1. Comment #368060 by Godfree Gordon on April 22, 2009 at 7:33 am

dont bother

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

2. Comment #368063 by Vanpastel on April 22, 2009 at 7:37 am

Comment #368060 by Godfree Gordon
Thanks for saving my time.

Other Comments by Vanpastel

3. Comment #368067 by maton100 on April 22, 2009 at 7:39 am

Values versus facts. "We have Christian values...therefore we can ignore facts."

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #368071 by MAJORPAIN on April 22, 2009 at 7:43 am

If all they can do is insult us then maybe we have them running scared...

Other Comments by MAJORPAIN

5. Comment #368074 by Chris Davis on April 22, 2009 at 7:45 am

Isn't there some kind of spray for this? An insecticide sort of thing?

I think we should be told.

Other Comments by Chris Davis

6. Comment #368075 by Richard Dawkins on April 22, 2009 at 7:45 am

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off? Surely theology must be the ONLY academic subject in which such a stupefying bore, with such yawning chasms of intelligence-deficit, could rise to the top.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

7. Comment #368078 by Tezcatlipoca on April 22, 2009 at 7:48 am

I say we conscript Paula Kirby to endure this trial...

;)

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

8. Comment #368079 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 7:49 am

Er, sorry, Richard, must have been asleep. What were you saying? :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #368080 by Peacebeuponme on April 22, 2009 at 7:49 am

Richard

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?

I'm trying. He's not actually said anything so far.

Did you notice that when asked what the most glaring error was in your book, he could not name a single one?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

10. Comment #368085 by irate_atheist on April 22, 2009 at 7:53 am

6. Comment #368075 by Richard Dawkins -

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?

I did. But, to be fair, I have no speakers - nor in fact sound output of any kind - on my computer at the office. Having said that, I don't believe this detracted from the overall experience and I doubt that I missed any of the salient points made in the interview.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

11. Comment #368086 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 7:55 am

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Bloody hell! Now MY keyboard's ruined!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

12. Comment #368087 by TCM on April 22, 2009 at 7:55 am

What a fantastically stupid man.

He seems to be making the tired and obsolete argument that our morality comes from Christianity and therefore we need it. He clearly hasn't actually read the books he's criticising.

Also this idea that the 20th century was one of unparalleled violence... I've heard this a couple of times before. It's technology and politics, not secularism, that made the first and second world wars as bloody as they were. Haven't we had the most peaceful time in human history since 1946? Up until then it seems that everyone was looking to make war with everyone else.

Other Comments by TCM

13. Comment #368088 by decius on April 22, 2009 at 7:56 am

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Ranked excellent.

Other Comments by decius

14. Comment #368090 by Peacebeuponme on April 22, 2009 at 7:59 am

He did make one extremely brilliant, intellectual comment towards the end. Referring to his rambling and nonsensical answer to one of the interviewer's questions, he said: "Somehow I think that answer is not as clear as it might have been."

Oh for Alister McGrath to have such awareness.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

15. Comment #368091 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2009 at 7:59 am

Comment #368085 by irate_atheist

Also ranked excellent.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #368092 by Anaximander on April 22, 2009 at 7:59 am

RD: "Surely theology must be the ONLY academic subject in which such a stupefying bore."

What is the opposite of theology? Can there be such a person as a Doctor of Atheology, DOA?

Other Comments by Anaximander

17. Comment #368098 by Ned Flanders on April 22, 2009 at 8:04 am

Yes, an insecticide indeed. I propose we name it:

SHRILL
Kills Gods. Fast.

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

18. Comment #368099 by Russell Blackford on April 22, 2009 at 8:05 am

Richard:

Did ANYONE manage to listen to this all through without nodding off?

I gave up halfway through, partly because the audio format wasn't friendly to use ... but mainly because of David Bentley Hart's painfully slow, monotone delivery.

The interviewer didn't help, either. All the leading questions - "What's the worst thing they say?", "Is what the New Atheists say false?", and suchlike - were really annoying. It was like he thought he was interviewing a slow-learning child. Oh, hang on ...

