1. Comment #17273 by thalesian on January 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm

The last column in the PDF is the most crucial and new. While it is easy to chastise another's religious beliefs, we sometimes forget that while every villain has had some form of religion or faith behind them, many heros have also used religion to form underground railroads and resistance to tyrannical governments. In a way, we should avoid missing the forest for the trees and try and identify all the causes of irrationality.

After America's experiences in Iraq, perhaps ethnic identity is as dangerous as religion (if they don't already both stem from the same vice).

Other Comments by thalesian

2. Comment #17275 by captain underpants on January 12, 2007 at 3:44 pm

At one point RD says "I could be very wrong about this. But ..." Can you imagine a creationist saying that?

Other Comments by captain underpants

3. Comment #17276 by goldmineguttd on January 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Here's the video mentioned in the article.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

4. Comment #17278 by Steven Mading on January 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thalesian said in the first comment:
"After America's experiences in Iraq, perhaps ethnic identity is as dangerous as religion (if they don't already both stem from the same vice)."

Actually, the big problem is the world's tendancy to mix ethnic identity with religion as being one in the same. Consider the Sunni/Shia thing: They are religions, and yet they can also be treated as ethnicities because people mis-label children as being the religion of their parents long before the children have any idea what that's really all about - and so people tend to view their religion as a definitional integral part of who they are. That prevents intelligent discourse on the subject because they don't treat it as just yet another idea that can be freely accepted into or freely rejected. They view it as being a permanent thing just as much as, say, one's race is.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

5. Comment #17281 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 5:14 pm

The author, to illustrate the point that Richard's critics accuse him of dogmatism, quotes Dan Dennett: "some readers will probably come away from the book more impressed by Dawkins' disrespect than persuaded by his arguments."

To be fair, Dennett does not accuse Richard of dogmatism, but only of disrespect. The author doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between dogmatism and disrespect. The latter, when directed at the right people, is even a good thing.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

6. Comment #17285 by hmsbeagle3 on January 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Your point is well taken, thalesian, but I would argue those individuals responsible for the underground railroads and such would have acted that way regardless. I don't believe it was religion that endeared them to stick their necks out.

Other Comments by hmsbeagle3

7. Comment #17286 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

No wonder some of his critics sneer at the level philosophical learning evident in Richard's writings. He obviously learned his philosophy from Walt Disney. Just look on his bookshelf: "PLUTO'S REPUBLIC".

***
LATER

[Amazingly someone has taken this as a snipe at Richard on my part. But this is a joke. I actually can't comment on the prof's philosphical learning, as I have very little of it myself)

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

8. Comment #17288 by MouthAlmighty on January 12, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Interesting piece, but I doubt Terry Eagleton would have been stung by Dawkins' response to his review.

Personally I thought Eagleston's review was among the most self indulgent and missed the mark precisely because of his criticisms of Dawkins' apparent 'lack of learning' with regard to the sophisticated nuances of theological thought.

The fact is that if Dawkins was trying to reach those familiar with such material he needn't have gone to the trouble of writing a book. He could have just invited them all around to his local church hall for tea and stickies and addressed them face to face.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

9. Comment #17292 by Duff on January 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm

"The sophisticated nuances of theological thought". How does one even wrap his/her brain around such an oxymoron. Anyone who criticizes Prof. Dawkins for lack of learning of theological thought wouldn't know an intellectual argument if it jumped up and bit them on the derrier.

Other Comments by Duff

10. Comment #17293 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Duff,

And yet Professor D. has been known to make reference, from time to time, to the "sophisticated theologians" who accept the fact of evolution. A use of words that has always puzzled me, coming from the prof.

I personally take them all for fools.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

11. Comment #17301 by CaptainShiny on January 12, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I think this is the first "personal" article on Dawkins I've read that doesn't mention that he hates everyone and feasts upon baby flesh.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

12. Comment #17309 by MIND_REBEL on January 12, 2007 at 9:13 pm

It's good to see Prof Dawkins in a postive light. I get sick of all the right wing attacks on him.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

13. Comment #17311 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Richard's retort to Eagleton's line on theology ("I think that my point about fairy-ology entirely disposes of that") is of course circular. To be able to assert that theology is a non-discipline you need first to have disposed of the arguments theologians raise about the existence of God. Otherwise one is like a creationist saying (which they do) that they don't have to consider the arguments of modern biologists about evolution because they have already falsified evolution based on the account of it given by Duane Gish.

