Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
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
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Atheism And Its Critics
by To the Best of Our Knowledge - Wisconsin Public Radio - 080622
Thanks to Layla for the link.
http://wpr.org/book/080622a.html
Atheists have been called the most hated minority in America. And yet recent atheist manifestos by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have all made the best-seller list. So have these atheists changed our thinking about religion? We'll talk about he New Atheism with Richard Dawkins and two of his critics in the time hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge.
SEGMENT 1:
John Haught is a Catholic theologian at Georgetown University who's written a polemical response to the so-called "new atheists." He tells Steve Paulson that they simply don't measure up to the old atheists like Nietzsche and Camus. Haught's books include "God after Darwin" and "God and the New Atheism." The world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," visits with Steve Paulson and demonstrates why he's been called "Darwin's rottweiler. And, Alister McGrath, a historical theologian at Oxford, shares Dawkins' interest in science, but little else. He and Steve talk about the role of religious zealotry. McGrath's book's include "The Dawkins Delusion" and "Christianity's Dangerous Idea."
SEGMENT 2:
Jenny Phillips is the director of the documentary film "The Dhamma Brothers." The film tells the story of a program which brought several Buddhist teachers to maximum security Donaldson Correctional Facility in Alabama to train a group of inmates in Vapassana meditation. Phillips tells Anne Strainchamps that the course was an intense, grueling ten day experience that changed some of the inmates' lives forever.
SEGMENT 3:
Brad Hirschfield was once a religious fanatic. He was one of a small number of Jewish settlers living in Hebron, in the middle of thousands of Palestinians. Now he's a rabbi and the author of a book called "You Don'‘t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right." He tells Jim Fleming how he tries to preach a message of faith without fanaticism.
Listen to MP3
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/4787204/510011/104750922/PUB_104750922.mp3?_kip_ipx=831525677-1243786103
...
Continue reading
http://wpr.org/book/080622a.html
http://wpr.org/book/080622a.html
Atheists have been called the most hated minority in America. And yet recent atheist manifestos by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have all made the best-seller list. So have these atheists changed our thinking about religion? We'll talk about he New Atheism with Richard Dawkins and two of his critics in the time hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge.
SEGMENT 1:
John Haught is a Catholic theologian at Georgetown University who's written a polemical response to the so-called "new atheists." He tells Steve Paulson that they simply don't measure up to the old atheists like Nietzsche and Camus. Haught's books include "God after Darwin" and "God and the New Atheism." The world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," visits with Steve Paulson and demonstrates why he's been called "Darwin's rottweiler. And, Alister McGrath, a historical theologian at Oxford, shares Dawkins' interest in science, but little else. He and Steve talk about the role of religious zealotry. McGrath's book's include "The Dawkins Delusion" and "Christianity's Dangerous Idea."
SEGMENT 2:
Jenny Phillips is the director of the documentary film "The Dhamma Brothers." The film tells the story of a program which brought several Buddhist teachers to maximum security Donaldson Correctional Facility in Alabama to train a group of inmates in Vapassana meditation. Phillips tells Anne Strainchamps that the course was an intense, grueling ten day experience that changed some of the inmates' lives forever.
SEGMENT 3:
Brad Hirschfield was once a religious fanatic. He was one of a small number of Jewish settlers living in Hebron, in the middle of thousands of Palestinians. Now he's a rabbi and the author of a book called "You Don'‘t Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right." He tells Jim Fleming how he tries to preach a message of faith without fanaticism.
Listen to MP3
http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/4787204/510011/104750922/PUB_104750922.mp3?_kip_ipx=831525677-1243786103
...
Continue reading
http://wpr.org/book/080622a.html
Comments 1 - 50 of 187 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #383376 by Cristian on May 31, 2009 at 9:34 am
"Its" (possessive pron.), and not "it's" should be in the title. Not being picky, just sayin', it's on the archives front page, where, God forbid, a kid could see it and be scarred for life.Other Comments by Cristian
3. Comment #383377 by infinitum17 on May 31, 2009 at 9:51 am
man, listening to that first guy was like taking poison, but then listening to Richard was the antidote.Other Comments by infinitum17
4. Comment #383380 by themoonsays on May 31, 2009 at 10:11 am
Cristian,Thanks! I go crazy when I see the possessive "its" written with an apostrophe, which, unfortunately, is more often than I see it written correctly.
