Dawkins

The season was over and Dawkins was obviously feeling the pain of another crushed Super Bowl dream, but he felt the need to apologize."I want to apologize to the fans," the Pro Bowl safety said after yesterday's 32-25 loss to the Arizona Cardinals in the NFC championship game. "We really thought this was it. We went out and gave what we could, but we came up short. I want to apologize to them."Da

Wow, I think the guy in the picture looks a little too happy to comply. Seriously, is this what Richard Dawkins condones? Photo by The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus Posted in Holy Fools      

The Selfish Gene Wow, I think the guy in the picture looks a little too happy to comply. Seriously, is this what Richard Dawkins condones? Please Add This Post To: Copyright 2008 - | Post by David | Receive Updates By Email | Site Search Tags: Humor, Richard Dawkins, Athiests | Visit David Posted in [...]

Entrevista com Richard Dawkins falando sobre seu best-seller.Muito boa.

Richard gets “speculative”. Posted in Atheism., Books, Human Biology., Humanism., Richard Dawkins., The Sciences.   Tagged: Atheism., atheist, biologist, biology, book, creationism, creationist, dawkins, Dembski, design, Edinburgh, Festival, intelligent, richard   

Sathya Sai Baba has constantly denigrated reason, science, logic and scholarship in favour of faith, especially faith in himself. However, he has proved that he cannot be relied on at all in any way. With his deeply flawed logic and demonstrated ignorance of scientific fact and logical thought, he cannot face up to any rational [...]

Panthers WR Mushin Muhammad recently made a comment on SI.com, saying “Chicago is where receivers go to die”. While playing for the Bears may be rough, I think Moose forgot what is was like to cross the middle of the field in Brian Dawkins’ territory. Muhammad found out the consequences of this mistake in Thursday’s preseason [...]

Richard Dawkings, eminente biólogo e divulgador científico, aclamado autor de obras como “O Relojoeiro Cego” e “O Gene Egoísta”, só para citar as mais conhecidas, quase consegue provar-nos com este seu último livro a não existência de Deus. E se digo quase, tal deve-se apenas a uma impossibilidade factual (no actual estado da ciência, segundo o autor). Título: A Desilusão de D

Last night, the first episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin was aired on Channel 4 here in the UK. The reviews I read this morning were, perhaps predictably, of the usual sneering variety — full of ridiculous statements such as “Dawkins, for such an enthusiastic Darwinist, seems to have no faith at all in [...]

I can’t wait any longer. I am ready for some football!

The Internet Memes Timeline. Technorati Tags: memes, cliches, viral videos, Internet history * * * Enjoy this blog? Click the banner to vote for WTF!

The God Delusion#Author: Richard Dawkins#Hardcover: 416 pages#Publisher: Bantam Press; 1st edition (2 Oct 2006)#Language: English#ISBN-10: 0593055489#ISBN-13: 978-0593055489#Format: PDF | 1.98Mb[New York Times Review][Richard Dawkin's Webpage]A preeminent scientist – and the world's most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted

Si todos los logros de los científicos fueran eliminados mañana, no habría más médicos, sólo médicos brujos, ni transportes más rápidos que los caballos, ni computadoras, ni libros impresos, ni agricultura más avanzada que la de subsistencia. Si todos los logros de los teólogos fueran eliminados mañana, ¿notaría alguien la diferencia? Clinton Richard Dawkins Etólogo británico, teó

Part one of an excellent interview with Richard Dawkins. I haven’t done this for a while, because I’m not all that sure that video content goes down too well with my regular readers, but this is a good one. Take a moment. You might like it. (The parting in his hair does worry me, though.) [...]

Excelente palestra. São três vídeos de 8 minutos cada um. Vale muito a pena assistir. Todos legendados. Há alguns erros nas legendas, mas dá para pegar a idéia geral.

