1. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300525 by jaytee_555 on December 12, 2008 at 2:36 am

Scientists do not have a responsibility to present their findings (or refrain from presenting them) so as to accommodate religious superstitions for political reasons.

People who kids themselves that religion is compatible with science simply do not understand either properly.

If scientists begin playing political games, it will destroy the authority and purity of true science, which are its greatest strengths.

2. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #299792 by jaytee_555 on December 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I said in an earlier post,

"I thought I detected an ever-so-faint reluctance on Richard's part to press him further; almost as if to disabuse this relatively harmless priest of his illusions would have been not simply impolite, but indeed unkind."

I am certainly not in favour of picking on harmless believers (particularly elderly ones)to sadistically destroy their comforting delusions. However, when the person in question is trained in theology, is perfectly happy to accept the 'authority' a priest's collar bestows upon him, and puts his abilities at the disposal of the Vatican, I think this makes him fair game. To neglect to expose the weakness of the arguments put forward by an articulate and clever representative of the Catholic Church is an opportunity missed. It is precisely because of his status as a priest, scientist and public figure that that he needs to be challenged all the more forcefully.

3. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #299668 by jaytee_555 on December 10, 2008 at 6:46 am

A rather nice old guy he may well be, but his reasoning left me distinctly underwhelmed. He is not even arguing for a 'God of the gaps' - he freely admits that from a scientific perspective God is unnecessary. He has chosen to accept the existence of an entire supernatural realm which he knows cannot be defended by reason, so pretends there is 'another way of knowing' while being vague and obscure about how and from what it derives its authority.

I can't help suspecting that were it not for his career, the vows of obedience he made when he took holy orders, and his being immersed in the Catholic Church's all-pervading atmosphere of magic and superstition, he would by now have taken the final logical step to full-blooded atheism.

He obviously loves 'Mother Church', her bells, smells and spells, rituals and tradition, and derives emotional sustenance from it. This is an unadorned 'argument from desire', and it is only his heroic effort to prevent the left side of his brain from knowing what the right side is doing that allows him to hang on to the all-important belief in his own immortality.

Perhaps it was only my imagination, but I thought I detected an ever-so-faint reluctance on Richard's part to press him further; almost as if to disabuse this relatively harmless priest of his illusions would have been not simply impolite, but indeed unkind.

My personal concern is that perhaps this sort of priest is not 'relatively harmless' after all, and by going most (but not all) of the way with science and reason, he actually represents a more sinister threat to the rationalist view of the world than do the anti-science contingent.

4. Children of God?

Comment #293771 by jaytee_555 on November 30, 2008 at 4:52 am

I wish some rich organisation would offer me a few thousand quid to prove that children tend to have childish ideas.

In the words of the song, 'Nice work if you can get it'!

The Templeton Foundation reminds me of the tobacco companies who funded 'scientists' to demonstrate that smoking was not dangerous.

5. Hitchens v Albacete - Excerpts

Comment #285139 by jaytee_555 on November 16, 2008 at 6:37 pm

This charming old guy must struggle hard every day to keep inventing reasons why he need not take the next obvious logical step. I'm almost tempted to hope he manages to keep it up, so long as it makes him happy. Anyone who can struggle so hard to hang on to a delusion almost deserves not to be disabused of it.

6. Anti-religion agenda among social media users

Comment #280509 by jaytee_555 on November 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Atheism is a religion in much the same way as Christianity isn't.

7. Faith Attack

Comment #265945 by jaytee_555 on October 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm

....and I always thought religious people believed that telling lies was sinful!

8. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #265021 by jaytee_555 on October 15, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Alabasterocean - comment 264920

Thanks for that link to the Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig debate.

I thought it was an excellent debate. William Lane Craig is as good a debater as I've seen for the 'other side' so far - miles better than D'Souza). Even so, he was easily made to look quite silly by Bart Ehrman (as one would expect anyway,since Lane Graig was always on a losing ticket).

It is definitely worth watching.

9. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261052 by jaytee_555 on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear!

And he gets a salary for this sort of vaccuous waffle?

Richard was right when he remarked that theology was not a valid subject of study. It's all pure double-talk

10. Respect for religion now makes censorship the norm

Comment #257521 by jaytee_555 on September 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I seem to recall that during the high profile 'Danish cartoons' controversy, the 'Guardian' (along with all the others) declined to publish them.

