# The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/61 "2009-02-13T14:58:36Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You’re missing the point. The claim was made that appealing to authority “is always lame.” If one truly believes that (which I don’t), then one should have serious problems with citing Dawkins as an authority on evolution – or anything else. > > Again, I am NOT arguing against his views on evolution, though I do think that some of his views are pretty ridiculous (memes, anyone?). Rather, I am pointing out that it’s foolish to say that one should never appeal to authority. Educated people do it all the time, and rightfully so. I’m not aware of anybody appealing to Dawkins’ authority to prove evolution. Dawkins himself certainly does not try to use his post as his cite when it comes to evolution. Dawkins presents his data and subjects himself to peer review just like any other scientist. Now, people may refer to credentialed experts as a kind of short hand, but that refernce is never really to authority alone since the person has to have already proven what they’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/62 "2009-02-13T15:01:53Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Ignorance is ignorance. I’m sure that some people are delighted by the rise in atheism – giddy, in fact. If this rise can be attributed to the kind of sloppy thinking and “pop atheism” that Dawkins promotes though, is that truly something to be proud of? > > Skeptics often ridicule theists as being ignorant and using sloppy argumentation. Whether such criticisms are deserved or not, how can one persist in such criticisms and yet condone the kind of musings that Dawkins promotes – musings that make professional philosophers positively cringe? I have yet to see anything Dawkins says which is logically “sloppy” when it comes to refuting arguments for sky gods. I think he’s wasting his time when he goes after religion as an institution, but in the pure EOG debate, there’s nothing sloppy about him. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/63 "2009-02-13T15:06:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not a view that _needs_ to be addressed. It’s logically fallacious on its face. Sez you. But it’s a standard Christian view, dating back centuries. If Dawkins is going to engage theism, he should deal with the views they actually hold. He could have, thus, spent a measly paragraph on it. One suspects, though, that he wasn’t even \*aware \*that this is a view held by many religious philosophers and theologians. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/64 "2009-02-13T15:11:27Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > He spelled out here, in just two paragraphs, the ENTIRE argument for atheism (yes, Aquinas managed to say in just two paragraphs what it’s taken Richard Dawkins 5 books to say): > > * * * > > \*\*Article 3. Whether God exists? > Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. > > Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence. \*\* > > * * * > [@Thomas Aquinas](#): > > Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good. > > Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article. I’m not even close to a philosopher, and I can tell you right now that these replies are lame. They basically say, “God exists, therefore these objections to his existence are wrong.” And Dawkins only wrote one book on atheism – supplemented by plenty of articles and interviews, but only one book. The rest are about biology. Finally, as Diogenes said, you don’t need to argue _for_ atheism, anymore than you need to argue _against_ unicorns, or fairies, or invisible teapots orbiting the sun. Until there is evidence, the default is that they don’t exist. In this way, the existence of Bigfoot, UFOs, etc, are all more plausible than God, because they at least have a modicum of evidence (however poor) in their favor. And I’m afraid you are mistaken if you think the existence of evil and natural laws are the ONLY arguments against God. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/65 "2009-02-13T15:22:56Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > And don’t get me started on E.O. Wilson’s “refutation” of the naturalistic fallacy. Ever since I read “Principia Ethica” I have hated the so-called naturalistic fallacy. Possibly I hate it because for me it is associated with moral realism, but, whatever. Its the sux0rs. Even if you don’t approve of the refutation, do you know a good source that would discuss this? Doesn’t have to be online. Thx. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/66 "2009-02-13T16:31:54Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > Okay, so here’s a standard complaint about Dawkins. IMO the centerpiece of Dawkins’ work is the [ultimate 747 argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit), which (in a nutshell) is this: if you think something complex like the universe requires a designer, then surely God needs a designer, too. The standard theological rebuttal to this would be that God is simple, not complex. Now the idea that God is simple runs into serious difficulties, I believe. But Dawkins never engages this view or even shows that he is \*aware \*of it. Actually, I seem to remember that he does argue that a god as defined in Abrahamic tradition is necessarily complex, since he must have knowledge of everything that’s going on in the universe, thus every event needs some representation within god’s mind (though I’m not actually sure if that’s in The God Delusion or from somewhere else, it’s been a while since I read it). Anyway, pretty much all such refutations (as, coincidentally, Aquinas’ proofs as well, and generally all forms of pleading for a special status for god) only work, I think, because they assume a contradiction, as **Indistinguishable** has pointed out pretty much at the start of this thread – by claiming that every physical object is subject to certain rules, yet god isn’t; everything that follows is then trivial. Spelling this out a little, assuming that ‘every thing that has existence has property x’ and ‘there is one thing that has existence that doesn’t have property x’ – which is IMO what’s being done here, in asserting that god doesn’t need to be complex, while ‘everything else’ would have to be – means that you can show everything to be true. Of course, you’ll know this already, so I guess I’ve probably made a blunder somewhere in my argument, but again – this is just the kind of thing I’d like to be shown; I always seem to hit kind of a brick wall when trying to follow this argumentation through. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/67 "2009-02-13T16:50:07Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Ever since I read “Principia Ethica” I have hated the so-called naturalistic fallacy. Possibly I hate it because for me it is associated with moral realism, but, whatever. Its the sux0rs. Even if you don’t approve of the refutation, do you know a good source that would discuss this? Doesn’t have to be online. Thx. Sure, although I might not get a chance to look until I get back to my office on Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/68 "2009-02-13T16:52:33Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Actually, I seem to remember that he does argue that a god as defined in Abrahamic tradition is necessarily complex, since he must have knowledge of everything that’s going on in the universe, thus every event needs some representation within god’s mind (though I’m not actually sure if that’s in The God Delusion or from somewhere else, it’s been a while since I read it). You may be right; I read the book when it first came out, and so have lost a lot of the details, too. I don’t specifically remember that argument, though (which doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, of course). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/69 "2009-02-13T17:03:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I have yet to see anything Dawkins says which is logically “sloppy” when it comes to refuting arguments for sky gods. Yes, you’ve made it clear that you don’t see such things. Personally, I agree with Michael Ruse, one of the foremost atheistic debaters of our time, when he says, “It is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly - and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims - the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for “downright awful.” [. . .] It is simply that it (and the other works, some of which I have gone after elsewhere) is not very good. For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth.” Again, this is taken from Ruse’s review in the aforementioned review of ISIS. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/70 "2009-02-13T17:11:20Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Yes, you’ve made it clear that you don’t see such things. Personally, I agree with Michael Ruse, one of the foremost atheistic debaters of our time, when he says, > > “It is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly - and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims - the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for “downright awful.” [. . .] It is simply that it (and the other works, some of which I have gone after elsewhere) is not very good. For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth.” > > Again, this is taken from Ruse’s review in the aforementioned review of ISIS. Knowledge of philosphy and theology are irrelevant to debating the existence of God. Theology, in particular, is all made up and all stems from presuming the existence of god or gods in question. Protesting that Dawkins doesn’t know theology is like saying you can’t argue against the existence of vampires if you’ve never watched _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/71 "2009-02-13T17:30:29Z")
Exactly, I’m not seeing the real need to be well-versed in philosophy to understand that the claims like those found in the Bible are moronic. And how on Earth do you describe yourself as “pretty atheistic” about Christianity? Either accept Christianity as is, or recognize that some guy getting nailed to a tree, two thousand years ago, then suddenly “resurrecting”, didn’t happen. He’s saying that there’s a chance this may have happened? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/72 "2009-02-13T17:43:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Dawkins is not one of the people who typically does that, though he does skirt a little close in some of his broadsides against organized religion as a whole. He does a lot more than “skirt a little close” with this. Half of what he says is blaming religion for one evil or another. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/73 "2009-02-13T17:52:22Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > He does a lot more than “skirt a little close” with this. Half of what he says is blaming religion for one evil or another. That’s true, but it’s not technically intended to be a refutation of arguments for the existence of God. Dawkins has two prongs: “There is no reason to believe that God exists.” and “Religion as an institution hurts society.” His first prong is solid,a nd none of his critics really even try to approach it. Every critique I’ve seen focuses on the second prong which is far more vulnerable, but defeating it doesn’t prove he’s wrong about the first prong. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/74 "2009-02-13T18:14:36Z")
Too many people think that a purely academic critique of religion would get them further by appealing to a religionist’s logic and reason than some well-timed attacks. Thats bullshit, religionists are irrational by definition. I like Dawkins and find his insults refreshing in a world where atheists are thought of as evil. I suspect that there is a great deal of people less enamored of his methods than his credentials and refuse to welcome him because he rubs people the wrong way. I read the God Delusion a long time ago and if he has missed arguments that he should have made, so what? No book fully encompasses the subject when the subject is as broad as religion. His included attacks on religion are sound, and his refutations of religion is logical ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/75 "2009-02-13T18:21:42Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > How does he do the cause more harm than good? > > There’s more atheists now than ever, and “pop atheism”, along with better levels of education, goes a long way to explaining that trend. Who really has the intellectual training to get involved with the philosophical nitty-gritty of debates over epistemology, meta-physics, etc.? Who amongst those that are so trained are really being swayed by Dawkins, anyway? > > True, Dawkins may not be philosophical rigorous, but neither are his arguments vacuous, and his