I heard Richard Dawkins on the Today Programme this morning. He's a million-dollar book seller and all-round serious atheist. Nothing wrong with that. We can all be what we want to be. But does he have to be so petty, so denigrating of others, and generally so mean-spirited when he talks about believers? It sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder about this. He wants Britain to be a "God Free" zone. Well, to use a phrase "a snowball's got a better chance in Hell".He appears to want to be nasty rather than nice in discussion. There is a real venom behind his words. He trivialises peoples' belief by referring to God as "an imaginary friend". He tries to suggest that believers should not be taken seriously.Personally I think it a bit of a waste of time Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor debati

Atheism, humanism and rationalism: Added few stuff. ← Previous revision Revision as of 05:19, 3 May 2008 Line 193: Line 193: }} }} - Dawkins continues to be a prominent figure in contemporary public debate on issues relating to science and religion, especially since his 2006 book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', which has achieved greater sales figures worldwide than any of his other works to date. Its success has been seen by many as indicative of a change in the contemporary cultural [[zeitgeist]], central to a recent rise in the popularity of atheistic literature.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West |accessdate=2008-03-15 |author=Odoyo, Peter |date=[[July

Johnny Dawkins, the presumed successor to a coach you may have heard of, Mike Krzyzewski, has taken the reigns at Stanford. According to Basketball Prospectus …….. When Stanford athletic director Bob Bowlsby was doing his due diligence in checking out the background of various coaching candidates, he phoned Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski about Blue [...]

I'm still in the middle of reading "The God Delusion", but you can pick it up here.

Extraído de "Desvendando o Arco-Íris - Ciência, Ilusão e Encantamento", de Richard Dawkins, Cia. das Letras, 2000, págs 179-180.David Hume, grande filósofo escocês do século XVIII, me parece inatacável:[...] nenhum testemunho é suficiente para estabelecer um milagre, a menos que o testemunho seja de tal ordem que sua falsidade seria mais milagrosa do que o fato que procura estabelecer. ("Of Miracles", 1748)Vou observar o preceito de Hume com respeito a um dos milagres mais bem atestados de todos os tempos, que dizem ter sido testemunhado por 70 mil pessoas e que ainda está dentro do alcance da memória viva. É a aparição de Nossa Senhora de Fátima. Cito um relato de um website católico romano, no qual se observa que, dentre as muitas alegadas aparições de Maria, essa é

Funny animation about Dawkins and other atheists. DICKY D RAP!!! The folks from Expelled are still upset and they are poking fun at Dawkins and company. It’s really funny. But only proves once again who has the correct argument and reason.

Funny animation about Dawkins and other atheists. DICKY D RAP!!!

Isn't it interesting that probable Christians would attempt to debase Richard Dawkins by accusing him of preaching? I did not realize that a scientist delivering a lecture was necessarily preaching. If you are bothered by the title of this article in The Daily Texan, consider leaving a comment for them.Tags: Texas, Richard Dawkins

It sounds like Richard Dawkins pulled no punches during his recent presentation at the University of Wisconsin. Good for him! You can read about what he said here.Tags: Richard Dawkins, Wisconsin

“Somos máquinas de supervivencia, autómatas programados a ciegas con el fin de perpetuar la existencia de los egoístas genes que albergamos en nuestras células“. Quizás el más conocido y polémico de los libros publicados por el etólogo británico Richard Dawkins, es una obra de divulgación sobre evolución, genética y etología. Escrita con una prosa ágil, ejemplos [...]

There is a dizzying array of mortgage deals and offers available and it is very easy to become confused about what exactly to look for, who offers the best deal and what extra costs you are likely to face so just where should you start? I want to be clear from the beginning that this article is not designed to advise you on a specific product but rather to help you think about what you want from a mortgage and how to locate the information you need to get some expert financial advice.

Prolific author Becky Garrison pointed this out in the comments of my post which criticized PBS documentary on the evolution and intelligent design debate: When I penned “The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail,” I freely confessed I was a satirist not a scientist. Lee Strobel may be a best selling author but he is not a scientist and has a penchant for quoting from some very unreliable creationist journals. In my research, I came across books penned by these scientists that I would recommend: “Finding Darwin’s God” by Keith Miller “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins “The Dawkins Delusion?” by Alister McGrath “Evolution and Christian Faith” by Joan Roughgarden For more information about the Creation v. Evolution debate you can go here. Any particular argument for intelligent design or evolution make the most sense?

