Sigh. I wasn’t going to write about this.
It’s all happened before. Richard Dawkins publicly confronted a believer, in this case Killers frontman and believing Mormon Brandon Flowers. They slipped rhetoric past each other with predictable acrimony. Faith and reason collided! Beyond the huggability of Dawkins’ quarry, there isn’t anything new here.
Then, on Monday, Dawkins went on an hours-long twitter tirade (“twirade?” Yep, this is a thing) against Mitt Romney, arguing that belief in gold plates makes a person too gullible for public office. It pushed me over my irritation threshold, and I decided that I needed to write something, novel or otherwise. Let’s take a look at both incidents.
Dawkins v. Flowers
By now you probably know the story. The Killers were the musical guest on the Swedish/Norwegian show “Skavlan,” and the host interviewed Flowers prior to their performance. The discussion turned quickly to his Mormon faith, and after a few minutes of chit-chat about the dissonance of leather pants vs. shirts and ties, Richard Dawkins emerged from offstage, apparently for no other reason than to excoriate Flowers for Believing the Wrong Things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjwsG36XTZ8&feature=player_embedded
The folks over at Times and Seasons gave Flowers a hearty attaboy for his response — perhaps simply because he managed not to break down in tears — but I find the exchange cringe-worthy all around. Dawkins has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no idea how to engage productively with a believer, and this is no exception. But Flowers fails to exhibit even the slightest ability to convey his beliefs to non-Mormons. When questioned, he speaks in Mormon code — “You have to gain a testimony for yourself”, etc. — which is unintelligible to outsiders. To be sure, I cut Flowers a lot of slack. He didn’t ask to be a spokesman for Mormonism, and he appears understandably shaken by Dawkins’ presence, let alone his unbalanced assault. But it takes a pretty thick set of Mormon goggles — insert your urim and thummim joke here — to conclude that Flowers did anything but reinforce the polite-but-gullible Mormon stereotype.
Here’s the exchange, which begins around 9:55 in the embedded video. (A few interruptions, false starts, etc. have been edited out for clarity. )
Dawkins: There is far more beauty in the real understanding of the reality of nature than there is in reading some ancient book, or than reading some modern book, which is what the Book of Mormon is. I have to say that when I read the Book of Mormon — recently; I didn’t read it all — what impressed me was that it’s an obvious fake.
This statement slams the door on well-intentioned debate. Instead of leading with a piece of contrary evidence — some reason to disagree — Dawkins hits Flowers with a bald assertion. It signals both an unwillingness to consider challenges and the belief that Flowers is not only wrong, but also stupid. No wonder Flowers’ face contorts into a little sneer.
Dawkins: This is a 19th-century book, written in 16th-century English — “and it came to pass”, “verily I say unto you”, and things like that — that’s not the way people talked in the 19th century. It’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful. It’s a work of charlatanry.
That’s it? Pseudo-Jacobean English is your proof? I can think of five or six better challenges to Book of Mormon historicity off the top of my head — and I’m not even a professional anti-theist! This is weak — far too weak to tell an adherent of a faith you’ve only superficially studied that he is delusional.
Flowers: I have to say, the book’s been studied, and torn apart, and looked at, and — and I’m not one of the professors that have done it. But to call this man a charlatan, I do. I take offense to it.
Flowers takes his line from the Holland playbook: Smart LDS people have studied the Book of Mormon and refuted all challenges to its historicity. It’s insular, oh-so-Mormon, and completely contrary to the facts. Even if they are not irresistible, one cannot avoid that there remain credible challenges to Book of Mormon historicity.
Dawkins: But he was a convicted charlatan. He was a convicted con man.
Dawkins apparently refers to Joseph Smith’s 1826 trial for being a “disorderly person and an impostor” while treasure-hunting for Josiah Stowell’s silver mine. It’s rather circumstantial evidence against Mormonism, and there remains some controversy as to whether Joseph was actually convicted of anything, but Dawkins’ statement has basis in fact.
Flowers: No, no. These are all falsehoods. You should do your research.
Sorry, Brandon. You should do yours. Again he makes a particularly in-Mormonism statement: Criticisms are merely mean-spirited lies. But this approach isn’t credible to a non-Mormon audience, and it’s certainly not in keeping with the facts. All Flowers has done is make himself look defensive and uninformed.
Dawkins: Well, I think I have. [audience applause]
Someone in the Killers’ management must have been frantically working to get Flowers pulled offstage. Shortly after this point in the program, the host informed Flowers that he was needed backstage to “help get ready” for the musical part of the show.