As for the interview, I couldn't even listen. Maybe later...
Other Comments by themoonsays
5. Comment #383382 by superwolf on May 31, 2009 at 10:18 am
Comment #383376 by Cristian"Its" (possessive pron.), and not "it's" should be in the title.
You know, I've never fully understood why that is the way it is. What is the rule there? Seems like it should have an apostrophe. Obviously, there is no plural for "it". Or is there? Sort of grade school. "You're not a person you're and it." So, if there were multiple, would they be considered "its"? Kind of rhetorical.
Other Comments by superwolf
6. Comment #383383 by Delsolar16 on May 31, 2009 at 10:27 am
Wow, three of the first five comments relate to punctuation and not the article. Is the mp3 so boring that I shouldn't bother listening to it? Other Comments by Delsolar16
7. Comment #383385 by mirandaceleste on May 31, 2009 at 10:29 am
Regarding the it's/its thing, think of "its" like other possessive pronouns such as "his," "hers," "ours," "theirs," etc. It can be tricky, definitely, primarily because I think that our first instinct is often to think of it in terms of the possessive case, such as "the boy's clothes" or "the dog's toy" or something like that. (I'll stop English teacher-y rambling now :) ) Other Comments by mirandaceleste
8. Comment #383386 by sonnygll on May 31, 2009 at 10:30 am
Superwolf, it's like that because "its" is describing an attribute belonging to "it". It being the pronoun used to refer to a previously mentioned object. While "it's" is a contraction for "it is". An apostrophe shows missing letters in a contraction. For example, can not is can't and would not is wouldn't. Plural and possessive forms are different than contractions.The "its" isn't the only problem. the end of that first paragraph makes me cringe. ....and I'm an American....
Other Comments by sonnygll
9. Comment #383387 by Cristian on May 31, 2009 at 10:34 am
Well, the apostrophe denotes the contraction, I guess you call it, of "it is." On the other hand, "its" is the same thing as "his" and "her," and, like them, it doesn't require an apostrophe. As for its plural form, I reckon it would always be "their."Other Comments by Cristian
10. Comment #383388 by Cristian on May 31, 2009 at 10:36 am
Delsolar16, no, no, please don't mind me and do listen to the audio, it's quite interesting.Other Comments by Cristian
11. Comment #383392 by soul_biscuit on May 31, 2009 at 10:58 am
Ten posts, all about punctuation.
I think I love you guys.
Other Comments by soul_biscuit
12. Comment #383394 by Richard Dawkins on May 31, 2009 at 11:13 am
Can we take the "It's" as already corrected and more on from there?Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
13. Comment #383395 by Follow Peter Egan on May 31, 2009 at 11:27 am
I will listen to this on the way to work tomorrow and report back. Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan
14. Comment #383396 by Verylee on May 31, 2009 at 11:28 am
12. Comment #383394 by Richard Dawkins
Can we take the "It's" as already corrected and more on from there?
Richard
Who you calling a more on?
Other Comments by Verylee
15. Comment #383397 by Beachbum on May 31, 2009 at 11:28 am
Haught, is full of it - and furthermore - the usual "it" out of all the "its" there.Yes Richard, you are right about the cherry picking and the rest as far as I am concerned, and for that, thank you.
Other Comments by Beachbum
16. Comment #383398 by mybelle on May 31, 2009 at 11:29 am
I thought this audio was interesting, certainly with a listen. I especially enjoyed Richard's reaction to the passage from Chris Hedges!Other Comments by mybelle
17. Comment #383399 by Bonzai on May 31, 2009 at 11:31 am
Verylee
Who you calling a more on?
The angel who whispered to Joesph Smith?
