Dawkins maybe occasionally ends up twatting a straw man. Very occasionally. Maybe.

Dennett doesn’t, as far as I’ve seen.

In fact, Dennett made me think hard about that thing “sophisticated” religious apologists do when pushed of backing away from every explicitly supernatural tenet of their faith, and redefining it all in such general, meaningless terms that you really *do* end up attacking a straw man.

Then, the moment you leave the room, the “God is everything” bit vanishes and they’re back talking to an all-powerful, twinkly-eyed beardy man in the sky.

Religion *is* very complicated but one of the main ideas I took from Dennett’s book is that “Yeah, it’s very complicated and interesting, so let’s examine it properly, rather than assuming it cannot be understood”.

No, I’ve not read any Eagleton either. Seems interesting. Just badly wrong on religion, poor chap.

Scathing! I have never read any Eagleton. I suspect I never will. I thought one of the main criticisms of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, was that they criticise strawmen religious figures? Obviously the best way to counter that is to create a straw man yourself

Hey ho. Back to work

Number 10 petition.

Just in case, you know. You’d like to.

Done. Above links to London Ugandan Embassy contact us page. Just in case, you know. You’d like to. Though their server seems to be having problems at the moment…

Here’s the UHC site, just in case:

http://www.ugandahighcommission.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:uganda-participates-in-the-world-travel-market-2009&catid=1:high-commission-london

Lots of names of dignitaries for adepts of google fu.

I would bother pointing out the other things that are moronically wrong with the book but fortunately PZ Myers has done it for me. You might want to read through his critique before you come back with the inevitable rejoinder.

The legendary Terry Eagleton has elegantly despatched the ramblings of your atheist pin-up boys in his recent book. (He thinks Dennett is an idiot, as i recall.)

Go and read it.

Like Dawkins he’s simply placing religion in the same category as other ideas and beliefs. We’re so conditioned to exempt religion from scrutiny and criticism that this seems rude, extreme, uncaring etc. But you’d be hard-pushed to explain why it’s any worse than being forthright about the obviously bollocks views and efforts of, say, astrologists or homeopathists. Or HYSers for that matter.

If I was ill and someone offered me some wafty supernatural help I’d do exactly as Dennett did. Thank them sincerely for their good intentions but suggest they channel them into something useful instead.

You could not be more right.

)

This thread is weirdly enjoyable for something spawned from sheer hate.

I’m beginning to wonder if that isn’t even worse.

@Nelson: I’d argue I don’t disagree with him on everything he says (although trying to compare religious friends to religious to medical professionals seems a bit ridiculous), just that it seems like using the heartfelt expressions of concern as a stick with which to beat people (let alone friends) seems like a pretty twattish way to act.