Dawkins v. Romney
Now for the twirade. Dawkins’ tweets go as follows:
No matter how much you agree with Romney’s economic policy, can you really vote for such a massively gullible fool? He is a Mormon BISHOP!
Romney’s prophet Joseph Smith a fraud. Romney falls for it.
Bible & Koran genuinely old, written in the language of their time. Book of Mormon written by 19thC charlatan. Romney too stupid to see it.
And it came to pass that the lot was cast for Mitt and Mitt did verily reign in the land and there was rejoicing in the corridors of Mammon.
Dawkins, of course, finds Mormonism’s truth claims implausible. But it isn’t clear why Romney’s belief in what Dawkins finds implausible entails the intellectual deficiencies Dawkins sees in Romney. I suspect that Dawkins takes for granted that some things are too implausible for any halfway intelligent person to believe, and of course a less-than-halfway intelligent person is unfit for public office. That list, evidently, includes the truth claims of Mormonism.
Curiously, however, that list does not include mainstream Christianity, or at least liberal forms of it. Several readers challenged Dawkins on his failure to indict Barack Obama’s beliefs, to which Dawkins responded:
The fact that he professes Christianity means nothing. He’s an elected American politician and if you fail to profess some kind of religion you are not an elected American politician. Even if Obama is Christian (which I would estimate at about 50/50) he most certainly is not the kind of Christian who believes in Adam and Eve. If he is Christian, he is surely the kind of Christian who regards biblical “miracles” as “symbolic” or “metaphorical” rather than literally true.
In other words, Obama gets a pass because of context. America is a predominantly Christian country, so a smart man — one who seeks political office, at any rate — can be forgiven for believing in the ridiculous. At least, so long as it isn’t too ridiculous.
Christianity, even fundamentalist Christianity, is substantially less ridiculous than Mormonism (and Obama, if he is Christian at all, is certainly not fundamentalist). Christian scriptures are genuinely ancient… The Book of Mormon is not ancient and the language of its alleged “translation” is ludicrously anachronistic.
When we hear that a belief is ridiculous, the first thing we should ask ourselves is: ridiculous to whom? If we intend to infer a person’s intelligence from his or her beliefs, the question is not whether or not those beliefs are ridiculous to outsiders, but whether they are so ridiculous that there are no intelligent insiders. Dawkins “forgives” Obama his Christian beliefs because Christianity is not ridiculous to Americans, and there are plenty of smart people who profess it. Yet he is unwilling to do the same for Romney’s Mormonism. He should ask himself whether or not Mormonism is so implausible that it fails to retain intelligent adherents. Even a small sampling of Mormons would be enough to answer the question in the negative.
A few discussion questions:
- What would an ideal response from Flowers (or any believing Mormon) have looked like?
- How should a disbeliever who sees harmful aspects to religion participate in the public square?
As Brandon is neither a historian or a spokesperson for the Church, I don’t expect him to have obscure facts ready for unexpected question. He’s not an intellectul, he’s an artist. What struck me though is the sincerity of his beliefs and how he discusses his faith. It’s sort of remarkable to me that he is willing to discuss it at all given his profession and image. It seems that Brandon isn’t trying to put a spin on his belief, he simply says what he believes. I have been disappointed in how Mitt Romney discusses his faith. It feels like he hides from it while Brandon is just out there with it. And I imagine Mitt to be the more outwardly observant of the two and the poster child for what a successful believing Mormon should be. Like Hitchens, I find belief in Mormonisn to be quite illogical, but I believe we are free to adopt any narrative we wish and I admire people who are honest about their belief. Brandon’s has tremendous integrity in my eyes. I think Brandon did just fine. By the way, I really want to show the clip in Elder’s Quorum but I can’t decide if that will be pushing my luck too far.
I also felt sorry for Flowers. And it was pretty unprofessional of the producers of that show to set it up that way. What a strange coupling – Dawkins and, umm, Brandon Flowers. ? Whose idea was that?
For me, the best response for Brandon to have made would have involved him explaining the ways in which his personal experiences with Mormonism have helped him. Debating the chicanery of Joseph Smith at that point is just not helpful. There was no way for Flowers (or anyone else, for that matter) to “prove” that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw. The only argument, I think, is that Mormonism has been beneficial to him–it has helped him make sense of some of life’s big questions or it has helped him become a better person or it makes him happy.