McLaren suggests at TPM Cafe: On the one hand, our religions can fan the flames of holy-war narratives –whether expressed in terms of terrorism or counter-terrorism, jihad or crusade. On the other, our religions can inspire us with framing stories of reconciliation and peace. On the one hand, our religions can foment stories of scapegoating and vilification, but on the other, they can inspire us toward compassion and understanding through stories of reconciliation and grace. Instead of baptizing greed and self-interest, our faith communities can teach us stories which promote the common good, inspiring us to creatively pursue sustainability both environmentally and socially. Instead of sanctifying the consumerism that reduces everything to a financial “resource,” our faith communities can teach us stories that inspire true reverence for the planet and all it contains – opening our eyes to the signature of God in the hawk soaring among the mountains, the school of minnows flashi

I have now completed my extensive review of Richard Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion. My word counter tells me that the entire review is about 10,000 words long. The book has received massive attention, and Dawkins has visited many Universities as well as talkshows to speak about his book. You can take part of some of it by going here.Here follows links to my reviews on all the different chapters...Chapter 1 - A deeply religious non-believerChapter 2 - The God hypothesisChapter 3 - Arguments for God's existenceChapter 4 - Why there is almost certainly no GodChapter 5 - The roots of religionChapter 6 - The roots of moralityChapter 7 - The good book and the changing moral zeitgeistChapter 8 - What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostileChapter 9 - Childhood, abuse, and escape from religionChapter 10 - A much needed gap?Happy reading!

Det är alldeles fantastiskt att lyssna på vad Richard Dawkins svarar på frågan "What if you are wrong?". Med sunt förnuft går det inte att säga emot honom, eller hur? Relaterat: Andreas Lindahl, Wikipedia om Richard Dawkins   Andra bloggar om: religion, gud, humanism, kreationism, richard dawkins, evolutionen, samhälle, Intressant.se

I’m currently reading the mind-blowing neuron-bending The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I’m now at the Family Planning chapter on which Dawkins deliberates on how population control happens naturally within other animal species and then utters a dire warning for humanity after demonstrating, as an example, how quickly South-America would run out of standing [...]

Why did I wait so long to read this? Once this code is fully inserted into my matrix, I fear everything will have changed. It is absolutely brilliant and revelatory. Only 50 pages since yesterday and it’s, pardon my euphemism, like finding religion. Ha! I thought The God Delusion was masterful, but this, this is [...]

Simon Owens at Bloggasm has written a thorough and insightful post, "The Dawkins Effect: How The God Delusion Mainstreamed Atheism." I was happy to be interviewed for this article and to see myself mentioned along with PZ Myers (Pharyngula), John W. Loftus (Debunking Christianity), and Kelly (Rational Response Squad). Talk about some impressive company in which to find oneself!Owens does a fantastic job of exploring the current state of the atheist movement - covering without disparaging - something corporate media cannot seem to do. It is a must read.Tags: atheism, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Pharyngula, Rational Response Squad, Debunking Christianity

The Eagles needed Sunday's win over Washington desperately, and when a team is desperate, crazy things happen.Crazy things like a six-time Pro Bowl safety covering kickoffs.After Brian Westbrook's incredible 57-yard touchdown potentially saved Philadelphia's season, Brian Dawkins didn't want to see the kickoff coverage unit cough up the lead. That's why when they took the field to kick the ball back to the Redskins, Dawkins was with them - for, according to his memory - the first time in seven or eight years."That was just something that was a spur of the moment type thing; something that I wanted to do to help out," Dawkins said. "If I made the play, great; if I didn't, then hopefully I'd be out there to help the guys out and hopefully not allow a big play to happen."Dawkins said that after deciding he was going to cover the kick, there was no way he was staying on the sideline."I just felt like it was something I had to do and wanted to do. I didn't really ask to go in, I sai

Having time on my hands has given me the opportunity to do something that in the past I have had little time to do, and that's read.The most recent book that I have finished is the much debated The God Delusion by well-known evolutionary biologist and Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, Richard Dawkins. The reason that I am writing about it on a science-based blog is that Dawkins sets up his book as one side of the Science vs. Religion battle.This intrigued me from the outset, being someone who did not, and still does not, believe there necessarily has to be a divide between the two areas. It could be argued that Dawkins is the world's most celebrated atheist, and I was keen to see what all the fuss was about. Perhaps having sabbatical time has also allowed me to ponder the big questions of life. My scientific background that has placed me either in scientific organisations or studying scientific courses over the last 11 years has led to me to marvel a

Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to "respect" it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings. Then there is a great chorus of disownings, as clerics and "community leaders" (who elected them, by the way?) line up to explain that this extremism is a perversion of the "true" faith. But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert?Richard Dawkins, The God DelusionTags: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, faith, Christianity, Islam

