Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Unholy warrior - Richard Dawkins interview



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 August 2008
Professor Richard Dawkins, who appears at the Edinburgh International Book Festival today, is happy to remain in the vanguard of the fight against creationists and theocrats
THE WORLD’S best-known living atheist sounds slightly piqued. Richard Dawkins, the renowned evolutionary biologist, award-winning author and arch-sceptic, is currently presenting his three-part Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin, during which he takes a London secondary school class on a fossil-collecting trip to Dorset’s “Jurassic Coast”, to introduce them to the rudiments of evolutionary theory.

Some elements in the press have since accused him of foisting atheism on the pupils, a claim he vigorously denies. “It’s very unjust. Never once did I attempt to thrust atheism on these children. I was scrupulously careful not to do that. I was simply trying to persuade them to look at the evidence. It was a pro-evolution point rather than an anti-religious point.

“I do get a bit exasperated at people hearing what they expect me to say, rather than what I do say.”

For Dawkins, author of award-winning books such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and, most recently, his clarion call to atheism, The God Delusion, creation is an awe-inspiring marvel of the natural, rather than supernatural world. In The Genius of Charles Darwin, he describes the pioneer evolutionist’s theories, first published 150 years ago next year, as “perhaps the most powerful idea ever to occur to a human mind”. What he celebrates as the “devastating elegance” of Darwin’s theory of natural selection ineradicably altered the way we look at the world – yet, he says on the programme, possibly as many as four out of ten people in the UK still believe that the Almighty created the Earth and everything in it.

To those of us who have more or less grown up with the concept of evolution, that figure may seem surprising, although in the United States, the legions of those who embrace the Biblical account of creation appear to become ever greater and more strident, particularly in their impact on education, with a recent poll suggesting that one in eight American biology teachers teaches creationism or “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution.

We’re talking in Edinburgh’s Balmoral Hotel, prior to his (sold out) appearance at the Edinburgh Book Festival today. The city has certain resonances: Darwin himself came to Edinburgh to study medicine, and while the blood and guts of mid-19th century surgery repelled him, he sat in on natural history lectures that fired his subsequent thinking. We’re not far, either, from where one of the luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment, James Hutton, “father of geology” tapped his hammer about Salisbury Crags, striking his own early blow at the Biblical timescale in 1788 when he declared: “We find no vestige of a beginning … no prospect of an end.”

Next year promises to be wall-to-wall Darwin, with the combined 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species and the bicentenary of the ground-breaking naturalist’s birth. Dawkins, a boyish 67 and about to retire from his current post as Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, agrees the anniversaries should strike some blows for evolution, although he doesn’t sound entirely convinced: “One can always hope,” he smiles.

He is deeply concerned at the rise of creationism allied with Christian fundamentalism in the US, and of those he describes as “the theocrats of 21st-century Washington”. Elsewhere, we have Islamic extremists who think nothing of taking countless innocent victims with them on their road to Paradise. The atrocities of 9/11 were something of a watershed in Dawkins’s views on the more pernicious extremes of organised religion.

He himself, of course, has been labelled a secular fundamentalist more than once. “I know: arrogant, strident, shrill, polemical …” he reels off the labels with weary familiarity. “If you actually look at The God Delusion, including those bits people think are strident and shrill and so on, I like to think they’re actually funny.” And he quotes from one passage where he describes the Old Testament deity as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic …” It goes on for some time, but you’ll have got the gist. It is, he says, “an exaggerated set-piece polemic” which invariably raises a laugh when he and his wife, the actress and artist Lalla Ward, use it as an audience warm-up at their joint readings.

The God Delusion he wrote as “a consciousness-raising exercise”, although it appears to have the opposite effect on those who send short and pithy messages of abuse to the forum on his website ( richarddawkins.net – “A Clear-thinking Oasis”), which suggests that, whatever creationists are about, some of them possess a distinctly unevolved litany of expletives. Other responses, however, give him cause for encouragement.

He is all for the “glory of life rather than the glory of God”, but does he worry about pulling the rug out from under the feet of those for whom religion is a huge comfort – the suffering, the bereaved , the lonely? “I do think that is something you can’t ignore,” he replies. “It’s a bit like the dilemma of a doctor who has a patient who has terminal cancer, and the doctor has to decide whether to tell the truth, or regard the patient’s private consolation as outweighing the truth. If I were talking to an individual who had recently been bereaved … I probably would hold my tongue in a way that I don’t for anybody who chooses to read the book.”

