[Tubby Isaacs]

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a "professional atheist".

He was when he wrote The Extended Phenotype. He's long been a polemicist, and a not particularly pleasant one. It's been quite the decline.

[Abernathy]

Cannot disagree more. Dawkins is, and remains, one of the foremost and most pre-eminent evolutionary biologists of our time. . He is a “polemicist” only in as much as a small proportion of his writing has been given over to criticism of the redundancy and absurdity of religious faith/belief. Certainly if you asked him, the last thing he’d describe himself as is a polemicist.

However, if he is to be described as such, you could not wish to meet a more pleasant polemicist. He is courtly and courteous, and duly respectful of tradition - though rightly and properly intolerant of intellectual absurdity and ready to respond to robust debate in kind.

“Quite the decline” is not only wildly inaccurate, but somewhat insulting. I’ll credit it to you as, hopefully, unintentional.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've seen him lecture, he's indeed very amiable.

Of course, I don't mean cognitive decline. But I think the quality of his public engagements has declined. He's lined up with Rowling, for instance. It's not uncommon for that to happen among emeritus professors.

His career has had different phases, broadly speaking. The first was original scientific theorizing, the Selfish Gene, the Extended Phenotype etc, and he was fantastically readable even here. Then there was the "public understanding of science" stuff, where he specialized more in established stuff which he sought to explain, often with brilliant metaphors that almost felt like an original theory in themselves. I love both of these phases. Then there was a phase where he was closer to a French-style public philosopher. I'm not particularly keen on this, and there's where he spends too much time now.

[Abernathy]

Well, that’s a view. I don’t agree, but it is a view. As for his current “phase”, the guy is 84 years old now. I think he’s earned the right to spend his time as he now sees as most productive and valuable.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Fair enough. "Phase" sounds a bit disrespectful, like I'm talking about a teenager having a Marillion phase or something. I didn't intend that. Perhaps thinking in terms of his career evolving would be more appropriate. I don't know what the right word would be.

It's a wonderful career he's had, he's well entitled to do what he wants. But I don't think the public philosopher particularly suits him. I'll give you one example from The God Delusion, where he talks about some C of E guy (he's warmer towards the C of E than other religions, as I am too, probably for the same reasons) who has a very sophisticate argument in favour of God's existence. I was thinking, great, let's hear it and let's hear you take him on. Yet he doesn't. I can see why he wanted to attack the more common and much cruder arguments, but I was left unsatisfied by that.

[Abernathy]

Who was the guy with the very sophisticated argument for the existence of god (and what was it )? I don’t recall that from The God Delusion, and I’ve read it at least twice.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I can't remember, but it was someone from the C of E, I'm pretty sure.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

" I don't infer anything bad about her from it."

Depends on whether or not you think low moral standards are bad.

[Youngian]

A man of Dawkings's academic achievement who wants to engage in public theological debate should have something more profound to contribute than all religious observance is no different to believing Santa comes down the chimney at Christmas.

[Tubby Isaacs]

" I don't infer anything bad about her from it."

Depends on whether or not you think low moral standards are bad.

I infer lots of bad things about her moral standards generally. But I don't infer she's bad from the fact she used to be religious and isn't any more.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I infer her badness from the fact that she used to be religious and isn't any more - for a very superficial reason.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It's the Problem of Evil, probably the most common reason ever for people not believing in God. Don't see it being particularly superficial.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Look again at what I said about Kohlberg.
Operating below level 6 is superficial, and superficial is not good. Just because lots of people do it...

Paradox of Epicurus.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Forget how common it is to lose faith because of the problem of evil then. Isn't it a good reason? Perhaps it's common because it's good.

Dawkins in one of the notes on The Selfish Gene talks about Charles Darwin (Dawkins in his heyday was particularly good at notes). Darwin lost his faith (or at least part of it) when he observed a parasitic wasp larva eat a caterpillar from the inside. Was that superficial?

[Youngian]

Saw a holocaust survivor interviewed who went in the camps a secular atheist but came out as religiously observant as he believed it was crucial to place the love of God at the centre of our existence.
Also seen religiously observant Jews who survived death camps come atheist upset and angry that anyone could believe in the existence of God when that happens. Both are right aren't they?
Don't have much enthusiasm for challenging what's in a person's heart with academic gotchas. So long as they have a heart.

[Abernathy]

Don't have much enthusiasm for challenging what's in a person's heart with academic gotchas. So long as they have a heart.

And “meaningless platitude of the month” goes to ……

Seriously, even if “what’s in a person’s heart” is arrant nonsense ?

I do think I know what you’re getting at, though. My own attitude towards organised religion, illogical, irrational mythology as all of its philosophy is, has developed into a sort of tolerance for it as a force for community cohesion. I tend to regard the clergy mostly as sort of glorified social workers. A good friend of mine is a now-retired C of E priest, who knows my views on this and broadly speaking accepts them as valid.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Saw a holocaust survivor interviewed who went in the camps a secular atheist but came out as religiously observant as he believed is was crucial to place the love of God at the centre of our existence.
Also seen religiously observant Jews who survived death camps come atheist upset and angry that anyone could believe in the existence of God when that happens. Both are right aren't they?
Don't have much enthusiasm for challenging what's in a person's heart with academic gotchas. So long as they have a heart.

A major work (defining work) on the moral processes behind decision making and ethical development is hardly an 'academic gotcha'. I think you might benefit from reading it and understanding it.