Or perhaps it’s because Dawkins comments about religion are extraordinarily embarrassing and cringeworthy for a person who writes so well about biology.
-
-
-
Maybe to you. I don't have the same reverence for faith and will always be grateful to him for helping me escape it.
-
I don’t nor should anyone revere false opinions, incoherent conceptual formations, or ideas that don’t square with the evidence. But to grasp what Faith means in the religious sense requires a different, although not entirely unrelated, approach.
-
But we don't have to do that. That's what everyone has done for centuries. We can look at it an epistemological sense now with the weight of science to draw on.
-
I think it’s a category mistake. For instance, Dawkins seems incapable of grasping the idea of Being qua Being, therefore God must be a form of being akin to radishes or unicorns and just as subject to scientific inquiry.
-
Biologists don't really deal with being qua being, no. But there are plenty of books which do talk just like this. It's been going on for centuries. It's OK if a biologist wants to look at scientific claims in religion too.
-
Absolutely, as long as they belong to the same category. And the measureable consequences of religious beliefs and practices, social arrangements etc... are all fair game. But Dawkins,like all ideologues, makes strident conclusions beyond the evidence.
-
Biology is a different category to theology. That's OK tho. What conclusions? That religion is silly? That the God character is immoral? That God might exist but that there's no evidence of one?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
From what I see Miranda you are being told to be silent from every side of the "debate". Nobel prize for not saying your piece.

-
Tweet unavailable
-
STFU prize
. Don't dismiss I hear Owen Jones will be presenting & signing copies of his forthcoming book. The Demonisation of Terfs. -
Tweet unavailable
-
Book opened with North London lefties disparaging Woolworth shoppers. It's not edgy to question new orthodoxy. Yet. Still lament woolworths
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
On the flipside, some people in the American Right were trying to tell basketball players to
#ShutUpAndDribble this past month -
I think that’s being overly reductive regarding the backlash to the politicizing of sports. Basically most are fine with anyone having their opinions and sharing them(whether its plumber or a nba player) but it’s annoying if it’s done during apolitical activities.
-
Oh, no, I agree. We need shared apolotical spaces or at least tribal lines that don't line up precisely with politics (eg sports teams) As far as I've heard,
#ShutUpAndDribble was about basketball players voicing political opinions ever -
Ah, yeah haven’t followed that particular hashtag so I wouldn’t know that specifics, I was just trying to defend the generalization as I have a lot of friends who dgaf about most politics who were annoyed about all the NFL
#takeAKnee during games.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This quote doesn't apply to Dawkins, but it apply to majority of the "public figures".pic.twitter.com/9DqMh4id42
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.