51. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88578 by Flagellant on November 17, 2007 at 11:45 pm

On this law/theory thing, I think comment 88192 by Caeruleum has it, although 88072 Robert Maynard and 88158 Mike O'Risal almost got there.

Things like 'Boyle's Law' and 'The Second Law of Thermodynamics' are very specific. The word 'Principle' is spot on: both clear and general enough. What's more, it contrasts nicely with 'dogma' and 'scripture'.

Taking e.g. Le Chatelier and Heisenberg, and the way the terms are used (Le Chatelier's Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), 'The Evolution Principle', 'The Evolutionary Principle', or 'The Principle of Evolution' all sound OK. They might be quite difficult to challenge, too.




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

[And if someone else has already got this in, then my apologies – I've had this comment ready for a long time, awaiting repaired logon.]

52. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86826 by Flagellant on November 10, 2007 at 8:37 am

OK, so no-one likes the idea of sending the remains of Denis Howell. While Vendetta's Dennett suggestion has merit: 'try sacrificing a goat', I'm not sure that it has the essentials of a sacrifice. I learnt at Sunday School that a sacrifice had to be something really valuable, otherwise it wasn't really a sacrifice. (In a modern context, god might see the sacrifice of one goat simply as an esoteric extension of the Monty Hall problem.)

God once required Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac until, at the last minute, god relented and accepted a ram, caught by its horns in the thicket. (No consistency and no constant values, this god.)

Now, I have a neighbour with a very valuable, thoroughbred dog. It's also a nuisance - yapping at all times of the day and night. Do you think this animal might meet the criteria?

Alternatively there could be a famous father and son pair of politicians who might be persuaded to help out properly...


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

53. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86767 by Flagellant on November 10, 2007 at 5:48 am

Georgia could, instead of praying, perhaps appoint someone appropriate to deal with the drought.

In 1976, the UK had a terrible drought (make that 'nice summer', phasmagigas) lasting many months. Like all countries with a proper, constitutional church-state, they weren't prepared to leave it to god. Instead, they appointed a (political) Drought Minister, Denis Howell. I don't think he had to do much and it immediately started to rain.

People were always inclined to view him as a bumbling twit, but he obviously had things going for him. I heard him speak in the Commons, once. He was very lucid. I think he died in 1998. We might be able to disinter him and send him over, Georgia. There was obviously something about him that this 'god' fella hasn't got...



Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

[Edit: updated for spelling and more information.]

54. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86736 by Flagellant on November 10, 2007 at 3:26 am

Summer Seale I think you rather miss the point I am making: Conrad's original mention of 'noumena' needs careful explanation. Otherwise, how are we to understand it properly? In isolation, it doesn't read at all well...

Look, I understand the frustration but, alas, we are only going to win arguments by being well-informed and polite. We do not do this by being angry and shooting from the hip. It's about being accurate and winning the argument in the widest possible sense.

This is supposed to be a site of reason, not emotion. Although one may use shorthand comments as one would among friends, do not forget that alien quote-miners may be at work.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited for spelling.]

55. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86701 by Flagellant on November 10, 2007 at 2:11 am

Not much to say about Ms O'Connor's article except 'well done; well-written'.

However, if posters want to comment on articles being discussed here, it's useful to do a bit of homework. Too frequently, posters adopt ad hominem arguments. Being nasty about someone may make you feel better but it doesn't win any converts. It may also make us look trivial, ignorant, and strident.

A very good example is the use of the words 'noumena'/'noumenal'. It's interesting to note that the words are used in the article to which Kelly is replying. D'Souza says

Kant contended that while science and reason apply to the world of sensory phenomena, of things as they are experienced by us, science and reason cannot penetrate what Kant termed the noumena – things as they are in themselves. [My italics]

56. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85809 by Flagellant on November 7, 2007 at 8:39 am

An interesting and well-argued article, Russell. I wonder slightly, though, about how far we should go in appeasing the religiosi.

I was interested in your implicit 'bargain' that the state might '…bend rules when it can, though not where it has a compelling interest based on something like public safety' (p.47). I note your further caveats but I think we need to be very careful about allowing rule-bending and here are a few thoughts that might help flesh out the exceptions.

When one looks at the religious-secular boundary, I think you first have to make a clear distinction between religious beliefs which are merely silly, private, and therefore 'acceptable' and those which are nasty or which intrude into secular society. I'm all in favour of letting the religiosi practise (silly) things which do not impinge on secular life: not eating pork or shellfish, not drinking alcohol, not using power on a Saturday, or having nothing to do with any technology as recent as the 20th Century, for example. But 'in your face' things are different. The French seem to have it right by banning overtly religious symbols in the classroom and I sometimes think that they ought to go further. Indeed, I frequently describe religion as being an activity only for consenting adults in private.

