Dawkins and Quote Mining: A Clear Example

[guacamole]

First of all, forgive me if this topic has been discussed in the context of Dawkins elsewhere--it is new to me. In addition, Please note that I do not intend this to be a slam against anyone involved in the other thread, no matter the “click-baity” nature of the title. I simply intend this as a good, clear example of what “quote mining” ought to mean. With a certain eerie synchronicity, I had returned to reading Dawkins’s God Delusion (chapter 4) just as last week’s debate about “quote mining” had broken out. Chapter 4 of the God Delusion contains an egregious example of this, a text that I had flagged as necessary for further review--a quote by Augustine posted supporting Dawkins’s contention that one of religion’s chief sins is the killing of curiosity. Dawkin’s renders it this way (with context for support, and of course, irony). Note that here, I’ve rendered Augustin’s quote in a nested box for clarity; it does not appear as such in Dawkins’s text:

A lot more work needs to be done [understanding the development of supposedly irreducibly complex organs], of course, and I’m sure it will be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy default such as ‘intelligent design theory’ would encourage. Here is the message that an imaginary ‘intelligent design theorist’ might broadcast to scientists: ‘If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.’ St Augustine said it quite openly:

‘There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.’

(quoted in Freeman 2002).

I was suspicious of the quote, as we all ought to be about quotes in any polemical text, simply because, while on the face of it, “secrets of nature” in the quote could superficially mean “the scientific mechanisms (biology, geology, what have you) of the natural world,” I know that in Latin, several words can be translated as “secret”; eg., occultus: hidden with an added connotation of secrecy; secretum: separated or hidden, as in a secret given to only a few; and arcanus: hidden, secret, private, with a connotation of mysteriousness. That’s quite the loaded set of words, isn’t it? And were Augustine to choose one over another, it might change how we interpret the meaning of the lines given.

To my embarrassment, I must admit I was being too fancy. I was right, but for the wrong reason. It’s not that Dawkins isn’t up to snuff on his Latin vocabulary (I myself am a dilettante-don’t go asking me for anything more than simple etymologies!), but that Dawkins is guilty of quote mining.

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

Now, I’m not willing to sign off on every part of the blog. I don’t know what kind of background the speaker has, and I’m not willing to defend everything else he says (or, even anything else he says. I simply haven’t read it!). But his guidance on Augustine rang true; if you follow his reasoning about the quote, you will find several quotes where he highlights the quote as rendered by Dawkins, et.al., and then provides the context of Augustine’s text. The demonstration is dramatic, and I urge you consider it.

The point is that the context of the passage isn’t about Augustine saying that we shouldn’t have scientific curiosity, but instead, that we should be aware of our habit to be interested in experience for the sake of experience, and spectacle for the sake of spectacle (that is, be mentally disciplined); and, in addition, that the “secrets of nature” (and here this is some indication Augustine means something like astrology) cannot help us understand our place in the world any better than understanding our place in relation to God. And that all sounds about as lately post-Classical, and stolidly Grecco-Roman (as opposed to necessarily Christian) as you’d expect from a period philosopher.

Dawkins’s quote mining here is egregious and blatantly dishonest--and that is the standard to which I think we ought to hold each other. Rather than scoring rhetorical points through a dismissive short hand, demonstrate why the other is wrong and leave out the labels, pejorative and unhelpful as they are to effective discourse.

Yours truly,
Joel

[Doug Shaver]

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

Now, I’m not willing to sign off on every part of the blog. I don’t know what kind of background the speaker has, and I’m not willing to defend everything else he says (or, even anything else he says. I simply haven’t read it!). But his guidance on Augustine rang true;

I'll check the link when I can. Right now I'm on a network that, for reasons known only to the administrators, blocks that site.

if you follow his reasoning about the quote, you will find several quotes where he highlights the quote as rendered by Dawkins, et.al., and then provides the context of Augustine’s text.

We shall see. In the meantime, I note that whenever I hear "It rings true," it always seems to mean, "It tells me exactly what I want to hear."

[Carrikature]

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

It's sad that you couldn't just link to Augustine's Confessions, which was linked in the blog you referenced. If you read that yourself, I think you'd find your blog author is taking his own liberties with interpretation.

