1. Comment #70804 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 12:50 am

Well done to The Independent for publishing and giving a right to reply.

It would have been better if they have never published the badly written drivel that RD is responding to, of course.

However, credit where it is due.

Other Comments by Corylus

2. Comment #70806 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 am

[Begin silly comment]
Richard Dawkins used some of my comments posted on the other thread. I should sue him for plagiarism!
[End silly comment]
Good comment Richard. It will probably be interpreted as shrill and such because many people can't see past their god tinted glasses....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

3. Comment #70808 by Eamonn Shute on September 17, 2007 at 1:19 am

I wonder if Stanford and Cornwell are as critical of Christians who believe despite not having read books by the major theologians, ie 99.99% of them.

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

4. Comment #70809 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 1:24 am

Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them.

and

Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Ah, that's got my week off to a good start! :-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

5. Comment #70816 by henryw on September 17, 2007 at 2:19 am

Faith different from belief? Surely to believe something implausible on no evidence is to believe it 'on faith'? And to have faith that something is real is to believe it to be real? So the two words are synonymous - or have I missed something?

Other Comments by henryw

6. Comment #70820 by Theocrapcy on September 17, 2007 at 2:36 am

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

7. Comment #70821 by the great teapot on September 17, 2007 at 2:38 am

Credit where credits due to the Independent, but I suspect they couldn't believe their luck when Richard Dawkins, himself, replied.

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #70822 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 2:41 am

Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts."

This is the most salient point. Stanford says it all. Faith has nothing to do with evidential understanding nor does it have anything to do with observed facts (read scientific theories).

There is no way round this way of thinking. The Stanfords and others of this world are locked into a delusional belief structure that propounds their points of view that fly in the face of the science that we have come to understand in a fairly rational way of assessing our world, given the mysteries that perpetually elude us. Given that people have difficulty with rationality, I would like to post some points of view that resonate with me – I don't pretend to be fully rational all the time.

With regard to the biblical etchings of possibly real events, I would like to post Polonius' speech to his son Laertes when Laertes was on his way to France to garner support for the confusion that was Denmark at the time (as beautifully inscribed by Shakespeare):

The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stayed for.
There, my blessings with thee!
And these few precepts in thy memory.
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned act his tongue.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar,
The friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel,
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new hatched, unfledged comrade.
Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but, being in,
Bear't that th'opposed may be aware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice,
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy, rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous, chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; My blessing season this in thee!

Polonius was a very silly man and was killed under the arras but Shakespeare gave him a father's voice. You know, I have only a poor intellectual understanding of religion. That quote from Hamlet has been one of my guiding lights. So has Macbeth's speech when Seyton told him of Lady MacBeth's death.

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

There's Portia as well. How beautifully did Shakespeare draw his characters even under the aegis and money of Elizabeth 1st. These extraordinary speeches in Shakespeare's works (and there are many others) lift my heart to embellish all that is good and appalling as understood by us.

I love you all; I fear for us all. We are very flawed. My best to all of us:-).
V

Other Comments by Veronique

9. Comment #70826 by Prufrock on September 17, 2007 at 3:16 am

To continue Veronique's theme.

I watched lord of the rings(return of the king) last night on channel four(England) and immediately regressed to the 11 year old who read the whole trilogy, much of it under bed covers when I should have been sleeping.

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in any of the 'facts' of the bible. I do not concede that the bible is or should be the main source of our morality. I believe religion has done more harm than good and whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering. Religion is not the cure it is disease. I am an atheist, because there is no other word to describe it. Most 'isms' lead to dogmatic though and absurd action.

I simply believe humans should pat themselves on the back sometimes for the amazing things we have done and will continue to in defiance of a mythical superpower. We should take responsibility for all the evil things we do and not just in the name of religion.

I simply believe I am human complete with 'the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to', but without the need to project my subject feelings, beliefs, perceptions, etc onto a reality that exist outside me.