However, when one finds the silliness intruding significantly into secular life: Mohammedans in Sainsbury's being given dispensations from handling bottles of alcohol, eruvim in Golders Green, Sunday laws designed to make Sunday 'special', and restrictive and enveloping clothing for women in public situations, one has to consider being less tolerant.

Then, there are the nasty bits: when polygyny is implicitly acceptable but not polyandry, outright interference with termination clinics, genital mutilation, '(dis)honour' killings, and public condemnation of homosexuality, I can't help feeling that we ought to tighten the limits of acceptability here and this might include dealing with kosher and halal butchery, too. The UK has begun it by imprisoning Mohammedan protesters displaying 'Behead those who insult Islam' posters on the grounds that such posters and slogans are incitements to violence. Note that we don't need special legislation, but the police need to be pushed - all of these nasty practices are already covered. Religions get a free ride too often, solely because their practices are regarded as 'sacred', not because they're acceptable. (Unfortunately, the UK has recently gone slightly in the wrong direction by giving religion a bit more legal protection.) This is the problem with bending over backwards: we do it too much already.

I'm very interested in the way in which things work in Australia; it seems you have avoided both establishmentarianism and a de facto religious state. The US has a bit to learn from you, in this respect (lol).

Nice piece. I always recommend Dennett when people talk about atheism being 'shrill'.




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

57. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84679 by Flagellant on November 3, 2007 at 7:17 am

Irrespective of the legal and constitutional considerations, has it struck anyone that the Phelps family are, in many respects, indistinguishable from Islamists?

Substitute Allah for God in 'God hates fags' and 'God hates America' and their positions are identical. (Presumably God and Allah are merely different brands of the pink unicorn.) I wonder if someone, somewhere could effect the relevant introductions; they'd have so much to talk about...



God is grott, merdeiful.

58. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84651 by Flagellant on November 3, 2007 at 6:05 am

When knowledgeable people like Polkinghorne and Cornwell suggest, erroneously, that atheists do not appreciate the bible's 'poetry and metaphor', this does not increase the level of respect due. It is a position into which they have been pushed by their inability to produce real evidence or argument. It is simply a variant on the 'religion may be crap but it helps' argument. Why should one respect 'metaphor'? Does 'sacred' make sense in a metaphorical context?

As far as the literalists are concerned, 'Holy' books should no more be afforded respect than other ancient texts of wisdom and perception. Indeed, there are good reasons for being less respectful to the 'holy' books than to, say, The Odyssey. One reason might be because the bible and koran have dual characteristics: both are claimed as true (to believers) but both have parts that are objectively nasty - to secularists and, arguably, to believers too.

So much for the texts; now for belief & identity: Mohammedans define their identities by their religion, as do many christians. They expect respect for that, do they? Respect for a religious position, whatever it is, is illogical. How can one respect someone simply for believing something? Respect is earned; it is due to people whose achievements result from learning or accomplishment.

Almost completely off the subject, there was a cartoon on the front cover of Private Eye once. There was a picture of HM the Q and Prince Phillip. He says, as he did actually say once: 'Our children have all done rather well.' The Queen says 'Yes - they've all become princes or princesses...'



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

59. The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare

Comment #84642 by Flagellant on November 3, 2007 at 3:18 am

Dr Payne's talk was outstanding and enthralling. While the plight of the whales is desperate, (indiscriminate whale-hunting in the name of 'science', fishing net drownings/damage, and massive human-caused pollutant ingestion – Cr - & concentration - POPs), hooray for Dr Payne's consciousness-raising. He and Ocean Alliance provide some hope for these lovely creatures... Bravo!

Here's an earlier talk of Dr Payne's: http://www.oceancommission.gov/publicomment/northeastcomments/payne_comment.pdf . I'm sure someone will be able to come up with some more up-to-date links.

Congratulations on the prize - thoroughly deserved. Also thanks to Balliol and Dawkins family.

60. The truth in religion

Comment #84372 by Flagellant on November 1, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Anyone (e.g. Polkinghorne) who really thinks Darwin's Angel is an 'enlightening read' either hasn't read it properly - as an 'answer' to The God Delusion - or is, like Cornwell himself, intellectually dishonest. Darwin's Angel is a nasty book that frequently attributes views to Richard Dawkins, printed in The God Delusion, that are clearly those of other people. Moreover, they are views to which, it is clear to anyone other than a careless or prejudiced reader, that Richard does not subscribe.

Here is the conclusion to a review of Darwin's Angel, that I wrote with both DA and TGD to hand.