There, we are back on topic. :)
Other Comments by Bonzai
18. Comment #383400 by Gamma ut on May 31, 2009 at 11:44 am
"Bullshit!"Ha, that was the best :)
Other Comments by Gamma ut
19. Comment #383401 by Beachbum on May 31, 2009 at 11:48 am
Is it just me, or is Alister McGrath still trying to sell the concept of "Atheist Faith" and religious realm of ought from is in the field of behavior. I was waiting for him to jump to a chanting about dualism, or something else he is massively wrong about. Oh, and he was never an atheist - he just doesn't have the equipment. It really does take a critical, discerning view point. Other Comments by Beachbum
20. Comment #383402 by Crazycharlie on May 31, 2009 at 11:51 am
comment #383377 infinitum17, I agree. Hearing Richard's reasonable responses in these interviews is always refreshing. Other Comments by Crazycharlie
21. Comment #383403 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 12:01 pm
After listening to John Haught, I have finally realised what all the talk of "old atheists" is about.People like Haught like "old atheists" such as Nietzsche because for Haught atheism has to lead to nihilism. How dare atheists like Richard Dawkins be happy and well-balanced individuals? Richard - you are really a nihilist, but you don't realise it!
In effect, there are "fundamentalist atheists", or at least believers in fundamental atheism. John Haught is one, as he believes we atheists must all follow the dogma of nihilism, else we aren't consistent and honest. He is fundamentalist about atheism.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
22. Comment #383404 by Follow Peter Egan on May 31, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Ah, apparently I can't download it, so just had a listen to it up to the point where McGrath started speaking. "I used to be an atheist myself, actually." Pah. What a CS Lewis wannabe. Don't worry, Richard's interviewed fairlyt early on, and is eloquent as always. I laughed at his one-word analysis of the passage from Chris Hedges's book.
A bit of a frustrating listen though, as the interviewer seemed to hardly listen to a damned word Richard said. At least he didn't bring up Stalin, though.
Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan
23. Comment #383405 by Verylee on May 31, 2009 at 12:06 pm
17. Comment #383399 by Bonzai
The angel who whispered to Joesph Smith?
Yes, it was a 'moronic' comment I guess, but thanks...I learnt something which I did not know before (and am unlikely to forget now!).
Other Comments by Verylee
24. Comment #383406 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I think this was one of Richard's best recent interviews. Really spot on about the supernaturalism/naturalism issue, the "explanation of the gaps" nature of talk of transcendence and his reaction to Hedges was priceless.If there were any chance of a transcript of this programme, it would be a useful resource, in my view.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
25. Comment #383407 by BrandySpears on May 31, 2009 at 12:15 pm
The interviewer was taken back when RD questioned him back "what other worlds are there". Other Comments by BrandySpears
26. Comment #383408 by mig... on May 31, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Who invented the New atheist thing?
And what's the old Atheism?
Other Comments by mig...
27. Comment #383409 by Beachbum on May 31, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I think that "old Atheists" need to be remembered in the context of historical religious and social demonization.Nihilism, another word the religious use to demonize atheist thought - there is absolutely nothing empty about my world view. I
Religious doctrine takes so much away from the individual that the only way to scare the flock more is to press the idea that atheist wish to take more than just individual values. Bull@#$% indeed, is the United States the result of nihilistic motivations.
Haught, in my view, is a fear monger.
Other Comments by Beachbum
28. Comment #383411 by ahmunnaeetchoo on May 31, 2009 at 12:33 pm
A really passionate interview there from Richard. Consistent in it's uncompromising tone, brilliant!From listening to the other interviews i'm starting to feel that theology is the art of mumbling indecipherable confusion whilst being confident that it's a valid argument. A depth that transcends unknowable spritual meaning in beyond rationa...mumble mumble mumble blah blah....therefore you must believe in the god of the bible QED.
Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo
29. Comment #383412 by Liveliest Crib on May 31, 2009 at 12:34 pm
infinitum17 @ #383377:man, listening to that first guy was like taking poison[.]I'm listening right now. He's simultaneously infuriating and hilarious.
If I heard him right, he essentially says that the old atheists like Nietzsche were deeper than the new atheists like Dawkins because the old ones at least realized that atheism leads to nihilism, and is thus the wrong way to go.
Then he veered into the "New Atheists have faith too." argument.
Sheesh.
Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
30. Comment #383413 by tobybarrett on May 31, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Haught tries to soften us up with talk of his admiration for atheists like Satre, Camus, Nietzche who he describes as sophisticated and logical - not my experience of these writers!
What about Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Russell, Ayer (not all atheists, by the way)? The new atheists are in that tradition. But this would undermine his insination that Dawkins, Dennett and co are upstarts.