I am an atheist because I believe it is our capacity for intelligent, rational and scientific thought which gives us real hope for pleasant life and conditions for all. I simply our understanding of the world has evolved to such an extent that we can cry foul at the unevidenced nonsense which drives creationism onto a stage which is completely inappropriate for my future and the futures of the unborn generations to come.

I say this because sometimes I get confused as to what makes me believe there is no god and why I believe we are better off without this stuff.

Other Comments by Prufrock

10. Comment #70829 by dvespertilio on September 17, 2007 at 3:27 am

Re: Comment #70822 by Veronique

Veronique: What beautiful quotes from Shakespeare! I am ashamed to say that in my fractured liberal arts education here in the USA, I never read "Hamlet", we focussed rather on several lesser plays of Shakespeare, i.e., "Romeo & Juliet", "The Merchant of Venice", etc. Aside from the issue being discussed here, you have renewed my interest in studying Shakespeare. Now, if I could only find the time! I don't think any local playhouse here in NE Florida, USA, is even producing a Shakespeare play. Too bad! How defective was my classical education while I was growing up! Oh, to have the time to go back and remedy the deficiencies!

Anyway, thanks again for the beautiful quotes.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

11. Comment #70830 by IanG on September 17, 2007 at 3:27 am

Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts."

What a succinct and unambigious statement. This makes my day too!

This is going to go into my archive of truly memorable witlessness along with the regularly repeated quote in the wonderful Point of Inquiry podcasts: "These stories sum up the immense challenge facing those of us who defend rational thinking, science and secular values. What one advisor to the Bush administration dismissed as the 'reality-based community'. Who could have imagined that reality would need defenders?"

Other Comments by IanG

12. Comment #70831 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 3:32 am

whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

This is the kind of generalisation that gives atheists a bad name. Many people have done and still do good things in the name of religion. Religion has led to some wonderful life-affirming creative endeavours - the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, John Donne's poetry... there are even 'religions' (such as some forms of Buddhism) which encourage doubt and reason, without a belief in Gods.

What matters is that people are able to be creative and moral without religion, and that religion (if it involves faith) stifles reason in a potentially dangerous way.

But please, let's not generalise like this. It does our cause no good, as it is clearly false.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #70835 by Stevie B on September 17, 2007 at 3:55 am

These 'reviews' are really getting tiresome. In the vein of the postmodern essay generator, couldn't someone knock up a God Delusion review generator, to save all these hacks the trouble? Press a button, and hey presto an instant review including all or some of the usual comments in new and random arrangements:

'shrill'
'arrogant'
'atheist fundamentalist'
'sophisticated belief system'
'you cant prove God doesnt exist'
'look at all the good religion does'
'why does Dawkins hate god?'
'why does Dawkins hate christmas?'
'why does Dawkins hate leprechauns?'
'atheism is a belief system'
'spirituality'
'how can you have morals without religion'
'Hitler was an atheist'
'Stalin was an atheist'
'Pol Pot was an atheist'
'jesus was an atheist'

Any other suggestions?

Other Comments by Stevie B

14. Comment #70836 by Crazymalc on September 17, 2007 at 3:58 am

"Jesus was an atheist". Ha. Good one!

I remember taking the time to explain to someone that no, Jesus wasn't a Christian. Jesus was a Jew.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

15. Comment #70840 by fonex_86 on September 17, 2007 at 4:04 am

I believe religion has done more harm than good...

Indeed.

...and whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

Let's see...

Wherever there is religion there is division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

Ah. Much better =D

Other Comments by fonex_86

16. Comment #70841 by Haymoon on September 17, 2007 at 4:05 am

I think it was a young girl from the US Deep South who once said

"Faith Is Believing What You Know Ain't So"

Other Comments by Haymoon

17. Comment #70842 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 4:11 am

Let's see...

Wherever there is religion there is ignorance.