In his preface, Cornwell is explicit that he intends '…not so much to pick a fight…as to offer a few 'grace notes'…and…glosses in the interests of sharper logic, closer insight, and factual accuracy' (DA, p. 18). Well, phooey! If logic equals caprice, insight equals obfuscation and factual accuracy equals wilful misrepresentation, then he's on target... If you read Darwin's Angel, you will find a travesty of Dawkins's views and, if you accept Cornwell's misrepresentations, you will find yourself very badly informed by his perversions.

61. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84046 by Flagellant on November 1, 2007 at 4:17 am

So how about a bit more respect for atheists and well-researched, well-argued texts like The God Delusion?




Religion - An activity for consenting adults in private.

62. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84000 by Flagellant on November 1, 2007 at 1:18 am

I heard about this decision on BBC Radio 4: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm My initial reaction was gleeful; I can't but hope that this case may moderate the behaviour of hate-preachers, even if it is overturned on appeal.

However, a more considered response is to think about the limits of free speech. I'm sure the US has discussed the concept of free speech ad nauseam but, if there is an implicit Constitutional permission for the Phelps family to behave as they did, isn't there something wrong?

The funerals were not completely private functions. It seems iniquitous that one could be successfully prosecuted for heckling the hate-filled Phelps family in church ('private') but that they could picket and shout at someone's funeral ('public'), with impunity. The piece suggests that some states have enacted laws to prevent demonstrations of this sort but that Maryland hasn't. Shouldn't Maryland have draft legislation ready for when the decision is overturned?

Mind you, I would love to see a case in which people like the Phelps family were challenged to prove the accuracy of statements like 'God hates fags' and that 'the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality'.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

63. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #82864 by Flagellant on October 28, 2007 at 4:30 am

Tabash is doing an excellent job of consciousness-raising. His representation to the California Supreme Court about same sex marriage can be found here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1806,Brief-Regarding-the-California-Same-Sex-Marriage-Case,Eddie-Tabash. It prevailed. The importance of Church-State separation cannot be overemphasised.

It is wrong to dismiss Tabash as unimportant or misguided. The next major move in the war on secularism will be legal, so it is very important to have informed and active legal opinion on 'our' side.

Watching from the far off UK, it has seemed to me for several years that the US Supreme Court is the crucial battle area. If the Court becomes illiberal, the US would be well on the way to becoming a theocracy. It would be the devil of a job to reverse it once the complexion of the Court had changed. The Court is currently very finely balance.

I do not like single-issue politics. However, in this one respect, I would be prepared – if I were electorally involved - to subordinate all of my other opinions to vote for a Senate which would oppose any religion-driven nominee. Church-State separation is vital. Tabash makes this clear, even if he does not appeal to everybody personally. Wake up USA! (And I don't mean "Good morning!")




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

64. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82398 by Flagellant on October 26, 2007 at 8:21 am

The problem is that 'moderates' do not deal adequately with extremists. They neither 're-educate' them nor identify them to the police.

Most moderates – and this is particular true of Islam – tend to find more in common with fellow Moslems, whatever they do, than with their secular countrymen.

Thus, when pushed, many moderates will effectively side with, rather than denounce, their co-religionists. Try asking a representative sample of Moslems with whom they have more in common: bin Laden or Richard Dawkins...

This argument can be developed for other religions, e.g. for Catholics and abortion clinic bombers.




God is absolutely grott, merdeiful.

65. Egypt's fight against female circumcision clashes with tradition

Comment #82365 by Flagellant on October 26, 2007 at 6:57 am

The effects of this vile procedure do not relate simply to sexual enjoyment. In some parts of the World, it involves excision of the labia and sewing together the wound with wire. All of this is done without anaesthetic, of course. Because the girls have to be held down, their shoulders are sometimes dislocated.

The 'operation' has a deleterious effect on childbirth - the amount of damage done is devastating to health: infections, fistulas, and incontinence, for example.

A friend of mine worked with Medecin sans Frontiers in Somalia. She came across these procedures. She explained that a girl couldn't get married if it hadn't been done. It's all done in the name of 'neatness'. I think they call it 'Gilding the Rose'.

I had forgotten what she had told me. This thread brought it back: it is horrific.


God is grott, merdeiful.

66. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #82354 by Flagellant on October 26, 2007 at 6:20 am

A fascinating, if slightly repetitive exposition. It is interesting to be able to go back to see what the Constitution writers really meant, simply by looking at clauses that they didn't include. The meaning can then be safely and unambiguously deduced. I wonder if there are similarly extant rejected clauses about 'The Right to Bear Arms'... Lol.