Perhaps this article is the Guardian's way of trying to redeem itself.

11. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253317 by jaytee_555 on September 24, 2008 at 9:39 am

"If a health professional is forced to act against their conscience, surely that's in conflict with the charter of human rights..."

This is not an insurmountable problem; all these catholic health 'professionals' need to do is educate their consciences.

12. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252841 by jaytee_555 on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm

"Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins".

Well, that's fair enough. After all, Dawkins has equipped many of us to deal with clerics!

Even after the clerics have had their crash course, we'll still win all the arguments, because our reasoning is based on facts, not faith.

13. When Atheists Attack

Comment #250984 by jaytee_555 on September 21, 2008 at 1:04 am

This is a superb article.

What a tragedy that such clear thinking and incisive writing is beyond the capacity of the religious right to appreciate.

You can hardly expect someone of Sarah Palin's poverty of grasp to realise she is utterly out of her depth - but the choice of VP was not hers; the blame rests squarely upon McCaine's shoulders for this iresponsible, selfish and cynical exploitation of the cream of American stupidity.

14. Turkish edition of The Ancestor's Tale sells out within a day!

Comment #250745 by jaytee_555 on September 20, 2008 at 8:24 am

The publisher said he was

".....suprised, because all distribution orders were finished in a day, and this has happened for the first time in 26 years of the publishing company history."

Adnan Oktars seems to have money to burn. I hope he hasn't bought the entire 2000 and trashed them.
I wouldn't put it past him.

Edit: Ooops...I see someone has already suggested this as a possibility.

15. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249764 by jaytee_555 on September 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Jeez.....

....getting that joke from The Onion completely arse-about-face says just about everything you need to know about this dipstick.

We should all visit Times Online 'comments', chuck in our two-penn'orth and have a bloody good laugh at him.

16. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #247975 by jaytee_555 on September 15, 2008 at 11:47 am

He's got to go.

And moreover, so have any RS links with the Templeton Foundation. Would the BMA give a lecture platform to anyone in the pay of the tobacco industry?

17. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

Comment #247462 by jaytee_555 on September 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm

What nonsense.

Firstly, people who accept Darwins Theory of Evolution (as do the present C of E clergy) have no need to apologise to Darwin, because they aren't the ones who were dismissive of him. An apology can only be made by the individual who commited the offence. No one can apologise for the behaviour of somoeone else. The best the current C of E clergy can do is express regret that such behaviour occured.

Secondly, even if the above were not true, a meaningful apology is not possible, because Darwin is dead, stupid.

What is really going on here, is that the C of E is desperately trying to look as if it respects scientific logic and rationality, and is 'modern' and 'science-compliant'. Unfortunately, it will not achieve this end until it repudiates the resurrection of the dead, eternal damnation of sinners, the existence of heaven and hell - in fact, all of the Apostle's Creed and assorted extras.

I believe in God the Father Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son our Lord ,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary ,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate ,
Was crucified , dead and buried;
He descended into hell ;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in
The Holy Spirit;
The Holy Catholic Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The forgiveness of sins;
The resurrection of the body ;
And the life everlasting .

When are they going to apologise for that load of superstitious old BS?

18. Anglicans back Darwin over 'noisy' creationists

Comment #246763 by jaytee_555 on September 13, 2008 at 4:50 am

Fundamentalist Creationists try to place their God in a gap which they fail to understand has already been plugged by Natural Selection. The moderates have to keep moving their God to whatever gap they can find that appears (at least temporarily) to be 'safe' from scientific encroachment. The only point of difference between moderates and fundamentalists is one of timing. Both insist that God directs the show, they just disagree about precisely where and when He chooses to get involved. Both are 'creationist' in the ultimate sense.

19. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #246272 by jaytee_555 on September 12, 2008 at 4:14 am

If the Pope was unfortunate enough to be kidnapped and raped by a homosexual stalker with AIDS, (now don't get upset, all you Catholics - it's only an ethical thought experiment), I wonder if Ratzinger would suddenly discover it had been revealed to him that the 'No Condom' rule was a mistake, and should be revoked.

20. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234419 by jaytee_555 on August 21, 2008 at 10:25 am

In the words of the song, 'Wouldn't it be Loverly'

21. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232819 by jaytee_555 on August 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm

What a gem of an article.

