Richard Dawkins has stroke, Church prays for him

Playing naive and setting politics aside it seems a nice gesture. Probably genuine, although I don't believe it myself.

If he makes it 100% , theyll say "SEE? we told you"

If not , they can invoke
"God hears all our prayers, its just that he doesnt have to agree with em"

I wont lie, I dislike Dawkins because in my poor pov he doesn't seem smart enough to fit the position...I get pissed when people wont accept their rightful place in nature...nonetheless fact of the matter I found myself truly chocked with the news and feeling genuine sorry for him hopping he comes back fully restored...
For a person like me it gets really uncomfortable to be confronted with contradiction within our own feelings.
Religion will play the card of moral superiority of course but its a beaten to death horse....they always do that.

It's more than disrespectful, it's dangerous.

Are they deliberately trying to kill him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=

Hes done a lot for the popularization of "evo/devo" and has become a smart enough lightning rod. The only problems Ive had with him and Gould are that their own egaos seemed to trancend scientific interests.
Gould and his "Spandrels bullshit and dubious Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis" and the extreme anti- religiosity of Dawkins, doesnt help teachers of biology.

Gould was certainly overly impressed over his literary skills nd Dawkins is too busy scolding Christians.
I hope he recovers unmarked (strokes are a chronic rather than acute illness lately).

I've never understood the big hooraw about Dawkins. I understand that he is the very embodiment of the anti-christ for some of the holy rollers, but come on, Sam Harris is a much more vicious critic of organized religion. I wish Dawkins no ill, but he is nothing to me. To here the holy rollers talk, he is some sort of satanic recruiter for atheists. I was an atheist for what i consider good reasons decades before i had ever heard of Dawkins.

I hope he recovers. This is much ado about nothing, apart from his health problems.

By the way, it was interesting that while i was reading this thread and replying, Mary Hynes' program Tapestry--CBC's weekly program about religion--was playing on the radio. The guest this week was a was a woman who has a doctorate in Astrophysics from the University of Toronto, and who is a devout Christian. She got a job in Texas doing research, which eventually focused on climate change. While she was there, she met a man who was completing his doctorate in applied linguistics, and who is a evangelical minister. They fell in love and married. Early in the program she recounted how so many Christians she had met turn away from her as soon as she mentions climate change, and want nothing further to do with her. Apparently, he husband was unaware of, or rather had paid no attention to what she told him, and when the nickel finally dropped for him, he was dismayed. But she showed him data from NASA and other sources (the NASA data clinched it for him) and he came to accept that climate change is taking place. It was a very interesting program.

You can read about this woman, as well as listen to the episode, by clicking here.

The very notion that acceptance of climate change might be anathema to Christian believers is hard to comprehend.

I am aware of Dawkins because his name gets brought up in these threads. I have never read anything by him.

I am so lucky that I live in the UK, where the dear old C of E is such a broad church it can even accommodate atheists, or at least "process theologians" and Sea of Faith members. You have to remember that when contemplating the prayer tweet thing.

Me either. About him and Harris, yes, I've read a couple of articles and some posts here. Yawn.

On his health, I wish him a good recovery.

Heaven forfend that this innocent succour turn into a communion whine.

But I always enjoy gratuitous commentary wherever I find it.

Thank you for this damned if you do but less damned if you don't epistle.

Religion is a lot like mini-strokes an ounce of aspirin is worth a pound of cure.

81mg, actually.

Dawkins is a pioneer in promoting science, a true ideological warrior and an outstanding scientist. I wish him well.

Those who fail to recognize the elegance and profundity of Dawkins in defending science say that he is nothing to them.

Attacks on knowledge in general and science in particular are common among religious extremists. The most extreme form is to be found in those who say that the bible is the only book one ever need read. One can see how easily lead people in such a situation would be, and how very convenient this would be for those such as the Koch brothers who oppose the idea of climate change because they see it as threatening their energy industry profits. The issue of science versus religion has become highly politicized in the United States. Any politician would love to think that he had a flock who docilely follows its shepherd.

His position in the science of evolutionary biology was often misrepresented and , as an annoying splinter gets in the way of some tasks, Dawkins would strike out in "uncalibrated pro-active airstrikes". Hes chosen his targets and hes not given up for about 30 years. This can get as childish as some of our posters who trade insults for pages and pages

Much of the "evo philosophy" bullshit purveyors portray him with a couple of titles that show that many of these guys who talk in blogs dont have a clue about what they are spewing.
Dawkins had reminded them that it was Darwin himself who posed the " science sunrises" for whom many of the "noeveau-evo" philosophers are taking credit .

I am not questioning his work and career nor his motives on the war on Religion but the man is stiff and uncreative. He is a slow thinker although very careful. He seems methodical enough all right and semi competent in his work but I don't think he has a clear world view, I may be wrong. Dennet on the other hand is a generalist and a good thinker (bit messy) but he offers a grand view and is way more competent in dealing with general knowledge. For someone that is bound to offer the populace a trade off between Bible and Science Dennet is better equipped.

Of course Dawkins is not the ground-breaker on the origin of life, but he is one of the most powerful figures in awakening the public in understanding Darwin's science of life. Everybody with a modest scientific consciousness would understand him very well, unless you are a hick from farmlands of Pennsylvania.