Saturday, May 26, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

by Sydney Morning Herald

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/aiming-for-knockout-blow-in-god-wars/2007/05/24/1179601500045.html

Scholar says scientist has overstepped the ethical mark, writes John Huxley.

THEY may be worlds apart, physically and philosophically, but Australian-born Margaret Somerville, one of the world's leading writers and thinkers about ethics, arrives in Sydney today determined to do battle with arch-atheist Richard Dawkins.

"He is a dangerous man who is causing me disturbed, sleepless nights," Professor Somerville said of the creator of the controversial shockumentary series The Root of All Evil?, showing on ABC Television and which concludes this Sunday.

"By attacking religion Dawkins thinks he is going to eliminate the world's evils, but he is so negative, so destructive in his approach, that he is escalating the conflict between warring cultures at a time when we should be seeking common ground," she said.

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

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

Her return to Sydney, where she studied for her first degree in law, coincides with an upsurge of Australian interest in life's big questions: morals, meaning and the role of religion.

Books by new atheists such as Professor Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason) and Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) are bestsellers.

The first episode of The Root of All Evil? was watched by 760,000 people in the capital cities, almost twice the usual number for the Sunday evening Compass slot. The ABC has been inundated with requests to repeat the program, or release it on DVD.

The Herald received several hundred email comments and almost 100 letters in response to an article on Professor Dawkins and the rise of atheism on Monday.

The Oxford don admitted to the Herald yesterday there was a danger that his aggressive attack on religion could exacerbate differences between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. "There's some merit in a gently-gently approach but it looks to me that the in-your-face approach associated with me, and to a greater extent Hitchens, is getting results," he said.

The documentary's original screening on Channel 4 in Britain had prompted an unprecedented response, three-to-one in his favour, he said. "People were strongly one way or another. This is an issue that polarises."

A recent tour of the US, including parts of the Bible Belt, confirmed his view that atheists are far more numerous than thought. "Repeatedly, people thanked me for giving voice to feelings they'd been afraid to express." Professor Dawkins describes his campaign to kill off God, to replace religious superstition with science, as "consciousness-raising".

Professor Somerville disagrees. "These atheists are so passionate, dogmatic, they have created their own secular religion." She will present "The Alternative to Richard Dawkins's God Delusional View" at the Sydney Writers Festival.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, May 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 104 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #45205 by Veronique on May 26, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Well. Somerville is 18 months older than I am and born in the same city as I.

She's received some awards in her time as well as Member of the Order of Australia for bioethics. Several honorary degrees, the last of which was criticised and opposed by many students and faculty who tend to see her as a homophobe. She lobbies actively against same-sex marriage.

Glancing down the references in wikipedia, she is also against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

I guess we'll hear about this battle due to take place at the Sydney Writer's Festival. It is not sure whether RD will be present or only by phone. She says that RD is negative and that we should be seeking common ground with religion. Another apologist who just doesn't get it. Could be a firey exchange. She will instigate it, that much is clear.

She's off my christmas list, that's certain. (cultural reference only, thank you)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

2. Comment #45209 by mmurray on May 26, 2007 at 10:41 pm

According to the who's who entry in Canada she went to Mercedes College in Adelaide. This suggests she has a catholic background -- as does some random googling. No great suprise I guess.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

3. Comment #45210 by Matty Two-Tone on May 26, 2007 at 10:56 pm

It disturbs me that she kept referring to exchanges between herself and Professor Dawkins in military terms. It's not a battle or a war, it is an argument. The difference is that in an argument the loser still goes home with all their limbs.

Other Comments by Matty Two-Tone

4. Comment #45213 by bruno_burned on May 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Even when I stand back and try to evaluate the situation as removed as possible, I still don't see Dawkins as being all that negative. I see worse insults on Seinfeld, I see more horrendous words from politicians, and I hear far more negativity out of my uncle during the Superbowl.

Maybe theists are a bunch of wimps :)

Other Comments by bruno_burned

5. Comment #45214 by mmurray on May 26, 2007 at 11:11 pm

It disturbs me that she kept referring to exchanges between herself and Professor Dawkins in military terms. It's not a battle or a war, it is an argument. The difference is that in an argument the loser still goes home with all their limbs.

