Monday, May 14, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

How dare you call me a fundamentalist

by Richard Dawkins, The Times Online

Thanks to Ranjani and Florian Widder for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

The hardback God Delusion was hailed as the surprise bestseller of 2006. While it was warmly received by most of the 1,000-plus individuals who volunteered personal reviews to Amazon, paid print reviewers gave less uniform approval. Cynics might invoke unimaginative literary editors: it has "God" in the title, so send it to a known faith-head. That would be too cynical, however. Several critics began with the ominous phrase, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." So here is my brief rebuttal to criticisms originating from this "belief in belief" school.

I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.

Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction". I don't know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas "blasphemy is a victimless crime".
William Rees-Mogg

You can't criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.

If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the "Courtier's Reply" on P. Z. Myers's splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor's nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.

You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . "you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury."

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

You're preaching to the choir. What's the point?

The nonbelieving choir is much bigger than people think, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks that showered my North American book tour, my articulation of hitherto closeted thoughts is heard as a kind of liberation. The atheist choir, moreover, is too ready to observe society's convention of according special respect to faith, and it goes along with society's lamentable habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You'd never speak of a "Marxist child" or a "monetarist child". So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.

You're as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.

No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe", in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.

I'm an atheist, but people need religion.

"What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?"

What patronising condescension! "You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion." In any case, the universe doesn't owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn't make it true. The God Delusion doesn't set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo. I am pleased that the opening lines of my own Unweaving the Rainbow have been used to give solace at funerals.

When asked whether she believed in God, Golda Meir said: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." I recently heard a prize specimen of I'm-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives.

© Richard Dawkins 2006. Extracted from The God Delusion, published in paperback by Black Swan on May 21, priced £8.99. Times BooksFirst price is £8.54, free p&p, on 0870 1608080; timesonline.co.uk/booksfirstbuy

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, May 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 83 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #40358 by gcdavis on May 14, 2007 at 7:10 am

Dawkins is self evidently such a nice man that to see the religious establishment piling in with their pointless insults, snide remarks and bogus claims is reminiscent of bullies in the playground. His dignified and always polite response shames them all.

Other Comments by gcdavis

2. Comment #40360 by Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

The greatest shame of this whole matter is that RD needs to write this letter in the first place.

You are doing a great service to the entire world and, after 20+ years of sheepishly acknowledging that I am not a believer, I have been inspired to spread the word! Thanks!

Other Comments by Pi Guy

3. Comment #40372 by Rationalist on May 14, 2007 at 7:32 am

I agree. It is so wonderful to have an intelligent, articulate and pleasant spokesperson for atheism. He is firm in his opinions and that drives believers mad as it questions the fundamental foundation of their beliefs.

And the ultimate aggravation is that he is willing to admit he is wrong if presented with evidence, something religious people are loathe to even contemplate.

Other Comments by Rationalist

4. Comment #40375 by USA_Limey on May 14, 2007 at 7:35 am

An excellent point by point refutation of most of the simpering critics of Richard. Not the criticisms of the arguments inside his book mind you; but his right to say it all in the first place.

If I have taken one thing away from the last 6 months or so it is my own personal 'conversion' to the view that we MUST stop being cowed into silence. Where before I would have politely kept quiet when encountering a religious view in my life I now, (politely), offer an alternative view. I have found overwhelmingly that my responses are met with disbelief and mild shock that I am saying what I am saying. Most of the people I respond to have simply NEVER had their beliefs questioned before. I am convinced that for most of them it can only be a good thing.

Thanks Richard for all you do; I am doing my best in my own small way in my own obscure life to follow your shining example.

__________________________________________________

Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

5. Comment #40376 by CJ22 on May 14, 2007 at 7:39 am

Righteous!

(In a secular sense).

Other Comments by CJ22

6. Comment #40393 by firemancarl on May 14, 2007 at 8:25 am

Prof Dawkins,

Thank you for writting such a well thought out reply to the those that would call any of us militant or fundamentalist.

I agree with Pi Guy, you never should have had to write a rebuttal to the origninal article.

Other Comments by firemancarl

7. Comment #40400 by anotherclinton on May 14, 2007 at 8:29 am

God Delusion's already going into paperback--this thing's still selling like crazy and the publishers are willing to cut the price to sell more of it less than a year after release. This book is a real phenomenon.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

8. Comment #40413 by The Wee Flea on May 14, 2007 at 9:10 am

" gcdavis on May 14, 2007 at 7:10 am"

Dawkins is self evidently such a nice man that to see the religious establishment piling in with their pointless insults, snide remarks and bogus claims is reminiscent of bullies in the playground."

I think you will need to read the article again. RD is not talking about the religious estanblsihemtn but those who have reviewed his book and especially fellow atheists or agnostics who do not like his style.

"Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

The greatest shame of this whole matter is that RD needs to write this letter in the first place."

He did not need to. It is not a letter but an article in The Times. Just a happy coincidence that it comes out the week before TGD comes out in paperback.

" Rationalist on May 14, 2007 at 7:32 am"

"I agree. It is so wonderful to have an intelligent, articulate and pleasant spokesperson for atheism. He is firm in his opinions and that drives believers mad as it questions the fundamental foundation of their beliefs."

Nope. It's not the intelligence or the articulateness that drives us mad. Nor is it that he gets to the foundations. It is the constant name calling, innuenedo, prejudice and stirring up of hatred which kind of sticks in the throat...

"And the ultimate aggravation is that he is willing to admit he is wrong if presented with evidence, something religious people are loathe to even contemplate."

