101. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78775 by Richard Dawkins on October 14, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Gentlemen, quit congratulating yourselves and move on.
I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno, and from their write ups - sounds like nothing
new - thus the market's reason for no English translation, and he's been writing since the 1950's!

102. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76643 by Richard Dawkins on October 6, 2007 at 2:56 pm

146. Comment #76558 by Bonzai on October 6, 2007 at 8:53 am
117. Comment #76488 by Richard Dawkins

Sorry Richard, I got the idea that you picked Lennox as your adversary from some blog which commented on the debate. I should have known better to double check my source.

103. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76488 by Richard Dawkins on October 6, 2007 at 1:45 am

93. Comment #76391 by Bonzai on October 5, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Duff,

Whoever selected this Lennox clown to go up against Dawkins should be lashed. What a clown!

Ahem..I think Dawkins picked Lennox as his debate opponent himself.

104. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76325 by Richard Dawkins on October 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

14. Comment #76264 by eirik on October 5, 2007 at 9:21 am
Quoted from the AAI website:

You may also purchase DVDs of all or part of the convention though the AAI website in October. The cost will be $25 for your choice of day/event or $75 for the entire disk set (plus postage).

Is it just me or am I right in being a little dumbstruck by the pricing of those DVDs? On the same page from which this quote is taken, they say that they want to reach as many people as possible. Doesn't quite fit if you ask me. But then again, no one did. ;)

105. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72844 by Richard Dawkins on September 23, 2007 at 8:18 am

19. Comment #72811 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Well ... we could write to him and express our support.

106. MORE GOOD NEWS for US taxpayers

Comment #72378 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 10:26 pm

9. Comment #72304 by foxfire on September 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Aw RATS! March. Oh well, guess I'll just have to do it again (where is that darn donate button;-)

107. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #72281 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Have a look at the Comments on the Times website.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article2485410.ece
Amazingly, the balance seems to be in favour of Wycliffe Hall and the other theological establishments, and against Sir Colin Lucas. I find this extremely surprising. Some sort of organized campaign to send in Comments, do you think?
Richard

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

Comment #71937 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 am

I unfortunately cannot send in a reply to The Independent, as I already have a letter in the In-Tray of letters@independent.co.uk, replying to http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2976641.ece

Do you ever feel you are being picked on? Ah well, I suppose it shows progress of a kind. People don't bother to write lies about you unless you have them rattled. And the scale of the falsehoods going about now suggests that they are getting really rattled.

Richard

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

Comment #71923 by Richard Dawkins on September 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

Ullica Segerstrale, author of Defenders of the Truth, an excellently thorough history of the sociobiology controversy, interviewed Mary Midgley about her article in the journal Philosophy (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14. This was the article that I replied to and which you can see at http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5).
Mrs Midgley confessed to Ullica that she had not in fact read The Selfish Gene when she wrote that article. She has since backtracked from that confession, and I was inclined to believe her. However, looking at the above interview with Nick Jackson, it looks very much as though she still hasn't read anything more than the title of The Selfish Gene.

Richard

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

Comment #71914 by Richard Dawkins on September 19, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Oh dear, dear old Mary Midgley again. We go back a long way, Mary Midgley and I. See her Wikipedia entry, which also has a link to my published reply to an earlier outburst of lies -- or crass misunderstanding -- from her:
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5

In the above interview with Mrs Midgley, every single thing she says about me is an outright falsehood:-

1. I have never said that there are no positions available except for my own and creatonism.

2. I have frequently said that natural selection is NOT the only source of evolution. I have written enthusiastically about Kimura's neutral theory of evolution.

3. I have frequently emphasized that natural selection favours cooperation and 'using something that others are not'.

4. I have repeatedly repudiated the worship of Thatcherite competition.

5. I have never said that religion MAKES people do appalling things, only that it frequently IS used to justify doing appalling things, just as ideologies such as Marxism are.

6. Far from being angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, I frequently and passionately invoke mystery as an inspiration for science, and I frequently state that science cannot answer some questions.

Richard

111. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70216 by Richard Dawkins on September 14, 2007 at 11:38 am

I don't normally reply to reviews, but since this is technically a review of somebody else's book I gave in to the temptation and sent a letter in to The Independent this morning. It was much longer than my letters to newspapers usually are, so they probably won't print it. I'll post it here if they don't (well, and if they do, too), although, reading the comments on this thread, I find that most of my points have been admirably covered here anyway.

