The Truth Delusion of Richard Dawkins
.jpg)
The most famous atheist in the world, biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, poses as the arch-apostle of reason, a scientist who stands for empirical truth in opposition to obscurantism and lies. What follows suggests that in fact he is sloppy and cavalier with both facts and reasoning to a disturbing degree.
I previously wrote about the remarkable debate (which can be seen at this website) between Dawkins and John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics and Fellow in the Philosophy of Science at Oxford. Lennox is the author of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? which demolishes Dawkins by showing not only that there is no inherent conflict between science and faith but that the argument for faith is now being bolstered enormously by the remarkable developments in science. Dawkins was on the back foot because Lennox was attacking him from his own platform of science. He was on safer ground only when, in a further debate between the two at Oxford’s Natural History Museum last October, he attacked Lennox for his Christian faith which he could more easily ridicule. But to Lennox’s core arguments, he seemed to me to have no convincing response.
In a lecture earlier this month to the American Atheists’ Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, Dawkins chose to attack Lennox (about 15 minutes into this video) from the safety of an unchallenged speaking spot in front of a sycophantic audience – but in a manner which inadvertently revealed rather more about himself than he bargained for. Describing Lennox belittlingly as a ‘Christian apologist’ and an ‘Irish mathematician’, he took a comment Lennox had made at a meeting two days after the Oxford debate and tried to debunk it by claiming that Lennox had misrepresented him.
Lennox had observed that, in the Oxford debate, Dawkins appeared to have made a stunning admission by saying that ‘a good case could be made for a deistic god’(a generalised kind of deity as opposed to the personalised God of the Bible). Lennox observed that acknowledgement of a deistic god was the position arrived at recently by the celebrated former atheist philosopher Anthony Flew; and that saying a good case could be made for such a god ‘knocked the heart out’ of Dawkins’s core contention that complex life forms had derived from simple ones.
In response, Dawkins tried to maintain that Lennox had grossly misrepresented him. Pointing out that he had gone on to say that he didn’t accept the deistic argument – which indeed he had said – he claimed that Lennox had selectively quoted him to give an entirely false impression. To make his point, he drew an analogy with the conceit, once employed by a particular astronomer, of ironically disdaining authoritative sources purely as a rhetorical device to underscore the truth of an argument. Just as it would be dishonest to treat such ironic disdain as if it was seriously meant, he said, so by analogy Lennox was being dishonest by treating Dawkins’s remark about deism as if it was seriously meant when in fact he had merely been
making the concession about deism to show up the fatuousness of his [Lennox’s] belief.
But it was Dawkins’ argument which was surely disingenuous. For he had said without any hint of irony, nor with any indication that this was not sincerely meant, that
...you can make a respectable case for deism – not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have.
It was certainly true that he used this ‘respectable case for deism’ to draw a sharp comparison with belief in Jesus, upon which he duly poured scorn. But to say as he did that he was only
making the concession about deism to show up the fatuousness of his belief
was very sharp verbal practice indeed. There was no suggestion at all that he did not mean what he said -- that a respectable scientific case could be made for deism. And so Lennox was entirely justified in expressing astonishment. For even though Dawkins went on to say he did not agree with this case, given his previous absolutism in stating that anything unsupported by evidence is superstitious mumbo-jumbo and that anyone who believes that matter must have had an original creator is a cretin, it should therefore follow that no respectable case could possibly be made for deism.
The fact that he said he thought it could was surely a startling development. And it was very interesting that he should feel so defensive about having said it that this was the one aspect of Lennox’s comprehensive attack on him that he singled out for refutation; and that he tried to do so moreover through disreputable means, by imputing dishonesty to Lennox when it was Dawkins who was employing dubious debating tactics.
Wait – worse was to come.
Dawkins had made much of the fact that Lennox didn’t acknowledge Dawkins’s disagreement with the argument for deism. Dawkins then went on to claim that Lennox – who had not made anything of this whole deism issue during the Oxford debate itself – had been subsequently put up to raising it by me. Yup, your humble blogger.
This was because I had attended that debate – and afterwards had written here of my amazement at hearing Dawkins say a case could be made for deism. This is what I actually wrote about the deism point:
This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said: ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic God’. This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.
In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could. Anthony Flew, the celebrated philosopher and former high priest of atheism, spectacularly changed his mind and concluded -- as set out in his book There Is A God -- that life had indeed been created by a governing and purposeful intelligence, a change of mind that occurred because he followed where the scientific evidence led him. The conversion of Flew, whose book contains a cutting critique of Dawkins’s thinking, has been dismissed with unbridled scorn by Dawkins – who now says there is a serious case for the position that Flew now adopts! ...Afterwards, I asked Dawkins whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm. He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression.
You will see from this that I acknowledged loud and clear that Dawkins had said he did not agree with the case for deism – the very thing Dawkins was accusing Lennox, and therefore by extension myself, of not doing.
But now look at the text that Dawkins proceeded to put up on the screen (about 25 minutes in), saying that this was what I had written in the Spectator and in which I had grossly misrepresented what he had said:
Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. But many are now asking whether the dyed-in-the-wool critic of religion may be, well, evolving in his views about God. You see, in a recent debate with theist and Christian John Lennox, he let slip what many would regard as a major blooper: he actually admitted that there might be a case for theism of sorts. This was a worldview change of seismic proportions. It was a most remarkable turnaround. For someone who had spent over five decades championing the atheist cause to all of a sudden renounce it was an incredible achievement.
I read this with astonishment. For these were not my words at all. I had not written them in the Spectator or anywhere else.
They were written in fact by a blogger called Bill Muehlenberg at his Culture Watch site. Muehlenberg, who had read what I had written about the Oxford debate, was himself passing comment upon it. Those were the words Dawkins falsely ascribed to me, reading them out to smirks and guffaws at my expense – and accusing me thereby of distorting what he had said! He thus held me up to ridicule and accused me of lying -- at a public meeting recorded on video which, as you can see, incited hateful comments on the thread below it – on the basis of someone else’s words altogether.
Dawkins then went on to quote some of what I had actually written in my own blog entry, as follows:
Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?
This passage had been quoted on the Muehlenberg blog – suggesting that what Dawkins had done was carelessly to run together Muehlenberg’s remarks with my own quoted comments. What remarkable sloppiness. And what arrogance. Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL, the former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, whose website advertises ‘clear thinking’ and who poses as the indefatiguable champion of intellectual integrity, can’t even be bothered to check that he is actually quoting the person he thinks he is quoting -- even while attacking her for dishonesty. It's easy enough to muddle up similar sounding quotes on a page -- we all make mistakes -- but falsely to impute malice as a result of such a muddle, and to do so with such public fanfare, suggests a hubristic disregard for scrupulousness.*
Wait – there was worse still. For the next slide he put up, immediately after -- this time -- correctly quoting my words, read:
Lying for Jesus.
Lying for Jesus! Oh dear oh dear. Not only did Dawkins falsely accuse me of distorting his position, but he accused me of doing so because he assumed I was a Christian. Five minutes’ research maximum would have told him that I am a Jew. Either he thought that all the stuff written on Culture Watch by Bill Muehlenberg, who appears to be a devout Christian, was written by me; or he assumed that, since John Lennox is a Christian, anyone who supports John Lennox must also be a Christian. Either way, the man who has made a global reputation out of scorning anyone who makes an assumption not grounded in empirical evidence has assumed to be true something that can easily be ascertained to be totally false – thus suggesting that the mind that is so addled by prejudice it cannot deal with demonstrable reality is none other than his own.
Finally, he rounded off this jeering display of intellectual sloppiness, error, ignorance and prejudice with a piece of spite. Telling his American audience that they wouldn’t have heard of Melanie Phillips, he informed them that she was
infamous as one of the most bigoted and unpleasant journalists in the whole of Britain.
When someone resorts to such gratuitous insults you know they know they have lost the argument. Indeed, Dawkins’s whole presentation in Atlanta surely betrayed unconsciously a note of desperation. For the effort he expended on attempting to rubbish both the deism point and my mockery of him for appearing to believe that ‘little green men’ were a more plausible explanation for the origin of matter than God suggested that this had really got under his skin.
The way he chose to defend himself, through insults and sneers which tried to cover his tracks as he attempted to retreat from what he had said, furthermore merely emphasised his notable reluctance to address the many arguments of substance against his pseudo-scientific attack on religion which were made by John Lennox on the grounds of scientific reason and accuracy – arguments which Dawkins most tellingly chose to ignore altogether. Instead, he went for what he thought were the soft targets -- a credulous Irish Christian and a ‘dreadful woman’ journalist – and substituted smears and jeers for proper debate.
Unfortunately, he fell flat on his face. From this attempt to tarnish his opponents with the charge of dishonesty, we learn instead that for Richard Dawkins truth is a delusion. Who other than the similarly deluded can ever take him seriously again?
*Update: Muehlenberg points out here that Dawkins has even misquoted him by spatchcocking two separate remarks to create a misleading statement.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (151)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
2 The danger for the Lib Dems - James Forsyth
3 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
TomTom
April 28th, 2009 8:59pmDawkins is funded by Microsoft money through Simonyi and has the arrogance of one brought up isolated in Africa without the benefit of peer group challenge at an early age.
He is opinionated and conceited but few subscribe to his pseudo-religious proselyting and he is but another charlatan peddling his own doctrine and demanding absolute obedience to his manufactured scripture. Defamation is stock in trade for such demagoguery
Edmund Onward James
April 28th, 2009 9:00pmI was curious about the Dawkins website and forum www.richarddawkins.net especially since I am a conservative atheist, who respects traditions and religions that have progressed and accepted modernity. But I was banned for linking websites or accused of spamming, but that isn't all... some of the administrators where not happy with my counter statements to the limited and pejorative. The majority of members are of the left, some are anarchists, many are angry and swear a lot when they respond.
