1. Man and God

Comment #103349 by photopedia on December 25, 2007 at 8:40 am

I'm not even going to bother getting into the business of responding to the details in this piece. The very fact that the Times carried this as their main editorial on Christmas Eve speaks volumes for the influence that Dawkins et al have had over the past year.
Talk about raising consciousness!
Congratulations to all sceptics, both sung and unsung.

2. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93412 by photopedia on December 3, 2007 at 5:34 am

Comment #93408 by briancoughlanworldcitizen.
I agree entirely with your position but you have expressed it so much more clearly than RD. He continually refers to labelling a child which sounds rather benign to me. What he really means (I think) is "extreme religious brainwashing". Inverted commas around your turn of phrase.
I know this is a matter of semantics but I think that it is important, nevertheless.

3. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72629 by photopedia on September 22, 2007 at 1:54 am

Comment #72596 by Russell Blackford.

What is the point of having government regulation of education if it is going to allow schools to teach pseudoscience or just plain bad science? Surely there should be standards on this. It's the last thing anybody should want to deregulate.

Russell. I don't think it is quite as bad as you infer from the Dept of Education statement.
As a resident of Lisburn City I would agree entirely with dannywalk's comment #72600. There are so many checks and balances in the State Education sector here in the UK that a crackpot like Paul Givan is unlikely to get past the starting post with his proposal.
I'm not so sure about the so-called Faith Schools which Tony Blair and others have encouraged lately. I AM concerned that these schools are already able to teach their children all sorts of dangerous nonsense.

4. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61457 by photopedia on August 5, 2007 at 8:07 am

22. Comment #61455 by Yorker.

In my experience, most doctors are not that rigorous and scientific in their everyday thinking. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science and I think that doctors reflect that in their beliefs and behaviour.
It is often quoted that over 90% of scientists are either atheists or agnostics but I'll bet you that the figure is MUCH lower for medics.
Most practicing doctors take a pragmatic approach to problems. It doesn't help to be too black and white when dealing with complicated organisms like human beings! I think that this attitude spills over into their attitudes to belief and superstition.

5. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61445 by photopedia on August 5, 2007 at 7:23 am

It's always amusing to see someone expose the more idiotic fringes of alternative therapy but the general public still retain a strong belief in the benefits of many, more respectable, alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, homeopathy and countless herbal remedies without a shred of convincing scientific evidence to support their claims of efficacy.
As a practicing physician, I'm aware how disingenuous doctors can sometimes be with their patients when asked what they think of these remedies. We know perfectly well that they are expensive placebos but are reluctant to tell our patients exactly what we think for fear that we will lose the rapport that is so essential to a good doctor-patient relationship. We're frightened that too much honesty might diminish our ability to help our patients.
Worse still, I know some medical colleagues who make a very substantial amount of money from private homeopathic practice. They are either self-deluded in their belief in this pseudo-scientific nonsense or, more likely, they are happy to leave their scientific training and scruples at home when it suits their bank balance.
If you want to see James Randi at his debunking best then watch him exposing the nonsense that is homeopathy at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U.

6. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58777 by photopedia on July 26, 2007 at 4:54 am

A "good" interview or a "poor" one? It really seems to depend on the views that you bring to the table a priori.
Did you notice that Sackur didn't choose to tackle Richard on the main case in TGD against a belief in a supernatural God. I think he made a tactical decision to hammer him on more peripheral issues like labelling etc. I thought that Richard withstood the onslaught pretty well. He conceded ground where appropriate and stood his ground on core issues.
Overall, I accept that the interview didn't move the debate on but a lot of "religious" viewers will have been happy to see Richard given "a hard time".
I'm still in awe of his ability to think on his feet.

7. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47321 by photopedia on June 4, 2007 at 4:45 am

I've experienced almost exactly the same emotions after reading TGD (see my contribution to Converts' Corner no.183) however the contrast with my original conversion to Christianity, as a teenager, was stark.
At that time, I distinctly remember the insecurity and unease that I felt when defending my beliefs and grappling with new ideas.
My whole belief system felt like a rigid edifice that would come crashing down at any time if I enquired or questioned too much.

8. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33849 by photopedia on April 22, 2007 at 7:25 am

Dawkins repeats his strongly held views about education and the labelling of children in this interview. As a resident of Northern Ireland, it frustrates me that the Labour Government has been so cowardly in its attempts to reform the sectarian education system here.
Quite rightly, they have been very determined in their efforts to reform the police but when it comes to schools...nothing. Indeed, it seems to me that Tony Blair's support for the expansion of Faith Schools in England and Wales will sew the seeds of division and sectarianism throughout the UK.

9. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #25895 by photopedia on March 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm

As a Protestant Atheist reared in Northern Ireland, I can support Crawley's view that children are unlikely to be taught to hate "the other side" in the current educational system. Neveretheless, I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins that the segregation of children in their schooling is responsible for perpetuating the tribal divisions in our society. I believe that the British Government has been far too reluctant to promote integrated education between the communities. They don't want to take on the might of the Catholic Church which knows, too well, the importance of indoctrinating a child "until he is seven".
Incidentally, although I was never taught to hate Catholics at school, I WAS taught, in evangelical bible class that all Catholics were going to hell because they were not "saved". Not a long way from being taught to distrust and fear them.
Maybe you can understand why Atheism, for me, is such a liberation and a positive way of explaining the world in comparison to my narrow-minded religious upbringing.