Now, in fact, TGD does deal with theological arguments (in Chapter 3) as it must, and Eagleton's complaint was that Richard's treatment showed him to be "complacently ignorant of its toughest case". It seems to me the only defence here is to say that TGD is a popular book dealing with the reasons held by believers, who after all do not hold their faith because of obscure arguments of even obscurer theologians. This defence is stronger than it looks at first glance since the concept of God to which "sophisticated" theologians retreat when pressed bears little or no relationship to the deity that believers actually worship. The linkage between academic discourse and real-world belief is actually provided by "revelation", which could probably have done with a stronger treatment in TGD given its centrality in the whole edifice of these superstitions.

But there is no doubt that the Eagleton critique continues to get a hearing because it latches onto several points that are not well handled in TGD, and have not been satisfactorily dealt with by Richard since, IMHO :-)

Other Comments by JohnC

14. Comment #17314 by JohnC on January 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Your point is well taken, thalesian, but I would argue those individuals responsible for the underground railroads and such would have acted that way regardless. I don't believe it was religion that endeared them to stick their necks out. - hmsbeagle3

Thalesian's point is well taken, but it is simply not viable to baldly assert that religion is not a motivating factor in doing good, when the people in question make clear that it is. You cannot dismiss, for instance, the 1970s role of liberation theology in Latin America in the struggle against US-backed dictatorships. Richard himself is at pains to point out that he is not denying the positive contributions of religion.

Other Comments by JohnC

15. Comment #17319 by Russell Blackford on January 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm

With all respect, Dawkins' retort about fairyology is not circular. He says that theology is irrelevant except for consideration of whatever proofs for the existence of God are offered by theologians. Once those are dealt with, it is perfectly logical to say that that part of theology which goes beyond philosophy of religion, and attempts to explicate God's nature and will is, in effect, fairyology.

Dawkins doesn't even deny that some theologians may be doing useful work in areas like paleography and church history. He just thinks that the body of supernaturalist doctrine built on the assumption of God's existence is vacuous if God does not actually exist.

Where Eagleton might have a point, I suppose, is that some sophisticated concepts of the nature of God may not be as morally harmful as fundamentalist ones, and that it is difficult for unbelievers to say much about that without studying those sophisticated concepts. But Dawkins doesn't even really deny that point - he acknowledges that believers can be good people.

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Second, when the chips are down, even the most sophisticated believers have a tendency to approach some issues from viewpoints that are distorted by their metaphysical beliefs. E.g. they are likely to think that there is some special value in human nucleotide sequences, as opposed to the possession of such characteristics as sentience, self-consciousness, reason, and awareness of the future. In areas such as bioethics, religious belief of any kind is likely to lead you - by subtle means or less than subtle means - to look at the issues in ways that are, IMHO, harmful.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

16. Comment #17322 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Let's get real here, with regard to theology that is. It takes the a priori assumption that god exist without any objective evidence for it. It then twists itself into philosophical knots rationalising the irrational. But sophisticated irrationality is still irrationality only it may have a seeming gloss. Need one know any more than that. Or to put it in another more simplistic, or Walt Disneyish way, as one poster put it, I can only argue how many angels fit on a pin if I start from the premise that angels exist. If I don't, after all there is again no objective evidence for angels either, then what point the argument.

Other Comments by John Phillips

17. Comment #17324 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Great post, Russell, articulates my thoughts so clearly. I think this is the bottom line John, esoteric, ephemeral and academic constructs are fine, potentially interesting in their own right, but they have no bearing on the real world. No data, no tests, no results. What could be more pointless?

Besides, the people burning embassies, rioting over comics and killing abortion clinic staff would be the first to call Eagleton and his rarified cohorts heretics and aspostates.

