1. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36458 by Laurence Boyce on May 1, 2007 at 7:38 am

Great stuff. Hitchens simply towered over the other two who were completely lame.

2. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35571 by Laurence Boyce on April 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I haven't studied the booklet in detail, but I would say that in principle the "theology" section would have to be there, as it's clearly such a hot topic. To omit that discussion entirely would be to ignore the elephant in the room.

3. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35529 by Laurence Boyce on April 27, 2007 at 1:36 pm

This looks absolutely terrific. Just what is needed to combat the latest "creationist teaching materials."

4. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34803 by Laurence Boyce on April 25, 2007 at 9:41 am

The reason Lord Winston has felt compelled to make these observations is contained in the article: he's a practising Jew. That's it. He simply cannot bring himself to overturn his religious inheritance and so ends up caricaturing Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, instead. It's sad, especially as I believe Richard dedicated Climbing Mount Improbable to Winston.

5. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34642 by Laurence Boyce on April 24, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Hey Shuggy, that picture would be great for the Wikipedia article on Russell's teapot. Any chance you could send it me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

6. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33483 by Laurence Boyce on April 20, 2007 at 10:20 am

Very nice interview. I thought Richard held the Bishop to account pretty well, but he let this one get away:

"I think I have to face the fact, as a believer, that the Church, because it is an institution and therefore seeks to exist through space and time, will on a number of issues, whether I like it or not, be slow moving. Because the point about an institution is that it seeks to gather the insights of past ages and transmit them, and it is inevitably therefore slow moving."

No. The reason the Church is slow moving is because it claims that its insights derive straight from God. It follows that any reform in its teachings simply amounts to a fatal admission that the original divine revelation was perhaps not so perfect in all its parts after all. That is why the Church has never reformed from within, and why it remains to this day fundamentally antithetical to human progress.

7. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28840 by Laurence Boyce on March 31, 2007 at 7:40 am

Well done Richard! I loved that roar of approval which was inversely proportional to that which greeted Cheri Blair earlier in the evening.

8. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27958 by Laurence Boyce on March 27, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Whenever I get a little down about the prospects of dismantling religion, two little words always cheer me up: "the internet."

Seriously, how is religion going to survive this? Kids – who formerly would have received their religious indoctrination from priests, parents, and elders – are now pissing themselves over these videos in their bedrooms. This can only be a good thing.

I love the way, in the banana video, that the other guy is laughing too. Why? Because the exposition is just so spot on!

9. Pursue pleasure: it's the natural way to do good in the world

Comment #26285 by Laurence Boyce on March 18, 2007 at 11:10 am

I had the pleasure of hearing Anthony Grayling speak last week. Starting from a simple enough question concerning the nature of humanity and our place in the universe, he then proceeded to take us through a grand sweep of history, philosophy, and theology, in a masterful display of public speaking without notes for nearly an hour. His book should be a most welcome addition to the "arsenal."

10. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20498 by Laurence Boyce on February 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

"What if God is love?" said Cheri DiNovo as if this were the most profound insight. Why does she think this buys her anything?

We've already got a word for love, which is, as you might expect, "love." Having two words adds nothing. Moreover, religious people don't believe that God is love. They believe in a God who listens to prayer. Love doesn't listen to prayer. Love is an emotion. It can't listen to prayers. Then of course there's all the outright nasty stuff in scripture which does rather tend to falsify the notion that "God is love."

Cheri DiNovo came over as one of the more "reasonable" speakers, but she merely underlined just how religious moderation is so much more part of the problem than it is part of the solution. Her obfuscatory use of language goes only to serve the ends of the fundamentalists she purports to despise.

11. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19352 by Laurence Boyce on January 26, 2007 at 11:20 am

Hitchens has an irritating manner of generally hogging the conversation, only pausing briefly to allow the next person to speak, before cutting across them immediately.

