1. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #83398 by methinxaweezil on October 29, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Modern religion and science may have evolved from a common ancestor. Shamanism is a fusion of both religion's celebration of mystery and ritual, and the scientific impulse to explain and control the natural world. In this prehistoric form religion and science were one and the same.

2. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32821 by methinxaweezil on April 18, 2007 at 10:25 am

The excerpts posted on the books site are idiotic drivel, and sound a bit like they were written by a brain damaged Ann Coulter. Those are the best excerpts they can come up with? If Sam Harris wrote like that I wouldn't read him either.

3. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14037 by methinxaweezil on December 21, 2006 at 12:17 am

Unfortunately I watched the whole mind-numbing presentation. The difference between Liddle in this, and Dawkins in the Root of all Evil is that Dawkins made compelling arguments, while Liddle's worst condemnation of atheism seems to be that it's no different than religion. Pretty typical stuff, although someone forgot to tell him that the definition of "religion" usually constitutes the worship of a supernatural deity. It didn't take more than a few minutes to tell that Liddle was going to try to tie atheism to evolution to naziism to communism, eugenics, and the holocaust. Human beings often behave badly- we have millennia of religious persecution against heretics, while one would be hard pressed to find examples of "atheist atrocities" that come even close to the track record of the world's religions.

Some highlights:

Asserting that Darwinism lies at the heart of atheism, Steve Fuller (shill for the ID movement), made this staggering comment:

"It's not clear, at least to my mind, on what other basis, especially scientifically credible basis, one could have for atheism."

Really?

Dawkin's description of the memetic properties of religion is characterized by Liddle to a Christian, thusly:

"As I understand the explanation, it's that God, for example, has been able to replicate itself down the years like a virus. Do you find that a compelling argument?"

Any question how a Christian might receive that interpretation?

It wasn't an entire disaster, though. Dawkins acquitted himself well and seemed careful to avoid the kind of sound bites that Liddle would've liked to use against him. And Prof Peter Atkins, Physical Chemist at Oxford confounded Liddle with gems like:

"Science doesnt know everything but it's got an extraordinarily potent method and everything it touches gives way... that's the extraordinary thing about science, you identify a problem, you bring the scientific method to bear on it, and it crumbles in front of your approach. It's a wonderful method, of which humanity should be proud- that it's stumbled on a technique for discovering the truth.