So in my view, Eagletons wordy critique is fatuous because it misses the point so completely.

Finally, Dawkins and Harris are right to dismiss theology, and the comparison to fairology is a nice soundbite, that resonates with the majority of people. Theologians are considered the "brains" of the religious movement, descredit theology as a subject and you remove what little intellectual credibility religion has. I actually don't think it can be said often enough that theology is to cosmology/philosophy, what astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry.

Theology is bunkum, but it will be very hard for Eagleton and Co. to admit it.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

18. Comment #17330 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

Russell and Brian, this New Humanist piece was particularly interesting because it gave Richard the opportunity to respond to a number of Eagleton's main points in the context of a sympathetic interview. And there is no Eagleton & Co., since I cannot imagine such a critique coming from any other public intellectual, combining as it does his own ultimate skepticism about theism - "now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it" - attached to a masterfully concise summary of a non-dogmatic Christian theology with a series of well-targeted political criticisms.

The real problem is that Eagleton misunderstands the project that TGD represents. It is not an intellectual new synthesis for religious skepticism in the 21st century; it is a popular rallying cry to do battle against actually existing religious insanity around the world. TGD was not intended as a scholarly engagement with theological discourse, but as a tonic for unbelievers and a lifeline for the waverers. And in these goals it has succeeded admirably.

Now on the specific question of theology. In the interview Dawkins' position is circular; in TGD it is not, as he does actually deal with the "main proofs" theology has provided. I made both points in my earlier post. But the latter operation depends entirely on defining belief in God as a hypothesis equivalent to any other empirical proposition. And this is entirely the point at issue.

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious. Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

We are not dealing with Jerry Falwell here, and this is not a debate with two sides. It is entirely possible that both Richard and Terry - two of the best known British intellectuals - are both "right" but are on different trajectories launched from different starting points with their paths nonetheless intersecting. It is these points of intersection that provide the opportunity for us to enrich our own understanding.

Other Comments by JohnC

19. Comment #17331 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:47 am

Brian, having delivered myself of the main argument, I just wanted to add an additional point. In the original thread on Terry's review (in which we both participated) justified concerns were raised several times about an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism, which I found somewhat disturbing. In your post, phrases such as "academic constructs" and "wordy critique" invoke the same sense of foreboding (I actually find his prose positively sparkling). And while at one level it is perfectly legitimate to denounce theology as "bunkum" - the level which you perceptively recognised as "soundbite" - that is not the only story in town. Theological discourses (from Aboriginal Dreamtime stories through to Hans Kuhn) are also historic documents of humanity's struggles to find meaning in the world and our lives, which is I suspect the direction from which Eagleton is approaching the question. We need to find ways of accommodating such different approaches while making common cause against the religious insanities you mention, and more.

Other Comments by JohnC

20. Comment #17335 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious.

Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

I think I already understand this. I consider myself modestly intelligent, and yet for 20 years I was a practising, enthusiastic Christian.

However, I always had problems and struggled to orient reality with my faith. I think it is fair to say that below a certain level of intelligence, people simply are incapable of serious scrutiny of their faith, and above a certain level of intelligence, people suppress the contradictions. That is what these guys are doing, and it is ass backwards frankly. Nonetheless intelligent people for emotional, psycological, perhaps even rational reasons in some limited and personal context, simply ignore the elephants in the room.

Thus, should we really accord them respect? Really? I'm no longer convinced. The obvious evolution of religious thought, the multiple and mutually exclusive strands, the deep layers of unsubstantiated (and contradictory!!!) detail regarding the person of God, the problem of evil and the millenia spent debating these issues surely point to the utter meaningless of the exercise? Thousands of years of debate, thought, war and discussion and we can't even agree if God is one or three, whatever the hell that means.

As a fortuitous by product we got the scientific method and the kind of philosophical thinking that allowed us to break the stranglehold of religion, but absent the smothering presence of mother church, we would arguably have got there faster. In fact the greeks and romans were half way there when Christianity threw a metaphysical straitjacket over human thought.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it, maybe, and I'm open to that possibility, but thats what theologians have always said, so I'm skeptical.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

21. Comment #17337 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:16 am

Theological discourses (from Aboriginal Dreamtime stories through to Hans Kuhn) are also historic documents of humanity's struggles to find meaning in the world and our lives, which is I suspect the direction from which Eagleton is approaching the question.

