1. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28346 by Janey on March 28, 2007 at 9:35 pm

"Citing the facile dismissal of a trifling, low rent academic (i.e., Myers) is essentially an admission of defeat."

Far from it, to me it was a master stroke. Citing Myers was an act of satire designed to highlight the absurdities of many theological postulations. Sometimes satire can shine a light on things that even the most intellectual criticism can barely drag out from the shadows.

My favourite bit?

Richard: Well I mean, do you believe in the virgin birth?

Alister: Well I do, but the issue I think really is not simply how one makes sense of these things but actually what they point to.

Richard: No no look, you are a scientist, you are a biologist and you believe in the virgin birth, on scriptural grounds you actually elevate scripture above science in this case.

Alister: Well in this case, here is something which seems to me to be an integral part of the Christian tradition, which may well be in conflict with part of our present day scientific understanding, that's certainly and area of tension.

An area of tension? Now that has to be the understatement of the week or should that be weak?

Overall I don't think Alister will be very proud of his performance and I rather got the impression Richard was bored at the banality of the "debate" and would have preferred to be elsewhere.

Still fun though :)

2. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27669 by Janey on March 26, 2007 at 4:04 am

Happy Birthday Richard!

You will be in my THOUGHTS :)

Have a great day!

(HUGS)

3. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27097 by Janey on March 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

Pretty much the standard Religion v Science debate with the Scientist standing firm, his feet entrenched in the concrete of reason and evidence while the Religious advocate dances gaily around him sprinkling theological contrivances and appealing to the audiences spiritual uncertainties to make his points.

One thing McGrath said I found rather odd and contrary to what most people I know see and understand:

"When I was young I used to be an amateur astronomer, I used to look at the night sky and I knew just enough astronomy to know that the light from some of those stars wouldn't hit earth for hundreds of years and to me, that simply said to me, you will be dead by then and so the night sky was a symbol of melancholy, a reminder of the brevity of life."

Well I certainly have never felt melancholy when looking at the night sky. I have always seen wonder, awe, beauty and it has always given me a burning desire to know more about the universe, humanity and myself. It tells me how lucky I am to be alive, to be sitting there able to view it all and makes me realize just how precious this planet and all of its occupants are to me, it makes me want to get on with life, to do all I can and most of all live! It does not leave me fearful, downhearted and weeping at the feet of some supernatural being, worshiping it and begging to be spared the fate of all other things in the universe. Some of the most magical moments in my life have taken place under the blanket of the "heavens" and I would be happy to depart this mortal coil with its image fading in my eyes.

This one depressing negative view of something I and many others find so inspiring, to me at least, says so much more about the man than anything else he said during the debate.

Cheer up Alister (BIGHUG) :)

Talking about his presentational abilities, Alister McGrath has one of those wonderful voices that seem too be scattered liberally through out the ranks of the Anglican clergy. Every time I hear him speak I am minded to imagine a mitre upon his head, a large jewel encrusted crucifix dangling from his neck and him gently swaying as he preaches his sermon to the gathered faithful. As he speaks I find myself slowly drifting off into the same bored stupor I used to find myself drifting into when I used to attend church, the feeling of having heard so much, but learnt so very little.

Having said that, I envisage many people brought up in the Anglican tradition may find his tone and demeanour rather comforting and some indication of "authority" (something I imagine he is aware of and plays to the full) but to me it just emphasises the tradition he his speaking for and makes it very easy for me to slot his ideas straight into the bottom draw where they belong.