Thoughts in a Haystack

Just a couple of data points from our friends up north:

Barry Cooper, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has an article arguing that the big bad "New Atheists" have recently become so loud because "they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion." Frankly, I can't figure this part out:

Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.

In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.

But it is clear (and silly) enough that Cooper thinks disputes over science can be reduced to "atheist Darwinians versus the Creationists of the supporters of Intelligent Design." Apparently, the fact that science cannot answer everything is enough to prove atheists wrong:

Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.

Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.

But when did wondering equal believing?

Speaking of which, there is this in from Edmonton: "Making a living of bullshit detecting," a sympathetic and respectful story about such skeptics as James Randi (who relates being thrown out of Sunday School as a child), Michael Shermer and Dr. Steven Novella. And nary a word about how "respectful" they are toward believers. In fact, Randi, asked "What's the harm in believing someone can mentally bend spoons or we can contact our dead loved ones through a medium, anyway?" replies:

Well, what's the harm of putting someone on heroin and supplying them for the rest of their lives?