Nope. We are quite happy to do so as well.
__________________________________________________

"I agree with Pi Guy, you never should have had to write a rebuttal to the origninal article."

What original article? There was none. Boy you guys are so easily misled.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

9. Comment #40418 by The Wee Flea on May 14, 2007 at 9:15 am

The following is an article I sent to the Times in response. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet but I can guarantee it will not be published. It's strange - The Times will publish articles about Christians and about the 'faithheads' that Dawkins is attacking but it will be a cold day in Hell before it ever lets anyone reply! Anyway this is what they have missed. By the way of his six points I agree with points 4 and 6. The rest are dealt with below.

Why Richard Dawkins is a Fundamentalist

Richard Dawkins writes in The Times (Saturday May 12th) attempting to rebut his critics and especially objecting to those atheist appeasers who show too much respect to religion. Unfortunately he only adds fuel to the fire and demonstrates yet again the fundamentalist nature of both his methodology and his belief system.

Firstly he cites his personal fans and fellow (un) believers who write warm personal reviews on Amazon, whilst deflecting criticism from professional reviewers by suggesting that they are just the product of 'faithheads' and editors seeking controversy. Dawkins of course knows that the publishing success of The God Delusion was not really a surprise at all – it was part of a carefully orchestrated campaign which included getting as many people to review it as possible in order to create controversy, a drip drip of suitable articles and interviews to the media (would it be too cynical to suggest that the current round of articles, interviews etc has anything to do with the paperback edition coming out next week?) and 'guerrilla' marketing which includes getting ones own supporters to write favourable reviews or vote in competitions claiming that one's champion is 'one of the 100 most influential people in the world' or 'The God Delusion' is the best book ever.

Secondly like all fundamentalists, Dawkins exaggerates the point he is trying to make and allows no discussion of any alternative. For example he defends his intemperate language by suggesting that it is not really intemperate, it only sounds that way because of the 'unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack". By any stretch of the imagination this is an absurd statement and one that is immediately empirically falsifiable. One would have to be living in a very strange parallel universe to think that the media, the academic establishment or the philosophers in the West thought that faith was off limit to attack! Indeed it is almost the other way around – many newspapers do not 'do God' and would be terrified to let someone who actually believes make any contribution ('we can't have religious evangelists in our respectable paper!) but are more than happy to allow column inches to the latest 'Jesus' bones discovered in Woking' theory or yet another column from Dawkins, Hitchins et al complaining that they don't get enough columns to tell us how much they hate a God they don't think exists.

Again like all fundamentalists, Dawkins defends ignorance by claiming that it is not necessary to know something in order to criticise it. His neat dismissal of theology is similar to the atheist myth that it is the equivalent of discussing angels dancing on pinheads; it is a cheap shot, one that is on an intellectual par with his claim that belief in God is the same as belief in the Tooth Fairy. The answer to that is clearly that Dawkins has not written a book on The Tooth Fairy Delusion. Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot. It is the classic circular argument of the fundamentalist believer who will not allow the possibility that he may be wrong.

And this is where Dawkins performs yet another fundamentalist trick – caricaturing ones opponents. Apart from the ridiculous tactic of citing Fred Phelps (of GodHates fags/America/anyone who is not part of my family fame) as an example of religion he even implies that Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians. The fact that this claim is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent him making it – why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?

He claims that the difference between himself and an evangelical Christian is that whilst both are passionate he is the one who would be prepared to change his mind, whilst the evangelical Christian would not. But he is wrong in this – in at least two respects. Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence. If that were proved to be false (if for example Jesus' bones were found in Woking) then that would be the end of my faith. On the other hand Dawkins is not as open as he suggests. The trouble is that his definition of 'evidence' is so limited that it will allow no possibility of anything outwith the world of the physical. If it cannot be proved by a chemical equation then it cannot exist. 'Scientific materialism' is the new religion.

Dawkins fits every characteristic of the fundamentalist believer. He knows he is right. He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness. He knows with absolute certainty that if only people follow his way (which is THE scientific, rational way) they will be able to lead 'intellectually fulfilled and emotionally liberated lives'. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonise his opponents. The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realise just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is. And sadly neither does the Church.

David Robertson is the author of The Dawkins Letters; Challenging Atheist Myths. Published by Christian Focus Publications. March 2007.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

10. Comment #40426 by CDG on May 14, 2007 at 9:27 am

A couple of weeks ago a friend made a comment to me that I have become quite vocal about my Atheism as of late.

I had to point out to him that he was saying this to me in a city named ST. PAUL, a block from the most domineering Cathedral in the midwest, as a horde of catholic school children were descending upon us in their perfect little uniforms, by a world renowned research facility not allowed to do pertinent stem cell research, a few blocks from some faith heads protesting at a planned parenthood clinic.

And he was telling me that I was being a little too aggressive of late. They just don't get how they permeate every facet of society.

RD: keep up the good consciousness raising. I am trying to do my part too.

Other Comments by CDG

11. Comment #40435 by USA_Limey on May 14, 2007 at 9:43 am

"Dawkins fits every characteristic of the fundamentalist believer. He knows he is right."

...No... I think he believes he is right based on the available EVIDENCE, (or lack of)

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."

... A single human being cannot evolve in its own lifetime. I think. I am not an evolutionist. I know I don't think I have transcended into some higher plane anyway.

He knows with absolute certainty that if only people follow his way (which is THE scientific, rational way) they will be able to lead 'intellectually fulfilled and emotionally liberated lives'."