Known to profess a soft spot for the Church of England in which he grew up, he doesn’t reject the cultural trappings. “You can’t appreciate English literature, for a start, unless you’re pretty knowledgeable about the Bible, if you don’t understand what it means when someone alludes to “through a glass darkly” or “vanity of vanities”. It would be a step towards barbarism if children had no exposure to these.”

On Desert Island Discs, one of his choices was Bach’s St Matthew Passion – from which he quotes, in German, with some warmth when I mention it. “Just glorious, and it’s not just the music. The drama of the passion of Jesus, as a work of fiction, is something you can lose yourself in, just as one can reading a novel. You don’t have to believe that Heathcliff and Cathy really existed to get caught up in the emotion.”

He certainly can’t be accused of taking himself too seriously, having appeared in a cameo role on Doctor Who earlier this year – (Lalla, his third wife, played Romana, a Time Lady assistant to Tom Baker’s ebullient Doctor, during the late 1970s.)

But the work goes on, and he has another book planned for next year’s Darwin anniversaries. He has been criticised on occasion by fellow scientists who regard his high-profile stance against religion as unhelpful. He acknowledges that, in America especially, the slightest whiff of atheism can curtail any debate about creationism vs evolution. “But if your main object is to understand how the universe works, the question of whether or not there’s a God in the universe is profoundly important.

“So I wouldn’t wish to muzzle myself, or anybody else, for the sake of a skirmish in American schools about evolution.”

• Richard Dawkins’ appearance at the Edinburgh International Book festival today at 11:30am is sold out. The Genius of Charles Darwin continues tonight and next Monday on Channel 4 at 8pm.

RICHARD DAWKINS: A RATIONAL LIFE

1941 Born in Nairobi, where his father is in the British Army.

1949 Family moves back to England, where he has “a normal Anglican upbringing”.

1959 After attending Oundle School near Peterborough, goes to Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962. Continues at Oxford, gaining MA and D Phil degrees in 1966.

1967 Becomes assistant professor of zoology at the University of California at Berkeley.

1970 Lecturer in zoology at Oxford and Fellow of New College.

1976 Publishes The Selfish Gene, which stirs the nature vs nurture debate and becomes an immediate bestseller.

1982 The Extended Phenotype further develops the ideas of The Selfish Gene

1986 Brings out The Blind Watchmaker, a forceful critique of creationist arguments, which wins the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times literary prize.

1989 Wins Zoological Society of London Silver Medal.

1990 Wins Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of public understanding of science.

1994 Is awarded a Honorary D Litt by the University of St Andrews.

1995 River Out of Eden, about the constant flow of DNA and gradualism in evolution, proves another bestseller.

1995 Becomes Charles Simonyi professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford.

1996 Climbing Mount Improbable further follows the DNA trail.

1998 Publishes Unweaving the Rainbow, which argues that a rational analysis of nature needn’t erode its wonder.

2006 Presents a TV documentary, The Root of All Evil, condemning religion as a malign influence, and publishes The God Delusion, his clarion call for atheism.

2007 Listed in Time magazine as one of 100 most influential people in the world.

2008 Presents The Genius of Charles Darwin for Channel 4.

The full article contains 1578 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 August 2008 8:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Cammy,

Edinburgh 11/08/2008 01:56:39
I'm not a believer, but have a great respect for people who have their "Faith".

It's simply not a question of whether you believe in God or Darwin. There are many scientists who comfortably believe in both and find no conflict.

The freedom to chose your beliefs is a precious gift. Therefore it seems only fair, and just, to allow others the right to find their own path.

Whilst it's true that the USA has it's fair share of religious "nutters". Richard Dawkins is simply a man looking for a fight, which he thinks involves us in picking a side, God or Science.

People are not ignorant, or stupid, just because they don't believe everything that we believe. We all have to find our own way, and maybe there's more than one path to the "truth".

Who knows?, and that's the point!.
2

Marilyn LaCourt,

Brookfield WI USA 11/08/2008 03:08:08
Cammy,

You say, "I'm not a believer, but have a great respect for people who have their "Faith".

I have zero belief in faith, belief without evidence. Belief based on what? A feeling? Something written by a profit who had a revelation - a psychotic experience and a narcissistic sense of his own importance?