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

19. Comment #368108 by Ruggles on April 22, 2009 at 8:14 am

Richard Dawkins,

Perhaps if you were to ape the manner of theologians like Rowan Williams you might be able to cultivate a more civilised and thoughtful approach to discussion and commentary. Perhaps you could, too, take note of Williams' preface to "Christian Theology" in which he outlines his belief that part of establishing a successful dialogue is to listen honestly to the other side and allow it a chance to speak. The holistic dismissal of theology as "emperor's new clothes" is transparently duplicitous as a means of masking precisely the intellectual arrogance that precludes such dialogue.

Your comments do more than most to accentuate divides within the academy, polarise and marginalize thoughtful discourse and ridicule the entire notion of metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning. Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

I implore you to adopt Daniel Dennett's reserve and restraint when dealing with these delicate and complex topics.

Who needs this kind of intellectual thuggery?

Other Comments by Ruggles

20. Comment #368111 by anna09 on April 22, 2009 at 8:15 am

Wow, if that's how he conducts himself in an interview, I'd pity anyone that would go through the torture of hacking through his book!

(I couldn't even finish the audio.)

Other Comments by anna09

21. Comment #368113 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 8:16 am

Comment #368108 by Ruggles

Oh, fuck off.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

22. Comment #368115 by TCM on April 22, 2009 at 8:16 am

Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

That's a shame, poetic skill is so useful when considering scientific questions.

Other Comments by TCM

23. Comment #368117 by Quetzalcoatl on April 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

Ruggles-

I would be happy to discuss such matters with you, on the Godless Guru thread. Perhaps you could start the discussion off by detailing in your first post precisely what you believe the value of theology to be, detailing the evidentiary basis for the claims it makes, and stating which of those have been shown to be correct.

I await your first post with extreme interest.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

24. Comment #368118 by zeroangel on April 22, 2009 at 8:22 am

OK I gave up, made it about a third of the way through.

"Well, well, I uhhh, wouldn't say, that is, uhhh, well, you know, atheists, uhh, their arguements, uhhh"

Other Comments by zeroangel

25. Comment #368119 by JAMCAM87 on April 22, 2009 at 8:24 am

The holistic dismissal of theology as "emperor's new clothes" is transparently duplicitous as a means of masking precisely the intellectual arrogance that precludes such dialogue.

Are you a theologian by any chance?

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

26. Comment #368122 by Peacebeuponme on April 22, 2009 at 8:25 am

intellectual thuggery?

Is that how you would describe beating somebody over the head with a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

27. Comment #368124 by Richard Dawkins on April 22, 2009 at 8:26 am

Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

That's a shame, poetic skill is so useful when considering scientific questions.

Actually, no joke, I think poetry has an important role in science. That's why I wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. Perhaps "Ruggles" might care to read it?

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

28. Comment #368125 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

Comment #368119 by JAMCAM87

Well spotted, JAMCAM. That sentence means precisely fuck-all.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

29. Comment #368127 by TCM on April 22, 2009 at 8:27 am

Is that how you would describe beating somebody over the head with a copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica?

I wish someone would...

Other Comments by TCM

30. Comment #368129 by Russell Blackford on April 22, 2009 at 8:28 am

Is the comment by "Ruggles" an example of Poe's Law?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

31. Comment #368130 by epeeist on April 22, 2009 at 8:28 am

Comment #368108 by Ruggles:

Your comments do more than most to accentuate divides within the academy, polarise and marginalize thoughtful discourse and ridicule the entire notion of metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning. Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

But theology doesn't claim to be metaphorical, interpretive or poetic. It claims to be true.

Who needs this kind of intellectual thuggery?

If I point out that it might be an idea to hold off discussing hoof rot in unicorns until we actually have a unicorn would that be "intellectual thuggery". On other threads we have a poster proclaiming the virtues of "Enlightenment Values", what he doesn't seem to cotton is that one of these values is the rejection of received authority. If this is intellectual thuggery then so be it.

Other Comments by epeeist

32. Comment #368131 by MrPickwick on April 22, 2009 at 8:30 am

Comment #368108 by Ruggles :
I implore you to adopt Daniel Dennett's reserve and restraint when dealing with these delicate and complex topics.

Maybe these topics are delicate and complex in the mind of a retarded moron but for any thinking person they are just idiotic platitudes in the best scenario...
(BTW it is clear you have not read DD, if you have, then I'm sorry to tell you that there is something VERY wrong in the way your neurons behave and you'd better get some professional help)

Other Comments by MrPickwick

33. Comment #368132 by mixmastergaz on April 22, 2009 at 8:30 am

I couldn't stomach it, and had already 'switched-off' (metaphorically speaking) before I actually clicked off. I'd say it was all style and no substance (a charge this fool has the temerity to make against Richard) but it's pretty low on style as well.

