Home » Culture, Darwinism, News » Richard Dawkins to guest edit New Statesman’s Christmas issue

Richard Dawkins to guest edit New Statesman’s Christmas issue

Jerry Coyne tells us at “Why Evolution Is True” that Richard Dawkins will be guest editing New Statesman’s Christmas issue. He loves it already:

Dawkins has contributed an essay, written the New Statesman leader column, and travelled to Texas to conduct an exclusive interview with the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens. They discuss religious fundamentalism, US politics, Tony Blair, abortion and Christmas.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates has written a column on the wonders of innovation, the political theorist Alan Ryan has written on Barack Obama, and there are contributions from some of the world’s most respected scientists, includingPaul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, and the space explorer Carolyn Porco, on Saturn. . .

In 2007, Dawkins, Hitchens, the philosopher Daniel Dennett and the neuroscientist Sam Harris were nicknamed the “Four Horsemen” of new atheism. Both Dennett and Harris have written essays for this issue, on human loyalty and free will, respectively.

Something else links all these people besides the New Statesman.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to Richard Dawkins to guest edit New Statesman’s Christmas issue

  1. Kairosfocus – an article about Dawkins seems like the place to reply to you.
    God does evil.
    I read it in the Bible.
    I think that evil is necessary in order for God to produce sons with character.
    Our view of evil is incomplete and is skewed because of our inability to see God clearly.
    Our focus on good and evil also keeps us from seeing God as clearly as we are able.

  2. Dawkins edits a Christmas issue? How shocking, how rebellious, how avant-garde . . .someone alert the monsignor!

    Seriously, yawn-city. Boring thinkers writing about boring ideas. Exchanging high-fives and belly-tickles with one and other. Such self-congratulatory hype.

  3. M:

    I happened across your comment, as the recent thread caught my eye.

    I respond, just for record, and hope you will find it helpful.

    I think, though, you need to have a quiet little talk with a knowledgeable theologian, on Bible translation and interpretation issues — really off-topic for this blog, but cf here, here and here for a start. (Those overly enamoured of the KJV, 1769 revision [the common KJV], should note that it has some translation problems within English and with the original languages. Nigh on 250 years of progress have happened! I suggest the English Standard Version as a good current update within the KJV’s general philosophy, and the NET Bible for those more inclined to dynamic equivalence, similar to the NIV. I strongly recommend the Word free Bible study software and its free modules. But then, this is beginning to get off-topic, so I had better stop. Oops I am over budget for links so let me split this post in two. )

    And, a knowledgeable philosopher or two. You may want to start here and here, at 101 level.

    Hope this helps, especially as you are plainly not the sort of disruptive person I was forced to shut down the previous thread over. I think, from what I have seen of you, that you genuinely want to learn and discuss, not to play toxic talking point games.

    [ . . . ]

  4. Once a reasonable attitude and approach are there, we can reasonably and productively discuss any question on comparative difficulties, no matter how potentially explosive. But, if the name of the game instead is toxic talking points, the only thing that can be done is to expose irresponsible, hostile and in extreme cases willfully deceptive and hateful behaviour, then go take a shower to wash off the poisonous filth before it takes effect.

    BTW, for those caught up in the Bible difficulties and “bronze age tribal deity and moral monster” accusation games, I have — after posting difficulties — made a notice at UD with onward link on a discussion, here.

    However, onlookers and participants, please do not use this to pull this thread off topic into a poisonous crocodile death roll.

    I do note that Mr Dawkins would be well advised to soberly answer the direct question put to him about his notorious “God of the OT” passage in The God Delusion, if he is to be seen as a fit person to be a guest editor in polite company.

    Failing that, New Statesman should think again, very seriously, about the company it is keeping.

    KF

  5. Cheers KF.
    Im off to do this homework now.

  6. I see that the word calamity is used instead of evil in the NASB.

Leave a Reply