Print
A Revelation
by Naomi Schaeffer Riley
Reposted from:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010724
BIRMINGHAM, Ala.--The event had been sold out for weeks. Tickets were being offered on the black market for three times their face value. With 30 minutes to show time, the crowds were formhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/images/line.gifing outside, some wolfing down sandwiches in the parking lot. For this much excitement, people around here generally expect some serious football. Tonight, though, the buzz is over a debate between biologist Richard Dawkins and mathematician John Lennox. The subject, which may be even more important to this audience than whether Alabama can beat Auburn at the Iron Bowl this year: Does God exist?
Over the course of 90 minutes, Mr. Dawkins, 66, the infamous author of "The God Delusion," squared off with Mr. Lennox, 63, on such propositions as: "Faith is blind; science is evidence based," "Design is dead, otherwise one must explain who designed the designer" and "Christianity is dangerous." The two Oxford professors, who had never met before this evening, both displayed rhetorical skills in the best British tradition.
They clashed over whether it was Christianity that began the scientific revolution, whether the universe's complexity was evidence for a creator and whether atheism was itself a sort of faith. Some of the exchanges were funny, as when Mr. Lennox suggested that his opponent believed that his wife loved him even though it's not scientifically provable. "Is there any evidence for that?" Mr. Lennox asked. "Yes, plenty of evidence," Mr. Dawkins answered. "Never mind about my wife."
Mr. Lennox made some good points about Mr. Dawkins's attempt to divorce the atheism of the 20th century's tyrants from their deeds. But Mr. Dawkins held his own. When Mr. Lennox suggested that the Bible got it right (scientifically), in stating that the world was created out of something rather than having always existed, Mr. Dawkins quipped that there was a 50-50 chance the Bible would be correct. And Mr. Dawkins pointed out that for all of Mr. Lennox's attempts to show the scientific existence of a creator, he could still not manage to prove that Jesus was the son of God or that he was resurrected.
Their smart exchanges occasionally went outside of the debate format, despite the best efforts of their distinguished moderator, Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Dawkins's words sometimes veered into the provocative, as when he referred to "creationist lunacy," but for the most part the evening was remarkable for its civility. Each scholar received a round of applause after a few of his smarter remarks. But there was no hooting or hollering. Indeed, not one stray comment could be heard from the audience. I didn't make out a single sarcastic whisper from the college students sitting to my left or the middle-aged couples to my right.
Perhaps Mr. Dawkins was surprised by this reception. He recently referred to the Bible Belt states as "the reptilian brain of southern and middle America," in contrast to the "country's cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts." This debate marks the first time Mr. Dawkins has appeared in the Old South. Maybe his publishers suggested it would be a good idea. After all, "The God Delusion" and similar atheist tracts have been selling like hotcakes (or buttered grits) down here.
But why? Are Christians staying up late on Saturday night to read these books and failing to show up at church on Sunday morning, as Mr. Dawkins might hope? So far, the answer is no, according to Bill Hay, senior pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church just outside of Birmingham. He tells me that there hasn't been much of an exodus from his church as a result of these books. But he does think that his congregants are aware of them and want to know how to respond to such arguments. He notes that 200 men show up to church at 6 a.m. once a week for a class on Christian doctrine.
Lee Strobel, who used to be a teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in Southern California, tells me that he thinks there has been a nationwide "resurgence in apologetics" among evangelicals in response to the recent spate of atheism books. His own publications, "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" have sold well. But so has Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," Ravi Zacharias's "Reasons for Faith" and now, this month, the "Apologetics Study Bible," whose contributors include Chuck Colson and former Southern Baptist Seminary president Albert Mohler.
Defenders of the faith are drawing crowds of thousands in person as well. Next month, the Southern Evangelical Seminary will host a National Conference on Christian Apologetics, which will include a special segment for teens. Younger people are some of the most avid consumers of apologetics texts, according to Christian author Jonalyn Fincher, who speaks to college and high-school groups regularly. She says that in the 20th century, Christians often reacted to science's attacks on religion by "running away from culture." But in recent years more Christians have begun to take the attitude, "If our God is the God of truth, what are we afraid of?"
That is the attitude that John Lennox says he was raised with. In a brief biographical statement at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Lennox described a childhood in Northern Ireland surrounded by "sectarian violence" in which his parents encouraged him to read everything and "develop an interest in the great questions of life."
Mr. Dawkins, on the other hand, says he had a "harmless Anglican upbringing." As a teenager, he says he realized that his religion was merely an accident of his birth and soon thereafter gave up his faith. In some sense, it seems he was rebelling less against religion, per se, than against the kind of "harmless" worldview that simply glosses over "the great questions of life." And who can blame him? But if their interest in this debate is any marker, the people in this Birmingham audience did not come out of that tradition.
