Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster

Every Friday, “Science and the Sacred” will feature an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week’s guest entry was written by Michael Ruse, author and philosopher of biology at Florida State University. His upcoming book “Science and Spirituality: Making Room for Faith in the Age of Science”, published by Cambridge University Press, argues against the extremes of both creationism and “new atheism”.

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html

Not a news story, must have run out of Daily Mail headlines.

[quote="Kaninchen, post:2, topic:190571"]
Not a news story, must have run out of Daily Mail headlines.

[/quote]

What's with the sarcasm? You obviously looked at the article. It's a very interesting. It's not the latest news though. But it is in the news section on beliefnet. And don't knock the Daily Mail, it has some very interesting stories, like the Peter Hitchens story, that you won't find anywhere else.

If it didn't fit in the news category, it would of been moved already.

While we're at it, check out this from New Scientist, Where Do Atheists Come From? Interesting to see a science journal finally recognise that belief is the norm among H. sapiens and suggest studying those who reject it.

I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant.

Most atheists should really be embarrassed by the kindergarten level arguments of Dawkins and the new atheists.

Dear lemonbeam,

I know you are still at school, and presumably hoping to go to university or similar, and get more qualifications, so may I correct your grammar as I would that of one of my own children?

In the gentlest possible way, I want to remind you that ‘it would of’ isn’t correct English. It should be ‘it would have’ as you are talking about a past tense.

I know it sounds a little like’ ‘of’’ but to write that instead of ‘have’ would give a very bad impression when it comes to applications for places at uni or for professional training. It’s a mistake that a child might get away with, perhaps but…

Would've would've worked, wouldn't it of?

Well, at least it made you do something than post threads! Perhaps you should read the rules about the link to news articles in the forum rules.

I’ll knock the Daily Mail as much as I wish and, if you read threads regularly rather than just posting half-a-dozen new ones all the time, you’d know why.

So the Daily Mail is like Fox News over there? Tell me, Kaninchen, what do Brits think of the Financial Times? A started reading it after a professor put me onto it, and am curious about its reputation.

If I want to I’ll post 20 posts a day from the Daily Mail onto the Catholic Forum if I think they’re relevant. There’s nothing in the rules stopping me from doing that, and you are not telling me what I can and can’t post, thanks very much.

Again, if I want to just post articles, read other posts on here, post questions, it’s up to me! I do all of what I’ve just listed on the Catholic Forum! It’s through my account, not yours, it shouldn’t concern you.

[quote="Dionysus, post:9, topic:190571"]
So the Daily Mail is like Fox News over there? Tell me, Kaninchen, what do Brits think of the Financial Times? A started reading it after a professor put me onto it, and am curious about its reputation.

[/quote]

I'm not a Brit, but I'd like to throw in my :twocents:, as I have lived in England ~ I studied economics at the LSE and I also did graduate work in international law there as well.

I highly respect the FT. I find it to be concise, intellectual, global, accurate, and relevant.

The FT is an excellent paper.

The Daily Mail is a peculiar paper and I say that as a Tory myself.

It’s the epitome of right-wing small-mindedness, the reflexive knee-jerk of the conservative lower middle class to anything different and, certainly, to anything ‘clever’, making a fetish of being anti-intellectual (including Conservative intellectual). To me, it’s the English at their worst!

By the way, in the 30’s it supported the British Union of Fascists had nice things to say about Mr Hitler.

Indulge yourself, get a copy of the Daily Telegraph.

Again, if I want to just post articles, read other posts on here, post questions, it’s up to me! I do all of what I’ve just listed on the Catholic Forum! It’s through my account, not yours, it shouldn’t concern you.

You post threads with no news connection, I’ll point that out.

Thanks for that smile, Darryl!

(In fact, I literally died laughing when I read what you had wrote. Your so right! Beween you and I, you must of made a quantum leap, you’re post was, like, so very unique!).

(Ow, ow, ow - typing all that really hurt).

No, I don’t think so. Fox News often throws editorial spin into its television news, but its written news tends to be more balanced.

I think the closest thing to the Daily Mail in the states would be the New York Post. Kind of tabloid-y, with a tendency to run stories light on content and heavy on populist style.

As for the article which serves as the basis for this thread, it was written nine months ago. That alone suggests that this thread doesn’t belong in the news forums. It is worth discussing, but perhaps a better forum could be chosen.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.