Brian Dawkins has been ruled out for Sunday's game with the Jets, and head coach Andy Reid said Friday that his Pro Bowl safety is out of town getting treatment from doctors who specialize in dealing with neck stingers. Meanwhile, cornerback Lito Sheppard is listed as questionable and receiver Greg Lewis is doubtful because of an ankle injury.But the day also brought some good news: the expected return of running back Brian Westbrook, tight end L.J. Smith and left tackle William Thomas, all of whom sat out the team's last game -- a 16-3 loss to the Giants at the Meadowlands. Even left guard Todd Herremans, who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery during the bye week, is expected to start. However, Reid noted that the four players will be monitored closely during the course of the game.Dawkins, meanwhile, will miss a third straight game with an injury sustained as a result of a hit he put on Redskins tight end Todd Yoder in the fourth quarter of the week 2 loss to Washington. His situa

Google News Alerts brought to my attention this article by Kyle Lee in the Chicago Maroon, entitled Dawkins’s militant atheism delusional, in which he discusses some of his grievances with Dawkins and, in particular, his book The God Delusion. Unfortunately, Lee forgot to do one teeny, tiny thing that could have helped him out a bit. It’s really just a minor detail and I’m probably being pedantic, but actually reading a book before you criticise it is, in my opinion, helpful to one’s cause. Not only did Lee not read the book, he told a big fat pork pie and said he had - hardly a very Christian thing to do! Well, here’s the smoking gun: I have read his book The God Delusion There is no ambiguity here, Lee is explicit in his claim. But, he later slips up, saying, If he wants some rational arguments for faith, I would encourage Dawkins to read some St. Thomas Aquinas before vomiting up his next accusation against religion. The accusation is quite clear here: Lee believes

As if Richard Dawkins wasn't controversial enough, he has now been quoted as saying,When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see.Not surprisingly, this is quickly becoming a hot topic throughout the blogosphere. The outrage has began, anti-Semitism has been suggested, and I predict Dawkins will be called a Nazi by the middle of next week.Tags: Richard Dawkins, Jewish lobby, America, atheist

Fortunately, it is not the least bit religious, despite the suggestive title. There are some truly wonderful examples that usually involve the reader directly, and I relished reading it. No pictures, but none are needed as the words themselves convey the ideas successfully. I found the sections on gastrulation, ancestry, bees, eyes, particularly fascinating. The [...]

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Nagging Brian Dawkins as much as sitting out a game with a stinger and its lingering neck spasms is sitting out a routine Eagles practice. Brian Westbrook won’t stand for missing a game. But he will put up with missing practice, especially with an abdominal strain that’s slowing down the explosive Philadelphia running back. Yes, a pair of Philadelphia Pro Bowl picks were talking about practice and just how much the daily workout and review sessions are needed for more…

If you call 1-877-278-8457 tonight in the next 4 minutes or early tomorrow morning you can get one of the 20 seats that have opened up to this debate (Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox). Sadly the only tickets left are $50 good seats. So I won’t be going. If you get a free one I’ll take it though. If you are cheap, here is a podcast that you can listen to for free

The Eagles were without the services of Pro Bowl free safety Brian Dawkins and Pro Bowl cornerback Lito Sheppard on Sunday against the Detroit Lions, who entered the game with the league's top-rated passing attack.Dawkins did not practice all week because of a neck stinger. Sheppard, who missed last Monday's game with a MCL sprain, took part in a conditioning workout Friday but was not able to play. Quintin Mikell started for Dawkins and William James for Sheppard. Joselio Hanson served as the nickel back.Also inactive for the Eagles were linebacker Pago Togafau, tight end L.J. Smith, guard Scott Young, defensive tackle LaJuan Ramsey and defensive end Victor Abiamiri. The only inactive that affected the starting lineup was at tight end where Matt Schobel started for Smith, who on Friday underwent surgery on his groin. A.J. Feeley was designated as the third (emergency) quarterback.The Lions' pass rush took a hit as they were without defensive end Kalimba Edwards. Corey Smith started

Michael Persinger is a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as having a religious experience is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. He has attempted to create experiments to show that when the right hemisphere of the brain is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates what is felt as a 'sensed presence.' Many of Persinger's studies detail the reactions that people have when their temporal lobes are stimulated with complex magnetic fields. Some of the subjects experience a 'sensed presence' in the form of the deity from the culture that they were raised in. They see the God (or spirits associated with their God - the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, etc) that they believe in. Others have had experiences that mimic t