12. The New Atheists

Comment #16378 by Laurence Boyce on January 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

[Atheism] always makes a comeback, I think, when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin to look as though or speak as though they know it all, when they begin to impose themselves in ways that are unwelcome to other people in the society.

I love it. Whenever has any of that not been the case?

13. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13909 by Laurence Boyce on December 20, 2006 at 3:18 am

Zaphod,

Caller 5: Thinks that the Bible is code and intelligent people should interpret it.

My answer: Ahhhhhhhhh!

14. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13805 by Laurence Boyce on December 19, 2006 at 1:45 pm

Riley,

There are three degrees of ignorance when it comes to evolution (or any other subject). Firstly there are those who basically understand evolution though of course they may still have much to learn. Then there are those who do not understand evolution; perhaps they may be helped by a little education. But there is a third category of ignorance which is not so easily remedied, and it was sadly in abundant display on Saturday night. It is the ignorance of those who, knowing nothing of the subject, would nevertheless challenge Richard over the most elementary problems of evolution, as if they imagined that Richard has never seriously thought about them, and that they might stump him with their pathetic points.

I have listened to the segment you describe, and I fear you may have simply misinterpreted what Mike was trying to say. The truly dismal combination of arrogance and ignorance I have described was in fact being manifested by the caller (John from Swansea) to whom Mike was speaking at this point of the show. I daresay Mike didn't answer the point being made as well as Richard might have done, but I think Mike would have been well aware of his limitations in that respect.

If I understand what Mike was saying correctly, he was basically drawing a distinction between human intelligence on the one hand and evolutionary "intelligence" on the other, both of which are capable of solving fundamental engineering problems, only that evolution takes a good deal longer to achieve its "purpose." On its own this is not an unreasonable point, though I'm not sure it entirely addressed what the caller was saying.

But as I say, I don't think anything was going to help that particular caller.

15. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13754 by Laurence Boyce on December 19, 2006 at 9:37 am

This is desperately sad news. Mike was the greatest of the talkSport presenters by far in my estimation. I enjoyed a number of conversations with him recently, mostly bashing religion it has to be said. He rarely went on the offensive with a caller; there was no need; his tone of scathing incredulity said it all. He died an honest man.

16. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13571 by Laurence Boyce on December 18, 2006 at 1:14 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Please forgive me, and Josh too. I suppose I was addressing Josh as your lieutenant in chief, thinking that you would not be reading this, and in any case to criticise you directly would be tantamount to blasphemy or something!

Only this isn't the first time I've missed you. Shortly after you returned from the States, I was all set to phone you on Simon Mayo's show, but that never materialised for some reason. I'd typed up notes and everything!

What I wanted to speak to you about was my theory that a sort of prevalent incoherent libertarian philosophy is really obscuring the true nature of our troubles with respect to religion, and is liable to simply betray the current generations suffering religious indoctrination. As a man of great wisdom, I feel sure you would have agreed with me!

Take care, and hope to speak to you next time.

Merry Christmas to one and all!

17. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13548 by Laurence Boyce on December 18, 2006 at 8:53 am

To Josh Timonen,

Do you suppose you could do a better job at alerting us in advance to stuff like this? I tuned in to talkSport at 11pm and was dismayed to learn that I had missed Richard. I would have loved to have spoken with him. Anyway, I rang up and spoke to Mike instead. I appear at roughly 01:29 on the audio as "Tom from Cambridge."

By the way, Diane the yogic flying lady (00:45) frequently speaks on the show. The irony is that she is generally one of the more intelligent sounding callers!

18. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13499 by Laurence Boyce on December 18, 2006 at 2:54 am

Brian Flemming is talking about us now!

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002405.html

19. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13404 by Laurence Boyce on December 17, 2006 at 1:12 pm

rogergavin,

It is up to those of us who feel passionately about dispelling the sky god from our children's minds to approach the debate with reason and intelligence and expose the carpet baggers for what they truly are: atheistic televangelists in it for thirty pieces of silver.