I agree but when you look over history Christians have always had a passion for killing each other over (silly) ideas.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

6. Comment #45218 by a-teapot-ist on May 26, 2007 at 11:27 pm

I always love the 'dogmatic' accusation. It's much like the 'fundamentalist' one, which is like the pot calling milk black. If Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris are at all dogmatic, it's because they take what is written in these ancient blood soaked books by their face value. And common ground . . . oh yeah, xians who like to push their noses in other's personal lives always seem to be big on common ground, the better to control it.

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

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

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

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

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

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

8. Comment #45222 by Kitty on May 27, 2007 at 12:03 am

"I have not the slightest recollection of Professor Somerville or of any argument with her."

Maybe you're just a bit more memorable or had more of an impact on her than she on you - not necessarily a bad thing.

Other Comments by Kitty

9. Comment #45224 by ButteryAtheist on May 27, 2007 at 12:03 am

Maybe she's, oh I don't know, deluded?

Dawkins: 40, Somerville: Love

Other Comments by ButteryAtheist

10. Comment #45225 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:04 am

I hope you come to Oz soon RD. I have noticed, from reading other posts and between the lines, that there are a large number of Australians contributing to these forums. Makes me proud to be an Aussie.

The current govt. have been doing their best to run down the public education system over here. They even want to put chaplains in public schools (public down here meaning govt. schools of course)...not a good idea, very devisive. But things are worse in Britain, I fear. One must be vigilant.

Hope to hear you on Philip Adams ABC radio show some time. He could organise to get her on the show and you could charm this deluded lady with some reasoned arguments. And we won't even have to turn our heads because it will be on radio.

If people believe what she says, then they would half expect your head to be turning 360 degrees, Linda Blair-style!!!!

Other Comments by bouwe

11. Comment #45226 by Kitty on May 27, 2007 at 12:09 am

bouwe
AFAIK - The Chaplains in Schools, programme is up and running in Australia. They even have a happy little brochure with smiley little children on it.

Other Comments by Kitty

12. Comment #45228 by Patrick McArdle on May 27, 2007 at 12:16 am

As usual, the man himself says it best: "They are so used to getting a free ride that, on the rare occasions that they encounter even mild criticism, they hear it as extreme and -- apparently in Margaret Somervill'e case -- they presume that others hear it as extreme as well."

Telling children they'll fry eternally unless they live their private lives like an old guy in Rome dictates: now that's extremism! Reading an old book, written in a pre-technological time, and noting that may of the claims therein do not comport with the answers our modern science gives to the same questions: almost a trivially silly exercise.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

13. Comment #45229 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:17 am

11. Comment #45226 by Kitty

Of all the dumb ideas they have ever come up with, this one would have to be one of the dumbest...but what will Rudd do if he gets in power? He is an Xtian, but let us hope those around him prevail in convincing him that this is a very bad idea....I worry that we might have a Oz version of Tony Blair on our hands....perish the thought.

7. Comment #45219 by Richard Dawkins

If you are still on line, Richard, just remember: every country has at least one "Church Lady" -- cue the echo-chamber sound-effects for when she denounces you as ".... SATAN!!!!! "

Other Comments by bouwe

14. Comment #45232 by Aussie on May 27, 2007 at 12:24 am

Yes Richard come to Oz and see Robyn Williams again and meet the rest of us.

Although you are not needed here as desperately as in some other countries that will remain nameless we would love to see you again nonetheless.

I am looking forward to seeing Part II of TROAE tonight even though I have seen it before. Great that it is raising some controversy here in apathetic old Oz.

Other Comments by Aussie

15. Comment #45233 by Liveliest Crib on May 27, 2007 at 12:25 am

Heh, yeah, Dawkins is dogmatic, and people who think like him have formed a secular religion. You know, I think I'll write a parody of Alanis Morisette's Ironic called Dogmatic. It will feature all the silly things Dawkins' detractors say about his being dogmatic, and, like the tune it parodies, will highlight a clear misunderstanding of its title's definition.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

16. Comment #45235 by Steve19 on May 27, 2007 at 12:27 am

I agree that having Professor Dawkins on Philip Adams' show would be a good idea. Organised Religion doesn't have as strong a hold on Australian society as it does in Britain or the US, and some healthy debate at this stage might be a positive step in preventing it from becoming more influential - especially with Rudd likely to become Prime Minister. Philip Adams is an atheist, and while he seems much more sympathetic to religion and supernatural spirituality, I could guarantee it would be a high standard of interview.

