201. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58400 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

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

I think you must have misread me, I've said it a few times here, my son is not coerced into praying, he chooses to pray and enjoys praying. Trust me, four years olds don't choose to do something on a regular basis unless they enjoy it, no matter how much they may seek their parents approval.

202. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58399 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm

38. Comment #58390 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

'Have you ever considered that your child finds that by paying he is pleasing you and derives pleasure from your approval?
If pleasure from praying really was innate, children of non-believers would do it and probably some other animals as well.....'

Interestingly he doesn't show the same inclination to seek my approval by; washing the dishes, washing himself, not crying when he doesn't get what he wants, eating his greens, not snatching from his brothers, watching the news, cheering for West Ham etc...

Just because we can gain an inate pleasure from something, it doesn't mean we don't have to be shown how to do it. I remember my first girlfriend only too well!

203. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58396 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:25 pm

The difference between faith and marxism is that prayer is a practice that only people of faith share, my son chooses of his own volition, without reward, to pray. If he chose to read the communist manifesto and pledged adherence to it's ideas I would label him a marxist. Faith is much more simple than that, so simple that even a child can grasp it.

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.

204. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58393 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

35. Comment #58386 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I'm not sure I buy into Memes, I believe the scientific community is mostly sceptical about the whole thing. Nonetheless, the point I was making is, why is it 'wicked' to label a child who wants and chooses to pray as a child of faith and not wicked to label a child who has no understanding of politeness (but a good understanding of rewards) as polite.

As I repeat, I genuinely don't understand the arbitrary nature of the supposed wickedness of labelling. What is this moral judgement based on? is it merely the opinion of an Oxford scientist?

205. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58382 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I disagree, much as I love my child and hope that in some ways I am a good parent, I don't think his actions show that he is a polite child. I think his actions show that he likes to get things he wants and he knows that he wont get them unless he says please. I also think that he says please because I keep telling him to say please in an attempt to imbue him with my own morality. Interestingly to me is the fact that he asks to pray, and derives some inate pleasure from praying. I really don't think that he is polite (yet). Why then is it 'wicked' to label him a child of faith and not 'wicked' to label him a polite child?

206. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58378 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm

In addition. Is my son inherently polite or even actually polite, or does he act in this way becaus ehis parents tell him to? In which case is it not wicked to label my son because of the beliefs of his parents on manners? Why is my friend able to assume that my son shares my belief on manners?

207. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58376 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I disagree, I don't think my four year old understands the term or concept of politeness. He understands that when he says please and thank you he's more likely to get what he wants and he gets praised. He also enjoys saying his prayers before he goes to bed, in fact he asks to say his prayers. Why is it wicked then to label him a child of faith (something he chooses to do) and not a polite child (something he doesn't understand but does because of material reward)?

I ask because I genuinely don't understand Mr Dawkins position on the arbitrary wickedness of labelling.

208. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58372 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I keep reiterating to my four year old the need to say please and thank-you. He seems to be finally picking it up. I wonder if, whilst perhaps approving of my actions, Mr. Dawkins might label a friend of mine, who remarked that I had a polite child, wicked for doing so?

209. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56990 by fides_et_ratio on July 18, 2007 at 4:17 am

I'm surprised that Christopher Hitchens keeps reiterating the above challenge, although to be fair he has changed the wording (presumably because in its other form it was shown to be inadequate).

The challenge is far too simplistic showing a lack of understanding of psychology, sociology and certainly theology, I suspect Hitchins is aware of this but perseveres because he is aware that as a soundbite it impresses his fans. He asks, 'Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.'

Ethical statements and actions are the result of many things, not merely religious belief. To accurately compare the statements and actions of believers and unbelievers, all the other variables would have to be identical. Since this is not possible, the challenge is spurious. The only way to ensure this challenge make some sense is to ask if there is an ethical statement or action that an individual could do as a believer that they couldn't do as a non-believer.

210. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52418 by fides_et_ratio on June 27, 2007 at 2:06 am

Some good points here. Shame he has to dig out the Pope though. He's obviously just read a report of His Holiness' speech, rather than the speech itself. Probably a trait shared with rage-boy et al, selectively informing oneself to suit one's agenda.

211. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #51035 by fides_et_ratio on June 21, 2007 at 8:06 am

83. Comment #50932 by AdrianB on June 20, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I refer you to the comment I made above;

75. Comment #50840 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 am

If the author is not referring to Catholic and CofE, schools then his article is based on 'evidence' from at most .7% of faith schools. To damn all faith schools and indeed the whole faith-school system on such flimsy evidence is so ridiculous that I took the liberty of assuming that he was damning the faith school system based on a wider frame of reference. If I was correct in taking that liberty, he is wrong, if I was mistaken in taking that liberty, then the author needs to verify his facts or select better examples to base such wild assumptions on.

You are right though, this is getting tiresome. So far my experience of this thread makes this site seem less an 'oasis of clear-thinking' and more a murky-puddle of deception.

Bye for now.

212. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50855 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 8:01 am

Because Catholic schools are directed to teach this, and because the Catholic Church teaches that evolution is an acceptable idea. To resort to using a few hypothetical, renogade teachers to support the claim made in the article, seems to show that there is, as I say, no evidence for those claims in the first place.

Glad to hear that the Jewish schools are teaching evolution too, that makes about 99.6%.

213. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50840 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 7:09 am

Unlike the author, I thought I'd better stick to what I know, Catholic schools. Together Catholic and CofE schools make up 99.3% of faith-based schools. All of the Catholic schools will teach the genesis account of creation as a story and will teach evolution in science as the accepted and best explanation for mankind's development. Every teacher in a CofE school that I've known does the same. If the author damns all faith-schools on what is found in (at the very most) .7% of them, I would say this is both unreasonable and dishonest.

214. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50833 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 6:29 am

Comment #50829 by newatheist on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thank you. Lots I disagree with here, no surprise!

My point was that the author talks about the indoctrination of young people in faith schools and the only example he gives of indoctrination is Intelligent Design and Creationism. In my original post I was merely stating that based on my experience and knowledge of the National Curriculum and the guidelines for Catholic schools, it is factually incorrect to say that these things are taught in Catholic schools. In fact, the three Catholic schools that I've worked in have achieved much higher science results than non-faith schools in their LEA's

215. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50812 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 4:16 am

He said they're good. Just out of interest, is there anything in the document on the use of the roads that you disagree with?

216. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50805 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 3:07 am

61. Comment #50788 by Philip1978 on June 20, 2007 at 1:46 am

Yet another diversion.

217. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50786 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 1:29 am

56. Comment #50766 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:02 pm

AS I suspected, to detract from the original point, athiests have to create numerous diversions. If you read through this thread you'll see how it's happened.

I do understand it and accept it as true. What I said was, 'If however, I ever do meet a fourteen year old who fully understands both atomic theory and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I'll pray that I have the humility to leave them to it in the comforting knowledge that as their intellect is vastly superior to mine, they'll be able to make their own mind up about it.'

What in what I've said do you disagree with?

Be nice if someone could address my original point too.

57. Comment #50767 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:10 pm

'So, 3 = 1, but 3 = 3 at the same time. 3 is never 1, so trinity is bunk!'


Seeing as you will insist on creating distractions, is H2O exempt from the above conclusion?

218. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50785 by fides_et_ratio on June 20, 2007 at 1:26 am

56. Comment #50766 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:02 pm

AS I suspected, to detract from the original point, athiests have to create numerous diversions. If you read through this thread you'll see how it's happened.

I do understand it and accept it as true. What I said was, 'If however, I ever do meet a fourteen year old who fully understands both atomic theory and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I'll pray that I have the humility to leave them to it in the comforting knowledge that as their intellect is vastly superior to mine, they'll be able to make their own mind up about it.'

What in what I've said do you disagree with?

Be nice if someone could address my original point too.

219. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50707 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am

On this point, you might find it easier to accept if you realised that the Catholic Church doesn't teach creationism as you understand it and is accepting of evolution as an idea.

This was the point of the article above and of this thread.