I emailed Dawkins but never received a response about some of his ridiculous statements in his book that he and his editor must have thought where oh so witty.
Check my weblog piece and the posting on their forum.
http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2009/04/banned-for-week-from-richard-dawkins.html
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=79629
David
April 28th, 2009 9:02pmWe're having a celebration of Darwin at our synagogue to mark the anniversary. I don't know who that would annoy more- Dawkins or Melanie.
Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle
April 28th, 2009 9:03pmThank you, oh thank you Melanie.
I feel sorry for Dawkins - I think he is due for a most appalling fall , something like Saul of Tarsus.
I cant help loathing the man, but as a christian I have to leave it to God, and God is not mocked. Dawkins and my husband are in for a most awfull shock. Yeah!!!
Shaun Pilkington
April 28th, 2009 9:09pmSo Melanie, for the record, do you believe in Evolution?
Bhaskar
April 28th, 2009 9:12pmBlimey! I thought Melanie has enough to be distressed about- the Obama presidency, the perceived Islamist takeover of Britain, the rise of rampant liberalism, the retreat of the neo- cons, the unbeatable ascendancy of the global warming lobby etc- the list is endless and I haven't mentioned Israel. It is refreshing to know that despite all this, she still has enough emotional energy to cross sword with the high priest of atheism. However, I am baffled. Hasn't she heard of Ocam's Razor- namely that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved? Melanie ridicules Dawkins entertaining the possibility of life on earth being created by a (non Divine) alien intelligence. To hold such a belief is, in one's opinion, no less rational than the belief that the case for global warming remains unproven. Interestingly, the late Francis Crick, arguably the greatest British scientist of the 20th century and an uncompromising atheist, believed life on earth was created by an alien intelligence. His reasoning was based on his belief that the DNA molecule was too complicated hence it could not have arisen out of the process of natural selection. Great scientists have a right to hold the odd eccentric view. Although Dawkins is not in the same league as Crick, one can disagree with him and yet acknowledge that he performs valuable public service by challenging established dogma and bigotry.
Jon
April 28th, 2009 9:24pmSue the arrogant fool.
YA
April 28th, 2009 9:34pm"Melanie stands shoulder to shoulder with Lennox and God against Dawkins". Oil, canvas. Fritz Nietzsche is in fury, fervently swallows moustaches aside.
Jenny
April 28th, 2009 9:34pmOh no, The Dork's really put his foot in his mouth this time. Still, it's all rather good fun to watch him tie himself in knots.
I love the way he pretends you're some person who no-one's heard of over there. Plenty of intelligent Americans know who you are. American Thinker has you down as
"Britain's most eloquent commentator".
www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/murphys_law_the_peter_principl.html
(right at the bottom of the feature)
Do you think The Dork's a bit jealous?
Moxon
April 28th, 2009 9:40pmThis dog's breakfast suggest a number of different things. The Dawkins phenomenon is surely in decline, partly due to over exposure, and to personal weaknesses, including the inability to cope in an argument when put on the spot. Dawkins has always seemed light years away from following the Popperian dictum that scientists should be innately suspicious of their own theories and do their best to test them to destruction. Sad to witness the spectacle of this self-proclaimed champion of science protecting his own beliefs in a cocoon of personal invective.
AnEvolutionist
April 28th, 2009 9:44pmdawkins is a fraud, who doesn't publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature
m gould
April 28th, 2009 9:54pmI feel a bit sorry for Dawkins. His views about religion have always been unbalanced and obsessive and it is sad that he begins to look more ridiculous as he gets older. He had an admirable scientific reputation and surely made enough money out of sales of the ridiculous The God Delusion to wannabe intellectuals without making himself a total fool in public.
London Calling
April 28th, 2009 10:03pmCongratulations Melanie, Dawkins could have easily convinced himself that you didn’t exist, however in this case I think his conscience got the better of him, or was it God? either way his argument against you was built on a pack of cards and you have exposed the Joker... Thank God :)
Wilhelm
April 28th, 2009 10:06pmDicky Dorkins, a limp wristed, twittering twitfest of twitism. In the 1960s he went to work at the San Francisco Zoo and when he wasnt feeding the chimps bananas at the monkee cage , he was out protesting against Vietnam, how very tiresome.
He should do something useful with his life like go to the gym and put some weight on.
Watch Bill O'Reilly just dismiss bookworm Dicky Dorkins on YouTube. Its very amusing.
C. Gee
April 28th, 2009 10:07pmMore than any other idea, Dawkins is in the grip of political leftism. Hence his personal abuse of Melanie and his activist disregard of scholarship and careful attribution.
He believes that atheism is, like anti-racism or feminism, a civil rights issue. He identifies conservatives with religious bigots, and likes to think that atheists suffer from religious bigotry just as blacks, women and homosexuals do from conservative politics.
As a conservative atheist, I think this is stupid. I regret that Dawkins has taken this agitprop stance to atheism and uses it as part of a political battle against religion. His knowledge of religion, the history of religion, comparative religion, and religious philosophy is shallow. His knowledge of evolution - his science - is not. He should stick to explaining the splendid theory of evolution and leave deism/theism/little-green men/garden-dwelling fairies alone. He should not argue against those who believe in the Creator - just let them get on with it (provided they do not teach creationism or intelligent design as science, rather the RE, in schools).
As for Anthony Flew, he is very old now, and perhaps his is a deathbed conversion - or reversion to the certainties of his youth in the vicarage. I do not like the triumphal use of his return to religion as part of the evidence for a creator.
Anthony Flew's bended knees, added to several billion other pairs, does not make a difference to the "debate". There can never be a debate. The epistemological chasm is too wide.
Wilhelm
April 28th, 2009 10:13pm''The most famous atheist in the world,''
Atheist , yes . Famous, I dont think so. Will we be talking about Dicky in 2000 years ? Nah, I doubt it.
C. Gee
April 28th, 2009 10:34pmMore than any other idea, Dawkins is in the grip of political leftism. Hence his personal abuse of Melanie and his activist disregard of scholarship and careful attribution.
He believes that atheism is, like anti-racism or feminism, a civil rights issue. He identifies conservatives with religious bigots, and likes to think that atheists suffer from religious bigotry just as blacks, women and homosexuals do from conservative politics.
As a conservative atheist, I think this is stupid. I regret that Dawkins has taken this agitprop stance to atheism and uses it as part of a political battle against religion. His knowledge of religion, the history of religion, comparative religion, and religious philosophy is shallow. His knowledge of evolution - his science - is not. He should stick to explaining the splendid theory of evolution and leave deism/theism/little-green men/garden-dwelling fairies alone. He should not argue against those who believe in the Creator - just let them get on with it (provided they do not teach creationism or intelligent design as science, rather the RE, in schools).
As for Anthony Flew, he is very old now, and perhaps his is a deathbed conversion - or reversion to the certainties of his youth in the vicarage. I do not like the triumphal use of his return to religion as part of the evidence for a creator.
Anthony Flew's bended knees, added to several billion other pairs, does not make a difference to the "debate". There can never be a debate. The epistemological chasm is too wide.
Occasional Ostrich
April 28th, 2009 11:20pmMelanie, you take this all far too seriously. Nobody who has heard of Dawkins is going to change his opinion, just beacuse of a spat like this; they'll all be slow hand-clapping from the sidelines. And the response of those who haven't heard of him, "Who he?"
Larry Shapiro
April 28th, 2009 11:26pmRe: Dawkins debate. Melanie...who cares? You either believe or you don't. The only thing you can hope for is that we can live in a country in which all religions and non believers are free to stand on their soap boxes and prattle on.
Paul
April 28th, 2009 11:41pmMelanie, I am no sycophant but you are the most reasonable, trustworthy and pleasant journalist I have ever come across and I am no bigot but Dawkins is the most ignorant, arrogant, obnoxious and deluded commentator I have come across.
I'm glad that I am the first to get in with my comments before the nasty bunch get in and spray their lies and ugliness!
Faith, Hope and Love: these three remain (1 Corinthians 13)!
Steve Payne
April 28th, 2009 11:57pmAn interesting sentence from this article - for want of a better word - pretty well sums it up as a whole:
"Describing Lennox belittlingly as a ‘Christian apologist’ and an ‘Irish mathematician’ ..."
My understanding of John Lennox is that he is indeed (a) a Christian apologist - a quick glance at his website, let alone his books, would establish that - and (b) a mathematician born in Northern Ireland (or an Irish mathematician, to you and me).
So I was just wondering precisely how describing somebody as what they actually are amount to "belittling"? Any takers?
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 12:02amSome brain donor wrote (in the Internet equivalent of green ink, doubtless): "Dicky Dorkins, a limp wristed, twittering twitfest of twitism. In the 1960s he went to work at the San Francisco Zoo and when he wasnt feeding the chimps bananas at the monkee cage ..."
Leaving aside the particularly noxious and ugly homphobia inherent in this poisonous little vomiting, from 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Another example of lying for Jesus, I dare say. Or moronic stupdity, which amounts to much the same thing.
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 12:05amWhy doesnt this pontificating little twerp Dorkins not slag off islam ?
Or is he just plain yellow ?
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 12:07am"dawkins is a fraud, who doesn't publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature."
Perhaps you'd like to take a quick look over Prof. Dawkins's CV here:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.pdf
which includes a partial list of his publications - peer-reviewed among them.
