401. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5909 by Riley on November 11, 2006 at 6:35 pm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Robertson [Comment #5840] wrote:
"Riley, Sadly you replied to something I did not say. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

Right, I didn't quote you. But you definitely say a lot which relies in large part on the two observational fallacies I noted above. For the sake of argument, I'll relate my points directly to a few of your statements:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy #1 Relates to your claim that: Dawkins is a fundementalist Atheist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[David Robertson Wrote:]"What is disturbing about this is that [Richard Dawkin's] fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously"

[David Robertson Wrote:]"He says that the existence of God is as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now do you really for a moment think that to any degree he considers the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. In that we can know about anything, Dawkins 'knows' that neither the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor God exist. "

No, Dawkins does not say that the existence of God is as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's an understandable error on your part and very common among people who don't listen to much of what Dawkins says.

What Dawkins says is that the "God of the Bible" is as likely to exist as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

If you read and listen to Dawkins (as I believe that you have), you couldn't even really call Dawkins an Atheist, much less a fundementalist one. Dawkins, in every interview and article where the question is brought up, always acknowleges the reasonable possibilty (5%, I saw someone write) that there exists a creator of the universe.

Dawkins of course does describe himself as an "atheist" but I think he would say that such an overly simplistic label is necessary to avoid a greater confuson. It's a situation created by Christian dogma which insists that the only possible god is the God of the Bible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy #2 Relates to your implicit claim that: Secularism promotes, or otherwise has something to do with Atheism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Robertson Wrote:]"Can you tell me when Channel 4 or even the BBC last gave an evangelical Christian the opportunity to produce a film demonstrating the evils of secularism?"

From this and the general tone of your writing, I think you are equating secularism and atheism. This is my reasoning:

Why would you introduce "secularism" into the debate between Theism and Atheism and as the target to be attacked in response to Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil?" documentary, unless you see secularism and atheism as so strongly connected that they are interchangeable? (in much the same way as "religion" and "belief in the supernatural" are essentially interchangeable)

What possible problem could you have with the secular idea, that an uncommited neutral position should be assumed in matters, such as faith, that are fundementally unresolveable ? It is secularism that has provided the opportunity for the enormous growth and spread of faith in the U.S..

Here's another quote:
[David Robertson Wrote:]"Colin - you are missing the point re the BBC [...] [The point] is that the default starting postion for everything is secularism and atheism. The BBC would not allow for one minute anyone to make a programme defending the existence of God"

First off, a quick check of BBC programming online reveals a five page listing of religious programming which includes the following: "In Praise of God", "Unitarians explain their faith", "Sunday Worship", "Prayer for the Day", and "Humphrys in Search of God" a program where an atheist interviews various religious leaders, each of whom argues in defense of the existance of God.

I can find gaggles of programing on the BBC that are dedicated to promoting the Christian faith. How many programs on the BBC can you find dedicated to promoting the idea that God doesn't exist ? (a small handful from what I see) How about in the United States? (none?)

Given how dramatically off-mark you are in your belief that the BBC wouldn't allow even "one minute" to anyone defending the existence of God, forgive me for assuming that the only way you could believe such a thing, is that you equate secularism with atheism. Forgive me also, because in the United States, I am bombarded by people who constantly equate the neutral non-commital position of secularism with atheism.

This phenomina is illustrated in the U.S. by the "prayer in school" debate. It is the insistence of our most vocal Christian leaders that school teachers should be instructing our children to pray. These same vocal Christian leaders characterize the neutral (or secular) position that: school children should be free to practice religion as they choose, as being anti-God and promoting atheism.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundation of most the rest of your positions can be shot down entirely with this single quote BEFORE he became our 41st President of the United States, George H.W. Bush:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

What would the political future be of a candidate who declared that Christians should not be considered citizens or even that they should not be considered patriots? Forgive me for saying this, but *this* *IS* *exactly* the kind of thing the Nazis said about the Jews in the years leading up to the holocaust. Can I emphasis this a little more for you? A politician, elected to the highest office in the land, prior to his election, made that statement.