On the point you made about transubstantiation and atomic theory, I would have to say, good question. Also (just trying to keep this relevant to the thread), not a question that I've ever heard in school. If however, I ever do meet a fourteen year old who fully understands both atomic theory and the doctrine of transubstantiation, I'll pray that I have the humility to leave them to it in the comforting knowledge that as their intellect is vastly superior to mine, they'll be able to make their own mind up about it.

220. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50634 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

39. Comment #50624 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:08 am

Firstly, science in Catholic schools (I refer specifically to them because I know about them), is taught in the same way as non-faith schools. You don't refer to any specific in the Mass which conflicts with science so I'll leave that. Your reference to Adam shows a normal lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bible and Christian teaching, by those who quote it on this forum. The eteymology of the word Adam points to it being a word that describes mankind, not a man. As the bible is a translation when in english, it is important to fully understand the words that one quotes.

Comment #50627 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am

Secondly, then why is it mentioned in an article with the sub-heading, 'Our children are being force-fed government endorsed religious dogma, and we have to launch a counter-offensive.'

Comment #50629 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:35 am

Hopefully, it'll be posted on here later. It involved Peter Hitchins pointing out the nonsense in Christopher's persistent 'challenge' to people of faith.

43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am

I think this may have been dealt with.

221. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50618 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 5:32 am

33. Comment #50606 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 4:24 am


I have read the above. I was talking specifically about the fact that creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and that in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.

By refusing to engage in the facts that I have highlighted, you are using the same tactic of avoidance that Christopher Hitchins used this morning on Radio 4 when he was confronted with an equally unpalatable truth by his brother. I enjoy curiousity, truth-seeking, an enquiring mind, and debate. By ignoring simple matters of fact, a trait that you share with many religious people, you make the aforementioned noble pursuits an impossibility.

Comment #50610 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 am

The claim made by your child's RE teacher seems to be shared by Richard Dawkins, as evidenced by his refusal to adopt the title of athiest for himself. Presumably because he can't discount the fact with complete certainty that at some time in the future the existence of God will not be proved empirically.

222. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.

223. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50597 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:03 am

As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.

Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.

Just a little fact to be getting on with. As you were.

224. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49494 by fides_et_ratio on June 12, 2007 at 6:02 am

I tried to post on here the other day and it seemed to get lost so here goes again.

The challenge that Christopher Hitchins set down was poorly constructed, with no grounding in reason. To attempt to answer it within the perameters he set down would've demanded adherence to the initial errors of logic.

Hitchins challenges members of the audience to give an example of a good action that could be done by a person because of their religious faith, that couldn't be done by a person with no religious faith. The answer to this of course, is none. The challenge is unreasonable though because its starting point is uneven. The presumption in the challenge is that you can get two individuals of an identical emotional, physical, and intellectual state, who have experienced an indistinguishable set of life-experiences and social conditioning, and then compare the actions of these carbon-copies based solely on their religious or non-religious affiliation. (Just a short aside here, if you could find two individuals of such uniformity who were religious and non-religious it already suggests the presence of an external force, God perhaps? but I digress).

The tone of the challenge suggests that to Hitchins what is relevant is the relationship between the act of goodness, the individual, and religious affiliation. Seeing as how it is incompatible with scientific study to examine this relationship in the way that Hitchins suggests, might I suggest a more logically consistent method. Take an identical person, the same person in fact, and ask the question, 'Is there any good act that this person has done because of religious belief that they couldn't have done without religious belief?' The evidence of the altered lives of many converts to religions of all types would suggest that the answer is yes. If you substitute the word good for bad, or swap the two variables around, you probably get even more interesting answers worthy of conversation. I'd be very surprised though if a study conducted wouldn't show the balance tilting heavily towards those whose actions have improved post-conversion.

None of this says that God is true of course, but it is a much more logical, reasoned, and scientigic way of looking at things that Mr. Hitchins adopts. Though I've noticed that in common with Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Hitchins seems to think that reason, logic and the earnest search for truth, should in no way be barriers to the search for rhetoric or meaningless soundbite.