been an avid Richard and Judy viewer for many years now, although they missed Fridays. The first thing they said about this clip was - "Judy wasn't herself there, she was a bit hostile..." I thought that was interesting in light of several comments on this here, and particularly this one.

14. MrEmpirical
Why do so many people on this site get stuck into the interviewers whenever Dawkins appears on TV? It's almost like some of the board members expect interviewers to be hostile to Dawkins, and they project this expectation onto the interviewers, seeing hostility when it isn't there.

Maybe some people are better at reading the affective state of others? Rather than using the word hostile, I'd have gone for defensive and on edge. There again I think that most people would be on guard when confronted by the monster (lovable rogue) that certain people and the popular media have distorted the image of Richard into. People then only come to see what they have been programmed to expect.

So yes, I think there is a point to be made here, but in this case I think most are on the money with their perceptions. Always safe to ask yourself if you're sure; measure twice - cut once as they say. Especially since some people don't tend to read the emotion of others very well, for instance passion can easily be mistaken and misrepresented as aggression. Since people do not encounter the concept of passion much in western life, they come only to see it as aggression. Such a sad and reductionist existence some of us in the west live. :(

Learn to question and experience something of life!

73. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63023 by automath on August 13, 2007 at 12:21 am

Judy reminds me of my next door neighbour, who always likes telling me about the bible she keeps in the kitchen and how all the changes to our life have been because of the loss of religion. (such a wonderful and quaintly old english attitude to the world)

I noticed that Judy managed to drop in the idea that the rise in superstition is due to the loss of faith (belief) in God. Well ignored btw :)

I agree with the other comments that say this is a good interview especially for targeting the market segment that are most likely to be superstitious. The Richard and Judy format is one that is very popular over here with middle England, and is quite a good wind down program of popular chat.

I feel so lucky that I stumbled onto the search for truth at an early age instead of fostering the will to believe.

74. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62820 by automath on August 11, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Yet more obscurest drivel from someone who should or so I am told, apparently know better.

75. Unreasonably superstitious

Comment #62762 by automath on August 11, 2007 at 9:17 am

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/gordon_lynch/2007/08/atheism_the_new_zealotry.html

Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Atheism has never held much interest for sociologists of religion - until now.

Gordon Lynch

Haven't a clue how to submit a site, so I'll put it here. (Have tried to varies email in the past with no response)

76. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62190 by automath on August 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm

118. Cartomancer Quite what cultural processes acted as scaffolding for the development of wide-eyed drooling idiots like the mentally sub-normal Melanie Phillips is anyone's guess however...

This is where one might see the hand of god.

77. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61939 by automath on August 7, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Ah the ever rational Ms Phillips.

78. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Comment #61864 by automath on August 7, 2007 at 7:08 am

Please tell me that you don't need to be an atheist to recognize the dangers this group pose to democracy.

It's like watching some body snatcher movie trailer.

79. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61466 by automath on August 5, 2007 at 8:51 am

I don't suppose it helps matters when there are some UK Universities offering B.Sc courses in witchcraft (complementary medicine) et al. Although these universities are being viewed as a laughing stock in the more sensible circles, it still lends credibility to a not very skeptical (thoughtful) public.

80. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59502 by automath on July 29, 2007 at 9:14 am

170. Comment #59485 by pzmyers

"Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating."

Oh you gotta have faith... erm...

81. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59386 by automath on July 28, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Might already have been said, but I haven't read all the comments yet.

It reminds me of Z for Zorro and V for Vendetta.

The later being rather poignant to the situation some find themselves in.

82. Face to faith

Comment #59235 by automath on July 28, 2007 at 1:18 pm

It's sometimes quite astounding how the believers in belief commit the same fallacies they actually accuse the atheist of. Apparently thinking nothing of resorting to false dichotomies, strawmen, abuse and straight forward misrepresentation of any position an atheist postulates; basically they show an appearence of being driven, as if controlled by some parasite, to defend a position by any means possible with no attempt to actually understand what is being written. To call it incoherent is a bit of an understatement, as they come across as having no grasp on an objective rationality.

I'm all for using the tools of sociology, anthropology, psychology and so on, to uncover the nature of our humanity and the creations we have invented to sustain us as we evolve but I do draw the line at so-called scholars and intellectuals using such methods and knowledge purely in the attempt to prop up the status quo of religion whilst at the same time burying their heads in sand as to the dangers it still presents.