When's the last time you EVER heard an American politician proudly declare himself an Atheist? An Agnostic? How about avoid being seen going into a Church on Sunday? or embarrassed to be seen shaking the hand and chit-chatting with the pastor after church? Admittedly, I haven't done much research on the subject, but since you ridiculed Dawkins and his suggestion that Atheists are marginalized in the U.S., I assume you must have done at least a little research on the matter. I'd be curious to see the results of your research.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

402. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5821 by Riley on November 11, 2006 at 9:38 am

Here's just two, really simple examples of observational fallacies in David Robertson's letter :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALLACY 1: "God" probably exists, therefore the God of the Bible exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read and listen to Dawkins and you realize that he accepts that the existance of "God" (a creator of the universe) is an open, however improbable, conjecture.

Dawkins' Atheism (my own included) is directed toward the God of the Bible, the same as it is toward Vishnu, Poseidon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all the other Gods toward which Mr.Robertson, I would guess you are also an Atheist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALLACY 2: Secularism is Atheism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secularism, promotes neutrality and open mindedness by being silent on matters that are unresolved and especially those matters that are fundamentally unresolveable (e.g. matters of faith). And, if God's very existance is not unresolved, then at least you must admit that the will of God is an unresolved issue..

Being silent on the subject of god, does not attack one position or favor another; it's a position of neutrality.

*Silence* on the subject of god is not Atheism, any more so than *silence* on the matter of wether or not "Jesus is Christ" is Judaism, or *silence* on the matter of wether or not the "Pope is Christ's representative to lead His church on Earth" is protestantism.



------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

403. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5487 by Riley on November 9, 2006 at 4:58 pm

[ Alister E. McGrath QUOTE} But [religion] also has the capacity to transform, creating a deep sense of personal identity and value, and bringing social cohesion.
----------------------------------------

This is the saving attribute of religion?

Isn't this exactly the problem with religion?

That uncritically derived truths inspire a deep sense of personal identity? Even worse, that a grander social cohesion under this irrationally based structure should result? By what other means could ANY ORGANIZATION provide both the justification and the means to wrought great mischief on a global scale?

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------



--

404. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5423 by Riley on November 9, 2006 at 11:29 am

In order for me to become saved, I need to first understand how it is I can differentiate between false prophets and true prophets.

As far as the Hebrews were concerned, the "Word of God" as written in the Bible *demanded* that anyone speaking heresy be put to death. Jesus was just one of many apparent heretics who claimed themselves to be devine: wether as prophets or incarnated deities. The world was, and still is, full of such claims. How were the Jews to know?

How many immortal souls have been lost forever into the eternal fires of Hell because God delivered His message in such a way that so few of even His self declared "chosen people" could understand it? 2/3 of the world has YET to understand it! How can one accept a God through which all things are possible, who is caring and wise and possessing the most important message of existance, and yet is unable to effectively communicate that message? Worse, that god chooses to communicate using methods (e.g. prophet mouthpieces) that are inherently susceptible to mimicry and co-option!

Wasn't Ted Harggert considered by thousands to be a true prophet until just a couple of weeks ago? (and no doubt some still think he is) Joseph Smith, Ellen White, William Tyndale, Pope Benedict XVI, Juanita Peraza, and Feliksa Kozłowska, are all revered as Christian messengers of God. Yet their messages are irreconcilable. And we have no objective method of telling the counterfit messages from the genuine.

Yet, we are to believe at the same time, that this God can communicate with each one of us individually even to the extent of physically changing the normal course of reality in answer to our prayers! With such a fool-proof way of broadcasting a message and proving the authority of the source, why send a messenger!?!?!

It's inconceivable.

---

405. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5421 by Riley on November 9, 2006 at 11:23 am

Scott, How do you tell the difference between false prophets and true prophets?

As far as the Hebrews were concerned, the "Word of God" as written in the Bible *demanded* that anyone speaking heresy be put to death. Jesus was just one of many apparent heretics who claimed themselves to be devine: wether as prophets or incarnated deities. The world was, and still is, full of such claims. How were the Jews to know?