I suppose it speaks volumes about the level (it's the only word I can currently think of) of the Professor's detractors that it's impossible to tell whether they're catclysmically ignorant or just plain dishonest.
Bill Muehlenberg
April 29th, 2009 12:57amMany thanks Melanie for the link and the update on all this. Yet more intrigue from our friend Richard!
But his many blunders are even worse than what you have documented. He spliced together two sections of my article in which I deal with two different people. The first half of the paragraph which he falsely attributes to you was my description of Dawkins. The second half of the paragraph is actually from a later part of my article in which I am talking about former atheist Antony Flew!
When I speak of a “worldview change of seismic proportions” I of course was referring to Flew, not to Dawkins, which anyone can see who actually carefully read my piece. So Dawkins is at least guilty of very sloppy reading - both of you and me.
But he is also guilty of deliberately misleading his listeners, not only by ascribing to you something I had in fact had written, but by running my two separate paragraphs together, making for a most misleading reading of my words indeed. The way he has deliberately misquoted me (all the while attributing it to you) totally misrepresents both of us.
As you rightly suggest, evidently truth is as much of a delusion for Dawkins as is God. Keep up the important work Melanie.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
kate b
April 29th, 2009 1:03amThe more Dawkins rants, the more ridiculous he looks.
Science - isn;t that something to do with measurable things, which must be proved or disproved with at least two repeatable experiments and not inter/extrapolation? In which case the theory of evolution remains just that a theory, in the realms of philosophy or naval gazing and certainly not science.
Darwin's On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6 lists all Darwin's problems with his theory, and 150 years later they are still problems.
Dennis N
April 29th, 2009 2:44amWhy should we take seriously someone who a) believes in intelligent design b) believes in a link between autism and vaccines and c) denies global warming. You're a trifecta of ignorance.
Fergus Pickering
April 29th, 2009 4:02amI thought everybody knew Dawkins was a bloody fool. Have you HEARD his apology for a humanist creed. I never came across anything so wet.
Rupert Stubbs
April 29th, 2009 4:36amOh, Lord, the massed ranks of the Spectator god squad are at it again. Dawkins may be an atheist fundamentalist, but there is a fundamental principle at issue here: is there a meaningful God - ie., one who can influence our lives through intervention - or not? Once you get into abstract debates about the instigator of the Big Bang then the argument is over. Yes, it's possible that it was God that created the laws of Science and then left the universe to get on with evolving, but after that a deity's presence is not required. Science is all to do with possibility - hence Dawkins' "shock" admission that one can make a case for some sort of random deity - while Faith is about certainty. As Dawkins has found to his cost, trying to engage with fixed minds is often a losing game. At least he tries.
stanley Jerusalem
April 29th, 2009 6:32amDavid
April 28th, 2009 9:02pm
"We're having a celebration of Darwin at our synagogue to mark the anniversary. I don't know who that would annoy more- Dawkins or Melanie."
Aren't you the one who wouldn't invite Melanie to speak in your place of worship [even though you call it a synagogue]?
Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle
April 28th, 2009 9:03pm
"I cant help loathing the man, but as a christian I have to leave it to God, and God is not mocked. Dawkins and my husband are in for a most awfull shock. Yeah!!!"
Are you married to God?
Bhaskar
April 28th, 2009 9:12pm
What are you moaning about? She's not criticising his 'beliefs' but his dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Remember " to those who believe, there are no questions; to those who don't, there are no answers.'
חג עצמאות שמח לכולם.
Bill Muehlenberg
April 29th, 2009 6:40amFor what it is worth, this is my write-up on Richard’s latest bad case of truth decay: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/04/29/telling-lies-for-atheism/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Ronnie
April 29th, 2009 6:59am'Britain's most eloquent commentator'
God help us.
iq
April 29th, 2009 7:23amSteve Payne: "Leaving aside the particularly noxious and ugly homphobia inherent in this poisonous little vomiting"
I give up, which part of the vomit was homophobic?
Wilhelm - Dawkins *has* been known to "slag off islam". I'm sure someone will be along shortly with a link.
Michael Hutton
April 29th, 2009 7:25amMelanie,
It's, perhaps, worse than you suggest. Bill has just posted to show that not only was the quote misattributed to you, but it's also been doctored to create a completely different conclusion to that which he stated. See Bill's blog for the details.
Could I also point out that a few of the above comments resort to the same name calling and ad hominem approaches that you rightly scorn in your post.
Michael Hutton, Australia
Michael Hutton
April 29th, 2009 7:28amSteve,
Tone of voice can make a fact into a slurr. The written word can do the same thing.
Michael.
Michael B
April 29th, 2009 7:44amSteve Payne,
Does it "speak volumes" of your own "catclysmic ignorance" and "moronic stupidity" that you fail to grasp the simple fact that Dawkins has no published, peer reviewed material in the area in question, in philosophical disciplines, and that that area, the one relevant to the subject at hand, is what was intended?
As to your prior "any takers?" question, all you need to do is watch the linked video in question, at least the intial twenty to twenty-five minutes of it, and it's clear Dawkins was in fact engaging in a belittling show of facile contempt before a sycophantic audience. Your failure in this regard, to follow the link provided, does that too "speak volumes" of your own "cataclysmic ignorance"?
One suspects not, you being the intellectual titan you so obviously are.
Simon
April 29th, 2009 8:15amPhillips so desperately longs for an impressive weapon with which to attack Dawkins that she's willing to pretend that a toothpick is an M16.
She has now written two articles about the amazing revelation that Dawkins thinks there are respectable arguments for a deistic god (something he's said many times since 2006, by the way). So what? Personally, I think there are 'respectable arguments' for telepathy, but that doesn't mean I think there's a more than infinitesimal chance that telepathy exists. It means I don't dismiss those who believe in telepathy as terminally irrational, the way I would dismiss a person who believes he can control other people by the power of his mind, for example. If I were to admit as much in a debate with this person, should I expect to see an article written about my "remarkable" admission?
And now in a new article Phillips drones on about Dawkins attributing to her a quote written by somebody else. This would have been worthy of a mention if Dawkins had used this quote to attack a strawman... but it turns out that the quote says exactly what Phillips has said, just in different words.
The same goes for the 'lying for Jesus' comment. Okay, Dawkins should have said 'lying for Yahweh' instead. Is that all Phillips has to say?
Phillips has found three toothpicks with which to poke Dawkins, no more. As some of the other comments in this thread show, the only people who've been fooled by Phillips into believing they're more than toothpicks are those who already had something against Dawkins.
Pip
April 29th, 2009 8:17amQuilliam Alert: Scottish National Party to endorse Islamist candidate (Osama Saeed)
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/494
Unflipping believable!!!
cuffleyburgers
April 29th, 2009 8:18amI am sure Dawkins is a rather upleasant individual, however, he is right to seek to puncture the sanctmonious self esteem of those who cloak themselves in religion.
Whilst i have no doubt that a personally held faith can help some individuals deal with life, organised religion is generally a force for evil either to a greater or a lesser extent, and as for teaching creationsim, that is mental.
Nick
April 29th, 2009 8:28amClearly you haven't read 'The God Delusion', Wilhelm. Dawkins slags off Islam (and Judaism) in equal measure, and rightly so. All religion is bunk. If you believe in a God you're a fool. I was particularly amused by his description of the Abrahamic God as being 'vicious and tribal...obsessed with revenge and the smell of burnt flesh'. I'd have thought that Melanie would have approved of that.
Roy
April 29th, 2009 9:04amIt is a pity that the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins has made this terrible mistake, misquoting and slighting our esteemed blogger to this degree. To some of us who have read many of his books and are also a fan of Melanie's authorship and her many critical contributions to the news of the day, makes it difficult to come to terms with. Although there is no hesitation to condemn the man, there is no reason, unless proved otherwise, why his professional work should be also put into doubt.
Ray
April 29th, 2009 9:26amIronically, the more Dawkins tries to advance the case for atheistic Darwinism the more he seems to end up dressing up his beliefs with all the trappings of a religion.
Derek Ruskin
April 29th, 2009 9:29amOh Melanie, you are so very nearly one of my campaining heroes (and we really need you and those like you with strong sensible opinions)- it is a shame that you are a "believer" - for that is where we must part company. I really do struggle with why such clever people, as you, remain limited by religion.
The trouble is when one "believes" there is no rational statement that can move you. Do you accept that?
At the end of the USA debate Lennox lets his "belief" in the resurrection occupy the highpoint of his summary and thus loses all credibility in just one sentence. Dawkins is not a rottweler debater otherwise he could have destroyed Lennox then and there - he is just too moral & nice! ;^)
Do you question why you are a Jew and remain a Jew? Why that particular view of the god thingy - nature / nurture / simple comfort zone?
Was Epicurus wasting his time when he said
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
And finally from Robert A. Heinlein who puts Lennox into his box quite nicely by describingb the trap for all intellectuals (that of remaining with the detail for too long!)
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."
Look forward to your next Questiontime appearance!
Stephen
April 29th, 2009 9:45amWhy is this debate conducted in such hostile terms?
Ian Walker
April 29th, 2009 9:48amTo paraphrase, "Richard Dawkins is a bit of an over-the-top buffoon, therefore God exists"
Unfortunately, you let yourself down in the very first paragraph, with the superb oxymoron "empirical truth"; as you full well know, the formal scientific method does not uncover the "truth", it is a framework for testing hypotheses against empirical data.
The existence of a god who "works in mysterious ways" is inherently untestable by science, and is thus rightly ignored as an issue by most scientists. It is only when organised religion attempts to derail the scientific arguments on serious issues such as climate change, AIDS, or the teaching of science in schools, that there is a problem.