Ah. Much better =D

No, still a very poor generalisation. Isaac Newton was religious, but I would not call him ignorant... there are a lot of philosophies that are called 'religion'. Not all of them involve superstitions or Gods. Without those, what is there to object to?

The moral here is that all generalisation are wrong. even this one.

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #70850 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 4:24 am

In the vein of the postmodern essay generator, couldn't someone knock up a God Delusion review generator, to save all these hacks the trouble?

Are you sure they haven't already, Stevie B? It would explain a very great deal.

Here are some more phrases any such generator would have to contain:

What Dawkins forgets is that God believes in him.
Dawkins' certainty is unscientific.
Dawkins has no imagination.
Dawkins despises emotion and anything else that can't be demonstrated by scientific experiment.
Dawkins' disciples (What's the betting that someone's going to bring out a book soon with that as the title – Dawkins' Disciples: the New Atheists)
The God Delusion is the atheists' bible.
Dawkins is the atheists' god.
Worshipping at the altar of Dawkins.
Atheism inevitably leads to the gulags.
This talk of religious ideas spreading like viruses is too close to the kind of talk that led to Dachau.
Dawkins want to ban religion!
But that's not what we really believe!
That's not my God you're describing!
No one believes the bible literally these days!

Then there are the ones that aren't spelled out but whose meaning pervades each page like the aroma of rotting cabbage:
Dawkins is the new Hitler.
If Dawkins had his way, religious believers would be locked up! Disenfranchised! Sent into exile! Burnt at the stake!
No one likes a smart arse.

I'm sure other people can think of more ...

Other Comments by Northern Bright

19. Comment #70854 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 4:49 am

I'm sure other people can think of more ...

Dawkins does not realise that because science doesn't know everything, therefore God exists.

God is beyond what we can imagine or understand, therefore Dawkins can't understand Him, so can't reject Him, so God exists.

Dawkins is rude, so God exists.

And... one of my favourites, from the cunning mind of the incomparable Madeline Bunting:

Because atheists don't believe in God, they aren't qualified to discuss Him, so God exists.

Other Comments by steve99

20. Comment #70855 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 4:51 am

Dawkins is a God-denier (I loved the idea expressed here that this was a very, very sheer brand of stockings/tights/pantyhose).
Atheists hate God.
Atheists cannot see God when he's all around.
Dawkins is the devil...

But why should we help?


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

21. Comment #70859 by Kimpatsu on September 17, 2007 at 5:17 am

The following URL is to be found in the small ads in the latest issue of Private Eye magazine. The author is yet another flea.
http://www.edgewaysbooks.com/20th/Dawkins.pdf

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

22. Comment #70861 by denoir on September 17, 2007 at 5:22 am

Does an atheist need to know theology? No, of course not. It's the default position.

Does an anti-theist need to know theology? Yes, at least to some extent.

Dawkins writes:

...writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them.

I think that this is essentially what the other side is saying to Dawkins: learn the stuff before you comment on it.

Are they right? Well, yes, but they are mistaken by thinking that he doesn't know enough of it - that, he does. He also knows enough leprechology to get a good enough definition of a leprechaun to stack up against existing knowledge of the world.

This is the trivial case (which I personally subscribe to), but there is an argument that could be made for a sophisticated model. The Courtier Reply is a binary proposition - the emperor is nude or he is not. Religion is true or it is not. It is that model that most moderate religious people and even liberal atheists have a problem with.

Suppose instead that there is a gradient - that some of the ideas are true while others are not. Then a binary model is inadequate.

To illustrate, let's take the bible as an example. Suppose we edited it and removed all supernatural references. Apart from a much thinner book, what would be get? Well, as Sam Harris would say, a lot of bronze age philosophy and morality and a little bit of other stuff. Suppose we removed the relay idiotic bronze age stuff, would there be something left? Possibly. And to discuss that remaining part, wouldn't it be advisable to read up on what influential thinkers throughout the ages have said about it? We don't entirely dismiss the ancient Greek philosophers today do we? In that context theology can be useful as a philosophical guide through the body of human religious works.