As for the Aussie Constitution, I love it apart from the theoretical possibility of having Brenda say 'No!' to a piece of Australian legislation. Still, with a Governor General like this, http://governor_general.blogspot.com/ who would complain now, eh?



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

67. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81727 by Flagellant on October 25, 2007 at 5:25 am

I think NJS has a point about deportation but it's important to make the distinction that the BNP is motivated largely by racial intolerance.

A few days, ago, I was discussing the de facto extremism of many Mohammedans. My friends and I concluded that it would not be unreasonable to conduct surveys among British Mohammedans, asking them many questions, including if they approved of murder for apostates and infidels, and if they would like Sharia law. Those assenting to the questions would immediately be deported to (e.g.) Saudi Arabia.

The idea was discussed humorously and I am not sure that I would advocate it seriously. It would, of course, be wildly impracticable. However, there are too many people for whom all cultural and religious practices must be tolerated, simply by nature of their being cultural and/or religious.

For too long we have failed to grasp the multicultural nettle. OK, we like foreign food, clothes and customs that are not anti-social. But we have to draw the line much more strictly. The prison sentences for Mohammedan demonstrators ("Behead those who insult Islam") were suitable steps but more and stronger measures could be taken. The police only acted against these men with reluctance. The forces of law and order must be pressed - by Parliament - to act more forcefully against extremism (e.g. incitement) governed by current legislation. There is no excuse.


Verily, god is grott, merdeiful.

68. Devil of a problem

Comment #80468 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 11:13 pm

The threat to the Tassie Devil has just been reported on BBC Radio Four (national) 7.00 a.m. News.

69. The greatest debate

Comment #80394 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I remember the last (UK) census form I completed. The 'none' box was the last (or the last but one before 'other'). I left the whole section blank and there was no comeback. It pissed me off that 'none' didn't come first.

If they had put 'none' first, I'd have been more inclined to tick that. 'None' is, of course, the default position and should always precede the 'wishful thinking' answers. Next time...



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

70. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80390 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Hi decius. I think I'd stick to my original statement, based on my very limited and general knowledge of British royalty. It's interesting that you know more about the charming family than I do. As a confirmed republican, I don't bother with them if I can help it. However, I suspect that other Brits of my persuasion would think the same about your description: the queen is quite intelligent, even though she may go in for 'funny things'. I've never read about the astrology or the homeopathy, whereas I've read about Charles and his nonsense. He is very, very, dim and makes his views more widely known than anyone else from Disfunctional Towers.

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with some Americans on a train, years ago. They expected me to know all about the Royal family but I couldn't name half of them. The Americans knew far more about them than I and they thought my ignorance 'frightfully bad form'. I thought it would have been a bit strong to refer to the Russian and French solutions then, but I'm sure you'll appreciate it more.

My observation wasn't meant to start an argument or even a discussion; it's certainly not meant as a criticism. There are newspapers over here that report everything going on with the royals and their hangers on. At election times, I publish my personal manifesto which would make it a criminal offence to report anything to do with the royal family apart from their permanent and total abdication. This would have to be done as part of disestablishment, of course.

And, back on subject, the petition is inappropriately worded. We should be seeking a peerage for RD, not a knighthood.

Congratulations to Kimi, btw.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

71. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80353 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Perhaps I was remarking more on the "dwarf intellect" bit. Besides which, Charles is much better known for his advocacy of daft ideas like quack medicine than is his Mum, even though she may use strange potions, too. Now, if you'd referred to her as self-absorbed, trivia-obsessed, and bad-tempered, I'd have been there a bit quicker...

And, while I think of it, I should pay more attention to the Court Circular pages and 'Hello' magazine. LOl.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults (and monarchs) in private

72. The greatest debate

Comment #80347 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 11:55 am

Thanks for nominating this article, Russell Blackford. It makes me pleased about Australian politics. Mind you, when you've got people like Pell (nutty RC archbishop) and Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali (even nuttier Muslim cleric) - and that's just in Sydney - you need some common sense. I'll be following the election, Howard v. Rudd, with interest.

I'm not sure that I can entirely agree that there has been

...sheer relief among atheists at finding it publicly acceptable - even fashionable - to express the contrary view on religion, despite it having being theoretically permissible for several decades.

73. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80337 by Flagellant on October 21, 2007 at 11:19 am

I too have signed. While I would describe Charles as

...a despicable social parasite whose dwarf intellect is constantly engaged in lending credibility to homeopaths and quacks of all kinds

74. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78830 by Flagellant on October 15, 2007 at 3:09 am

A most enjoyable speech and congratulations.

One tiny point, though: didn't the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change win the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore?

Also, perhaps I've not been paying attention recently but I haven't seen an announcement that TGD stayed on the NY Times' Bestseller List for one year. I'm pretty sure it did...