Richard

112. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69808 by Richard Dawkins on September 12, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Brilliant as usual. Sam is so very very good.
Richard

113. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69323 by Richard Dawkins on September 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm

I returned yesterday from a visit to Amsterdam. At the conference there I met a very interesting documentary film-maker, Ingeborg Beugel, who has made a special study of attitudes to women among Islamic immigrants to the Netherlands. Her film on the subject was very controversial. She has sent me three newspaper articles by her, or about her or her film. I suspect that these might be of interest to the English-speaking world, if we could find a volunteer to translate them. I wonder whether we have a Dutch or Flemish volunteer out there who would like to have a look at these articles, with a view to possibly translating them for our website?

Thank you
Richard

114. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68178 by Richard Dawkins on September 6, 2007 at 9:46 am

Lying for Jesus. Someone really should write a book with that title.

115. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66957 by Richard Dawkins on September 1, 2007 at 5:30 am

Is anyone wondering how The Times came to select such an inept reviewer for a book? Well, the book is called Darwin's Angel, and Salley Vickers once wrote a novel called Miss Garnet's Angel. Geddit?

Richard

116. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66953 by Richard Dawkins on September 1, 2007 at 5:04 am

Comment #66948 by rnewson on September 1, 2007 at 4:48 am
I'm so stunned by the arrogance of writing from an angel's point of view that I can't read the rest of this article...

117. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66888 by Richard Dawkins on September 1, 2007 at 12:15 am

I have just posted as follows to The Times website. There seems to be a delay before such postings go up, perhaps so that they can be censored?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2361294.ece
Richard

'If anybody finds this review remotely persuasive, I am entirely content for them to read The God Delusion for themselves (as Salley Vickers very obviously has not) and make up their own minds. They will find that every single one of her allegations about it is either false or comprehensively dealt with in The God Delusion itself. Her statement that "only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally" may be true, but she must then write off as nutcases nearly half the population of the most powerful nation on earth, and most of the Islamic world.'

118. The importance of doubt

Comment #66541 by Richard Dawkins on August 30, 2007 at 11:01 am

25. Comment #66519 by fides_et_ratio on August 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

In his defense, perhaps he didn't realise it was a joke due to the lack of any apparent hilarity in the statement. To be fair, it doesn't seem particularly amusing.

Also, I read an article a few months ago where John Cornwall was taking you to task for deliberately misquoting him in your book. If I remember correctly, his case was more compelling than you own.

119. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66394 by Richard Dawkins on August 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm

What a terrific piece by Sam. Just a marvellous piece of writing.

Richard

120. The importance of doubt

Comment #66393 by Richard Dawkins on August 29, 2007 at 11:28 pm

He refers to believers as "faith sufferers", and to himself and like-minded associates as "we doctors".

First, genes are linearly strung along chromosomes, and so tend to travel through generations in the company of particular other genes that occupy neighbouring chromosomal loci. We doctors call that kind of linkage linkage, and I shall say no more about it . . .

121. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66022 by Richard Dawkins on August 27, 2007 at 11:30 pm

What I want to know is whether donations to Ted Haggard are tax-deductible. The newspaper article doesn't say, but one sentence ("Mike Ware, an overseer for New Life Church, told The Gazette of Colorado Springs on Friday that it was premature of Mr. Haggard to release the statement without first consulting the overseers") suggests to me that the donations might be channeled through the New Life Church, in which case presumably they would be tax-deductible. I don't know how these things work in USA, but I should have thought this might be a major embarrassment to the New Life Church. Do we have any legally qualified readers, or readers knowledgeable about US or Colorado law, who could enlighten us?

Richard

122. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64456 by Richard Dawkins on August 20, 2007 at 5:53 am

Fascinating test case, fascinating precedent to be set. Of course it is absurd to talk of 'changing her religion' when she's only four. But no more absurd than to talk of her having a particular religion in the first place. The precedent that might be set is that all children might be asked to decide their own religion, rather than simply follow their parents, when looking over the available schools. And this would again bring home the absurdity of a four-year-old child having a religion at all.

Like others here, I sympathize with the parents. They are treating their 'own' religion and the religion of the desired school with the contempt that both deserve.

