IT v Richard Dawkins

Commentary on and links to religion or atheism in the media
Post Reply
chemicals
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:21 pm
Location: Dublin

IT v Richard Dawkins

Post by chemicals » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:31 am

This rambling strawman laden s***e was published in the IT today - :shock:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 57484.html

this explains it all really
ames P Mackey is visiting professor in the school of religions and theology at TCD and professor emeritus of theology at the University of Edinburgh. His most recent books include Christianity and Creation.
:roll:
والقس هو مجنون
paulbrittain
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:26 am

Re: IT v Richard Dawkins

Post by paulbrittain » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:05 am

A leap of faith is required to accept the argument offered by Richard Dawkins
An oxymoron to begin a moronic article, very adaquate :)
Carl Sagan- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: IT v Richard Dawkins

Post by Beebub » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:19 pm

It's such a stupid piece, I don't know where to begin. He uses language to make it sound like he making an intelligent argument but really doesn't say very much at all.
The first platform for Dawkins’s case against religion – that evolution theory makes creator gods obsolete – creaks at every joint. Since a full understanding of it requires a broad acquaintance with both physical science (especially quantum physics) and metaphysics and few, possibly including Dawkins (a mere biologist, if not just a zoologist) can claim such broad expertise, it is sufficient to note briefly here how those properly endowed do handle it.
I’m not even sure what he’s saying there. Metaphysics is such a woolly catch all that you can apply many meanings and interpretations to it.[He also trots out the tired phrase that:
Dawkins freely admits science still cannot see how life, much less mind, can have emerged from lifeless matter.
But that leaves his totally evolutionary explanation of the coming to be of the cosmos still looking at a yawning gap in the evidence offered for his theory; requiring, it would seem, a leap of faith to cross it. But that, surely, could not be science; and one cannot but recall all Dawkins has to say about leaps of faith.
So, science, applying assumptions as how life came to be, based on the evidence we have is the same as a religious person saying, ‘we don’t know how life came to be, therefore god did it’. Please!
GT
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: IT v Richard Dawkins

Post by GT » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:43 am

I'm starting to think more and more that the IT is a christian fundy paper...you only have to look at the church notes on their letters page. Their coverage is blatently pro-religion.
Regards,

GT

Faith is following someone else's lies.
Post Reply