Slightly off-topic:

I was re-reading McGrath's awful effort recently (I'm not a masochist; I have a student who's doing an extended project on the 'new atheists') and noticed several distortions that were so blatant that it seemed to me that the only word to describe them accurately was 'lies'. Here's just one example. He accuses Richard of confusing a priori and a posteriori proofs of God's existence. Specifically he says Richard calls the ontological argument an a posteriori proof. That's a blatant lie! TGD is clear and accurate on this point and I can't see how this can be a genuine mistake on McGrath's part. I know many regulars here will think it naive of me to expect, at the very least, the appearance of integrity from McGrath, but the level and extent of the spinning he indulges in would make a troll blush. It's an obvious point to make, but when they're resorting to these sorts of tactics they really are desperate. I've read half a dozen of the 'flea' books and, in my estimation, only Keith Ward's effort has any integrity (although it isn't particularly persuasive).

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

34. Comment #368133 by JonLynnHarvey on April 22, 2009 at 8:31 am

On one hand, and the other hand

He's right that the 20th century was one of unparalleled violence- but, wellll, so was the 14th century, an era in which the church was at the peak of its political influence. Both eras are characterized by cultural upheaval. Cultural upheaval of ANY kind (including erosion of religious beliefs) can lead to this violence, but while in many instances religion may have a socially stabilizing function (as I think it does), it does not follow that religion or any particular religion is the only possible guarenteer of that stability.
In short, I think this argument has a superficial plausibity, but when one digs deeper there are problems.
Scientists are often reminding us that "correlation is not causation", so even a correlation of religious belief and social stability is something that would still bear more careful examination. For example, heavy smokers never get Parkinson's disease, but this is not because smoking helps prevent Parkinsons, it is because people with a predisposition to getting Parkinsons are likely to not get stimulated by nicotine. Likewise, an apparent correlation between religious belief and fewer wars (which is true IMO in some eras of history, but by no means all) needs closer examination.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

35. Comment #368134 by MarcCountry on April 22, 2009 at 8:31 am

Surely theology must be the ONLY academic subject in which such a stupefying bore, with such yawning chasms of intelligence-deficit, could rise to the top.

Richard,
Speaking as a sculptor, let me assure you, you need look no further than the contemporary visual art academies to find hundreds of examples.

I find it interesting how the MO of the religious is mirrored in some respects by that of the post-modernists.

They both make claims to being marginalized FROM positions of power, all while trying to marginalize their enemies BY criticizing them as 'fashionable'.

They both seek to "teach the controversy", and believe subjective belief is "as valid" as objective truth.

Sokal and Bricmont showed this all well in their "Impostures Intellectuels"; and Harry Franfurt alludes to this all, I think, in his essay "On Bullshit". "Theory's Empire" has a collection of writings battling post-modern irrationality, with Noam Chomsky's work being a memorable example, there.

Actually, I had been hoping the post-modernists were going to be the target of your next book...

Other Comments by MarcCountry

36. Comment #368136 by TCM on April 22, 2009 at 8:31 am

Actually, no joke, I think poetry has an important role in science. That's why I wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. Perhaps "Ruggles" might care to read it?

Haven't read that book, though wikipedia makes it sound very interesting and I might check it out.

I expect the important distinction is that poetic thinking can be useful in creating and understanding scientific ideas, but should not be used to evaluate their truth as perhaps theologians like to.


(edited to slander theologians a bit)

Other Comments by TCM

37. Comment #368137 by decius on April 22, 2009 at 8:33 am

Your comments do more than most to accentuate divides within the academy, polarise and marginalize thoughtful discourse and ridicule the entire notion of metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning. Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed.

Thoughtful discourse on metaphorical, interpretive, or poetic meaning is already undertaken in its rightful place - literature departments.
But that's not what theologians really want - to be allowed to peddle their snake oil as if it were a miraculous cure and their gobbledygook be treated as science.

Clearly, you haven't read Unweaving the Rainbow and the Ancestor's Tale.

