The Cyberiad doesn't get nearly enough love!
As an atheist, I just can't summon up the motivation to study religion in that much depth. Sure, understanding other people's viewpoints is undeniably valuable. But to examine the minutiae of something made up by a bunch of men hundreds of years ago seems like pointless navel-gazing.
The point we are making that it is not that we don't agree with one of the positions, but that one of them is demonstrably false. To air it uncritically creates the impression that it should be given as much weight as the other.
Evolution, gay adoption and global climate change are all examples in which the media lazily pits one crazy against one credible expert, creating the false impression that there is still uncertainty.
In this case, if Olney really felt it was worth giving the Arkansas Family Council a voice, he should have read the research about the fitness of gay couples as parents, and be able to challenge empty claims by either of the participants.
Similarly, to have a truly unbiased program about climate change, one that accurately reflected the current state of the scientific debate, NPR would have to quote one climate change denier balanced by interviews of perhaps thousands of climate scientists who have the evidence that human activity is affecting the world's climate. The one vs. one, "he said, she said" approach massively over-represents an outlying view.
Evolution, gay adoption and global climate change are all examples in which the media lazily pits one crazy against one credible expert, creating the false impression that there is still uncertainty.
In this case, if Olney really felt it was worth giving the Arkansas Family Council a voice, he should have read the research about the fitness of gay couples as parents, and be able to challenge empty claims by either of the participants.
Similarly, to have a truly unbiased program about climate change, one that accurately reflected the current state of the scientific debate, NPR would have to quote one climate change denier balanced by interviews of perhaps thousands of climate scientists who have the evidence that human activity is affecting the world's climate. The one vs. one, "he said, she said" approach massively over-represents an outlying view.
If you can't understand science, there's no reason that you'd be able to understand math, either.
When I read this article, I was disappointed in Dawkins. Then I read the Telegraph piece, and I was disappointed in i09. Clearly he doesn't think fantasy fiction is bad - for a start, he loves the Pullman novels. The tag is a cheap shot, too.
The issues he addresses - the assault on reason (not his book, I know, but a worry he shares with Al Gore), superstition and religion, are important and don't deserve to be dismissed. Particularly today, when we have candidates for high office who don't believe in evolution.
Sure, Dawkins is passionate, and that sometimes winds people up. But don't put words into his mouth.