Robbit
April 29th, 2009 10:14amDawkin's is a disgrace to science - he has become nothing but and ignorant demagogue and ideologue. He has abused and corrupted his Simyoni "chair" whic is supposed to be for the "public understanding of SCIENCE" and turned it into the Throne of the Self-Appointed Pope of SCIENTISM. Scientism is not science; it is just an ideology like any other - and Dawkins its High-Priest.
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 10:17amRonnie a sentient being squeeks '' Dick Dorkins slags off islam .''
Tell that to the judge, kid .
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot all good atheist and the world paid a terrible price for it.
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 10:23amI became a Christian because I saw Dorkins twittering on about Darwin and monkeys on Channel 4. Thanks Dick. He's a great advert for Christianity .
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 10:32amRonnie .
Im going to ask you a very serious question and I want a sensible answer, for once in your life , do you and Dicky Dorkins want to ban Christmas ? and ruin a lot of kids happiness, after all Christmas is a Christian festival, the one and only Mr Jesus Christ was born on that day. What say you ?
stanley Jerusalem
April 29th, 2009 10:38amRupert Stubbs
April 29th, 2009 4:36am
"Oh, Lord, the massed ranks of the Spectator god squad are at it again. Dawkins may be an atheist fundamentalist, but there is a fundamental principle at issue here: is there a meaningful God"
That's as may be but Melanie is discussing Dawkin's misattributions and even his honesty not whether there is or isn't a God. Get with it Man!
iq
April 29th, 2009 10:41amDerek Ruskin: "I really do struggle with why such clever people, as you, remain limited by religion."
Usually, when you struggle to understand something, you should question your assumptions. Maybe "such clever people" aren't really clever after all. Or maybe their "religion" isn't limiting them in the way you imagine. I'm sure you could think of some other explanations yourself.
iq
April 29th, 2009 10:45amWilhelm: "the one and only Mr Jesus Christ was born on that day."
I bet he wasn't. I believe I'm right in saying that date was chosen because there was already a pagan festival around the same time (Winter solstice?)
Original Tony
April 29th, 2009 10:59amNot a single comment from Blades, Laird, Sin or Carl!! This proves they are Jew haters as they only come on board when the topic revolves around Israel but then again the long post and intellect required to read it may not be found within these fellow bloggers!
To all the Atheists on this blog, there is no such thing as an Atheist! Why? Well, to be an atheist you need the knowledge of god to KNOW that there is no God, so therefore you must be a God and if you are a God you cannot be an atheist.
More seriously though, I want to ask all of you one question. If eveolution is correct and creationism is wrong, how did different sexes form in the species that inhabit the world?
How did each family of animals or plants stay alive long enough to 'evolve' sexual organs and if they were living without sexual organs (and presumably a brain to think) what made them want sexual organs? You answer that and I will believe in evolution.
Furthermore, why is reproduction exactly the same in all higher animals and plants, a sperm/pollen used to fertilize an egg/seed? What are the chances they would all be the same? Trillions and trillions to one.
Finally, if evolution took 300 billion years or whatever, according to the research I have done, the planet earth would have been far too hot for life to evolve.
And...oh yes...explain human footprints inside Dinosaurs footprints when they were supposed to have evolved millenia apart?
Please people, use your (God-given) intelligence!
Dave
April 29th, 2009 11:11amWilhelm: Have you really reduced this "debate" to "won't somebody think about the children!!!" ?
gary ashton
April 29th, 2009 11:13amwhat i have always found amazing about dawkins is in his arguments he always singles out christianity and judiaism but leaves the other one right out.
Ronnie
April 29th, 2009 11:14amWilhelm, you remind of the character Earl Mott played by Bill Pullman in the movie 'Ruthless People'.
'I became a Christian because I saw Dorkins twittering on about Darwin and monkeys on Channel 4.' Deep! Is that the extent of your conversion.
I don't even understand the relevance of your reference to Pol Pot et al. And I won't waste my time answering your childish question.
I genuinely wonder what you mean when you say you 'became a Christian?' It's a bit more than becoming a committed Celtic fan and it is certainly not a base from which to hurl infantile insults at everyone else.
Henry Sidgwick
April 29th, 2009 11:21amThere are no knock-down arguments in philosophy i.e. no-one is going to win, however heated they get. The disputants should treat each other with respect, especially if they are arguing in good faith. This applies to Prof. Dawkins, whose arguments on religion are obscured by his polemical tone (which I suspect is caused by years battling creationism).
Prof. Dawkins and Prof. Lennox are both distinguished scholars. They are both careful to observe scholarly etiquette. If one or other makes a mistake in his citations in the heat of debate, it is a fault, but a minor fault. It does not merit a rigmarole about who said what when to whom and why.
If Melanie Phillips is serious in wanting to engage with the argument over theism, there are plenty of places she can go. There are the great philosophers of the Midle Ages: Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, and Aquinas, and commentaries on them. There are many modern debates: between J.L. Mackie and Richard Swinburne, J.J.C. Smart and John Haldane, Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig. There are any number of good volumes on theism and on atheism. There is even a principled defence of agnosticism from Anthony Kenny. There will be no knock-down arguments, but at least Melanie Phillips will gain a better understanding of what is at issue.
Her current strategy will not make her preferred position any more persuasive.
Ronnie
April 29th, 2009 11:26amWilhelm, I think you should get on with answering Original Tony's perfectly sensible questions. Particularly the one involving brains and sexual organs.
stanley Jerusalem
April 29th, 2009 11:28amTo paraphrase a well-known adage,
How do you make God smile?
Tell him your theories.
[after Prov.XIX, 21]
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 11:45amRonnie a sentient being squeels ''Deep! Is that the extent of your conversion.''
Well Ronnie, Im glad you asked me that question. You dont throw pearls before swine, and I aint going to waste my waste my time discussing Christ with a bunch of smug atheists heretics and pagans .
''I don't even understand the relevance of your
reference to Pol Pot et al . ''
Is it beyond your mental capicity, son ?
''And I won't waste my time answering your
childish question ''.
Is the question too difficult ?
''It's a bit more than becoming a committed
Celtic fan .''
Whats that gotta do with the price of fish ?
''you remind me of Earl Mott .''
And your point is ?
Game , Set and Match to Wilhelm .
Forlornehope
April 29th, 2009 11:48amAh but how do you make her laugh?
Tell her your plans for the future.
Stephen
April 29th, 2009 11:51amOriginal Tony: Work done by Pavithran, Shafri and Indira on the development, differentiation and evolution of sex-dimorphism in Cashew suggests that the differentiation of stamen and pistils occurred as a result of the differential distribution of proteins in the early bud. In an environment rich in potential pollinators it is not hard to imagine that the dimorphic cashews could reproduce. I hope you can at least consider the possibility that evolution might explain the diversity (and unpleasantness) of the natural world.
Wm. Hazlitt
April 29th, 2009 11:55amOriginal Tony, If we assume that you are serious in raising the questions you do, can I suggest you read a basic introduction to the theory of evolution. The most recent I can recommend is "Why Evolution is True" by a professor of ecology and evolution called Jerry Coyne. It sets out the theory and the evidence that supports it. It will answer your questions. In particular, for the evolution of sexual reproduction see pp168ff.
If you want a book that gently takes creationsim and intelligent design apart, I can recommend "Living with Darwin" by Philip Kitcher.
As a footnote, the current estimate of the age of the earth is, I believe, around 4.5bn years. The current estimate of the age of the universe that can be studied using our current knowledge of physics is around 13bn years.
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 11:56amAnother triumph of reason and logic against the forces of darkness and dumbness . Ronnie is a nice guy, he really is , but he sure is dumb .
jane byrne
April 29th, 2009 11:57amBill,you know that you are upseting the opposition...when this full-on attack is coming at you..the evil-one loves to spin us around until we feel dizzy...you are trully a gift from God Bill ...ignore all negative comments...the Lord has got you in the "Palm of his Hand"!
stanley Jerusalem
April 29th, 2009 11:59amWilhelm
April 29th, 2009 11:45am
"I aint going to waste my waste my time discussing Christ with a bunch of smug atheists heretics and pagans."
"Whats that gotta do with the price of fish ?"
Such arrogance, even to Ronnie. Use your loaf!
stanley Jerusalem
April 29th, 2009 12:10pmForlornehope
April 29th, 2009 11:48am
"Ah but how do you make her laugh? Tell her your plans for the future."
Also, mein freund.
'Mann tracht und Gott lacht.'
[Goethe after Prov. XIX,21]
Ronnie
April 29th, 2009 12:19pm:-)
Original Tony
April 29th, 2009 12:43pmGary Ashton:11.13am...spot on...well said. Why is it only Judeo-Christianity that is attacked by evolutionists? Makes you wonder?
Wm.Hazlitt:11:55 am... yes, no doubt man's intellect will explain away almost anything by 'scientific theory'or postulism but please explain why no more species and I repeat the word "species" have evolved since life began on Earth? There have been no 'new-comers' so to speak. This ties in with the Bible that says what was created will not be added to.
It is interesting to note that Muslims sent my church a magnifcent book with at least 500 exquisite photographs in it that shows fossils hundreds of thousands of years old on the left page and the current skeleton on the right page. There is NO difference whatsoever in the skeletons. What! no evolution since the creature formed! What(or Who) decided to turn on evolution to creat a completed life form and then turn it off again?
The said book is magnificent and must have cost £500 each at least but why Muslims sent it to creation-believing Christians is beyond me!