I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a veiled attack on Brian Flemming, but either way I'd like to stand up for the guy. I've never met Flemming but I'm convinced that his contribution is really important.

Flemming produced his DVD The God Who Wasn't There in May 2005. It was essentially a spin off based on research he was undertaking for another film. It's a fairly low budget documentary lasting one hour, which employs some fancy graphics, footage from old films, interviews with scholars, and an imaginative sound track to good effect.

The first part of the film questions the historicity of Jesus. Flemming presents the case pretty well, and we hear from biblical scholars Alan Dundes, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier. The middle section is an attack on the American Christian Right. We hear from Sam Harris – in fact this was the first time I heard him speak:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/samharris

The film ends with Flemming retuning to his old school (evangelical Christian) where he confronts the headmaster Ronald Sipus. He received some criticism for this, but I think it was a pretty fearless thing to do. Finally he goes into the school chapel and shoots himself on film saying "I deny the Holy Spirit."

Is Flemming trying to make a fast buck? Well he never misses an opportunity to plug his DVD, but the guy's got to eat hasn't he? I never miss his blog, though some of the American stuff goes over my head. Here's Flemming slamming Cardinal Roger Mahoney for his involvement in child sex abuse in the diocese of Los Angeles:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002217.html

I think we need him.

20. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13359 by Laurence Boyce on December 17, 2006 at 8:44 am

Tony Benn is the classic "atheist christian" but, as Sam Harris has pointed out, we are paying a terrible for tolerating this sort of secular apologetics for religion. One great quote from Benn though: "I see the Russians have put a spacecraft on the Moon; could we have a better bus service in Bristol?"

21. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13354 by Laurence Boyce on December 17, 2006 at 7:47 am

Logicel: Thanks for posting those example videos. I have high hopes that the internet is going to hurt religion like never before.

Sapient: Hey, steady on. Fundamentally, we're all on the same side here. But I agree with your basic point that we do need to try something new and radical. The old tactics, whatever they were, have not worked. By the way, are you aware that a religious moron is blogging under the name "sapient" over at the Guardian? I only mention this because it brings me on to a related issue which is that, while I admire the way in which you and others are prepared to stand up and be counted with these videos, why do so many of you not post under your real names? I know there might be a dozen reasons for employing a pseudonym, but your comments would carry more weight in my view if you felt able put your real name to them across cyberspace.

Yorker: Yet another case in point. Are you from York or is this your favourite cricket delivery? Either way, I'll try to say a bit more on the question of whether over sixties should get the vote in due course, but I can't spend all day on these blogs, much as I'd like to!

22. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13177 by Laurence Boyce on December 16, 2006 at 4:05 am

There's room for all sorts of approaches in this fight and ridicule is a very potent weapon. I think Brian Flemming and Julia Sweeney are playing a really important role in this respect. By the way, I've got the DVD which I recommend; it works fine in the UK. Here's Sam Harris on the subject:

I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing "The Adventures of Superman" radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members – many of whom were senators, and even one president – to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It's basically a defunct organization.

I deny the Holy Spirit!

23. Grandparents linked with church-going

Comment #13111 by Laurence Boyce on December 15, 2006 at 2:31 pm

Logicel,

I strongly support youth rights. The subjugation of an individual – just because that individual happens to be a young, inexperienced human – to the family group never appealed to me when I was growing up.

I'm afraid I had no such feelings when I was growing up, though I certainly wish I had done. Well into my life I continued to value age and experience over youth, until it suddenly dawned upon me that if old people are so wise and so knowledgeable, then why is it that the world in such a mess? And why is religion still tolerated well over 200 years since it was comprehensively debunked? And why is the political and social fabric of the nation in such disarray? And why are our institutions so crippled by anachronism? And why are we still sending young boys to war? And why and why . . .

