1. Comment #429691 by JSB2024 on November 5, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Tremendous article.

Other Comments by JSB2024

2. Comment #429695 by Mr Blue Sky on November 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Yes, taking offence is a more public stance as they have little left but here in EU land there is a large and sneaky if splintered right wing xtian movement headed by some prominent parties. Even Gordo is guilty of promoting nonsense in our schools. Only recent victory for us seems to be removal of cricifixes in Italy but the UN EU and their multicultural (pro whackos) agenda wil be damaging - perhaps we should take offence more openly more often?

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

3. Comment #429698 by Richard Dawkins on November 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Terrific response by Michael Brull to the craven wingeing of Greg Craven on 'A Plague of Atheists'. It is almost impossible to believe that Greg Craven could be the vice-chancellor of a university -- until you realise that it is the Australian CATHOLIC University. Then it all kind of falls into place.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

4. Comment #429700 by Mango on November 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Yes, a nice show of support for a functioning liberal democracy. Really, it's a division between a liberal democracy with freedom of speech, gender equality, protection of children, et cetera, and multicutralism and its attendant cultural relativism. It's hard to espouse both liberal democratic ideals and multiculturalism simultaneously.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #429702 by Mark Jones on November 5, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Wait for the response; "Nasty man called me a crybaby!"

Other Comments by Mark Jones

6. Comment #429703 by rod-the-farmer on November 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Secondly, hearing of the need for religious beliefs to be treated respectfully by (edit - surely this should be from) evangelical Christians is galling. This is a religious faith full of those who believe in the importance of preaching to unbelievers and converting them. Obviously, if they respected the views of atheists and believers in different religions, they would not indulge such practices. Yet many Christians, with scriptural support, think non-believers and the un-baptised are going to hell. How respectful is this?

Could not agree more. I think the minute they approach someone outside the confines of their church property, they should immediately lose their tax exemption. They want to discuss their religion in my face, but when I challenge what they tell me, they are offended. It is to laugh.

And then they tell me I will be punished for all eternity, by being sent to hell. Really. Evidence for this ? Bodies ? Testimony ? Photos/videos ? No ? I thought not.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #429704 by rod-the-farmer on November 5, 2009 at 4:43 pm

The second link in the article above does not work. Try this if you want to read the original article that caused the response.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #429707 by Ophelia Benson on November 5, 2009 at 4:52 pm

I don't know, Richard, I think Craven-as-vice-chancellor is pretty staggering even though he's vc of a *Catholic* university. The sheer vulgarity of that "article" would seem like an obvious embarrassment to anything calling itself a university...except maybe the really home-made institutions like the risibly-named "Bob Jones University."

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

9. Comment #429708 by mitch_486 on November 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm

I just have to repeat this...

Firstly, in a liberal democracy, people should adjust to the prospect of other people finding their views stupid, immoral, pernicious, or any other terrible thing. For example, consider the case of a racist. They may view others with contempt, and members of the targeted minorities might respond with contempt for the views of the racist. Should we demand that victims of racism respect the beliefs of racists? Of course not: we grant the truism that some beliefs are stupid, immoral, pernicious and other terrible things.

Other Comments by mitch_486

10. Comment #429719 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm

I liked it.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

11. Comment #429720 by TIKI AL on November 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Thanks for the link that works, Rod. Although I wish I had adhered to my rule of not putting any Craven images before me, Greg had some truth in his atheist hating "article":

"In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia."

Other Comments by TIKI AL

12. Comment #429723 by alaskansee on November 5, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Good to see our Aussie friends handed him his ass in the comments section of the original article.

Other Comments by alaskansee

13. Comment #429730 by carbonman on November 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Splendid piece. Can we get it into Gideon Bibles and religious education textbooks as an insert? :)

Other Comments by carbonman

14. Comment #429733 by HenryFord on November 5, 2009 at 6:12 pm

It soothes the soul to read something like this every now and then. This was like having someone get a big blanket, wrap it around you and say "it's ok, we know there are a lot of crazies out there and we're all in it together".