I am posting again a review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion that I made available earlier on my old blog as well as on the Richard Dawkins forum. This is to facilitate referring to it in a comment I am leaving on the Uncommon Descent blog, where (as I remarked before) the moderators have in the past shown an unwillingness to post comments reflecting dissenting viewpoints. Today's comment appeared - it's a promising sign!Dawkins' book is at times highly entertaining and thought provoking, but it is also at times highly problematic. I wish to be fair to the many wonderful features of Dawkins' book. Yet I must begin with the problematic, because it is there almost from the outset. Dawkins needs to provide focus to his book and its arguments, so he needs a definition of God, and he begins to provide one starting on p.13. He makes clear that the sort of God he is talking about is not the one Einstein believed in, and Dawkins even calls himself 'religi

This is the second of a two part documentary in which Richard Dawkins tackles the epidemic of irrational, and superstitious thinking. In this episode he looks at homeopathy in the National Health Service and faith healing. (Link) psychic, Richard Dawkins, skepticism

Look, even Richard Dawkins is at it! THIS HAS GOT TO STOP! Stay strong Richard, stay strong! atheism, funny, Richard Dawkins

This is the first of of a two part documentary in which Richard Dawkins tackles the epidemic of irrational, and superstitious thinking. The topics covered include astrology, crystal healing, dowsing and psychic ability. (Link) As an aside, for about 3 months i’ve been contacting psychics and astrologers asking them if they would be willing to appear on my blog to demonstrate their skills to both myself and my skeptical readers. Not one person has taken me up on it. Interesting? I think so. I will continue my search and hopefully just one person is willing to put their ‘ability’ up for scrutiny. I don’t hold out much hope however. Many have promised and then disappeared. I can only conclude that all psychics and astrologers are frauds. I will continue to believe this until I see evidence to the contrary. I’m not asking for a free service, I’m willing to pay them for their time but alas I’m sure it’s better to pray on the weak and needy

Richard Dawkins speaks to Richard and Judy about his new documentary, “The Enemies of Reason”. (LINK) Part one of the show was aired last night and part two is due next week. I’ll post more on it shortly and get some links up as soon as they become available. paranormal, Richard Dawkins, skepticism

I really appreciated all the thought-provoking comments I received on my recent post, Give Dawkins Money or You're Not a Real Atheist. However, a few of the comments and some of the e-mail I received indicate that additional clarification might be beneficial. I am saddened to receive correspondence suggesting that my disagreement with either Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers is somehow harming the atheist movement. This sounds dogmatic, and this is something I think we need to avoid.First things first, I have the greatest respect and admiration for PZ Myers. I have a category in my RSS aggregator called "Best of the Best," and Paryngula is one of only four feeds there. When I am running short on time, these are the feeds I check first. I commend PZ for putting a public face on atheism because I know what courage this takes.Having said this, I do not necessarily agree with everything PZ says. We are not the same person, and it seems absurd to expect that we would agree on everything. In fact

Back in June, Evanescent and I went to see Richard Dawkins recording an interview with the BBC. That recording is now available online, (the link will not stay active indefinitely, see here for further details on where to find it later). We recorded for well over an hour, so I assumed that the final program would be an hour long. In actual fact, it is slightly less than half an hour, and much to my ambivalence, my question did not make the final cut. Although I am slightly disappointed that my soft, pleasing, silken English baritones will not grace the airwaves to be heard by millions, there is certainly a part of me that is mightily relieved. The question I asked was completely off the cuff, not phrased very well and, as a result, not really answered. In short, I rather ballsed it up. Naturally, I have thought of loads of really good questions that I could have asked since the recording, but then, isn’t that always the way it goes. (I know I promised that I would reveal w

I trust that you've now heard of the OUT Campaign, championed by Richard Dawkins. What an ingenious way to sell crap! Okay, maybe I'm being too hard on Dawkins and the folks who support this campaign (to my genuine amazement). In truth, my real objection has little to do with Dawkins trying to make a buck off of this and more to do with a statement by a certain prominent blogger that those who refuse to wear Dawkins' mark have no right to claim that they are helping the atheist movement.Atheists are increasingly looking to the gay rights movement as a model for how to gain respectability, political power, and to ensure that our rights are protected. The key lesson many atheists seem to have taken from the GLBT community is that "coming out" solves all ills. The idea is that if more atheists were to come out, we'd be impossible to ignore, we'd have tremendous strength due to our large numbers, it would no longer be possible to discriminate against us, etc.This sounds good in princi