Other Comments by decius

38. Comment #368138 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 8:33 am

TCM - "Unweaving the Rainbow" is, IMO, Richard's most beautifully-written book. A gem - read it.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

39. Comment #368139 by mixmastergaz on April 22, 2009 at 8:34 am

@ruggles

You say (to Richard):

"Out of you, as James Joyce might say, a line of poetry could not be squeezed."

Try reading any of Richard's books other than TGD and tell me that you honestly stand by the remark.

edit: Bugger! Richard's beat me to it!

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

40. Comment #368141 by epeeist on April 22, 2009 at 8:35 am

Comment #368134 by MarcCountry:

Sokal and Bricmont showed this all well in their "Impostures Intellectuels"; and Harry Franfurt alludes to this all, I think, in his essay "On Bullshit". "Theory's Empire" has a collection of writings battling post-modern irrationality, with Noam Chomsky's work being a memorable example, there.

Ophelia Benson occasionally posts here. I can also recommend her little book "Why Truth Matters".

Other Comments by epeeist

41. Comment #368142 by JAMCAM87 on April 22, 2009 at 8:36 am

On art in science and science in art: I went to a concert a few weeks a go, a night of contemporary Parisian music. One of the pieces was based on Techno dance for Orchestra but almost everything else was based on or inspired by natural phenomena and science. One piece was called "Solar Storm" and was truly wonderful.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

42. Comment #368143 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2009 at 8:37 am

I didn't catch the start. I missed a few minutes, as the bread I am making required some attention, after I had pressed "play". Could not be bothered to pause it. However, when I started listening, I heard:

Yet more moaning about the nihilistic implications of atheism.
More confusion between atheism and secularism.
Waffle about transcedent truths.
Secularism linked to violence(??)
Can't cast off Christian morality and still be moral (Well, that screws things up for the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, doesn't it?)
Some straw-man waffle about wars..
Gave up at 8 mins in.

I have honestly had enough, you know. Unless someone can actually show me a transcendent truth in a nice glass box, presumably with some kind of "truthiness" meter attached so I can be sure what it is, then I am going to dismiss what they say as meaningless dribble before they have even completed the word 'transcendent'.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #368145 by Mark Jones on April 22, 2009 at 8:38 am

Comment #368118 by zeroangel

OK I gave up, made it about a third of the way through.
"Well, well, I uhhh, wouldn't say, that is, uhhh, well, you know, atheists, uhh, their arguments, uhhh"

Ahh, is this the poetry of which Ruggles speaks? Such beauty, such transcendence, such insight.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

44. Comment #368146 by JAMCAM87 on April 22, 2009 at 8:39 am

Decius,

But that's not what theologians really want - to be allowed to peddle their snake oil as if it were a miraculous cure and their gobbledygook be treated as science.

Quite poetic yourself Decius.

I get the impression everyone is in a good mood today. Must be the weather.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

45. Comment #368147 by Peacebeuponme on April 22, 2009 at 8:40 am

You should understand that the word "transcendent" automatically has weight. If you are having trouble supporting an assertion, just make it a transcendent truth, and hey-presto, it has meaning and value.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

46. Comment #368148 by Diacanu on April 22, 2009 at 8:40 am

epeeist-

Ophelia Benson occasionally posts here. I can also recommend her little book "Why Truth Matters".

Aw, no freakin' way!
That was the title of a rant on my blog.
I knew it sounded familiar.
Tch, I feel like such a loser now...

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #368150 by chewedbarber on April 22, 2009 at 8:42 am

How do theists conveniently forget that they've had thousands of years--thousands--of discourse (I'm giving away substantial ground in calling it such.) and scream foul whenever they are dismissed as having nothing important to say?

You've had thousands of years, and you were soundly refuted hundreds of years ago. The discussion with you about theology is over.

We will no longer be polite about it. Shut up and come back only when you've discovered something of importance that has an existence and usefulness outside the gulag (thanks Santi) of your own mind.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

48. Comment #368151 by Laurie Fraser on April 22, 2009 at 8:44 am

PBUM - Your perspicacity transcends the transcendent.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #368152 by TCM on April 22, 2009 at 8:46 am

How poetic we all have suddenly become.

Other Comments by TCM

50. Comment #368154 by epeeist on April 22, 2009 at 8:47 am

Comment #368148 by Diacanu:

That was the title of a rant on my blog.

Probably not a good idea to do one called "Fear of Knowledge" then (book by Paul Boghossian, also attacking relativism and constructionism).

Other Comments by epeeist