Other Comments by HenryFord

15. Comment #429734 by Max of Earlobes on November 5, 2009 at 6:13 pm

The surest sign of insecurity in somebody defending a viewpoint is if they try to avoid having the discussion.

Other Comments by Max of Earlobes

16. Comment #429765 by DoctorE on November 5, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Call the wambulance

Other Comments by DoctorE

17. Comment #429767 by Sally Luxmoore on November 5, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Having lost the power of the gun in the West, apologists of religion have a new weapon: being offended.

Never mind the gun - I'm relieved that they've given up on the rack and burning at the stake.
I'm happy for them to be offended regularly, even daily, until they get the point that their 'hurt feelings' are completely irrelevant and that beliefs do not 'deserve' respect.

Edit: I have real trouble trying to get my head around the concept of a 'catholic' university... How do you do 'catholic' maths, or 'catholic' chemistry?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

18. Comment #429773 by Pilot22A on November 5, 2009 at 8:04 pm

I must disagree with Mr. Brull. the theist's aren't "crybaby's."

They are the adult version of crybaby's. Whiners.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

19. Comment #429781 by hiraethog on November 5, 2009 at 8:18 pm

The only good point he made is:

"There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate."

Other Comments by hiraethog

20. Comment #429785 by jonjermey on November 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm

Unfortunately - or perhaps not - the Catholic church in the west is suffering a manpower crisis (I use the word 'man' deliberately) and can no longer recruit enough bright heterosexual males to fill its positions: women and decloseted gays, of course, need not apply. This will inevitably result in a gradual descent into mediocrity by its officials and authorities; so expect to see plenty more articles of the Craven calibre.

Other Comments by jonjermey

21. Comment #429790 by Rationalartist on November 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Slightly off topic, but the moment I had finished listening to Greg Craven on point of Inquiry I clicked on the link to this article! Glad to see it is not the same Greg Craven! Coincidence? My rational mind tells me "yes"!

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/greg_craven_whats_the_worst_that_could_happen/

Other Comments by Rationalartist

22. Comment #429810 by alan baylis on November 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm

Rather than confronting (say) Dawkins' arguments with counter-arguments, people like Craven, and many others like him, instead cry out: why are you picking on us? All we want is for you to respect our beliefs. And so, the crybaby theists hide behind the demand for respect, which sounds reasonable enough. The more shameless – and their ranks are represented in many religions, such as Muslims, Christians and Jews – complain that when someone criticises their religious faith, the people who belong to that religion are being subjected to abuse.

This ‘disrespecting our beliefs is abuse’ argument is becoming more common among theists, including on this site. This is clear evidence that they are rattled and are looking for ways to shut down the debate. Expect a lot more of this in future, even down to trying to use legislation to further this cause.

Other Comments by alan baylis

23. Comment #429811 by mmurray on November 5, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Edit: I have real trouble trying to get my head around the concept of a 'catholic' university... How do you do 'catholic' maths, or 'catholic' chemistry?

Catholic Maths: 1 plus 1 plus 1 = 1 easy isn't it !
Catholic Chemistry: pour 10 ml of H_20 into a beaker, shake, decant out C_2H_6O. It's a bloody miracle.
Catholic Biology: take one wafer ..

ACU is a pretty third rate university. Part of past governments attempts to expand the university sector. They want more graduates so they just change the names of things that aren't universites to university and the problem is solved. The UK did it with polys. You can see the history here

http://www.acu.edu.au/about_acu/the_university/our_history/

As far as I can tell they don't do any mathematics at all just mathematics education (don't start me)

http://www.acu.edu.au/about_acu/research/our_research/research_centres_-and-_institutes/

That said their VC is a disgrace for the VC of even a third rate university.

Michael


EDIT: Of course there are serious private catholic universities like Notre Dame. I expect ACU don't quite have Notre Dame's endowment fund of $7 billion US. Being catholic really doesn't stop you building a great university but underfunding does. My guess would be Notre Dame don't reach creation science.

