151. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92815 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm

So the debating format doesn't lnd itself to Dennet who needs more time. Fair enough. Not really D'Souza's fault though.

152. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92813 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm

55. Comment #92805 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Despite yours and numerous other posters' low opinions of D'Souza's debating skills, Christopher Hitchens says he's one of the most formidable debaters he has faced.

153. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92803 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 1:46 pm

24. Comment #92764 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Firstly, things causes aren't necessarily more complex than what they cause. Look at evolution what we can learn from evolution on this.

Secondly, Why does complexity necessarily mean improbability, it doesn't.

Thirdly, Dawkins himself helps us to see that improbability doesn't mean non-existence. He's stated that the existence of humanity is very, very improbable. One of his colleagues has said that, 'it is virtually impossible to quantify how improbable the existence of humanity is.' But exist we do. Improbability then does not entail, nor has it ever entailed non-existence.

154. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90344 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 12:02 pm

It seems to me very relevant. Anyway, presumably if this discussion continues you'll continue erecting mobile goal-posts, so I guess that's that.

155. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90318 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 9:42 am

Galileo, as a Catholic, was a member of the Church (a term you seem to have a partial understanding of). You might also find this article written in the conservative Catholic publication, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1909, if not interesting then maybe informative.

156. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90311 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:35 am

I'm not aware of His Holiness' teaching on great ape research. It's great that his insight into human nature is further illuminated by this small study though. Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.

157. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90309 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:03 am

A fascinating piece of research echoing The Holy Father's teaching in 'Veritas Splendor' when he pointed out that, 'In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil.'

158. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87571 by fides_et_ratio on November 12, 2007 at 1:42 pm

As a Catholic teacher, I couldn't resist. I detected some fishiness in trying to say that degrees are weak because A levels are weak. Degrees may be weaker but not for that reason. More fishiness in the figures about how many teachers receive their training at faith-based institutions, the figures are presumably quoted to prove a point, they prove nothing and are evidence only of their own existence. In a previous school of mine the entire PE dept had received their training at a faith-based college. They used to spend their free-periods trying to knock the crucifix off the gym wall with footballs.

Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth. Some who have benefited from this being Newton, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins and anyone else who has walked through the doors of Oxford, Cambridge and many other places.

A disappointing article that makes a mockery of what little evidence it presents, and consequently only succeeds in showing the author's bias in carefully avoiding any earnest search for the truth.

159. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83781 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:01 am

Not to mention of course the athiest obsession with God.

160. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83780 by fides_et_ratio on October 31, 2007 at 9:00 am

You're right Philip, as for Mr. Angry, right and wrong though not in equal measure, but mildly amusing nonetheless.

Of course the Holy Father's correct to stand up for those wishing to make sound moral choices without fear of prosecution.

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here. This isn't directed at you Philip, I am aware of your wider interest in Catholic teaching as evidenced through your understanding of the guidelines for drivers. As for the others, I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

161. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79473 by fides_et_ratio on October 17, 2007 at 11:28 am

Nice to see that I get a mention in dispatches. Hlfway through now, still no evidence from 'machine-gun' Hitch, plenty of ranting rhetoric though. Apart from AM dealing with his points so well, my favourite part thus far (apart from my mention) is AM's highlighting of the wishful thinking of athiesm.

As you were.

162. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79386 by fides_et_ratio on October 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

It's a shame that Hitchens didn't prepare for a debate on the motion. I'm sure he'd be very interesting when talking on a subject that he knows something about, but when debating the effects of religion with a man like McGrath, his non-evidence-based rants equate to a Sun editorial on immigration. No evidence from a man who claims reason. Very disappointing.

163. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76365 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:51 pm

You just can't do it, the only way you could stop your kids oing to science lessons would be to stop them going to school. Which is illegal, unless you taught them at home which is legal as long as you teach the curriculum I think.

164. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76357 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

they can't be pulled from science classes, only sex education.

165. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76354 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I hate to labour the point, well that's not strictly true, but nonetheless, according to the article Norway is only 26% athiest, at which % does something become widespread?

166. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #76347 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

If teachers are afraid of teaching something because students might not want to hear it, they really should find another job.

This is a non subject created by someone with a book to sell.

167. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76233 by fides_et_ratio on October 5, 2007 at 7:00 am

'Depending on the definition of atheism'

Surely there's only one definition of athiesm, and by that definition only 26% of Norwegians are athiest. Not that many really.

168. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75411 by fides_et_ratio on October 2, 2007 at 2:54 pm

In the Richard Dawkins tradition of 'Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities' read 60. Comment #75406 by aitchkay on October 2, 2007 at 2:42 pm.