Alex Creel
April 29th, 2009 12:47pmI love the fact that after 2000 years of the growth of christianity the aim is no longer to be fishers of men but rather to knock the unbeleivers. None of the christians writing here even dream of bringing Dawkins into the fold, the advent of science made religion implausible and weakened it's case - now we're in a position where you have to argue the validity of your belief at all, a mighty fall surely? Chritianity will decline because of enlightenment, conversely the lack of which spurs on the growth of fundamentalist islam. Don't agree? - then forgive me or if you've really embraced Christian teaching - try and save me.
Nick
April 29th, 2009 12:47pmkate b. Popperian science proceeds through falsification. Hypotheses are proposed and tested. Data and their interpretation thereof are subject to strict peer review prior to publication and wider dissemination. Hypotheses that are widely accepted become theories. Hypotheses that fail are discarded. This is how science works. It seems that your understanding of the process is somewhat limited.
Now, what's the equivalent process for religious folks out there?
Simon (not the one who pasted earlier)
April 29th, 2009 12:47pmA perusal of all these posts (and many like them elsewhere) shows that the foulest comments generaly come from the atheists against God and against theists (most often against Jews and Christians) - more than the other way round. And when a Jew or Christian (if indeed they are what they claim to be, in either case) misbehaves in the same way, clearly they are not being true to their religion. This behaviour, whoever does it, is shameful and disgraceful. And in a word, sinful.
It is revealing to consider why why leading atheists and those who cheer them on (anti-theists, all) are so bitter, so scathing, so angry. Why their hearts - you know what I mean - are so occupied with such religious hatred. For that is what it is.
And too, atheists also love, and show kindness, and mercy and grace. Sometimes. (They ought to do better; but then again, so ought we all.) And they claim that the other side don't use fair play, and misrepresent them, and are 'lying for Jesus', or they make other similar comments which demonstrate that they themselves believe in some sort
sort of morality.
Now then, where has all that come from? These things (the evil and the good) are not just chemistry. They are not just the outworking of neurons and hormones. And these things are not merely animal. They pertain to the human spirit.
And those who think, say and do evil things demonstrate that they are fallen and depraved, and that they need the work of God's grace in their souls, and that they need God to forgive them.
If you don't know what I am talking about, read Psalm 23:3.
Anna
April 29th, 2009 1:06pmProve there's a God and I'll stop agreeing with what Dawkins says. Go on.
The Chief
April 29th, 2009 1:31pmHe stated there might be a case for theism. I could also make a roughly scientific case for any thousands of scientific theories, all of which are long discredited. Just because something can be theorised DOES NOT MAKE IT EXISTANT.
Your ignorance of the scientific method makes you the most laughable commentator yet on Dawkins and whatever his beliefs might be. Stick to your day job, whatever that is. It'd be ashamed of myself if my day job was this nonsense.
Raymond Joseph Douglas
April 29th, 2009 1:39pmI watched the original debate between dawkins and Lennox. Dawkins just can't stand it when someone like Lennox can defeat him on his own scientific ground !Not only this, but in contrast the nasty DAWKINS,Lennox did his bit with such charm and grace ! I know which of the two I would rather have a pint with !
Wm. Hazlitt
April 29th, 2009 1:43pmOriginal Tony, In all seriousness, go and read the books I mentioned. I mean no offence, but your questions are so very wide of the mark that you had best educate yourself (if the truth or otherwise of the theory of evolution is of any interest to you).
Matthew Roberts
April 29th, 2009 2:01pmAnna prove there is no God and I will start agreeing with what Dawkins says. Go on.
MikeF
April 29th, 2009 2:03pmImagine what Dawkins would be like if he were an evangelical missionary. Thank god he is an atheist.
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 2:04pmMichael B: "As to your prior "any takers?" question, all you need to do is watch the linked video in question, at least the intial twenty to twenty-five minutes of it, and it's clear Dawkins was in fact engaging in a belittling show of facile contempt before a sycophantic audience. Your failure in this regard, to follow the link provided ..."
I have followed the link, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of my first post on this thread. I was actually referring to Phillips's words in the article:
"Describing Lennox belittlingly as a ‘Christian apologist’ and an ‘Irish mathematician’ ..."
which you would have known if you'd read my original post (or rather, read it and understood it).
Try reading it again. In the meantime, nice dodge, but no peanut.
Original Tony
April 29th, 2009 2:07pmAnna...life is far too complex and orderly for it to have happened by chance. The mathematics involved in chance of such magnitude would boggle the mind.
The trouble is that people don't ask themselves 'where did this come from' or 'how did that get there?' They just take it for granted. It is far easier to accept some delusion that a big bang created all we know and experience rather than the possibility of a divine being having made it all.
You see, if there is a divine being behind our universe that means you may have to get to know that being and this is where fear creeps in. It's easier to push 'Him' aside and turn to science.
Just ask yourself what is the 'I' when you talk about yourself Anna. ('I' want to go to the shops...'I'want to visit my mom). What is the 'I'that you are made up of?
Is it purely brain cells and liquids that make up the 'I' in the human being or is it something undefinable or even spiritual perhaps? Could the 'I' in you be a spirit? If the answer is 'yes' how did a spirit evolve? How does the invisible and intangible evolve?
So remember, when you say 'I' want a nice supper tonight, is it a bunch of chemicals speaking or a spirit, like the one God put in us at the beginning of creation? Decide for yourself.
Dixon
April 29th, 2009 2:14pmThe world is at war over the axis of religion. Okay, Dawkins is an irritating, pompous little twit. But, like G.W.Bush, he is OUR twit! He is on OUR side. When you raise arguments against reason you hand triumph to our enemies on a plate.
Mel wants to debate how many angels can be kettled on the head of a pin. Whereupon I realise that she is actually on the same side as the Mullahs.
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 2:18pmThe Chief: "He stated there might be a case for theism."
Not quite - deism.
iq
April 29th, 2009 2:44pmMatthew Roberts: "prove there is no God"
The usual response to this is, "you cannot prove a universal negative." So instead, perhaps Anna should first prove *she* exists.
Crawford
April 29th, 2009 3:01pmAnna, prove there isn't a God and I'll start believing in what Dawkins says. Go on!
Andy
April 29th, 2009 3:29pmDoes anyone remember when people at least tried to hide their bias in a non opinion piece? This is obviously an Anti-Dawkins piece. Proving their is no god is like proving their is no Leprechauns, Titans, Santa Claus or other mythical creatures and it makes about as much sense to believe in god as the rest of them.
Michael B
April 29th, 2009 3:32pmSteve Payne,
Apparently you haven't, but I'm not going to hold your hand further still, like a child needing an adult to help them across a busy intersection.
What you, Dixon and others are doing here reflects the one dominant thread that runs through virtually all these (popular) discussions when it comes to this theistic, atheistic and anti-theistic subject matter: You enjoy the frisson provided by sniffs and sneers directed at a combination of 1) what you don't understand together with 2) some tendentiously and simplistically conceived weak links on the theistic side of the debate. Then, on the basis of those sneers and without the least hint of irony, declaim and preach that you're the ones on the "intelligent" side of the debate (i.e. without actually exemplifying any intelligence).
Here's another clue, Mr. Titan of Intelligence: deism is a subspecies of theism. Deism typically denies any revelation, beyond the revelation that can be conceived in the physical universe itself and via a range of strictly formal, rational/empirical arguments, but deism is a subspecies of theism.
But that's why you're forced to rely upon a Dawkins as an Authority, or forced to quote him chapter and verse, or forced to rely upon a surfeit of sniffs and sneers - all in lieu of advancing an intelligent argument. You're not aware of the fact that deism is a subspecies of theism, but you do know how to sneer and you know how to trumpet that sneer with triumphlist bravado.
Original Tony
April 29th, 2009 3:46pmWell said Crawford 3:01pm...trying to prove the existence of God is futile. That knowledge can only come from a direct revelation from God Himself.
Before I became a Christian the Bible was meaningless but when the 'scales' had been removed from my eyes it opened up so many wonders and truths in that amazing book.
To Anna and Andy, what is the 'I'in a sentence like 'I' want to go see my mom tonight or 'I' want to do well in my exams this year.
What is the 'I' we all talk about?
An eveolutionist will say it's only brain cells and synapses firing away in response to a stimulus (but what fired the stimulus in the first place?)but a creationist will say it's the spirit in the body that does the thinking.
And WHO put that spirit there? A spirit cannot evolve as it's an intangible element.
Decide for yourself.
zoltix
April 29th, 2009 4:42pmMatthew Roberts
prove there isn't a God and I'll start believing in what Dawkins says
God is your invention - it's up to you to prove it's existence
Original Tony
...life is far too complex and orderly for it to have happened by chance. The mathematics involved in chance of such magnitude would boggle the mind.
You are obviously not a mathematician.
The probability that life has evolved to its current position is 1, i.e. certainty.
My A level students could tell you this in seconds.
If you cannot see this, you also do not understand the principles of evolution.
N
April 29th, 2009 5:43pmTHANK YOU!!! I've been saying this for a long time (not on here though). Dawkins is just a major d-bag, his only "scientific argument" is to attack Christianity!! LOSER!!!
Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 6:14pmRonnie .
Why are you sooooo angry, bitter and resentful against the little baby Jesus, it aint good karma, son .
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 7:26pm"You're not aware of the fact that deism is a subspecies of theism"
Funny, then, isn't it, that in 'The God Delusion' Prof. Dawkins specifically mentions deism as "watered-down theism." But then, I don't suppose you've read that, either.
"but you do know how to sneer and you know how to trumpet that sneer with triumphlist bravado."