It is within that frame that you find legitimate disagreement with Dawkins' et al approach. That's how the moderates think: that although they don't believe all of it that there is still value to be found in religion.

Personally I do think that with all the supernatural nonsense removed and the bronze age philosophy cut what remains is so banal that it doesn't deserve much attention. But what do I know? - I'm not a theologian ;-) No but seriously, it stands to reason that the little that remains has already been handled by real philosophers without supernatural contamination.

Other Comments by denoir

23. Comment #70862 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 am

For NorthernBright's generator, (loosely in the manner of http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm :

ARGUMENT FROM BAFFLEMENT 1 (aka Ken Ham's Argument 1): I have said something confusing, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BAFFLEMENT 2 (aka Ken Ham's Argument 2): You have said something confusing, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM WINNING A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT (aka Ken Ham's Argument 3): I observe that you have made a mistake about something unrelated to the question of God's existence, therefore God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BULLYING CHILDREN (aka Ken Ham's Argument 4): GOD EXISTS, KIDS, therefore God exists.

There are plenty more of these in the works of the great Ham. Maybe later.

Other Comments by _J_

24. Comment #70868 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 5:36 am

23. Comment #70862 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 am
I just love your examples, _J_ - but the credit for the idea of the God Delusion review generator must go to Stevie B. .
Steve99 - "Dawkins does not realise that because science doesn't know everything, therefore God exists" - yes, that one HAS to be in there! :-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

25. Comment #70869 by pewkatchoo on September 17, 2007 at 5:38 am

Steve99
Your pedantry can be very annoying sometimes. How about:

Wherever there is religion there is a tendency towards ignorance and strife.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

26. Comment #70871 by pewkatchoo on September 17, 2007 at 5:43 am

Kimpatsu
That fleaism was by a guy called Ian Robinson. I wonder if he is any relation to our own dearly beloved wee flea David Robinson.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

27. Comment #70872 by Johnny O on September 17, 2007 at 5:54 am

Isaac Newton was religious, but I would not call him ignorant...

Sorry Steve but I would. With quotes like, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

He spent more years of his life reading Religious texts, than scientific. He did discredit the Trinity, but he also searched the Bible for hidden messages and thought the world would end in 2060. He was also into mysticism and practically killed himself with his Alchemy.

Please don't get me wrong. Isaac Newton is a hero of mine. I carry an old £5.00 note with him on it, (and a £10.00 with Darwin), but because of the age he lived in, he was ignorant of a lot of things. As are we all.

I do however agree with your comments about making generalisations. In much the same way as we are all cold, emotionless, reductionists...

Other Comments by Johnny O

28. Comment #70874 by VanYoungman on September 17, 2007 at 6:00 am

Here's one:

Dawkins is a thief of time.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

29. Comment #70875 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 6:12 am

I have to say I am a little uncomfortable with Richard's letter with numerous pejorative undertones. The statement "It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology" appears to be designed to deliberately irritate Stanford/Cornwell than to make Atheism look like an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life.

Theology is the study of Gods and they are as real contributors to our culture as their inventors. The Bible is possibly our greatest, if flawed, ancient historical document. Biblical scholarship doesn't imply belief in God or Jesus. Indeed scholarship may well, as in Robin Lane Fox's excellent 'Unauthorised Version' give stregnth to the atheist view.

The problem is letting Theology become owned by solely Christian Theologians. The study of why people believe in God, how they believe and the consequences is increasingly important.

RD in TGD gave some tentative hypotheses in this direction. But that is all they were. Rather than attacking Theology I would hope RD who is, dare I say, becoming a little past the prime as a discovering student of the biological sciences is instead approaching his prime at applying his skills as a new theologian putting some meat behind those ideas.

Until we more fully understand the religious hold on the minds of otherwise sensible and intelligent people - we are not very well equipped to offer a cure!