On reading the quoted passage I found it to be a parable, not an instruction. Taking a quote out of context and misrepresenting what it says is unscientific and dishonest. This sort of thing makes this site a muddy pool of ignorance, not the oasis of clear thinking it purports to be.

169. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75401 by fides_et_ratio on October 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I couldn't help thinking that the following group of letters couldn't be re worded (my hyphen button is broken), for greater accuracy and clarity.

'Religion changes, for people, the definition of good. Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Most religious people think them bad, too, but some religions (for example the religion of the Taliban) sanction all of them under some circumstances.'


or


Atheists, humanists and most religious people tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Some sects and world views (for example the Taliban or North Korea's communist party) sanction all of them under some circumstances.

Does detract a little from the blind rant value though.

170. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #71006 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity"

Try googling.

"Publicly challenged by an American preacher to admit that, if approached by a gang of men in a dark alley, he would be reassured to learn that they had emerged from a prayer meeting, Hitchens's return volley was unplayable"

And clicking on your own article (you need to include the omitted results),

Followed by re-listening to

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

(You only need to listen to the first 3 minutes)

Then an audio search of "Dennis Prager" on your own site again.

Top it off by checking out "About Dennis" at http://www.dennisprager.com/about.html

And you should have found enough, Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities, to keep you going for quite some time.

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

Comment #70908 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 8:21 am

It also might be worth googling

"Publicly challenged by an American preacher to admit that, if approached by a gang of men in a dark alley, he would be reassured to learn that they had emerged from a prayer meeting, Hitchens's return volley was unplayable"

And clicking on your own article (you need to include the omitted results),

Followed by re-listening to

http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling

(You only need to listen to the first 3 minutes)

Then an audio search of "Dennis Prager" on your own site again.

Top it off by checking out "About Dennis" at http://www.dennisprager.com/about.html

And you should have found enough, Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacities, to keep you going for quite some time.

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

Comment #70903 by fides_et_ratio on September 17, 2007 at 7:58 am

"Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity".

I goggled;

"Affection that I still retain for the Church"

and found;

"(at least by comparison with the competition)"

I read on and found, within the space of three paragraphs, a criticism of notions of God because they were too small, "My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way", and because they were too big, "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him."

I think it is understandable that the criticism you so obviously abhor, seems to arrive so often from people who, unlike myself and your kindly chaplain, are not so simple-minded.

173. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69886 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 4:44 am

36. Comment #69862 by pewkatchoo on September 13, 2007 at 2:59 am

I wouldn't assume to know what motivates anyone, athiest or thiest, to give. Fear of hell as an aid to charitability is not something I'm overly familiar with either. Seeing as I think it arrogant to assume that I know what motivates someone I've never met, I thought the only thing worth pointing out is that the person in need who receives, probably couldn't care less anyway. After all, food doesn't become more or less nourishing because of the spirit it was given in.

174. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69849 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 2:07 am

Not that your assumptions about why religious people might give are correct, but I wonder if the receiver in need cares about the motives of the giver. I think at that stage they probably don't.

175. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69833 by fides_et_ratio on September 13, 2007 at 1:24 am

6. Comment #69813 by Inferno on September 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm

'I'm sick of hearing comments that religious people give more time, money and blood to charity.'

If I was you I'd be sick of it too. That sort of thing must really shake the faith of even the most ardent atheist.

176. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69412 by fides_et_ratio on September 11, 2007 at 6:58 am

77. Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 am

I must have missed the book called 'The Religion Delusion'.

177. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69341 by fides_et_ratio on September 11, 2007 at 12:12 am

If of course, "Dawkins" was claiming that facism didn't exist, the author of this article might have a point as well as being undoubtedly hilarious.

178. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68708 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 8:11 am

48. Comment #68700 by aitchkay on September 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

I'd say he should be taken seriously because he's a well educated, intelligent man with a background in science, philosophy, theology, athiesm and theism, and he might challenge your strongly held beliefs. An argument is much more interesting when you listen to both sides. I'm also very grateful to the thread for bringing my attention to the Catholic response, I'll be buying it, as well as Francis Collins book which I found on Amazon as a result of looking for the book by Crean.

179. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68693 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 7:06 am

Try watching the cricket instead!

180. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68690 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject. It'd be handy to hear from those who have as the rest is just ignorance.

The 'flea' thing is also nonsense. The term flea seems to indicate a responder. Seeing as all athiesm is a response, surely RD et al are the real fleas.

181. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68676 by fides_et_ratio on September 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

26. Comment #68668 by JemyM on September 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

Were there many African Americans rising to the upper echelons of American society in the 19th century?

182. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68188 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 10:12 am

Debatable, the offer, promise or existence of privilege for belief would seem to be some sort of coercion that the Vatican explicitly speaks against.

'immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,'

183. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68164 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 9:21 am

14. Comment #68122 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 7:45 am

Come now Philip, you and I both know that you're much more intelligent than that. The use of man and men to mean humanity was commonplace in the sixties. In fact the Vatican showed its progressive approach to human rights in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which you appear to have selectively ignored. It refers to the gender neutral term of the human person.

As for the other posts, I merely pointed out that the entirety of the BHA's vision as stated on its website is contained in Catholic teaching. I wonder what part of that statement is untrue.

184. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68107 by fides_et_ratio on September 6, 2007 at 6:29 am

From the BMA's website:

'About the BHA

Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Our Mission
The British Humanist Association exists to promote Humanism and support and represent people who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs.'


From the documents of the Second Vatican Council;

' 2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.'

It seems that there is nothing in the BHA's vision that is at conflict with established Catholic teaching. Maybe this is how they also claim that there are 17 million humanists in Britain, (a statistic not supported by the last census) they're just borrowing a few Christians, as well as quotes, for their numbers.

185. The importance of doubt

Comment #67047 by fides_et_ratio on September 1, 2007 at 2:32 pm

34. Comment #66541 by Richard Dawkins on August 30, 2007 at 11:01 am

My apologies, my memory and spelling are both flawed. I've found the article, he was reviewing 'God is not great' by the other one. I've read so much on all of his I get a bit mixed up about the details sometimes.

I'll provide the link. As a well written piece of fact based rebuttal, it might be worth a look.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/346

Mark.

186. The importance of doubt

Comment #66519 by fides_et_ratio on August 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

2. Comment #66393 by Richard Dawkins on August 29, 2007 at 11:28 pm

In his defense, perhaps he didn't realise it was a joke due to the lack of any apparent hilarity in the statement. To be fair, it doesn't seem particularly amusing.

Also, I read an article a few months ago where John Cornwall was taking you to task for deliberately misquoting him in your book. If I remember correctly, his case was more compelling than you own.

187. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59785 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:11 pm

240. Comment #59775 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Maybe those books I suggested will help you understand this so-called M*me.

I do get it by the way, I just disagree (like some other posters on here if you look closely). Many posters on here say that religions are oppresive and try to stop people thinking. I find it interesting that when I've disagreed with you here, you've questioned not just my state of mind but whether it is complete or not. You're not trying to stifle my freedom of thought by insult are you. If you are, I think it's very childish!

188. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59781 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

232. Comment #59724 by Nails on July 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm

We agree that's what he means, with so much going on we'll have to agree to disagree about the rights and wrongs of whether faith is childish or not, or indeed bullying for that matter. My point was that RD says that faith is childish whilst at the same time maintains that it is not just wrong but wicked to say that a child has faith. To you, as to me this must seem at the very least inconsistent and at most contradictory.

233. Comment #59727 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm

As I think I made clear in my post, I'd encourage them to keep looking. Whilst RD and some fundamentalists (both theist and athiest) would like to set up a science versus religion situation, I'm not one of those. They both seek the truth, and are in that sense complimentary as far as I can see.

234. Comment #59729 by BillySands on July 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

You pasted a quote of mine where I was clearly talking about me and then used it to say I was talking about you. I wasn't by the way. Let me make it clearer, read back through the quote, when it says 'I', that means me, not you.

237. Comment #59747 by Northern Bright on July 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Careful reading of my original post and my reply would show that this wasn't the case but let me reiterate. When I said that I didn't share your experience of meditation what I meant was, I didn't share your experience of meaning. When I didn't write, 'this is why you lost your faith' the reason I didn't write that is because I have no idea why you are where you are on your faith/non-faith journey. Perhaps the reason why you think that I think like this is because, as you say, you used to think like it. I don't know anything about you except your experience of meditation, that's how I can say I don't share it.

238. Comment #59748 by Quetzalcoatl on July 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm

It didn't prevent RD from getting where he is today.

Also you haven't read I think the original posts and politeness. I was talking about a real situation, not an analogy. As for the well-behaved bit, I have the pleasure to say that sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.

Just one more thing on the supposed indoctrination issue. I see great benefit in continuing to challenge my children with questions such as, 'why are we here?', 'Does life have meaning?' etc. We live in a secular country (England), how can they choose if I don't teach them what I've learnt about faith?
The evidence seems to suggest that people are much more capable than you think of choosing their way out of faith, as of course they are of choosing their way into it. I think we agree though, RD was wrong to say wicked wasn't he?

189. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59718 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

207. Comment #59194 by Wrought on July 28, 2007 at 4:19 am

'Teaching a child religious doctrine insists that they take on beliefs which are not readily accessible to those who are not in their in-group and also segregates them from those who are partisan to other religions. For example, in teaching your child to pray to Jesus and, ultimately, to call himself a Christian, are you also warning him that much of society (people of other religions and atheists) will, in later life, consider him to be either a) likely to end up eternally damned or b) foolish (respectively)? No sensible person would call him damned or foolish for being poilte.

It's a double-edged sword, because if he fully accepts Christian views he must consider others damned and foolish, which compounds the problem.'

Are you saying that atheists believe in damnation? Surely whatever believe my child grows up in there will be some who think him damned. It's an irrellevance.

The other edge of a very blunt sword is just nonsense. My faith certainly doesn't teach that believers of other faiths or athiests or anyone is damned because of their belief. If you'd read through my previous posts you'd know that. My faith teaches that the most fundamental human right of all is the right of the individual to choose their relationship with God.

I too am aware of the differing definitions of the word childish. I assumed that RD was refering to the first because it is consistent with the Father Christmas/toothfairy analogies he is fond of using. I think if he thought it merely silly he wouldn't (nor would we) be engaging in it on such a serious level. I'm going to continue with that assumption for these reasons.

I'm also not sure that you followed the point of the politeness issue. I'll repeat myself. I originally asked if it was wrong to call my child polite when he had no understanding of what polite is. The point you've made is not a response to this but a response to the second straw man in your post (the first being your assumption on damnation).

215. Comment #59278 by Hobbit on July 28, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Yet again, more misquotes and convenient misunderstanding. I have no idea why NB made the decisions and choices she made about her faith, I wouldn't be so arrogant to presume. I was saying that I didn't identify with her description of meditation. Meditation is an exercise in letting go of supposed knowledge (things which aren't present), NB's description obviously wasn't the same as mine, considering the effort she'd gone to (and I accept she wrote well) I thought I should point it out.


Billy Sands,

'When you cant work out something you go "I dont know, but god does and I'm sure he has a good reason for not explaining it to me" This is mental slavery and it is not good for you.'

Like a field full of straw men, it's like watching Worzel Gummidge being on here. I wish some of you would screw your integrity heads on!

When I can't work something out and I need to, I ask someone to help me (for example a plumber with a plumbing difficulty, I don't start building an Ark). However, if I don't need to know (for example, how to build an aeroplane), I just accept that someone else does (and then I buy my ticket). It's called humility to accept that one doesn't know everything (and also that one cannot know everything).

218. Comment #59627 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 am

You raise some interesting questions. If you find that athiesm offers you some answers please start a thread, I would genuinely like to read what you say. Contrary to what you've understood about my stance, I do understand what you and many others have said, I just disagree with it. You can use that to question my mental faculties if you want, I wont react in kind though. If your search fails to supply you with satisfactory answers might I suggest a couple of authors who might help. Timothy Radliffe (especially his last book) and Victor Frankl.

Bon voyage.

190. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59187 by fides_et_ratio on July 28, 2007 at 3:23 am

It's difficult to respond to so many people at once.

This is the way I see it.

RD says that faith is childish.

Some on here say, he didn't really mean childish, what he meant was 'silly' or 'not adult'.

Others say, he did mean to say childish but childish doesn't mean childish it means...

I still mantain that it is logically inconsistant to declare that faith is childish whilst at the same time saying children can't have faith.

To Northern Bright, your experience of meditative prayer is not one I identify with. I suspect from what you wrote that your faith journey didn't bring you to someone called 'John Main', that's a shame. Meditative prayer is about letting go of what you think you know and developing an awareness of the present. Perhaps you were indulging in daily concentration rather than meditation.

To whoever it was who said that 'if I know there is a God then it isn't faith' consider this. I know that my doctor is well-qualified, I put faith in that knowlege when I allow him to operate on me with a sharp knife. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, remember the original point, RD says that to label one's child a Christian is wicked. He's not just wrong about this, he's mistaken too.

I wish there was a facility on here for one-on-one dialogue, it would be much easier to follow.

191. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58902 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:31 pm

166. Comment #58879 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Sorry, I must have missed it, haven't had time to read through all the posts. Which one is it?

192. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58901 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:30 pm

165. Comment #58867 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm

to form an educated opinion one has to be educated. This doesn't occur in a vaccuum.

193. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58900 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

161. Comment #58834 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 10:59 am

I wish you'd read through my previous posts leading up to the one you did read/ I think they would've answered your point.