rhetoric is precisely what is needed to appeal to a wide audience. It’s not just the rigor or lack thereof in his arguments, it’s that he encourages militancy about it - in fact, I googled ‘militant atheism’ to see if the term had any use, and the second result was a Dawkins talk. He definitely raises the prominence of atheism with his methods, but it makes more enemies than converts. In particular, among his goals is to reduce the political and cultural influence of religion, but he apparently hasn’t figured out that mocking condescension towards religion is counterproductive, because most of the people in positions of influence over the subject aren’t atheists! The last thing atheism needed was a frontman who reinforces the aggressive anti-religion bogeyman stereotype. But as for rigor and theology and such things, while it’s true that strictly speaking they aren’t logically necessary, presumably if he wants to expand atheism instead of merely preaching to the converted, he is going to be speaking to people of religion. Laying out why what a person believes is wrong has a chance of being convincing; comparing the whole business to space teapots and insulting the reader is not. The audience he’s appealing to now is only the audience that was already there. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/76 "2009-02-13T18:34:37Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > In particular, among his goals is to reduce the political and cultural influence of religion, but he apparently hasn’t figured out that mocking condescension towards religion is counterproductive, because most of the people in positions of influence over the subject aren’t atheists! I disagree. Religious belief systems still largely get a free ride in the sphere of public debate. Theist don’t feel any pressure to justify their position the way that other ideologies do. I don’t think Dawkins intent is to convert anyone by mocking religion. Rather he’s trying to puncture the protective bubble that prevents religion from being openly debated and critiqued. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/77 "2009-02-13T18:38:15Z")
> [@Rolken](#): > > Laying out why what a person believes is wrong has a chance of being convincing; comparing the whole business to space teapots and insulting the reader is not. The audience he’s appealing to now is only the audience that was already there. The teapot analogy comes from Bertrand Russell, not Dawkins (though Dawkins discusses it in his book), and there’s nothing insulting about it to anyone who understands it. Its absurdity is designed to make a point about unfalsifiable claims. It’s a perfectly sound analogy, not an _ad hominem_, and no theist interested in an honest debate should feel insulted unless they can actually demonstrate why their own unfalsifiable claims are more valid. People don’t get angry at stuff like the teapot and the FSM because they’re insulting, but because they’re so effective at highlighting the weaknesses of the religionists’ own assertions. Atheists are just supposed to accept that sky gods are less absurd than spaghetti monsters, but religionists never give a reason why. Until they can demonstrate a difference, they have no justification for saying they’ve been insulted. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/78 "2009-02-13T18:40:41Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Yes, you’ve made it clear that you don’t see such things. Personally, I agree with Michael Ruse, one of the foremost atheistic debaters of our time, when he says, > > “It is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly - and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims - the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for “downright awful.” [. . .] It is simply that it (and the other works, some of which I have gone after elsewhere) is not very good. For a start, Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). [. . .] Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth.” > > Again, this is taken from Ruse’s review in the aforementioned review of ISIS. So what specifically has Dawkins said that brings you to the conclusion that he promotes sloppy thinking? ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/79 "2009-02-13T18:49:58Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > I disagree. Religious belief systems still largely get a free ride in the sphere of public debate. Theist don’t feel any pressure to justify their position the way that other ideologies do. Yeah, religious belief systems get a free ride, just like capitalism and democracy. You may argue that the merits are different, but (at least in the US) atheism is so obviously corrosive to so many people, and its proponents so morally inferior, that for a public figure to even suggest debating it is going to knock his credibility down a few notches. Dawkins is definitely not changing that. ---
**Author:** ![Rolken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df788c/32.png) [@Rolken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rolken)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/80 "2009-02-13T18:55:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The teapot analogy comes from Bertrand Russell, not Dawkins (though Dawkins discusses it in his book), and there’s nothing insulting about it to anyone who understands it. Its absurdity is designed to make a point about unfalsifiable claims. It’s a perfectly sound analogy, not an _ad hominem_, and no theist interested in an honest debate should feel insulted unless they can actually demonstrate why their own unfalsifiable claims are more valid. People don’t get angry at stuff like the teapot and the FSM because they’re insulting, but because they’re so effective at highlighting the weaknesses of the religionists’ own assertions. Atheists are just supposed to accept that sky gods are less absurd than spaghetti monsters, but religionists never give a reason why. Until they can demonstrate a difference, they have no justification for saying they’ve been insulted. I wasn’t referring to the teapot business specifically as being insulting, nor claiming that it was originated by Dawkins. (Honestly I had forgotten whether it specifically was even in the book, I was just using it as a stand-in for all such comparisons.) But do you really not think Dawkins is insulting? Or were you just making a point about the teapot? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=5)