Other Comments by brainsys

30. Comment #70877 by Jonathan Dore on September 17, 2007 at 6:22 am

Denoir writes:

The Courtier Reply is a binary proposition - the emperor is nude or he is not. Religion is true or it is not. It is that model that most moderate religious people and even liberal atheists have a problem with.

Suppose instead that there is a gradient - that some of the ideas are true while others are not. Then a binary model is inadequate.

To illustrate, let's take the bible as an example. Suppose we edited it and removed all supernatural references. Apart from a much thinner book, what would be get? Well, as Sam Harris would say, a lot of bronze age philosophy and morality and a little bit of other stuff. Suppose we removed the relay idiotic bronze age stuff, would there be something left? Possibly. And to discuss that remaining part, wouldn't it be advisable to read up on what influential thinkers throughout the ages have said about it? We don't entirely dismiss the ancient Greek philosophers today do we? In that context theology can be useful as a philosophical guide through the body of human religious works.

It is within that frame that you find legitimate disagreement with Dawkins' et al approach.

Sorry if I've missed something, but it seems to me that the questions "does a supernatural realm exist or not?", and specifically, "does a supernatural creator exist or not?", are indeed binary propositions, at whatever point you place them in a coninuum of other questions. Either they do exist or they don't. In your hypothetical example relating to the bible, by suggesting that one first strip out any reference to the supernatural you seem to me to be implicitly assuming a negative answer to this question. But if that's the case, then all that's left at the end of your biblical distillation process is some poetry and some moral philosophy, which requires no theology to engage with (except for historical purposes of studying past modes of thinking about morality).

So what I'm unclear about is how this distillation exercise would yield any information furnishing a "legitimate disagreement with Dawkins' approach", since the only point Dawkins makes that matters -- that God very probably does not exist -- has already been conceded.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

31. Comment #70880 by Jonathan Dore on September 17, 2007 at 6:38 am

brainsys writes: "Biblical scholarship doesn't imply belief in God or Jesus."

Indeed not, but biblical scholarship -- a historical, archaeological, and literary critical endeavour -- is not theology, and Dawkins has said many times that he has no quarrel with biblical scholarship. Theology is, rather, the study of thinking about gods -- the supernatural, whose existence it simply *assumes*. These are quite different fields, and you're not doing anyone any favours by trying to blur the boundaries between them.

Different again is the question of *why* people believe, which as you rightly say Dawkins made some tentative suggestions about in TGD. In the absence of more data, I think he's done as much as any one person can be expected to in this area: it's no more his special responsibility to "offer a cure" than it is anyone else's. In the meantime, you seem to be suggesting we should all refrain from pointing out the non-existence of gods until we have a fully developed explanation for how religion came about in the first place. Why is that?

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

32. Comment #70881 by epeeist on September 17, 2007 at 6:41 am

30. Comment #70875 by brainsys

Theology is the study of Gods and they are as real contributors to our culture as their inventors. The Bible is possibly our greatest, if flawed, ancient historical document. Biblical scholarship doesn't imply belief in God or Jesus. Indeed scholarship may well, as in Robin Lane Fox's excellent 'Unauthorised Version' give stregnth to the atheist view.

I have to disagree with you in a number of respects.

Theology might be the study of gods, but it assumes that said gods exist. A more worthwhile discipline that studies the subject without preconceptions would be social anthropology.

As for the bible (why do you capitalise it by the way?) being the greatest historical document, what about Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Homer's Illiad, Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, Herodotus' Histories, Confucius' Annalects, not to mention the libraries at Alexandria and Pergamon.

All of these to my mind are greater than the bible.

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #70882 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 6:42 am

Sorry Steve but I would [call Newton Ignorant]. With quotes like, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

That is not what I assumed was being meant by 'ignorant'. The implication was that religion resulted in relative ignorance compared to others in the same society. That certainly can't be said of Newton. I think it is meaningless to use ignorance in the sense you using it, as we are all ignorant about so much about the universe....