Your second question is more difficult. I don’t know how a disbeliever should participate in conversations like these. I don’t know much about Dawkins, but I don’t like for people like him to try to convince others that they are right. It’s odd to me, in a way, because they seem to dislike that religious people have beliefs and they especially dislike religious people to try to persuade others to join them. But isn’t this what Dawkins himself is doing?
You’ve gotta love Dawkins for his willingness to let his humanity override his commitment to reason. It’s pretty funny to watch a man who claims to value cool rationality come unhinged and go all maddog at the mention of the word g-o-d. His grouchiness, irritability and general demeanor cause me to wonder whether he has a chronic toothache, or whether he is getting enough fiber in his diet. He is a much better scientist than he is a polemicist, and he doesn’t seem to get that. Just another reason to miss Hitch.
The best response for Flowers would have been to acknowledge that there is much about his religion that is irrational, just as there is with any other religion of even a set of irreligious asssumptions, for that matter. Example: Any plan for taking care of the poor, long term, has to take into account so many variables and unknowables that the only way to proceed forward is to rely on untested assumptions.
There are several ways for a non-theist to participate productively in public debate.
1. Pick on somebody your own size. I would pay good money to see a Lucha Libre cage match between Dawkins and Matt Bowman, for instance, and I think it would end with Bowman jumping off the top rope and bodyslamming Dawkins to the canvas. Bowman understands Dawkins better than Dawkins understands Bowman.
2. Display a measure of humility, or at least be willing to think that your interlocutor might understand some things that you don’t.
I don’t think that there was anything wrong with Brandon’s response. Brandon is right that Joseph Smith was never a convicted con man. He is right that Dawkins needs to do more research. Isn’t it kind of ridiculous that Dawkins thinks he has done his research when he even admits he didn’t read all of the Book of Mormon? What really annoyed me was how they set up the show. What was the thought process behind it? I’m sure Brandon just wanted to talk about his music. And then when he tries to defend his beliefs they pull him off so that Dawkins gets the last say.
I think Brandon’s best response would have been something like, “How can an obviously smart person like yourself think that something as rude as what you just said to me could possibly be convincing to me or help me in any way?”
That was a sad idea for an interview. Bring the religious guy on for 8 minutes, let him say he’s religious, then bring on a renowned atheist to dismiss religion, and follow it by telling the religious guy that it is time for him to play while you continue to discuss the folly of religion. Blech.
Loved this post. Brilliant summary of all the events. That is all. :)
I wish I wrote this. A very nice analysis of this conversation.
I may need to make my own blog post about this.
I wish Brandon Flowers had a more intelligent response, but thinking about it after the fact, I realized that the audience cheering didn’t care about an intelligent response, they cared that Brandon had conviction. Just like when people buy from sales people or vote for a candidate, the decisions are often not based on logic. They are based on emotion. So for Brandon to express his emotions and show his conviction was genius: “But to call this man a charlatan, I do. I take offense to it.” I am more logical and would have never thought to simply say, “Your words offend me.” The crowd loved it.
Dawkins attack itself is ridiculous.
Dawkins: “This is a 19th-century book, written in 16th-century English – “and it came to pass”, “verily I say unto you”, and things like that – that’s not the way people talked in the 19th century. It’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful. It’s a work of charlatanry.”
The Book of Mormon does not claim to be written in the 19th century. It claims to be written anciently and translated in the 19th century, through the power of God. So… it was translated into 16th-century English. The book never claims to be translated into 19th-century English. It was translated into the form of English that was consistent with scriptural language of the day, like the King James Bible which I believe was 16th-century. To call a book fake because it was translated into “scriptural English” is a pretty lame attack.
Brandon Flowers may not have “asked” to be a spokesman for Mormonism, but he did an “I’m a Mormon” video that has circulated widely on the internet (and the church’s mormon.org). He also seemed eager to talk about his faith until Dawkins (who can be acerbic) started challenging him.
I saw a picture on the internet last week with the caption, “If you faith can move mountains, then surely it can stand a little criticism.”
I think Flowers should have said, “I’m not going to argue about whether my church is ridiculous or not, all churches have ridiculousness in their histories, all I am is a man who is going with his gut and his heart, trying to be a good person, and this church is where I feel like I need to be.”
Then I would have said that I’m also a man who really likes music, and asked Dawkins who his favorite band was. :)
I agree. What the heck? No religious beliefs are “rational” or “prove-able.” Why try to pretend that they are?