Dan Dennet is the Dog's Bollocks!

22. Petrol pump pilgrims keep faith

Comment #231911 by jaytee_555 on August 17, 2008 at 10:04 am

Oh Dear! Another irrefutable proof of the existence of god.

The basis of atheism has been destroyed! Richard Dawkins always said that if he was presented with evidence for the existence of God, he would have to change his mind - so when is this site going to be taken off the internet?

23. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #228113 by jaytee_555 on August 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I've just watched the second of Richard Dawkins' 'Darwin' programs. It just gets better. It disposes of several of the silly objections made by Creationists and moderates alike. When it is posted on You Tube, it will be a useful place to which one can direct people who continue with those boring objections as if they were killer arguments.

Great stuff, Richard.

24. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227707 by jaytee_555 on August 10, 2008 at 1:41 pm

I suppose there is so much tripe on the box that tv critics are suddenly out of their depth and at a complete loss when trying to review programs of the quality of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'. To review TV without living permanently in a state of incipient suicide, one must be mainly interested in fluff...and doesn't it show!

25. Congresswoman Slams Religious Right's Assault on Science's 'Edgier' Side

Comment #225992 by jaytee_555 on August 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm

"These children wouldn't exist if embryos were used for stem cell research."

Mmmm....better ban contraception,then! And abstinence too.

26. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215551 by jaytee_555 on July 22, 2008 at 5:43 am

Like 'nickthelight' (see comment 250494), I was rather surprised that someone as well-informed as Hitch had not previously known about this.

I've always thought the existence of cave dwelling blind salamanders (and shrimps, fish, etc) was one of the more obvious demonstrations of the fact of evolution. That some animals changed their modus operandi, and began to make their living in total darkness and stopped wasting their resources on redundant eyes, is an easy-to-grasp concept. Indeed I have used this example in many conversations with creationists for over 50 years. More recently, I have used it with good effect in discussing evolution with my grandkids.

I'm quite surprised that such a basic concept has only recently occured to Hitchins.

27. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #209366 by jaytee_555 on July 12, 2008 at 4:21 am

Richard is perfectly aware that language evolves. His letter is simply a plea to try to prevent a rather ugly new species (so to speak) from ousting the more aesthetically pleasing and perfectly serviceable existing species. There is nothing wrong with trying to exert a little selection pressure of one's own. Isn't that what we humans did with smallpox?

Richard may well eventually lose the evolutionary battle over this particular ugly neologism, but at least he's trying to address the issue. Ooops.

28. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208182 by jaytee_555 on July 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm

My two penn'orth.

Dear Sir,

Dr. Myers' popular, informative and frequently humorous blog is appreciated by tens of thousands of intelligent and thoughtful people worldwide who see it as a beacon of light in a nation rapidly succumbing to the intellectual darkness brought on by the rise of the Religious Right.

PZ may well have offended people, but offending people is no crime. Moreover, he could only 'actually' desecrate a cracker if it is indeed true that a cracker miraculously becomes the actual flesh of Christ when a priest has said so. This is surely very much in doubt; and until the doctrine of 'transubstantiation' is, so to speak, scientifically substantiated, it is simply a matter of opinion that desecration is even possible.

That some superstitious people foolishly believe transubstantiation to be a fact, does not give them the right to call for a person to be reprimanded or even dismissed by his superiors - however offended they feel. These humourless unfortunates with a dangerous vigilante mentality must learn to grow up, and not expect to have their delusions protected by trying to silence free speech.

I hope you will not give further encouragement to the bigots who are sending PZ death- threats by censuring him in any way.

Yours faithfully,

29. The BBC announces a major season marking the life and work of Charles Darwin

Comment #207341 by jaytee_555 on July 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Look out for the theologians and religious moderates scrambling to get their noses in the BBC trough! Watch them try to twist everything to make it appear as if everything Darwin said is what they were saying all along.

Am I being unecessarily cynical? Anyone wanna bet?

30. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206211 by jaytee_555 on July 8, 2008 at 7:11 am

Lennox is a total pain. Listening to him is like being forced to ride a bicycle too slowly...you keep falling off, and just can't get a proper discussion going.

Richard showed him the respect and deference that should be reserved for elderly religious people on their death beds - not superstitious, bumptious twats with delusions of scientific competence.

What on earth is Richard doing debating this
clown for a second time?

31. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201411 by jaytee_555 on June 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm

This guy has lost the plot.

Or maybe he is just an attention seeker who would prefer to be famous for being stupid rather than not being famous at all.

If someone ever hears me talking like that, will they shoot me, please?

Anyway, If ALL aliens all over the universe need redemption, it makes it pretty obvious that all beings created by God must have a serious design fault, and they cannot therefore be culpable for their failings - and so don't need to be redeemed in the first place!

32. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197246 by jaytee_555 on June 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Should this gene not be called the 'unselfish gene', since it apparently prevents the sterile worker females from 'selfishly' reproducing competing offspring? It seems to me that this would make more sense, because it appears this gene is an 'exception', and the other genes are the 'selfish' ones. I'm probably missing something here, but the article is rather short on detail.

Like others, I do hope Richard posts a better explanatory comment on this article.

33. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196408 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I had only read a half dozen lines of this article when I thought, hey!....what's all this 'thinking ahead', 'learning' and 'smart' stuff? This is all very interesting, for sure, but it is STILL basic natural selection.

I see "Riemann" came to the same conclusion, and hit the nail on the head by pointing out that it's not the individual bacterium that acquires the new trick, but its descendants.

Once again, it seems that the science is good, but the reporting is misleading.

34. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #195901 by jaytee_555 on June 19, 2008 at 2:39 am

I don't want to appear too cynical here, but I can't help thinking this is to do with Dowd having spotted a lucrative gap in the 'moderate' market. It doesn't smell like a 'genuine conviction' to me. And I can see how it would appeal to the many fence-sitters who find their position uncomfortable. It allows them to have their cake and eat it.

35. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180328 by jaytee_555 on May 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

If Richard and scientists like him lose their appetite for truth and 'telling it the way it is' and begin to employ political cunning as a means to an end, I for one would feel betrayed. I could never be certain that what was being said was factual, or just clever 'framing'.

36. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177488 by jaytee_555 on May 9, 2008 at 7:13 am

Affluence and superior education are usually claimed as being the reasons for the decline in Christian religious practice. I wonder if this report factored into its conclusions the likelihood that the current and future generation of Muslims will also fall away from their religion as they become better educated and more affluent?

37. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177397 by jaytee_555 on May 9, 2008 at 2:49 am

Our side gets little enough opportunity to counter the BBC's bias in favour of religion, so please Richard, accept the opportunity to respond to this guy. There must be a few pungent comments you can make that will draw listener's attention to the fact that the Archbishop's article is devoid of anything but self-congratulation and baseless fantasy.

He singles you out for a mention, and this offers you a good opportunity to point out that many, many people in America and Britain DO, in fact, believe in the God you "don't believe in".

There's also the issue of the Vatican's attempt to increase its political influence in Europe, and you could put in a good word for the NSS who would jump at the opportunity to expose the Catholic Church's political aspirations in that arena.

Unless you're really, really, busy, of course!

38. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166255 by jaytee_555 on April 23, 2008 at 3:52 am

"In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty".

This is absolutely true. One of the two does its best to enlighten man's uncertainty, and has been spectacularly successful. The other one actively perpetuates ignorance by dreaming up absurd explanations which are accepted only by fools.

Is there any 'uncertainty' about which is which?

39. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164807 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm

This is the kind of human story that newspapers are interested in. If it gets picked up by them, I believe that Ben Stein's cunning plan may well become unraveled. He may not be a Holocaust Denier, but it is easily demonstrated that he is a 'Holocaust Dissembler'.

The story has genuine human interest (I really felt sad for this man) and Richard's sincere and concerned humanity shown in the letter he wrote to this deceived person surely give the lie to Expelled's stated 'moral' motives. Getting this story and Richard's lucid explanation out beyond the blogosphere would do a lot to expose in a very concrete way, exactly what sinister mischief Ben Stein is up to.

40. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164580 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Monosilabbiq (50) says;

"For lots of people it is a revelation that their spiritual leaders are fallible".

I doubt it. Unless of course, they've never read a newspaper. It demeans this site when posters crow over this sort of thing. Christianity, (whatever it many faults and idiocies may be) is just as opposed to what this man did as we are, and it will appall Christians just as much as atheists.

This article would only be of any real interest to this of site if the guy claimed that his religion permitted giving out school diplomas for sex.

41. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164299 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 3:04 am

I'm another person who agrees with comment 4 by "The Hard Problem" and I also fail to see why this news item was posted here.

This man's behaviour was clearly wrong; but it was no more a consequence of his being a Christian than Stalin's behaviour was due to his being an atheist. Posters who gleefully jump on this sort of thing as if it were some kind of argument against Christianity are commiting exactly the same error as those Christians who make the "Stalin was an atheist" claim.

By all means, let us criticise Christianity, but let's be fair and logical about it.

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

Comment #160477 by jaytee_555 on April 14, 2008 at 6:33 am

Yet another "shit for brains" article on religion specially chosen by the Guardian to enrage sensible people enough to get them to post comments and increase their net traffic at any price.

43. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157929 by jaytee_555 on April 9, 2008 at 6:54 pm

re Comment #157743

"... no country that has based its constitution on Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo et al has ever perpetrated the kind of crimes perpetrated by Stalin and company, rooted as they were (supposedly) in Czarist, priest-ridden regimes." (Hitchins)

"...how could the constitution of a country be based on a cast of names arbitrarily plucked out of the air by Chritopher Hitchens"

The first of the two quotes, as it stands, is nontheless a statement of fact. It is also true, as you point out, that no such country has as yet existed, and so Hitchens' argument cannot be empirically demonstrated. But it CAN be logically demonstrated. Any country (past, present, or future, or even imaginary) that DID base its constitution on the writings of these men WOULD be, by definition, incapable of acting as Stalinist Russia did.

Stalin did not believe in God, but he clearly did not believe in the values of Paine and Jefferson either. In any case, since when has beliving in God prevented genocide? If the religious war-mongers of ancient times had had 20th century weapons at their disposal (and big enough populations of enemies to kill) they would have happily killed in the same numbers as Stalin and Hitler - and done it in God's name too.

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157018 by jaytee_555 on April 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I watched this program live on TV, and my heart sank by the minute as I realised the level of bigotry, stupidity and vested interest that Richard was up against. It seemed almost as if he had been invited there as a token "object of hate" that so many cheap and tatty tv program makers find necessary these days to guarantee a 'lively' show. In my opinion, his presence there was a waste of his time and abilites.

Time-serving clerics - educated men - who know better, but who refuse to condem religious ideas that are outright wicked, are worse than the holders of those ideas. At least there is an excuse for the god-fodder - most are merely ignorant and brain-washed. It is hard to decide who deserves the most censure - the objectionable deluded simpletons, the smooth-talking professional deluders, or the "audience grabbing at any cost" BBC.

That bizzare character, the would-be Mayor of London (noooo fucking chance, by the way) had all the facile confidence that only the truly lost posess. But I must confess it would be fun to hear it announced on the six o'clock news that the Mayor of London is claiming hob-goblins are responsible for the increase in Community Charges!

The whole spectacle was painful to watch. Richard cannot possibly do justice to himself in a circus atmosphere. I seriously think he would do himself a favour by avoiding low-grade programs like this where there is no intention whatsoever of actually dealing with the 'Big Questions', and where the presenter keeps interrupting any answer after three seconds, just to ensure the camera keeps cutting back to his own friggin' face.

45. Beware the Believers

Comment #151603 by jaytee_555 on March 29, 2008 at 3:41 am

Like Prof Dawkins, (and the same age as him) I couldn't understand a word of it. In any case, I hate rap, considering it a form of sound for people who have difficulties with music. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I read the 'translation' and realised that whoever wrote the words was pretty well informed. The whole thing is professional and well-produced, and seemed to me to be more of a clever, studied rap 'piss-take' than anything else - likely to go over the heads of anyone who isn't familiar with the subject matter. Not my cup of tea, though obviously popular with a lot of posters on this site...and it helps the cause.

46. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141370 by jaytee_555 on March 10, 2008 at 10:05 am

All this is saying is;

"WE will tell you what is a sin and what is not, and WE are the only people with the authority to forgive or not forgive, and if you don't use OUR product, you will be tormented in hell for ever and ever."

Was there ever a more successful protection racket than the Catholic Church?

Was there ever a more dispicable exploitation of humanity?

How do they get away with it?

47. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129565 by jaytee_555 on February 19, 2008 at 10:09 am

As someone pointed out earlier, this sort of research is along the lines that Dan Dennet has been calling for, but it is very worrying that the first to offer money is from the Templeton Foundation.