Although I can understand the need some have to cling to what is thought to be known; what is considered to be unquestionable truths. For our understanding to be allowed to uncover the truth and to further enlighten what it is to be human: to see the possiblities of where we can go from here, then questions need to be asked in a rational, objective and open mined way, free from the reprisals of the mob mentality that have become embossed in certain patterns of dogmatic thought. Which because of the comfort they offer, we have allowed to restrict our freedom to search for the real meanings of existence.

Thankfully we are no longer in the times of Alcibiades: questions can be asked of the world around us and we can mock the gods without the threat of death, in some parts of the world at least. We still have a way to go and our own willful and self imposed ignorance to overcome.

83. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58804 by automath on July 26, 2007 at 7:29 am

I think this follows on nicely from this piece.

Which religion is the right religion?

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707260330

84. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #58792 by automath on July 26, 2007 at 6:37 am

phasmagigas
She is of course like this because thats just in her nature but for me it was the assurance of her faith that somehow was the support rod of her flaws.

That's interesting, I sometimes get mistaken for a religious person, even though I wear no such trinkets. Not that there is usually any like mistake made when I attempt to write about religion.

You say that she is like this because of her nature, but what is this nature you talk of, I've come to see in my life that my nature is a combination of habit, belief, mood and emotion, to name the major factors, each affecting the other in ways I've not fully mastered. But what I wanted to say was that I suspect that your hunch about her faith being the support rod of her flaws, is accurate.

85. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58449 by automath on July 24, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Brilliant, this is precisely the kind of debate I was hoping would come from the vocalisation of atheism.

86. God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

Comment #58062 by automath on July 23, 2007 at 8:18 am

"This is a deeply religious nation by many standards," said Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "They want their leaders to be believers. They want them to believe in something higher, to have a moral framework as they lead the country."

Them wanting their leader to have a god complex and a 'moral' framework taken from a 'holy' book doesn't inspire me with much confidence for the future.

87. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57993 by automath on July 22, 2007 at 7:38 pm

From the Steve Midgley talk

Part 1

11:20 First I'd like to suggest that this is a strawman.

11:32 You see, Dawkins seems to think that belief in the existence of god rests almost entirely on the argument from design.

12:29 The truth be told, paleys argument was never terrifically persuasive. Within 50 years a theologian of the day was exposing what paley was writing. Even before Darwin had come on the scene this theologian had exposed that his argument wasn't a powerful one for the existence of god. For that reason it's never been a main stay in defending the case for gods existence.

13:06 But Dawkins seems convinced that it is, he seems to think that if he can undermine paley, well then, he can eliminate god. But it is a strawman, everything doesn't hinge on the argument from design in the way Dawkins seems to think.

13:23 So, firstly, he is setting up a strawman...

Q.E.D

(Q.Er.Doh)

88. Face to faith

Comment #57816 by automath on July 21, 2007 at 8:48 am

Judging by his website, the University of London agrees that he's a sociologist.

I'm not disputing the fact that he is a sociologist, just that what he has written for the Newspaper media is not sociology, is not a study and that what he has written should not be warrented on the basis that he is a sociologist. I think that by doing this, some have missed the gist of what he has said, and his words have passed into brains in an uncritical moment of apparent non-thought.

I was actually thinking more of research into social and economic indicators for religious belief.

Well, I don't for one moment, believe this is what G. Lynch has been suggesting.

I mean what does he mean by

Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.

I think religion can quite happily condemn itself.

But not if we have Asad and McCutcheon as they will re-frame the debate into areas your mind has yet to travel, as it means deconstruction of western culture as we know it. At this moment in time it makes more sense to oppose the threat than to try and get the population of the world to redefine how they understand religion. And for some reason I don't think a large sway of religion is going to capitulate to these new ideas.

Try the following PDF from McCutcheon's website.

Then of course there is the implict respect the anthropology and sociology of religion awards its charge. You don't have to look very far to see where most postmodern ideas came from. Or that most sociologists of religion are apparently religious themselves.

And why was it down to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris to bring this 'knowledge' of the sociology of religion to the liberal academics? I'm sure one of these sociologist of religion is capable of writing a book addressed to the general public, instead of the usual lofty tomes of academic splendour or pointed and misleading newspaper articles?