...I don't think he knows any such thing. And I know that there are plenty of atheists who are pretty miserable and not very happy - but at least they are brave enough to refuse the mental crutch of religion.

"He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonize his opponents"

... What would a "meaningful" discussion be? Presumably from your perspective one that gives due respect and deference to your beliefs without evidence. No, sorry - those days are over for so many of us.

"The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realize just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is."

Richard has said consistently he would change his mind TODAY if new data presented itself that in any way even BEGAN to verify the claims of religion. And just who are we atheists oppressing? When a person disagrees with someone else over a matter of economics or even the relative merits of competing football teams are they 'oppressing' that person? Sounds to me you are just feeling oppressed because it's getting uncomfortable in that duality of mind and self deception you maintain.
__________________________________________________

Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

12. Comment #40443 by bitbutter on May 14, 2007 at 9:50 am

and 'guerrilla' marketing which includes getting ones own supporters to write favourable reviews or vote in competitions claiming that one's champion is 'one of the 100 most influential people in the world' or 'The God Delusion' is the best book ever.

.. and the way to get your supporters to do that (without asking them to), or indeed the way to get supporters in the first place is to write a powerful, clear, even life-changing book.

The trouble is that his definition of 'evidence' is so limited that it will allow no possibility of anything outwith the world of the physical.

lol well no, of course it won't. Science is doing pretty so far well despite this limitation, oh no.. wait _because_ of this limitation.

Other Comments by bitbutter

13. Comment #40447 by stackoturtles on May 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

David Robertson seems desperate to pin the fundamentalist label on Dawkins and atheists in general. That must be all he has.

Let's be clear. A fundamentalist believes in something for which there is NO positive evidence and will believe so even in the presence of negative evidence. An atheist does NOT believe in something for which there is NO positive evidence, but is able to say what would change his mind.

If Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist then his NOT carrying a rabbit's foot makes him a superstitionist.

Other Comments by stackoturtles

14. Comment #40455 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

fundamentalist or not?

Prof. Dawkins, any chance of a small list of things that would persuade you to belive there is a god? ie a list of things you would consider evidence for god.

I suppose the problem with such a list is that it will consist of things that are just plain never going to happen, perhaps believers will see that such a list is therefore futile but as they are the ones who believe in miracles they have to see this list as fully reasonable.

I can think of many such things, but one would be (as an example from the top of my head) if i melted down one of my old toys into a pool of charred plastic and it suddenly reformed back into its original form right before my eyes, that might not prove god but it would show me as a lesson that something that i thought was an absolute impossibility could come to pass, it could of course be the 'trick' of some advanced (hidden)alien technology and thats probably how i'd explain it as that is the most likey explanation but I would also have to say it COULD be 'god'.

Thats before i dismissed the idea that i'd imagined it, i fully understand how easy it is to fool ourselves. The other day i was tricked into visualising for a split second a Pholcus sp.(daddy long leg spider) walking up a wall, it was actually a bit of web and dust but it was wobbling in the air current just as a Pholcus wobbles as it walks, but for that incredible split second I got this mental glimpse of the Pholcus, luckily my 'delusion' lasted just a split second. Yup, that brain can be fooled.

I would be interested to read a list of happenings that would persuade believers against a belief in God.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

15. Comment #40464 by Coel on May 14, 2007 at 10:15 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"The following is an article I sent to the Times in response. [. . .] I can guarantee it will not be published."

You're right, it is not nearly up to the quality they desire. However, at least you didn't resort to manufacturing any Dawkins quotes this times. Well done!

> It's strange - The Times will publish articles about Christians and about the
> 'faithheads' that Dawkins is attacking but it will be a cold day in Hell
> before it ever lets anyone reply!

Umm, didn't William Rees-Mogg reply this very day? Times, May 14th
"William Rees-Mogg replies to Professor Richard Dawkins".

"Secondly like all fundamentalists, Dawkins exaggerates the point he is trying to make and allows no discussion of any alternative."

You mean Dawkins goes around censoring the world's media, preventing people discussing alternatives? You really are a hoot!

"would it be too cynical to suggest that the current round of articles, interviews etc has anything to do with the paperback edition coming out next week?"

Duh, of course it has! That Times article is indeed the new preface to the paperback. Of course it is related!

"Again like all fundamentalists, Dawkins defends ignorance by claiming that it is not necessary to know something in order to criticise it. [. . .] Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

Well, he is right! Arguments predicated on the existence of God ARE largely irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists.

You see, believers' fanciful theological constructs about God are not usually based on evidence, and thus don't contribute to the issue of whether God exists; Dawkins is right to treat them as such.

"Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence."

Yeah, sure. Bet you're unwilling to actually discuss this evidence in a reason-based debate.

"If it cannot be proved by a chemical equation then it cannot exist."

Strawman!

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."

Where on earth do you get that from??

"He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion with those whom he is railing against and yet still manages to demonise his opponents."

Err, so discussions and debates with McGrath, Francis Collins, the Bishop of Oxford, etc are not "meaningful"?

"The most dangerous thing about the New Atheism is that it does not realise just how intolerant, oppressive and fundamentalist it is."

But then it isn't, is it?, except in your rather fanciful and deluded view.

Other Comments by Coel

16. Comment #40467 by CDG on May 14, 2007 at 10:17 am

Phasmagigas: Even writing a list given the evidence would be a search in futility

My list would ask God directly to show up or shut up: "god, why are you hiding in the wings? Why can't I see you? Is it fun for you to be allusive? Why do I have to even write down this list? cant you just show yourself? This game of hide and seek is getting tiresome...In fact, I am starting to think its really just Seek and there is no Hide?