Ms. Riley is The Wall Street Journal's deputy Taste editor.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010724
BIRMINGHAM, Ala.--The event had been sold out for weeks. Tickets were being offered on the black market for three times their face value. With 30 minutes to show time, the crowds were formhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/images/line.gifing outside, some wolfing down sandwiches in the parking lot. For this much excitement, people around here generally expect some serious football. Tonight, though, the buzz is over a debate between biologist Richard Dawkins and mathematician John Lennox. The subject, which may be even more important to this audience than whether Alabama can beat Auburn at the Iron Bowl this year: Does God exist?
Over the course of 90 minutes, Mr. Dawkins, 66, the infamous author of "The God Delusion," squared off with Mr. Lennox, 63, on such propositions as: "Faith is blind; science is evidence based," "Design is dead, otherwise one must explain who designed the designer" and "Christianity is dangerous." The two Oxford professors, who had never met before this evening, both displayed rhetorical skills in the best British tradition.
They clashed over whether it was Christianity that began the scientific revolution, whether the universe's complexity was evidence for a creator and whether atheism was itself a sort of faith. Some of the exchanges were funny, as when Mr. Lennox suggested that his opponent believed that his wife loved him even though it's not scientifically provable. "Is there any evidence for that?" Mr. Lennox asked. "Yes, plenty of evidence," Mr. Dawkins answered. "Never mind about my wife."
Mr. Lennox made some good points about Mr. Dawkins's attempt to divorce the atheism of the 20th century's tyrants from their deeds. But Mr. Dawkins held his own. When Mr. Lennox suggested that the Bible got it right (scientifically), in stating that the world was created out of something rather than having always existed, Mr. Dawkins quipped that there was a 50-50 chance the Bible would be correct. And Mr. Dawkins pointed out that for all of Mr. Lennox's attempts to show the scientific existence of a creator, he could still not manage to prove that Jesus was the son of God or that he was resurrected.
Their smart exchanges occasionally went outside of the debate format, despite the best efforts of their distinguished moderator, Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Dawkins's words sometimes veered into the provocative, as when he referred to "creationist lunacy," but for the most part the evening was remarkable for its civility. Each scholar received a round of applause after a few of his smarter remarks. But there was no hooting or hollering. Indeed, not one stray comment could be heard from the audience. I didn't make out a single sarcastic whisper from the college students sitting to my left or the middle-aged couples to my right.
Perhaps Mr. Dawkins was surprised by this reception. He recently referred to the Bible Belt states as "the reptilian brain of southern and middle America," in contrast to the "country's cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts." This debate marks the first time Mr. Dawkins has appeared in the Old South. Maybe his publishers suggested it would be a good idea. After all, "The God Delusion" and similar atheist tracts have been selling like hotcakes (or buttered grits) down here.
But why? Are Christians staying up late on Saturday night to read these books and failing to show up at church on Sunday morning, as Mr. Dawkins might hope? So far, the answer is no, according to Bill Hay, senior pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church just outside of Birmingham. He tells me that there hasn't been much of an exodus from his church as a result of these books. But he does think that his congregants are aware of them and want to know how to respond to such arguments. He notes that 200 men show up to church at 6 a.m. once a week for a class on Christian doctrine.
Lee Strobel, who used to be a teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in Southern California, tells me that he thinks there has been a nationwide "resurgence in apologetics" among evangelicals in response to the recent spate of atheism books. His own publications, "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" have sold well. But so has Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," Ravi Zacharias's "Reasons for Faith" and now, this month, the "Apologetics Study Bible," whose contributors include Chuck Colson and former Southern Baptist Seminary president Albert Mohler.
Defenders of the faith are drawing crowds of thousands in person as well. Next month, the Southern Evangelical Seminary will host a National Conference on Christian Apologetics, which will include a special segment for teens. Younger people are some of the most avid consumers of apologetics texts, according to Christian author Jonalyn Fincher, who speaks to college and high-school groups regularly. She says that in the 20th century, Christians often reacted to science's attacks on religion by "running away from culture." But in recent years more Christians have begun to take the attitude, "If our God is the God of truth, what are we afraid of?"
That is the attitude that John Lennox says he was raised with. In a brief biographical statement at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Lennox described a childhood in Northern Ireland surrounded by "sectarian violence" in which his parents encouraged him to read everything and "develop an interest in the great questions of life."
