Monday, June 30, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

by Telegraph

Thanks to Tony Newberry for the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/30/do3005.xml

Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism
By George Pitcher

This week sees the anniversary of one of the greatest landmarks in the history of science. Tomorrow we commemorate the great day, exactly 150 years ago, that Charles Darwin unveiled his theory of evolution by natural selection, the most authoritative scientific challenge to Biblical accounts of our origins in, well, the history of the universe.

So we can expect the celebrations of Darwin's genius to start this week and run through next year, the 200th anniversary of the great man's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species.

Less happily, there will doubtless be jolly parties with themes like "The Death of God", at which Professor Richard Dawkins will appear in human form alongside his apostle, Christopher Hitchens, to the rapture of his atheistic disciples. Sinful bishops and rabbis will be forgiven, so long as they repent, and secularists will move among the people, with Darwin's sacred text to guide them, singing "Happy Birthday to Reason."

But wait a minute. Or, indeed, a millennium. As the wonderful Oxford don John Hedley Brooke puts it, we should be careful about pigeon-holing the man who wouldn't pigeon-hole pigeons.

Wasn't Darwin also a man of God, who wrestled with some form of faith throughout his life? Was he not intensely respectful of the relationships between science and faith? Should atheists, such as Dawkins, really adopt Darwin as their champion?

Yes, yes and no, in that order. But I just want to suggest that Darwin wasn't the father of atheism; that his story is far more complex than that and that his contribution to the relationship between faith and reason is what really counts, rather than whether he came down firmly on one side or the other, like Sir Alan Sugar deciding whether to hire or fire God.

This ambition will not be achieved by a simple narrative of the arc of his life, from going up to Cambridge to take holy orders, to his early Bible-quoting evangelism on HMS Beagle during his scientific Grand Tour, to a deistic position when he wrote On the Origin of Species, and his later agnosticism (and very probably atheism in the face of family tragedy).

Far better to see Darwin in the theological context of his time. The prevalent Victorian religious mindset was Natural Theology and, if its principal proponent, William Paley, would forgive the paraphrase, it ran that life, the universe and everything was too ordered, too complex, too coincidental and too downright beautiful to have come about by accident. It followed that it all must have had a benign and purposeful creator.

Little wonder that Darwin's revelations about evolution undermined that. But he was still able to write this intriguing confession, about the effects of contemporary theology on him, in The Descent of Man: "I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures [which are] neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work." Darwin was apparently unable to annul his former belief that each species had been created on purpose. And this led him to assume that everything "was of some special, though unrecognised, service."

But it wasn't his science that destroyed his residual faith; it was the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. Darwin's alienation from his former faith was driven by bitter personal experience, not cold, scientific analysis, as those who hail him as faith's nemesis might like to claim.

In later life, Darwin refrained from committing himself to atheism. He tended to have theistic moments, such as when contemplating how the universe came to be here at all. Darwin intuitively understood the pre-Enlightenment relationship between faith and reason, or the idea of a reasonable faith that is as old as Augustine. Unlike today's posturing and positioning, he was a brave and honest explorer of all that makes us work. That's what we should be celebrating and aspiring to recapture this week.

Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 51 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #201724 by alexmzk on June 30, 2008 at 7:39 am

Less happily, there will doubtless be jolly parties with themes like "The Death of God", at which Professor Richard Dawkins will appear in human form alongside his apostle, Christopher Hitchens, to the rapture of his atheistic disciples. Sinful bishops and rabbis will be forgiven, so long as they repent, and secularists will move among the people, with Darwin's sacred text to guide them, singing "Happy Birthday to Reason."

...yuck.

Other Comments by alexmzk

2. Comment #201726 by kraut on June 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

And what is the aim of this useless bit of drivel?

Other Comments by kraut

3. Comment #201729 by bugaboo on June 30, 2008 at 7:45 am

Now i remember why i dont buy the torygraph.

Other Comments by bugaboo

4. Comment #201741 by Philip1978 on June 30, 2008 at 7:54 am

Normally the Telegraph writes out some thought provoking articles but this is utter drivel!

There is no "Father of Atheism", I would have thought that should be one thing that is abundantly clear. There were many atheists before Darwin became one!