You say, "The freedom to chose your beliefs is a precious gift. Therefore it seems only fair, and just, to allow others the right to find their own path."

Don't you think people should do their homework before they commit to certain beliefs?

You say, "People are not ignorant, or stupid, just because they don't believe everything that we believe."

Actually,most people are ignorant. That's a huge part of the problem. Ignorant is not the same as stupid, however. Ignorant means not knowledgeable. It doesn't mean not smart.

You say, "Richard Dawkins is simply a man looking for a fight, which he thinks involves us in picking a side, God or Science."

I disagree. I think religion has declared war on reason.

In Time Magazine, November 13, 2006, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said religion answers the why questions, the meaning of life questions.

Meanings are not imposed on us from on high. Meanings are constructed by us. We observe something, we have an internal response to that which we observe then we attribute meaning to that which we observe. That's the human condition.

This is how Collins finds the meaning of life. First he says, “God could have activated evolution...” So far he sounds like a 19th century deist, content to leave it at that. But then he goes on, “with full knowledge of how it would turn out”.

When asked, about belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection, he answered, “if you believe in a God that is outside of nature, why couldn’t that God invade the natural world with miracles?” And, “I don’t think it’s God’s purpose to make everything absolutely obvious to us
3

Marilyn LaCourt,

Brookfield WI USA 11/08/2008 03:31:17
My comment was cut before it ended, so I have reposted it.

In Time Magazine, November 13, 2006, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said religion answers the why questions, the meaning of life questions.

This is how Collins finds the meaning of life. First he says, “God could have activated evolution...” So far he sounds like a 19th century deist, content to leave it at that. But then he goes on, “with full knowledge of how it would turn out”. When asked, about belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection, he answered, “if you believe in a God that is outside of nature, why couldn’t that God invade the natural world with miracles?” And, “I don’t think it’s God’s purpose to make everything absolutely obvious to us. It would not have been sensible for Him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal His role in creation.”

Let me see if I have this right. Collins believes there is a God that created the universe, a belief for which there is no reliable evidence, and he knows that his God thinks, what his God thinks and that his God would not do something that wasn’t sensible. Oh yes, it’s all based on reason. It seems to me he reasons that if he were this God of his, this is what he would think and do. I guess once you take that leap of faith anything goes. Sounds more like making meaning than it does like finding meaning to me.

4

Cammy,

Edinburgh, Scotland 11/08/2008 03:59:02
Hi Marilyn,

I can't really argue with you, especially as I've just stated previously that people are free to chose their own versions of the truth :-).

However, I do wonder if you were placed in a serious situation were you or a loved one were in a very bad place, whether you might suspend your belief system for a few minutes. I know that I've done that, and then reverted to type.

You mention the Genome institute, which has itself opened the door to research into the possibility of a "Religious Gene".

You also mention that proof is required before any belief is possible. However, much of what we know about space and the universe is completely based on theory without proof.

Most scientist will freely admit that huge leaps of faith are required, and that without these leaps they cannot move forward. The fact is that most "Matter" in the universe acts totally contradictory to the laws we have placed on the physics involved. This is why the "Higgs Boson particle" research in Switzerland is such an important project.

So you see, we all need some level of "faith" to be able to view the world. Whether it's religious, or not, is a personal choice.

You do seem to be a very well educated person and I do like your arguments. Hopefully, my response will prove worthy of your consideration.

Kind regards
Cameron
5

Blair Thennacle,

London 11/08/2008 10:36:01
Cameron - It is simply an utter falsity to suggest that "much of what we know about space and the universe is completely based on theory without proof". Firstly, there is no such thing as "proof" in science; it isn't part of the methodology. Scientists create hypotheses, and they either reject them (because the evidence is lacking) or they fail to reject them (NOT the same as 'accepting' them). So if a scientific hypothesis has survived long enough to be labelled a 'theory', it necessarily means that the hypothesis has been tested and has not been rejected. 'Theory' is not a word that scientists throw around nonchalantly, it is actually quite a badge of honour.