I accept that, and it even makes sense. Culture and history are important for us. In that case I just find Eagletons complaint misdirected, and I say this as someone uncomfortably conscious of the undercurrent of partisanship that is sweeping a lot of us along to defend Dakwins, Harris and Co. without really thinking about the substance of the complaint.

In this case I genuinely don't get it. Maybe the broadening of the "atheist family" :-) is coarsening the debate, maybe thats the price we have to pay. As long as we don't become violent, or start burning "heretics", I'm happy enough to see guys like Eagleton get the occasional virtual savaging by the online mob.

Everytime an elite clique suddenly finds itself being transformed to a mass movement, we hear similar complaints. Maybe we should chalk it up to that?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #17338 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 am

Brian, I am actually deeply sympathetic to your point of view, but my own intellectual trajectory (which never involved religious belief) has gentled me towards a less judgemental approach on many issues on which I would previously been the bearer of indubitable certainty. Steve Gould's last book of essays I Have Landed is a moving and insightful exploration - in practice - of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity. And it's a volume that bears repeated readings ...

Other Comments by JohnC

23. Comment #17341 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 1:34 am

The last bit sums everything up. The interviewer makes a wonderfully gratuitous left-wing defense of religion.

But might it not be that the advance of fundamentalism, the revival of religious belief, is dependent upon another sociological development, upon globalisation, upon the spread of a materialist consumer ethic? In such circumstances religion provides a way of resistance, a way of affirming values other than those derived from capitalism and the market place. By alienating the religious, we risk losing allies in that fight.

Allies. I've used that exact word many times on this site to explain why atheists on the left do not respond well to Dawkins. What's his reply?

I hadn't thought of that.

Now, it's entirely okay that he doesn't read my comments. Oxford professors have many other things to do, after all. But do those things really not include having thought of this before laying a categorical attack on religion?

Dawkins has helped me find the courage to overcome religion in my society. I am so grateful that he is helping others find the courage as well. The interviewer finishes on thanking Dawkins for his courage.

However, the interviewer should have realized by now that this isn't a courageous act for Dawkins. It takes courage for the rest of us, sure, but he just admitted to not even having thought of the main reason why socialists see religion as an ally. So, fear of that criticism did not even grace his consciousness. Is that courage or foolishness?

Well, it could be other things. Naivete? I am tempted to suggest "childishness," but some of you know what I think of that.

It all comes down to this: people are finding courage, and they should be applauded from the rafters for their courage. They are finding it with the help of Dawkins, a person with strength and acuity, raw skills which are sometimes confused for courage. Applaud him or vilify him, whatever. He's just stirring the pot.

Other Comments by Sancus

24. Comment #17342 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:41 am

22. Comment #17338 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 am

Brian, I am actually deeply sympathetic to your point of view, but my own intellectual trajectory (which never involved religious belief) has gentled me towards a less judgemental approach on many issues on which I would previously been the bearer of indubitable certainty. Steve Gould's last book of essays I Have Landed is a moving and insightful exploration - in practice - of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity. And it's a volume that bears repeated readings ...

I appreciate that, and I always enjoy your posts:-) I think, on balance, things are moving in the right direction. Now, if someone could just have the guts to impeach GWB, we'd be on the way to a truly rational global society:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

25. Comment #17344 by seals on January 13, 2007 at 1:56 am

While being somewhat distracted by RDs very pleasing bone structure in those photos (what great teeth as well! All the better to - )

Er, sorry about that.... I still find time to feel relief at what he has said about theology - fairyology, or angelology as it seems to be called in all seriousness. How wonderful if it could be heard when the pressure is being piled on in those mind bending religious education classes, for a bit of balance. How bad would it be to come home and find the same pressure to be religious minded? Suspension of disbelief should always be voluntary, it seems to be natural enough without being encouraged in school.