What Darwin has done for atheism, if anything, was to provide people with a starting point for a clearer explanation of how life evolved over millions of generations on this planet.

This article makes it look like Richard Dawkins & co have somehow put Darwin on some ridiculous pedestal - almost like worship.

NO, the reason why we are celebrating Darwin's achievements is because of his contribution to science, his work helped raise people's conciousness about evolution. The world has a lot to thank Darwin for and good on them for doing it.

I for one will be raising a hefty cup of Tea and making a general fuss about it, I promise!

Other Comments by Philip1978

5. Comment #201744 by jimbob on June 30, 2008 at 7:57 am

But it wasn't his science that destroyed his residual faith; it was the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. Darwin's alienation from his former faith was driven by bitter personal experience, not cold, scientific analysis, as those who hail him as faith's nemesis might like to claim.

I wonder if there is a citation or quote to support this assertion!

Other Comments by jimbob

6. Comment #201745 by Roel on June 30, 2008 at 7:57 am

Then why do so many theists have so much trouble with Darwin?

Other Comments by Roel

7. Comment #201760 by bitbutter on June 30, 2008 at 8:16 am

But I just want to suggest that Darwin wasn't the father of atheism;

No shit sherlock. Did you hear anyone saying otherwise, or is this the straw man it looks like?

Other Comments by bitbutter

8. Comment #201765 by henrah on June 30, 2008 at 8:32 am

What a vacuous answer to a question nobody asked. It seems that where rationalists are happy to revel in the beauty of the natural order and the splendour of scientific achievement, religious apologists can only see their own idolatry reflected back.

Other Comments by henrah

9. Comment #201766 by Quetzalcoatl on June 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

No! Really?

- Head hits desk -

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

10. Comment #201767 by Ygern on June 30, 2008 at 8:40 am

Oh good grief.

What's that excellent word Irate_Atheist uses again? It really applies here.

Other Comments by Ygern

11. Comment #201769 by Border Collie on June 30, 2008 at 8:43 am

I guess these guys have to write something, anything, to get their paychecks ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

12. Comment #201780 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

My comment has just appeared there:

I wasn't aware that anyone had seriously claimed that Darwin WAS the father of atheism! (There were many atheists before him). So why bother to write this much to say he wasn't?

Some people here haven't caught up with the modern science of evolution. It is hard to over-emphasise just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years.

Some people have specialised religious beliefs that contradict evolution. Trying to defend religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it!

A reason that many atheists criticise religion(s) is that religions often attempt to force or constrain people who don't share those beliefs. A good working model is:

"Religions are hobbies".

(More accurately, religious practices are hobbies). If all parties, (governments, religions, religious people, and atheists), work to that model, we can all coexist much better.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

13. Comment #201781 by Raiko on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

Less commas and more context, please.

Other Comments by Raiko

14. Comment #201784 by Tezcatlipoca on June 30, 2008 at 9:08 am

So this article is what happens when you bang away at a keyboard with your head up your ass? I would call it a bunch of tripe. But I like tripe, simmered with chili powder and various other spices, a bit of hominy and topped off with onion and a bit of lemon.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

15. Comment #201794 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 30, 2008 at 9:18 am

Crap article but its the Torygraph talking about religion what do you expect.

Because that's the only reason anyone really is an atheist isn't it. They're angry at God.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

16. Comment #201810 by catskill on June 30, 2008 at 9:37 am

"Far better to see Darwin in the theological context of his time. The prevalent Victorian religious mindset was Natural Theology and, if its principal proponent, William Paley, would forgive the paraphrase, it ran that life, the universe and everything was too ordered, too complex, too coincidental and too downright beautiful to have come about by accident. It followed that it all must have had a benign and purposeful creator."

This is funny. The theological context of Victorian times. Creationism. The author makes it sound like this thinking is from a different era, yet this same argument is getting pushed into our schools even today.

Other Comments by catskill

17. Comment #201815 by MrPinz on June 30, 2008 at 9:38 am

Has this guy even read any of Richards' books?

Other Comments by MrPinz

18. Comment #201823 by notsobad on June 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

More bullshit from the Telegraph.