I thought Brandon Flowers did just fine. He was gracious to go along and talk about his religion when he probably just thought he was there to promote the Killers.
There is a good chance he had no idea who Dawkins is (possibly hard for Dawkins or his neo-atheist fans to believe).
How could he have responded better? He could have just shrugged and said “whatever” and then boredly looked off indicating how irrelevant he found Dawkins’ opinions. (By the way, the commenter above is right — Joseph Smith was not a convicted con man –that’s an out of date criticism and therefore Brandon was unintentionally correct in his response to say it wasn’t true and that Dawkins should do his research. Still, though Brandon was technically correct, another commenter above was also right in noting that it was a cringeworthy moment because we can all assume that Brandon himself hasn’t done any real research about Mormon history.
As to Dawkins’ rant against Romney, it reveals why there is a lot of fear among Mormon leadership and religious people in general about the supposed “assault on religious freedom” because what Dawkins and his disciples are essentially saying is that certain people, in this case Mormons, should be disenfranchised from their political rights because of their religious beliefs. A lot of the alarmist rhetoric that comes from Church leaders on the topic of this supposed attack on religion can be frustrating or irritating where it is obvious how exaggerated it is but then Dawkins comes along and reminds everyone that his ideas do pose a real threat in the hands of legislators that are his disciples. Today they decide that Mormons’ beliefs are too dumb to allow those who hold them to hold political office. I’m not sure we can have confidence that they’ll stop with a greatly disliked marginal group like the Mormons. Success in disenfranchising Mormons would only serve as an encouraging first step and I would predict that it Woolf be soon followed by other legislative or executive judgments about whose beliefs are just beyond the pail.
By the way, is Dawkins aware that a New York court found Joseph Smith to be of sound mind and serious comportment in the process of assessing whether he, as a minor, could be a credible witness in a court proceeding?
What does reference either to his supposed conviction as a con man or his judicial determination of being able to stand as a credible witness
do to prove or disprove anything about the Book of Mormon?
Hi all, sorry for the delay. I’ll respond to as many of you as I can without repeating myself.
Sanford: I do appreciate Flowers’ sincerity. If the question is which of them came off as the “better man”, I certainly side with Flowers over Dawkins. But that sets a fairly low bar. Hope your EQ lesson went well!
Heather: I wonder if the “Mormonism has been beneficial to me” isn’t a non-starter for Flowers. Modern Mormonism seems to me too steeped in literal belief in the truth claims to tolerate the utilitarian approach. I’ve seen Mormons retreat to it in a pinch, but I don’t know that it would be an authentic expression of Flowers’ faith.
This is a topic I might explore in a later post, but I get annoyed when people object to others’ believing the wrong things. I’m worried more about their doing harmful things. When Dawkins objects to the harm done by religious institutions, I’m on his side. But when he decides that the panacea is for education to teach people The Truth, I roll my eyes and write angry blog posts.
Mark: In general I wish that smart people would stop assuming that they are loci of rationality. One’s belief necessarily relies on unfounded assumptions — some of them more unfounded than others, of course.
Definitely prefer Hitchens over Dawkins as polemicist. I wonder how strenuously you object to his chapter on Mormonism in God is not Great?
mapman: It is (probably) true that Smith was never convicted, but given the difficulty of constructing the events surrounding the 1826 trial, it’s not accurate to say that Dawkins’ statement is a lie. And I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Flowers doesn’t know much about this bit of history; he just reflexively asserts that it must be a lie.
I actually doubt that there was any malice in pulling Flowers off early. I suspect that either the producers or someone with The Killers saw it getting ugly and looked for an excuse to cut it short before it got (further) out of hand.
Carl: That will do.
Benjamin: Do you think the audience was cheering for Flowers? It seemed to me they were cheering for Dawkins once he said “I think I have [done my research].”
john f.: I dislike Dawkins’ rhetoric, but I don’t agree that he’s advocating for anyone’s disenfranchisement. The government cannot impose a religious test on elected officials, but voters can — and do with depressing consistency — carry out such a test in the ballot box. The real danger to religion is the danger of being spurned in the public square, and there’s no constitutional right to being taken seriously.
I don’t like Richard Dawkins’ theories. I don’t trust people who fault others to look good, I find that quite cunning. Brandon Flowers showed respect, he’s got more impression on me.