Even though we're probably more religious than the Brits, there are also an awful lot of people here who Richard refers to as 'seeing themselves as being vaguely religious.' In fact, I know personally a number of people, albeit in fairly accepting, liberal families, who have come out of the closet after reading 'The God Delusion.'

Other Comments by Steve19

17. Comment #45236 by Daddy Dancer on May 27, 2007 at 12:27 am

I second the comments about RD coming to Aus' soon. It is great to see such the viewer numbers for "The Root of All Evil" on the ABC. Hopefully it will stimulate some positive debate which might in turn profer RD opportunities to make the trip - hopefully not just to Sydney.

I heard Professor Somerville on the ABC's Covnersation Hour. She was commenting on RD as coming across as an "intellectual bully' - this is (of late) a label used in the Auistralian media for anyone who's views are well considered, but go against the current 'John Howard' norm.

Kevin Rudd has had this reputation pinned to him many times since he took over as leader of the Opposition - not that Kevin Rudd can be compared to RD in any way!

Anyway, the message is clear, to get our message across in Australia we must remember the Aussie Tall Poppy syndrome!

"Know what you don't know"

Daddy Dancer

Other Comments by Daddy Dancer

18. Comment #45237 by Kitty on May 27, 2007 at 12:27 am

13. Comment #45229 by bouwe
Atleast Rudd is upfront about his beliefs but that might also mean he sees no reason to conceal them but rather wears them as a badge of honour and sign of superiority which would be a rather concerning attitude.

Howard is a Methodist, but it is very hard to pin him down. There have been a few sly comments in Hansard about Christianity as the fundamental underpinning of Australian values but now much. You have to dig to find Howard being unequivocal about religion even though his demeanor and policies generally betray his true attitude to religion.

Other Comments by Kitty

19. Comment #45238 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:37 am

14. Comment #45232 by Aussie

Yes, Robyn Williams and Philip Adams would both welcome RD to air his views. However, a forum/discussion show like that hosted by Jenny Brockie on SBS would reach a much wider audience. No doubt Ms.Somerville would be invited on as the agitator. They could probably get Philip and Robyn to go on too. They often have guests on satellite, so it would not even be necessary for RD to be there in person, if it happens that he is not coming over here.

On a related matter, I must say I am disappointed that Lateline had Christopher Hitchens on the other week to talk about Wolfowitz, but there was no discussion of his new book. I hold out hope that the Hitch will pop up somewhere soon on Oz TV to discuss "god is not Great"...at least he was on Philip's show the other week. The whole hour -- it was great....unlike "god"!!! (btw, the LNL show is available at this site or the ABC website if anyone missed it and is interested to hear it.)

Other Comments by bouwe

20. Comment #45239 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:49 am

18. Comment #45237 by Kitty

Atleast Rudd

I misread and I thought you said "Atheist Rudd"!!! Wow, I was getting my hopes up for a minute there, but, alas, it was a typo. LOL

Ah the good ol' days...when we had an atheist PM in Hawkey!!!! Rudd's immediate predecessor was probably atheist too...if so, I think his example wouldn't have done us any good in terms of public image!!!

Other Comments by bouwe

21. Comment #45240 by mmurray on May 27, 2007 at 12:50 am

If you have interested in the School Chaplains project have a look here

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/school_chaplaincy_programme/default

It is not as bad as you might imagine, for example the Code of Conduct has

9. While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express views and
articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious beliefs, a chaplain
should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that
denomination or religious belief.

On the other hand there is the clear assumption that what appears to be basic psychological support and advice has be provided by a person of faith rather than a qualified professional counsellor.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

22. Comment #45241 by Kitty on May 27, 2007 at 12:52 am

Maybe Andrew Denton's "Enough Rope" would be a good Australian forum for Prof.Dawkins as a means by which to make himself seem more human to those who honestly fear or misunderstand his message.

Given the fact that, to date, all that most Australians have seen of the Professor is a rather stilted documentary of a little old Oxford Don wandering about in a green shirt and arguing with people, a fireside chat about some serious issues could break the ice with the Australian public.

Other Comments by Kitty

23. Comment #45243 by mmurray on May 27, 2007 at 12:56 am

This article is also being discussed on the Forums here

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15309

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #45244 by GoodbyeGodNZ on May 27, 2007 at 12:58 am

Richard, if you go to Aussie you'd better come onto New Zealand as well. We'd love to have you here and Kim Hill would give you another prime spot on National Radio I'm sure.

