<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Dawkins thinks he&#8217;s not a fundamentalist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/why-dawkins-thinks-hes-not-a-fundamentalist/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/why-dawkins-thinks-hes-not-a-fundamentalist/</link>
	<description>Blogging on Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: El Sordo</title>
		<link>http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/why-dawkins-thinks-hes-not-a-fundamentalist/comment-page-1/#comment-455</link>
		<dc:creator>El Sordo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/why-dawkins-thinks-hes-not-a-fundamentalist/#comment-455</guid>
		<description>Here follow some comments by Theo Hobson on atheism: I wish to disavow myself from them, they are not my views. But I have sympathy regards their direction. But I disagree with the generalism that he applies (and condemns) it is not atheism but certain atheists to whom this critique is relevant.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html

&quot;Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of &quot;rationality&quot;, will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called &quot;religion&quot;. This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here follow some comments by Theo Hobson on atheism: I wish to disavow myself from them, they are not my views. But I have sympathy regards their direction. But I disagree with the generalism that he applies (and condemns) it is not atheism but certain atheists to whom this critique is relevant.</p>
<p><a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html" rel="nofollow">http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/06/atheism_is_pretentious_and_cow.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is. And atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, the atheists will doubtless reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of &#8220;rationality&#8221;, will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history &#8211; a story of liberation from a harmful error called &#8220;religion&#8221;. This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