Other Comments by notsobad

19. Comment #201825 by mikecbraun on June 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

Duh...everyone knows that the father of atheism was Roger Atheism, who invented atheism in his basement in 1943 in Skokie, Illinois.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

20. Comment #201840 by Thurston on June 30, 2008 at 10:02 am

George Pitcher is an ordained minister so perhaps his contribution was always going to be an answer to a question no one asked.

Comment #201825 by mikecbraun: that really made me laugh.

Other Comments by Thurston

21. Comment #201851 by Matt H. on June 30, 2008 at 10:29 am

Yet more hopeless drivel from the broadsheet edition of the Daily Mail.

I'm deeply ashamed that my parents still insist on buying it.

Other Comments by Matt H.

22. Comment #201852 by eh-theist on June 30, 2008 at 10:30 am

You guys all missed the point.

Atheism has no father - it was born by means of immaculate conception.

Other Comments by eh-theist

23. Comment #201854 by Sciros on June 30, 2008 at 10:33 am

WHAAAT? I thought Darwin discovered that god doesn't exist when an apple fell on him and he was like "sweet an apple" and he ate it and he still didn't give a damn about being naked so he realized the whole Adam and Eve thing was bullshit and that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor.

Other Comments by Sciros

24. Comment #201872 by Faithhead on June 30, 2008 at 11:03 am

But I just want to suggest that Darwin wasn't the father of atheism

Really...

It can't be...

Where's my Bible...

Oh wait, I knew all this already. At what point did his rebucke the fact Darwin's finding tore down one of the strongest and most commonly held Dogma's of the christian(and i'm sure other) faith.

Hahahaha. Good one eh-theist

Other Comments by Faithhead

25. Comment #201873 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 11:06 am

Richard Dawkins will appear in human form alongside his apostle, Christopher Hitchens

I, for one, would love to see 'the Hitches' face if he reads that.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

26. Comment #201877 by Robert Maynard on June 30, 2008 at 11:11 am

I liked the part where they made up that anyone has ever suggested Darwin is the father of atheism, or that his religious opinions have any bearing on anyone elses.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

27. Comment #201878 by Vaal on June 30, 2008 at 11:12 am

How does this fatuous claptrap get past the editor of a major national newspaper? They should be ashamed at writing such amateur histrionics.

"Dawkins and his apostles, his atheistic disciples, jolly parties with themes like "The Death of God, secularists will move among the people, with Darwin's sacred text"

I regret to inform you, Mr Pitcher, that clothing atheist's with the mantle of religious allegory is a fools errand, as we are the opposite of religion, the opposite of faith without evidence. Assigning ridiculous labels is self defeating bigotry and not worthy of a columnist on any respectable newspaper. It is the tripe that I would expect from David Robertson. Grow up!

Other Comments by Vaal

28. Comment #201883 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 30, 2008 at 11:18 am

How does this fatuous claptrap get past the editor of a major national newspaper?

In addition to the "Daily Torygraph" (see above), Private Eye has also dubbed the paper the "Telavivograph"[citation needed], and "The Daily Hurleygraph" or "The Daily Tottygraph" for their frequent printing of the pictures of Liz Hurley and other notable attractive women, or as the "Maily Telegraph"[12] and "Daily Mailograph"[12] for the Eye's opinion that the newspaper sometimes focuses on issues traditionally seen as the preserve of the Daily Mail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph#Satire

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

29. Comment #201885 by Isaksson on June 30, 2008 at 11:20 am

What the hell was that all about? *points to the article*

Ive come to belive that in order for us as a species to survive, we have adopded many ways of working around our shortcomings.

This might be one option..

As infants we grab hold of our parents and guardians, and as we get just a little bit older and start to explore our world around us, we listen and believe what they say without reservation. (Atleast untill we are able to make up our own minds.) Thus, I think, we are all born atheists.

For whatever reason, we sometime in our amcestral past became self aware, and was able form abstract thinking outside of ou selfes. But we didnt know very much, and we hadnt yet developed the ways to figure things out. That might have been the birth of early religiouse thoughts, as a way of explaining, for our ancestors, the unexplainable.

