1. The importance of doubt

Comment #66553 by danceswithanxiety on August 30, 2007 at 11:51 am

And yet, Dawkins is as reluctant as any evangelical fundamentalist to recognise the importance of an element of doubt, or doubt of doubt, in religious faith, or to accept that much of the content of religious faith is metaphorical, poetic and symbolic rather than factual in a scientific sense.

This is laughable. Dawkins does not argue against the existence of poetry or metaphors or symbols, but against the existence of god.

If Cornwell thinks Dawkins, in The God Delusion and in other writings, does not value the importance of doubt (relentless skepticism & self-questioning), then he has failed a most basic test of reading comprehension and should try again.

2. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63638 by danceswithanxiety on August 15, 2007 at 7:13 am

If you start from the point of view that all religion is nutty, you've got nothing more to say to a Muslim than, "How can a mountain move, you idiot?"

That's a good start but that's hardly all there is to be said. Insist that the Muslim try harder for answers. Insist that he/she pull his nose up from the prayer rug and read a few more books, talk to a few more people, engage some fresh thinking. Good answers will come by this route, whereas the Koran has already given its answers, and they range from irrelevant to false to monstrous.

3. God '08: Whose, and How Much, Will Voters Accept?

Comment #58070 by danceswithanxiety on July 23, 2007 at 9:07 am

"Where would the Bible be?" she asked. "Would it be above the Book of the Mormon, or would it be beneath it?"

Where would evidence, logic, and reason be? Above or below any given book of fables?

Sheesh. This is a scary country.

4. Face to faith

Comment #57851 by danceswithanxiety on July 21, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Studying religion as a cultural phenomenon is fine by me. I would put it on par with studying ancient literature and ancient works of art. That has somewhere between little and nothing to do with the theses of the recent books by Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Dennett's book addressed religion-as-cultural-artifact fairly, although he didn't dwell on it, as it was not central to his book.

This article asserts that something is missing from these books, but doesn't actually say what it is. It seems to be saying the books should have dropped more names from "religious studies" departments. Whatever for? To what end? In support of what relevant line of inquiry?

If they overlooked something essential to the cases they attempted to make, state what it is. Enlighten us and them.

5. Face to faith

Comment #57822 by danceswithanxiety on July 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris "appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area."

Maybe, maybe not. So?

The field of religious studies seems blissfully unaware that all religions are based on falsehoods, even the home-team's religions.

6. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55556 by danceswithanxiety on July 11, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I appreciate RD's generous and patient reply but I also relate to the exasperation. I read Wilson's criticism of Dawkins and found it a study in missing the point; also it had the feel of something written by someone paid by the word.

7. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51705 by danceswithanxiety on June 24, 2007 at 8:03 am

You Canadians should count yourselves lucky that only one high-ranking officer of your government is awash in ignorance!

8. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37372 by danceswithanxiety on May 4, 2007 at 8:49 am

Behe grudgingly praises Dawkins for invigorating "the larger debate"? What larger debate would that be?

This is one of those rivalries where one side (Dawkins) doesn't realize he's even in a rivalry. Likewise, a dog is not in a rivalry with the tick that has attached itself.

Well, at least Michael Behe is getting published *somewhere,* even if it is in one of the discount newsweeklies instead of a peer-reviewed science journal.

Go away, Behe. Go waste your life in a church and stop fouling science and public discourse.

9. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31373 by danceswithanxiety on April 12, 2007 at 7:28 am

Stuffing "god" into one's gaps is the height of intellectual laziness.

This is sad. It's bad enough that Ratzinger has wasted his entire life on a fraud, but now he wants to take biological science down with him.

"The holy see" is blind.

10. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29262 by danceswithanxiety on April 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

Picking up on something silves93 said: while I have appreciated Sokal and Bricmont's efforts in exposing these 'postmodern' frauds, there is a straw man element to this work. Not everything labeled 'postmodern' deserves dismissal, and more to the point, it is not difficult to find clear expressions of postmodern themes and ideas. Stanley Fish leaps to mind -- I would love to see a convincing Sokal/Bricmont-style debunking of the sort of antifoundationalism propounded in works like "The Trouble With Principle" and "There's No Such Thing as Free Speech," where a serious (and lucid) attack on enlightenment rationality can be found.