Anyway, I hope RD doesn't fall on hard times and have to try for the Templeton Prize. No, hang on though; don't wait for the hard times. Have a go! Remember Alan Sokal and Social Texts...

75. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78153 by Flagellant on October 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

One might take this 'overture' a little more seriously if it were to contain a clause to the effect that Osama bin Laden is hereby the subject of a joint fatwa. It should say that he is to desist forthwith or, better still, that he should be given an immediate one-way ticket to paradise.



Truly and veritably, god is grott, merdeiful.

76. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75334 by Flagellant on October 2, 2007 at 11:16 am

I too heard Karen Armstrong on 'Start the Week'. I've tried to transcribe her words. I think they were

...since the attacks of Richard Dawkins and others, ... they're [Moslems] beginning to get literal about the Creation for the first time...

The Bible arose out of oral tales with no religious significance.
There were several, competing creation stories.
The Bible wasn't taken literally until the 19th Century.
Monotheism only became common after the first five books.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel wouldn't have understood the term 'monotheism'.
Calvin wasn't anti-evolution; [he may have been an early NOMA-ist?].
Hard-line, Protestant, literalism came about in the late 19th Century.
This was contemporaneous with Papal infallibility.
There's more violence in the Bible than the Koran.

77. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73566 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 9:56 am

It's great to read things, from a Moslem, such as

Explosive episodes are always gathering round the corner. We witnessed the organised outrage over the Channel 4 programmes exposing some of the vile imams still controlling some mosques

78. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73560 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 9:34 am

Yes, the article we're about to get back to discussing is a phenomenal improvement on this one: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1594,What-do-these-atheists-understand-of-religion,Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown , just a few days ago. Could it be that she's learnt from our feedback?



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

79. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73545 by Flagellant on September 25, 2007 at 8:21 am

I am so pleased that we have got on to the subject of pseudonyms. I use the pseudonym 'Flagellant' because I am a shit'ite manqué. I have been known to change my avatar as an irony warning – some people seem to need it. I am also under the witness protection scheme of the Martian FBI.

Sometimes, I sign myself 'God is grott (1), merdeiful (2)' as an insult to Mohammedans who might, just, not get it . Occasionally I have shouted both of these at demonstrations, without being rumbled.

(1) is from the British English slang 'grotty': of poor quality or in bad condition or unpleasant, nasty or useless or unattractive.
(2) is from the French 'merde' which has almost universal meaning. Merdeiful is my own word with enema and matchbox connotations. Does anyone think it might be better without the second 'e'?

I do hope we can get back to the topic, now; it's such a change to get something worthwhile from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.


Ebenezer Smellie


Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

80. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #72849 by Flagellant on September 23, 2007 at 8:31 am

Salley Vickers' review of Darwin's Angel

When I first read Salley Vickers's review of Darwin's Angel, I immediately thought that there was something strange about it. I have read many book reviews and this one seemed remarkably atypical in two respects. Firstly, in its unmitigated approbation: it's almost axiomatic that any book review, however adulatory, must say, in effect 'Very nice, but…[e.g.] it hasn't been properly indexed'. Nothing of that sort from Salley. Just non-stop arslikhan.

Then there's the use of language and the discontinuity: clumsy phrasing e.g.: 'loads of people', 'some pretty low-key, unknown figures', 'Jesus told stories to get across his points' (instead of 'to get his points across') and, especially: 'This book is a piece of sheer heaven…', capitalised. Why couldn't she have said 'This book is sheer heaven' or 'This is a heavenly book'? Both of these are superior. Then, there's the turbulence of the comments – no attempt at getting some sort of flow going. (Even if a book lacks organisation, that doesn't excuse an incoherent review.) It's almost as though the clumsiness is a by-product of an attempt at encoding the real message. You know – the sort of thing where you write something to make/include an acrostic – the words are chosen for the acrostic, not for their euphony. Salley Vickers can write extremely elegant prose, so there has to be a reason for the lumpen lumpiness of her writing here. Written in a hurry? Maybe. Piss-poor sub-editing? Unlikely. Drunken rambling? Perhaps. Rage at Cornwell's specious sophistry? Ah, now we're talking. So how does this work?

