Observer columnist says Pope’s visit reduced Dawkins to ‘a rambling and wild-eyed madman’

Protect the Pope ^ | 1/2/2010

[markomalley]

Kevin McKenna’s  review of 2010 in The Observer newspaper includes his assessment of Richard Dawkins behaviour during Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK:

‘ The Pope’s visit was great but tinged with sadness because it reduced that once-great biologist Richard Dawkins to a rambling and wild-eyed madman hurling foam-flecked adolescent insults at the Roman holy man. I trust someone is giving the scientist his soup and caramelised biscuits as he recuperates. I even hear of a Richard Dawkins care fund. Could someone forward me the address?’

Protect the Pope comment: Couldn’t agree more! It was a relief that the BBC cut away from their coverage of the anti-Catholic jamboree, Protest the Pope, just as Prof. Dawkins was about to froth at the mouth, to show Pope Benedict leaving the Papal Nuncio’s residence to travel to the residential care home. Sadly, video of Dawkins making an embarrassment of himself spread around the web like a virus.  It is sad to see a man of obvious intellect reduced to this gibbering rant of hate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/02/kevin-mckenna-look-back-at-year

[GladesGuru]

***Which proves Dawkins is possessed by a demon.

Wouldn’t it be better to attribute what the man says to his own philosophy and mindset rather than invoke the supernatural to explain it?***

Don’t even think of invoking Occam in a theological/philosophical discussion.

;-)

[cricket]

Good point. . .we will never hear Christopher Hithcens take on Allah and/or Muslim believers either. Nor, for that matter, all those who now hold themselves far aloft the common mind; and who offer themselves up - ridiculously so - as Religion critics; save when it comes to that which even they, let remain, unnamed. (Include comedians; talk-show hosts, Hollywood elitist, MSM et al.)

Except when they grovel eloquently, on Islam's behalf; or just on behalf of any Muslim terrorist; or Imam. . .or mosque.

[Abin Sur]

we will never hear Christopher Hithcens take on Allah and/or Muslim believers either.

As per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his internationalist embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called "fascism with an Islamic face."

As per: http://www.conservapedia.com/Christopher_Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against Islam when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a fatwa against his personal friend Salman Rushdie. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

[pnh102]

Richard Dawkins - Islam is a "Great Evil"

Dawkins clearly believes that the Roman Catholic Church is a far greater "evil" than islam. Like most anti-Christian bigots, Dawkins only makes token attacks on islam, and practically none on other faiths.

This guy doesn't even have the balls to stand by an "Allah is fake" bus advertisement campaign. Once he becomes an equal opportunity offender regarding religion, I might think of him more than just a carnival sideshow.

[conservative_crusader]

I don’t believe Dr. Dawkins needed the help of the Pope to be reduced to a rambling and wild eyed madman. That is already his natural state.

[MarkBsnr]

Well, Il Papa is a man of God. What can we conclude that Dawkins is a man of?

[cricket]

The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

My bad for not thinking more critically here. Am aware of his split w/Left; at least per his post 9/11 awakening and have seen only a little of his criticism of things Islamic. Did not think these protestations nearly matched his years per anti-God/Christianity declarations.

Whatever the case, was thinking it doubtful, that we would see a popularized book by Christopher, called "Allah is NOT Great". Nor the many perjorative paragraphs per all things Allah; like those he continues to offer on behalf of the book he chose to share: "God is Not Great".

That said; remain a fan of the writer, Christopher Hitchens; albeit, agreeing with him; is my last consideration and reason for reading him (it does, however; feel like a bonus, when it happens. . .)

[cricket]

The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

My bad for not thinking more critically here. Am aware of his split w/Left; at least per his post 9/11 awakening and have seen only a little of his criticism of things Islamic. Did not think these protestations nearly matched his years per anti-God/Christianity declarations.

Whatever the case, was thinking it doubtful, that we would see a popularized book by Christopher, called "Allah is NOT Great". Nor the many perjorative paragraphs per all things Allah; like those he continues to offer on behalf of the book he chose to share: "God is Not Great".

That said; remain a fan of the writer, Christopher Hitchens; albeit, agreeing with him; is my last consideration and reason for reading him (it does, however; feel like a bonus, when it happens. . .)

[RobbyS]

Which is to assume that the man is rational about this subject.

[Abin Sur]

Which is to assume that the man is rational about this subject.

What makes you think he's not?

[RobbyS]

Because he behaves like an Appalachian snake-handlerin this video? ;-) Because his opinion is based firmly on his own opinion? Still I am reminded of Emile Zola, who came to visit Lourdes and was shown evidence of a miracle. Miracles, according to his view were the product of hysteria, either on the part of the healed or on the observers. He was shown the file on a man, not particularly pious, whose shin bone had seemingly instantaneously reconstituted itself, or at least between the taking of x-rays in his home town and those taken at Lourdes. Shown the evidence, Zola promised to report on it. Instead he wrote a novel, mocking religious women. He subscribed to the dogma: miracles cannot happen. The inexplicable is simply what science cannot explain. This is scientism, not science.

[Abin Sur]

Because he behaves like an Appalachian snake-handlerin this video?