Richard

123. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64015 by Richard Dawkins on August 17, 2007 at 9:36 am

Hear hear!
Well done Josh
Richard

124. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63445 by Richard Dawkins on August 14, 2007 at 7:27 am

If you are British, why not write to your MP, enclosing Joan Smith's article and the following YouTube address so they can watch 'Undercover Mosque' for themselves:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=
Then ask your MP the following question: If, as has been claimed, the recordings of these 'clerics' are being taken "out of context" what CONCEIVABLE context could POSSIBLY make them any less appalling? Then demand to know why the Channel 4 people responsible for the documentary were threatened with prosecution when they should have been given medals.

Richard

125. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #63033 by Richard Dawkins on August 13, 2007 at 1:42 am

Today's Independent (13th August) has a crop of four Letters to the Editor, responding to Dominic Lawson. Three of them are anti-religious. The one pro-religion letter backfires by denying Lawson's central claim that Christianity has retreated to the ethical high ground. It concludes:-

"I welcome the debate Dawkins has provoked, although I disagree with him, because questioning the existence of God is entirely relevant to Christianity. This is in contrast to Lawson's lazy assumption that Christianity is merely a set of ethical principles. If this was the case, then Christianity would be truly irrelevant, but thankfully it is not."

I don't think it's worth reproducing the letters in full on our site, but you can see them at
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2859065.ece

Richard

126. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62481 by Richard Dawkins on August 10, 2007 at 12:16 am

I am grateful to Dominic Lawson for continuing the cordial relations we established when he edited his brother-in-law John Diamond's book Snake Oil, and I wrote the Foreword. He is right that if religion were limited to the nice, almost God-free vicars and priests that he (and I) meet socially, Root of All Evil would have been an even more inappropriate title than it was (and I am also grateful to Mr Lawson for acknowledging that I disowned it). But it just isn't true that "for the most part . . . the Christian churches have retreated to the safe high ground of ethics", certainly not if the most part includes North America where – alas for the children and the gullible – a Hieronymus Bosch style Hell is enjoying a great vogue, along with much else that Lawson would dislike as much as I do. And need I point out that Christianity is not the only religion the modern world has to worry about?

It is kind of Dominic Lawson to feel a "twinge of remorse" when he attacked Root of All Evil. I, in turn, will feel some remorse if the Comments that his article provokes on this website exceed the normal bounds of robust and trenchant criticism. I fear, however, that I may be in for some twinges.

Richard

127. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61590 by Richard Dawkins on August 5, 2007 at 11:01 pm

I'll try and find out what plans there are for re-showing Enemies of Reason in America, Australia etc, and we'll post the details on the site when we know. Should be less of a problem than Root of All Evil, where the broadcasters were scared of the religious lobby. Note, by the way, that the original broadcaster of both documentaries is not BBC but their rivals, Channel Four.

Re homeopathy, I posted Steve Jones's lovely joke on the other Enemies of Reason thread, about the homeopath who forgot to take his pill and died of an overdose.

Richard

128. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61470 by Richard Dawkins on August 5, 2007 at 9:26 am

Steve Jones made up a lovely joke about a homeopath who forgot to take his medicine and died of an overdose.

129. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61392 by Richard Dawkins on August 5, 2007 at 3:01 am

Re Comment £61378 by Nails.

In the Second World War, British males of military age were in the forces unless there was a very good reason not to be, and my father was no exception. He was 24 when war broke out in 1939, and he duly became an officer in the King's African Rifles. The only reason his military service is mentioned in biographical notes on me is that my birth happened to coincide with his brief time in the army.

I naturally assumed that the clairvoyant meant a CAREER soldier (sailor or airman) not a wartime volunteer or conscript. Men who are known socially as Major, Colonel etc are ALWAYS career soldiers (or up to no good). If the clairvoyant's prophecy were to be anything more than trivial, he had to be talking about something more than wartime service, and he would have known this himself.

It is also true that, if you interpret 'male relative' so widely that it includes great uncles, cousins etc, most people could probably dig up a male relative who had a lifelong military career. If 'male relative' is interpreted in this wide sense, and also if 'military' includes wartime service, surely literally all of us must have a male relative who would qualify. That is one of the ways 'psychics' get away with it. Their divinations are so wide as to include just about everybody, if their audience is prepared to cut them the necessary slack -- which unfortunately it usually is.