For a society with a great number of people to coexist, you need some type of thing that unifies them. As a result, its not far fetched to see religion filling this gap. It might at one time have stilled both our lack of knowlage and kept folks in line with the rulers laws, for the sake of prosperity and what not.

So, it would be only natural for parents, that has learned to survive in their particular society by their parents, to teach their kids what they have learned throughout generation after generation.

This, however, I dont think is the case today. People are figuring out that they can survive, and undertand this world without any notions of god/gods, ancestral spirits or whatever, that says you can and cannot do certain things. We have other things that takes the place of religion, and those things only gets better as time moves forward.

I might ofcource be wrong, as im not a scientist or some such. But I wonder if the stonage people could even begin to grasp a notion like this.

In other words, Darwin does not seem to be the bloody father of atheism, evolution was, just as it was the father of religion, as a means of survival. He was the discoverer of evolution. Big fucking difference.

Wether religion is a byproduct of some other beneficial evolutionary happenstance, or the social evolution as we got more numerouse, I dont know.

If an arse like me can play around with my thoughts and form something like this with the bits and pieces I have heard here and there, how come older and more intelligent folk with more experience than me can't?

Other Comments by Isaksson

30. Comment #201897 by clodhopper on June 30, 2008 at 11:50 am

I demand we dig him up and do a paternity test and report him to the CSA or whateverthefuckreplacedit. I want my maintenance payments backdated.

Other Comments by clodhopper

31. Comment #201915 by mikecbraun on June 30, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Uncle Charlie not yo' Baby Daddy!

Other Comments by mikecbraun

32. Comment #201935 by Not the Messiah on June 30, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I find it quite ironic that the Reverend Pitcher chooses to mock Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens by dressing them up in religious trappings..

"Disciples! Ho-Ho! Forgiveness of sins, rapture, sacred texts, how silly do they now appear!"

..uh, you're a curate??

I'm reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction when the two main characters have to change out of their bloodstained suits into T-shirts and shorts:

WOLF: You guys look like... what do they look like, Jimmie?

JIMMIE: Dorks. They look like a couple of dorks!

The Wolf and Jimmie laugh.

JULES: Ha ha ha. They're your clothes, motherfucker.

Other Comments by Not the Messiah

33. Comment #201939 by tobybarrett on June 30, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Darwin famously said that his theory was "like confessing a murder". Sounds like his discovery of natural selection helped him lose his faith to me.

Of course, the death of his daughter was probably a factor as well. The Problem of Evil led others to doubt an omnipotent, benevolent god before Darwin.

Other Comments by tobybarrett

34. Comment #201945 by Auraboy on June 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Pat Robertson was not the father of Christianity - An essay.

Other Comments by Auraboy

35. Comment #201949 by irate_atheist on June 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm

In a way, it's a good thing that the priesthood still exists. After all, can you imagine just how dangerous a fuckwit like this would be as, say, a doctor or a car mechanic?

Breathtaking inanity.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

36. Comment #201956 by Monty Burns on June 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm

The problem with Pitcher specifically and The Torygraph more generally is that religious faith has nothing to do with Christian values (just look at some of the downright nasty, misinformed, lying, vitriolic comments from the Christians in the original article, if you don't believe me). It's all about tradition, a defence of "Britishness" and a deep-seated fear of "Islamification". Basically, I think they're pretty bloody insecure.

Pitcher pops his head up and utters some rubbish every few weeks or so. It's usually low-grade sophistry rather than razor-sharp rhetoric, although I don't doubt he thinks he's really putting us atheists in their place.

Anyway, here's a challenge, George: refute the arguments, don't attack the people making them. Tell us why we should believe your superstitions rather than just repeating the same old rubbish in the hope that our brains stop working at some point and we "see the light". Go on. I dare you.

Other Comments by Monty Burns

37. Comment #201978 by toddaa on June 30, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Should atheists, such as Dawkins, really adopt Darwin as their champion? ..no

I, for one, agree with Mr. Pitcher. We already have a perfectly good set of atheist champions in Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler.

Other Comments by toddaa

38. Comment #201982 by Sciros on June 30, 2008 at 2:15 pm

In Oblivion whenever I walk past an NPC they're all like "How may I assist you, Champion?"

My character is atheist btw, despite fighting/owning "gods" here and there. I figure, if they're really gods, then my character is beyond a god.

