You write,

"Backing away" implies a reversal. I never embraced it in the first place.

This is true. My apologies for the poor wording.

Even Britain's top public intellectuals, being human, make mistakes"¦.there is a huge difference between making a mistake and abandoning reason and evidence.

You may think it is a mistake, but there is no evidence that Dawkins thinks it is a mistake. So he can't even recognize his mistake. Is it mistakes all the way down?

Dawkins desire to make it illegal for people to take their children to church is not supported by any evidence or reason. So he did abandon reason and evidence to advocate such coercive extremism. Spilling milk is a mistake; putting your famous name to a petition, and then prominently advertising for that petition on your official web page every day, is not like spilling milk.

Or, look at it this way. Just how likely is it that you, keiths, would make a mistake and put your name to that petition and then go on to daily advertise it?

Also, Dawkins' desire to create an authoritarian-type environment is consistent with his views about this. If someone thinks raising your child to be Catholic is worse than sexually molesting that child, one can understand Dawkins position. After all, it is illegal to sexually molest children and, according to Dawkins, that might not be as harmful as going to church.

It is simply unacceptable to equate belief in murder with belief that bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ. An indication of this is the fact that most Muslims do not carry out or endorse the murder of non-Muslims. They recognize the extreme implications of it.

The biggest problem you and Dawkins might have however is the illusion that you have no faith of your own guiding your decisions. If you have views about any number of subject matters including ethics and politics you likely have a faith component mixed into it. Closer to home if you believe that life arose from unknown and unspecified chemical reactions then you do indeed have faith and should lose your ability to criticize opposing views at TT. Being the kind and generous souls that we are, we have allowed you to retain your posting privilages.

Look, the idea of making a religious upbringing illegal is just plain stupid. It's so stupid that even you have backed away from it.

"Backing away" implies a reversal. I never embraced it in the first place.

You easily found problems with it, yet no one had voted you the #1 intellectual.

Even Britain's top public intellectuals, being human, make mistakes.

Clearly, we can agree that he abandoned reason and evidence when he signed that petition and continues to abandon reason and evidence when his official site prominently links to such stupidity.

No, because there is a huge difference between making a mistake and abandoning reason and evidence.

I wrote:
"The extremists Dawkins is talking about are of the kind that fly airplanes into buildings, whip people for trimming their beards, or put people on the rack for rejecting the Trinity."

Mike responded:

I see. So Ken Miller is partly to blame for 911.

Only in the sense that folks who didn't protest during Jim Crow were partly to blame for segregation, or in the sense that we are all partly to blame for the rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

Bradford asks:

Why is at reasonable to take the position that one who believes in the above should forfeit the right "to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence?"

It's not that they lose the right to criticize, but rather that they lose the ability to criticize effectively. When you criticize someone who believes, through sheer faith, that God wants him to kill infidels, for example, your criticism is blunted to the extent that you yourself hold beliefs on the basis of blind faith.

From the linked site:

Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that, like the competing theory of transubstantiation, attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation in that it postulates that through consecration, according to some, that one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the Body and Blood of Christ) or, according to others, that the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.

Why is at reasonable to take the position that one who believes in the above should forfeit the right "to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence?" It seems to me that anyone taking such a position must assume not only the right to determine what constitutes reason and evidence, but also must maintain that they are completely free of any opinions not solidly grounded in reason and evidence. Not only does this appear arrogant and elitist, it flies in the face of basic values cherished in America and other western nations. It amounts to a censorship standard.

Keiths, please explain precisely what moderate Christians believe which is "without evidence or reason."

Hi Bradford,
For example, some moderate Christians accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and others accept consubtantiation (which is what I believed when I was a Lutheran).

Keiths, please explain precisely what moderate Christians believe which is
"without evidence or reason."

The extremists Dawkins is talking about are of the kind that fly airplanes into buildings, whip people for trimming their beards, or put people on the rack for rejecting the Trinity.

I see. So Ken Miller is partly to blame for 911. Only an extremist would think that.

Dawkins is saying that those moderate Christians who use blind faith (defined as belief in something without evidence or reason) to justify their beliefs forfeit the ability to criticize extremists on the basis of reason or evidence.

That's because he is a hypocrite. Look, the idea of making a religious upbringing illegal is just plain stupid. It's so stupid that even you have backed away from it. You easily found problems with it, yet no one had voted you the #1 intellectual. Clearly, we can agree that he abandoned reason and evidence when he signed that petition and continues to abandon reason and evidence when his official site prominently links to such stupidity.