Richard

130. Atheists of the world: unite!

Comment #61255 by Richard Dawkins on August 4, 2007 at 11:05 am

Much better, in this case, to post comments on the Guardian site:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/08/atheists_of_the_world_unite.html rather than here, since we already have a thread going here on the OUT campaign.

Richard

131. The Out Campaign

Comment #59874 by Richard Dawkins on July 31, 2007 at 1:43 am

Others have done a fine job of replying to the Reverend David Robertson (Wee Flea: Comment #59860), so I'll just mention his "One final thought - now that RD has given up on science (when did he last write a science paper?) . . . " It looks as though this is going to be the new party line. Unable to answer somebody's arguments, fall back on accusing him of giving up on science.

How dare anyone accuse the author of The Ancestor's Tale of giving up on science? I invite the Reverend Robertson to read it from cover to cover (he might learn something about evolution and other aspects of real life) and then try to estimate how many scientific papers that five year labour of love is equivalent to.

Richard

132. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59626 by Richard Dawkins on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 am

So, Philip Kitcher, what I should have done is add the following sentence at the end of every chapter of The God Delusion: "Oh, and by the way, we need a National Health Service." I strongly believe in universal health care, I wish I wish it was available in the United States, I wish the British National Health Service lived up in practice to its theoretical ideals and I'd gladly pay more tax to that end. But, however strongly I believe in human welfare, my book is actually about something else. It is about religion, especially whether religious beliefs are true, and not about the best way to run a society.


(This second paragraph is now redundant since Hasty Toweling has apparently removed his Comment. I can't delete my paragraph, however, because later ones would then become incomprehensible). By the way, I think the first Comment doesn't belong here, since it has no connection with anything Philip Kitcher said. Presumably Hasty Toweling, you meant to initiate a new thread in the General Forum? It would be a tidy act if you were to move it there, where it will doubtless be read with interest. And in general wouldn't be nice if people used the General Forum for starting new trains of thought, rather than de-railing existing ones with irrelevancies (or, since I seem to be in carping mood, with those private exchanges between pairs of individuals that really belong in private e-mails)?

133. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59535 by Richard Dawkins on July 29, 2007 at 12:03 pm

People like me are often accused of going after the lunatic fringe of religion and of not engaging with the 'sensible mainstream' of believers. I'd like it to be noted that among the enthusiastic speakers at this self-evidently barking mad conference were several United States senators, including Senator Joseph Lieberman, sometime Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate. Not only did Lieberman speak at the conference, he praised the preposterous Pastor John Hagee to the extent of comparing him to Moses. Senator Lieberman is presumably a good specimen of mainstream, sensible, middle-of-the-road, moderate religious opinion.

Richard

134. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58455 by Richard Dawkins on July 24, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Not for the first time, I find myself impatient with the broadcaster's fixation with the need for a moderator. If only that woman had stopped getting in the way, we could have listened to a really interesting conversation between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr. She's not the worst chairman I've heard, but I repeatedly have been led to wonder why broadcasters don't just let conversation between two intelligent individuals flow. Does anybody think this moderator assists the discussion in any way whatsoever? I'm not criticizing her as an individual. I'm criticizing the very assumption that we need a moderator at all.
Richard

135. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57728 by Richard Dawkins on July 20, 2007 at 7:54 pm

My apologies for posting my 'Lament for Douglas' here and then removing it again. I put it up impulsively, in a fit of grief, on hearing his voice again. Later I calmed down and decided it was an over-sentimental gesture given that it is available elslewhere. The Douglas Fir we planted in his memory is growing up nicely, by the way.
Richard

136. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53521 by Richard Dawkins on July 1, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Creationists are very fond of saying "Dogs are all the same species" but it is an argument of desperation.

First, a relatively trivial point of definition. The biological definition of a species is that, under natural conditions, members of the same species freely interbreed with one another but not with members of other species. My point about dogs arose out of a hypothetical experiment in wolf breeding, so let's extend the experiment. Set up mixed populations of St Bernards and chihuahuas and allow them to associate freely under natural conditions. How many hybrids do we expect to get? I genuinely don't know the answer, but if I were an honest creationist I wouldn't bet on my own rhetoric.