Other Comments by steve99

34. Comment #70887 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 6:59 am

epeeist - sorry I haven't got into how to quote yet but I find your post confused.

Why do I capitalise Bible - why do you capitalise Illiad? Because they are names of books and that is good English grammar. Something i don't always achieve ;-)

Those you quoted are indeed great books but don't have the scope of a thousand years of continual recording/updating/pruning which in itself tells as much as the original subject matter. Subjectively the KJV is as great a work of literacy in the English language you will find anywhere and surely the most beautiful work produced by a committee. Well the US constitution runs it close but is surely too short to be really up there as a work of art.

Returning to your main point about Gods not being real. I would suggest an urgent visit to the British Museum & National Gallery or your local equivelent. Gods are very real in their physical reality - either directly as in a figure or in iconic form. They are in even greater reality in the minds of too many men. That they are myths is perhaps only evident to us unbelievers.

Similary the words on my five pound note "The Governor of the Bank of England promises to pay the bearer on demand ... " is a similar myth but is part of the basis of the subject of Economics. I capitalise that too - since sadly this is an important subject to understand, name universities after and take very seriously - proven by governments who failed to!

Recapture theology on a fact based basis. Evolve the name as Alchemy became Chemistry if it helps ...

Other Comments by brainsys

35. Comment #70888 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 7:09 am

The statement "It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology" appears to be designed to deliberately irritate Stanford/Cornwell than to make Atheism look like an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life.

Richard has spelled out his view on theology very clearly before now - in fact, it's in the quotes section of this very website:

Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns.

The argument that's been thrown at him in the context of Darwin's Angel is that he hasn't dwelt on works of detailed theological analysis of the nature of God. In that context, theology ISN'T a serious subject, for the simple reason that you have to show that God exists AT ALL before it can be a serious undertaking to analyse whether or not he takes sugar in his coffee. Given that this accusation is being levelled again and again, it is worth pointing out the fatuousness of it, and doing so in a way that gets noticed.

All these reviews just keep on turning out the same, tired old nonsense - nonsense that has already been repudiated, both by TGD itself and in subsequent comments by Richard. The allegations made against him - loudly and repeatedly - are untrue and, to my mind, are becoming nastier.

Cornwell's book is a masterpiece of underhand, spiteful character assassination, yet it's being reviewed as though it were a delicate, light-footed, elegant, dainty work, some kind of modern day Anne of Green Gables. I don't think RD - or the rest of us - should stand by and just let that happen without challenge.

If a book makes allegations (allegations which are not then challenged by the reviewers of that book) that RD and by association other atheists believe that a) all religious people are fanatics and b) religion should be banned, and then goes on to suggest a link between these alleged views and the atrocities of Nazi Germany, then all of us have the right to stand up and say very loudly and very clearly indeed that we have been misrepresented.

I couldn't agree more that showing atheism to be an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life is going to be extremely important. But fleas and reviewers have got away with their lies for too long, and there comes a point where a cautionary roar becomes not just appropriate, but necessary.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

36. Comment #70890 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Amen (oops) to that, Northern Bright. Watch out, though, they'll be calling you Darwin's Rottweiller's Cerberus, or something similar, soon.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

37. Comment #70891 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Jonathan Dore wrote

"biblical scholarship -- a historical, archaeological, and literary critical endeavour -- is not theology"

Agreed and I didn't intend to imply that. I was seperating out the subject matter from the associated beliefs. Theology surely includes Thor, Zeus as well as Jesus. The most important 'reality' of all to specific groups in specific times. Whether RD's genetic prediliction to religion hypothesis equally explains these differing manifestations I do not know. that is surely why Theology is an interesting subject. And an important subject if one takes the current killing power of the Abrahamic faiths into account.

As I said - a far too important subject to be left solely to their adherents.