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #429817 by DeepFritz on November 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm

ACU in their defence actually have some semi-respectable courses, certainly their music and nursing programs are good. Altough ACU is the uni that you apply to when you are down to VUT and ACU (you don't have the grades for Monash, Melbourne, Swinburne, RMIT or Latrobe).


It's interesting to see that they leave proper science alone completely as far as course options are concerned. They know they can't get away with creation science in this country...

Other Comments by DeepFritz

25. Comment #429856 by quisquose on November 5, 2009 at 10:55 pm

Greg Craven wrote:

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Oh come on ... nobody thinks the Catholic Church is responsible for the spread of cane toads across northern Australia ... it's AIDS across Africa you idiot.

:)

Other Comments by quisquose

26. Comment #429863 by Crazycharlie on November 5, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Excellent article. He makes the point that should be made again and again; that religions, in the western liberal democracies at least, can't silence dissent, or challenges to their dogma like in the past. The only defence they can muster is to cry, "You can't criticize our faith, it's disrespectful."

It's all they have left.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

27. Comment #429864 by mmurray on November 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm

It's interesting to see that they leave proper science alone completely as far as course options are concerned. They know they can't get away with creation science in this country...

I would expect it is lack of funding. Science is expensive. In my experience catholicism never had much time for creationism. At least not when I went to a Marist Brothers college although that was awhile ago. They would much prefer god guiding evolution or something similar.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

28. Comment #429873 by Crazycharlie on November 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

The "Don't criticize it's disrespectful" defence is a reaction to criticism, but it's also an attempt to silence criticism. And make no mistake, if ANY of the religions ever regained their former power they would waste no time going back to silencing criticism by killing, torturing and burning at the stake.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

29. Comment #429881 by Alternative Carpark on November 6, 2009 at 12:16 am

Who is this Craven fellow?

As far as I'm concerned, the only Craven that was ever worth listening to was Mr. John Craven - erstwhile of 'Newsround'. :)

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

30. Comment #429882 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 12:18 am

@quisquose is your avatar genuine or photoshopped?

Funny in either case. You get some strange stuff when people try and make the placards readable for the western press cameras.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

31. Comment #429907 by black wolf on November 6, 2009 at 4:22 am

When Richard, Christopher, Sam, Daniel and then many others began publishing about atheism and against religion, the religious were mocking and sneering. Calling 'new atheism' a fad, shallow, boring. Nobody would listen for long they said, it's all old stuff, nothing that would even tickle a faithful's resolve.
People began buying more atheist books. Submitting deconversion stories to the web. Forming groups on all major and many minor social networking sites. Forums, podcasts, regional television. The 'figureheads' were and still are getting numerous invitations to interviews, talk shows, and panel discussions, and writing columns all over the media.
The mockery from the pulpits and the clerical armchairs became louder, insistent, and not just a little shrill. Angry undertones sept in. Books were written, fleas were spotted. Apparently the atheists were not shutting up and not impressed with the empty polemics and the over-emotional rhetoric.
Now we have already reached the stage where high ranking clerics make direct comparisons of specific individual atheists with genocidal racists, denigrate about half of the world's population as intrinsically immoral, and lash back against civilized secularization by erecting gigantomaniacal monuments to superstition and wishing, praying for the death of their opponents.

They have reached the end of the road, many ranting, frothing stubbornly in free fall down the cliff, unaware or all too aware that they have lost. They may still be outbreeding the rational segment of the population, but where education, freedom and critical thinking exist, rationality is outconverting the superstitionists. And that is a far more powerful development against the only hopes they have: childhood indoctrination, censorship and frenzied biological reproduction.

Other Comments by black wolf

32. Comment #429909 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 4:51 am

31. Comment #429907 by black wolf on November 6, 2009 at 4:22 am

Indeed. Comment ranked as Excellent.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

33. Comment #429911 by Sonic on November 6, 2009 at 5:30 am

Sally Luxmore asked,

I have real trouble trying to get my head around the concept of a 'catholic' university... How do you do 'catholic' maths, or 'catholic' chemistry?

The science and engineering at a Catholic university are the same as any other university. They never use the word "Catholic" with science or engineering.