Now as for this: "We all have to find our own way, and maybe there's more than one path to the "truth". There might be more than one path to the truth. But there can only be one 'truth'. Either there literally exists a God who created the Universe, or there is not. Either cumulative natural selection is the correct explanation for the complexity of life, or it is not. This is a matter of very basic logic. So when religious people assert that God created the Universe, they aren't simply pursuing an alternative 'path to the truth'. They are making a claim that is unequivocally inconsistent with the claims of scientists. At which point, it is their obligation to provide evidence to support their claims. It is because they are unable to provide such evidence, whilst evolutionary biologists are very much able, that people like Richard Dawkins are myself have no time for them.
6

Tomdonald,

11/08/2008 12:38:41
I am in no doubt Richard Dawkins is The Messiah.
The core of the Bible for 2008 is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Every human being should do that. John 1.12 "makes" brother Dawkins a Christian by definition, in his wisdom he follows Christ's second commandment. I too am a graduate scientist, and a Christian. God is an invention of man, not the other way round.
Soon after man moved from sapiens to erectus he came out of his cave after a thunderstorm and found his cattle dead having sheltered under a tree. Along with his neighbours they decided that somebody up there must be very cross! So the notion of God was invented.
The fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible is true are unable to agree with thisview.Unfortunately taperecorders, mobile phones,et alia were not around at the time of Christ! Which version do they wish to believe? As any classical scholar will know translation is a matter of context and opinion!
Cameron and Marilyn have started a debate which is well known in progressive theology today.
My sort of Christian is known as a "Jesus" person. There are others in the Spectrum from Roman Catholics to the Quakers.
The real question to be asked today is "How would we recognise the Messiah when he comes?". As I approach my centenary (2020) Richard Dawkins is my nominee.
I await the hornets from their nests.
7

Billious43,

Glasgow 11/08/2008 13:35:31
Cammy, Marilyn,

I think AC Grayling sums it up best when he says, "To believe something in the face of evidence and against reason — to believe something by faith — is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect."
8

Cammy,

Edinburgh 11/08/2008 14:46:25
#7 If we're chucking quotes around. Try Socrates "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing".

Many major historical powers like the Egyptians, and the Greeks, built their societies around religion. They also uncovered much of the scientific information that shapes the world today.

In fact religious scholars of all denominations have worked on uncovering scientific mysteries. Surely this is hardly the work of "irresponsible or ignorant" people.

However both You and Blair missed my point completely. I was not making a case for religion, just pointing out that people should not be attacked or belittled for their beliefs. Blair states that there is "only one truth", which made me smile as I completely understood the difficulty he was having with my comments.

Faced with the same evidence on certain contentious questions, you'll find many people with different "truths". Most, like yourselves, will insist "religiously" that theirs is the only one that's right.

Let a little more light in your lives, you'll see better. :-)
9

voltaire's janny,

11/08/2008 17:35:52
It is not the right of everyone to construct their own belief system that rallies atheism to counter rampant mummery. It is the consequences of people's, admittedly contradictory, faith based assertions on those who don't share their belief. If we throw in those other ideological tyrannies, communism and the Nazi's socialism, in addition to religion, we can just about account for all the wars fought this century, the last and many before them.

If Christians, Jews, Muslims and each varyingly crackpot schism, sect within them, plus all the more exoctic less murderous faiths did nothing but intone their rituals, wear their silly clothes, eat or eschew their preferred or unclean food, adopt or condemn whatever ugly-rubbing lights their fire, then we'd have no problem with their god bothering.

But they don't do they? Depending on the flavour of their delusions they have at least eternal damnation in store for unbelievers. They also want to introduce compulsory observance of various tenets on the rest of us. This may be as benign as inability to buy wine in the supermarket on a Sunday morning, or as oppressive as stoning to death for an adulterous bonk.

Dawkins and Sam Harris do a better job than I can do making this point here, but the "moderate" adherents to all three of the God-of-Abraham faiths all select which bits of their infallible book (Talmud, Quran, Bible) to believe and follow and which to reject or ignore.

That doesn't stop them being apologists for atrocity by car bomb, explosive vest, or paedophiles' outrage. It is interesting that most of the extremist nutters' (as opposed to the benign herds') vituperative venom is directed at apostates rather than atheists.

This defines a gang. Pure and simple. Get your incantations out my face and your intelligent design brainwashing out of public education.

It is to be hoped that mild-mannered pseudo belief, in response to genuine altruistic urges, will continue to manifest itself in Britain as soup k
10

voltaire's janny,

11/08/2008 17:36:50
kitchens and tombola, because if anyone actually starts to behave as if their degraded tomes were the Truth, we're fcuked
11

Southern Cross,

11/08/2008 19:00:08
"people should not be attacked or belittled for their beliefs."

