Philip Adams in schism with the Dawkinsonians

[rug]

Michael Mullins April 15, 2012

While the second Global Atheist Convention at the weekend was a highlight for some, it disappointed others. Some would be attendees stayed away because they could see that the dominance of comedy and derision would exclude any serious or productive exploration of the issues. Others went along prepared to live with the frustration, or perhaps enjoy the event as if it was part of this month's Melbourne Comedy Festival.

Last Monday's ABC TV Q&A debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell represented a different kind of trivialisation in that it was promoted as a fight rather than comedy. In a sense this is much closer to the contest of ideas that we would hope to see in an exchange between a believer and an unbeliever. But it lacked the mutual respect that any form of dialogue requires.

The Sydney Morning Herald's Leesha McKenny referred to the 'barely concealed mutual disdain between Dawkins and Pell', implying that hostility was the defining characteristic of the event. Neil Ormerod also made this point in Eureka Street last Wednesday when he contrasted the Q&A 'match-up' with the 'gentlemanly affair' that was February's Oxford debate between Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Dawkins ('on his best behaviour').

In the shadow of the blockbuster Q&A and Global Atheist Convention was a much more poignant encounter earlier this month between broadcaster Philip Adams and the Jesuit Fr Gerald O'Collins. Adams is the longtime (but arguably fallen) doyen of Australia's atheist movement, while O'Collins is one of the English-speaking world's most published and respected Catholic theologians.

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=30912

[Angry Dragon]

1. What's to debate

nothing can be proved from either side

[rug]

2. No, nothing can be proven but the far more useful common ground can be decribed.

Better than throwing things at each other over fences.

[laconicsax]

3. What a silly article

Not all atheists are the same, therefore there must be a "schism."

[rug]

4. What a silly response.

[laconicsax]

6. I'm sure you have something to support that. n/t

[rug]

7. Considering the article did not say all atheists are the same nor use the word schism, it's worse

than silly. It's stupid. You're arguing with a headline.

[darkstar3]

8. Is the headline now not part of the story?

The many writing professionals I know would be interested in the answer...

[rug]

10. Never was.

Ask your "writing professionals" how, when and why headlines are written.

[darkstar3]

12. Ask who writes them, and when, and why. You'll have the appropriate answer.

Of course, now we're venturing down the rabbit hole of "off-topic".

[rug]

14. You're right. This thread is not about copyediting, page layout or circulation.

[laconicsax]

9. True or false: A headline is a representation of the article that follows.

[rug]

11. It can be either.

D'uh.

More to the point, your post did not represent what the article itself said.

[eqfan592]

13. Ok, what a silly headline then.

Feel better now?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Since the author of the article is the editor of the website, the headline should be considered part

of the article. It's ridiculous to think that some subordinate is mischaracterising his piece without his knowledge or approval.

And it is indeed a crappy "neer-neer, we're better than you" screed. "The one-eyed Dawkinsonians"? It's another claim that some atheists are 'fundamentalist'. However, since it acknowledges that Dawkins has perfectly amicable conversations with people like Rowan Williams, it's clear the hostility comes when idiots like Pell are involved.

[darkstar3]

5. Doubly silly considering the connotation of the word "schism".

[Odin2005]

15. That pretty much sums up how Religionists think.

[SamG]

17. Why is there no option here on DU to vote down articles which..

have a clear agenda and a heavily biased style of reporting?

Just wondering.

What a waste of time to read stuff like this, it brings one virtually no information, just lots of finger-pointing.

[cbayer]

18. Be careful what you wish for, SamG.

[edhopper]

19. Inventing a schism where none exists.

And can he be more insulting:
"But there was far more agreement than disagreement, especially with their common distaste for religious and atheist fundamentalism. 'I find fanaticism hard to take,' said O'Collins. Adams mentioned with a degree of pride: 'I've fallen out of favour with many Australian atheists because I'm not sufficiently Dawkinsonian.'

In view of the natural bond between Adams and O'Collins, it seems there could also be an affinity between the one-eyed Dawkinsonians at the Global Atheist Convention and fundamentalist believers of all religious faiths. It's a pity that they are more likely to engage in fistfights than dialogue. Or maybe not."

And he quotes another insulting, ridiculous article from someone who prejudges this convention to back him up.

He lauds the respect one atheist gave to a theologian who wrote a book about the proof of Jesus' resurrection (an assumption that should be vigorously challenged) and then shows a complete absence of repsct for atheist.