1. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25058 by skippip on March 10, 2007 at 12:26 am

Ah, I see - Science as the bad guy. The key is in his statement about the bloody 20th century "..they were fought about ideologies." I think he's missed the point due to his amazing wooly thinking. Science, as described in both the books he attacks is not an ideology so cannot be directly blamed for the 20th century. In their purest forms, science and religion offer a way of thinking that can, of course, be abused. However, the key difference is that religion offers only uncritical belief at its core. I don't see how this might help us stop fighting and killing each other anytime soon.

The scientific method, however, allows the potential for thinking people to understand each other and agree upon how the world works. Of course ideology will get in the way sometimes but I suspect that ideologies are often driven by a lack of critical thinking.

2. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23905 by skippip on March 3, 2007 at 1:36 pm

What is always more amazing than religious commentators trying to dissapear down the cracks of logic is those interviewers who let them do it. As Dawkins has rightly stated, such logic would not get you far in a court of law so it certainly should not be permissable in a so-called logical argument.

3. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #23140 by skippip on February 26, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Reading through many pro-Christian comments on this web-site does lead to a rather stunning conclusion: the authors of most of them believe themselves invincible and can therefore write what they want and not be criticised. I've not yet seen someone say "Hey, my religion is not logical - I just like it and believe in it" - well fine, ok.

It is quite clear to me that to believe in God is equivalent to believing in a frozen penguin on Pluto - presently unproveable and unlikely. If that's what you want to believe, great but don't pretend it makes sense to anyone else or is defensible. But McGrath, at the start of the Dawkins Delusion, equates belief with non-belief. He rubbishes Dawkins's suggestion of a mind-virus for belief by suggesting there may be an equvialent for non-belief. Wow, try to swallow that one whole! If you believe that God created the universe would he really create a non-belief mind virus???

I'm going to bed to have a nice lie down...