I had a debate recently online, which came about because it was stated that ‘religion didn’t make for good arguments’. It was actually a really interesting debate, and showed quite clearly the difference between science/logic/reason and religion.

I attended a conference with Richard Dawkins a few months ago. Wasn’t very impressed with him at the time, nor was I certain of his methods for spreading science. But with the increasing pressure from certain groups to bring ‘intelligent design’ into schools and the aggressive (and often rediculous) attacks on science, I’ve started to think science needs actions like Dawkins’. The following quote of Dawkins I charish as one of his best; it’s an answer to the question “What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic?”:

It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What’s the difference?

I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference.”

That is a VERY interesting quote. And I beleive he is correct in a couple of ways:

1 - Although he is very against religion I’ve never heard him say that people should be forced to stop believing in God.
2 - Believers often do expect a free pass. Anything that remotely challenges the existence of God is met with almost disbelief, then harsh criticism of non-believers ensues.

Of course, there are athiests who are just as radical as believers, so while this comment holds true for Dr. Dawkins it cannot be generalized.

It’s very cool that you got to see him in person, even if you didn’t like him much.

John

Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists like Richard Dawkins.

Moreover, Karl, do you not see anything strange in hiring a court judge to interprete scientific evidence?

I would love to see Mr. Dawkins in person, I envy you so much!

His books are banned in my house, and those of other members of my family, under the label “Satanic”, which has also been applied to me at times because I draw in lead and charcoal and I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can remember! (I remember being a six-year-old telling my mother that Daddy couldn’t be in heaven because God probably doesn’t exist and he’s dead, not sleeping.)

Mr. Dawkins has an excellent sense of humour, and I like his arguments, because though they can be easily countered, they can’t be countered with a decent argument.

I came first in the year in