I just read the article in the original post, I didn't see a video or a link to one...perhaps I missed it?

Still I am reminded of Emile Zola, who came to visit Lourdes and was shown evidence of a miracle.

That would be this Lourdes, yes?

http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html

So he helped expose the absurd flim-flam of faith healing?

http://www.skepdic.com/faithhealing.html

Good for him.

[RobbyS]

Zola didn’t expose anything. He ignored hard evidence because it didn’t fit his worldview. And Zola and most modern “skeptics” are not classical skeptics, but naturalists. They assume that everything has a natural explanation if only we can find it. It is their version of “god of the gaps.”This causes a problem when they look at the nature of man, because basically we see what we see in the mirror.

[Abin Sur]

Zola didn’t expose anything. He ignored hard evidence because it didn’t fit his worldview.

I freely admit to not being familiar with M. Zola and his experience at Lourdes. Was the alleged "miracle" that he was presented with was documented to the point that fraud could be eliminated?

In any case, when supernatural claims are investigated today with sufficient rigor to eliminate cheating, they evaporate like a puddle of water on a hot day. It's notable that out of the hundreds of people who've tried to demonstrate magical & psychic powers in hopes of claiming Randi's million dollar prize, not one has succeeded in demonstrating any paranormal abilities.

Might there be something to all this supernatural wackiness? I suppose so...maybe out there someone really can levitate, read minds, or magically heal through faith. Maybe there really are aliens in UFOs, Bigfoot, angels, and the Loch Ness Monster. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until someone can actually produce verifiable evidence that holds up under scientific scrutiny, it's perfectly reasonable to have the default position that these sorts of things are so much bunk.

[Old Landmarks]

Richard Dawkins is a big left wing world government moron who slobbers about a lot of things.

Most of all little Dickie really hates all that traditional America has been about for hundreds of years because has been based upon the Creator.

This being demonstrated by his arogance for decades, little Dickie may well use his last gasping breath to spew his anger at a reality that refuses to line up to his cock sure omnipotence.

[RobbyS]

In the Christian experience, the supernatural proper has nothing to do with “spiritual” ormparanormal phenomenoa, such as gained wide interest among agnostics after they lost faith in Christinaity and Judaism. The particular event at Lourdes, like all other miracules events was ,in a way, just as natural as any other healing. In one x-ray, in fact a succession of x-rays, the man lackesd several inches of leg-bone. Then he didn’t. As I rember the description, there was even appearance of a healing, as if the bone had been broken and then healed. Apparently Zola simply just didn’t think they were telling him the truth. Not trusting the wirnesses, and in the firm conviction that such things could not happen, he simply disbelieved. As to your “rigorous investigation,” How does one investigate a singular event? Padre Pio is associated with reports of bilocation. How does one investigate such reports. or even a ‘natural:” event that can not be replicated? Generally, the evidence has to be taken on trust. Sort of like trusting a witnesses description of a face.

[Abin Sur]

In the Christian experience, the supernatural proper has nothing to do with “spiritual” ormparanormal phenomenoa, such as gained wide interest among agnostics after they lost faith in Christinaity and Judaism.

"Ormparanormal"? I don't think that's a real word...

As to your “rigorous investigation,” How does one investigate a singular event? Padre Pio is associated with reports of bilocation. How does one investigate such reports. or even a ‘natural:” event that can not be replicated? Generally, the evidence has to be taken on trust. Sort of like trusting a witnesses description of a face.

Let me get this straight...you actually think that believing someone's description of a person's appearance and believing an account of someone magically being in two different locations at the same time require similar levels of trust?

That's absurd.

[RobbyS]

Sorry about my typing. I said don’t assume that what I mean by supernatural includes stuff like the paranormal. The latter being a result of a movement called spiritualism and having to do what we call the occult. As for bilocation, for instance, how does one deal with a reports of such a phenomenon?

[Abin Sur]

Sorry about my typing.

I didn't know it was a typing error, I thought perhaps you were using a (possibly) made-up term for a subtype of paranormal phenomena that I'd never heard of.

I said don’t assume that what I mean by supernatural includes stuff like the paranormal. The latter being a result of a movement called spiritualism and having to do what we call the occult.

Spiritualism was certainly popularized in 18th Century Europe by Swedenborg and Mesmer, and in the mid-19th Century in America. That being the case, there were still allegations of various supernatural and occult practices before then.

The main difference being that being accused of them back then could get you burned as a witch...and still can in Africa.

As for bilocation, for instance, how does one deal with a reports of such a phenomenon?

In the course of normal events, by dismissing it out of hand...just as I dismiss accounts of faith healing, demonic possession, witches flying on brooms, and miracles in general.

That's not to say that I couldn't be persuaded otherwise, but it would take a lot of evidence, and the elimination of the possibility of fraud. At the risk of repeating myself...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[RobbyS]

You mean if you haven’t seen it, it didn’t happen? Lots of things fit into that category, including most of the things in the history books. Inlcuding what happens inside of a given atom, which are unseeable. Or put it anothing way, anything that challenges your world view is to be dismissed—out of hand.