89. Face to faith

Comment #57809 by automath on July 21, 2007 at 7:20 am

It's vital for us to engage with this study.

Which study is that then?

Is it the one that mentions the balances and gaps in Dawkins work or maybe it's the one that mentions the worrying trends in Dennetts work, especially his tendancy to be overconfident in his definitions. This aways comes across in his interviews doesn't it? Such an overbearing and arrogant man, that Dennett!

OK, only pulling your leg. It might be worth reading some of the mentioned previous work from Asad, McCutcheon, Bruce and Lynch before taking anything more from G. Lynch as being sociology on the basis of a newspaper cutting that says he is a sociologist.

90. Face to faith

Comment #57755 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Uh, he IS writing about sociology.

And there was me thinking he was writing about religion, and re-dressing the balance that the mass tide of critical books has caused. Hardly sociology, more an attempt at framing the debate in a more religious context.

Looks like the same forumla with some different variables.

91. Face to faith

Comment #57750 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Courtiers reply anyone?

Yup, I read that phrase in Kells comment and had to do a little searching to understand what one was, and this fits. Eagleton & Orr et al

It's not a courtier's reply; the guy's a sociologist, not a theologian.

Aye, a sociologist that approaches things through the cage of theology. But what's that got to do with it. What does it matter what he calls himself? It's what he's written that needs to be the object of discussion.

And don't forget: you can add your informed and balanced debate on the Guardian CiF website :)

92. Face to faith

Comment #57741 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm

That's one of the most timid 'why didn't you write the book I wanted' I've seen to date. I'd rather approach any study of religion from the default position, rather than that of theology. From such a position he might raise some interesting points for further exploration.

93. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57511 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm

It's the eagerness of people like Myers to scoff at, and therefore refuse to learn anything from, traditions that go back thousands of years that bothers me.

What a smuck. This is akin to the religious meme of materialism being the denier of human experience. As for the refusal to learn from tradition, well what can an atheist, free thinker and sceptic really say about that! I think he's targeting the wrong crowd here, maybe he should aim his scorn at the dogmatic believers of revealed truth!

94. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57447 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

I find it quite contemptible behaviour and his statement here

Now, what's the difference between "My cause is simply the truth" and "What I believe is true"? None that I can see.

might help highlight from where his problem stems. He has been infected with the relativistic meme where truth is everything and nothing. Kind of a believer that's left the track. Two fries short of a happy meal. Whacko.

95. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57428 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 10:02 am

Now, I'm not naive.

Maybe you should have wrote something that justified that statement?

Maybe you should start by examining your belief about the lack of humanity you ascribe to people in general?

96. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56878 by automath on July 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Good old British fair play here - 3(4) against 1, despite that AC managed to address some of the usual myths put forward in support of religion and even pre-empted a couple, especially the point about philosophy and morality.

Apparently we'd lose the ability to think, communicate and negotiate without the aid of religion. Shameful to think these people actually head up departments in universities here in the UK. There is some extreme clouding of the grey matter going on with some of their suggestions, which came across as the usual statements of self-denial.

And there was me labouring under the impression that this programme was about atheism!

97. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56353 by automath on July 15, 2007 at 8:31 am

Ah the same old christian hypocrisy, everytime they put pen to paper these days they prove the atheist and their arguments against religion to be wholly correct.

98. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #56005 by automath on July 13, 2007 at 7:44 am

Suppressed for political reasons and ideology?

Might just as well have said: suppressed for religious reasons.

99. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55999 by automath on July 13, 2007 at 6:46 am

Yes. I realized on this book tour that I would have to write a different book for every person I met, because they all take religion à la carte.

lol, so true.

"Well my church may say that but I believe this, but obviously I'm still a good [insert religious label here] ..."

These people aren't religious, they're just stuck with a meaning and can't see any others.

100. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55878 by automath on July 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm

The thing is, if Christians really did treat the morality espoused by their religion as an absolute that does not evolve, then they would all be following the moral norms of 2000 years ago, and clearly they are not doing so.

Or as can quite clearly been witnessed in a number of muslim countries around the world.

Religion poisons everything was a pretty accurate title, most of the advances have come as humanity has pushed back its entanglement with its more religious impulses.