With religions and religionists in the world, there's no shortage of target practice, old bean. No shortage at all.
Steve Payne
April 29th, 2009 7:30pm"I'm not going to hold your hand further still, like a child needing an adult to help them across a busy intersection."
"i.e. without actually exemplifying any intelligence)."
"Here's another clue, Mr. Titan of Intelligence"
- These from a contributor who accuses others of sneering, mind you.
Irony is truly alive and well.
Wagner
April 29th, 2009 7:51pmOriginal Tony,
What makes the Christian bible that you read the gospel truth as opposed to one which contained contradictory books of the apocrypha, or hindu texts or any other religious text, all believed fully by those brought up with them. Why not the mormons? I suppose you find them wrong-headed. Well atheists (me anyway) view all religions as being ultimately as wrong-headed as mormonism.
Dawkins may irritate you, but it don't make him any wronger or you any righter.
By the way neo-conmen everywhere are starting to adapt atheism as a handy club to beat Muslims with. Maybe you should try it.
iq
April 29th, 2009 8:00pmzoltix: "You are obviously not a mathematician.
The probability that life has evolved to its current position is 1, i.e. certainty."
A mathematician shouldn't forget the boundaries of his subject, nor the logic upon which his field relies. So something like, "If evolution by chance mutation is the cause of all complex life, then the probability that life has evolved to its current position is 1..." would be more accurate.
Michael B
April 29th, 2009 10:17pmSteve Payne, buy a clue. You're the one who suggested otherwise, when it came to deism vs. theism, not I. And buy another clue. When you're the one who glibly and incoherently dishes it out, it's going to end up back on your own face often enough.
journeyman
April 29th, 2009 10:30pmWell,I new that one day you would write something I didn,t quiet agree with,but I didn,t realize it would take so long.
But as we are finally here.
You are a great journalistic warrior.In particular concerning the ever growing expansion of Internaionalist-Islamist-Marxist ideology.
On most occasions a voice of clear cut, knife sharp reason in a time of suicidal cultural dogma.
Taking into account many of your previous articles,I would have judged you to be an Atheist,not that it matters if you are not.
I am an Atheist and cannot disagree with Dawkins, although I would prefer he swivelled his guns to train them specifically on the real evil,Islamo-Fascism.
allied to western Leftist moral-relatavism.However,like Rushdie,Ayan Hirisi others,this would entail the added expense of bodyguards.
When attempting to explain the divergent routes that Islam has taken from a historical perspective,in comparison to western civilization,even the atheistic counter-jihadist fraternity,refer to our Judaeo-Christian,Greco-Roman roots and are well aware that,"he who has not sinned,cast the first stone",is a vast improvement on"in the name of Allah,stone the adulterous bitch to death as slowly as possible".
I suppose thats why,regardless of Reformations,Renaisannce,and several Ages of Enlightenments,we never did throw the baby out with the bath water.
But,lets not bring the bath water back again.We should begin to appreciate Judaeo-Christian influences from a civilizational perspective.
I.D is a lousy science that is not a science,and an attempt to creep in the back door when no one is looking.Dawkins,as he says,can,t prove God does not exist and I.D "science "will never prove he does.
Rabidly anti-religious Atheists like Dawkins,Hitchens,Harris and Dennet are on our side.they are just spending to much time bashing the wrong religion.
Best wishes
Joe
April 30th, 2009 12:10amOk. Life as we see it on earth is too complex to have risen out of nothing.
Therefore the answer is that a living being, infinitely more complex, all knowing and all powerful, appeared out of nothing first, then created everything else.
Well that's just brilliant. No doubt religion is correct.
Dave Finn
April 30th, 2009 3:46amComments on several points
First – there is a great difference between having a serious discussion about a deity and there being a case for a deity. On view of modern knowledge about physics and computing one could have a serious discussion on exactly what a deity could know about the universe and the format in which the data would be represented. The answer is probably a database of bosons which is interesting because any intelligent life anywhere in the universe will eventually discover plutonium and assemble a critical mass of it and this can be detected in a database of bosons. But although there are several issues like this that are worthy of discussion you do not see them in religious discussion.
Second – a basic fact of life. Living things have senses. The process of determining the correct action to take for any particular combinations of sensory inputs is stunningly complex. For both artificial and natural intelligence the process can only be done through a series of extractions of patterns. In the final stage the sensory impressions have been converted to representations of things in the environment. As numerous philosophers have pointed out for thousands of years, all is illusion. Both you and the world you live in are, in a sense, figments of your subconscious’s imagination. The “real” world has wavelengths of light, “subconscious” or “head” world has colour. Normally the two are well aligned and you can go about your daily life without worrying about the difference. Conjurors, con artists, ghosts and UFO’s appear in the occasional mismatches. The reason science has to have hypothesis and repeated experiment is that this is the only way of ensuring that what is being described is “real” world and not “head” world. In the absence of this check process what you have is a study of the model of the world created by your subconscious. This model may well have a deity – after all everyone goes through infancy where parents do have a godlike relationship and a failure to update you subconscious, easily achieved by excessive reliance on language, will leave this model intact. In discussions on deities you need to be clear whether you are talking about the “real” world, in which a deity as a concept is confined to parts of cosmology, or the fantasy “head” world created by your subconscious.
Third – evolution. There is no doubt that all the evidence from the patterns of living and fossil things in the world point to evolution. However, in place of a sensible theory of evolution we are offered a ridiculous story called Darwinism based on fundamental errors. Random variation, natural selection.
There is no such thing as variation. There are many ways in which a genetic message can be changed from transcription errors to retroviruses. They have nothing whatever in common apart from their ability to change the message and need to be evaluated differently.
There are two families of random functions differing in control. For radioactive decay one can only determine the rate and the way it changes. A lotto or casino operator or someone playing “battleships” has a controlled randomness for which it is possible and appropriate to ask whether the random processes are appropriate to the task and whether they should be changed. Both forms of randomness occur – and in particular under specific conditions of stress organisms increase their rate of specific types of mutation to a specific higher rate. It is appropriate to ask the appropriateness of the details of this behaviour and calculation and observation show that for typical populations of the organisms the type of mutation and rate will, as in “battleships” locate an advantageous genetic rearrangement if they exist in the search space. Look at the history of antibiotics and pesticides. These behaviours are genetic search engines, some of great subtlety, and deliberately confusing them with genetic transcription errors on the basis of the common word “random” is neither honest nor helpful.
Natural phenomena occur over a wide range of magnitudes. Geology attempted “uniformitarianism” but abandoned it when it was found that rare large events of the type described in newspapers as “unnatural” could dominate a process, as in the case of meteorites. Novel species occur at about 20,000 year intervals and looking only at everyday phenomena is as pointless as going out on a fine calm day looking for an example of a tree being blown over by the wind.
Selection of a sports team or a jury leaves you with a sports team or jury. In evolution selection often leaves you with nothing. Emphasising survival deliberately misleads by drawing attention from the crucial fact in the fossil record – the coincidence of extinction and novel species.
So instead of asking what rare potential extinction phenomenon occurring at about 20,000 year intervals triggers which genetic search mechanism into a behaviour that results in a novel species Darwinists tell ridiculous stories trying to conceal the fact that their proposed mechanisms are trillions of times too slow and have totally the wrong statistical characteristics. Specifically species with larger numbers have more input “variety”, can support more viable sub groups, can afford to lose a higher proportion of their population and so can survive harsher threats than for smaller numbers, etc. Under the Darwinian model it is inevitable that species with larger populations will acquire new genes and genetic mechanisms faster than less populous species. Observed distributions of gene and genetic mechanism counts show no trace of this effect. It is relatively easy to produce an evolutionary theory that does work and does fit the observed pattern of species and fossils. Darwinists have no intention of doing this and have no intention of allowing anyone else to do so. This is not science.
David Edwards
April 30th, 2009 4:21amOh dear, I see the "rabid atheist fundamentalist" canard is being erected here.
Tell me, given that atheism consists simply of a demand that those who erect existence postulates with respect to supernatural entities provide critically robust evidential support for those postulates, if those erecting said postulates wish for those postulates to be given credence, how is it possible to be "fundamentalist" about asking supernaturalists to support their blind assertions? Surely asking those who erect assertions in this vein to support them is simply the proper conduct of discourse?
Or are we simply to shut up, conform to doctrine and not bother asking questions, especially when the assertions underpinning said doctrines we are being told to shut up and conform to lead to manifest absurdities (creationism, anyone?)
Ronnie
April 30th, 2009 6:49amWilhelm, why are you always wrong about everything, including this?
You really think that your glib insults about good people you'll never meet are in any way consistent with being a Christian?
You can talk about the baby Jesus all you like but it's just like having his poster on your bedroom wall. Pay more attention to what the man Jesus did and said, then maybe you can start making some sense.
You need to do a lot more thinking about what you believe, kid.
iq
April 30th, 2009 8:35amDavid Edwards: "given that atheism consists simply of a demand that those who erect existence postulates with respect to supernatural entities provide critically robust evidential support for those postulates..."
It's a bit early for me. Are you talking about the scientific method?
D J Wray
April 30th, 2009 9:27am"The selfish gene created a selfish ego"
http://www.atotalawareness.com
Steve Payne
April 30th, 2009 9:50amYou can always tell you're dealing with religionists when you're being accused of incoherence by somebody who keeps wittering on about a video when one's original post was about points made in the MP article on this very page, not about a video debate.
Ah well.