So I'm not quite so respectful towards old folk as old folk would tell me I ought to be. They've been around the longest, and yet they appear to have made so little difference. Then having made so little difference, they then have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so as to avoid further embarrassment. Oh would that they cared about the generations of the future as passionately as they care about the state of their front lawns. I seriously think we should consider removing the vote from the over sixties.

Oh dear, I seem to have let my prejudices hang out a bit. Well I'm nearly 40, so please feel free to attack me from both ends, as it were!

24. Grandparents linked with church-going

Comment #13103 by Laurence Boyce on December 15, 2006 at 12:27 pm

Drifting off topic slightly to the general question of family relations, I think there might be something quite interesting going on here. Obviously we mostly know that religion largely transmits down the generations like some sort of inherited illness, but I sometimes wonder about the role that strong family loyalties play in this process.

As Richard pointed out in The Root of All Evil?, there is a deep-rooted evolutionary tendency to take on trust the words of one's parents and elders, purely for survival value. But later on, I feel this may persist in the form of a loyalty which maybe refuses to accept certain obvious and perhaps unpalatable truths about one's family. Some striking examples of this phenomenon would be the children of Robert Maxwell or Harold Shipman, say, who seem to be in a very real state of denial concerning the misdeeds of their parents. It's as if to criticise them in any way would cut straight to the heart of their identity.

We may imagine that this tendency plays a strong role when children hang on to their parent's religious beliefs, but I think it may also play a part in those who have succeeded in overturning their religious upbringing – the secular apologists for religion in other words. I was particularly struck, for instance, by the very lame contributions from Jim Woodward and Melvin Konner in session nine of the Beyond Belief videos. While both declared themselves to be atheists, they nevertheless insisted upon making a very strained and somewhat incoherent defence of religion, which succeeded in creating considerable tension between them on the one hand, and Sam Harris and Richard on the other. Both Woodward and Konner had had a religious upbringing, and I detected in what they were saying a simple inability to directly criticise their heritage.

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch

Here's another example. Margaret Wertheim attacking Sam Harris at the Huffington Post. Once again, she is a non-believer herself, but she won't have any truck with Sam. Why? Well basically because her Mum was Catholic, and she liked her Mum a lot, and so on Very touching.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-wertheim/the-end-of-faith_b_16542.html

So I do wonder sometimes whether the unwarranted respect we grant towards religion is not closely tied to an equally unwarranted respect for our parents and grandparents who, by the simple fact of having lived longer, perhaps we can say really ought to have known better? And is this something that we ought to highlight more notwithstanding the sensitive and difficult nature of the topic? After all, it would be a pity to lose the battle against religion just because we couldn't bring ourselves to scrutinise our dear old Ma and Pa, wouldn't it?

25. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #10938 by Laurence Boyce on December 1, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Here are some facetious ratings in order of appearance:

Steven Weinberg – A bit ponderous.
Lawrence Krauss – A bit rambling and incoherent.
Sam Harris – My personal hero.
Michael Shermer – Amusing and easy going.
Neil deGrasse Tyson – Funny guy, but goes on a bit too long.
Joan Roughgarden – Quick, call security! A sad confused old lady has just wandered into the lecture theatre!
Richard Dawkins – Masterful and merciless.
Carolyn Porco – Miss Saturn.
Stuart Hameroff – The conference crank.
V.S. Ramachandran – Entertaining, informative, and interesting.
Paul Davies – The turtle man.
Steven Nadler – The conference philosopher.
Patricia Churchland – The school mistress.
Susan Neiman – Tiresome.
Loyal Rue – Vaguely interesting.
Elizabeth Loftus – Quite interesting.
Mahzarin Banaji – Somewhat interesting.
Scott Atran – Repeat after me: it's got nothing to do with religion!
Harold Kroto – Did I tell you that I was awarded a Nobel prize?
Charles Harper – Templetonian obfuscation.
Ann Druyan – Touching and eloquent.
Jim Woodward – It's got nothing to do with religion!
Melvin Konner – It's got absolutely nothing to do with religion!
Paul Churchland – A master class in public speaking without notes.
Richard Sloan – The medic.

26. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #9245 by Laurence Boyce on November 24, 2006 at 8:25 am

"I have spoken to the contributor and he assures me that he did not mean to criticise Professor Dawkins."

No of course he didn't criticise Dawkins. He merely pointed out that Dawkins would burn in Hell.

27. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #8152 by Laurence Boyce on November 20, 2006 at 2:17 pm

It's: radio.devon@bbc.co.uk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/local_radio

28. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #8116 by Laurence Boyce on November 20, 2006 at 12:50 pm

[Here is a transcript of the whole piece.]

Good Morning. "Remember, remember the 5th of November; gunpowder treason and plot." Well I'm sure we're all looking forward to a good bonfire night; whether it's tonight, tomorrow, or Sunday as it should be. The rockets banging overhead, the Catherine Wheels spinning, and writing our names in the air with sparklers. However in all the fun, it is easy to forget the purpose: Guy Fawkes and his cronies had a horrific plot – a plot full of treason, full of malice, full of rebellion. They were wanting to overthrow the rightful rule of the government.

The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, says a similar thing of all mankind with respect to God. He writes, "There is no-one righteous, not even one; no-one who seeks God, all have turned away." Paul is summing up what the Bible has to say about the human condition. Right from the start, from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we have been guilty of treason and plotting – not just against a human government, but against the ultimate government: God Himself.

Such an attitude can fully be seen today in the latest work of Richard Dawkins, the so-called "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University. His latest book sums up his anti-God beliefs – it's called "The God Delusion". He would want to do away with God and His rule for all time. What happened to Guy Fawkes & co for their treason? Well they end up being burned at the stake, as will be remembered by many Guys being thrown on bonfires over this weekend. And the Bible depiction is something similar for all those who want to dispense with God.

However, bonfire night isn't all that we remember in November. Just a week later, on the 12th, we will be remembering all those who gave their lives in the two World Wars, as we mark Remembrance Sunday with the traditional silence at 11.00 am. Then we remember those who willingly gave their lives, who shed their blood for their people – those who made that supreme sacrifice: to give up their life for their family and friends. Because of their sacrifice, we enjoy peace today.

So the Bible doesn't stop at teaching of our rebellion, but moves onto the wonderful Good News in Jesus Christ: that He came into this world on a rescue mission, He came to bring us peace, and that He achieved this by His death – which, remember, His death on the Cross is the ultimate sacrifice, and the means by which those guilty of treason against God can once and for all be declared His friends. As Paul would say later to the Romans, "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." So the rescue mission was achieved and the offer of peace with God is made to all.

But finally, and on a more personal note, for me and my family there's one other day of remembrance in November. On the 21st, my daughter Susanna will celebrate her third birthday. This reminds us of the need to accept Jesus' offer of peace with God. In the words of Jesus, "to be born again," to accept that He died for us, to win us. You and me – peace with God.

So there's a lot to remember in November. Make sure you don't forget!

29. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #7989 by Laurence Boyce on November 20, 2006 at 4:47 am

Who the hell is this guy? I'd really like to know. And why do we have to put up with free advertisment for religion on the BBC? Clifford Longley was nauseating as usual on "Thought for the Day" this morning. "Theology has never been more relevant to the state of the world," he said. Oh really?

Time to break up and privatise the BBC anyone?

30. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5217 by Laurence Boyce on November 8, 2006 at 5:10 am

[I posted a lengthy response to this article when it first appeared, which I reproduce here. It borrows from Sam Harris a fair bit.]

"To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason – to believe something by faith – is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so."

Thank you for this article Professor Grayling; the time is indeed long overdue to bury the meaningless assertion that we should simply respect people's beliefs per se. Nobody is saying, for instance, that we should respect racist, homophobic, or misogynistic beliefs; nor do we do so in practice. Instead we ask to hear good reasons and rightly demand evidence for all propositions. A failure to procure satisfactory evidence leads naturally to beliefs being marginalized. The time has come to extend this rather obvious principle to the demonstrable falsehoods of religion which have ravaged the finite resources of humanity for millennia.