Other Comments by brainsys

38. Comment #70893 by epeeist on September 17, 2007 at 7:24 am

Comment #70887 by brainsys

Those you quoted are indeed great books but don't have the scope of a thousand years of continual recording/updating/pruning which in itself tells as much as the original subject matter.

And of course the study of Plato and Aristotle has been moribund since they produced their works. One could argue that they have had as much influence on Western society as the Bible.

Subjectively the KJV is as great a work of literacy in the English language you will find anywhere and surely the most beautiful work produced by a committee.

The Iliad and Odyssey were almost certainly produced by committee, as were many stories that stemmed from an oral tradition. "Sing, goddess, of the wrath of Achilles..." has much more power in raising the hair on the back of my neck than anything I can find in the Bible. Similarly, the appearance of the grail in Malory's Morte
d'Arthur.

Recapture theology on a fact based basis. Evolve the name as Alchemy became Chemistry if it helps ...

LOL - my elder daughter took a degree in social anthropology at Cambridge, this is the study of gods and myths on a factual basis.

As for me, most of the contributors here are aware of my background, here is a reference to one of my papers - http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/article.asp?doi=f29757101091

Other Comments by epeeist

39. Comment #70897 by CHeard on September 17, 2007 at 7:37 am

From my perspective as a biblical scholar, I think there is an important distinction to be made that is sometimes lost by discussants on "both" sides of reviews like the one referenced in Dawkins's "letter to the editor." On the one hand, an individual need not read deeply in theological literature in order to assess claims about God's (non)existence. It's clear from The God Delusion that Dawkins has read some theologians on this topic (Swinburne, for example), and is in a good position to discuss why he does not find arguments such as Swinburne's or Aquinas's persuasive. On the other hand, as I recall (and it's been a few months since my second reading of TGD), Dawkins occasionally does stray into matters of intramural theological dispute—in which case, I think it is important to have read more deeply on those particular topics. So one need not read deeply on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns, but if one wishes to speak on the vexed question of whether leprechauns "really" wear curly-toed shoes or flat-toed shoes, one really would need to engage the relevant literature to avoid charges of speaking "off the cuff" (unless one's sole point were that there is nothing "really there" to argue about).

Other Comments by CHeard

40. Comment #70902 by maton100 on September 17, 2007 at 7:56 am

It did, however, take several boxes of Lucky Charms to convince me.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

41. Comment #70903 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 7:58 am

"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity".

I goggled;

"Affection that I still retain for the Church"

and found;

"(at least by comparison with the competition)"

I read on and found, within the space of three paragraphs, a criticism of notions of God because they were too small, "My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way", and because they were too big, "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him."

I think it is understandable that the criticism you so obviously abhor, seems to arrive so often from people who, unlike myself and your kindly chaplain, are not so simple-minded.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

42. Comment #70906 by mrjonno on September 17, 2007 at 8:04 am

Regarding Newton being 'ignorant'

It really comes done to how you define the word,

Newton when he died knew less about physics than any 18 year old today with an A level in the subject (or the equivalent in the US). He was enlightened for his time but ignorant compared to ours.

This also applies in non-scientific subjects , for example ethics/morality, most 18 year olds today are more moral/ethical than the finest politicians of the 18th century (in particuarly the US founding fathers)

Other Comments by mrjonno

43. Comment #70907 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 8:04 am

Northern Bright (sorry about still not being able to quote).

Thank you for quoting RD's statement on Theology. I think that is spot on. But it jarred with his accusation 'so-called theology' (I paraphrase). Pejorative accusations are just too common (in all meanings of the word) amongst RD's critics for RD to appear to join them in retaliation.

Your point, I think, is that Cornwell's theology is garbage. I agree since it lacks reflection and self imposed critical analysis. It would methinks then just fall apart on the rock of reason.