Other Comments by tobybarrett
31. Comment #383415 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Comment #383412 by Liveliest CribI think there is another message as well there. To be a "real" atheist should take work, because you have to struggle daily to find meaning in a desolate God-free universe.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
32. Comment #383416 by John_T on May 31, 2009 at 12:40 pm
24. Comment #383406 by Steve ZaraSteve Zara: Really spot on about the supernaturalism/naturalism issue
I agree. Supernaturalism doesn't really mean anything, as Richard said. He did a good job in emphasizing what we are dealing with, with regards to science is the claims about the real world(nature) - "supernaturalism" is not reality. "Supernatural phenomena" (whatever that may be) are not within the realm of science.
Science is NOT studying the "supernatural", science studies the claims to nature made by those that believe it to be a "supernatural force." Science does not deal in the "supernatural", there is no scientific "supernatural" hypothesis that science deals in.
Other Comments by John_T
33. Comment #383417 by sonnygll on May 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm
This was the same usual stuff from the theists. A little "not my religion", a little verbal gymnastics and other bullshit, assumptions that feelings you would not analyze are supernatural, the seemly random jump from that to Christianity, a big helping of getting morals from the bible topped with biblical cherry picking, of course the usual straw man arguments about "new atheists".Strangely they like the "old atheists", because they were more timid and now we are anti-theist. They say it like we don't agree and that it is a bad thing. As it happens, I do agree and think anti-theism is a good thing. Of course if all the religious people were just like McGrath, I would be pretty apathetic towards religion. A person deluding himself with convoluted pseudo-philosophical nonsense, for reasons I can only guess at, isn't causing any problems. If and when religion becomes like that, I'll probably never think about it again.
Other Comments by sonnygll
34. Comment #383418 by Liveliest Crib on May 31, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Steve Zara @ Comment #383415:I think there is another message as well there. To be a "real" atheist should take work, because you have to struggle daily to find meaning in a desolate God-free universe.I think you're correct. That was part of his message.
What was most entertaining/annoying to me, though, was the notion that the old atheists were better because they ultimately weren't atheists. Or at least that they ultimately disapproved. :)
Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
35. Comment #383419 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Comment #383416 by John_TSupernatural phenomena" (whatever that may be) are not within the realm of science.
That is because, as Richard says, "supernatural" is meaningless. It is a cop-out.
This talk of "science not being able to study the supernatural" has to stop. It makes as much sense as saying that geographers can't study Narnia. If you make something up, and won't tell us where it is...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
36. Comment #383420 by Liveliest Crib on May 31, 2009 at 12:50 pm
My favorite bit:Interveiwer: [Hedges] writes,
The question is not whether god exists; it is whether we contemplate, or are utterly indifferent to, the transcendent -- that which cannot be measured or quantified, that which lies beyond the reach of rational deduction. We all encounter this aspect of existence in love, beauty, alienation, loneliness, suffering, good, evil and the reality of death. These powerful, non-rational, super-real forces in human life are the domain of religion.What do you make of that assessment of religion?
Dawkins: Bullshit.
Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
37. Comment #383422 by Peacebeuponme on May 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I'm totally anti-theist. This is why.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
38. Comment #383423 by John_T on May 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Steve Zara: This talk of "science not being able to study the supernatural" has to stop. It makes as much sense as saying that geographers can't study Narnia.
I tend to agree, but your focus is on the wrong argument. It is saying that "science CAN study the supernatural" that has to stop. It not only makes NO sense, it drags science into a nonsensical debate.
Science does not concern itself with the "supernatural", the "supernatural" is not reality. Science is NOT studying the "supernatural." So, even though I agree, Steve, you're telling the wrong person and focused on the wrong argument.
Other Comments by John_T
39. Comment #383425 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Comment #383423 by John_TI know full well how the phrase "science can't study the supernatural" is used. It is used to wall off parts of human thought as beyond what science should get involved in.
Those who claim that supernatural is not reality and so can't be studied are effectively allies of those claim supernatural is reality and can't be studied.
My view is that appropriate response is, while understanding that the term "supernatural" is actually meaningless, that science can certainly study what most people think of as "supernatural".
Other Comments by Steve Zara
40. Comment #383426 by Tom Morris on May 31, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I had to switch it off when it got to Alister McGrath. Got a university exam tomorrow afternoon. I just can't fill my brain up with theology the night before and hope to be able to answer the questions tomorrow with any degree of sanity."Bullshit!" was a perfect moment. Penn Jillette is right: some claims are just so batty that they need to be punctured with a short, sharp "Bullshit!"