It looks as though she has deliberately chosen weak or invalid arguments: virtually every paragraph has at least one statement relating to The God Delusion that is either wrong or easily refuted. Here are just a few examples, from page one of five pages of critical comments from RD bloggers :

Only religious nutcase take the creation story literally. Answer: USA.
Dawkins only refers to unknown theologians. Answer: Aquinas, Anselm
He should know he doesn't know. Ans: Chapter: 'Why there's almost certainly no God.'
Dawkins equates moderates and fundamentalists. Answer: He doesn't.
Vickers: comparison of Jews/Blacks with believers. Answer: Invalid.
Vickers: gospel as first history. Answer: Herodotus, Thucydides…

…[Salley Vickers] asked the audience if any of them had read her favourite of all her novels, Nice and Easy. Nobody had. She then revealed that this book had turned up on Amazon, listed as being by her. But unfortunately she had never written it. She was intrigued, and got friends to send in "reviews" (only some of the ones on Amazon are real). She sent in glowing reviews of this non-existent book, contributed by characters in her real novels. In the end she decided to order a copy. With no explanation, the website simply said "this book is not available"

In his preface, Cornwell is explicit that he intends '…not so much to pick a fight…as to offer a few 'grace notes'…and…glosses in the interests of sharper logic, closer insight, and factual accuracy' (DA p. 18). Well, phooey! If logic equals caprice, insight equals obfuscation and factual accuracy equals wilful misrepresentation, then he's on target. His seraph is facile, ethereal and dishonest. If you read Darwin's Angel, you will find a travesty of Dawkins's views and, if you accept Cornwell's misrepresentations, you will find yourself very badly informed by his perversions. Dawkins is vulnerable in several areas: the supposed evolutionary value of religion, the nature of 'evidence', and the diverse nature of faith, for example. He draws no distinction between 'reasonable faith' and 'blind faith' and his reasoning for conflating them, particularly in relation to terrorism, is incomplete. If you want to be able to refute Dawkins's arguments, you would be wiser to buy The God Delusion instead and make your own judgements.

81. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72837 by Flagellant on September 23, 2007 at 6:18 am

I ought to add that the collective worship business is seen by the punters as even less of a problem than are faith schools. As a teenager, I simply absented myself from the religious part of assembly - no parental consent needed. I really don't understand though, why France and Russia can deal with 'faith at school' (and their royalty, while we're at it) so neatly while the UK blithely courts problems.

82. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72835 by Flagellant on September 23, 2007 at 5:51 am

There would be some problem with a petition, Severus Snape (31). See my comments in (5).

I'm beginning to understand the attractions of triacetone triperoxide (and for the benefit of Mr Bomb Plod, I'm being ironic). The longer faith-endorsement by the government goes on, the harder it'll be to deal with eventually.

I've thought of approaching all my local candidates and saying that I'd vote for any of them who would include, in their election literature, a specific commitment to eliminate faith schools, but it won't be a vote winner. They're not likely to play ball. Things like faith schools are so 'single issue' that only a (our) small minority would vote appropriately. The punters have been conditioned to believe that good examination results are the key criteria and that faith schools get better results. The fact that, long-term, the social results are appalling is ignored/unseen.

Aaargh!



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

83. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72786 by Flagellant on September 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

My initial reaction - and I'm not totally sure it's wrong - would be to suggest that Kelley should continue to defy the legislation and secularise his school. I realise that he would get into trouble but we need some very high profile cases so that the nonsense of faith schools can be brought to the public's attention. I have remarked before that two million people (out of 60 M(?)) signed a petition about road pricing, whereas only a few thousand signed against faith schools.

About ten years ago, I foresaw the nasty rise of faith schools in the UK. I wrote to my MP about secularising the education system and repealing blasphemy laws so that all religions were on the same footing. This would mean that when Mohammedans argued for their faith to be protected, we could simply tell them that no religion would get special treatment.

Interestingly, the answer came from the late, 'sainted' Robin Cook, a noted atheist. He said 'it's just a matter of opinion.' I wish I could show him what a woo-woo mess that attitude had got us into: by failing, we've opened the bloody door to protecting faith.

As for France, I wonder how the 'no religious symbol' - crosses, crucifixes, skull-caps, headscarves - rule wrt to schools is going in France. It seems eminently sensible and the French have better food, weather, rugby teams, cricket teams ... er... too... (LOL) Unfortunately, while staying with friends in Var recently, I forgot to ask about schools. I'm getting too old.

Perhaps Richard Morgan could give us a quick run down or point us to an interesting and up-to-date English link on the subject. Thanks.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edit: duplication removed and signature added.]

84. The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare

Comment #72469 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 7:36 am

Did they call the dog 'Sheldonian', Cartomancer, I wonder? I always explain to my visitors that the Sheldonian must have been designed on one of Wren's bad days...

85. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72467 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 7:28 am

Yes, _J_. Do you need my 'special services' to propel you back into line? If I were a Mohameddan, I'd definitely be a shi'ite. Lol.



Veritably, god is grott, merdeiful.

86. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72464 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 7:14 am

Hi CHeard, I agree with _J_ (525), except that I don't keep posts, not even my own. (But if I did, I'd keep yours.) What's more, I haven't got a play to write. (Now where did I read that?)

It is exceedingly refreshing to hear your opinions, particularly those you offered at the beginning of your comment 511. And very gratifying that you would class yourself with Dawkins & Harris. (Dennett is very approachable and less aggressive than the others.)

I notice though, that you virtually concede the point, made as long ago as (78), that US Christians find more in common with the Robertson-Haggard-Falwell-Hovind-Ham axis than with the atheists, even if you are an exception.

A few years ago, I had a lovely Anglican vicar - a 'John Robinson' type - who used to drop in for a cuppa (50% Sainsbury's Red Label and 50% Earl Grey, Quetz please note) quite often. He knew I was an atheist. When we talked about 'The Opposition', we both meant the fundy nutcases, most Catholics and all Mohammedans, not the mildly anti-religious like Dawkins. Lol.

Dawkins has always been at one with people like Richard Harries, former Bishp of Oxford. RD's only issue is puzzlement at the nature of RH's faith.

My view, rather at odds with some of the cats who fight, spit, and scratch on ths site, is that atheists should support moderates in arguing against the nutcases. Mind you, that might not do you much good wrt to your own community. You must know there's a strong possibility that, in the end, you'd join us, provided that you weren't put off by the abuse.

As for the my 'nom de cracher', it's not bacterial but religiously masochist. Lol. Very best wishes, F.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited for sense: missing sentence.]

87. The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare

Comment #72442 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 5:42 am

I'll be there - if I can get in...

During the second half of the nineteenth century, a new college, the largest of them all - Keble - was built in Oxford. Its Victorian Gothic, redbrick style was not to the taste of many Oxford academics and, my scouts tell me, their reaction was typically decisive and academic: they formed a society to deal with the problem. Their memorandum and articles of association have eluded me, but their principal obligation related to visits to the college. Any member of the Society for the Abolition of Keble visiting the college had to return with one brick.

I had a look a few days ago and the college is still there. They've even extended it. Ah well, that's academics and societies for you...


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

88. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #72423 by Flagellant on September 21, 2007 at 3:07 am

I rather liked this article. Nevertheless, I was a bit taken aback by

When I was a child, archbishops were kindly, benign coves, wheeled out on big occasions...

89. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71948 by Flagellant on September 20, 2007 at 1:24 am

Having read John Cornwell's disgraceful Darwin's Angel, I have immense sympathy for Richard Dawkins at the way his reasoning and arguments (see (4)) above have been traduced. Articles like Midgely's and Bunting's, and books like Cornwell's, are read by people who feel that their faith is under threat; they use such specious arguments to comfort themselves in their belief, without reading TGD. RD's ideas thus become polluted by misrepresentation. The really annoying thing about Cornwell, though, is that he clearly has read TGD.

I am sure that the Independent will print a reply from RD about Midgely's rubbish. But the damage cannot be undone. It is difficult to know what else to do, apart from continuing to plug away e.g. with post (12) stuff. But far fewer people will read that than Midgely's article.

May I suggest, though, that RD considers changing his daily newspaper? (LOL)



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

90. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #71936 by Flagellant on September 20, 2007 at 12:57 am

Here's a prediction: the MRFF and Jeremy Hall will win. There will be appeals against the judgement all the way up to the Supreme Court (if it can go that far) and the Shrub's placepeople will rule for the Pentagon.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

91. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71578 by Flagellant on September 19, 2007 at 4:35 am

Look peeps (Rachel Holmes & Fedler), I don't think we have a disagreement at all. I have been to my fair share of funerals and totally secular remembrance ceremonies. The remarkable thing about the secular ceremonies is that most were clearly worked out by those left behind, not by the departed; I've helped in a few. It seems bizarre to me that people should even consider planning their own funerals. I can quite understand their having a lot of say in their own weddings (and, traditionally, they often don't). Insofar as I can, I'm dealing with the practical, 'who gets what' stuff in detail, but, as I said implictly before, if my friends & family decide, for example, on a full Requiem Mass, then that's up to them. It's highly unlikely, of course, but whatever turns them on - no, I mean: whatever comforts them:-)

This is the point: wrt to funerals, the dead shouldn't dictate the behaviour of the living. I refuse, point blank to say: 'I want x and y at my funeral' as so many other people do. I don't think I've addressed the matter other than in the most general of terms. After all, in this clear-thinking oasis, aren't we trying to get some new thinking?

However, just 'cos I think that way, it doesn't mean that anyone else has to, but it would be nice to see people thinking outside the box, sometimes.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults [and the dead] in private.

92. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71538 by Flagellant on September 19, 2007 at 1:54 am

Yes, drive1, I'm gonna try to read the CRE stuff - my guess is that the divisions left are likely to be religious, not racial. And faith is encouraged. Help!

And, suffolkthinker, as for Cambridge, don't you have a person called John Cornwell in the position of 'Director of the Science and Human Dimension Project' at Jesus College? I wonder what that's all about...lol.

Then, as I said to an Anglican friend: 'I dunno why Rowan Williams doesn't just let the ultra-conservative, reactionary side of the Church get lost. It's going to happen one day, so it would be nice if he were to be seen as on the side of the angels, rather than as appeasing the misogynist, homophobic (mostly African) Neanderthals.' See http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2172321,00.html (sorry - can't make 'clicking' work).

The whole World's going to the gods dogs.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edit: link added.]

93. Religious education

Comment #71273 by Flagellant on September 18, 2007 at 9:18 am

You're absolutely right, young bertybob (28), about faith schools. One day, they'll have to secularise education, so why not do it now? I've felt queasy about faith schools for more than fifty years. It has turned into rage, now. Why can't people see how divisive they are?

We have a terrible problem, though: two million people signed a petition against road-pricing but only a few thousand signed for the abolition of faith schools. Aaargh!



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

94. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71185 by Flagellant on September 18, 2007 at 2:06 am

I'm not so sure that I agree with Rachel Holmes (33) about the funeral bit.

The last thing I want, when I die, is....

95. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71157 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 11:42 pm

I'm generally positive about things that turn people away from faith, even if I'm not wholly in favour of the result: churchy places without the faith. One of the things that sustains faith, that gives it cohesion, is the social bit - the regular meetings for reinforcement etc. The problem with atheism is that it is born of individualism. Personally, I wouldn't fancy meeting regularly (or at all?) with 'the herd of cats' that lurk, spit, fight, and scratch on this site. The internet is a poor substitute for a communal act of togetherness so, if secular churches work, let's wish 'em luck. We have to accept the different nature and experience of atheist 'denominations'. Lol.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

96. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71146 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 10:56 pm

I love Aussie humour - I've just watched V's Chaser clips - hilarious. What a good thing it is that Aussie police are so nice!

Wrt Sen. Ernie Chambers' suit, it's a shame he hasn't somehow included the super-wingnut groups. Perhaps he could turn his attention to them, as well.

I dunno if anyone has seen stuff about Prince Charles's constitutional position as 'Defender of the Faith'. He wants to be 'Defender of Faith' - subtle difference. The Archbish of Canterbury has said 'No!' I think we ought to have an official 'Attacker of Faith', instead. I wonder if RD would be interested...

97. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70965 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 10:54 am

I think that kade (61) & (73) has a point. I think we let 'moderates' off the hook too easily when we discuss extremism. This can easily be ascertained by putting moderates on the spot.

Try asking a Christian 'moderate': "With whom do you have more in common: Falwell (RIS), Haggard, and Robertson or Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris?" In terms of common humanity, there is no contest. However, while the proper 'moderate' answer is the latter trio, most Christians would side with Falwell, Haggard and Robertson, on the grounds of commonality of religion. (Perhaps these evangelical would be considered moderates in some places lol.)

And what about Mohammedans? Ask Moslems the same question, substituting Osama bin Laden for the evangelical Christian group. A frighteningly large percentage will go for the co-religionist. Imams of many nationalities have pronounced fatwas on westerners who have 'defamed' Mohammed yet, to my knowledge, only the Spanish imams have pronounced on Osama bin Laden. When challenged to do so, 'moderate' imams call such requests 'vigilantism.' Why this reticence?

Again, consider also asking 'moderate' Catholics if they condemn the bombing of abortion clinics; their answers will usually be an equivocation of the type "Yes but…" with even an occasional "No, I support them" thrown in.

So RD's linking of moderation to extremism is valid. The moderates just don't do enough to condemn and marginalise the extremists.



God is grott, merdeiful.

98. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70928 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 9:08 am

Yes, Ultraviolet G, RD does say something like that. He says 'We're all atheists here. we don't believe in Thor, Zeus,....; I just go one god further.'

OK?

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

99. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70920 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 8:40 am

konquererz (46): as Northern Bright and I can tell you, Cornwell (Darwin's Angel) clearly has read TGD. The problem is that he grossly and wilfully misrepresents Dawkins throughout.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

100. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70890 by Flagellant on September 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Amen (oops) to that, Northern Bright. Watch out, though, they'll be calling you Darwin's Rottweiller's Cerberus, or something similar, soon.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.