I’m getting very tired of listening to ‘moderate’ Christians taking shots at atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for the tone in which they write. It has become a popular pastime to criticize because they take a hard line with religious belief and for the vociferous way they have gone on the offensive. For years the atheist has had to sit back and listen to the non coherent ramblings and downright balderdash that religious zealots have used, not to defend their irrational beliefs, but to spread hate and animosity in the name of their God. It seems no one has been spared from this hostility. Whether you’re gay or one that values the scientific method, you know that the religious right will be standing guard, silver crosses around their necks, Bibles in hand and hypocrisy on their lips shouting “fire, brimstone and death” to those who fail to conform to their 1st century philosophy. If one wants to find a target to denunciate, then religious

A few days ago I blogged about David Sloan Wilson’s criticism of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Today eskeptic has posted a short reply from Dawkins. He focuses on this point made by Wilson: When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. Dawkins responds: Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement. When I was asked to prepare an abridgment for the British audio recording, I had to d

From The God Delusion,As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that is should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith.There are many quotable passages in this book, but this has to be one of my favorites for its sheer simplicity.Tags: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, religion, faith

The latest issue of eSkeptic features an article written by David Sloan Wilson called Beyond Demonic Memes. Wilson states: “In The God Delusion Dawkins makes it clear that he loathes religion for its intolerance, blind faith, cruelty, extremism, abuse, and prejudice. He attributes these problems to religion and thinks that the world would be a better place without it. Given recent events in the Middle East and even here in America, it is understandable why he might draw such a conclusion, but the question is: What’s evolution got to do with it?” It’s a really good article and the first decent rebuttal of ‘The God Delusion’ that I’ve come across. As a Sherlock Holmes fan I particularly like his comparing Dawkins with Mycroft Holmes, “…who sat in his armchair and let his younger brother Sherlock do the legwork.” Wilson does agree with Dawkins on a lot of issues, especially on the seperation of Church and State and religion’

Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously. “I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”1 Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “perso

As I previously told you all, earlier in the month I attended a radio interview with Richard Dawkins, and was lucky enough to ask him a question. I have now received this email from the BBC regarding the broadcast date. Here are the listening details: You can listen to the Richard Dawkins World Book Club programme online for a week from Tuesday 31st July as part of the writing and literature programme ‘The Word’, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/the_word.shtml Or find out the time ‘The Word’ goes out in your area from 31st July, on World service Radio, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/programme_times/t_v.shtml After that week, the programme will be archived online on the ‘World Book Club’ website for you to listen to whenever you like, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/world_book_club.shtml I will post a reminder nearer the time.

I think Richard Dawkins is right to point out that attacks on the reality-based community do not come solely from the Christian Right. In fact, I sometimes wonder if our focus on the usual right-wind tactics leads us to miss some of what has been happening on the Left. Dawkins points to the political Left and their cultural relativism (i.e., political correctness) as an equally important threat of anything we're seeing on the Right.We have grown accustomed to Christian extremists ranting about wanting to turn America into a Christian theocracy, pushing young earth creationism, and a host of other destructive plans for Christianizing the masses. We are aware that they believe their religious delusion should be favored above all others and want this to be reflected in our laws.But what about the Left? According to Dawkins,"I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of trut

Regular readers will know my thoughts on Alister McGrath from my previous articles. In an article in the Daily Mail, he had this to say about an alleged recording of Dawkins interviewing him for his documentary The Root of All Evil?, which was left out of the final cut. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins’s recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science. … But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut. The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor. Well, Nullifidian now has the full video of this interview. I watched it all this afternoon. McGrath really flattered hims