Mr. Dawkins, on the other hand, says he had a "harmless Anglican upbringing." As a teenager, he says he realized that his religion was merely an accident of his birth and soon thereafter gave up his faith. In some sense, it seems he was rebelling less against religion, per se, than against the kind of "harmless" worldview that simply glosses over "the great questions of life." And who can blame him? But if their interest in this debate is any marker, the people in this Birmingham audience did not come out of that tradition.
Ms. Riley is The Wall Street Journal's deputy Taste editor.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, October 12, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 60 of 60 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #78625 by mmurray on October 13, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Well, given that the only conferences one could attend were the various church councils held to formalise points of doctrine you'd probably get invited and told to recant or have copies of your works ritually burned (this happened to Abelard twice, at Soissons in 1121 and Sens in 1141, both at the instigation of his nemesis St. Bernard and Bernard's nasty little bootlick William of St. Thierry). The closest thing to "publishing" that existed was having your works copied out by university stationers or the friars of your own mendicant order, and you wouldn't get that far if you weren't largely orthodox in your thinking. Your ideas might be ridiculed and argued against by other authors who did circulate widely however, as those of the Cathars were. Tenure at Universities was again done by co-option, some chairs belonging to the mendicant orders and others to 'secular' masters. You wouldn't get the required theology degrees if you consistently espoused heretical ideas, so that too was out.
Sorry I didn't mean literally that people then would publish or go to conferences. I was trying to respond to your comment
This is not really all that different from modern science except that the facts which needed explaining in the first place come from scriptural assertion as well as observation and (occasionally) experimental test.
in as much as I think the big difference is what happened if you found a theory that disagreed with what was regarded by others in the field as true. In fact I was setting out the worst of what might happen to you in modern science. What also might happen is you get applauded for your new idea because finding new and better ideas is what science is supposed to be about. The fact that both modern scholars and medieval scholars used logical disputation and argument seems to me a superficial similarity. The medieval scholars were supposed to be trying to find theories to support a pre-existing view of the world whereas modern science is trying to understand the world. IMHO these are two very different things.
Of course particlar individuals may have been trying to understand the world but I don't believe that was what the Church wanted them to do. I don't have a problem by the way with medieval scholars not understanding as much about the world as we do or believing in some form of deity. IMHO the latter was reasonable until Darwin killed of the argument by design.
I am no expert in medieval history but I don't see anything in what you are saying to suggest that science would not have proceeded more rapidly without the church and the inquisition. Was that what you were saying or were you just saying the church was not as big a brake on scientific progress as we are often led to believe by simplified accounts?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
53. Comment #78634 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 1:28 am
This is from the Mathematical Institute on the Univ. Oxford web site:Congratulations to Professor Victor Flynn, Professor Marc Lackenby, Professor Hilary Priestley, and Professor Alex Scott on the award of the title of Professor, and to Dr John Lennox on the award of the title of Reader.
dated 14/9/2007
No wonder RD said he had never heard of Lennox prior to the silly 'debate'. Lennox is nowhere near the same league as RD.
I am glad I searched that out:-). Puts my mind at rest, at least.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
54. Comment #78652 by Polydactyl on October 14, 2007 at 5:05 am
mmurray:Well, don't all theories start from some pre-existing view of the world? You can't have a theory in a mental vacuum. Medieval medical theory was based on the model outlined by Galen (2ndc.) which provided a framework of anatomy and physiology on which medieval doctors built. In our view they were too accepting of Galen: they should have done some anatomy of their own, but, as Cartomancer says, developing modern structures of enquiry takes time, and when they got hold of Galen he seemed so far in advance of what they had that they bought him wholesale. But they did criticise, enlarge, and develop. As Kuhn says, you don't get a paradigm shift in science until there is a mass of accumulated data which doesn't fit with your theoretical framework: that is when you throw out the old frame and propose a new one (which will be thrown out in its turn).
And much of medieval religion thought enquiry into nature was virtuous: the examination of 'God's work'. So nature was examined, and, since Darwin, we have come to suspect that it isn't 'God's work' at all--but it took a long time to come to that view. Typically the larger the frame around a system of thought, the harder it is to see it or change it. The church's emphasis on literacy and education is something we all have reason to be grateful for.
Other Comments by Polydactyl
55. Comment #78696 by Bonzai on October 14, 2007 at 10:54 am
Polydactyl,Well, don't all theories start from some pre-existing view of the world?
Yes, but in science the pre-existing theory is only a starting point which is then subjected to confirmation or falsification by observation and the theory is then updated accordingly. If science is just having a pre-existing theory then theology and all dogmatic systems would be "science'!