Jane Byrne
April 30th, 2009 11:49amOur beautiful God reveals himself to all of us in nature everyday!Just 2 days ago I purchased 2 gold-fish (at the request of my son)...these tiny and delicate little creatures cost me the huge sum of $5.00 each...I look with wonder at their intricate design..so tiny and yet so complex..this might sound crazy to some...but this is where I look for God in the smallest and most simplistic of things..... our God is so good!
Jenny Stokes
April 30th, 2009 12:03pmThanks, Melanie, for exposing Dawkins' error in quoting you as well as his cheap shot at Christianity.
However it was Bill Muehlenberg's revelation that Dawkins took two paragraphs and misleadingly used them together that has really shown Dawkins up.
Well done to you and to Bill.
Saul N Victus
April 30th, 2009 12:58pmYou can't have it both ways: you can't attribute the CREATION of life, the universe and everything to some external CREATIVE force and claim this is in some way different to CREATIONISM. And intelligent design IS NOT science, I can't stress that enough. It makes no testable predictions, it is not falsifiable through observation of the natural world. It simply dresses up millennia-old superstitions in pseudo-scientific terms.
FAIL - must try harder.
TheGlovner
April 30th, 2009 1:36pm"Wilhelm
April 29th, 2009 10:17am
Ronnie a sentient being squeeks '' Dick Dorkins slags off islam .''
Tell that to the judge, kid .
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot all good atheist and the world paid a terrible price for it."
Why is this the argument that all theists bring to the table to support their religion?
It is a non sequitar argument. Yes these people were atheists but their actions were not carried out in the name of atheism, your logic is as flawed in this as the logic for your god.
Penny
April 30th, 2009 5:43pmI have a very open mind with regard to both sides of this argument. It seems to me that open-mindedness is perhaps the more logical route; science progresses and much of what was believed a few centuries ago is now amusing. It stands to reason that some of what we believe to be true and scientific now will likewise be deemed amusing to our descendants.
That said, I have to say that I was very disappointed in Dawkins argument. For a scientist he makes far too many sweeping - and often patronising - statements which he clearly has not backed up by research. Statements about why people believe and how they arrive at their beliefs appear to spring from Dawkins' own view rather than any careful research and questioning of believers. Even as an open-minded person I found his perspectives exceptionally narrow.
I can't agree with his religion/war conclusions either. Religion, in this sense, is rather like a sword. It has no power until it is in the hands of a human being. If religion died tomorrow the desire of some men to seek power and dominance would not and another weapon would swiftly arise.
I would like to see Dawkins move his discussion away from a focus on the mechanistic aspects of life. He could, perhaps, begin with consciousness. This falls outside of the Darwinism but is, nevertheless, a vital aspect of the argument.
Mariano
April 30th, 2009 6:11pmYou have just described the very manner in which Dawkins deals with the text of the Bible: cut, parse, mix, paste and let the arguments from impotent outrage fly!
Robin
April 30th, 2009 7:24pmNick - and others: have you read Prof Alistair McGrath's books on Dawkin's views - "The Dawkins Delusion" and "Dawkin's God"?
SWEJ
May 1st, 2009 1:38amAre we in middle school here?
You really seem to be grasping for anything to make Dawkins look bad.
Did he insult your beliefs? Oh, gee, sorry about that! Get over it!
leigh
May 1st, 2009 6:51amBloggers have failed to address the issue raised by Melanie: the dishonesty of Dawkins. But of course this is understandable. It’s the result of evolutionary diversity. One cannot identify dishonesty as a negative, merely a different point of view of how to live- the “I have evolved differently than you and am not accountable to you” quagmire.
Mr. Melrose
May 1st, 2009 9:01amWhat is all this 'Limp Wristed' stuff? The phrase is now used in 94% of posts. Stop it!
Mr. Melrose
May 1st, 2009 9:26amO Tony said....
How did each family of animals or plants stay alive long enough to 'evolve' sexual organs and if they were living without sexual organs (and presumably a brain to think) what made them want sexual organs? You answer that and I will believe in evolution....
Perhaps the best post ever!!! Keep it up Tone!
Ronnie
May 1st, 2009 10:36amMr Melrose, it is quite clear that, for many people, brains and sexual organs are one and the same thing. That may explain the frequency of limp-wristedness hereabouts.
Epistemological Realist
May 1st, 2009 1:02pmTry and hold on to the point, guys -- don't let partisanship warp your judgment!
I'm sure Dawkins would be the first to tell you that the truth is what counts.
So why is anyone defending him here?
Whatever you may think of his awsome credentials and beautiful personality as shown in other contexts, he was clearly deep in the wrong this time.
Denial is bad for the brain!
Joe
May 1st, 2009 2:35pmDawkins is ridiculous. Saying you want to get rid of religion is like saying you want to get rid of human stupidity. Not going to happen.
There will always be dumbasses who think the answer to fear of death is believing in god, and there's not a goddamn thing he can do about it.
He's already made a load of money from his books so he should just chill, drink some lemonade and eat all the good food he can find.
Leslie
May 1st, 2009 3:28pmDawkins has apologised for misquoting Melanie on his website:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3752,Richard-Dawkins-at-American-Atheists-09,Richard-Dawkins
"In my Atlanta talk, I briefly quoted the journalist Melanie Phillips, as a possible source of John Lennox's 'stunning revelation'. Unfortunately, I also attributed another, similar quotation to her, which was in fact from another blogger who had referred to her. This was inexplicably slipshod on my part. I apologise, and have asked Josh to remove the brief section of my talk where I spoke about Melanie Phillips.
Richard"
Spud
May 1st, 2009 3:38pmJoe: "Dawkins is ridiculous. Saying you want to get rid of religion is like saying you want to get rid of human stupidity."
Well, same thing. But that aside, where has he said this?
listen2thiseddie
May 1st, 2009 4:08pmIt is demonstrably obvious to anyone who bothers to follow what he says that Dawkins is correct, and I for one applaud his efforts. Show me the evidence for your magic pixies. Any evidence at all. Or show me how your magic pixies explain anything about the world.
You cannot, so you are reduced to unedifying mudslinging.
Neil Craig
May 1st, 2009 4:12pmSpme of this must turn on what we mean by Fod. I dispute that any God with the atributes & motivations described by Moses, Jesus or Mohammed makes sense nowdays. I can conceive of an entity that created the universe but it might turn out to be a committee of scientists a million years hence - would that rerally be classifiable as God?
I do accept that the parameters ogf the universe (the 5 basic forces & mass in the universe) are so confucive to life that either this was non-accidental or their are any inginity og alternate universes in which we could not evolve. Od the 2 I think the latter more likely.
I think Melanie is wrong to object it is paradoxical to believe in "little green men" but not in God. hough the colour & anthroplogicla nature of either may vary LGMs require no supernatural forces & are perfectly possible in the universe we know - arguably their non-exostence would be more incredible.
Bob Johnson
May 1st, 2009 9:42pmIt's great to see Deism getting some attention! Eventually Deism will prevail over "revealed" religion and Atheism.
Progress! Bob Johnson
http://www.deism.com
Bill Muehlenberg
May 2nd, 2009 7:47amSorry Leslie - I know how much the Dawkins’ groupies want to let Saint Richard off the hook here, but it is just not going to happen. It is not just that he screwed up big time by messing up the authorship of the quote (either deliberately, or with an incredible lack of professionalism). The quote in question was a splice of two quite different paragraphs of mine, resulting in a completely misleading statement. This almost has to be a deliberate - and therefore malicious - action. There seems to be no way it can be shrugged off as merely being “inexplicably slipshod on my part” as he claims.
Of course we can expect such underhanded and mischievous tactics from those who believe we are nothing more than a clump of selfish genes. If a blatant lack of honesty will get you ahead in the evolutionary struggle for survival, then why not?
Bill Muehlenberg
Orlando
May 2nd, 2009 8:05am“Darwin's Black Box”, by Michael Behe. Anyone? Anyone? Ring a bell?
Orlando
May 2nd, 2009 8:49amScience cannot prove that something or somebody do not exist. Period. This fact does not diminish the value of science: as Prof. Lennox states, there’s no antagonism between science and religion.
However, we must define “religion” before proceeding. Philosophy is a product of religion, and true religion is intimate with philosophy; that’s why reading Eric Voegelin’s books is important to anybody who want to understand what religion is about ― but you can only understand Eric Voegelin if you already understood the old good Greeks (including Aristotle), then you may have to take a look to the Scholastic theories, and finally reading some Leibniz, Hegel, even Nietzsche and Marx, to finally verify that every theory is a sort of “religion”.
Biblical creationism is a metaphorical myth, as well as neo-Darwinism is a myth because we simply cannot explain the succession of forms. The only thing we can be sure about is that there is an universal order: you can call It either “God’s order” or anything you want and even “deistic order”, as Dawkins put it.
The American scholar Michael Behe described in his book “The Darwin’s Black Box”, the “flagelar motor” as bunch of united proteins that appeared in nature with its 29 protein parts built simultaneously; when a protein part is disconnected (destroyed), the flagelar motor simply does not function anymore. Until now, no evolutionist theory could explain how the flagelar motor evolved and from what, because it seems to be ready-made in nature.
It is true that Darwinism has a point on some theories concerning evolution, but not on categorically stating the origins of life. Transforming evolutionism into a “creation theory” doesn’t help much, does it?
Aloha
May 2nd, 2009 4:53pmIDer's often deny there is a correlation between ID and their 'Christian' beliefs, but surprisingly they all 'attend a church'. The reality is that ID sprang from a 'religious' mentality that is trying to 'fit' into science. Both creation and ID teachings coexist in the same congregations but if, as proponents of ID claim, they are so 'vastly different', they could not coexist. IDer's were going to church (as creationists) 'before' they embraced ID and continue to go to church 'afterwards'. It's evident that creation is the stepping stone to the supposedly more enlightened ID. And now IDer's are working to bring their less-informed brethren up-to-speed.