Last week I was contacted by a researcher at the BBC. The World Service had scheduled Richard Dawkins to be interviewed on the monthly World Book Club program about The Selfish Gene, and he was looking for fans to offer questions that could be put to Dawkins during the recording. The researcher, having found this blog, invited me to offer a question about The Selfish Gene. Of course I accepted. Then, almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that if I were in the area I would be welcome to attend the recording. “Well, no, I’m not in the area”, I said, “but by all the angels in Heaven, I’ll get there!” So, having booked the day off work (if they hadn’t let me I would have just quit!) I made my way down to London yesterday. I took my dad and my good friend Ellis14 with me. It was a long day. I was up at 8am, drove 200 miles to the outskirts of London, from where we got a taxi to the station and caught the tube into the city centre. It was the same in reverse on the w

Finally, it's over. Spaghetti monster can't be proven false. The anthropic principle entitles us to postulate a massive dose of luck in accounting for the existence of life on our planet. But there are limits. We are allowed one stroke of luck for the origin of evolution, and perhaps for a couple of other unique events like the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the origin of consciousness. But that's the end of our entitlement to large-scale luck. We emphatically cannot invoke major strokes of luck to account for the illusion of design that glows from each of the billion species of living creature that have ever lived on Earth. The evolution of life is a general and continuing process, producing essentially the same result in all species, however different the details. Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, evolution is a predictive science. If you pick any hitherto unstudied species and subject it to minute scrutiny, any evolutionist will confidently predict that each indi

I appreciate anybody who takes the time to comment on my blog. I'd like to respond to this one in its own post. I fail to see how your comment really addresses the "metaphysical handwaving" accusation. I can tell you there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You'll want to see it. "Oh no," I say, "It's invisible." You try to measure the temperature of it's fiery breath. "Nono, the fire is at room temperature," I counter. You feel around for the dragon. "It's noncorporeal," I say. You throw flour on the ground to see its footprints. "It's a flying dragon." So now I have a flying, noncorporeal invisible room-temperature-fire-breathing dragon in my garage. Can you disprove it? At that point, is there reason to believe that this bizarre freak of (supposed) nature actually exists? What if billions of people, including your family and friends, believed it was there? Would you believe it then? I can say whatever I want and you would be hard pressed to prove it. As it turns out,

The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the bi

I know it's getting a little boring, but we're almost done. I have a better conversation with Sam Harris later. Loki was a barrel of laughs. => Read more!

Onward and upward with Richard Dawkins The only one of the traditional arguments for God that is widely used today is the teleological argument, sometimes called the Argument from Design although - since the name begs the question of its validity - it should better be called the Argument for Design. It is the familiar 'watchmaker' argument, which is surely one of the most superficially plausible bad arguments ever discovered - and it is rediscovered by just about everybody until they are taught the logical fallacy and Darwin's brilliant alternative. This is not true. If I had to convince somebody of the feasibility or even likelihood of God, I would only use the aforementioned causality argument, the central thesis of which- that everything comes from something except God who, by definition, does not- has not been disproven by science, as Dawkins admits, and has even caused Dawkins to deploy a rather strained attempt to dismiss its premises.

We now continue with Dawkins' post at the Huffington Post (I know, but that's what it's called). When last we left our intrepid atheist, he was insisting that God follow the rules of science. Today we continue with Dawkins trashing an argument for God nobody's used since 1450 and, even then, missing the point. Another of Aquinas' efforts, the Argument from Degree, is worth spelling out, for it epitomises the characteristic flabbiness of theological reasoning. We notice degrees of, say, goodness or temperature, and we measure them, Aquinas said, by reference to a maximum: Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things . . . Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. That's an argument? You might as well say that people vary in smelliness but we can make the judgment only by reference to

We continue. Previous posts in this series: 1. Uno 2. Dos 3. Tres 4. Cuatro 5. Cinco 6. Seis 7. Siete Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think, and here's why. First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Mr. Dawkins says that most arguments for God are easily demolished. I agree. The question is: how many arguments does Dawkins need? One good one should suffice, no? OK let's see his demolition project. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the orig

'The Only One in Step' by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion: Amazon Astore UK | US): I can't find the original volume so I may have got the exact words wrong, but I recall one of those marvellous old Punch cartoons in which every last detail is painstakingly explained. A devoted mother is looking proudly on at a military parade as her son's platoon marches past: 'There's my boy, he's the only one in step!' On The Guardian letters page of December 19th 2006, I initiated an exchange about Professor Andrew McIntosh* (info) of Leeds university, who has publicly stated that he believes the world is only 6,000 years old, and publicly stated that the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics**. Both these beliefs place McIntosh out of step with his scientific colleagues, not just his platoon but the entire regiment - to paraphrase Evelyn Waugh, the whole ruddy division. Amazingly, McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds, and, equally amazingly, a letter su

