Hat Tip Julia
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Just think how much further we’d be towards the ‘how did it start’ if everyone working on the question didn’t have to deal with militant belief in fairy tales.
Holy shit Billo’s a fucking jackass. I mean seriously – I haven’t met Dawkins in person, but know a few people who have and I have seen him both in person and on a few interviews. I get the very distinct impression that is a just not in his nature to lose his cool – yet there’s Billo, pressing him to do just that.
Of course I can’t imagine trying to stave off such a concentration of the stupid.
In his talk at Berkley (http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-at-berkeley.html) Dawkins says the Kirk Cameron was originally supposed to be on the show as well.
I think Dawkins should make ‘no questions from the last book’ a prerequisite to interviews. Surely he’s having no trouble getting word out about the book. And this insistence on debating the last book has to be tiring.
I wonder what the correct words are to say to people like O’Really, to get them to understand their lack of logic. He is trying to say that because science doesn’t have evidence for everything, science class can then present ideas that don’t have any evidence. How can he not see the illogical jump that he has made.
I completely agree with him that science must have evidence to be presented in science class, but then how can he say that religion doesn’t need evidence to be presented in science class. A lack of consistency is one of the easiest types of logical errors to notice, so why can’t he see it?
I find it remarkable, although not surprising, when this accusation of dogma and/or fascism is levelled at science. It really cuts to the core of the problem, because people like O’Reilly neither know nor care how science is actually practised. The only ideology they know how to deal with is one of centralized authoritarianism, and so they have deep conceptual problems with belief systems which do not operate that way. Therefore, they assume that because science states its case so clearly, it must also be centralized and authoritarian. They never read Nature or Science, so they don’t see that what looks like hard and fast fact is actually only the best explanation so far. Or if they do see it, they don’t care, because arguing, vociferously, from authority has been all they have ever known, and therefore, if there are gaps, all that’s required to fill them is someone who can shout out louder fairytales than the other guy. Sad really.
What I find unacceptable from Oreilly is the way he destroys rational discourse by pre-supposing a dichotomy with an Usthem entrenchment: Atheist vs religion.. Who ever said faith and science are mutually exclusive? The only rational thing Oreilly said was that science cannot provide the moral teaching that he assumes only religion can.But even there Oreilly is wrong because it has been scientifically proven that morality can exist and even thrive without religion.
Like many have said: I must credit Dawkin’s lucid and well reasoned responses to Orelilly’s nonsense.