Epistemological Realist
May 2nd, 2009 6:58pmSo Dawkins apologized for the elaborate misattribution of quotes -- good for him.
But, "....This was inexplicably slipshod on my part..."
Inexplicably? What can he mean?
That for such an infallible being as he to blunder is simply beyond anyone's comprehension?
Or is this just his way of saying he's losing the plot, and is literally ignorant of how he did it?
Emily Strange
May 3rd, 2009 2:06pmReferring to Michael Behe as a scholar! This guy has been shown up as a fraud in Dover Pennsylvania trial. He admitted he thinks astrology is a science! And his assertions about the flagellar motor have now been disproved. Open your minds and learn what evolution really says - it says there is no need to call in a god to explain the complexity of life on earth. This is where Dawkins starts from. 9/11 then made all the difference. Read 'Why Evolution is True'. Read 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin. It's still an amazing and beautiful world, even without a god. But you won't read them, will you? They'll take you outside your self imposed comfort zone.
Graham Lawn
May 3rd, 2009 2:39pmOf course one cannot argue a person into the Christian faith because the person needs to have the truth about Christ revealed to him by God. But 2 points.
1. An atheist is so by faith because he cannot disprove the existence of God.
2. Descartes, philosopher, stated something like this:"That which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, cannot be conceived not to exist".
So why do these atheists keep talking about a God who apparently doesn't exist?
Jennifer
May 3rd, 2009 3:08pm'When someone resorts to such gratuitous insults you know they know they have lost the argument', says Mel. Logically then, and from reading her blog, one can tell that she's obviously lost a lot of arguments.
Arcos Plage
May 3rd, 2009 9:25pmDawkins adequately dismisses theistic faiths, but he really is not needed for that. Others have, with much less drama, thoroughly debunked such moronic (in light of modern knowledge) nonsense as a flat Earth with corners, talking snakes and mules, a Universe aged thousands of years rather than the billions that the very distribution of the stars would require, and Santa Claus visiting all the houses on Christmas Eve. But what the rational debunkers don't attempt, and what Dawkins really fails to do, is to diminish the probability of Pandeism.
Pandeism is a theological position between Pantheism and Deism, which demonstrates through a series of testable logical proofs that the Creator of the Universe in fact became the Universe -- through a Big Bang, and using mechana such as evolution -- to experience existence through us. Thus Pandeism provides a logical explanation and a rational moral basis for existence, no wonder Dawkins, with all of his raw intellect, cares not to take it on in any sort of headlong way!
Anth
May 3rd, 2009 11:56pmMelanie, I owe you, for making me aware of Lennox, whose book ("God's Undertaker") is a sort of roadmap back to sanity for the thinking (wo)man - and also for your brave advocacy of unpopular causes. You often speak for me, in places I'd never have the guts to tread.
As for Richard's one-sided portrayal of you as "infamous" for your "unnpleasant(ness)", I'm afraid you'll have to accept it as a sad fact. Only you can know whether your corner can be fought without vitriol. In the meantime, you can always console yourself with the knowledge that you can tell a person by the enemies they make. And I guess some truths are so challenging that even to whisper them is deafening.
Adam M
May 4th, 2009 6:41amI don’t see any issue with Dawkins assertion he has said similar things before, it doesn’t seem to contradict anything he says.
There are multiple "brands" of deism the one Dawkins is referring to is the belief that something may have created the universe, but post creation has not had any part in formation of planets/ creating the platypus and speaking with moses.
Many scientists hold similar beliefs because of the curious nature of what may have been before/during the big band.
In most cases Deists are almost Atheists they are against organized religion, and do not believe in any man-god interaction.
Regardless this post is making mountains out of mole hills, but keep up the good work in any case.
Pete Hoskin
May 4th, 2009 3:07pmFOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL COMMENTERS:
This thread is getting particularly incendiary, and many of the comments are gratuitously offensive and ad hominem in nature. This cannot continue.
In which case, a number of comments have been taken down. And any further ad hominem attacks will not be published.
Joe
May 4th, 2009 8:01pmEpistemological Realist: No, only the pope is infallible.
Epistemological Realist
May 5th, 2009 2:00pmJoe:
thanks for that. You wasted your time I fear, since I have no clue what you intended by it.
And now I will never know, because most likely no-one is looking at this thread any more!
ah well, such is life
Joe
May 5th, 2009 11:26pmEpistemological Realist: "...That for such an infallible being as he to blunder is simply beyond anyone's comprehension?"
What a foolish suggestion, even Richard Dawkins knows that infallibility doesn't extend beyond the papacy.
EscapeVelocity
May 6th, 2009 5:50amMelanie, you will be pleased to know that I have been a big fan of yours for a while now, before you started writing for the Spectator. And I am an American...although I certainly am not the authority on British journalists, bloggers, or writers.
Keep up the good work...and know that your writing is appreciated.
EscapeVelocity
James Hodson
May 6th, 2009 6:40pmBhaskar said ages ago: "Hasn't she heard of Ocam's Razor - namely that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved?"
I thought that Occam's Razor simply meant that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. It's a pretty good foil against the attacks of conspiracy theorists.
I agree with Dawkin's thoughts but dislike the way he puts them across. He comes across as being far too aggressive and condescending for my liking. I do agree with what much of what Melanie writes but not on this particular issue. She, herself, is possibly in danger of sinking towards Dawkin's manner of 'reasoning'.
I write as one who was brought up (Christened, confirmed and educated) as a Catholic.
James
Stanley Willis
May 7th, 2009 5:44pmWhere is the update from Melanie to acknowledge that Dawkins has apologized for the misquote?
Greg
May 8th, 2009 8:16am"Who other than the similarly deluded can ever take him seriously again?"
Does Melanie Phillips not think this is a tiny bit of an over-reaction? How does a world-respected scientist discredit over forty years' worth of work by misquoting somebody during a lecture? Why is nobody else claiming his reputation now lies in tatters?
I have read Lennox and listened to two debates between him and Dawkins. To say that he "demolishes" Dawkins demonstrates confirmation bias. He really does not.
Please, just a bit of perspective.
Peter Rice
May 15th, 2009 9:28pmPerhaps,Richard Dawkins is being influenced by age and like many older people, is beginning to see that man-made structures (?discoveries)of science are so wonderful that they must have been influenced by something other than a delusion.
Peter Rice
May 15th, 2009 9:28pmPerhaps,Richard Dawkins is being influenced by age and like many older people, is beginning to see that man-made structures (?discoveries)of science are so wonderful that they must have been influenced by something other than a delusion.
Richie Craze
May 18th, 2009 8:47amPeter Rice, what on earth does that even mean?
Kev M.
May 21st, 2009 4:09pmDawkins is successful in refuting Christianity, which is after all based on the worship of an evil and monstrous God; but Dawkins can not strike any blows against pandeism, a religious viewpoint that accepts the truth of scientific discovery, and reconciles that with a fundamentally fair and just spiritual understanding of the Universe, the purpose of its creation, and its direction. Pandeism is the next step in the advance of religious knowledge, the light that will cut through the darkness of superstition to bring about the next great spiritual and scientific leap of mankind!!
Richie Craze
June 16th, 2009 9:45amBill Muehlenberg writes: "Of course we can expect such underhanded and mischievous tactics from those who believe we are nothing more than a clump of selfish genes. If a blatant lack of honesty will get you ahead in the evolutionary struggle for survival, then why not?"
Underhanded and mischevious, eh, Bill?
I would point out that Bill Muehlenberg is being intellectually dishonest over all of this. I made several attempts to post on his website under the ironic heading "Telling Lies for Atheism" after he had grossly misrepresented my original posts, but he has censored them and refused me the right to any reply. Yet he will shrilly denounce a world renowned intellectual for accidentally misquoting somebody! This is sheer hypocrisy.
This is somebody who is not willing to engage in debate or hear the other side of the argument. Beware.
Shavonne
September 5th, 2009 9:27amHey. She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon.
I am from France and learning to write in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "The total is to vary whichever tenors are also in price playing customer."
With respect ;), Shavonne.
Max Payne
January 7th, 2010 1:23pm@Edmund Onward James
I visited your links, perhaps I read something that you may have missed. The last post on http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=79629 appears to me as the forum administrator personally explaining why you were banned/suspended. All of us here like to be heard, but most of us are smart enough to do it within the websites rules. The rules are there for our benefit, so we do not run into "spam" with every mouse click, among of reasons. This "they are picking on me" attitude is quite frankly pathetic, and if you ever want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop attempting to mislead people into thinking you are a victim.
L&L
February 5th, 2010 2:18amDawkins seems to make a habit of misquoting other people - or just making up lines and attributing them - when he's not squealing that they're doing the same to him!
Martin Smith
June 5th, 2010 2:34pmHow disappointing. Although I am a Christian I have always respected Dawkins, especially for the brave way in which he confronted Islamic bigotry. What a shame he has let himself down so badly by resorting to distortion, lies and personal attacks. It was Jonathan Swift (another stupid Irish christian?) who said that man is not a rational creature, only a creature capable of reason. Dawkins proves an example of this fine distinction.
BrianD
April 19th, 2011 10:36amTherein lies the problem, the inability to test evolution on its own merits and to ask what else could it be if it is false? Instead we take "sides" thinking if one is not provable the other one MUST be true. This is false science.
Anna wrote "Prove there's a God and I'll stop agreeing with what Dawkins says. Go on."