Dawkins exposed

Eddie

I am no particular fan of Dawkins. However, his books make more sense than any religious twaddle I have ever heard.

He is also right to attack the dreaful increasinging religiosity in the UK - not the gentle woolly vague C of E British sort of religion (which many atheists like me have no problem with culturally speaking - we must separate culture and faith here) - but with the extreme, creationist version of Christianity (or Islam) which means that half the teachers in our schools are teaching that the nonsense of creationism (disproven by so much evidence) is as valid as the fact of evolution (Darwin's natural selection is one theory - but evolution is fact). This is science teachers! They refuse to tell students that creationism is nonsense because they do not want to offend the religious - most of whom are black and Asian, of course (most adherentes of creationism are). They have thus abandoned the scientific foundation of evidence and should all be sacked.

In these days of aggressive religiosity, we need people like Dawkins as well as other atheists and rationalists and defenders of true Englightenment values.

The problem with Dawkins is common amongst academics and media luvvies: monumental vanity, egotism, attention-seeking arrogance. Nothing new there.

There are MANY other atheists, ancient and modern, who, like Dawkins, massively outargue anyone who believes that we should be some kind of religious state. The thing he does not get really though is the difference between faith and culture: the UK and Europe are culturally Christian, histocially speaking, though the UK's protestant history is far removed from Catholic top-down authoritarianism.

SteveV

"skewered by Camilla Long in an interview (£) for The Sunday Times. Long cannily exposed his shrillness, his monumental arrogance, his tetchiness. her reliance on ad hominem and strawman fallacies.
FIFY

Robert Taggart

RD = OUR HERO.
You can hear the clanking of those 'rattled' religious cages from here ! Good on him, keep up the good work Richie.

Silverghost

Rod, that is sneery pathetic rubbish. Why not really demonstrate your intelligence by suggesting that Richard Dawkins smells and eats worms?

The Bideford case raised what ought to be an interesting debate, but after Christopher Hitchens' death, Dawkins is the only, the go-to atheist that most journalists can think of. Stephen Fry is a humanist, and far too popular to be associated with the issue.

Dawkins' telephone must have been red hot, and I challenge any human being to remain calm and indeed consistent in the face of biased questioning and now character assassination; a Telegraph journalist has found some tenuous link to slavery.

Rod - grow up or shut up.

Moira Dawkins

RD has engaged more religious people in the last 10 years than any other man on earth and has done so in a polite understanding way. The above article is a load of BS written by someone who puts his agenda before facts.

DK

LiberalLeft entryism is a huge success, they are telling us how to live, what we can and cannot think. Just the other day I had to attend a meeting where we were lectured by a male Gay Union rep. on the correct way to address homosexuals in the public sector, he actually mentioned "shirtlifters" as a particularly cruel jibe, he said it with a straight face. Never before have so few, unarmed, bossed around so many, why do we do it,they're soo outnumbered.

Robert Christopher

Thinking 'Darwinian Evolution is fact' is a faith; it is not part of science.

Science always allows the possibility that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is not true; remember the recent report of 'faster than light' particles? It was, please, someone, take our data and show me it isn't true! It wasn't 'it can't be true because Einstein proved it cannot happen'.

The Science is never settled!

Darwinian Evolution may be true; it may be partially true, but we are talking about something that might have happened and may still be happening, not a physical law that can be repeated in different ways.

Apples fell to the ground before Newton formulated The Universal Law of Gravitation. The descending apple does not 'obey' this law. Newton formulated this law AFTER he saw how falling objects behaved. It has since been shown that this law is false. Yes, false! Yet we still use it because it is so useful, but it still doesn’t make it true.

At least, with Creationism, we have been able to wonder at the world we live in and ask how it happened, an environment friendly to Science. This is the world that Darwin inhabited.
Darwin didn't believe all that he wrote. He wanted to impart his ideas to others; it is how science progresses.

rod liddle

Taggart, SteveV - ahh, so whatever he does, whatever he says, that's ok. Such blind and abiding faith is touching. If I could fix it for you, would you like to touch one of his vestments?

david Cockerham

Dawkins may have one of the sharpest scientific brains the world has ever known, but when it comes to emotional intelligence or naivety he is about as stupid as it's possible to get. He must realise surely that he has not the remotest cat in hell's chance of persuading more than an invisibly tiny minority of the world's religious people to drop their faith, so why does he think that his anti-religious campaign is a sensible use of his valuable time? And being insufferably arrogant and patronising, as he is, towards that invisibly tiny minority that he does have a chance of converting will damage rather than enhance his chances of success with it. He is too intelligent a man not to see all this, which leads me to suspect that his campaign is really just an ego trip for him.

Barry

Eddie - well said.

Unpleasant people like Dawkins can be right, and mild mannered, well meaning Christians can be wrong.

I agree we need people like Dawkins though. Unfortunately, he could be far more effective than he is.

David Ossitt

Richard Dawkins is not a very nice man, most atheists are perfectly happy to live with their own lack of belief in God; without attacking and vilifying those who believe.

That he does not believe is perfectly acceptable but his constant vituperative railing at any who dare to differ is not.

His fulminations are similar and are as outrageous as those militant homosexuals who are not satisfied with the acceptance of their lifestyle by the rest of us (quite rightly) but press constantly for more and more; and one suspects they will not be satisfied until the practice of buggery is mandatory for all men above the age of sixteen.

Johnnydub

He's a zealot.. Maybe an anti-religionist one, but a zealot all the same...

Horatio

If you accept the axiom of choice and the premises of mathematical logic, you can't actually use said logic to prove - or disprove - anything at all about the existence of God.

A pretty basic conclusion derived from the rudiments of logic I learnt as a student. I'm surprised Professor Dawkins doesn't seem to know these rudiments.

Holdsworth

"Taggart, SteveV - ahh, so whatever he does, whatever he says, that's ok. Such blind and abiding faith is touching. If I could fix it for you, would you like to touch one of his vestments?"

The devotion to RD is amazing. It's like he gives meaning to people's lives.

It's such a shame he is so snarky and unbalanced. He treats people with religious faith as if they are idiots. He equates belief in a Christian God with belief in the tooth fairy. It's just not plausible; for example the Catholic Church provides 25% of the health care in Africa, and a lot of the education too. Inspired by the tooth fairy?

Francis Collins is head of the National Institutes of Health in the USA and one of of the world's leading geneticists (eg. ran the Human Genome Project). He is also a Christian. So religious = thick is basically a stupid argument.

RD has also failed to address the fundamental questions of how the universe (the space, the matter, and the energy) actually got here, and also if he believes that free will is a reality. Without free will there is no morality. But there is no place for free will in materialist universe - as RD's fellow 'new atheist' Sam Harris has written.

My message to RD: "It's not as simple as that."

David Bouvier

Truly bizarre. Christian's are supposed to believe in some sense that the Bible seem to believe the bible is a book of great wisdom or even the divinely inspired word of their god.

Biologists are supposed to have a modern understanding of the science relating to evolution, in relation to which Darwin's text are irrelevant.

Giles Fraser's suggestion that Dawkins is the "Pope of Darwinism" shows a culpable ignorance of the topic at hand.

Graham Cresswell

To be fair to Prof Dawkins, it is surely less challenging for a professing Christian to remember the word "Matthew" than for anyone to remember the phrase "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Holdsworth

"Dawkins may have one of the sharpest scientific brains the world has ever known"

That's not true. Dawkins was a moderate achiever in science. His last peer-reviewed scientific paper containing original research was published in 1980. Though he had some good publications he wasn't a leader in his field then, the point at which his scientific career stopped.

He made his name as a popular science writer (a very good one) and latterly as an anti-religion polemicist.

