Comments on: A Letter To Dominic Lawson

By: John

John — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:19:39 +0000

Interesting exchange, Jacob. I have to agree with you in doubting that Lawson paints an thorough picture of his religion.

By: Deep Thought

Deep Thought — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:36:29 +0000

Perhaps I am a little prone to assume a tone of mockery is aimed in the direction of religion in general rather than a particular author. So – sorry to leap to a conclusion.

By: Jacob Wintersmith

Jacob Wintersmith — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:38:43 +0000

You’re missing the point Deep Thought. I wasn’t trying to imply that religious people are ignorant of secular philosophy. Lawson’s article tries to defend moderate religion by painting it as nothing more than a secular philosophic group. If there really is such a “religion” as the one his article depicts, then it is quite compatible with atheism, and I don’t see any reason not to join. However, I doubted that Lawson was really giving complete picture of his religion.

For the record, Lawson writes:

I am not a religious person in any sense, but I am married to a Catholic and from time to time accompany her and our children to the local church. I see nothing happening there which causes me anger or even exasperation. I am also aware that very many people have a deep need for something transcendental in their lives: I am not inclined to ridicule them in their entirety.

Needless to say, I don’t plan to join the Catholic church anytime soon. And since Deep Thought does believe in all the mystic parts of Catholicism, I doubt he wants to see the Catholic church become nothing more than a non-mystical group for the study of ethics.

I can understand Lawson’s attitude toward moderate religion, but some people (such as “militant” atheists) care about the facts of the matter, and are rather annoyed by absurd beliefs and awful epistemology.

By: Deep Thought

Deep Thought — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:12:54 +0000

Uh, guys? It is, indeed, possible to be well-read in ethics, metaphysics, classical literature, etc. and actually believe the *cough* “mystic mess”. Descartes, anyone? How about Godel? See, I am a religious person; I hang out with religious people, teach theology to religious people, etc. We’re a well-educated bunch (per the census bureau the average Catholic has a higher education than the average unbeliever) and it is not uncommon to hear a parishioner discussing Aristotle or Kant with another Catholic, or to for a priest to give a well-attended lecture on some philosophical topic.

Please be careful that your prejudices don’t overcome the facts.

By: Jacob Wintersmith

Jacob Wintersmith — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:17:01 +0000

Really, I don’t think Lawson is being honest with himself. He needs to make up his mind whether he actually believes any of the mystic mess which goes along with the Abrahamic faiths, or whether he is just (as the article suggests) a member of an ethics discussion group which coincidentally happens to meet in a church on Sunday mornings. In the former case, many of Dawkins’s criticisms most certainly do apply to him; in the latter, he should just come clean, and switch from wine to espresso.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:37:05 +0000

Excellent. I love how you compliment his level-headedness and intelligence, while at the same time pointing out a flaw in his article (namely he is unusual for a religious person and not a member of the group of people Dawkins is criticizing)

By: Jacob Wintersmith

Jacob Wintersmith — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:16:35 +0000

Mr Lawson replies to me: “Very droll, Mr Wintersmith.”

Apparently, this is some sort of joke. I’m still not sure who is joking whom, but I’m very disappointed either way: I could really go for some sacramental espresso right now.