Richard Dawkins 'support the fight-back'

I think Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry banging on about being atheists is enough to turn most people to religion.

Love 'postmodern metabaloney' though

He wrote this in the Spectator diary last week.

Gay is in a different league entirely than Dawkins. But a lot of his ideas I suspect might be difficult for many people to stomach. He doesn't offer any easy humanist platitudes.

TWITTER has deleted???? Or not...

I've got ... something went wrong, don't fret.... give it another shot for last 5 mins....

It's been a discovery to me on internet forums that some people see Father Christmas as "a lie". Presumably the tooth fairy too. But that's a story for another day

I was that child too, perhaps I was a joyless bore or perhaps I just couldn't bear to see children being lied to about Santa by the adults we most trusted (the ones that always insisted we always tell the truth) even in primary school found that very painful.

And not surprisingly, his arguments in this area showed it. They were hackneyed, poorly understood, and reflected a set of ideas that were about 100 years out of date in philosophical circles and had been abandoned to a large extent because people could not make them work.

His understanding of theology puts him in a very similar position- he couldn't even tell you what various religious groups think about material reality. Hence Terry Eagelton's Book of British Birds comment.

This is topped, maybe, by the interview where he was asked about the epistemological arguments in The God Delusion, and he didn't know what epistemology was.

I missed that one. I did hear one interview where he was being very smug about being the only kid in the village who realised that the Father Christmas at some event was some old guy dressed up which he announced to the room. My immediate thought was any child with a smidgen of commonsense knows to keep their mouth shut and get their presents.

I haven't read Soh's book either mostly because have seen and read lots of interviews and have no idea what she means by gender. She's a sexologist who wrote for men's mags for context
Since she uses it to mean quite large range of things, mostly biological sex, and that it was in the title of her book it made me feel was probably a waste of cash.
Will pick it up second hand at some point maybe.

I'm minded of how the comments on the Jesus and Mo cartoons sometimes split into rational agreement and wokeness when they touch on trans/nonbinary issues.

The God Delusion is a fantastic book. I also agree that teaching heaven and hell to young minds is a form of abuse. Religion should not be imposed upon children.

It’s a poorly written book, which received a lot of criticism at the time, even from other scientists. Good on biology, poor on everything else.

Accusing parents who take their children to a mainstream church, or mosque or temple of being abusive is utter hyperbole. Parents ‘impose’ their values and philosophies on their children all the time. Fortunately, people are free to practise their own religion in this country and are still just about able to raise children in the way that they see fit without interference from the state.

Anyway, I fear I am straying away from the topic at hand!

There is of course a very rational case for atheism but Dawkins has never solely relied on that. It doesn't surprise me at all that his followers have proved susceptible to non-rational arguments once they don't get their emotional hit of being able to look down on "faithheads".

Yes, agree with this.

I think if you believe in a religion you have to teach it to your children. At Christenings you promise to do so. I was brought up going to Sunday school as my parents believed and had promised to bring me up in the faith. I am now an atheist but am glad I know the stories and understand biblical references. I miss the hymns and communal chanting. When I believed to not raise my child as a Christian would have seemed like child abuse. If you believe in a religion it completely alters your priorities. This life is just part of the picture.

Hence the Jordan Peterson comparison. Which having slept on it I think is rather close to the mark.

There is of course a very rational case for atheism but Dawkins has never solely relied on that. It doesn't surprise me at all that his followers have proved susceptible to non-rational arguments once they don't get their emotional hit of being able to look down on "faithheads".

Added to my reading list.