« Human Rights Reformers | Main | Good Reasons to Believe Peter Is the Source of Mark's Gospel »

January 30, 2014

Comments

Oh how INTERESTING that you dont quote the bit at 24:45.

How INTERESTING that you dont provide time stamps so I can listen to the excerpts and make my own mind up.

If anyone quotes from the bibbel and you dont like it the first squeal is always "OUT OF CONTEXT".

You guys love Dawkins! Which is ironic because I find him tedious.

Way to go Amy!

Great quote mine! Hilarious.

Religious thinkers often go to extremes - eternal infinite bliss or eternal hell-fire torture. Much of religion is all-or-nothing. Sceptics, by contrast, often hedge their bets, merely expressing doubt rather than certainty. It's perfectly OK for a scientist to say "I don't know" or "Perhaps."

This interchange with Dawkins is a good example. He says something terrible about the Bible, and religious people ask, "So you think the whole Bible is totally terrible?" Dawkins admits there are some good parts. This is typical of sceptics. Their thinking isn't all-or-nothing.

Religious people may criticize sceptics for being wishy-washy or apparently self-contradictory, but that's fine. It's a difference in worldview.

TGS...you do understand that this quote makes me think better of Richard Dawkins, don't you? I appreciated his reasonable response, and I thought people should know about it. Perhaps I should have added more commentary to make that clear. I'm limited by a blog format that requires me to keep things as short and to-the-point as possible.

As for 24:45, I hear there something about how the real question is, "Why should we privilege this text over any other text?" Is that the part you're talking about? Because I don't see how that's related to Dawkins recognizing what Sinkinson said there. It's clear that Dawkins doesn't believe the text is true. The new information here is that he recognizes that he has emphasized an extreme for rhetorical purposes (he explains more about why he does this in the interview, but I had to cut that part because it wasn't immediately relevant); but he does know, as Sinkinson says, that that's not a balanced description of the God presented in the Bible. Again, his reasonable response made me think better of him.

Is it that you don't think this is an important point to help us understand Dawkins more accurately, or is it that you don't think Dawkins actually was saying that Sinkinson was making a fair point?

I tightened this quote up to fit a blog format and cover the one point, and I tried to be very careful to get the necessary context while pointing people to where they can listen to the interview in its entirety. But if you think I've misrepresented Dawkins, please do be specific so I can consider it.

John, I wish it were more typical of skeptics, but this post is only news because up until this point, I had only heard Dawkins speak in a very extreme fashion.

Fair enough Amy.

I stand corrected. I would have added in the point in the podcast, but you have explained your rationale.

To be honest a lot of the criticism of Dawkins is justified.

Amy this is another great OP! Please accept my apologies for earlier =)

TGS, I appreciate your response very much. Thank you.

He uses this false, slanderous, blasphemous description of the biblical God as a humorous opener for his book reading appearances?

And his audience roars with laughter at this false, slanderous, blasphemous description?

That speaks volumes about not only who this man is, but about his audience as well.

But I do like honesty. If that's what he thinks then I would prefer him to be open about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.