Slim Jim

David Ossit and Horatio - well said. Whilst Dawkins is perfectly free to promulgate his views, he comes across as very shrill and intolerant, but that doesn't make him a bad person, does it? What concerns me is that he is just one of a growing band of screechy-preachy fundamentalists, and he is well supported by the Dictatorship of the Minorities Movement. Revolution now, Comrades! You reckon?...

fergus pickering

Is Dawkins' work any good. Do I have to take it that he is a genius
on trust. Can anyone prove it to me? He seems like a silly arsehole.

trevors den

Dawkins is entitled to voice his views. And do so without small minded criticism. He is not advocating throwing Christians to the lions.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury actually concentrated on religion and spoke up to protect Christians, then I might be more inclined to go to church more often. Whether you believe in the paranormal mor not, I prefer the teachings of Christ to the teaching of Mohammed any time.

Robert Taggart

@ 'Roddy L' OMG... YES PLEASE !

Daniel Heslop

He resembles Captain Ahab.

CS

Liddle truly is a follower of the herd. No-one who has ever read Dawkins or heard him speak could seriously describe him as shrill and angry. But that's become the standard position of anti-Dawkins crowd, to ignore his arguments and paint him as angry and aggressive in the hope that people will conclude that there's no point in studying the arguments of a bad man. It's on a par with those who throw around labels like "sexist" and "racist" in order to tar and feather the target rather than tackle their arguments.

Then he tries on us the transparent and clichéd ruse of taking someone Dawkins evidently reveres (Darwin), claiming that Dawkins considers himself to be a reincarnation of him, showing that he isn't and concluding that therefore Dawkins must be sad and deluded. If Liddle relies on such obvious logical leaps to make his points, one can understand why he might see a threat in a man who argues for rational and logical thought.

A childish and vacuous attack by Liddle but then could we expect better from someone who criticises, say, Harriet Harman on the basis that he wouldn't want to screw her?

stephen maybery

Remember him as Darwin? are you having a laugh? Try comparing him to Savonarola and you would be nearer to the mark

CS

Horatio, can you give us examples of where Dawkins does claim that he can logically disprove the existence of god? I'm sure that someone as schooled in the basics of logic as yourself wouldn't just assume that that's his view without evidence.

Andy Carpark

Horatio - Why surprised? The logic and set theory options are only taken by a tiny minority of those sitting the Cambridge mathematical tripos and hardly any of that minority properly grasp the Gödel/Cohen independence proofs. You are essentially right, though. Dawkins is a logico-philosophical illiterate, as is anyone who demands 'evidence' of the precondition for there to be something rather than nothing.

rod liddle

Moira, you thicko, I have no agenda on this issue.

Silver ghost - intolerant little man, aren't you? Or woman. It's this intolerance, along with an inviolable sense of rectitude and the notion that everyone else is stupid, that alienates the majority from Dawkins. You are an adept handmaiden, then.

Guy Weston

Don't tell me you believe in miracles like Odone (BBC BQ on Sunday) and creationism, Rod. The ad hominem logic of your argument suggests that you're one of the 'God is Great' brigade. Let's wheel out Melanie Phillips for some more balanced commentary on the issue!
That said, I suspect you'll be squawking from the rooftops if your children had to sit in a science class that included creationism. The muddled thinking you display in this article suggests that the creationists'd easily be able to win the debate against you (and you can't get much lower than that).

Tony Inchpractice

The New Atheist movement is a joke. As Atran pointed out, it criticies religion in a way which is "often scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive"

However, I have more time for Dawkins, who has done excellent work popularising science, than deluded nutcases like Sam Harris.

idle

This is great fun. This God & Idols mumbo-jumbo always gets the crazies on both sides going. I love the idea that someone (that would be YOU, Silverghost) takes the time to surf the blogs, alights upon a Liddlism that he doesn't like, and then froths: "grow up or shut up". Priceless!

Incidentally, I don't believe in God but I'm a thoroughly nice chap. Everybody says so.

Hicken Voyner

Dawkins is a ferocious philistine.He was once asked whether he would concede that religion had in some instances influenced great art,for instance the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or the Missa Solemnis.His response was that they would have been even greater if they had been inspired by truth.
He's also got tin ears.On the first page of The God Delusion he refers to John Lennon's Imagine as a magnificent song.

philodoc

I would say that it has been rather a good week for Richard Dawkins. His name is all over the media; better to be hated than ignored, and he is far from being universally hated.
I heard the Radio 4 interview and thought that the Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser's cheap stunt actually back-fired:
# RD did actually remember the full title of Darwin's book.but his enunciation of it was drowned out by the noises of righteous indignation coming from the other side and the interviewer;
# GF has made a rod for his own back in that from now on the expectation will be that he can deliver saucy sound bites whenever he speaks; rather him than me;
# Dawkins' survey is now more widely discussed than it would have been if this storm in a teacup had not gone viral.
Remember that many of the worlds greatest thinkers were ridiculed and reviled for their views, Galileo being a case in point. Also, consider that many of the vile anti RD commentators likely spend most of their time watching sport, TV, and porn instead of studying science, philosophy and and art; they are intellectual dwarves compared to RD.
As for the Sunday Times article, I have not read it; I do not squander my money on any part of the Murdoch media machine

john steadman

Rod - how can you 'engage' with those who promote or defend the absurdity of religious belief? Like Peter Hitchens, for example, you make the mistake (or promote the pretence)of supposing that there is somehow a balance betweeen the the two sides in the percived debate.
The first truly silly comment from you that I have read.
And, by the way, why do so many people identify atheism, as you do, with the 'liberal left'?

Silverghost

Ooh! Rod Liddle mentioned me! Should I feel cowed or privileged?

Neither, actually. It's difficult to get too worried about someone who writes a sneering article about someone who he regards as, well, sneering. Then calls me intolerant. Which based on less than 100 words, sounds intolerant.

As research, I looked at the "about Rod Liddle" section. It doesn't actually say what he is good at.

Kingstonian

Holdsworth
February 20th, 2012 12:53pm
"He equates belief in a Christian God with belief in the tooth fairy. It's just not plausible; for example the Catholic Church provides 25% of the health care in Africa, and a lot of the education too. Inspired by the tooth fairy?"

Ludicrous argument! Dawkins maintains that belief in any god is as nonsensical as belief in the tooth fairy. You maintain that he is wrong because the Catholic Church provides medical care in Africa. So does the secular organisation Médecins Sans Frontières, so what does that prove?

DougS

This has to be the biggest load of incoherent drivel ever by our dear Rod.

Calm down dear, I think you've finally lost it completely!

Wilhelm

Why does the lame stream media gush, slobber and sooooook up to Dicky Dorkins.

I read in the Daily Mail that Dorkins family was involved in the slave trade, that's why he's stinking rich, who'd have thunk it, Dicky a racist.

DougS

Graham Cresswell
February 20th, 2012 12:57pm

Graham, there's an "On" at the beginning of the title - so - even harder to remember than you thought!

Baron

The best that can be said about Richard Dawkins has been said few years back: ‘He marries Lalla Ward, still doesn’t believe there’s God’.

porkbelly

Dawkins seems to regard the very existence of religion as a personal affront, especially as he has made his views clear to the multitudes. No wonder he is so angry! He is not so much a crusader for freedom of conscience as a Stalin-style crusher of religion in general.

Well, perhaps not "in general" - he seems to be quite silent on non-Christian religions, especially on that one that issues fatwas. An oversight?

