This was a good, solid article, although like most Time articles it felt about 50% too short and seemed to end right when things were getting interesting. Dawkins and Collins gloss over a few of the more lucid point-counterpoints of the religion vs. science debate- the teleological argument being the main one, with just enough substance to satsify the lay reader, but short enough not to drag for the ADD contingent.
Two things- one, if Dawkins and the other hardline atheists that are coming through can shift the battleground away from evolution and toward the fundamental validity of the christian religion, will that result in an easing of the stem cell / pro-life / whatever garbage that xtian conservatives normally stir up as they rally to defend themselves? If the battle between science and religion becomes overt, how would that divide the USA? How far could it escalate?
Number two, and less monumental (read:crazy), the article ends with the notion of a substantially neutered god that Dawkins and Collins can sort of tenuously agree on. But, after reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God...
... it seems more than ever that people will always want to cling to a personal, interventionist god. Historically speaking, every attempt to draw people away from a mythologised, lay notion of god has resulted in sectarian conflict. Which, you know, is a pity I think.
Okay, gonna try to make a real go of it this time. Interesting, meaty internetty goodness. Bits of photography. Hilarious chunks of graphical flotsam and jetsam plucked from the clutches information superhighway. Probably a fair whack of religious/political news and opinion too, 'cos baby, that's just how I roll.
So to fire it up, here's what has to be one of the coolest little collective blogs I've seen in a while:
Fuck yeh.
S
on Dawkins and Collins duke it out in Time mag