Also, John Haught left me scratching my head in frustration. His comment that Dawkins, Hitchens (etc.) are no match for Nietzsche and Camus is frankly quite retarded. I mean, yes, Nietzsche and Camus both proposed philosophies that were radically anti-religious. But why do we have to be *philosophically radically anti-religious*. What if we think religion's truth claims are wrong but think, as Dawkins does, that Jesus was a pretty nice guy, that loving thy neighbour, the golden rule (and other aspects of what Haught would describe as Judaeo-Christian ethics), empowering marginalised people in society etc. are actually all okay, and that culturally, religion should just be able to gracefully disappear? Why must atheism be radical? Just to please John Haught? To make it an interesting topic of discussion in the seminar room? To make a black-and-white world with clever theologians on one side and clever atheologians on the other? What he wants is actually a straw man to beat up. He wants to be able to say "well, you can stick with Christianity, or you can become an atheist, in which case you have to become a Nietzschean (or whatever)". Faced with that, the average believer will stay. Faced with a choice of "stick with Christianity or just drop the supernatural stuff: no need to go around philosophisin' with a hammer or anything", the choice of atheism becomes a lot easier. Theologians like Haught would be the first people to throw a hissy fit about radical atheists if atheists were more radical than they are. If atheist advocacy as per the Four Horsemen is pissing off John Haught, I say stick with it.
Haught says, for instance, that truth, beauty and other big philosophical topics, aren't explained in an "atheistic worldview" as in a "theological worldview". Sorry, but that's bullshit. Philosophers try and find answers to these topics, and those answers, as satisfying or unsatisfying as they are, are pretty compatible with theism or non-theism with a few exceptions. Beauty? Well, I guess the theist might be more willing to take some kind of timeless, eternal idea of beauty than an atheist, who might prefer to relativise and naturalise beauty. But actually, most of the work in contemporary aesthetic theory seems pretty religiously neutral. Truth? Well, theologians seem to make lots of magic up about this, but for philosophers, I don't think that the atheists or the theists take any particular party line on understanding truth. From Tarski on, truth in philosophy doesn't seem to have much of a different meaning for the theists as philosophers than the non-believers. Same for my particular area of ontology: theists may swing more towards Platonic realism of universals, but for most ontological positions, you can find religious and non-religious versions.
The other thing that pissed me off about what Haught had to say was his equivocation about 'faith'. The idea that we should seek to justify our beliefs through an evidentiary process is a 'faith' position? Let's take a belief I have: that my computer cannot be both on and not on. Is this a 'faith position'? Is there a 'hidden' presupposition beneath my belief that my computer cannot be both on and not on. Yes, the basic laws of logic - (P v not-P). Is that a faith position too? And if it is, then how do you pick out anything that's really a faith position like, say, Jesus was born of a virgin. If the theologians want us to take 'faith' seriously, they can bloody well explain it in a philosophically rigourous manner. When atheists say "faith is believin' what you know ain't so" (or variants on that theme), the response of people like Haught is to say "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong!". Then when you ask them what faith really is, they remain rather silent or pull out the theological version of the get-out-of-jail-free card: the Mystery Card.
Also, this discussion is rather stacked: a few minutes of Dawkins, topped-and-tailed by McGrath and Haught. I'd like to have heard Haught and McGrath be challenged by Dawkins or one of the other atheists of whom they are supposed to be critical. Oh well.
Other Comments by Tom Morris
41. Comment #383427 by Bonzai on May 31, 2009 at 1:05 pm
John_T
Are you the same as John T? What the hell happened to all your posts?
Other Comments by Bonzai
42. Comment #383428 by John_T on May 31, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Steve Zara: science can certainly study what most people think of as "supernatural"
Ok, I'll ask what that may be. But, first let me remind you what I said already, which is what science is doing is studying the claims that effect the real world, reality, nature.
If you bring up something like prayer studies, well, then again, you would be missing the VERY important point about what SCIENCE is doing.
However, please, what "supernatural" does science study?
Edit: I just want to add this could go the same way it seems to always go these days. Which is wanting it both ways, some will admit that "supernaturalism" is not reality, it is nonsense to talk about in the real world sense, then say science can study it. Of course what happens is foolish definitional arguments and worry about something defined out of existence, when my argument simply rest on science and reason.