How many immortal souls have been lost forever into the eternal fires of Hell because God delivered His message in such a way that so few of even His self declared "chosen people" could understand it? 2/3 of the world has YET to understand it! How can one accept a God through which all things are possible, who is caring and wise and possessing the most important message of existance, and yet is unable to effectively communicate that message? Worse, that god chooses to communicate using methods (e.g. prophet mouthpieces) that are inherently susceptible to mimicry and co-option!

Wasn't Ted Harggert considered by thousands to be a true prophet until just a couple of weeks ago? (and no doubt some still think he is) Joseph Smith, Ellen White, William Tyndale, Pope Benedict XVI, Juanita Peraza, and Feliksa Kozłowska, are all revered as Christian messengers of God. Yet their messages are irreconcilable. And we have no objective method of telling the counterfit messages from the genuine.

Yet, we are to believe at the same time, that this God can communicate with each one of us individually even to the extent of physically changing the normal course of reality in answer to our prayers! With such a fool-proof way of broadcasting a message and proving the authority of the source, why send a messenger!?!?!

It's inconceivable.

---

406. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5297 by Riley on November 8, 2006 at 5:25 pm

Rational FreeThinker wrote:
"Science (which teaches one HOW to think) and all its great achievements are being discarded and tossed aside in favor of religion (which teaches one WHAT to think/believe). We will continue to be a people divided and in decline as long as we slavishly cling to the nonsense that is religion. "

well said.

and what a great article by AC Grayling. I love this website!


---

407. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4842 by Riley on November 6, 2006 at 1:30 pm

If Rowan Williams was the head of any other major global corporation he would have long been sacked given his very unconvincing defense of his "company" product range

Wow, I thikn you have that wrong! As a salesman I think Williams is brilliant. Williams is selling a product that doen't exist: an invisible man.

An invisible man, that if you don't obey, will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and eternal anguish for ever and ever to suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. . . .

But he loves you.

And he desperately needs your money.

(thanks George Calin)


--

408. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #4771 by Riley on November 5, 2006 at 11:49 pm

if you believe in a supernatural, intelligent Creator, you're stupid. And not just a little stupid. Not off-the-rack, casual stupid. No. You're wilfully, perversely ignorant

I haven't read the book yet. Is this really a fair interpretation of Prof. Dawkin's words?


--

409. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4764 by Riley on November 5, 2006 at 11:03 pm

Sapient,

There is a difference between criticizing irrational thought and personally slandering the people you claim to be irrational. Unlike attending a friend's wedding, it really is hypocrisy (e.g. a betrayal of reason).

I'm all for the pull-no-punches assault on religious claims that cannot be supported: Sam Harris & Richard Dawkins style. But this type of approach is distinctly different from abstractly attacking a people's culture, traditional activities, and celebratory ocassions and practices.

Sapient wrote: "Are you referring to us talking about why people get so angry when we talk about faith as being irrational? If so, and you don't agree with the reasons we think people get upset (ie challenging their entire worldview) then what do you think the reason is?"

Yes, you have it right. I'll give you another example to illustrate my point:
I referred to members of your panel as; presumptuous, ignorant, dismissive, and condescending. I'm sorry for being non-constructive and I apologize for being rude, yet what I said was observably defensible in at least the first two counts, if not all counts. Now imagine if acted as if though I couldn't guess why you might be offended by my calling you ignorant and condescending?

Imagine if I gathered a group of my friends together and had a nice long rant about you, we declare how inconceivable it is that you should be offended by our rationally defensible opinions about you, easily dismiss any provocation on our own part as contributing to you being offended, and instead presume that any one of a short list of explanations limited to demeaning characterizations about your psychological state is really the only possible explanation for your irate behavior. But that's not enough for us, my group won't leave this gossipy assassination of your character to our own private musings, we decide to broadcast our discussion about you all over the world.

Could this provoke some anger? maybe. But let's not even stop there.

Here's the *real* kicker: We don't limit our presumptions simply to you, the person we have observed, we generalize our demeaning characterizations about you to all people we believe to be of your type.

Predictably, I think this would stir up anger in at least a few people in any large enough group. And I believe the above example is a fair characterization of that segment of your round table discussion.

Sapient wrote: "Does it make sense for me to say the Catholic Church is the most corrupt organization on Earth, and then show support of my friend by attending ceremonies inside it's walls, in which he is supporting that organization?"