Holdsworth

Kingstonian: My point is that the millions of Christians who work for charity all over the world (look it up: religious people are many times more generous with their time and money than non-religious people) do it because of the message of Jesus. It's a direct link. These Christians are inspired by a belief in God. Indeed they feel compelled to act because of this belief. Nobody is inspired to act because of a belief in the tooth fairy. It's funny that anyone would equate the two.

That non-religious organisations also contribute to the welfare of the poor and oppressed is great. Some humanists believe in this - great. They are not inspired by religious belief. How is that revelant to this particular argument?

Saikat Biswas

Exasperated as I am, I just don’t feel the urge anymore to protest against your clueless attack on Dawkins. As a class, journalists (most of you anyway) nowadays are so overwhelmingly uneducated, so completely devoid of making a rational argument that to expect otherwise would be to strain endurance.

Amanda

David Cockerman: Well said, but may I suggest that his motivation may not be this strange thing called 'ego' (which is too much tainted with Freud for my taste; I prefer the Rousseauian notion of amour proper) as dogmatic belief, which makes him stiff-necked.

Slim Jim

Silverghost - Do you remember when Tommy Boyd had a radio show on Talksport? He often held live phone-ins on his weekend slots and there was a deluge of calls from the most utter, barking, woofing raving bonkers bampots, but it was great fun. Tommy really knew how to wind them up to a frenzy, and I like to think that Rod's column has a similar effect.

Baron

and also this:

Kingstonian, but man needs to believe, it’s a part and parcel of our make-up, it’s what often checks our rationality, belief cum reason is what makes us human, how can anyone eradicate something that is the essence of our being what we are, ha? Over a number of generations, the Red Menace of the east did all it could and more to destroy God, and you look at Russia today.

The fear of God, however irrational, furnishes something that no secularist doctrine can ever get close to for one can kill a policeman, but not Him.

Guru McKenzie

Bless you Rod for finally seeking forgiveness for your many sins

There is time to repent and this attempt to slag off Dawkins is a great first step

The Good Lord will smile down at you from above for indeed Dawkins is a thorn in the celestial backside !!!

Amanda

Of course the other question that any atheist would have to address is the distinction between a Prime Mover (a godlike Creator) on the one hand, and a legislating, rewarding-and-punishing God on the other. Accepting the possibility of one is not the same as the embrace of the other. A legislating deity is problematic for a number of reasons, not least the fact he becomes needy -- needs things from humans -- and neediness is not compatible with godliness. Thus, god so conceived is a self-negation. This is before we've even touched on the question of how we can know what a god wants: scripture may be untrue, or it may be the wrong one, or it may be misleading, or we may not understand how to interpret or apply it.

Amanda

Rod: Your assessment is correct, and your critics here are wrong.

David Ossitt

john steadman
“And, by the way, why do so many people identify atheism, as you do, with the 'liberal left'?”

Because most of them are!

Dr Cromarty

On the first page of The God Delusion he refers to John Lennon's Imagine as a magnificent song.

Dawkins and Lennon - about right for each other then. "Imagine no possessions" from a man with a Beckstein, a white Rolls Royce and an air-conditioned wardrobe for his fur coats.

ChristH

Dawkins is just a thick persons idea of what a scientist might look and sound like.
Rather like Stephen Fry appearing to the chattering classes as "erudite and clever"...when he too is a raving atheist, brough to tears by the really scary Ann Widdicombe.
Qatada could only laugh at what resistance the likes of Dawkins and Fry will be offering as they beg to seek sanctuary in the churches...the ones that still allow Dawkins etc to peddle his memes as "science".
At least EO Wilson WAS a good scientist...Dawkins has not done anything scientific since the early 70s as far as I know.
His students call him the Dork...wonder why?

Baron

(Will this pass?)

Kingstonian, but man needs to believe, it’s a part and parcel of our make-up, it’s what often checks our rationality, belief cum reason is what makes us human, how can anyone eradicate something that is the essence of our being what we are, ha? Over a number of generations, the Red Menace of the east did all it could and more to destroy God, and you look at Russia today.

The fear of God, however irrational, furnishes something that no secularist doctrine can ever get close to for one can remove a policeman altogether, but not Him.

ann c

fergus - ha ha, right! But the chattering metropolitans love him, makes them feel they may be intelligent(?) too perhaps. They all hate intolerence, but can't see how this might relate to themselves. Nasty little self publicist who, thank goodness, 90% of the population have probably never heard of. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away, as my grandma used to say about naughty little boys.

Fitzmark2

Well I never, Rod Liddle still believes that an old man in a long white dress sits on his throne in his heavenly abode while controlling the vast and complex universe he created six to ten thousand years ago.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this Rod but he doesn’t. He died following the publication of Charles Darwin’s great scientific work, "On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection" (full title for all pedants).

DougS

Two nice ladies called at our house yesterday - trying to get me to take a copy of 'Watchtower' from them.

We had an interesting discussion. They listened as well as talked - about a whole range of subjects.

I asked if they had any evidence for the existence of God and they pointed to some trees and bushes and mentioned animals and birds.

I asked if they believed in fairies and they said no. I asked why not and they replied: " because it's a myth, there's no evidence".

Nail on head!

simon h

The hypocrosy of the religious lobby accusing Dawkins of being "shrill" whilst at the same time producing asinine hatchet jobs like Camilla Long's in the Sunday Times is
risible. In this she describes Dawkins' hair as "cut into idignant flaps"?! Hair - indignant? I've heard it all now.
Fact is, your fairy stories are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Don Benson

What a shame we are all so ready these days to take offence when someone says something with which we don’t agree. Taking offence is just another form of bullying, has nothing to do with openness to the truth and ends up with the trivial taunts of tribalism.

There is always room for genuine debate where science and religious faith are concerned, and it’s a pretty narrow view which sees them as opposites. I personally am interested in both, understand a bit about each but have a whole lot more to learn. Those of you who know all there is to know must just try to exercise a bit of patience.

Steve

Liddle - and what is it you do?

Edmund

Dawkins and his disciples are just wafer thin advocates of the highest order.

What is it that they hope to achieve?

A Godless society. What, like Chairman Mao's?

Where is all this headed, Dicky?

That's my question.

I'm not a religious person myself but I understand the role it shapes in creating culture and laws.

There are intelligent atheists who understand this. Faith is not for them, but they do not need to flaunt it because they can see there is more to it than that.

Because in the end, Dawkinsites, it's boils down to bowing before God (imaginary or otherwise) or bowing before Caesar.

And I can tell you, I kiss enough of that stinking Westminister backside enough already without them getting more power.

If it means having to put up with Songs of Praise every now and then - so be it.

Joel Fry

Say you have a group of breeding hounds, and you breed this group to look and act like foxes. Will you ever get foxes from this breeding group? If not, how on earth do you expect to get amphibians from fish? Further, the statement, "Given enough time anything is possible" is a genuine statement of faith.

Louder

Silly man, that Dawkins. Still, he's amusing.

Frothy

'There is no real attempt to engage; like so much of the evangelistic, atheistic, liberal left it is simply fashionable attitudinalising and means less than a handful of dust.'

Aboohoo Rod: has he failed to engage you? Well isn't he a nasty man. We can safely ignore his dismantling of 2000 years of obscurantism and cant then.

biggestaspidistra

Thank you for this Rod. Incidentally I read recently that Richard Dawkins smells and eats worms. More seriously though, 'the fanatic is always concealing a secret doubt', (Tinker, Tailor) comes to mind.

John.

Don Benson: Well said!

RL: "his shrillness, his monumental arrogance,his tetchiness...hapless flailing...sneer at the rest" - doesn't this bring to mind the far more reprehensible bullying of vastly over-indulged and over-priviledged religious minorities in our country rather than the unfortunate and well-meaning Richard Dawkins?

Lastly, all that can be known for sure is that there is consciousnes and that, apparently, there is something rather than nothing - but the latter statement is posited on an act of faith, because there is no sensation, perception, thought or feeling that can be proven to have any real existence at all outside the consciousness that is the only perceiver and the only subject possible - obviously - as everything else is an object, Consciousness is impersonal and could be called divine as all creation appears only in it. Or it could simply be termed consciousnes. It makes not the slightest difference.

Stevie

Well done the Telegraph for such a wonderful wind up. And he took it all so seriously. "A surreal attack."? When will he learn to laugh at himself?

This is a bit more serious however. RD is one of the most public of public faces of science. His books on biology and evolution are beautiful and have contributed more to humanity than I ever will. I'm told that he has made strong contributions to biology directly, although I'm not qualified to judge this.

When he published The God Delusion and kicked all known standards of science in the testicles, science was seen to work to the standards and methods of extremists and fundamentalists. They were vindicated by him. Did that book ever convince anybody who wasn't already desperate to believe? It's a joke. And the worst joke is that by those standards, RD is going to lose.

Science really needs to stand up and say NO! Science does not measure its truths by even rational thought (although that's a useful tool) it certainly doesn't measure its truths by the sort of unexamined straw man idiocy that RD is now associated with. Science measures its truths by going out and testing them, and seeing if what they predict really does happen.

At the moment, Richard "I am the way, the light and the truth" Dawkins is dragging science through the mud. This makes me unhappy.

Amanda

By the way I meant 'amour propre': self-love; distinguished from 'amour de soi' or the more natural, less corruptible, more essential and foundational love of oneself. Well worth studying. Rousseau was an expert on love, of all kinds.

Matt

Camilla Long article here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/richard-dawkins-and-the-faith-wars/story-fnb64oi6-1226275124126

How come Australians get it for free?

Geoff

"atheistic" .. is there such a word?

Eddie

Edmund - your use of language makes me think you're American. As you know, in the US, it would be impossible for an atheist to become president, so is the religious nuttery of much of the population.

Also, please remember that the remove religion from public life does not mean banning religion. France manages fine. Also, the Chairman Mao argument is a false one: that kind of system is a quasi-religion, and both Stalin and Hitler were brought up Christian, the latter being a big fan of faith schools actually.

Dawkins is worth 100 of any priest or imam trying to nose their way into public life on the back of the 'we live in a multiculti multifaith society' (false) argument. It is ethnic emotional blackmail and very dangerous: we should not pander to the demands of creationists, whether Christian or Muslim, and only teach that nonsense in science classes to show how the fact of evolution is beyond dispute - there being more evidence for it than for any historical event. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the generally accepted one: but scientists and rationalists like me will change their mind when new evidence appears; the religious bigots will not. Their life is a blind and unthinking one.

We live in a society where most people are not religious but where most are culturally Christian - protestant Christian - because that is our heritage. We should all remember after all that the Church appropriated most of ites festivales and traditions from those existing in this land anyway - and even tried to ban Christmas carols! Churches and cathedrals were built around sacrifical stones which became altars within them.

Dawkins makes the same error as the religious in confusing culture and faith. But there really is no such thing as a 'devout' atheist. All atheist means is not believing in god - and so atheists are not unified by anything but Reason and an evidence-based way of seeing the world.

Me, I am not superstitious and don't beieve in any supernatural mumbo-jumbo at all. As I always say to people: the lucky rabbit's foot didn't do much good for the rabbit, did it?

Will Perry

Mr Liddle is scared, very scared. This vindictive nasty article shows it clearly. He is scared that his perfered vested interests are threatened by the Mori pole that shows that most Christians don't want established bishops in the house of lords. diddums

Baron

Darwin was brought up to believe in God, applied reason to nature, came up with the repudiation of the idea the world got created by God; Dawkins was brought up as an atheist, non-believer in God, applied his talents, came up with few popular books essentially regurgitating the theory of evolution, big deal, give Baron a religious man doing science any time.

Walker

Rod is right Dawkins does have some useful and interesting things to say though his manner is irritating.My huge problem with both Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens is the way both try to wriggle out of the atheistic nature of communism.They contend sophistically that it was itself a religion which of course is rubbish.Both are /were men of the left.Hitch was a Trot in the seventies when the mass murder of among others Kulaks sanctioned by Trotsky plus Lennin and thenTrotsky plus Stalin was well known.
It is however a good thing that they stand against the craziness of religious mythology.Creationism,Armageddon theology,'speaking in tongues,new age stuff like Cherrie Blair and her crystals,mad Muslim fundamentalists and Zionists who believe God bequeathed them Greater Israel.
Let us remember C. Hitchens brave remark on Fox about therecently deceased Jerry Fallwell 'If you gave him an enema ,you could have buried him in a matchbox.'Good old Hitch.

Baron

let’s look at the eye, to say evolution created it by natural selection, trial and error, is worse than the belief in God, to come up with a perfect eye would have required eons of time, no animal could have afforded the luxury of supporting the development of its most vital organ for that long, and that assumes the evolution ‘guessed’ each and every step in the eye development right.

Evolution is a theory, it fits part of nature well, it totally fails others, and it’s the bigoted men like Dawkins who prevent fresh research, confrontation of new ideas, hence giving the orthodox religious zealots a chance to step in.

Baron

If natural selection, random mutation, the law of inheritance were the only pillars underpinning evolution how come that not one bone, not one piece of any dug up evidence points to an organism that is an intermediary, i.e. one morphologically unrelated to any existing species when logic, simple logic says there must have been by far more intermediary species than those of the finished variety we come across today.

rod liddle

"Mr Liddle is scared, very scared. This vindictive nasty article shows it clearly. He is scared that his perfered vested interests are threatened by the Mori pole that shows that most Christians don't want established bishops in the house of lords. diddums"

- does anyone know what this means? Has the writer got a mori pole stuck up his bottom? What are my "perfered vested interests"? This is almost as exciting and mysterious as God.

BenM_Kent

@DK

"LiberalLeft entryism is a huge success, they are telling us how to live"

telling you how to live? What, like religion has for 2,000 years you mean?

Andy Carpark

I have, as it happens, had a personal encounter with God. It was in a beer garden in the Drosselgasse. He entertained the topers by playing the spoons - a medley of songs, the only one of which I can remember was 'Congratulations' by the appropriately Christian Cliff Richard. No-one took any photos out of respect. I have a couple of dozen people who could back me up on this but sadly I failed to take any of their contact details because we were all a bit pissed.

Eddie

No, Baron - evolution is a fact; evolution through natural selection is a theory.

David Attenborough explains very well how the eye evolved on one of his wonderful TV programmes.

You sound just like a Muslims creationists with that eye argument.

Your own body has vetigial organs - appendix, coccyx, wisdom teeth - that are evidence that you are an ape.

There is more evidence for evolution as a fact than for any event in human history.

Anyone who does not believe in the fact of evolution is an idiot. End of. Look at the evidence! You can still have a religion and accept that science has shown much of what is in old religious books to be factually inaccurate (eg the bible and koran say the sun goes around the earth...er...).

But then you're American. When Americans grow up enough to be able to elect an atheist to the whitehouse, then they'll be worth listening to on this. Until then, their creationist cretinist ramblings are nothing more than a fart from afar reminding Brits how good we are at religion by rejecting religiosity and puritanism.

Baron

Andy, my friend, Baron was amongst the people, he’ll back you, and you know what, he had a word with Him before He boarded the lift back to Heaven.

‘Why the hell’, said Baron, ‘You reveal Yourself to Andy and few of his pissed friends, why not to Dawkins who’s mostly sober’.

‘Language, language, Baron’, God replied, ‘if I met Dawkins, the man wouldn’t see me, he’s blind’.

Now, what do you make of that, Andy?

Kingstonian

Holdsworth: Your obsesion with the tooth fairy is touching but irrelevant to the discussion.

Where do you suggest that I look up your assertion that " ... religious people are many times more generous with their time and money than non-religious people". The Church Times? Many people are generous with their time and money for the simple reason that they feel it is right to do so. They don't need to believe in a sky-god to do things that benefit others. Your counter-argument to Dawkins' assertion that belief in god is nonsensical (tooth fairy aside) appears to be that it can't be nonsense to believe in god because believers do good things. Well, so do non-believers; your argument makes no sense.

Baron: You say that man needs to believe (but you donn't specify what he needs to believe - will anything do?). Then you say that "The fear of God, however irrational, furnishes something that no secularist doctrine can ever get close to ...". The fear of something that doesn't exist is certainly irrational so I am extremely grateful not to be afflicted.

Hexhamgeezer

Science is brilliant at explaining the universe right back to a split second after the Big Bang. Religion's explanations on the matter are rubbish.

Science seems to have no idea about the bit beforehand and seems to want to avoid the issue and the religionists are just guessing.

Dawkins has no idea about the bit before the Big Bang so he's in the same camp as the religionists on the only question that really matters.

Baron

The translation from Aramaic was poor, but the voice that spoke @ 9.45 is the voice of He, Master Liddle, it should have been obvious to you, it was to Baron, your challenging it will bar you from entering Heaven forever, repent.

Amanda

Stevie: "His books on biology and evolution are beautiful and have contributed more to humanity than I ever will".
I'm happy to say that even if the first part is true, I can't concur on my own account with the second.

---
Rod: Liked your comment about the 'mori pole'. I think that it's a primitive tribal totem stuck in sacred ground, in the presence of which, sensuality is de rigeur and anything is permitted, including playing Abba songs. But I may be wrong about that last bit.

Great Jehovah

I am. So please stop all your bickering. Amen.

Kingstonian

Joel Fry
February 20th, 2012 9:46pm
and Baron
February 21st, 2012 11:37am

Please don't show your ignorance of science by posting such nonsense. That is emphatically NOT how natural selection works, you are just repeating the same tired old "I'm not descended from a monkey" interpretation that has been around since the Scopes Monkey Trial.

I suggest you read a decent book on the Theory of Evolution - if Darwin is too much for you, I can recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by R. Dawkins.

Eddie

Baron says:

'If natural selection, random mutation, the law of inheritance were the only pillars underpinning evolution how come that not one bone, not one piece of any dug up evidence points to an organism that is an intermediary'

You show you do not understand the subject by asking that question (a fave of Muslims too, that). Evolution is not linear - there are many branches of a tree - or roots if you prefer. Therefore there is no 'missing link' and anyone using the absence of one to question the overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact is showing that they have no biological or scientific understanding whatsoever and are really rather ignorant and unwillingly to learn.

Faith has blinded some people into believing in some vague nonsensical creationism. I pity them really. To argue against evolution in the face of so much evidence is absurd.

Fossils show very well actually how life on earth evolved into what we see today. Maybe you should look at some and study some science - then you might no ask such silly questions.

Amanda

Eddie: Evolution does have some problematic 'black boxes': it is not neat and tidy, as you suggest. But, as with my previous comment about how genetic inheritance works -- which you misunderstood, thereby misunderstanding my understanding -- it is far too complex a subject to explore on this blog.

Jamie Walden

"... entertaining, wildly informative, splendidly written... we are elegantly cajoled, cleverly harangued into shredding ourselves of this superstitious nonsense that has bedeviled us since our first visit to Sunday school"

That is a quote from the back cover of my copy of The God Delusion. Can anyone guess which evangelistic, atheistic, attitudinally fashionable liberal leftist said it?

fergus pickering

Amanda, as ever you speak truth. I think those others might take to heart a couplet of Alexander Pope.

DougS

The Great Jehovah has spoken at 4:29pm - that's good enough for me!

God exists, the science is in, the evidence is solid, the data are irrefutable, the debate is over, there is a consensus, anybody who disagrees is a mentally retarded oil shill,end of.......

Wait a bit, I think I've gotten mixed up with man-made global warming religion!

Baron

Kingstonian, there ain’t much published on the subject Baron hasn’t read, he devours the stuff for he’s intrigued by the subject, what about you, you’ve come across Behe, Denton, have a view?

Ilana

I find all these discussions of religion become pointless by not distinguishing between a religion like Christianity which, although requiring a belief in a God, does not seek to control by social pressure (or even force) most or all aspects of the individual's life. Since Christianity seems so benign, and has plenty of good outcomes (charitable work), it should hardly arouse such strong passions as other religions which impose cruel customs, punishments and even death on those who question them. In such religions, what you do is far more important than what you believe, and this is where the problems arise.

DougS

Baron @ February 21st, 2012 11:37am uses the 'eye' wheeze, so beloved of believers of 'intelligent design' AKA creationism.

God must have been a bit busy creating all the different eyes in nature from insects through to whales (not to mention the millions of extinct species) - or did he just wave a wand?

He certainly screwed up in my case - I've got myopia, astigmatism and colour deficiency and only last week my optician told me I had the beginnings of cataracts.

Some designer!

Baron

Eddie, the evolutionary progress is generally agreed to have followed the line of fish-amphibians- reptiles-mammals, right? Birds are supposed to have diverged from reptiles, right?

Will you direct Baron to a single bit of evidence showing an evolutionary development of birds respiratory system from that for reptiles, and please, leave our Muslim friends out of it.

Noa

I rather share Philodoc's view that Richard Dawkins has done rather well from all the publicity and comments, including Rods, that the reincarnated atheist has attracted.
And having a cheap point scored off him by the pro Occupy Reverend Giles Fraser at the start of his new career, is like being savaged by...a Church of England vicar.

Amanda

Fergus: Thank you, dear, and thanks also for making me look up Pope, which was most rewarding (what a brain).

Amanda

Doug S: Poor you. But thank god for modern medicine (so to speak).

Kittler

Also Doug S, on the eyes, why was man, the designers superior creation, given the inferior product.
The eagle eyes would be preferable.

Robert Taggart

@ 'Roddy L' Have you fixed it yet ? (a touch of RD's vestments). One has already accepted your offer. YOU OWE US !

Nicholas

I see that Rod's short article referencing others has attracted Eddie and his aggressively atheist (who aren't really aggressively atheist) and "tolerant" (but not tolerant enough to shut up about it) posse.

Yeah, Eddie, I know, the next comment from you will be a vociferously ad hominem diatribe against me full of accusations.

For the record I'm not a very devout or committed Christian and pretty much agnostic about God since the passing of so many dear friends and relatives, but I prefer the concept of Christianity to the current crop of dogma-driven "atheist religion" zealots and I dislike what they write and the way that they write it. You could say they have moved me closer to a Christian faith by knowing what repels me rather than what attracts me. None has done this more effectively than Eddie. If Eddie represents modern atheist "tolerance", then I am pleased to move towards the Church.

Lungfish

I don't understand why Dawkins is so vociferous in his opposition to all things Christian. Like most people I don't believe in a supreme entity and all that but am quite happy to live in a country based on Christian values. In 1983 myself and a couple of friends dropped in on Mervyn Stockwood in Bath, we ended up sitting around his kitchen table drinking wine and trying to raise spirits on his ouija board.
I do think its a shame the government seems to resist paying for the upkeep of our superb churches for fear of upsetting other religions.

Baron

DougS, my blogging friend, sorry to hear about the burden of your poor eyesight, evolution didn’t do much better either for the heart of Baron, who doesn’t bat for either side.

Baron

connt’

Science moves on, we’re beginning to question Albert, why not Charles, how for inst. do you explain the comparison of amino acid divergence in cytoC, the energy protein found in every living matter, the comparison points unquestionably to the old typological model of nature, all members of a class are equidistant from the members of other classes as they are representative of the archetype of their own class.

What do you make of that then?

Eddie

MODERATOR - I desrve a right to reply to the person you allowed to post twice ina row but you don't let one of my three posts through!!! This is my post (third time of posting!)

Amanda - i did most certainly not argue anywhere that evolution is 'neat and tidy'. But please tell us: how exactly did you evolve your hallmark habit of putting words into others' mouths and then critciising them for it. Nature or nurture? Innate or acquired?

Evolution is by its very nature messy and imperfect. That is why we have deformity and disease, plus shortsightedness of course - proof against an intelligent designer making everything perfect.

Eddie

Ilana and other Americans here. There is no real debate about evolution inthe UK - other than the one introduced by Americans, Asians and Africans (Muslims and Christians) which, shamefully, the polictially correct pander to inthe name of tolerance. The head of US atheticm was murdered for her beliefs actually - and a third of Americans believe in creationism and that the world is 10,000 years old. In the UK we have had no Scopes trial because we have not needed any debate on this since the 19th century and the Husley debate at Oxford. Until now, perhaps, with literalist religions demanding that their nonsensical concepts get 'respected' in our 'diverse multiculultural multifaith' society.

Dubs

Rod, thank you, this comment thread is magnificent entertainment. Sign me up for subset - Atheist & Dawkins is a twerp.

Daniel Heslop

Everybody shut up!

RB2

nb Giles Fraser wasn't dean of st pauls

Paul

Amanda February 20th, 2012 5:01pm
"Of course the other question that any atheist would have to address is the distinction between a Prime Mover (a godlike Creator) on the one hand, and a legislating, rewarding-and-punishing God on the other."

The idea of legislating God certainly doesn't stand up to mroe than 30 seconds observation or thought, for several reasons but your "neediness" is a good one (why is it the 1st commandment?). You could also say - do 1 day old babies get judged? If so on the basis of what? Is a

An allpowerful creator God isn't much better for many reasons, here's a few - 1) what came before him and who made God? It doesn't solve the problem 2) how can he know everything about everyhting down to where every sub atmoic particle is moving at every second through the whole of the history of the universe? If he deosn't know that then he isn't all knowing 3) why did he create carnivores and typhus and the Black Death if he is a loving God? etc etc

Paul

Baron this sums it up nicely

http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

Baron

Thanks, Nicholas, Lupus, a couple of gentle voices of reason, grace and benevolence, what a difference from the shrill of the Eddie fronted atheistic stosstruppen, and Eddie, my blogging friend, you reckon then you’re the only one prevented from posting, do you?

Eddie

Baron you god squadder Jesus junkie - you wouldn't no reason if it slapped you with a wet cassock and said: Hi, I'm Reason, on your knees boy!'

You Baron have zero scientific understanding and are just as bad as any Muslim harping on about the literal truth of the Koran and how the world is 6 days old. Cut from the same irrational cloth. Comedy gold, for sure.

Go away back to the wall eh? Make your own now you got banned from the old one.

Eddie

Nicholas - so F off back tyo your silly church then and stop posting your inane drivel here.

'Aggressive atheist'? no such thing. Stating that Reason and evidence shows there NOLT to be any god and that evolution is a fact is aggressive is it? Rather, some of us are prepared to take on the liars and abusers and fantasists in the Church - Dawkins, me and many more.

No shoo, little Nicky the atheict-hater.

Eddie

Nicholas you pillock - atheism is I NO WAY a 'reigion' and one cannot be a devout atheist. You are thinking of 'communist' maybe?

All 'atheist' means is not believing in any god or being - or any irrational faith based on no evidence.

Sounds massively sensible to me. The question is, how can anyone NOT be an atheist? And religion has caused so much abuse and death and misery, I am glad not to be associated with the whole nonsensical circus - which began when people had so little scientific understanhding that its explanations seemed plausible.

But neither I nor any atheist I knows wants to stop people worhsipping whatever sky god they want - but we do have the right to mock you and show you to be irrational twerps.

Atheists are by and large way more tolerant than religious hypocrites, eh, Nicky?

Faith does not equal culture by the way: the UK is culturally Christian because that is historical. But seriously, who really believes that crap? Transubstantiation? World made in 6 days? Resurrection? Coming back to life? Pure magic and fairy tales.

Eddie

So, Nicholas, you have never posted here before, but when you do, you post a ranting anti-atheist post which is nothing but an ad hominem attack against me which mentions me five times! No doubt Baron posted elsewhere appealing for your support. Sad really.

For you information 'atheist' simply means NOT GOD - not believing in god. Thus, one cannot have a strong or a mild or a gentle or an aggressive atheist. You could say an aggressive secularist - but as I do not wish to close down churches and ban people worshiping their skygods, I am not amongst those zealots. And atheism is certainly not a religion. There is no 'and then' with atheism - it solely means not believing in god. That's it. Like many poor thinkers you are confusing the totalitarian quasi-religious zealotry of Mao and Stalin with atheism. Buy a dictionary eh?

I am 100% with Dawkins in evolution - he can easily outargue and make to appear absurd any and every creationist cretin.

I do not however agre that religion can be eliminated using Reason. Why? Because a religious instinct evolved in humans with our imaginations, and our tribal instincts like the non-faith traditions too (as do I). What I would hope is that we stop tolerating extreme religions, such as the devout aggressive Christians and Muslims who use emotional blackmail to get their creationist lies taught in schools. No special treatment for the religious either - no getting off the hook for abuse or criminal activity.

fergus pickering

Paul, is the Big Bang still in vogue? Can you tell me what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? It is, of course, the same question as the one you posed. You don't have to know exactly what happened. a stab in the dark will do. And don't tell me the question is illegitimate. To the rationalist no question is illegitimate.

John Steadman

I'm much impressed by the tendency to dismiss anybody who expresses an unpalatable opinion in a forceful, cogent and penetrating manner as "shrill"; perhaps it will become the stylistic equivalent to "racist" as a device to silence dissent, largely because it is inconveniently right and beyond challenge in its logic?
And why did the moderator let me write some longer truly brilliant (but alas wasted)posts before referring me to the"RegisterNow" page, especially when I had already Registered Before and logged in?

Eddie

Baron + Nicholas. All being an atheist means is not believing in a god. That's it. Atheism is not a religion, and one cannot be an 'aggressive atheist' just by stating that there is no evidence for the existence of god. Your hatred of hearing atheists speak speaks volumes of your own zealous intolerance.

I agree 100% with Dawkins on the fact of evolution and I too hate the way that encroaching religiosity in our schools and society is attempting to repace that fact with the untruth of creationism.

However, I have no desire to ban religion or burn down churches or mosques (unlike many religious people, though, who seems to be rather aggtressive to each other most of the time...)

Amanda

Lungfish: I completely agree that savaging a religion which in large part gave us the Enlightenment is a very, very unwise thing to do. We need a bit more respect for modern Christianity if we are to respect our own civilization -- and defend it.

Hickens: Good.

---
typo: rushing on -- I meant to type 'defeated'

Charlie.

@Richard Dawkins, he is too nice he should just tell them like it is there is no gods now or ever have been all the religious "leaders" are brilliant con men.The found a product they never have to produce and nor tend or look after,and plenty of desperate nice people yearning for something that is not there,and it cant be proven,I'm certain only an idiot asks you to show them something that isn't there.That Is why I don't ask for proof I cant prove how gullible you are.

DougS

The evolution debate can be settled very easily.

See this video summing it up in 1 min. 17 secs.

It's a cracker!

DougS

Incidentally, nobody wants to burn down churches - except, as pointed out by Eddie, religious people from opposing religions.

For my part, I love churches and cathedrals, there are no ugly (stone-built) ones. I am in awe of the fabulous architecture and craftsmanship.

I would love to live in a converted church.

When I was younger and more interested in photography I couldn't drive past one without stopping and photographing it. I still can't stop taking pics of churches and cathedrals - I've literally got hundreds.

I hope that the religious types here don't think that this is hypocritical - I don't see appreciation of beautiful buildings as being at odds with refusing to accept that a supernatural entity is floating out there somewhere.

Baron

Eddie, seek help, urgently, please.

and thanks, Paul, Baron was aware of it, doesn't regard it as proof of anything.

John.

As for eyes, it has now been discovered that all eyes in creation have evolved from the first and only original eye - strange but true. And as for what was there before the big bang: the latest thinking is that our universe is but a bubble that emerged from an unimaginably more collosal universe - so no problem there. All matter is ultimately concentrated energy, so you could say that everything is, always has been and always will be energy. Positive and negative energy put together would cancel each other out leaving nothing and very possibly the original, original state is simply nothing! None of this is the stuff of puzzle corner. As for religions, remember the wise lines of Hilaire Belloc: "Oh let us never, never doubt, what nobody is sure about". Can we be sure of anything - even (apparent) "reality" - apart from consciousness, which is self-evident?

Nicholas

So, I was correct about Eddie's response to my comment then.

Eddie

Nicholas - you posted an abusive lie-strewn ad hominem attack against me and I rightly told you excatly what yoiu were in return. I have been posting here for two years; you just came over here yesterday in response to Baron's desperate appeal for help.

Please Little Nicky - go away, back to your wall, or to the church, the mosque, the local council counselling service. I do not care. Please also take the ignoramus Baron with you. Thanks.

Watch some David Attenborough programmes and learn about the fact of evolution. Really, there is no debate about evolution as a fact backed up by masses of evidence - more than for any historical event in human history. And yet those with faith still cannot see... Sad really.

Atheism is not a religion. No such thing as a 'devout' atheist or a fundamentalist 'atheist' (maybe a seculariast, but that is NOT the same). Those who nwish to ban religion and burn churchs down could be called extreme secularists who imitate religion in their intolerant zeal.

But the more the atheist-haters rant the more we win the argument and show just how vile religion really is.

Eddie

Doug S - yes, the creations of people of the past are wonderful. It is in no way hypopcritical to admire their work either. Most would reject the religion they worshipped then if they had known the fact of evolution and science. And very many beautiful buildings and artworks have been destroyed by the religious too.

It is by contrast extremely wrong and arrogant for the religious (Christians, Muslims) to claim these artworks are beautiful BECAUSE they were made to honour a god. They would have been made anyway, to serve any god or gods, but they are achievements of men, not gods.

Eddie

John - we all evolved from the same lifeforms in oceans millions of years ago. Not strange at all then that all eyes evolved from light-senstive cells in ancient sea creatures too. David Attenboropugh explains this all very clearly and well in his wonderful TV series - I do wish the creationist cretins would watch it (but then the blind often choose to remain blind for fear of seeing a difficult truth).

The 'eye' argument is often parroted by Muslims, together with a denial of being descended from apes. I also say that they are right: we are not descended from apes - we are apes!

Literalist interpretations of old books are for morons only - literally.

Eddie

Baron - stop projecting, boyo! It is well-known that those who ask others to 'seek help' have either 1) been completely outargued so resort to desperate ad homiem arguments, or 2) are themselves extremly insecure about their mental health and are quite often well and truly looploo bonkers.

You're just sore coz I outed you on the other thread. Sorry about that. Very cruel of me. It must be because I'm descended from a reptile (according to your completely new theory of evolution).

AGS

Dear Eddie,
Phenomenal being, the being we experience in space and time, cannot account for its own coming to be. Consequently, we must suppose that this being arose from a) nothing (magicalism) or b) another type of being of which we must suppose that 1) it can account for its own being and 2) it can account for phenomenal being. This mysterious other being is what we call God.
So that's your choice: God or nothing, the rational or the magical.
One of the sad effects of the popularization of "science" is that it has led to a culture of philosophical illiteracy on a massive scale. It has led to people like you, Ed.
http://voegelinview.com/ev/evolution_and_kant.html

bottersnike

Are you the same Rod Liddle who chickened out of a live debate with RD at Oxford a couple of years ago? The tickets were sold, the hall was full, but you were AWOL. Could you not remember any of your piercing pro-religion arguments to put to him?

DougS

bottersnike
February 23rd, 2012 2:44pm

This sounds highly appropriate to the discussion - please tell us more.

DougS

I missed the link to the evolution video, sorry.

It seems that this site doesn't like URL links and won't allow me to post it.

Just Google 'south park evolution theory' - it's brilliant!

Eddie

No, AGS - the choice is NOT 'God or nothing' at all - where did you come up with that piffle? Because God is nothing, according to evidence of which there is a total lack - that's why you need a leap of faith to believe in him.

The history of non-belief is an ancient one. Read some Epicurus, Lucretious or Marcus Aurelius.

Eddie

The material world is all there is according to evidence. Now, if you do not need evidence then perhaps you should pray that the legal system is not so sloppy if you are ever accused of commiting a crime for which you are innocent!

The God you refer to is man-made - created by the same evolutionary development that created human imagination. Religion suits the human tribal instinct. Humans are aware of their own death so try to explain it.

As Douglas Adams said: the garden is more beautiful if you don't think there are fairis at the end of it. Science is true and therefore more beautiful than any fantasy.

Amanda

AGS at 1:48: You are correct.

Baron and Nicholas: You have my sympathy.

Baron

Master Liddle, is the policy of the Scot who runs the Spectator to let through raving maniacs only? Baron cannot get anything posted, sorry Amanda.

Baron

Paul, apology for the rather brusque answer to you @ 10.01, time was at a premium for the poorly educated Slav.

To use an analogy, what one’s looking for is a bicycle with a partly finished internal combustion engine which, when finished, would have turned the pedal propelled contraption into a motorbike, in Baron’s humble view, this will never be found…

Amanda

Baron: You have my sympathy once again, this time with a really plump cherry on top.

How Eddie gets long posts through all in one go is a mystery: mine have to be broken up into parts and fed through gingerly. I've had a home-office shredder that was easier than this.

Eddie

Baron - your analogy is utterly absurd and could well have been written by a raving maniac. It is certainly the product of sloppy and erroneous thinking - as others here have pointed out. You simply do not understand the process of evolution. If you did, you'd know there is, and does not need to be, any such thing as a 'missing link' because evolution is not linear but more like the roots of a tree spanning out down numerous dead ends. You sound just like a literatlist creationist Muslim with your banging on about eyes and missing links though.

rod liddle

Bottersnike - I've never "chickened out" of any debate with RD and, on a personal level, I like the chap.

12 Step man

Every day around the world 6 million people attend 200,000 AA, NA and other 12 Step programmes. In this way they try to stay clean and sober. But here is the problem. At every one of these 200,000 daily meetings the Serenity Prayer is said. It goes God grant me the serenity...Are these 6 million people all crazy?

Eddie

12 Step Man, that would be God as one understands it; for many that is just their inner selves; I know someone at AA who thinks of God as his ancestors. The point of the 12 step AA program is to unburden onself of ones worries and troubles on to something or someone else; whether or not that something exists matters not. Your argument for the existence of God is the very weak ontological one: because we can imagine God therefore he exists. Talk about a dodgy argument!

12 Step man

Eddie it's amazing that you can speak for the entire 6 million 12 Step members. So besides those who do ancestor worship how many do you guess believe in a Higher Power or God, as we understand him?
As of last night we are now to understand that even Dawkins admits he can prove or disprove the existence of God. Something that has always struck me is this..I have friends who are atheist, agnostic, Muslim,Hindu et al. We have gentle, civilised discussions-never the aggressive, bullying tirades that seem to crop up when the Professor's supporters go online to comment. A shame really-those who might be swayed by Dawkins are probably deterred by his rather unattractive 'groupies'

Petermalman

I agree with 12 Step.
Eddie who seems to thinks he is some atheistic guru implies that most of the 6 million 12 Step programme members actually don't believe in God. Could he shows his evidence-or is just conjecture. As of last night even Dawkins termed himself agnostic

Baron

Well, done, Eddie, your analogy fits well, ‘dead end’ orthodoxy it is, non linear evolution my arse, another wheeze of a theory the proponents of which just won’t accept its sell by date.

Amanda, Paul, it’s impossible to get any serious posting through, in case this one makes it, google ‘logical incoherence lennox’, read the piece, the commentary below.

Alan

Some entertainers and journalists try to carve a niche for themselves by being the people we love to hate. They do this by being as irresponsible as possible and saying irritating nonsense. Their editors are well aware of what they are doing - it's cheap journalism hiding behind 'being controversial.' Rod Liddle is no journalist, but he is trying to achieve some notoriety as a controversial figure. Please try to ignore him and refrain from reading or commenting on his future articles.

Eddie

So Baron, the fact of evolution is past its sell-by date is it? And is the history of the second world war also past its sell-by date? Or the the entirity of human history in the last 5000 years. Because, my ignorant fellow poster, there is way more evidence to prove that evokution is a fact than for any historical event in human history. Fact.

David Robertson

Moria Dawkins - you are having a laugh surely. Dawkins has engaged religious people in a 'polite understanding way'? Are you serious? His vitriol is only matched by his ignorance. And he does not mind - his whole position is that of mockery and superiority. As a Christian I find that Dawkins is one of my best allies - he demonstrates more than anyone I know the irrationality and emotional nature of the New Fundamentalist Atheism.

rod liddle

What, you mean like you've just done, Alan, you thicko?

Eddie

David - no intelligent person would call Dawkins ignorant - the ignorant who are blinded by faith would of course.

Atheism - not believing in God. THAT IS IT!

Therefore, one cannot be a fundamentalist atheist, and extremist atheist, a devout atheist. Secularist, maybe. Not atheist. Like the Christian-raised Stalin perhaps. Hitler the catholic was a big fan of faith schools and would have hated Dawkins too of course.

That Dawkins and other rationalists and atheists make Christians and Muslims feel so threatened that they become abusive rather suggests that they know in their hearts that their faith is a load of nonsense. Whither all that tolerance you jesus junkies are always lecturing others about eh?

Baron

Eddie, for the last time, no obfuscation about non-linearity will do, there has to be a biological pathway from a to b, there’s no escaping it, the natural selection, common descent parts of the evolution theory are fine, can explain many things, but not all, random mutation fails on many a level…

Eddie

Baron - can you not understand that you are asking the wrong question because you do not understand the question? Evolution is not linear; therefore the demand by mad Muslims and Christian cretinist creationists is like someone asking for proof that the end opf the rainbow exists before believing in rainbows. There is no 'missing link' and does not need to be!

Stay an ignorant flat-earther if you want Baron. I don't care. I just pity people who cannot understand the basics of science or accept massive evidence for something, even if it does utterly demolish their dearly held beliefs.

Lungfish

I'm a bit of a random mutant Baron

Baron

Lupus, aren't we all?

Sally Strange

How telling that Mr. Liddle does not deign to articulate how, precisely, it has been a bad week for Mr. Dawkins, nor how he was kababed or exposed or whatever. He simply asserts that this is the case and expects us to accept that it is so.

I'm not Mr. Dawkins' biggest fan, though I've enjoyed some of his books. But this snide little poke at him was just pathetic.

Eddie

Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. Look at the fossil record; look at vestigial organs and bones in animals, including humans; look at the Peppered Moth which has evolved over the last 200 years in response to pollution. Really, arguing against it is like arguing that the sun goes round the earth - though funnily enough both the Koran and the Bible state that very thing and the Church used to murder people who stated that fact.

I S

Eddie - for AA etc, the 'higher power' or 'God, as you understand him' that they pray to can never, ever be their 'inner selves'. It does not have to be God, Allah, Buddha, but it has to be some power outwith themselves.
This may just be a simple error on your part, or it may reveal your utter ignorance about a subject you claim to know about.

Eddie

I S - my point is that 'God' is always within, and when people pray or believe in a 'god' theyare in fact trying to boost their own confidence. That's fine. It's therapy. It's a technique to offload stress and avoid guilt - thereby to quit alochol. I know several atheists in AA who for that process consider the 'higher power' to be their ancestors, the universe, molecules, the lifeforce etc. No need to have a Christian of other god at all.

Robert Taggart

@ Baron. NO!...
Lungfish (Sir!) be 'something else' !

John

I have long thought: thank God for Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is probably the best argument for the existence of God that can be found if only because of the absurdity and sheer inhumanity of his positions. If he is the best that the 'new atheists' can up with, then belief is safe for the time being. He really should have stuck to science, at which he is very good, and left religion, of which he displays a woeful ignorance and prejudice, alone.

I S

Eddie - You've missed the point again spectacularly. The 'higher power' for AA is not 'within', it is outwith the individual. The praying to the 'higher power' is not some guilt-avoiding, confidence-boosting 'therapy.'

Eddie

IS, no, you miss the point and seem unable to understand simple English too. The point is, people think of God or a higher power as being outside themselves when, in reality, it's inside. To be in AA one does not need to actually believe in God.

Eddie

IS - read my post. I said that as long as people could imagine a higher power onto which to off-load their stress, then that was its function - and that 'god' can be anything at all. But in my opinion God is always within - it is a product of the human imagination. Even people who believe the same can imagine an external 'thing' as part of therapy.

I S

Poor Eddie - too deaf to hear, too blind to see, too dumb to understand and too arrogant to engage with.

Eddie

Poor I S - talking to yourself again? You need therapy mate. Perhaps too much looking skywards to your higher power to read words on a page eh or grasp their meaning? Are you American perhaps?

Anders

Love your blog Rod and I'm no Dawkins groupie but you're being a bit harsh here. Get back to Monbiot and immigration so we can all clap along.

A Richards

I'm not particularly religious but I would say that you cannot discount the possibilty of 'a higher power' that may or may not be benign. My favourite analogy is "The cow in the field" - it eats, sleeps and..., it sees a passenger jet flying overhead. On board passengers are mulling over their tax affairs etc. The cow, seperated by a number of IQ points from humans sees the aircraft but has no understanding whatsoever of what it is seeing even with it's own eyes. Question - is Richard Dawkins so arrogant as to believe that his IQ is not surpassed somewhere? There may be things that we can see with our eyes right now but could not hope to contemplate. There may be lifeforms that see us (and Dawkins) as no more than cattle, or insects. Let us hope that their intentions are more benign than ours are towards cows.... It's not an argument for organised religion, but perhaps Dawkins needs a little humility and should consider that perhaps there are things that even he does not know or understand, or perhaps will ever know.