The Church started and ended with the same "pre-existing theory", which was off limit to any challenge by evidence. Within the dogmatic systems scholars were allowed to ask questions along the line of how many angels can dance on a pin, I have no doubt some scholastic skills developed through such activities turned out to be useful in science later. But at its core the Christian tradition was in conflict with the spirit of science, as are all theocracies. This is way more fundamental than their "theory" just being wrong.
You and cartomancer are obviously very knowledgeable about medieval history but just as clear you have no idea what science is and how it works. None of your erudite posts support your original claim that Christian tradition in intrinsically tied to and necessary for the emergence of science.
The church's emphasis on literacy and education is something we all have reason to be grateful for.
If I am not mistaken universal literacy is a recent development. The Church actually had a vested interest to monopolize literacy and education and use them as weapon and tools for control. This is a quite typical pattern in all societies that have created the written words.
As the gate keeper and censor of information of literacy all knowledge went through the filter of the Church. So it "provided" the precondition for science just by default.
It seems that you are really going out of your way to give undeserved credits to Christianity.
Other Comments by Bonzai
56. Comment #78701 by Polydactyl on October 14, 2007 at 11:20 am
But all the evidence, before the Renaissance, tended to support the 'God hypothesis'; it would hardly have been possible to question the 'evidence' of the senses until the whole intellectual system was shaken to breaking point by the telescope, the microscope, etc. etc. It sure looks as if the sun rises and sets; Copernicus developed a theory which defied the 'evidence' and was subsequently proved correct.A god hypothesis lay behind the most influential classical philosophers and scientists too: it is hard to know how anybody living then could have 'tested' it: the argument from design was pretty compelling before the Darwinian explanation provided an alternate solution.
Surely we must hold assumptions today which seem wholly 'scientific' to us, but which will be exploded by a later paradigm. All I am saying is what Cartomancer put better: it makes no sense to attack a mudfish for not having evolved legs.
Medieval medicine was based on incorrect assumptions, but the church had nothing to do with the forging or preservation of those assumptions; only the accumulation of centuries of intellectual effort would prove them wrong.
Other Comments by Polydactyl
57. Comment #78704 by Bonzai on October 14, 2007 at 11:36 am
And much of medieval religion thought enquiry into nature was virtuous: the examination of 'God's work'.
Sorry man, this is typical Weberian bs. You can take some broad feature in any ideological system and spin it to support opposing theses. Encouragement to examine "God's work" can also spawn grotesque offsprings such as "Islam science" now in full rage in the Muslim world and creationism.
As an example of Weberian Bs "theory" at work according to Weber the Confician system stifled independent thinking through tight thought control (not unlike the medieval Church)and was responsible for Asia's backwardness but now sociologists of the same school attribute it to the rise of Asian economical power because of its
emphasis on learning and education. You can prove any thesis using such method with the help of hindsights.
Other Comments by Bonzai
58. Comment #78707 by Bonzai on October 14, 2007 at 12:05 pm
But all the evidence, before the Renaissance, tended to support the 'God hypothesis'; it would hardly have been possible to question the 'evidence' of the senses until the whole intellectual system was shaken to breaking point by the telescope, the microscope, etc. etc. It sure looks as if the sun rises and sets; Copernicus developed a theory which defied the 'evidence' and was subsequently proved correct.
But the Church went much further than upholding the "God hypothesis" which I agree was not particular relevant. Rather, it enforced a very specific view about God and trinity based on Church teaching. One risked persecution if he disputed these dogmas.
This was the intellectual atmosphere of Christiandom. Freethinking and questioning were ruthlessly suppressed, these are the oxygen of science.
Now scientists were not the unique victims under this system. Dissenting theologians and philosophers were probably most targeted. But it would be perverted to argue that this proves that Christianity encouraged science.
You and Cartomancer keep saying that it is ok that they got the wrong theories. Well, I don't make my judgment based on the correctness of medieval theories, but on the intrinsic conflict between theological dogmatism, Bible literalism and the spirit of science. The role of the Church was fundamentally to enforce and propagate dogma. It was an over-arching anti-science function, anything else that might have helped the development of science along the way (scholastic skills, libraries etc) was incidental.
Other Comments by Bonzai
59. Comment #78709 by Bonzai on October 14, 2007 at 12:17 pm
What's with you guys nitpicking about titles? This has to be the most asinine "discussion" on this site by some otherwise very intelligent and well informed people.Freeman Dyson doesn't have a Ph.D.,--may not even have a master, though have to check that,--so what? He contributes a lot more to physics than many "Doctors" combined.