Why should peoples' religious beliefs be beyond criticism?
12

Marilyn LaCourt,

Brookfield WI USA 11/08/2008 21:05:08
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hichens broke the commandment -
"Thou Shalt Not Criticize Religion". I sincerely thank them.

Many religionists seem to think it's mind over matter - Yeah, their minds over my matter.

I suggest a new commandment -
"Thou Shalt Exercise Reason Over Righteousness".

Marilyn


13

Tomdonald,

I 11/08/2008 21:05:41
I note no-one has mentioned the Messiah and fundamentalism.

I take Southern Cross to be a secular individual. Whether he loves his neighbour or not I have no idea.

My nomination stands.

The human being needs a god. Money, women,fast cars, betting, violence, football etc. are a few. The God which Jesus considered from his OT knowledge to be his father leads millions to a high quality of life. Jesus was a real man,whether his father was Joseph or not is irrelevant. His teaching is crystal clear "Love your neighour as yourself"
14

David Robertson,

Dundee 11/08/2008 21:46:13
I have frequented the Dawkins website for over a year and have rarely, if ever, seen any of his 'creationist' opponents using vitriol or expletives. In fact precisely the opposite is the case - as anyone who visits it will see. I myself have experienced every kind of abuse and even a death threat on that site. I guess the reporter took RD at his word. And I am afraid RD, if he said that, was lying.
15

Mark Allen,

11/08/2008 22:17:02
Indeed David is a (sporadically) regular poster on the forum on Richard Dawkins' website. I suggest folk go and take a look at all his prior messages. Also, if you like a laugh, he has a rather funny little booklet available too, although I couldn't possibly recommend you wasting any money on it.
16

Blair Thennacle,

London 12/08/2008 05:34:18
David & Mark: You evidently haven't trawled his website very comprehensively (or, for that matter, read the God Delusion) or else you would have come across this section: http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly

Cammy, your observation that there can exist multiple interpretations of the same body of evidence is correct. Take the classic punctuationist vs. gradualist disputes within the field of evolutionary biology alone. Both camps were still Darwinists, and were thus in very strong agreement in broad terms. But since they were making contradictory claims based on the same body of evidence (I speak in the past tense since the arguments for punctuationism have since been decimated), they could not both have been correct, and this is the crucial point which you have again sidestepped.

When faced with contradictory interpretations based on the same body of evidence, the only tool with which one can establish which interpretation is more plausible is reason. Scientists have a very good track record in finding reasons for the observations we make of the natural world. The theists, to be blunt, do not.

(And this is bending over backwards to concede that the evidence might possibly support a theistic claim - which if you consider Adam & Eve, the flat Earth and all the extinct species found in fossils [to cite but a microscopic fraction of the evidence], is a quite preposterously generous concession.)
17

Billy Sands,

12/08/2008 11:26:25
Regarding David Robertson's comment. He is indeed a regular poster on Dawkins' website. What he has however forgogot to mention is that he goes to great trouble to wind people up and insult them. A very small selection of some of his posts can be seen here http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2925,On-TV-The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-Presented-by-Richard-Dawkins,Richard-Dawkins-Channel-4,page5#228406

He most definately has not recieved death threats either. The incident that he refers to - which he well knows was a joke, but he has distorted that to demonise atheists. He has also conveniently forgot to mention the death threats that have been thrown at atheists on that site. Maybe he would also like to bring up a certain incident where he knowing signed a dodgy cheque to hire a bus. So David, how about a bit of honesty and retract those statements?
18

Mark Allen,

13/08/2008 06:22:10
I'm sorry Blair, I must have been too subtle for you. I was trying to direct readers to discover the evidence about DR for themselves rather than simply telling them what a hateful and ignorant cretin he is.
19

Vaal,

13/08/2008 10:23:28
David Robertson is a pastor for the Free Church of Scotland and has a reputation on the Richard Dawkins website for his ludicrous world views. This is a man who asserts that geological events are due to Mans "sin". He quite rightly receives well deserved ridicule for his inanity, mental gymnastics, his refusal to answer any questions directly, and his sneering and condescending arrogance.