As a scientist I am only interested in the simple scientific question: "Is there a God?"

This is what I'm not sure about, is it entirely a scientific question or is there another aspect to the question, without and apart from the angels-dancing-on-a-pin moonshine coming back to haunt us. Gross oversimplification there of theology but, it does seem to be indicative of its substance.

Other Comments by seals

26. Comment #17347 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 2:06 am

JohnC wrote: "of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity."
______

The words apologists and appeasers denote contempt because they imply that one is corrupting truth and integrity. If a key can be made to open that door, so one can discuss and agree on how non-theists need to work together without the majority sacrificing their sense of truth and integrity, then we are onto something useful.

Other Comments by Logicel

27. Comment #17348 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 2:06 am

Sancus, subtracting your peculiar American politics (which has led us way off-topic before) from consideration, you have actually identified something real. TGD was a political book, its effect was to "stir the pot", and this explains both its strengths and weaknesses. (Note: I am not divining Richard's intentions in writing TGD, but commenting on its effects. I wouldn't like Eagleton to accuse me of Intentional Fallacy!)

But as to Richard's courage, or lack of it. He has 2 years off compulsory retirement of what would have been a universally lauded career now cashed in his prestige and marshalled his undoubted talents to headline a cause that has attracted a huge amount of opprobrium on at least 2 continents. While I have not hesitated here to criticise aspects of TGD, I would not myself be so mean-spirited as to imply a lack of courage on his part.

As a "left-wing" atheist, I have been increasingly attracted to this site to both show my support for his efforts and in my own fumbling way to contribute to the debate - a real discussion which he both initiated and is nurturing through this site.

Meanwhile, we all find our own certainties, or more positively start learning to live with a lack of certainty. "Don't know" always sounds like a pretty good response to me.

Other Comments by JohnC

28. Comment #17350 by maryhelena on January 13, 2007 at 2:21 am

I'll admit to being moved by this interview with Dawkins. In particular, the very last sentence summed up my own take on Dawkins and TGD:

Laurie Taylor wrote: "I had not thanked him for his courage".

Individually, we might all have our own disagreements with what is written in TGD - and disagreements even over the tone in which some of it is written. But beyond all of that, Dawkins can indeed stand proud of his accomplishment. I am thinking not simply of how the book has enabled more atheists to come out of the closet. I am thinking of TGD as a testimony to the courage of the man who wrote it, Richard Dawkins. He didn't have to do it. I am sure most people who have heard of Richard Dawkins know full well his views on god and religion. Even if the idea of god bugs him - that would not, in and off itself, be a strong enough motivator to write TGD. Writing TGD required conviction not irritation. And it is for being a man of conviction that I applaud him.

It is conviction that drives TGD - and conviction can of course, so easily, be read as dogmatism - but there is a very real difference. A difference that this interview, with Laurie Taylor, captures so well. For instance, Dawkins' reply that he had not thought of the social/political context where religion can provide a motivation for resistance or of affirming values. "That's not what my book is about" he answered, "but perhaps it should be". These are not the words, the stance, of a dogmatists but the words and stance of a man of conviction.

Convictions, however deeply they are felt, (yes felt, convictions are not purely intellectual positions, they are not simply the result of a logical assessment) they can be wrong. Not necessarily wholly and completely wrong - just not 100 percent correct. However, if an idea does have some merit, some saving grace so to speak, it needs a man or woman of conviction to take it forward, to give it a jump start. It also needs time on it's side.

The fact that TGD has generated much in the way of negative critiques does not detract from it's overall benefits. That said, one should not simply refuse to acknowledge genuine disagreements when they are voiced. Taking stock of the criticisms is in no way to seek to belittle or to disparage Richard Dawkins. He is not perfect - nor is TGD. We should uphold Richard Dawkins as a man of great courage, as a man of great conviction - applauding his achievements while seeking refinements to his ideas where we deem them to be relevant.

Ayn Rand, (been there done that and moved on…)wrote in regard to Victor Hugo - a man whose philosophy of life was in stark contrast to her own:

"The emphasis he projects is not: 'What great values men are fighting for!' but: 'What greatness men are capable of, when they fight for their values!".

