April 21, 2006
richard harris defends faith
There is a paradox about the current bout of media atheism. It is producing a great deal of sound and fury, but most ordinary, fair-minded people I talk to find it increasingly lacking credibility. Richard Dawkins has produced two films suggesting that religion, not the love of money, is the root of all evil and he has a new book on the subject out later in the year. Daniel Dennett has been touring the broadcasting studios plugging his book, Breaking the Spell, about the evolutionary origins and purpose of religion, and Lewis Wolpert has just written a book about believing six impossible things before breakfast.Yet for all the polemic and literary fireworks, all this remains a show to watch rather than a serious engagement with the truth. This is because of four fundamental failures.
more from The Observer here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 09:44 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834ba0eb069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference richard harris defends faith:
Comments
The piece begins with the assertion that science "strengthens" his faith, which is odd, because he nowhere explains what this means or how his faith has been strengthened. Instead he spends most of his time attacking "media atheism" from a rather parochial C-of-E perspective. Check out the comments to his article, as well as this response: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_randerson/2006/04/what_is_god_for.html
Posted by: Geoff Arnold | Apr 21, 2006 11:38:20 AM
It's actually Richard *Harries*, not Harris. The context implies that he is the Bishop of Oxford.
I think Pharyngula linked to this a few days ago (you can imagine what the comments there were like!).
Posted by: Dave M | Apr 21, 2006 6:03:39 PM
His error, and that of the atheists, is the yearning for philosophical quibbling of old.
We are past that. It is a pragmatic age where things are moving too fast to quibble.
Harries wants "serious atheists" who focus less on sensationalism. Although sensationalism may be a symptom of deeper illness, it is also the sneaky pawn that can win the game.
It's perhaps tedious to fight sensationalism, but it's often necessary.
Posted by: beajerry | Apr 22, 2006 3:29:54 AM
Post a comment