The point is that the context of the passage isn’t about Augustine saying that we shouldn’t have scientific curiosity, but instead, that we should be aware of our habit to be interested in experience for the sake of experience, and spectacle for the sake of spectacle (that is, be mentally disciplined); and, in addition, that the “secrets of nature” (and here this is some indication Augustine means something like astrology) cannot help us understand our place in the world any better than understanding our place in relation to God. And that all sounds about as lately post-Classical, and stolidly Grecco-Roman (as opposed to necessarily Christian) as you’d expect from a period philosopher.

This isn't accurate, even in context.

To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. The seat whereof being in the appetite of knowledge, and sight being the sense chiefly used for attaining knowledge, it is in Divine language called The lust of the eyes. For, to see, belongeth properly to the eyes; yet we use this word of the other senses also, when we employ them in seeking knowledge. For we do not say, hark how it flashes, or smell how it glows, or taste how it shines, or feel how it gleams; for all these are said to be seen. And yet we say not only, see how it shineth, which the eyes alone can perceive; but also, see how it soundeth, see how it smelleth, see how it tasteth, see how hard it is. And so the general experience of the senses, as was said, is called The lust of the eyes, because the office of seeing, wherein the eyes hold the prerogative, the other senses by way of similitude take to themselves, when they make search after any knowledge.

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

The reasoning is made pretty clear further on:

For when our heart becomes the receptacle of such things, and is overcharged with throngs of this abundant vanity, then are our prayers also thereby often interrupted and distracted, and whilst in Thy presence we direct the voice of our heart to Thine ears, this so great concern is broken off by the rushing in of I know not what idle thoughts.

It's not at all about being unable to better understand our place with God, nor is it saying we are interested in the experience for the sake of experience. He's explicitly stating it as a distraction from God.

[rogue06]

First of all, forgive me if this topic has been discussed in the context of Dawkins elsewhere--it is new to me. In addition, Please note that I do not intend this to be a slam against anyone involved in the other thread, no matter the “click-baity” nature of the title. I simply intend this as a good, clear example of what “quote mining” ought to mean. With a certain eerie synchronicity, I had returned to reading Dawkins’s God Delusion (chapter 4) just as last week’s debate about “quote mining” had broken out. Chapter 4 of the God Delusion contains an egregious example of this, a text that I had flagged as necessary for further review--a quote by Augustine posted supporting Dawkins’s contention that one of religion’s chief sins is the killing of curiosity. Dawkin’s renders it this way (with context for support, and of course, irony). Note that here, I’ve rendered Augustin’s quote in a nested box for clarity; it does not appear as such in Dawkins’s text:

A lot more work needs to be done [understanding the development of supposedly irreducibly complex organs], of course, and I’m sure it will be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy default such as ‘intelligent design theory’ would encourage. Here is the message that an imaginary ‘intelligent design theorist’ might broadcast to scientists: ‘If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.’ St Augustine said it quite openly:

‘There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.’

(quoted in Freeman 2002).

I was suspicious of the quote, as we all ought to be about quotes in any polemical text, simply because, while on the face of it, “secrets of nature” in the quote could superficially mean “the scientific mechanisms (biology, geology, what have you) of the natural world,” I know that in Latin, several words can be translated as “secret”; eg., occultus: hidden with an added connotation of secrecy; secretum: separated or hidden, as in a secret given to only a few; and arcanus: hidden, secret, private, with a connotation of mysteriousness. That’s quite the loaded set of words, isn’t it? And were Augustine to choose one over another, it might change how we interpret the meaning of the lines given.

To my embarrassment, I must admit I was being too fancy. I was right, but for the wrong reason. It’s not that Dawkins isn’t up to snuff on his Latin vocabulary (I myself am a dilettante-don’t go asking me for anything more than simple etymologies!), but that Dawkins is guilty of quote mining.

I started checking and found a couple of blogs that get at the root of the matter. One of them was especially useful:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-...arship/33.html

Now, I’m not willing to sign off on every part of the blog. I don’t know what kind of background the speaker has, and I’m not willing to defend everything else he says (or, even anything else he says. I simply haven’t read it!). But his guidance on Augustine rang true; if you follow his reasoning about the quote, you will find several quotes where he highlights the quote as rendered by Dawkins, et.al., and then provides the context of Augustine’s text. The demonstration is dramatic, and I urge you consider it.

