1. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #222500 by Tauriq on July 31, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Dennett is a genius. Even if he is sometimes a bit dry with his writing.

2. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #222489 by Tauriq on July 31, 2008 at 1:17 pm

I am the English dept. in UCT, the same one that produced JM Coetzee and Nadine Gordimer (two Nobel laureates). My obsession is more science than anything, so imagine my dismay when walking into my first (and now last!) Post-Modernism lecture, to be told: "The general incomprehension is the goal of post-modernism. If you don't understand it, fantastic. That is the point." I walked out after I asked a friend: "But what happens if you DO understand it? Does that mean you DONT understand it? How can he tell us about not-understanding?"

I also recommend Francis Wheen's Idiot-Proof, as it is called in the states, or elsewhere How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World; and Damian Thompson's Counterknowledge.

Nice review, Richard.

3. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #215316 by Tauriq on July 21, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I have written a blog, to the president and to PZ himself alerting him to this. The article I wrote, entitled 'In Defence of PZ Myers' has gotten positive viewing so there's some good news! Hey, Prof. Dawkins, thanks for putting the title of this in caps ;p GO PZ!

4. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160341 by Tauriq on April 14, 2008 at 1:11 am

Ravenhill has obviously not read anything of Dawkins or Dennett. He would know that Dawkins and Dennet both propose an objective view of ALL religions. Even Ravenhill is focussing ONLY on Christianity - what about Islamic architecture? What about the translations of Arabic scholars of Aristostle, scholars "inspired by God" (whatever Ravenhil means by that). He is also averse to using "atheist" as if it is a poisoned word that will hurt him.

He should know that Dawkins wants exactly that: a view of the Bible as simply literature. I am a novelist myself and have used the Bible many times, as the English is amazing. But, my atheism does not stop me from appreciating various "religious" iconography. Ravenhill also forgets about the time period many artists created there great works in - who had the money, the "sponsorship deals", the power, to give to the artists? Pagans and secularists? No! The Church. As Dawkins says often: "we will never know what would have happened if Michaelangelo was asked to pain the ceiling of the Science Museum."

This article has wafts of unread scholarship, denial of atheist open-mindedness and wondering why a secular scientist could be worshipped. Wouldn't deifying a man promoting the destruction of deification of anykind be contradictory? This article holds no water and it is quite sad to see such trash from such a usually reliable paper. And I'm writing from South Africa.