Brandon Flowers didn’t want to talk about his religion. He said it himself that the Killers are not a Mormon band, he likes to stay on neutral ground, by respect for his musicians. He’d probably talk to Richard Dawkins or whoever would want to listen to him, in private, as Brandon Flowers, not as the lead singer of the Killers if that makes sense. I can’t believe the amount of stupidity in people!
Did Brandon Flowers know they were going to ask him these questions beforehand? He seemed quite surprised to me! He’s been used to being told not to talk in details about his religion on tv, and it looks to me that he wasn’t prepared for that! it’s not because he’s not knowledgeable!
Thank you Brandon, great job. It’s pretty easy for us all to fall into the Monday morning quarterbacking fallacy, believing that if Hitchins or Flowers said this or that, it would’ve been better. I put myself in his shoes and marvel at how he handled the ambush. Typing on the internet is worlds apart from engaging in person on tv in front of an audience over a sensitive topic in a controversial set up. Very little have to do with faith or knowledge and more to do with personal courage, personality, and experience with situations like this.
Aside from that, Hitchins is coming at the world from the belief/ philosophy that there is no God. Flowers comes at life from a faith perspective. . . .and I believe that Jesus a convicted charlatan in his day, was he not? But this did not destroy his appointment as the Christ, the Son of God. Our opinions and debate abilities do not alter facts, although it can create that illusion in its ability to persuade people’s minds. Joseph’s name will be held for good and ill the world over. Thank you for fulfilling the impossible prophecy of an obscure farm boy all of 17 years old, that his name would be revered and ridiculed the world over.
Brandon Flowers was there to represent his band, not his religion. The whole interview was an evil trick to ridicule him. I feel for Brandon. It was a set up of the worst kind. He behaved admirably and we should support him.
“Evil trick”? You might consider getting your conspiratometer re-calibrated.
Unfortunately, I agree. Dawkins is not the trickster. Although, you could say that this show was in bad taste/ misjudged. The European audience is uncomfortable with organised religion to a large extent, I think, evidenced by the cheers.
What the hell???? Dawkins is a jerk!
@mary mary, you’re absolutely right! I was gonna write something like that, but you said it better!
Richard Dawkins, indeed an extremely intelligent man, is simply an asshole for doing this. I do love the man and his groundbreaking discoveries on and solidification of evolution. However, this was just extremely rude and disrespectful and he needs to stop attacking people’s faiths.
I’d expect if Richard Dawkins read this, he’d be none too concerned. I reckon that whether people think he’s an ‘ass/hole’ is low on his list of priorities. As it should be, for anyone seeking truth or social betterment.
I’m not always on his side, but I’m surprised by the extent on ‘ad hominem’ attacks on the man in general (and on this thread). Would we *really* prefer it if he took some lessons to help with his ‘PR’ image? He may have done, but it’s good (to my mind) that he has higher priorities.
He shook Flowers’ hand, apologised for the lack of an opportunity to respond – all seemed very civil. Dawkins always seems uncomfortable that he has to hurt people’s feelings all the time… Hitchens needed copious amounts of drink to do the same trick without squirming.
Didn’t have time to read the entire article, but I think Brandon does know what he is talking about. Dawkins clearly hasn’t done his research, and I would guess Brandon, the artist and Mormon, knows far more about poetry, the Book of Mormon etc, than Dawkins. Dawkins gives his best evidence that the BofM is an obvious fake (he repeats this several times) and his evidence is obviously disproven. Like Paul, and other followers of Christ, Joseph Smith was arrested many times, this proves nothing about the book of Mormon. Even leading anti-Mormons have been forced to admit that the so called 1826 trial was not a trial, and there is no valid evidence of a guilty conviction (can’t be one without a trial anyway) and if the trial proves anything, it proves Joseph had a miraculous gift, as the witnesses testified to that.
And, lastly, people have been trying to disprove the BofM for almost 200 years, every word has been examined, and the evidence only shows that the Book was not written by Joseph Smith, or anyone in the 19th Century. It predicts things far too accurately for that.
having watched the dawkins dance with flowers, i am glad he said what he said about the mans childish belief system, i only wish more atheists would do it. we need a new law from preventing parents from indoctronation of these childish myths upon our children, its outdated and incredibly embarresing in this modern world. . its a pity it wasnt richard carrier adressing flowers, as poor brandon would have been left in tears no doubt. dont respect religion ,rubbish it i say. lets teach our children how to think,not what to think.