Hitler wasn't atheist, most likely, even by the end of the war. He most certainly wasn't one before he came to power, and eventually seemed to view Christianity as an obstacle to Nazi power but there's just not enough evidence to say he abandoned a belief in a god altogether.

Other Comments by Sciros

39. Comment #201984 by 8teist on June 30, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Russian Orthodox,Fuck knows What & Catholic

Other Comments by 8teist

40. Comment #202005 by mandrellian on June 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Well, it looks like the Tele has those thousand monkeys at their thousand typewriters again. Bless. I do hope they keep trying though, because they're a long way from a coherent article with a point, let alone a Pulitzer.

Other Comments by mandrellian

41. Comment #202006 by mmurray on June 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm

I assume this is the guy:

George Pitcher is a journalist, author, public relations pioneer and an Anglican priest. He was Industrial Editor of The Observer between 1988 and 1991, during which his commentary on the high summer of Thatcherite utility privatisation led to the Industrial Society (the precursor to the Work Foundation) voting him National Newspaper Industrial Journalist of the Year in 1991. In 1992, he co-founded the innovative communications consultancy Luther Pendragon with Charles Stewart-Smith, the television journalist. The firm grew through the Nineties of the back of major and often controversial clients such as British Gas, Kimberly Clark, Holocaust Memorial Day and the Hinduja family. Luther Pendragon lays claim to having developed the professional practice of issues management, but this is disputed in the PR industry. In 2006, the firm was subject to a management buy-out, said to be worth £11 million by the trade magazine PR Week. Pitcher had undertaken training for ordained ministry in the Church of England and was ordained curate of St Bride's, Fleet Street, London - known as The Media Church. He has proved a contentious priest, organising debates in church and a Christmas concert by Seventies supergroup Jethro Tull. He occasionally attacks the conservative evangelical wing of the Church in print.

(From wikipedia.)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

42. Comment #202014 by Mr. Davies on June 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm

This is an interesting article to compare...
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256758
It also has the "Happy Birthday to Reason' song reference.

And the "can't pigeon hole.... " quote.

This paper reeks of plagiarism..

Other Comments by Mr. Davies

43. Comment #202030 by Cartomancer on June 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Scenes from George Pitcher's Fevered Imagination:

Charles Darwin: Salutations my good man on this fine winter morning, It is I, Charles Darwin, and I have yet more business with which to engage your superlative bureaucratic services.

Patent Office Clerk: I hope it's not another theory of biological development Mr. Darwin, because we had a hell of a job sorting out that debacle with you and Mr. Wallace on the last one. A new model of your famous electric barnacle scoop perhaps?

CD: No no, even better than that good sir - I've invented a wonderful little something called Atheism and would like to apply for a patent as soon as possible.

POC: And what would this "Atheism" do exactly Mr. Darwin?

CD: It's a hobby I came up with to pass the time between beetle-collecting trips. Basically what you do is sit there, doing whatever you would otherwise, but while you're doing it you try as hard as you can not to believe in god.

POC: I see. Which god would that be, Mr. Darwin, that you try not to believe in?

CD: All of them my good man, absolutely all of them! That's what makes it so much fun. I started out with the easy ones like Isis and Thor and Vishnu, and gradually moved up to Allah, Yahweh and even Mother Nature herself. When you get the number of gods down to zero you've won the game and can go and have a nice cup of tea to celebrate, but if you start believing in any of them at a later stage then you've got to start playing again until you're back down to zero. I've been playing it for several years now, and it really is a wonderful way to occupy one's leisure hours.

POC: Fascinating. I doubt it'll catch on, but that's beside the point - I can't give you a patent for that Mr. Darwin, it's already been invented.

CD: It has? Oh that is a shame. Was it Wallace again or has someone else pipped me to the post?

POC: It's been around for quite a while actually. The last gentleman we had in here with a patent for something like it was that gruff Mr. Hume from Scotland. But they played it in ancient Greece you know. Except they used different gods and there was a rule where you had to take a drink each time you got it wrong. I think the board was smaller too and there was a pack of chance cards which made things more interesting.

CD: The Sybilline Books you mean?