Wikepedia says;

"In addition to its central activity funding scientific studies, the Foundation awards the annual $1.5 million Templeton Prize[35] to the living individual who best exemplifies "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity".

And also;

In 2004..... the Foundation presented the makers of the controversial movie The Passion of the Christ with a $50,000 "Epiphany Prize for the Most Inspirational Movie.

This doesn't look to me like an organisation interested in truth and reason. A bona fide funding source should not have to defend its aims and activities from the constant criticisms of bias the way the Templeton Foundation finds it is forced to do. From a quick reading of the Wikipedia entry, it seems that even its 'legit' business appears dubious. I think any researchers who take the bait should be very careful not to allow themselves to be 'leaned on'. I fear the Templeton Foundation will make very selective use of the results of the research.

Which of us could fail to be suspicious if we discovered that a £2 million grant to investigate the correlation between health and smoking had been provided by the tobacco industry?

48. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #125440 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 11:15 am

So it was WE who 'misunderstood' was it? Silly us. It is very decent of the Archbishop to conceed that he may have been a bit clumsy in expressing his ideas; but isn't he supposed to be an expert at expressing ideas?

And is it really likely that he could be so appallingly clumsy that millions of people ( lawyers, politicians, clerics, journalists, Christians, secularists, atheists, Muslims, people of many different religions and none, all misunderstood him? The only people who appear not to have misunderstood him, are those members of the Synod, who gave him a standing ovation.

However much I may have disagreed with Rowan Williams in the past, I would have probably agreed with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he said that the Archbishop was a "man of integrity", but I feel his integrity should now be questioned after this fake apology. The Archbishop dishonestly tries to make it look as if he was criticised for raising the issue; but it is what he said about the subject, not the raising of it, for which he was rightly criticised. He has not retracted the statements he made. From what I saw on the six o'clock news this evening, he has apologised only for not being clever enough to find a form of words suitable to prevent idiots like me from misunderstanding him.

The truth is that we did NOT misunderstand him. We understood him only too damn well, and we want him to take his wet and woolly social 'sensitivity' to the people who are responsible for sharia law, and persuade THEM to bring THEIR laws in line with existing British law.

He is entitled to his views, and entitled to argue for them them, but if he want's to retain his integrity, let him not pretend he didn't mean what he obviously DID mean.

49. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125298 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 7:58 am

I looked at the advertisement for the post, hoping to see something like;

"Templeton Prize winners and wannabees need not apply".

Can you imagine the collective wail that would arise from readers of this site if somehow establishment reactionary forces managed to bring political pressure to bear on the appointment?

What if we ended up with a Peacock or a Polkinhorne?

Richard - please tell me this is impossible!

50. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125197 by jaytee_555 on February 11, 2008 at 4:02 am

One must admire the courage of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and her colleague Taj Hargey, in resisting sharia law from within its sphere of influence. This impassioned plea from a Muslim woman asking Rowan Williams to stop making things worse, carries even more weight than most other similar criticisms, coming as it does, from someone who feels and sees its effects every day, and risks her own safety in speaking out.

However, I would imagine that most readers and posters on this site will not be able to wholeheartedly support her stated aims. She says, as a trustee of the organisation 'British Muslims For Secular Democracy', that she is

"....attempting to educate Muslims out of authorised obscurantism and non-Muslims into a better understanding of the progressive and evolutionary nature of the practice of Islam".

I have to ask myself what that might be. Will it be the eqivalent of what Luther and the Reformation did for Roman Catholicism? And if so, is it something we think is desirable?

She adds;

'Sharia is nothing but a human concoction of medieval religious opinion ...... Most sharia contradicts the letter and spirit of the Koran, [and] distorts the transcendental text."

So, it seems, sharia is merely man-made opinion and to be distrusted (indeed, got rid of); but the Koran is 'trancendental'. Short of a miraculous latter day appearance by the Prophet to interpret the 'true' meaning of the 'trancendental' text, someone will need to take on the job. But who? The British Muslims For Secular Democracy?

It may seem a little churlish to question the aims of an organisation that is clearly an improvement on Islam's status quo (and perhaps it would be better discussed in a different thread), but I would like to hear other readers' ideas on how long a spoon they think we need to safely 'sup with the devil' when Islam is involved. (Or any other religion, for that matter).