Even if we accept that all dog breeds are still the same species, the less trivial point is that the huge differences among them have been achieved in a few centuries or, at most, millennia. Look at the dramatic differences among dog breeds, and then encourage your imagination to extrapolate over a geological, as opposed to merely historical or archeological timescale. At the modest end of the scale, that means multiplying the observed quantity of change by a thousand. Geological time actually allows you to multiply it by a million. Either way, the extrapolation yields a quantity of change far greater than we observe in nature among the entire range of all mammals.

Richard

137. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52879 by Richard Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:01 am

Several people have been kind enough to ask where I got the t-shirt saying "Evolution: The greatest show on earth, the only game in town." If I knew, I would say. I received it through the mail some years ago, as an anonymous gift. If the donor is, by any faint chance, reading this, thank you thank you, and sorry I couldn't thank you before but you never told me your name or address. It is fading somewhat -- started out black, now grey -- so maybe I should look into how to get a new one printed.

Richard

138. God Hates the World

Comment #51864 by Richard Dawkins on June 25, 2007 at 12:22 pm

This is so appalling (as well as being musically inept) that most people will want to switch it off after the first minute. However, it is worth persisting to the performance by the little girl at the end. More than for anything else I have written, I have been attacked for using the phrase 'child abuse' about certain aspects of religious indoctrination. But I defy any civilized person to watch this video and then deny that 'child abuser' is a completely appropriate description of the little girl's parents, or whoever persuaded her to sing this disgusting song and filmed her doing it. This video may haunt her for the rest of her life, even if she eventually manages to shake off the influence of her evil upbringing.
Richard

139. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51527 by Richard Dawkins on June 23, 2007 at 9:19 am

Don't be too hard on David Baddiel. Remember, this was never intended to be a book review, but just a light-hearted column, perhaps a bit like those 'Diary' pieces that people are sometimes asked to write. And I must say I'm particularly grateful to him for remarking that TGD is FUNNY. I don't think any actual reviewers have noticed that! So, thank you for that, Mr Baddiel.

Richard

140. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48746 by Richard Dawkins on June 9, 2007 at 1:01 am

The Chief Rabbi's article deserves to be read with respect, not because he is the Chief Rabbi but because, unlike most religious apologists, he is big enough to face up to the terrible problems religion really does cause in the world. He deserves praise for inviting his own congregation, and also Christian and Muslim ones, to stop being so smug and wake up to the dangers of faith.

But, speaking for myself, the evils done in religion's name don't provide the primary motivation for atheism. I'm an atheist, not because people do bad things in God's name but because I don't think he exists. What Sir Jonathan doesn't face up to is the scientific implausibility of God. His passing allusions to a pair of scientific books betray this.

"Selfish genes can produce selfless people. Is that miracle or mere chance?" The whole point of The Selfish Gene is precisely that selfish genes foster unselfish organisms. "Loving creator or blind watchmaker?" It is clear from the context that he is using "blind watchmaker" as a synonym for the "mere chance" of the previous sentence. And the whole point of The Blind Watchmaker is that natural selection is NOT "mere chance". Quite the contrary. Natural selection is the only workable ALTERNATIVE to mere chance as a satisfying explanation for our existence. Neither "divine creator" nor "mere chance" can be the explanation, for pretty much the same reason as each other.

Rabbi Sacks is a good, humane man. If he applied to science the same critical intelligence as he displays in his ethical writings, perhaps he would become an atheist too.

Richard

141. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #47041 by Richard Dawkins on June 2, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Our impressive Ecuadorian guides told us that Boobies eventually go blind, the consequence of years of repeated high-velocity impacts of their eyes on the water.

142. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46463 by Richard Dawkins on May 31, 2007 at 11:09 am

Thank you Josh for getting it up and running again. Apologies for the time when it was not available during today.

Richard

143. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45973 by Richard Dawkins on May 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm

It's precisely because I DO 'get it' that I spend so much of my time and energy fighting to change it.

As for the dozy title, I doubt if Martin Kettle is to blame. I have discovered over years of writing for newspapers that there is an otherwise underemployed species called Sub-Editor. Sub-Editors jealously guard their ancient right to make up titles for articles, which they may or may not have read. By long tradition, the one person who is absolutely debarred from any input into the title is the author. Indeed, if an author is really concerned that a particular title should NOT be used, his best tactic is to suggest it.