So, Thank You Richard Dawkins - your courage in writing TGD is indeed testimony to the greatness of your humanity. Your conviction, regarding the non-existence of a theistic god, has publicly reopened a very old debate - and will, perhaps, be the wedge that will keep the door to the debate wide open. TGD has made god an issue of public – political - importance. The barricades are going up - and TGD has an important role to play.

Other Comments by maryhelena

29. Comment #17357 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 2:53 am

"But might it not be that the advance of fundamentalism, the revival of religious belief, is dependent upon another sociological development, upon globaliaation, upon the spread of a materialist consumer ethic? In such circumstances religion provides a way of resistance, a way of affirming values other than those derived from capitalism and the market place."
______

Authentic globalization--where America would drop its absurd argricultural protectionism--would lessen world poverty. Capitalism is the least worst means of accomplishing that goal of reducing world poverty at present.

Religious people consume as much as the next guy. When JohnC asked why I think America is in the state that it is in regarding religious fundamentalism I had replied that excessive consumerism leads to being burnt out emotionally and that in their efforts to get meaning to their lives in the only way they know how to, Americans go 'buy' the sewage spilling out of the megachurches--a vicious circle ensuring that they will remain feeling empty inside, thus compelling them to consume even more via bigger houses, more clothes, holidays, etc.

Though a capitalist I consume with restraint, and the web is actually causing an economy of abundance is my own life--I save energy and materials by researching, communicating, reading, etc. via the Web.

Other Comments by Logicel

30. Comment #17359 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:00 am

Authentic globalization--where America would drop its absurd argricultural protectionism--would lessen world poverty. Capitalism is the least worst means of accomplishing that goal of reducing world poverty at present.

Likewise in the EU. Looks like the message is getting through, we just need to keep yelling:-)

I'm a cautious fan of capitalism myself, the biggest problem I see with it is the unaccountability of global corporations. Their local authority (in as much as they even have one) generally no longer have the political power to reacte to and legislate for their worst excesses.

Global capitalism is perhaps the strongest argument there is for a more representative form of global governance, I say bring it on!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

31. Comment #17362 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen, The EU and America both sicken me in this regard--the EU by blah blah blahing about solidarity with the world's poor and then choking off their economic growth with EU protectionism, and America blah blah blahing about how effective capitalism is for fighting poverty and then contributing to world poverty by its protectionism. A plague on both of their houses--how nice if locusts would come and eat up all of their crops? Come on, God, you did it once.

Other Comments by Logicel

32. Comment #17363 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

31. Comment #17362 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen, The EU and America both sicken me in this regard--the EU by blah blah blahing about solidarity with the world's poor and then choking off their economic growth with EU protectionism, and America blah blah blahing about how effective capitalism is for fighting poverty and then contributing to world poverty by its protectionism. A plague on both of their houses--how nice if locusts would come and eat up all of their crops? Come on, God, you did it once.

Drives me bonkers. I think both the EU and US are amazing acheivements, with varying strengths and weaknesses, but both are blind in this regard. That said, the agricultural lobby is weakening in both entities, it's just a matter of time.

Here's hoping they crack it this time.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

33. Comment #17382 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 7:13 am

Thank you for the reply, JohnC. I'd like to think that my politics are peculiar enough to apply across borders, but that is a discussion for another thread.

But as to Richard's courage, or lack of it. He has 2 years off compulsory retirement of what would have been a universally lauded career now cashed in his prestige and marshalled his undoubted talents to headline a cause that has attracted a huge amount of opprobrium on at least 2 continents. While I have not hesitated here to criticise aspects of TGD, I would not myself be so mean-spirited as to imply a lack of courage on his part.

Richard mentioned in another interview that he expects to be asked back after the date of his retirement, hinting that he will continue. We'd certainly be fortunate! He seems to enjoy what he does as well.

He began his career as a vocal atheist. TGD was not a daring new thing for him. Indeed, it was very expected and quite an unremarkable thing to do, to write yet another atheistic book in a long line of atheistic books.