Even more incoherent is the notion that we should somehow endeavour to respect all religious beliefs equally; never mind that they happen to lie in perfect contradiction with one another – a contradiction which all too frequently and predictably spills over into conflict. Ironically it is the religions themselves which have enthusiastically embraced this absurd stance, thereby willingly entering into the most unholy of alliances with all other faiths. I think we should view this new found tolerance and respect with extreme cynicism.

Many hundreds of years ago, religions were persecuting, torturing, and murdering their perceived enemies in large numbers. A mere century ago, the faiths had largely stopped doing this, though they would still have condemned their rivals unequivocally as false religions. Today, they have finally discovered the concepts of diversity and tolerance – along with sexual equality, freedom from slavery, and various other products of modernity – which somehow they were never quite capable of working out for themselves, divine inspiration notwithstanding. This is nothing other than the latest in a long line of survival strategies, and we should note with disgust that it was never the survival strategy of first choice.

But alongside the mantra that "we must respect all beliefs," there is another mantra which I think should merit a rethink; and it is one you have referred to yourself, Professor Grayling, when you say, "Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others." At one level this is clearly true, but I think that it may also be too simplistic. So I would like to seriously question the extent to which we may indeed enjoy freedom of belief. Here are some examples:

Religious beliefs concerning the role of the sexes within society keep women enslaved throughout much of the Islamic world today. The Pope's beliefs regarding the wickedness of a small rubber sheath fuel poverty and disease throughout much of the developing world. The beliefs of Jews and Muslims, concerning who possesses the divine real-estate rights to certain tracts of land in the Middle East, prove a constant source of tension and bloodshed. In what sense may we say that these are beliefs which anyone is "free" to hold? These beliefs are nothing short of lethal and we should endeavour to attack and obliterate them as if they were the deadly viruses to which Dawkins has likened them.

The idea that religion should be a purely private matter sounds perfectly plausible, but in practice it simply doesn't work out that way. Religion has never been content to restrict itself to a private sphere of influence. Why would it? Religions purport to hold the key to eternal life; the stakes could scarcely be higher. There is a failure in our discourse to appreciate the fervour with which some religionists (the more honest ones) truly believe and act upon the canons of their faith. Moreover, childhood indoctrination is inherent to religion, without which it would never last beyond a generation. It would appear that the right to freedom of religious expression is entirely equivalent to a right to burden the next generation with ignorance and falsehood.

So I roundly reject both these concepts: that we should simply respect the religious beliefs to which many subscribe; and, more controversially perhaps, that we in any sense have a right to freedom of belief. We should not seek to compartmentalise thoughts, words, actions, and inactions; they are all of a piece in my view. Instead, we should go on the offensive, developing a deep and lasting intolerance towards all strains of unreason. I am not proposing an Inquisition of my own here; it is a battle of words and ideas – a "conversational intolerance" as Sam Harris has termed it. Thank you Professor Grayling for adding to this lexicon of intolerance a simple phrase to be deployed against the many apologists for religion:

Ignoble, irresponsible, and ignorant.

31. Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good?

Comment #2609 by Laurence Boyce on October 22, 2006 at 5:41 am

Sam Harris is my personal hero, and it is most gracious of Richard to promote him, which I'm sure has made a considerable difference to his profile.

If there were dozens of Richards and Sams, this battle would be all but over.

32. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1981 by Laurence Boyce on October 18, 2006 at 6:39 am

Nice one Richard - relaxed and assured. All the best for the US tour.

33. Ryan Tubridy interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1199 by Laurence Boyce on October 10, 2006 at 12:25 pm

David Quinn - what a moron. Well done Richard, you just about held it together. Maybe go back to debating creationists - you'll get more sense out of them!