Instead, the original concept was to offer a "universal" education, where "universal" meant a combination of both religious and non-religious education, offered to both Catholic clergy and laity. For example, when The Catholic University of America was founded in 1885, The New York Times wrote this description:

In the School of Divinity, which will be the central department of the institution, the ablest expounders of the Catholic faith will impart that faith with great thoroughness. The School of Philosophy will acquaint the students in all branches with the theories of all the great teachers, in and out of the pale of the church... A School of Science, exact and experimental, in which will be treated the higher mathematics, physics, chemistry, mechanics, and related branches, will be provided. The scheme of the university also contemplates the establishment of schools of law, medicine, engineering, architecture, and political science.

So you can see how this was intended to work for both clergy and laity:

The priest who comes from the university will not be a priest alone. He will know much of philosophy, of medicine, of law, and the sciences. The lawyer will know much of religion and philosophy, as well as the law.

Although in practice, the educational experience today may be a little more secular than originally intended.

Other Comments by Sonic

34. Comment #429932 by Mr DArcy on November 6, 2009 at 8:51 am

There's obviously no point in sticking pins into wax Craven images. The man's ideas are just plain daft. He pins himself.

One of the commentors on the paper's replies page talks about the clever modern theologians like Plantinga and Craig, whom, apparently, Richard will not debate. I suspect their clever modern theology will consist of: "but that's not my God" type obscurities, but I don't know. Is there anything substative in modern theology? Perhaps I should find out for myself, naw, feeling lazy today!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

35. Comment #429951 by Jos Gibbons on November 6, 2009 at 11:09 am

Comment #429932 by Mr DArcy

The thing is, RD et al really do reply to points by people like Plantinga or Craig. Plantinga has some very unique ideas, such as transworld depravity. I suggest you read about that one just to see what relationship exists between rarity of an idea and quality. Oh, and his "Basic belief" description of theism is worth a look in too, if only because I bet when you google it the usual "great pumpkin" response by our kind will come up too. As for Craig, some inanity isn't worth listening to. Your forehead doesn't want to risk injury.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

36. Comment #429954 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 11:29 am

Hhm. Just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the wikipedia article about Plantinga. I assume the guy is smarter than this article makes him appear but we have

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

So where to earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this ? And why is nature `red in tooth and claw'. Why did God need to use evolution and the inherent massive loss of life to generate the world. Why not just create it all in one go as depicted in the bible.

The other bit I read seemed to be an argument as follows. Evolution says adaption is to only increases the survival. So the brain is adapted to increase our chance of survival not to find the truth. But evolution is a product of the brain so it might not be true. But the whole point of science is that it is a technique that gets around our brains inherent deficiencies.

There seemed to be a lot of `it's possibles' which all seem to amount to `you can't prove logically that this didn't happen'. We know all that -- but life is about weighing the evidence and assessing likelihoods and probabilities.

Is there something I am missing in my short course ? After all the guy had a job at a Notre Dame which while Catholic is a serious institution.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

37. Comment #429958 by Jos Gibbons on November 6, 2009 at 11:51 am

Comment #429954 by mmurray

That is a fair summary of Plantinga actually. He does focus on whether his God's existence is still logically possible, since logical conflicts are the only conflicts he worries about. I studied him in detail in the philosophy of religion; this is about as good as he gets. Do read his "basic belief" idea too, it's hilarious. It's the kind of argument a child wouldn't find persuasive.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

38. Comment #429959 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm

He does focus on whether his God's existence is still logically possible, since logical conflicts are the only conflicts he worries about.

That's a sort of straw philosopher attack isn't it. Does anyone think they can logically disprove the existence of a God ? I don't think I can logically disprove I am in the Matrix either though.

Thanks for the comments. I will look at `basic belief' .

EDIT: OK that didn't take long. A basic belief is something I don't have evidence for that I would like to believe in anyway!

Notably, he has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no justification, similar to how people usually claim to know that other minds exist.