Poor Margaret ...... a lamb to the slaughter .... don't know if I'll be able to watch ...... too much blood makes me feel faint!

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

25. Comment #45245 by Kitty on May 27, 2007 at 12:59 am

21. Comment #45240 by mmurray
"While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express views and
articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious beliefs, a chaplain
should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that
denomination or religious belief."

How, in all honesty, can we expect a religious person to bring themselves to give impartial advice about issues such as bereavement, suicide, unwanted pregnancy or to advise young people in the grip of existential crisis? If nothing else the Chaplains programme has the potential to put the chaplains themselves in morally invidious positions.

Other Comments by Kitty

26. Comment #45246 by BAEOZ on May 27, 2007 at 12:59 am

I want to add my support to the "Bring Richard Dawkins to Australia" movement. He can bring along Hitchens, Harris and Dennet too! It would be so cool to see some of those guys give a talk in public. Has anybody heard of Michel Onfrey? Apparently he's having a chat with Phillip Adams here in Melbourne in a couple of days.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

27. Comment #45247 by Rtambree on May 27, 2007 at 1:07 am

Bob Brown, leader of the Greens, is at least agnostic, if not, atheist, so it's not just a choice between Liberal (Christian PM & Christian Deputy) and Labor (Christian leader)

Other Comments by Rtambree

28. Comment #45249 by Corylus on May 27, 2007 at 1:27 am

This Somerville woman sounds like Mary Midgely Mark II... oh dear :(

As there are lots of Aussies on board: I'm interested...

I watched TROAE before Haggard's, um, "fall from grace". I suspect this might be giving the whole thing an extra element. Is it common knowledge in Australia what Ted subsequently got up to??

Other Comments by Corylus

29. Comment #45251 by Bonzai on May 27, 2007 at 1:41 am

Somerville is well known in Canada as an ethicist.

I have tried to listen to her 2007(?) Massey lecture. It was 5 hour long and was broadcasted on CBC radio on 5 consecutive nights. I stopped listening after the first night because her rambling was really insufferable. My impression is that she is a verbose windbag, erudite but can't think logically. I beleive you can find a link to the lecture on her Wiki page.

She has made some news headlines in Canada because of her high profile opposition to same sex marriage. She insisted that she did so not because of religion, but for ethical reasons. But her arguments really have no merit. When she recieved her honourary doctorate from Ryerson university many students and faculties walked out in protest.

She is not even as good as that other over-rated, fuzzy headed Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor(who just became very rich for winning the Templeton prize) In a debate Dawkins would have shreded them both to pieces.

Other Comments by Bonzai

30. Comment #45253 by Robert Maynard on May 27, 2007 at 1:59 am

Corylus:

Is it common knowledge in Australia what Ted subsequently got up to??

The Daily Show and Colbert Report is delivered to the Comedy Channel on Australian cable, but that's really the only place I saw the news about him outside of the internet. So.. I doubt it.

I also can't imagine how many Australians would care to know that we are responsible for that slug Ken Ham, and his wretched creation museum in America. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

31. Comment #45256 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 27, 2007 at 2:27 am

"He is a dangerous man who is causing me disturbed, sleepless nights"

A man over sixty years old who can give a woman sleepless nights whilst not even being in the same continent is an encouragement to us all.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

32. Comment #45257 by BaronOchs on May 27, 2007 at 2:35 am

"By attacking religion Dawkins thinks he is going to eliminate the world's evils, but he is so negative, so destructive in his approach, that he is escalating the conflict between warring cultures at a time when we should be seeking common ground," she said.

I really have difficulty decyphering that. It sounds something like "religions are so bellicose and problematic that civilized atheists should refrain from criticism in case they get a little upset."

Nonsense! Bring it on! as Chris Hitchens says.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

33. Comment #45260 by Russell Blackford on May 27, 2007 at 2:51 am

Well, whether Richard has encountered her in something like the way she describes or not, I actually did have an exchange back and forth with Margaret Somerville some years back, in the pages of Quadrant magazine. Here, for example, is a taste:

http://journals.enotes.com/quadrant-journals/95445772

Actually, the article I wrote about Somerville that provoked the whole exchange is available in full here, for whatever it's worth:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/somerville_prime.htm

Since I managed in the opening paragraphs to refer to her as a priestess of a new kind of superstition, I guess I was not as mild as Richard.

I also exchanged some words with her from the audience of a talk that she gave in Toronto, Canada a couple of years later. I guess our paths might cross again now she's apparently touring in Australia.

