One of these links took me to a blog titled “Sub Ratione Dei: A Balanced Victory” where I read some of the comments made about Richard Dawkins, and his book The God Delusion. In the post, I made the following comments:
A theology student who feels that, as a theology student he is more placed to talk about God than Dawkins. This is interesting as the God delusion is not about the Christian deity per se, but about the implications belief in a divine being have on humanity and the biological evidence which contradicts those beliefs. Maybe the author of Sub Ratione Dei feels that as a theology student they are more placed to discuss evolution and creationism than Dawkins.
Following my post here, the author of the Sub Ratione Dei blog has made the following response:
Update: This post has generated a little comment over on Why Don’t You … Blog? For one they are maybe taking me a bit too seriously (alway’s a mistake). However, I am perhaps more worried by the implicit message that I am a creationist!
Now, this isn’t the first time I have been challenged over an apparent mistake I made in a blog post, and it is unlikely to be the last, so I want to try and set the record straight here.
I didn’t think I had taken the Sub Ratione Dei post all that seriously and it was meant as humour then I apologise whole heartedly for my mistake. I never thought my post had made any implication about belief in creation, it was put in there with the evolution bit.
Critically, my comments about the Sub Ratione Dei blog post were quite minimal, I only pointed out that the Theologist felt he was better placed to discuss God than Richard Dawkins and that he was critiquing a book which he hadn’t read. The rest of the entry was a cut and paste from the original site. The God delusion book is not about a specific religion, although there are obvious Christian overtones, the principles made are equally sound if the religion in question was Zoroastrianism, Norse Gods, Roman Gods etc. Richard Dawkins may well be a “grumpy old man” but I am not so sure he has no idea what he is talking about.
Anyway, this post and the previous post, were not made with the intention of insulting anyone or starting a blog version of a flame war. I was simply aiming to highlight the disparate views which blogs with a certain tag can generate (in this instance it was Richard Dawkins). If I have caused any offence, then I do apologise.