Dawkins has lost, says the Speccie

It was interesting. Thanks Bags I rely on you to find all these onteresting articles

I'm good at onteresting!

see quiet room thread!

Yes, it's a most interesting article and, I feel, articulates a change of attitude and perspective from both those who write for the 'serious' papers and journals, and amongst those one meets in RL.

Those who write thoughtfully on religious matters certainly seem to be much more informed and aware of current thinking in theology. Apophatic theology for example, and the way it relates to traditions in Islam, Judaism and even Taoism in the Tao Te Ching.

It has always seemed to me that a deep knowledge of any discipline enables one to understand a different point of view, and perhaps to modify ones own.

Thank you for flagging this up.

It's an interesting article but I don't agree with a lot of the points made in it, except that Richard Dawkin can be very strident in his approach, unlike Alain de Botton who is a much less abrasive person.

I don't think atheists/humanists/agnostics have any less "sense of gratitude" than people who are religious, if that means they have less appreciation of what is good in their lives.

I still believe that practically all organised religions create problems in "mixed" relationships and divisions between communities and countries. I also think the majority reinforce the idea that women are both to be feared by, and inferior to, men.

I don't believe that religious people or non-believers are any better or any worse, or behave any better or any worse, than each other.

I enjoyed the article but disagreed with much of it. The fact that many people don't like Dawkins says nothing about atheists in general. And to whom am I supposed to be grateful? My parents, I suppose, as they created my life.
I have conceded that much good is done by people in the name of religion, but so is much that is wrong. Is it not credible that both the good and the harm would have been done by those
particular people no matter what their beliefs were? In which case, belief is irrelevant. Does anybody still think to themselves 'I won't murder this person because God forbids it'? Perhaps they did when they believed that bad deeds would condemn them to eternal damnation. I have had arguments with some atheists who seemed to think that religion was necessary for the hoi poloi, to keep them in order, but not for themselves - very arrogant. Like the people who think that they themselves will not be damaged by looking at porn, but lesser mortals might.
I don't intend to rehash my objections to organised religion but this article has not changed my stance in any way. It must surely be obvious to all thinking people that having a belief in a supreme being is no indicator of personality behaviour, , ethics, or lifestyle. I just don't believe in any god - which tells you nothing more about me than that one fact.

I have just read Leaving Alexandria by Richard Holloway. It charts this Scottish bishop's journey away from religion and is quite fascinating - I can heartily recommend it.

I am also reading Brian Mountorfd's Christian Atheism which is less profound, but nonetheless interesting.