What I find interesting is how she is now coming out openly to defend religion. It's very much at a crypto level in The Ethical Canary. She's basically a bio-Luddite, not much better than the likes of Leon Kass, but these people will try to give some kind of secular gloss to their irrational views about bioethics that can surely be traced back to their religious socialisation.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

34. Comment #45263 by steveroot on May 27, 2007 at 2:59 am

5. Comment #45214 by mmurray on May 26, 2007 at 11:11 pm

It disturbs me that she kept referring to exchanges between herself and Professor Dawkins in military terms. It's not a battle or a war, it is an argument. The difference is that in an argument the loser still goes home with all their limbs.

"This isn't 'argument'; this is 'ABUSE'"
-M/ Python

Steve ;-)

Other Comments by steveroot

35. Comment #45264 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 3:08 am

Comment #45253 by Robert Maynard

I'm pretty sure that Teddy's antics were well covered in the press down here, but it wasn't front-page news, obviously. I read a few articles about it in the Age, at least.

Ken Ham....thank god he's not here, lol. Now he's their problem! For someone who denies evolution, he certainly has simian features. And that beard only accentuates the look! Maybe he was teased in school ("Hey monkey boy!!!") and dedicated his life to destroying science to avoid being teased ("I'll show 'em!!" he declares, while beating his chest like gorilla). Might have been easier for him just to shave.

Comment #45251 by Bonzai
She is not even as good as that other over-rated, fuzzy headed Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor(who just became very rich for winning the Templeton prize)

Taylor appeared on The Philosopher's Zone (ABC radio, Aust.) a few weeks back. Got a free ride to bash Dawkins (maybe that's why they gave him the Templeton?) He was somehow trying to lump Dawkins/Harris et al with post-modernism !!! in some strange way. Believe it or not!

Other Comments by bouwe

36. Comment #45267 by Russell Blackford on May 27, 2007 at 3:11 am

And ... when is the redoubtable Professor Dawkins going to visit Australia?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

37. Comment #45269 by BT Murtagh on May 27, 2007 at 3:28 am

Root Of All Evil is a "shockumentary"? RD is giving Somerville "disturbed, sleepless nights"? It's a good job these people have the solid foundation of faith to stand on, because they certainly seem easily perturbed. Unstable, that is.

I mean, I worry about them, too, but mostly because they're often in positions of power - it seems sensible to worry about US Presidents who go to war because their imaginary friends tell them to. That hardly applies to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens, and despite all the overblown rhetoric about atheist anger, only Hitch seems to have the inner rage that makes a good street fighter. (Although it must be added that Sam does exude the scary calm of a secret martial arts master!)

It seems that ideas alone are enough to terrify Somerville's crew. Sad, really.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

38. Comment #45272 by pewkatchoo on May 27, 2007 at 3:34 am

This is a woman who talks about 'metaphysical realities'. She is just jealous and can see an opportunity to promote her own rather poorer offering 'The Ethical Canary'. She is on a publicity hunt and hunkering up to professor Dawkins would appear to be a good way of getting it.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

39. Comment #45290 by PaulVermeersch on May 27, 2007 at 5:24 am

Ethicist my eye! Margaret Sommerville is nothing more than an unofficial Vatican apologist. Her latest book, The Ethical Imagination, with its backward and ethically retarded stance on issues like gay marriage, is a national embarrassment here in Canada. I hope Dawkins makes a monkey her, which shouldn't be too difficult, since her own absurd arguments will be giving him a head start.

EDIT: I think The Ethical Imagination might be the original title of the book she is now shilling as The Ethical Canary.

Other Comments by PaulVermeersch

40. Comment #45292 by newatheist on May 27, 2007 at 5:39 am

"(Dawkins) admitted to the Herald yesterday there was a danger that his aggressive attack on religion could exacerbate differences between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists."

I haven't seen this argument before, and I'm especially intrigued by RD's reported concession. What does this mean exactly, and can anyone expand on this for me?

btw I'm from Australia - would love to see RD on Enough Rope!