Richard

144. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45597 by Richard Dawkins on May 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

Richard, did they really invite you all the way to the Hay Festival just for that?

145. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45219 by Richard Dawkins on May 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Professors Somerville and Dawkins have clashed before, at an exclusive conference in Oxfordshire. "We were seated at a large, oval table - me at one end, him at the other - when we got involved in this terrible battle.

"Other people there couldn't believe it. It reminded me of when I was a kid watching the Davis Cup on television. The heads going back and forth," explained Professor Somerville.

Well, maybe she saw heads going back and forth, but this exchange evidently made no impression on me: I have not the slightest recollection of Professor Somerville or of any argument with her. I remember that conference at Ditchley Park chiefly for the interactions with the brilliant chairman, Ronald Dworkin. I do not doubt her story that she and I had an exchange of views, but her account of it as a head-turning extreme argument seems to me to symbolize a recurrent problem with religious people. They are so used to getting a free ride that, on the rare occasions that they encounter even mild criticism, they hear it as extreme and -- apparently in Margaret Somerville's case -- they presume that others hear it as extreme as well.

Richard

146. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37632 by Richard Dawkins on May 5, 2007 at 11:56 am

How dare you post this photograph when it is so obviously offensive to millions of Muslims? To make matters worse, the woman is a teacher, and for all we know she may during her long career have taught girls to read and write. It is at least a relief to learn that she was wearing gloves and that she made some token attempt to cover her hair, thereby partially reducing the otherwise uncontrollable lust which would necessarily afflict all males who encountered her. But even so, printing the photograph is an act of wanton insensitivity. And don't try to defend your editorial policy on grounds of freedom of the press. Freedom may be a virtue, but it doesn't licence you to go out of your way to give offence.

147. Author of the Year Ad

Comment #37398 by Richard Dawkins on May 4, 2007 at 11:34 am

The answer to Snomann32 (Comment #3739) is that my other books were not published by Oxford University Press. Given that fact, I think it is very nice of them to pay for this advertisement.
Richard

148. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37044 by Richard Dawkins on May 3, 2007 at 8:51 am

oao made two quite separate points. He thought I should write more about Islam. That is a reasonable point, and we might have a civilized discussion about it. Also about Hinduism, Buddhism etc. But he also accused me of anti-semitism, which is not civilized and for which he needs to apologize before going any further.
Richard

149. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36833 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Congratulations to Johann Hari for exposing this monstrous injustice stemming from a fatuously stupid 'belief in belief'. It is hard to know which is the more evil, these Islamic customs themselves or the craven, cowardly and above all PATRONIZING 'respect' for them which the rest of us are expected to show.
Richard

150. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36688 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 am

I find it hard not to resent the implication of Comment 36645 by oao. I obviously refer to Christianity, by default, more than to Judaism (or Islam) because I am a cultural Chrstian, writing in a cultural Christian country (Britain) with an eye to a larger audience in another (more than merely cultural) Christian country (USA). I use the name Yahweh when I want to refer to the Abrahamic (Judaeo-Christian-Islamic) God as opposed to other gods such as Zeus or Wotan. When I specifically want to refer to the Islamic God I use "Allah", although that is just the Arabic word for God/Yahweh. If I wanted to refer to the Christian God AS OPPOSED TO the Jewish God, what name does oao suggest I use? I do not believe that such a name exists.

The accusation of anti-Jewishness is ludicrous, offensive, and one might almost say paranoid. It reminds me of an occasion when I was lecturing on a ship, and I spoke strongly against religion in general, ALL religion. I never once mentioned Jews or Judaism. Yet I heard afterwards that a Jewish member of the audience was going around accusing me of anti-Semitism behind my back. To him, the very word "religion" was apparently synonymous with Judaism, and therefore to be anti-religious was tantamount to being anti-Jewish.

I don't know enough about the recent history of Israel/Palestine to be either pro or anti-Zionist, but I do know enough to say that oao's phrase 'current general anti-semitism/anti-zionism', implying as it does that anti-zionism is equivalent to anti-semitism, is offensive to my many Jewish friends who do know a lot about the history of that unhappy region, and who are passionate anti-Zionists.

Richard