Actually I would never claim that I `know' that other minds exist. I rather assume it as a useful working hypothesis just like I assume I am not in the Matrix but in a `real' world. The reason it is useful is that whether or not I am alone in a world of zombies or lying in a vat the world behaves exactly as if there are other minds in it and as if it is real. Belief in God is actually the complete opposite to this. The world behaves exactly as if there is no God so the analogous thing to believing in other minds is to disbelieve in God.


Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

39. Comment #429962 by flying goose on November 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm

religious institutions and individuals should really stop whinging abot the so called 'new atheism.'

However, this does not mean that Richard et al should be spared the prospect of a proper critique.

Whinging will not do this.

Other Comments by flying goose

40. Comment #429966 by Anvil on November 6, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Talking about inanity and whingeing christians, I submitted this two days back but it never made it through the cloud:

For you kind consideration:

Wednesday 4th November. 10:44 GMT 2009:

‘Jesus Queen of Heaven’

About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual – including, apparently, God, who held a placard saying ‘My Son Is Not a Pervert.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

regards,

Anvil Springstien

Had I the time I would have joined them dressed as Jesus with a placard that read: "My Dad Is Not A Mass-Murderer! or Joseph: "Step-Fathers for Justice!" Or as Mary: "Non-Consensual Sex is Rape!"

I'm not too sure my 'Mary' would be altogether appealing, but I'd give it a go, for the art.

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

41. Comment #429969 by SoManyStars on November 6, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Let them call us the "11th Plague".

Other Comments by SoManyStars

42. Comment #430119 by Hirnlego on November 7, 2009 at 2:19 am

"So where to earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this ?"
And what about diseases?
And imagine if a politician had the same power as god yet choose to do nothing to prevent (MASSIVE amounts of) suffering? Wouldn't people be outraged? But gods are for some reason excused.

Other Comments by Hirnlego

43. Comment #430134 by RightWingAtheist on November 7, 2009 at 7:09 am

Hitchens says we won't ever forget (we hope) what it was like when these people had all of the power. Government-sanctioned hatred, murder, superstition, and abuse.

Now when they lose that power, they have nothing left but to protest that atheists are rude.

He also notes that Islam is currently playing both parts. In many countries large enough to be dangerous, Islam controls everything from petroleum to the brains of its citizens, enforced with murder. In North America and Western Europe, it "poses as a cringing minority" which is offended and in need of protection.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

44. Comment #430212 by Mr DArcy on November 7, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Thanks to Jos and mm for some information about Plantinga. I stopped feeling lazy today and looked for myself about Wlliam Lane Craig, apparently one of the bright stars in the Christian theology charts. It seems he is:

One of the most visible contemporary proponents of natural theology, Craig has contributed to a number of proposed theistic proofs.

Science doesn't propose proofs, only theories, and the accepted ones are those most in accordance with the observed facts.

While Craig holds that theism can be demonstrated, he also embraces the Plantingian view that no argument is necessary for justified belief in God.

It can be done, but it doesn't need to be done. Wow that's wonderful theology!

An ardent defender of the Christian faith, and a seasoned debater, Craig has been called “the finest Christian apologist of the last half century

I'm not sure what Craig's steps are from theism in general to Christianity in particular, but whatever they are AFAIC they're bogus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

45. Comment #430223 by SaintStephen on November 7, 2009 at 11:52 pm

44. Comment #430212 by Mr DArcy on November 7, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Here's a debate between William Lane Craig and Professor Shelly Kagan. It is excellent, and it gave me a very good idea of who Craig is.

A well-dressed circus (circuit?) clown.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

46. Comment #430229 by JonathanWest on November 8, 2009 at 12:35 am

Comment #429959 by mmurray on November 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm

[Plantinga] has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no justification, similar to how people usually claim to know that other minds exist.

That sounds remarkably similar to Swinburne's definition of what it means when he says that "God exists necessarily"

To say that 'God exists' necessarily is, I believe, to say that the existence of God is a brute fact that is inexplicable - not in the sense that we do not know the explanation, but in the sense that it does not have one.

And these theologians are supposed to have the sophisticated version of beliefs which us ignorant atheists can't understand or can't be bothered to get our minds round!

Other Comments by JonathanWest