Other Comments by John_T
43. Comment #383429 by Bonzai on May 31, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Here is an excellent article by Sean Carroll on the topic of this thread.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/
Other Comments by Bonzai
44. Comment #383430 by Irat on May 31, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Sorry, guys, as a linguist, I feel obligated to comment on the "it's" vs. "its" issue, because I think it might help avoid further discussion of such topics. Written languages are standardized largely in arbitrary ways, and for the most part, not in ways that come naturally to the speakers. A lot of the rules in modern written English (whichever dialect) come from grammarians in the 18th century who took their own English as the "right" English, and tried to "correct" people from doing such things as splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions (these two in particular to try to fit English into the molds of Latin). Granted, having a standardized written language is useful, but when people make "mistakes," usually it's because of arbitrary standardizations, many of which are not really current. (Note that written English is based largely on 15th century or so pronunciations--you don't arbitrarily start spelling things like "know" and "no" differently, but because they sound different). The 's was a convention (which I think was only starting to be used in Shakespeare's time) designed to help distinguish the possessive (genitive singular) from the plural, which were usually the same, in written English.Anyway, sorry for going on a rant, I had to get it out of my system. And I still feel like I didn't explain it well :p
Other Comments by Irat
45. Comment #383431 by Steve Zara on May 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Comment #383428 by John_TI feel I have made my position quite clear. The term "supernatural" is meaningless. But what people apply that word to can be studied.
If people pray, and claim it influences the world, we can test that it does influence the world.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
46. Comment #383432 by Diacanu on May 31, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Ugh, after Richard, McGrath comes on.Does Richard come back on or does it lead out with McGrath?
I can't even listen to McGrath's twattery, I just want to know if there's a time index to fast forward to, or should I just turn off the MP3, and chuck it in the recycle bin?
Other Comments by Diacanu
47. Comment #383433 by Corylus on May 31, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Comment #383426 by Tom Morris:When atheists say "faith is believin' what you know ain't so" (or variants on that theme), the response of people like people like Haught is to say "No, no, no, you've got it all wrong!". Then when you ask them what faith really is, they remain rather silent or pull out the theological version of the get-out-of-jail-free card: the Mystery Card.Completely agree, which is why I would have loved for the interviewer to have pushed for a clear definition from the outset.
Got a university exam tomorrow afternoon. I just can't fill my brain up with theology the night before and hope to be able to answer the questions tomorrow with any degree of sanity.Very wise. Remember to get some sleep too.
---
[Extra Thought]
Were I interviewing McGrath I would love to ask him - after he plays the inevitable 'I studied high level science' card - whether or not he misses science and sometimes wonders what he could have learnt and discovered if he had stuck with it.
It is very easy to talk about, and denigrate, the emotional fulfilment of others when you never have to face a question about your own experience.
Other Comments by Corylus
48. Comment #383434 by RightWingAtheist on May 31, 2009 at 1:32 pm
This was kind of a crap radio show. None of the guests knew what other material was being presented, so we weren't really getting different sides of the same issues.And of course McGrath is an idiot. Some theists are deluded. He is diluted. He makes statements so washed down as to mean virtually nothing.
Other Comments by RightWingAtheist
49. Comment #383435 by huzonfurst on May 31, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Here's how to remember the correct way to spell 'its': it's ;>) a possessive pronoun like mine, yours, his, hers, ours and theirs - *none* of which have an apostrophe. Fewer people [not 'less' people!] add apostrophes to yours, hers, ours and theirs, and when they do it leaps off the page screaming "semi-literate boob!" every time.Its gets changed to it's because it is consistent with the usual contraction of 'is' used with nouns. The fact that 'it' takes the same form whether subject or object also contributes to the confusion. He's always means 'he is' but never 'his,' for example.
I wish we would all speak Ido (an improved Esperanto) myself, but then I wish religion would disappear forever, too.
Other Comments by huzonfurst
50. Comment #383436 by mordacious1 on May 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Richard: "That list is obscurantist rubbish".
Ha Ha
Other Comments by mordacious1
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
flemingj@wpr.org
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #383374 by Max of Earlobes on May 31, 2009 at 9:21 am
Other Comments by Max of Earlobes