Other Comments by newatheist

41. Comment #45303 by BUNDYLENO on May 27, 2007 at 6:11 am

I'd also like to know when Richard Dawkins may be coming to Australia.But everyone, why should we wait for Richard to come to Australia? What we should be doing is dragging this topic into the light of public debate (not sure how much debate can ocur if the evidence is set out properly) rather than waiting for someone else to do it for us
(Which is a little like religion's "god is on my side so everything will be ok when he steps in" mentality

BTW: I jus watched the second part of The Root Of Evil?, and I think if anything it isn't critical at all!
@ Post#45257
Curious, how religion seems to always be opposed to free speech

P.s. My apologies for the rant

Other Comments by BUNDYLENO

42. Comment #45324 by Russell Blackford on May 27, 2007 at 7:16 am

^Well, we've got Michel Onfray in town, in Melbourne, tomorrow. That should stir things up a little.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

43. Comment #45349 by joshuaslocum on May 27, 2007 at 9:33 am

Russell:

I enjoy your writing, and you've piqued my interest with the excerpt of your Quadrant article. Is there any way to read it that doesn't require a paid subscription to the journal? I realize journals have to make money, but so much good conversation is hidden behind subscriptions it's frustrating for those of us who won't subscribe to a publication to read one or two articles at most.

Cheers,

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

44. Comment #45357 by msv on May 27, 2007 at 10:59 am

"He is a dangerous man who is causing me disturbed, sleepless nights," Professor Somerville

Thats insane. TGD was mild as hell.

Attacking is the only common ground you'll get... What other common ground is there, oh wise one? I hate this bitching about anyone's approach, who cares? And who is she to say what outcome or effect Dawkins' approach will have? Does she have a supercomputer predicting the future? No, just a "hunch". Either way, why should you care of Dawkins' approach if there is no orginazation, attack his points, not the way he adresses them. That's more like religion than the points she adressed for calling Dawkins "religious".

Professor Somerville disagrees. "These atheists are so passionate, dogmatic, they have created their own secular religion." She will present "The Alternative to Richard Dawkins's God Delusional View" at the Sydney Writers Festival.

How did she not get the point that any organisation that tries to control people's thoughts is inherently evil. Critical thinking should be the norm, it allows for a society based on real, human common grounds.

Other Comments by msv

45. Comment #45358 by MarcKeys on May 27, 2007 at 11:09 am

Weak minded fool.

Other Comments by MarcKeys

46. Comment #45362 by Bremas on May 27, 2007 at 11:47 am

Off Topic
Was in my local Barnes and Noble yesterday. One copy of TGD in the entire store. Hitchens no where to be seen. I didn't ask where Hitchens would be on the shelves but he sure as hell wasn't out in any of the prominent display areas, including best seller area.

So I just checked.. #1 on NY Times Best Seller list.
http://www.hawes.com/2007/2007-06-03.pdf

TGD is not on that list but should still be in the top 20. One lousy copy.

I think I'll go back today.

Other Comments by Bremas

47. Comment #45371 by Bonzai on May 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Bremas,

It could be that they were out of stock because these books sold like hotcakes. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #45374 by nine9s on May 27, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"These atheists are so passionate, dogmatic, they have created their own secular religion."

I find it endlessly amusing when religious people try to badmouth atheists by talking about how "religious" we are. "You're just like me, you friggin moron." Like the people who say weird things like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." I thought faith was supposed to be a good thing, nimrod!

Other Comments by nine9s

49. Comment #45377 by nine9s on May 27, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Bremas, my recent bookstore visit was exactly the opposite of yours. TGD was displayed prominently in the science section, as was "The God Hypothesis." "End of Faith" and "God is not Great" were both on top shelves in the politics sections. I wasn't even looking for them, but they were displayed so prominently that you couldn't miss them. All that time that atheist books are spending on the bestseller lists is really paying off.

Other Comments by nine9s

50. Comment #45384 by kaiserkriss on May 27, 2007 at 1:58 pm

"He is a dangerous man who is causing me disturbed, sleepless nights,"

Its the nutters (ad hom?)like Smallville, Falwell, Bin Ladin, radicals, clergy of any stripe advocating violence against their fellow man etc. who are dangerous and causing ME disturbed and sleepless nights.

People like Professor Richard, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris give me hope, and ALLOW me to sleep at night.

Bremas, Bonzai: It took me the better part of 6weeks to actually FIND a copy of GD here in Calgary, even though it had been on the National( read Toronto) best sellers list for 6 weeks. I have yet to find a copy of Hitchens latest.

Richard: Seriously, I'm not surprised you cannot remember your exchange with Smallville, or more appropriately Smallfry. One cannot remember everything, it would seem obvious her arguments were weak to have made such a forgetful impression on you. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss