Re: Dawkins, Davies and daughters


"Andrew" <thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2008040820595816807-thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2008-04-08 20:44:02 +0100, "john smith" <the_johnsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
said:


"Andrew" <thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2008040819402916807-thecroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2008-04-08 18:54:24 +0100, "Jeremiah Harbottle"
<harbotte@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
said:



Given that Dawkwins is a Professor of a scientific subject, I think he
knows
more about science than you.

I also take it you've never read any of his books? And why shouldn't
people
with so-called "beliefs" be criticised? A lot of them insist on being
given
respect for their beliefs, when to a large percentage of the population
their beliefs are no more credible than believing in the the Tooth
Fairy.

I have read several of his books. When he is writing on Biology and
evolution he is nothing short of superb. He writes with clarity and
authority and brings the subjects lucidly to life. Trouble is, when he
starts writing about religion he writes from near-complete ignorance.
Worse, he writes from self-willed ignorance having made it clear that he
has not read (nor will he read) any modern theology or Bible study. This
borders on intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind - especially if he
wants to suggest that the religious mindset is 'medieval' in some sense.

His intellectual dishonesty goes further in his reporting of those whose
views differ from his own. To wait, for example, until Stephen Jay Gould
was dead to suggest that Gould did not really believe or mean what he
said
about the relationship between religion and science smacks of
dishonesty.
To record a lengthy interview with the Bishop of Oxford (for his
programme
"Root of All Evil") wherein the latter explains why he has no problem
accepting evolution, then to leave every word of that explanation on the
cutting room floor smacks of dishonesty.

And he is, perhaps, even more dogmatic when he comes to those who are
both
scientists and religious believers. Such people are "traitors to reason"
and have "compartments in their minds". Francis Collins (Head of the
Human
Genome Project) for example is guilty of "betraying Reason" (Dawkins's
words).




If Dawkins didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him.

Sure, he can be very strident and single-minded and outspoken, but then
so
can lots of so-called religious people too.

For "strident, single-minded and outspoken" one could write "bigoted,
narrow-minded and dogmatic" (and yes, there are religious people like that
too. In short he reflects the unpleasant side of religious belief all too
well.)




You say potato; I say potAto...



Didn't Blair (the self-serving
hypocritical *** who's just converted to Catholicism and is now a global
envoy for Faith) take us into an illegal war because of his Christian
beliefs and actually LIED about it until his resignation? At least
Dawkins
is honest enough to say up front what he believes...

You didn't know Blair was Christian??? Not that I have much time for him,
mind you. Odd you think his beliefs were behind his decision on Iraq,
though,


He said so himself in that 3-part BBC documentary filmed just before/after
he resigned.



when every single religious leader in the country (and
the Pope - head of the church he has now joined) were implacable in their
opposition to it.


Yeah, those oh-so-wise, oh-so-compassionate religious leaders really kicked
up a stink about it, didn't they? And that Nazi-*** Pope was forever on
the news banging on about his opposition to the war on Iraq, wasn't he?





To be honest, it's about time we had a few more miltant atheist voices in
the mainstream...

That's a joke, right? The "mainstream" (especially the media) has been
teeming with outspoken atheists for years.


Such as...?
Dawkins and Jonathan Miller are the only two I can think of off-hand...






(Unless you live in the US).
Do we really want more militants of any persuasion?



Set a thief to catch a thief.




.