His prime policy is to quote mine the website to play the "victim" card as he trolls for abuse quite deliberately, however claiming death threats completely out of context beggars belief, even for him. Shame on you David.
20

David Robertson,

Dundee 13/08/2008 12:04:40
I see the Dawkins fans are out in force...I guess this means the article has appeared on RD's website? Must go over and have a look. My 'ludicrous world views' are the views of most Christians. The death threat was a joke but was serious enough that it had to be removed - although one against John Lennox (seriously he should be taken out and shot in the head') still remains. Of course there are people who write in and make the most hateful and stupid comments - as happens on every open forum. However what is surprising is the level of vehemence, hatred and vitriol that Dawkins allows on his website against anyone who dares the question the Messiah! Strange that he forgot to mention this to Jim Gilchrist. All I would do is encourage people to visit the Dawkins website to see for themselves.
21

Blair Thennacle,

13/08/2008 13:45:25
David, I resent the notion that I am a 'Dawkins fan', as opposed to simply an independent critic of religion. I, as well as most of my friends, have been an atheist for many more years than I have been aware of Dawkins. Referring to atheists as 'the Dawkins fans' gives us the appearance of some kind of mob or tribe, when in fact atheists are defined only by our rejection of such mobs and tribes.

If it is true that you attribute geological phenomena to "sin", and then demonstrate the logical incompetence to defend this by saying most other Christians agree with you, then you are quite truly detached from reality.
22

Billy Sands,

13/08/2008 14:03:55
David, you have just clearly demonstrated the insulting behaviour that we were talking about – well done – and it is here for everyone to see. So you now admit that you knew the death threat was a joke. Yet, if it had not been pointed out you would have been more than happy to continue this lie. Wilful lying is the only description that I can give this behaviour. For those who don’t know, this guy is on a crusade to spread lies about atheism. He says we lack moral values, but he equated homosexuality with paedophilia and has boasted on Dawkins’ site about the time he wrote a dodgy cheque to con a bus driver (want the links David?).

If you follow the link given above, you will see that the Lennox death threat was not a death threat at all, and you have taken something out of context

I think the more David rants, deeper the hole he digs for himself. Is lying and giving false witness acceptable Christian behaviour? Is it acceptable for ministers? I thought that was one of the issues against gay clergy – you cant be openly “sinful and a leader. Robertson has also sworn an oath (the westminister confession of faith)that claims that the pope is the antichrist – talk about alienating catholics and contributing to secular troubles?

I only have the behaviour of Christians like Robertson to go on, but it looks to me like being a Christian does not make you a moral person.
23

Billy Sands,

13/08/2008 14:06:53
"If it is true that you attribute geological phenomena to "sin", and then demonstrate the logical incompetence to defend this by saying most other Christians agree with you, then you are quite truly detached from reality."

Blair, enjoy! http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

It shows a deep contempt for humanity that he thinks we have polluted "creation".

We have tried to pin him down on this at RD.net, but he is just evasive and abusive.
24

Colin Johnstone,

Scotland 13/08/2008 19:35:15
David Robertson? Pah! One of these "trendy" beardy FCOS types that realises that the Calvinistic "black crow" image of the Free Church is certain death, so he tries to come over as all sort of cuddly.

I know all about this guy

This is the guy that, during ordination, took a solemn vow to uphold the doctrines in the Westminster Confession, yet he denies at least one of them, that the Pope is the Antichrist. And he's expressed doubt (on Dawkins site about "everlasting conscious punishment" in hell. Wonder if his FC chums are aware of this. Mind you, they probably dont care anyway - get them in, take their money, feed them BS, pat them on the head and send them home all cozy, snug and comforted.

This is the guy who at his ordination, vowed to uphold the "purity of worship" as practiced in the FCOS, in other words non-instrumental exclusive psalmody. He is now active in trying to get rid of that position.

What did you excpect of a preacher? Integrity? Every time this guy gets into the pulpit he lies like a cheap rug with his fairy stories, mythological tales and cheap evangelical comfort blanket. All preachers are de facto liars. These losers cant even agree among themselves - how many denominations plague this land of ours? FP? FC? FCC? CofS? UF? APC? FCC (Cont) Havent even mentioned the clappy happy bappies, charismaniacs or RCs.

Roll on Dawkins, Hitch, Dennett, Harris, Grayling. Roll on and bury this superstitious BS once and for all!
25

Billy Sands,

14/08/2008 11:17:58
Colin,

Surely taking an oath to your god would be considered sacred. So if he is not serious about the pope being the antichrist, does that mean that in his own mind, even lying to his god is not beyond him?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

More Features

Features

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.