If you were a Canadian and someone who felt that the United States was "the most corrupt organization on Earth" , would it make any less sense then for you to reject me as a guest in your home because I am an American who pays taxes to the United States? If I'm stuck in an "us" vs "them" situation and you reject me, then I guess I have no place else to go but with "them"

Similarly, an Aunt of mine decided to take a principled stand of her own and not attend my brother's wedding. She did this because the wedding was not a Catholic wedding, it was a Protestant wedding. She herself may well have characterized this particular christian denomination as: " the most corrupt organization on Earth", and in that sense her position would be no different than yours - principled but petty. What did she accomplish? Seriously, what do you accomplish? She drove a wedge between herself and me and my brother - put a wet rag on the spirit of a once-in-a-life-time celebration. Even if you live in a family where such a wedge already exists between you and others, what's the point of digging that wedge in deeper? I'm really serious about this: given the cost, what net benefit is there? Even if you see a net benefit (which I can't), wouldn't even more be accomplished through dialogue? Doesn't the cause of reason require dialogue? ... and doesn't this route you choose destroy opportunities for dialogue and increase the likelihood of violence?

Sapient wrote: "Religion created that 'us vs them' mentality many hundreds of years ago"

Yes, and you are further entrenching that mentality; driving the wedge deeper. Do you seriously believe that the "bad cop" strategy (which for example, Sean Hannity and Ann coulter have employed with true mastery) has *ever* helped the cause of reason? If not reason, then what? The banner of atheism?

You seem to be confirming my worst fear, which is that you see rational discussion as simply one of many *methods* in a strategic power struggle, rather than seeing it as the goal itself.


--

410. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4657 by Riley on November 5, 2006 at 7:36 am

I apoloogize for letting my dispair get the better of me. I'm still left with a heavy disturbed feeling in my stomach having observed such bigotry in this video.

Constructive form:

1) Not taking part in community events such as baptisms will only isolate you from your friends and family. While it's true that Baptisms, Easter Egg hunts, and Christmas tree trimmings are all celebrations rooted in pagan religious traditions focused on children, participating in such activities doesn't require professing personal belief nor even support for the church in general, and it doesn't require indoctrinating children into a dogma. I myself was baptised - neither do I remember the event nor can I remember anyone referring to me as a "Christian child" after the event. AS such, your focus on baptism is I believe misplaced.

But what really bothers me is this: what you are promoting is an anti-social and divisive behavior that would isolate atheists and undermine common social connections among families and communities; ultimately making it harder, not easier, to participate in rational dialogue about the dangers of faith.

I heard "we must be careful not to be hypocrites" and it sounded to me like the speaker was referring to all atheists. If I misunderstood this, then I apologize.

2) Even worse for me was the presumptuous and dismissive characterization of the "angry believer". This is what I refer to when I describe members of the round table as being "condescending". This segment really did bring about an emotional physical response, right from my gut.

It is (no doubt, unintentional) the process of dehumanizing individuals; grouping them together, generalizing their characteristics, and apparently massaging away ones own insecurities by belittling another, largely anonymous group of people. If this is not full-blown bigotry, it is the fertilizer for it.

My family and my friends are mostly Christians or Muslims. They are generally very thoughtful and in many cases more intelligent than I am. My own thoughtful conclusions concerning the lack of evidence for their beliefs is not a label that separates me from them any more so than my preference for syrup on my pancakes.

When atheism stops being simply the conclusion one reaches based on rational consideration of evidence, and becomes something more like a support group, (or (god forbid) a belief system like a religion) then an "us versus them" mind-set becomes inevitable, and rational discussion with that manifested outsider group becomes impossible - isn't it difficult enough already to find opportunities for rational dialogue without creating and clarifying lines of demarcation?

By contrast, Professor Dawkins is spot-on when he observes that: "We are all atheists". Some of us just go one step further.



--

411. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4572 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Don't go to my neice or nephews baptism??

I'm sorry, this is asinine.

Am I to not celebrate Haloween??? (American holiday where children dress up as ghosts and goblins to celebrate a traditional pagan holiday).


You're taking yourselves waaaaay too seriously here. Get over yourselves people.


---

412. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4565 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 2:25 pm

------------------------------------
from the round table:
Why do religious people get violently angry when you disagree with them/Where does the violent anger come from?
------------------------------------

This part of the discussion literally made me feel ill. I cringe and am ashamed to associate myself with this condescending and insulting attitude that I often come across among the atheist community.

I'll tell you why so many Christians respond with anger towards people like this: it's because people like this instead of being focused on the beliefs and ideas of others choose to be insult the *person*. Maybe the person deserves to be personally attacked, but it should be no mystery that when you do so you will make someone angry.

Re-listen to this section: one moment there are members bragging about playing the role of "bad cop" and the next they can't conceive of why they might provoke anger.
--

413. Is There a God?

Comment #4553 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 1:07 pm

I must say, I enjoyed thie article/critique.

-----------------------------------
Bright B. Simons wrote:
-----------------------------------
monotheism is the belief in the super-rational, a deep yearning for what the current level of reason can barely hint at; it is the striving after the unattainable.
------------

Bright claims in his very next paragraph that his definition of monotheism is not "deism". Maybe so, but it certainly doesn't describe a god that: interferes in world events, tells people what to do, or answers prayers. As such, it fits the definition of "deism" that Prof Dawkins uses.





-----------------------------------
Bright B. Simons wrote:
-----------------------------------
By Dawkins' own token, we should similarly dismiss science as a delusion because it fostered the craniologists of the 18th century who begun the spurious thesis that physiognomy can yield insights into intelligence and paved the way for today's authors of the Bell Curve.
--------------

Mr. Simons fails to recognize the key differentiating point in his own argument.

That is: following the scientific method will eventually lead to tangible progress toward a better understanding the world.

While faith-based approaches lead to meandering results and baseless conflict. The 'truths' of religion get pushed around by the reality revealed by scientific methods, and so the definition of god has been increasingly been marginalized into more and more abstract definitions: deism and Mr. Simons' definition of monotheism.

One other point, mathematics is internally consistent. Let's see an internally consistent definition of god that is at the same time half as relevant to our lives as mathematics is.

---

414. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4542 by Riley on November 4, 2006 at 12:16 pm

I've heard Professor Dawkins, in at least a half-dozen interviews in the past month alone, speak on the difference between belief in a non-personal deity (which cannot be disproven) and belief in the deity of the bible (which he equate with the likes of Santa Claus, fairies, etc), that I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that an honest person charged with writing a critique of Dawkins' book and views on the subject, could write a critique so misrepresentitive of Dawkins position.


-------------------------------------------
I must conclude that David Williamson is a dishonest person.
-------------------------------------------



---

415. The God Conundrum

Comment #3887 by Riley on November 1, 2006 at 9:57 am

Biggest apologies for the mix-up Sean!

Sean Carrol of http://cosmicvariance.com/sean
Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology

wrote this great article.

*NOT*

Sean B. Carrol of http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/carroll.html
Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison


---

416. The God Conundrum

Comment #3751 by Riley on October 31, 2006 at 12:20 pm

Sean Carroll is a Professor of Biology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (where I live) in the United States, and is rapidly becoming a mainstream figure in print and television here. He's great.

The Scientific American Magazine did a podcast interview with him on October 25, 2006 and it's worth listening to: http://www.sciam.com/podcast/

-----------------
johnc commented that some of Professor Dawkin's sentences (claims that without religion there would be no 9/11,no Israeli/Palestinian wars, etc.) "really do leave Dawkins looking like a 'happy clappy' kind of atheist."

I think if there's a problem, it's that Professor Dawkins is not often-enough clear that it's *faith* that is the problem - not *just* religious faith, but *ANY* form of organized faith-based assertion for which people are willing to kill or be killed in defense of. Every time Professor Dawkins criticizes "religion" without emphasizing "faith", I'm afraid he dilutes from what I think should be his focus.

But then again, I once had a debate with someone who claimed that "Democracy" was a faith-based assertion - the person of course also claimed that Democracy was based on Christian principles (argh!). My response to this person was (for what it's worth) that: Since, there's no evidence to support the claim (made by King George, amongst others) that some of us are born with inherently more authority than others, we must assume that we're all born with equal authority. If evidence evidence suggested otherwise, then it should be otherwise. It is reliance on evidence that makes "Democracy" an assertion not based in faith.

I liked my thinking on this (at least it seemed solid enough to me) , so I thought I'd share.



-----------------
----------------

417. Portland, OR Event

Comment #3735 by Riley on October 31, 2006 at 10:24 am

That's me, second row from the back, five seats from the right.


(just kidding)

418. Beyond Belief

Comment #3305 by Riley on October 27, 2006 at 9:25 am

The problems I have with Jim Holt's sloppy and at times inane article can be summed-up in this single paragraph of his article:


------------------------------------------
Jim Holt article snippet
------------------------------------------
"But the objectivity of ethics is undermined by Dawkins’s logic just as surely as religion is. The evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, in a 1985 paper written with the philosopher Michael Ruse, put the point starkly: ethics “is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.” In reducing ideas to “memes” that propagate by various kinds of “misfiring,” Dawkins is, willy-nilly, courting what some have called Darwinian nihilism."
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

Here's the writing pattern of Jim Holt:

1) Introduce non-relevent arguments witthout justification
---------------------------------------
In the above example Holt starts right off with: "But the objectivity of ethics is undermined by Dawkins’s logic just as surely as religion is. " huh? How is this relevent to Dawkins' arguments?

2) Create an eronious (or at best irrelevent/unecessary) premise:
---------------------------------------
In the above example, there is no incompatibility between the E.O. Wilson/Michael Ruse assertions and the Richard Dawkins assertions. And Holt certainly doesn't try to explain where he sees one (I'm suspicious that if he tried explaining his reasoning that it would explose his ignorance about evolution)

3) Frame the character or motivations of Dawkins
---------------------------------------
In the above example, Holt tries to claim that it is Dawkins intent to court "Darwinian nihilism". It's a completely manufactured assertion, based on a false premise, that stands in direct conflict with Dawkins own public statements . . . but there it is.

----

419. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1358 by Riley on October 11, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Yep, Mohler is a blind faith young earth creationist:

Time Magazine interview: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html


...probably safe to presume his subtle reframing of Dawkin's stated positions are intentional.

. . .

420. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1357 by Riley on October 11, 2006 at 3:42 pm

------
"[Dawkins]insists. 'I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere.' [...] He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously."
-------

This pretty well sums-up for me the argument over who is the fundamentalist. I wonder if Albert Mohler preaches "young-earth" theology along with his creationist dogma.

. . .

421. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1160 by Riley on October 10, 2006 at 8:29 am

Kevin Ronayne wrote (describing David Quinn): "Obnoxious? I would also add smarmy, glib, arrogant, overbearing and a few other terms as well."

Unfortunately this is exactly how the evangelicals from the U.S. (by whom I'm surrounded)describe Richard Dawkins.

I enjoyed listening to the debate, but I'm afraid that moderate "believers" would probably have agreed more with the points of David Quinn than of Richard in this particular debate/interview.

The problem I think was that Quinn successfully tagged "atheism" as a religion.

I think Richard needs to isolate "faith" as *THE* problem of religion, and not get caught-up in attacks against religion itself. "Religion" is ill-defined and as such provides the opening for the: "atheism is no better" argumentation.

------

422. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1159 by Riley on October 10, 2006 at 8:22 am

Kevin Ronayne wrote (describing David Quinn): "Obnoxious? I would also add smarmy, glib, arrogant, overbearing and a few other terms as well."

Unfortunately this is exactly how the evangelicals from the U.S. (by whom I'm surrounded)describe Richard Dawkins!

-------------------------------------------------

I enjoyed listening to the debate, but I'm afraid that moderate "believers" would probably have agreed more with the points of David Quinn than of Richard in this particular debate/interview.

The problem I think was that Quinn successfully tagged "atheism" as a type of religion.

I think Richard needs to isolate "faith" as *THE* problem of religion, and not get caught-up in attacks against "religion" itself, as this is the opening for obvious retorts which take advantage of vague semantics.


------