Richard does not lack courage. This is just not that courageous for him. He's only taking, what is for a scientist very safe, the question of God's existence, dismissing questions of morality as outside his focus. The courage we should be applauding is from the ordinary people who reject God. These people are not held academically accountable to existential claims of divine existence, but they are held socially accountable. Furthermore, I would bet that Richard would entirely agree with me.

You say he "cashed in his prestige," which sounds very strange and untrue. Quite the opposite, he cashed in on his prestige. This is what intelligent prestigious people do. It must be hard for you to accept, an author writing a book to earn money, creating as much publicity as possible. Are these bad things to do? No, of course not.

You'd rather think that he wrote it for politics? Well, it would have been more interesting, if he did. You and I would agree on that, except for your mistaken belief that it was a political book. Sorry, we weren't that fortunate!

Richard is a great man. Please do not think I am trying to bring him down or anything. We need his strength and example to inspire courage in others. However, he says he is not interested in anything other than the existential question. Just think, if he took the courageous step of moving beyond his interests?

After all, sometimes we find interesting things, that way.

Other Comments by Sancus

34. Comment #17387 by Sancus on January 13, 2007 at 7:44 am

About the US and EU, did anyone see that recent BBC special, "Mortgaged to the Yanks"?

I had no idea that America used the loan to Britain as an opportunity to negotiate more politics into Breton Woods. Keynes was livid, originally preferring that they be politically independent economic entities, which they should have been. However, Keynes was apparently willing to give that up in favor of getting money for socialist Britain and its expensive ass empire. Left-leaning British atheists, what do the words "New Jerusalem" mean for you?

Other Comments by Sancus

35. Comment #17388 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 7:46 am

Sancus, being neither an American nor ever religious, it has only actually been through this forum that I've started to appreciate the difficulty many people over there feel about holding a position of open unbelief. It has been a sad eye-opener.

As for Richard, we are now in territory where he can speak for himself, if he chooses. I have already stated my views. And I am at heart a Gouldian!

Other Comments by JohnC

36. Comment #17389 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 7:48 am

Keynes was livid, originally preferring that they be politically independent economic entities, which they should have been. However, Keynes was apparently willing to give that up in favor of getting money for socialist Britain and its expensive ass empire.

I recall reading somewhere that the US representative stronged armed Keynes into accepting the current boom/bust model, and that he predicted it would be problematic.

Anybody know a good site with the details?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

37. Comment #17395 by Diplo on January 13, 2007 at 8:36 am

I guess it's just a coincidence that the PDF of this article is 666 KB in size and not some ironic joke? ;-)

Other Comments by Diplo

38. Comment #17418 by freestateofmind on January 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm

2. Comment #17275 by captain underpants on January 12, 2007 at 3:44 pm

At one point RD says "I could be very wrong about this. But ..." Can you imagine a creationist saying that?

GOOD POINT Captain! That's what makes them so irrational.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

39. Comment #17424 by poppythinks on January 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm

when you question people's 'religious or superstitious beliefs' you often get a torrent
of anger and verbal abuse hurled at you. (in my experience.)
richard was very courageous to write TGD which questions all 'belief' systems - he must have known as he wrote down his ideas that many people would find this work a big problem.
laurie taylor realises RD's courage in hindsight,
and while i'm glad it made the final sentence,
i think standing up against billions of godders deserves all the praise we can heap.
ps. i'm reminded of 'the emperor's new clothes'
and how i was so cheered by that child who made a stand against 'collective folly'. i still am.

Other Comments by poppythinks

40. Comment #17440 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

RD is very respectful of other people. He is not (righlty) respectful of people's superstitious mumbo-jumbo and argument that faith qualifies as evidence (its in the Holy Bible therefore it is true!).

There may be times when the charm offensive may be more effective. Yet I can understand why RD may not want to spend that much energy on people not prepared to reason prefering instead super-natural explanations to the real thing.

I would only add that some have only a bit of sand in their eyes. Some will see the light of day and come out of the cave.

Other Comments by Homo economicus