Rubbishing that is fine. But Theology is too important to be left to the theologians - well the current lot who are just using the subject to justify their belief system. A well trained Zeusist should be able to take them apart just as a retiring geneticist might do ;-)

All I am suggesting is that we need to recapture the study of religion from the religionists. epeeist's view that should just be a subdivision of Social Anthropology doesn't take into effect the current structure of our University departments.

Other Comments by brainsys

44. Comment #70908 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 8:21 am

It also might be worth googling

"Publicly challenged by an American preacher to admit that, if approached by a gang of men in a dark alley, he would be reassured to learn that they had emerged from a prayer meeting, Hitchens's return volley was unplayable"

And clicking on your own article (you need to include the omitted results),

Followed by re-listening to

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

(You only need to listen to the first 3 minutes)

Then an audio search of "Dennis Prager" on your own site again.

Top it off by checking out "About Dennis" at http://www.dennisprager.com/about.html

And you should have found enough, Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities, to keep you going for quite some time.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

45. Comment #70909 by konquererz on September 17, 2007 at 8:24 am

After much consideration and studying the Bible and reading all the required atheist books, I have come to a decision. I am not an Atheist. Calm down, I'm not going god on the forum now!

I am not an atheist because I am an Anti-Theist. As already earlier stated, you need some theological training to be an anti-theist, you do not to be an atheist. But after a life time of theological study (at one point I was going to be a missionary) and five years of not believing, I can say I am not just a disbeliever, but I am against theism in general.

I did like Richards short sweet response in the Independent. Nothing else is needed. I have yet to read a book against Dawkins that displays the wit of someone who has actually read one of his books.

Other Comments by konquererz

46. Comment #70910 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:27 am

Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide.

Other Comments by revcort

47. Comment #70912 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 8:33 am

Your point, I think, is that Cornwell's theology is garbage. I agree since it lacks reflection and self imposed critical analysis. It would methinks then just fall apart on the rock of reason.

That wasn't quite my point, brainsys: Cornwell's welcome to pursue any kind of theology he wants to, so far as I'm concerned, especially if it keeps him too busy to write any more books.

It's his criticism of RD for not having studied the minutiae of the extensive and heated debate on whether the leprochaun wears curly-toed or flat-toed shoes (to use CHeard's image!) that I object to.

FIRST prove the existence of the leprochaun. THEN argue about his taste in footwear.
[EDIT: Oops. THEN learn how to spell "leprechaun." ;-)]

The problem with studying religion from an atheist point of view is that life is short and surely it makes more sense to use our limited time to study things that are likely to lead to new knowledge, rather than things that aren't - doesn't it?

Why should the theists call the tune on this? All their "holy" texts skip over the only god-related question that's of any interest, which is: is there really a god at all? They all just take it for granted that there is, and go straight on to the debate about what that god is like and whether he prefers Bach, Beethoven or the Beatles.

Like others here, I have no problem with the study of religion as a natural phenomenon, a psychological phenomenon, an evolutionary phenomenon or a cultural phenomenon. But as for the study of the nature of God, I really can't see it's of any more relevance to anything at all than the debate as to whether it's Cheddar or Lancashire cheese that the moon is made of.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

48. Comment #70913 by Mitchell Gilks on September 17, 2007 at 8:33 am

Fantastic indeed. I thoroughly enjoyed reading that, and it's so true. Where are the brake throughs in theology? Where are the discoveries and solved problems? Are there even any rules and guidelines? Is it not just plain whimsical imagination? Who other than theologians even consider theology a philosophy anymore?

I think that this point was illustated marvalously in "the facist delusion" reductio ad absurdum argumentum that was posted earily.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

49. Comment #70914 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2007 at 8:36 am

Revcort-

Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide

Who here has claimed that? RD certainly hasn't. I can't think of anyone who posts here who has said that they are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there is no god. And as for atheism being "intellectual suicide", that's a bit of a spurious statement. Care to back up that assertion?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

50. Comment #70916 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 8:36 am

Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide.

And do you know any atheists who make that claim, revcort?

Other Comments by Northern Bright