There is no need for a list because as RD says, a world made by a God would be a far different one then the one we see now- and making that list would not be necessary as it would be self evident that the creator is at hand...

Other Comments by CDG

17. Comment #40477 by Coel on May 14, 2007 at 10:31 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

"he even implies that Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians. The fact that this claim is demonstrably false does not seem to prevent him making it – why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?"

Well, what he actually said was "The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini".

In other words, most believers in God "echo" the simplistic, severe, dogmatic faith exemplified by those gentlemen, rather than "decent, understated religion".

If you think this "demonstrably false", please demonstrate its falsity.

By the way, you do see the difference between Dawkins's claim, and your distortion of it, that "Falwell, Haggard and Robertson (the American one) are followed by most Christians" don't you? -- but then "why let truth get in the way of a good rant, self justification and a nice bit of scaremongering?".

Here's some advice David, if you really want the Times to print more than the odd letter of yours you need to get your facts a bit more accurate, avoid the distortions, and say something worthwhile rather than just pouting about the fact that you're upset that someone doesn't respect your faith.

Other Comments by Coel

18. Comment #40484 by phasmagigas on May 14, 2007 at 10:43 am

CDG:

As you know my post wasnt quite serious, in fact i was being overly accomodating in even asking for a list. Theoretically the list would be infinite, it would be a list of impossible things like ressurection and weeping statues or spontaneously regrowing a leg (although invertebrates are quite good at this!) And a world created would be more akin to those nausea inducing paintings you see on jehovas witness handouts with the lion and the cow lying together. Now if cows had a zipper design on the neck about the main vessels and lay down so i could unzip it to bleed and thus feed i'd start to wonder....but of course they dont.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

19. Comment #40495 by Bonzai on May 14, 2007 at 11:06 am

Just because Dawkins has an uncompromising position doesn't make him a "fundamentalist". If it is so then anyone with intellectual integrity and takes principle seriously would be a fundamentalist. Being wishy washy should not be mistaken as intellectual openness and it is not a virtue.

Dawkins argues his point with facts and logic,--and also with passion, there is nothing wrong with passion in and of itself. The fundamentalist has passion but none of the intellual honesty, respect for facts and logic that Dawkins demonstrates. Fundamentalists believe simply based on authority,--the authority of 'holy' texts or the interpretive authority of religious "scholars", they don't think and are immune to evidence. Dawkins would be a fundamentalist if he just chants the name of Darwin ritualistically and declares end of story instead of constructing sophisticated arguments to make his case like he does.

Finally I don't understand the constant accuasion of Dawkins as graceless and overbearing. I find him very witty, charming and humourous in interviews both in print and on tape.

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #40529 by Bookman on May 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm

That was a brilliant and funny response by RD. I particularly enjoyed the reply to Terry Eagleton's pompous critique of the God Delusion.

It's amusing how the Believers love to call Dawkins a fundamentalist: "Nyah, nyah, you're just as stupid as we are."

Other Comments by Bookman

21. Comment #40540 by Martin S on May 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

blasphemy is a victimless crime

Love it. Is that an original Richard Dawkins quote? That's got to be worth some T-shirt space.

Other Comments by Martin S

22. Comment #40547 by Johan on May 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Can one be an atheist without having read sufficient amount of theology?

I don't know how much has been written about Wagner's Ring Cycle?
But I know it's a hell of a lot; books, treatises, thoughts on stage direction etc. I also know people who claim there life changed in some way by hearing Wagner. Yet, no one would suggest for a second that it would somehow be unfair to dismiss all the old Germanic and Scandinavian gods of Wagner's Ring cycle as mere fantasy without having read everything that has ever been written about them.

Same goes for any god!

Other Comments by Johan

23. Comment #40548 by Johan on May 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

24. Comment #40549 by scottishgeologist on May 14, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Tell you what David Robertson, heres a nice bit of "evidence" that might sway some people around here. Take the tragic case of that missing little girl. OK? Parents are religious. Probably thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Christians are praying about this right now.

Now, "God" knows everything. so HE knows where little Madeleine is. He knows if she is still alive, what address she is at and how she is being cared for. Meanwhile her parents are undergoing torture.

SO why does he not just answer one of these prayers? All it needs is a couple of words - a post code, an address, a phone number. On the basis of that, send the police in on a dawn raid. Girl recovered. Bad guys locked up. God glorified. Atheists reeling.

Doesnt work that way does it? BECAUSE HE DOESNT EXIST.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

25. Comment #40569 by Aaron SF on May 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Wee Flee:

Thank you for making such a ridiculous argument against Dawkins' rebuttal. I really couldn't have done a better job coming up with really poorly defensible arguments if I had tried, and you have done a great job proving Mr. Dawkins' point for him.

Oh and as far as the "evidence" that Jesus was the son of god, died and resurrected etc...

Where is that?

Fundamentalism implies the refusal to stray from a doctrine no matter the proof. Dawkins is obviously not in this catagory, come up with a better argument.

Other Comments by Aaron SF

26. Comment #40573 by cheerful hamster on May 14, 2007 at 1:56 pm

If the definition of fundamentalism is "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles", and those principles are rationality and the scientific method, why should we feel insulted?

Transparently the theists are trying to tar us with all the popular bad connotations they themselves have given that word, but I think it would be far more useful to cut to the heart of the matter - yes, atheists have a fundamentally different way of assessing reality, one based on evidence. I personally have no problem with calling myself a fundamentalist in that regard.

Other Comments by cheerful hamster

27. Comment #40593 by BicycleRepairMan on May 14, 2007 at 2:55 pm

"Dawkins starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God and therefore that makes all those theologians who write from the premise that there is, as useless in his eyes as a chocolate teapot."

No, he does not. He starts by looking at the evidence, The first half of the God Delusion, for instance, is dealing with the question "Is there a God?" And when you shove that question into the grinder of critical thinking, and its quickly shredded to pieces, just like the tooth fairy, and completely unlike things like evolution and other scientific theories that exists solely because they withstand criticism and investigation.

Once you have established that, Dawkins sees no reason to delve into deeply theological discussion about why and how god works, simply because there is no premise for those discussions once god is gone.. Why, for instance do you reject Lord Xenu without paying the required 100,000$ worth of self-improvement classes to the church of scientology, which is required to get to level 3 and learn the full story of how aliens were flown to earth millions of years ago in DC9's, dumped into volcanos and blown up with nuclear bombs.

Because you have established that its all bullshit.

And unlike Dawkins, who spent half a book debunking an equally silly myth, you probably havent even thought twice about it.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

28. Comment #40594 by FXR on May 14, 2007 at 2:55 pm

There are lots of wee fleas out there...

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift
Dublin

Other Comments by FXR

29. Comment #40691 by gunnarjb on May 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm

David Robertson wrote:

Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence. If that were proved to be false (if for example Jesus' bones were found in Woking) then that would be the end of my faith.

Oh ye of little faith! I'm curious to know, what evidence would suffice to prove to you that some bones in Woking were those of Jesus? Assuming sufficient evidence had been provided, would it not still be possible that Jesus miraculously grew an extra set of bones at the moment of ascension or that Jesus left his bones behind as he had no use for them (being the divine son of God and obviously unaffected by gravity in his ascension)?
Wouldn't it be possible God was testing your faith by placing those bones there?

Other Comments by gunnarjb

30. Comment #40696 by BaronOchs on May 14, 2007 at 5:41 pm

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift

Of course and Ignatius! the world needs you!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

31. Comment #40719 by Veronique on May 14, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Oh David,

Another drubbing I see. You just won't learn, will you?

But, hey that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? That's precisely what fundamentalism is all about. An inability to let go of treasured fantasies regardless of evidence or lack thereof (as stackoturtles has pointed out).

You really are extraordinary. You appear to harbour some enormous grudge against RD. There are some other articles of his that are posted here that you can comment on as well: give yourself a good dose of angst.

Off you toddle then. You may be followed by other posters here just to add a soupcon of flavour to your chosen fare.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

32. Comment #40734 by chionactis on May 14, 2007 at 8:29 pm

"Judging by the thanks that showered my North American book tour, my articulation of hitherto closeted thoughts is heard as a kind of liberation."

Hell yes! Thank you!

Other Comments by chionactis

33. Comment #40756 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2007 at 10:45 pm

There was 9/11. And then there was Iraq - still is, in fact.

I see real fundamentalists enagaged in mutual destruction. Because they must - according to their fundamentally opposed beliefs.

If, one day, scientists start killing each other because they disagree about what (if anything) happened before the Big Bang, then I will start to worry about "fundamentalist scientists or "evangelical rationalists."

The other day, one of my children bonked another one on the head with my copy of TGD which was lying handy. So, yes, I have seen Dawkins used in a violent way.
I suspect this was an isolated incident....

Apparently, according to psycho-analysts, a person's choice of pseudo can be quite revealing. Don't you agree, "The Wee Flea"?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

34. Comment #40778 by The Wee Flea on May 15, 2007 at 12:43 am

Hi all,

In order to try and keep this relatively brief and also to keep it on thread please forgive me if I only try to deal with the points that are apposite to the thread - that is RD's six comments in response to his 'soft centre' critics as expressed in the article above and my own response. I am sure we can have discussions about theodicy, the resurrection of Jesus etc at other points and as already indicated you are more than welcome to come and discuss these issues on the Free Church website – www.freechurch.org. I will also try to ignore the insults etc that do not really contribute to the discussion.

USA Limey (No.11) – Like Dawkins I too belief that I am right based on the available evidence. I'm afraid you need to get rid of this mindset whereby you predetermine what other people already think. When you define faith, aka Dawkins, as belief in spite of the evidence, rather than because of it, you are setting up a straw man that no intelligent Christian would agree with.
You ask – who are the atheists oppressing. I think there is a fundamentalist mindset within some sections of atheism which would seek to suppress freedom of expression. Once you regard religion as a virus then you are on the way to wanting to eradicate that virus. If atheists limited themselves to mere disagreement it would not be a problem. But that is not what this is about. It is about atheists controlling public policy and eventually, aka Sam Harris, having the thought police determine what right and wrong thoughts are.

Bit butter (no 12) – thanks for the confirmation that the scientific materialist world view is limited to the physical. I am intrigued that you think this real science which is doing well without any limitation. I don't suppose you would blame science for nuclear weapons, global warming or biological weapons?

Stackoturtles (13) – Once again you demonstrate your fundamentalism by refusing to accept any other definition than your own. Of course if you set up the debate by declaring that 'a fundamentalist believes in something for which there is no clear evidence' you are setting up a meaningless straw man. I believe in Jesus Christ – not even you would say there is no evidence for him.

Coel (15) - I am afraid that you are unaware of the workings of the British press. No matter how well written there is virtually no chance of an evangelical believer being allowed to write in the Times. The Times is no longer a newspaper, like most British papers it has become a lifestyle magazine – those who are not part of the elite or the establishment will never get a look in. And the British establishment does not 'do God'. So all that happens is RD attacks fundamentalists (ie. Anyone who actually believes the Bible) and The Times responds by putting up someone whom he is not attacking, who basically says 'be nice Richard – we are not like that'. RD of course has a field day with that.

Dawkins does not censor the world's media. I think you ought to realize that it is a little more sensitive than that. The Times actually told me that they would not publish a second article because it would be Prof bashing. RD can publish what he likes about people like me – but in the British media we are not allowed to speak for ourselves. We are not the right class, and we do not have the right connections.

"Yeah, sure. Bet you're unwilling to actually discuss this evidence in a reason-based debate"

Don't gamble. I would be more than happy to do so but I doubt I will get an oppenant. Remember we are too stupid to even discuss with – either that or we are just trying to build a career or make money of RD's back! The last thing I expect to get is a reason based debate. I would love it but somehow I think RD will continue to write articles in newspapers etc that will not allow debate and I suspect he will refuse to debate at this level. .

"He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness."
Where on earth do you get that from??"

TGD chapter 2.

Yes I accept you are right about debating with Collins and McGarth – but these are clearly the exceptions.

Of course I do not expect you to accept that the New Atheism is intolerant but then that is because you are part of it. Having experienced a little of that intolerance, and knowing the history of atheistic societies, I fully expect that intolerance to grow (and to be practiced in the name of tolerance!).

Coel (17) – you ask me to demonstrate that Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Bin Laden or Khomeini do not represent the majority of believers. Gladly.

Firstly it is wrong to lump Islam and Christianity together (useful for atheist propaganda but empirically wrong). Secondly even if you do so the majority of Muslims do not follow Bin Laden or Khomeini. Most importantly the attempt to lump the majority of Christians in with Robertson, Falwell and Haggard is just demonstrably wrong. What about the billion catholics, the 400 million orthodox, the 60 million Anglicans, the Presbyterians, Methodists and a considerable number of 'independent' who would regard these men as aberrations. At most you can say they have a considerable following in the US – but even then not the majority – and the US is not the world. If the criteria for getting something printed in The Times (and as an aside, what a sweet, touching faith you have in the press) was accuracy and non-distortion then RD's article would never have seen the light of day!

Bonzai (19) – I agree that having an uncompromising position does not make you a fundamentalist and I would never say RD is one because of that. However one characteristic of fundamentalists is the refusal to listen to those who disagree with you and then to argue against what they are not saying. The rest of your post does that – claiming that we believe simply on 'authority', don't think and are immune to evidence. Not very helpful

I also agree that RD is not graceless and overbearing. He is indeed charming and witty.

Bicylerepairman (no.27) – Your faith is touching. And kind of sweet. RD does not start TGD with the examining the evidence – he knows there is no God and TGD is written to proclaim that. There is no examination of evidence – just rhetoric and polemic. And you love it. Because you agree with it.

Veronique – Glad you think I got a drubbing. I guess if you mean sneered at, mocked and ridiculed then yes you are right. People actually engaging with the evidence and what I have written? You're having a laugh! And I do engage with other articles – although amazingly – whatever the article I get the same response – is there a machine churning out these things?

Sorry I won't be around for a few days – but look forward to reading what you have to say on RD's article above – especially if you think he is right that religion is not allowed to be criticised or that the majority of Christians are Falwell/Robertson etc.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

35. Comment #40780 by Karl Christensen on May 15, 2007 at 12:51 am

"do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will."

Definitive!

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

36. Comment #40781 by Karl Christensen on May 15, 2007 at 12:59 am

The Wee Flea said;In order to try and keep this relatively brief...

Christ! Relative to what! Lord of the Rings?

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

37. Comment #40785 by 5537P06 on May 15, 2007 at 1:32 am

Richard Dawkins IS a fundamentalist.

He is most certainly a fundamentalist in regard to evidence. He and his kind (myself included) simply refuses to accept a postulation without sufficient evidence. He is ready to change his mind on any matter, but one -- the principle that "belief" requires evidence. This is the FUNDAMENTAL principle of science and the scientific method.

So being a fundamentalist is not all bad after all. In fact, I am proud of being a fundamentalist reason-head and so should Richard.

Other Comments by 5537P06

38. Comment #40787 by Rtambree on May 15, 2007 at 1:39 am

34. Comment #40778 by The Wee Flea

>I don't suppose you would blame science for nuclear weapons, global warming or biological weapons?

As the risk of sounding like the NRA, science doesn't kill people, people do. As Shermer stresses, science is a verb, a method of knowing, and the best (and some would say, the only) method of knowing. What else is there?

Knowledge is double-edged. Radioactive materials can treat cancer or they can kill Japanese. Ditto for any science. How we use it is up to us. I'm willing to bet that the administration and Generals that decided to drop the bomb where God-fearing Christians.

Also, the dialogue between the pro-science and the pro-religious has a risk of talking past each other when the each camp defends the theorectical purity of their own discipline while attacking the *practice* of the other's discipline.

So you'll have theists defending an ideal notion of their faith, while attacking science as practised: social Darwinism, nuclear weapons, etc.

And atheists will be defending science as abstract knowledge while attacking religion as actually practised.

This confusion needs to be clarified so we're comparing apples with apples.

Other Comments by Rtambree

39. Comment #40789 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 2:01 am

38. Comment #40787 by Rtambree on May 15, 2007 at 1:39 am

34. Comment #40778 by The Wee Flea

>I don't suppose you would blame science for nuclear weapons, global warming or biological weapons?

This is a legitimate point. In a sense technology although neutral, has facilitated all of the above. Once again, as with the many legitimate points these commentators bring up, this is never the whole story. The unspoken implication is that religion could have offered something better.

Without science, we'd still be a few tens of millions of hunter gathers, scraping a miserable living together. Expiring on average at the age 30 or perhaps 40, and waiting for the next asteriod impact, black hole or local supernova to snuff us out.

Yes science, like religion is a human institution and has facilitated some pretty appalling stuff. However, it has given us a fighting chance to triumph over the worst of our evolutionary baggage (religion simply provides a conduit to focus the worst, and very occasionally the best of our impulses), and explode the limitations imposed on us by the "eggs in one basket" scenario of inhabiting a single planet.

We might make it, and we might not, but religion a threadbare and barren fiction from start to finish, would never even have given us the chance.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

40. Comment #40795 by Coel on May 15, 2007 at 2:32 am

To weeflea (David Robertson)

"I think there is a fundamentalist mindset within some sections of atheism which would seek to suppress freedom of expression."

However, that is almost exactly the opposite of what atheists in the Western world say! Most of them are strong supporters of freedom of expression (in the face of attempts at censorship such as the Danish cartoon saga). And yes, that includes the freedom to express religion.

"Once you regard religion as a virus then you are on the way to wanting to eradicate that virus."

No you aren't. The "virus" is a technical meaning of propogating for its own purposes. To regard culture as largely meme-driven is NOT to be "on the way" to wanting culture eradicated. You are simply wrong on your interpretation.

Re: "The Times". It seems to me that The Times publishes roughly equal amounts of pro-religion and anti-religion sentiment on its letters and columns pages. If you include the "faith/credo" pages then the balance is heavily pro-religion.

For example, in the last week we have a Dawkins interview written by a religious believer (Ruth Gledhill), which was overall near neutral. Then there was Dawkins's column. Then yesterday there was the pro-religion Rees-Mogg with equal space replying to Dawkins, and today there were 4 letters which were 3-to-1 pro-religion. I don't see evidence to support your claim that your side is unfairly treated.

OK, so it may not be your choice of flavour of religion, but having columnists simply witnessing their religion on the basis of no evidence would be a bit pointless. They want to publish things that are worth reading.

"Don't gamble. I would be more than happy to do so but I doubt I will get an oppenant."

I'm sure plenty of atheists would be happy to debate you purely on the evidence.

"Remember we are too stupid to even discuss with . . . "

Strawman; no-one has said that, have they.

"Yes I accept you are right about debating with Collins and McGarth – but these are clearly the exceptions."

Exceptions to what? Even of this site alone you can find information on 7 or 8 Dawkins v Christians debates. How many do you want?

"Having experienced a little of that intolerance, and knowing the history of atheistic societies,"

Back to your "atheism is like communism" slurs. You would do better to realise that the communism they practiced was quasi-religious in demanding allegience and belief in the complete absence of evidence that communism was a good system.

It was that quasi-religious attitude that lead to their totalitarian flaws, and it is that attitude that western atheists utterly reject.

If you really want to maintain that Dawkins etal are part of some intolerant movement, please give some actual examples of intolerance from Dawkins et al. That is actual words or actions, not things you "read into" them.

"you ask me to demonstrate that Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Bin Laden or Khomeini do not represent the majority of believers. Gladly."

But again, you misrepresent the claim. That claim was not that they follow those particular gentlemen, the claim was that their sort of simplistic, dogmatic faith was more common than "subtle, nuanced, understated" religion.

I would put most of the Islamic world, much of Africa (now the largest grouping of Christians?), much of Latin America and Catholicism worldwide, and a good half of Americans in the "simplistic, dogmatic" camp. You haven't yet shown that the claim (as actually claimed!) is wrong.

Other Comments by Coel

41. Comment #40800 by pwagner on May 15, 2007 at 2:43 am

I'm sure others have noticed the theme when a man like Dawkins speaks his mind. They extract every word and try to twist it around and turn it into something other than what he said. It's like some sort of guerilla writing tactic, for lack of a better phrase. Just once I would like to see a Christian fundamentalist say, "you know what Richard I don't agree with you, and I'm keeping my faith". End of story. Because ultimately that's the end result anyways.

Other Comments by pwagner

42. Comment #40806 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 3:00 am

5537P06 said:

He and his kind (myself included) simply refuses to accept a postulation without sufficient evidence. He is ready to change his mind on any matter, but one -- the principle that "belief" requires evidence. This is the FUNDAMENTAL principle of science and the scientific method.

I don't know why you'd bother trying to reclaim a term with such negative connotations as noble. You're basically saying, "No, hey guys - being a fundamentalist is cool, so long as you're being unreasonable about the right stuff!"

The problem is that "fundamentalism" isn't a useful term for an entirely sensible position. It is the same reason that we do not bother calling ourselves fundamentalist when we assume that the world we interpret through our senses is a representation of a consistent and real world, instead of a false and illusory one. It is just a waste of time to speculate otherwise, when our default assumption allows us to interact with and learn about the world we find ourselves in.

Likewise with evidence, we all must use observations and reflection (on past observations) to form literally any thoughts. It is not the case that skeptics are alone in demanding "evidence", while others do not. For many, the Koran is evidence of Muhammed's signficance, or the Gospel for Jesus's. For others, they may have had an experience they could only describe as spiritual or transcendental, which has led them to trust the opinions of psychics. These beliefs are all formed by "evidence", but only in a casual, colloquial sense. They are information and observations which have helped people form opinions about the world.
This is how our brains work. There is simply no other way to believe something, then to find reasons to do so. How then, could a desire for evidence be considered "fundamentalist"?

What skeptics and scientists do demand, is a higher standard of evidence, as informed by the scientific method. Could it really be argued that passionately promoting this methodology constitutes "fundamentalist" adherence, when the method is a critical distillation of our learning process, is responsible for literally everything we've ever learnt as a species, and has no competition?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

43. Comment #40813 by Robert Maynard on May 15, 2007 at 3:13 am

weefree/knox/The Wee Flea/David Robertson said

He knows that he and his followers have evolved to a higher consciousness.

I didn't say this straight out last time we exchanged comments, but you are a bizarre man, with bizarre opinions, Mr. Robertson.

I presume you are deriving this view from the phrase Dawkins has often used, "raising consciousness" - but to get from a phrase describing social awareness to equating atheism with some doctrine of cognitive ascendancy brought on by evolution is a chasm-leap straight out of a Roadrunner and Coyote cartoon.

I hope you will explain yourself.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

44. Comment #40825 by BillySands on May 15, 2007 at 4:18 am

wee free

When you define faith, aka Dawkins, as belief in spite of the evidence, rather than because of it, you are setting up a straw man that no intelligent Christian would agree with.

Well David, we keep asking for your best evidence, and you never reply. You never present any, so you do fit that description. I personally would still like to know how you can believe in spite of the virgin birth non prophecy. That is fundamentalism. Dawkins will give up evolution if yoy can find humans and dinosaurs fossilised together. Do you really expect us to take your bitter accusations against Dawkins seriously. Tell me Daviid, do you think all atheists are fundamentalists, or are you just a very silly boy?

Other Comments by BillySands

45. Comment #40839 by Rtambree on May 15, 2007 at 4:40 am

41. Comment #40800 by pwagner on May 15, 2007 at 2:43 am

>I'm sure others have noticed the theme when a man like Dawkins speaks his mind. They extract every word and try to twist it around and turn it into something other than what he said. Just once I would like to see a Christian fundamentalist say, "you know what Richard I don't agree with you, and I'm keeping my faith". End of story. Because ultimately that's the end result anyways.

Yes, I agree - there's a second delusion. The first delusion is that they think their invisible friend exists. But the second, unspoken delusion, is that they've arrived at their conclusions via RATIONAL means, when it's clearly an emotional need. They begin with the conclusion and then work backwards. All this pseudo-intellectualising about God existing is a self-delusional at best and a dishonest pretention at worst.

Other Comments by Rtambree

46. Comment #40921 by D'Arcy on May 15, 2007 at 7:56 am

Like Dawkins I too belief that I am right based on the available evidence.

Wee flea believes in Jesus as his saviour, but he says he also takes an evidence based approach:

So where is this evidence of Jesus, apart from Christian sources? The Roman census of 4AD? The Turin Shroud? The Dorking Bones?

Go on David, convince me!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

47. Comment #40937 by BillySands on May 15, 2007 at 8:17 am

D'Arcy,

So where is this evidence of Jesus, apart from Christian sources? The Roman census of 4AD? The Turin Shroud? The Dorking Bones?

Interesting you bring up the census of Quirinius (think it was actually 6 CE from memory).

Wee flea has been challenged on this before. The problem is that this date conflicts with that of Matthew, who places the birth of Jesus at some time around 4 BCE. So if luke is right, Matthew is wrong, and the slaughter of the innocents is an impossibility - not suprising really, because the virgin birth and bethelehem prophecies are totally contrived.
Wee flea said that there was some archaeological evidence that Quirinius was govenor arount 4BCE. However, it turns out that this "evidence" is a nameless and dateless inscription. After this was pointed out, he just clammed up - and this guy is supposed to be doing a PhD in history.
For those who are interested, here is a lengthy article on the problem http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

Other Comments by BillySands

48. Comment #41176 by 5537P06 on May 15, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Robert Maynard said:

I don't know why you'd bother trying to reclaim a term with such negative connotations as noble. You're basically saying, "No, hey guys - being a fundamentalist is cool, so long as you're being unreasonable about the right stuff!"

Well, not quite.

I agree that the term has negative connotations, but sometimes we have little control over what terms others will use to characterize us. And when that happens, why not turn the tables and "reclaim" them as you say?

There is no question that evidence is fundamental (necessary, requisite, essential) to the scientific method.

I simply refuse being called unreasonable!

Other Comments by 5537P06

49. Comment #41229 by Russell Blackford on May 15, 2007 at 4:45 pm

A fundamentalist is someone who believes on the basis of authority, such as the literal text of the Bible, irrespective of the outcomes of rational inquiry. In that sense, Dawkins is far from being a fundamentalist. As a good scientist, he is not going to believe something on the basis of, say, the literal text of Darwin's Origin of Species, and will accept that even current science is provisional.

If you want to say that someone is dogmatic or pigheaded or dismissive or aggressive, or whatever it is you think they are, then say it. If you want to accuse them of fundamentalism, then make sure what they are guilty of is not one of those other things but actually fundamentalism. Otherwise, we lose an important distinction that the English language currently enables us to make.

Of course, losing that distinction can be helpful to some people, but I don't see why anyone who is in the camp of science and reason would think it a good outcome.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

50. Comment #41240 by Robert O'Brien on May 15, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Professor Dawkins:

You are a fundamentalist in that you are fundamentally wrong.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last