My eye was caught by a headline on Gmail. 'Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching - Eagleton lambasts Dawkins'. Well I thought it was written by somebody interesting, like Senator Eagleton. No, it turns out it is just an English Literature professor from Manchester University writing for the London Review of Books (and proudly announcing at the end that his latest book is How to read a poem). I must admit I didn't read the whole review. It starts off from quite a reasonable point of view. If somebody were to embark on the mission of providing a critique of evolutionary theory or logical positivism, you might well expect them to familiarise themselves with the subject. Equally so you might expect somebody providing a critique of belief in god to become familiar with the territory they are about to explore. At this point the logical flaws creep in ... no, they flood in. Well it is only written by an English professor with an interest in poetry, so one can't set particularly high stan

Speaking of Richard Dawkins (see my recent post), it appears that his in-your-face antics have caught the attention of the South Park guys. Dawkins may view this as a positive development, thinking that it will help spread the word about atheism. I'm not so sure. I fear that this episode may end up being an important warning to atheists that insulting people may not be the best way to change their minds.I have not read The God Delusion yet, but I plan to start it soon. I have read other books by Dawkins, and I generally like what he has to say. However, I do have some questions about how he says it. If his intent is to write solely for atheists, then bravo - change nothing and keep writing. However, if he wants to persuade believers to embrace reality instead of superstition, then I fear his approach may backfire.News of the South Park episode suggests that Dawkins is already earning a reputation as an abrasive ideologue. In The Revealer article, Daniel Sorrell writes, "Dawkins' str

Richard Dawkins on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report' (October 17th, 2006) discussing God, The God Delusion (Amazon Astore UK | US), Creationism, and Intelligent Design:[Video is working as of 2nd November - please email if it stops!]From the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science Newsletter:What an interview it was!Richard held his own and then some tonight on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.' Stephen began the segment by saying "My guest tonight is a scientist who believes there is no God. You know what, he'll have an eternity in hell to prove it."Stephen Colbert contributed to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" (Amazon UK | US)Books on Creationism from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | USBooks on Intelligent Design from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | USBooks on 'Science and Religion' from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | USAlso see other blog entries such as "Be

UPDATE Jan 22 2007: The video is available again!"Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion: UK | US) describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. Science, based on scepticism, investigation and evidence, must continuously test its own concepts and claims. Faith, by definition, defies evidence: it is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science."* *From "The Root of All Evil?"A recent post: "Review of 'The God Delusion' by Daniel Dennett ('Free Inquiry')"Also see: "Current Books on Intelligent Design Part 3 (January 2007)" (Contains links to Parts 1 and 2)Books on Creationism from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | USBooks on Intelligent Design from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | USBooks on 'Science and Religion' from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | US

UPDATE Jan 24 2007: The video is available again!Episode 2 The Virus of Faith[Link to Episode 1 - 'The God Delusion' further down the page]From Channel 4:"How is it, asks Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion: Amazon Astore UK | US), that despite science having exposed old religious myths, militant faith is back on the march? The mechanism for perpetuating beliefs that Dawkins describes as leading to murderous intolerance, is by imposing religion on children who are too inexperienced to judge it for themselves... (Continued below) ...We wouldn't categorise children according to their parents' political stance, says Dawkins, since they are too young to make up their minds about such matters. But we segregate them in sectarian religious schools, where they are taught superstitions drawn from ancient scriptures of dubious origin, which promote a 'contradictory and poisonous system of morals'.Dawkins compares this to a virus, which infects the young and is passed down the generations. V

From The Sunday Times (UK) November 19, 2006: Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University professor and campaigning atheist, is planning to take his fight against God into the classroom by flooding schools with anti-religious literature.He is setting up a charity that will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs attacking the "educational scandal" of theories such as creationism while promoting rational and scientific thought.The foundation will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of "missionaries" and church-based charities.His plans are sparking criticism from academics, religious leaders and fellow scientists. The Church of England described them as "disturbing", while others complained that Dawkins's foundation bore the "whiff of a campaigning organisation" rather than a charity.John Hall, dean of Westminster and the Church of England's chief education officer, said: "I would be very disturbed if this project was going to be widely supported because it's not based on reasoned