Dawkins

For some, apparently Richard Dawkins is their guide to life, death and eternity. Here’s Dawkins on the Bible, supplied by UD News:  DAWKINS: The evidence [Jesus] existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real. PLAYBOY: You’ve read the Bible. DAWKINS: I haven’t read it all, but my knowledge of the Bible is a lot better than most fundamentalist Christians’. Here’s the apostle Paul, author of 13 or perhaps 14 (the authorship book of Hebrews is uncertain) of the 27 books of the New Testament: For I delivered to Read More ›

“Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?” No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word ‘sin’ to private sexual behavior. It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1926-banishing-the-green-eyed-monster According to Dawkins, sexual morality and fidelity to marriage vows is an entirely private matter, and nobody else’s business. Married men who want to have sex outside of marriage should be allowed to do so, with no shame or disapproval from others. You don’t need Read More ›

Science Daily reports “A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.” As my friend added, “This research was quite costly – they could have saved money by reading the Bible!” Link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm I wonder how the New Atheists will take this research. There are two possible logical spins on it I can see, if you take the research’s conclusions at face value. You could say, “Belief is hard-wired – that’s why it’s so hard to reprogram people to think rationally!” But this avoids the key issue of why it would be hard-wired. That leads to the second possible response: “Belief Read More ›

Melanie Phillips, writing in the Spectator, offers her thoughts on the second debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins; this one held at Oxford University Natural History Museum – Tuesday evening 21st October 2008. Melanie Phillips asks – Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving? and makes some pertinent points of her own. Science and Values

Why was Richard Dawkins battering away at his keyboard before breakfast on Tuesday morning (16 Sept. 08), before his toast, marmalade and English tea were cold? The statement later published on the New Scientist website, apparently received just before the formal announcement from the Royal Society, contradicts the official reason Reiss was removed. Richard Dawkins in the New Scientist The official reason was that Reiss had been misrepresented by others, thus apparently leading to damage to the Royal Society’s reputation. But from Dawkins statement: + Dawkins didn’t think Reiss’s comments were inappropriate, and Dawkins has debated creationism in schools himself for his own documentary. + Dawkins thinks that the call from some RS Fellows to remove Reiss because he was Read More ›

Professor Reiss, an Anglican minister, has been forced out of his position at the Royal Society for calling for discussions in the science classroom if children raise questions about intelligent design or creationism. In response some Fellows, including Richard Dawkins, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts, objected and brought their full weight of authority to bear by calling for his resignation. Now the Darwinistas have got their scalp. BBC – ‘Creationism’ biologist quits job Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, commented: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself…. This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists…. This individual was arguing that we should engage Read More ›