Other Comments by Bonzai
60. Comment #78729 by Cartomancer on October 14, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I would never argue that the Christian church was a necessary precondition for the development of scientific thought - that would be to engage in very unhelpful counterfactual speculation indeed. I approach the issue as an historian, which means that I am concerned to explain how the situation we see today actually did get to be the way it is, not to speculate how things might have been were certain factors different.I can just about imagine a society developing a scientific mindset, from scratch, from atheistic or polytheistic beginnings, although since no society on earth has ever been without religion it is a stretch to imagine what it would be like.
Were we able to run the universe again from the beginning several times, removing all trace of Christianity as and when it arises, and at the end of this experiment see whether European society developed scientific thought as quickly, less quickly or more quickly, then maybe these speculations would be valid. As it happens history is not an experimental science. I don't go to the lab every morning, rustle up a patch of synthetic twelfth century and then examine what it does under controlled conditions. I cannot isolate one variable, in this case religiosity, and assign it an absolute mathematical value in the production of scientific thought. The impact of Christian values, the institutional church and religiosity in general on the shaping of Western thought is very complex, multi-faceted and impossible to circumscribe absolutely. Counterfactual history is an amusing parlour game but nothing more - the evidence we have simply does not admit of that degree of precision in our calculations.
I'm not playing the "let's rate Christianity's moral worth as a cultural force in history" game, because history is not about points scoring. It happened. We can't change that. It doesn't matter whether Christianity was entirely responsible for the birth of science in the middle ages or not responsible at all as far as the modern world is concerned - it is quite demonstrably opposed to science now and that, first and foremost, is what we should be worrying about.
I think you draw too absolute a distinction between "coming up with evidence to support a pre-existing theory" and "trying to understand the universe". There is an implicit assumption in what you say that people were implicitly able to tell the difference. As Polydactyl says, we know now that the earth goes around the sun but this is a counter-intitive idea and in order to figure it out you need to have some quite recondite observations under your belt made with the aid of a decent telescope and some advanced maths. The sun rotating around the earth was not considered a theory at this time, it was considered a fact. Likewise before Einstein the idea of absolute time was not considered a theory but a fact. Sometimes, quite often in fact, it is only when new evidence emerges that you feel the need to question the validity of your underlying assumptions at all.
Likewise, when pretty much everybody believes there is a God who wrote the scriptures - and the science of the day backs up this hypothesis - scriptures become a bona fide source of scientific fact. The mistake you make is to think that they were viewed as an alternative source of ideas from nature and did not have the backing of scientific method. Consider the state of science today. If it were demonstrated, irrefutably, with scientific evidence, that the contents of the Bible were indeed written by some infallible divine agency then modern science would HAVE to treat them as a specially valid source of information on reality just like the medievals did. If the book says Virgin Birth then there must have been one. If it says there's a hell then that must exist too. If they don't exist then the Infallible Magic Book Hypothesis doesn't hold up. Which then is more fantastic to believe, that the book is wrong and so there is no God (i.e. the only plausable metaphysical system contemporary science has dreamed up is wrong), or that Virgin Births are possible through a slight kink in the operation of reality? There is not enough evidence to warrant a paradigm shift, so why complain that there isn't one?
How easy is it today to write an academic paper in biology arguing against Darwinism? Very difficult indeed. Why? Because there is an evil Darwinist Conspiracy that suppresses all attempts to argue otherwise? No, it's Because there isn't any evidence you can find that contradicts Darwinism. Should any such evidence actually come to light in the future then yes, Darwinism might become an untenable paradigm, but we have not discovered that evidence yet and cannot be called to task for not having done so. This is exactly the situation the medievals were in with regard to the God Hypothesis, and if you can't argue against the God Hypothesis then you pretty much have to take it as scientific fact.
Yes, the role of the church was to enforce dogma, but it was also the role of the church to promulgate dogmas based on what wasconsidered to be the truth. That's what all these libraries and universities were FOR - so that theologians, philosophers and scientists could research the truth as best they might and so their dogmas would be correct. You seem to be under the impression that theologians are a specialist wing of the church in the middle ages and subordinate to a class of evil, anti-intellectual censors whose only job is to cackle maniacally while prohibiting independent thought. This isn't the case at all: pretty much all the major policy-making church bureaucrats held theology degrees and their primary concern was exactly what they said it was - to teach people the truth about God as they understood it. We have professors of the public understanding of science - are they evil conspirators working to stifle intellectual freedom too?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."
Charlie Chaplin
Other Recommended Reading
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #78510 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 11:17 am
In my earlier remark I was responding to the conversation between MartinSGill, Vendetta, and Matt7895, about when to address a person as "professor" verses "doctor" in the US verses UK. Specifically, I was questioning this assertion:
Other Comments by Dr Benway