The point is that the context of the passage isn’t about Augustine saying that we shouldn’t have scientific curiosity, but instead, that we should be aware of our habit to be interested in experience for the sake of experience, and spectacle for the sake of spectacle (that is, be mentally disciplined); and, in addition, that the “secrets of nature” (and here this is some indication Augustine means something like astrology) cannot help us understand our place in the world any better than understanding our place in relation to God. And that all sounds about as lately post-Classical, and stolidly Grecco-Roman (as opposed to necessarily Christian) as you’d expect from a period philosopher.

Dawkins’s quote mining here is egregious and blatantly dishonest--and that is the standard to which I think we ought to hold each other. Rather than scoring rhetorical points through a dismissive short hand, demonstrate why the other is wrong and leave out the labels, pejorative and unhelpful as they are to effective discourse.

Yours truly,
Joel

I don't recall Augustine being against scientific inquiry. It seems to go against so much he has written.

For instance in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") Augustine wrote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

This sentiment is expressed elsewhere in different ways by Augustine. Again in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

In Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Reply to Faustus the Manichaean"):

In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.

One other thing to consider is that Augustine in his Confessiones ("Confessions") castigates Manichæus (the founder of Manichaeism) and some of his followers (particularly one of their bishops Faustus of Mileve) for "impudently dar[ing] to teach" on things he knew nothing about and their utter ignorance of scientific matters saying

For their books are full of lengthy fables concerning the heaven and stars, the sun and moon, and I had ceased to think him able to decide in a satisfactory manner what I ardently desired—whether, on comparing these things with the calculations I had read elsewhere, the explanations contained in the works of Manichæus were preferable, or at any rate equally sound? But when I proposed that these subjects should be deliberated upon and reasoned out, he very modestly did not dare to endure the burden. For he was aware that he had no knowledge of these things, and was not ashamed to confess it.

It was for these reasons that Augustine ended up abandoning Manichaeism and embracing Christianity.

[guacamole]

It's sad that you couldn't just link to Augustine's Confessions, which was linked in the blog you referenced. If you read that yourself, I think you'd find your blog author is taking his own liberties with interpretation.

Sad? Strange. I didn't link to the Confessions because I didn't want to duplicate the blogger's work and take some credit for it--I actually wanted and am glad that you and others read his post; however, think what you wish.

As far the interpretation goes, it might be that both the author of the blog and I both are wrong about interpreting Augustine--I'm not well read in post-- classical and early medieval philosophy. It seemed to make sense given what I read of the translation. At any rate, that's not really the point here.

Regardless of whether the bogger and I are wrong, the issue is that the passage, as cited in Dawkins, Freeman, et. al., does not appear in that form in Augustine. It is a fictitious passage. Dawkins doesn't even maintain the more honest ellipses that other writers (might have?) used (again, I don't know. I don't have access to Freeman. If someone else does, feel free to provide the representative passage.). In addition, whatever the passage might mean, it isn't a clarion call against scientific inquiry-- that much is at least clear in the context from the passage about seeking out the spectacle of freaks or magical conjurations in theater. From the passage you cited:

For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by.

This isn't accurate, even in context.

To this is added another form of temptation more manifoldly dangerous. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which consisteth in the delight of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves, who go far from Thee, waste and perish, the soul hath, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, not of delighting in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. The seat whereof being in the appetite of knowledge, and sight being the sense chiefly used for attaining knowledge, it is in Divine language called The lust of the eyes. For, to see, belongeth properly to the eyes; yet we use this word of the other senses also, when we employ them in seeking knowledge. For we do not say, hark how it flashes, or smell how it glows, or taste how it shines, or feel how it gleams; for all these are said to be seen. And yet we say not only, see how it shineth, which the eyes alone can perceive; but also, see how it soundeth, see how it smelleth, see how it tasteth, see how hard it is. And so the general experience of the senses, as was said, is called The lust of the eyes, because the office of seeing, wherein the eyes hold the prerogative, the other senses by way of similitude take to themselves, when they make search after any knowledge.d

But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of.