POC: I think those were the ones, yes sir.

CD: Sounds rather more complicated than my version, but it's a fair deal. Oh well, never mind. It was worth a shot. Maybe my friend Huxley's "agnosticism" game is sufficiently different that it will qualify.

POC: There's always hope sir, wouldn't want to discourage great minds like yours from doing their thing.

CD: Indeed not. Okay, well, thank you anyway.

POC: Any time Mr. Darwin.

CD: You wouldn't like to take another look at the barnacle scoop while I'm here would you?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

44. Comment #202034 by Rational_G on June 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm

What an asshole.

Other Comments by Rational_G

45. Comment #202036 by 8teist on June 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Mr Pitcher,
Your Pulitzer, is in the mail.
Congratulations, Dipshit.

Other Comments by 8teist

46. Comment #202043 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Comment #202030 by Cartomancer on June 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Carto should really should give some thought to copyrighting some of his stuff (after due correction of Sybilline to Sibylline, perhaps).

Too fucking good not to make a buck or two.

If this one was as swift in the composition as it is hearty in the laughter, we could have a new Peter Cook on our hands here.

An absolute hoot of a rebuttal.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

47. Comment #202045 by Ascaphus on June 30, 2008 at 5:29 pm

...at which Professor Richard Dawkins will appear in human form alongside his apostle, Christopher Hitchens, to the rapture of his atheistic disciples. Sinful... ...be forgiven, so long as they repent, and secularists will move among the people, with Darwin's sacred text to guide them...

This is the fallback position of the religious, when they realize that they have nothing in their defense, and though the atheist also has nothing - that is exactly what should be expected! So they offer to have atheism represent just another religion and 'level the playing field' by implying that there can somehow be disciples and sacred texts. I am going to start calling them on this move, because another implication of a level playing field is that all religions are therefore equal. Do they really believe this? I don't think so.

But the real killer of this article was the line on which nobody has commented yet:

...But he was still able to write this intriguing confession, about the effects of contemporary theology on him, in The Descent of Man: "I had not formerly sufficiently considered the existence of many structures [which are] neither beneficial nor injurious, and this I believe to be one of the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work." Darwin was apparently unable to annul his former belief that each species had been created on purpose...

Here the author intentionally takes a statement about the idea of sexual selection and pretends that it is from a statement about Darwin's enduring religious belief, and his supposed doubt about the origin of species in his book called On the Origin of Species... If the author had originally any valid point to make, he just lost it with this one statement. My guess is that since belief in sacred texts requires diligent practice in intentional misinterpretation and deliberate twisting of words, they forget that in most conversations this merely calls into question all that you have to say.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

48. Comment #202128 by William Kaiser on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm

This article, even with all it's crap, is somehow interesting to me. It seems as if the author is saying that deity believers should not hate Darwin, just hate Dawkins. It almost seems as if the author wants deity believers to accept evolution as true because he says, rightly or wrongly, that Darwin was not a true atheist.

The last two lines are mighty positive sounding for a batsheetcrazy person.

"Unlike today's posturing and positioning, he was a brave and honest explorer of all that makes us work. That's what we should be celebrating and aspiring to recapture this week."

Please don't think I'm some kind of closet believer, there are no deities. Period.

WK

Other Comments by William Kaiser

49. Comment #202184 by ridelo on July 1, 2008 at 2:27 am

Even if Darwin by some cerebral anomaly would have reconverted to staunch creationism, he opened Pandora's box of Truth. And scientists are shovelling out still more of that stuff even if so many are trying to close the lid.
We're here to enjoy it!

Other Comments by ridelo

50. Comment #202195 by nalfeshnee on July 1, 2008 at 2:57 am

I don't see why Georgie is trumpeting THAT paragraph from the rooftops.

For yea, so mighty is the edifice of belief in the Creator that the death of a little girl can bring it crashing down. That's ALL it takes, Georgie? No empiricist doubt, no hard-fought refutations of theistic sophistry? No long books full of patient explanations of the scientific method and why "Goddidit" isn't part of this methdology?

Just a simple family tragedy?

If religion can't even comfort the grieving, what good is it all, then?

(Oh and I really liked your skit, Cartomancer. Is there more?)

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last