As for reducing the knowledge of biblical scholars to just a 'guess' on a par with a guess about what RD might mean. I would agree with you if you'd spent a lifetime studying RD and an equivalent wealth of material on him. You don't have to agree with what they believe or say to have some sort of respect for their academic integrity.

194. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58831 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 10:38 am

149. Comment #58773 by the_assayer on July 26, 2007 at 4:33 am

158. Comment #58828 by Veronique on July 26, 2007 at 9:44 am

Going to have to leave this thread now as I can't follow it all and I know that you can't understand faith if you can't understand faith. I've experienced athiesm and theism, theism makes much more sense to me, I understand why it doesn't to you.

I must say though there are a couple of points which I feel have been addressed poorly.

I said that I thought it was valid for RD to explain what Einstein and Hawkins really meant when they said God, this seems to have been completely ignored. I don't actually think it's valid for people to say that RD didn't mean 'childish' when he wrote 'childish', he's an exremely intelligent man and an accomplished writer, if he didn't mean childish I really don't think he would've written it (furthermore, his use of the word childish is completely consistent with the annalogies he draws with tooth fairies, Father Christmas etc...). I must reiterate that I find it inconsistent for the same people to say 'what Hawkins means by God is...', and then say that biblical scholars of undoubted intelligence and learning can't say, 'what this passage in the bible means is...'

To those who say there is no proof, there is the question of the numinous. I know there is a God, I have a relationship with him and spend time in meditative prayer on a daily basis. As a result of this I have achieved a sense of peace, freedom from fear, and an awareness of the present that I didn't experience before. My faith teaches me to be of service and to look at what I can do for others, this I try to do in some small way. My faith treaches me to strive to view all people as children of God and to love them accordingly. My faith teaches me to respect the right of another to choose their faith or non-faith as they wish. knowing what I know and having experienced what I've experienced, I really think I would be a bad parent if I didn't try to show my children the same path to joy and freedom that I've found. I wont go as far as to say I'd be abusing them, just depriving them.

By the way, I only came on this thread to say that I thought that RD was wrong to say that people were wicked for labelling their children 'Christian'. He is wrong you know!

195. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58753 by fides_et_ratio on July 26, 2007 at 3:39 am

Just a couple of things, far too many points for someone with a four year pold to indulge in at once.

I find it interesting (and valid) that people are suggesting that 'what RD really means by childish is...', in much the same way that RD does when he says, 'what Einsteins and Hawkins really mean when they say 'God' is...'. What I find difficult is that when biblical scholars do the same about ancient documents that were written in different languages, in completely different social settings, they are lambasted by many on here for so doing.

Someone said I wouldn't label my child a Christian. I did, in some earlier post.

Hope you're having a good day, really do appreciate the quality of some of this dialogue.

196. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58560 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 am

I'm going to stick to the point by talking about faith in God specifically. I'm not prepared to indulge the Father Christmas/fairy toothmother etc analogies. I believe it is fatuous, I have outlined above my reasons for this.

197. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58555 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

Quite difficult to follow all the different threads here. It would seem the consensus is;

a) Richard Dawkins is mistaken to attribute arbitrarily the label of 'wicked' to those labeling their child 'Christian'.

b) Richard Dawkins has labelled religious faith childish. By definition then,

c) Children can have a childish faith. but,

d) Richard Dawkins says it's wicked to label children as having faith, even though 'b)'


Incidentally, the presumption seems to be that because I teach my children about the positives of my faith I am teaching them that other faiths are wrong. I am not. This view of people of different faiths constantly at war with one another is a caricature lazily subscribed to by many on here who put all their faith in the Oxford proffesor with the inconsistent stance on the childish/unchildish nature of faith. According to his sentiments and what I've read on here, faith is a childish position that only an adult mind can comprehend. Even if this contradiction were possible, it's surely incomparable to the tooth fairy, father christmas or the easter bunny.

198. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58485 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 2:58 am

I haven't asked him.

What about the dilema of labelling faith childish but then saying children can't have faith?

199. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58482 by fides_et_ratio on July 25, 2007 at 2:50 am

Just a couple of things. I haven't called my son a Christian on here (yet), I've refered to him as a child of faith. The evidence for this is that he chooses to pray (and says he enjoys it) and prayer is something only people of faith or people who want faith seem to do. Just to make it clearer though, I'll call him a Christian child because he prays to Jesus.

My earlier point I am disappointed has not been answered;


'Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Dawkins inconsistancies is to conclude that he doesn't understand faith.'

200. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58401 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:35 pm

43. Comment #58398 by The Smart Patrol on July 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

But thank you for your graciousness in conceding that it is not wicked to label him a child of faith.