The reasoning is made pretty clear further on:

For when our heart becomes the receptacle of such things, and is overcharged with throngs of this abundant vanity, then are our prayers also thereby often interrupted and distracted, and whilst in Thy presence we direct the voice of our heart to Thine ears, this so great concern is broken off by the rushing in of I know not what idle thoughts.

It's not at all about being unable to better understand our place with God, nor is it saying we are interested in the experience for the sake of experience. He's explicitly stating it as a distraction from God.

It may not be accurate in the immediate context, but I know enough of Augustine, especially book X in the Confessions, that man's relationship to God is a central to his thought. In addition, I also have read enough of him to know that the whole of the Confessions deals with his apostasy, dalliance with other belief systems, and coming to a proper understanding of who he is to God.

Again though, you're trying to rescue Dawkins here by pointing out that I am wrong. So be it. I'm not interested in having a pissing contest with you (or anyone else, for that matter) over the interpretation of Augustine. If you look at the sloppiness or dishonesty in Dawkins's quote, you'll see that my original point--to give a rock solid example of quote mining--stands.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

I don't recall Augustine being against scientific inquiry. It seems to go against so much he has written.

For instance in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") Augustine wrote

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

This sentiment is expressed elsewhere in different ways by Augustine. Again in "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

In Contra Felicem Manichaeum ("Reply to Faustus the Manichaean"):

In the Gospel we do not read that the Lord said: I send you the Holy Spirit so that He might teach you all about the course of the sun and the moon. The Lord wanted to make Christians, not astronomers. You learn at school all the useful things you need to know about nature. It is true that Christ said that the Holy Spirit will come to lead us into all truth, but He is not speaking there about the course of the sun and the moon. If you think that knowledge about these things belongs to the truth that Christ promised through the Holy Spirit, then I ask you: how many stars are there? I say that such things do not belong to Christian teaching...whereas you affirm that this teaching includes knowledge about how the world was made and what takes place in the world.

One other thing to consider is that Augustine in his Confessiones ("Confessions") castigates Manichæus (the founder of Manichaeism) and some of his followers (particularly one of their bishops Faustus of Mileve) for "impudently dar[ing] to teach" on things he knew nothing about and their utter ignorance of scientific matters saying

For their books are full of lengthy fables concerning the heaven and stars, the sun and moon, and I had ceased to think him able to decide in a satisfactory manner what I ardently desired—whether, on comparing these things with the calculations I had read elsewhere, the explanations contained in the works of Manichæus were preferable, or at any rate equally sound? But when I proposed that these subjects should be deliberated upon and reasoned out, he very modestly did not dare to endure the burden. For he was aware that he had no knowledge of these things, and was not ashamed to confess it.

It was for these reasons that Augustine ended up abandoning Manichaeism and embracing Christianity.

Really well done!

fwiw,
guac.

[Carrikature]

Again though, you're trying to rescue Dawkins here by pointing out that I am wrong. So be it. I'm not interested in having a pissing contest with you (or anyone else, for that matter) over the interpretation of Augustine. If you look at the sloppiness or dishonesty in Dawkins's quote, you'll see that my original point--to give a rock solid example of quote mining--stands.

What are you on about, guac? I'm not trying to rescue anyone. I never said Dawkins or Freeman did it properly. However, you could have simply shown that Dawkins and Freeman did it wrong by quoting Augustine directly. That would have been more than sufficient, and wouldn't involve any blog readings or anything else. That's why I said it's sad. Better to quote Augustine directly than pull in a questionable third party.

[guacamole]

What are you on about, guac? I'm not trying to rescue anyone. I never said Dawkins or Freeman did it properly. However, you could have simply shown that Dawkins and Freeman did it wrong by quoting Augustine directly. That would have been more than sufficient, and wouldn't involve any blog readings or anything else. That's why I said it's sad. Better to quote Augustine directly than pull in a questionable third party.

I think I explained well enough that I wasn't going to take credit for someone else's work. That felt dishonest. As for what I am on about? You characterized having to click through to a blog--one click--and read the same sort of stuff I would have plagiarized had I reinvented the wheel there, as sad. Perhaps you've been internet soldiering too hard lately and have lost perspective?

Fwiw,
Guacamole