Funny thing, I went to Dawkins website, searched Skavlan & posted a comment similar to mine below, asking why no one at the center for science and reason applies the scientific method when assessing the BofM. They immediately removed the comment and disabled my account. Guess they don’t appreciate questioning there : ). I sent a letter to the moderator hoping Dawkins would take the challenge to prove his claims with something more than the emotional mocking plea. What do yall predict???
I have no ill will towards Dawkins, Maher, and their followers, but I do find it interesting that none of them apply the scientific method while misinforming about Brandon’s BofM. I’m only a mechanic, but it seems a simple thing to me, yet none do it. Even if we pretend that the premises are proven (and they certainly aren’t: court records indicate the “convicted con-man” claim is a 19th Cent anti-Mormon fabrication, and antagonistic witnesses testified that Joseph had a gift; and other evidence indicates that 19th Cent. people did say “verily verily” etc.) still, they certainly don’t prove the BofM is fake.
I don’t think anyone should be too critical of BF. It’s easy to say after some cool reflection what could or should have been said, but Dawkins’ broadside was as rude and unexpected as it was ludicrous. For a man who claims to be a scientist who loves the truth he shows little regard for truth or a scientific approach. He may know his biology, but when did he become an expert on linguistics? Not that it matters, his point proved nothing anyway. I have to assume that his pursuit of biological knowledge is or was sound, but when he debates he seems hell bent on winning at any cost. But this wasn’t a debate. It was just a bare faced insult that came out of the blue. I think BF did well to have the presence of mind to say what he said and maintain his dignity. No doubt he has been over this a hundred times since and thought of all the things he might have said. But he shouldn’t have been put on the spot like that. It was disgusting.
BTW, I just looked up the definition of charlatan, just to be clear. According to the free dictionary it is “A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud”. Spot the Charlatan in that room.
Finally, I think it’s hypocritical for a person to say that the world is explained fully by science, or will be explained fully by science” (about 8:15 in the video), and then criticise others for their faith. No one has all the answers backed up with irrefutable proof – that would be perfect knowledge. Whatever you believe in, there is an unknown element. I think everyone has the right to believe what they want, but I also think that everyone should acknowledge that there is an element of faith in any belief system and not be so arrogant as to criticise others because they think the gaps in their belief systems are somehow superior to the gaps in others, It’s fine to discuss, and even debate, when you’re invited to, but that was not what happened here.
When faced with a liar and a charlatan, it is completely appropriate to speak the truth. That’s what Dawkins did. It is neither rude nor improper to point out that your conversation partner is mistaken on the facts.
Perhaps you are right, but I think you’re missing the point, everyone is trying to be nice, but since you say “When faced with a liar and a charlatan, it is completely appropriate to speak the truth…It is neither rude nor improper to point out that your conversation partner is mistaken on the facts.”
I will point out that it is Richard Dawkins who is mistaken on the facts. He is not telling the truth about Joseph Smith. I watched the Skavlan video on Richard’s RDFRS & pointed out that RD wasn’t telling us the truth &, since Richard feels the need to involve himself in matters of faith, I asked kindly if he, as a “scientist” would at least please use the scientific method when attacking religious minority groups. The response from RDFRS was to remove my comment before anyone could read it & then they disabled my account. I sent a letter wondering why, & they never responded.
I guess they haven’t reached the point of glasnost there yet ; )
So,perhaps we are all “faced with a liar and a charlatan” as you say, & it is RD : )
I couldn’t agree more with the bit about speaking the truth. Dawkins should pay more attention to the truth.
I infer (correct me if I’m wrong) that you think Flowers was lying? What did he say that was a lie? Flowers had merely stated some of his beliefs. Was that a lie? Even if you think his beliefs are mistaken, which you are entitled to, that’s a lot different from lying. Dawkins didn’t ‘point out that his conversation partner was mistaken on the facts’ he attacked Flower’s beliefs and his intelligence. It was uninvited, uncalled for, inappropriate and typical of Dawkins’ arrogance. No doubt it built his cachet among his fans though, and gave him an opportunity to hear his own woice, both of which seem to be very important to him..
If mister Flowers was a real Christian, wouldn’t he just had to turn the other cheek and forgive his enemy? But he was about to attack Dawkins because of a believe-system he himself clearly doesn’t understand or believe in, otherwise it would not even crossed his mind to do so.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” was it not? If he was so sure of his Mormonism, could he not just smilled and said : “You’re so gonna burn in hell, you sinner”. He is a poser or deluded, either way.