"Several policemen have died"

Apparently the exams for Roedean and Benenden have a few policewomen being killed as well.

"There are intelligent religious types? Where? I know its a big world and with 7 billion of us almost anything is possible but this is news to me."

Well, I know many of them personally, but some famous ones who have published things that can be checked out are Francis Spufford, Bill Vallicella (the "Maverick Philosopher" blog), Ajahn Sucitto (Abbot of Cittaviveka Theravadan monastery) and Alvin Plantinga.

They might of course be dismissed as deluded, or even mad, but to claim they are unintelligent is to somewhat reduce the sense of what we mean by an intelligent person. I can't see that there is any a priori or otherwise necessary connection between intelligence or its absence, and religious belief and its absence.

" the only 'tactic' ever needed to make holders of religious beliefs look silly is simply to get them to say what their religious beliefs are."

Absolutely correct. If a person has a religious experience that you or I have not had, and reasons cogently upon it, then s/he is perhaps entitled to be called an intelligent religious person. But if we were to ask them to explain the original experience, and it makes no sense to us, then of course they will "look silly". It would be a bit like a child hearing about sexual love, or a deaf person trying to understand someone's love of music. It would all sound a bit "silly" - which comes from an old Germanic word meaning "happy" or "blessed"

There is a minor typo in your last sentence which is quite telling. There is a difference in "believing something", and "believing in something". The first is about the literal truth of a description or set of propositions. The second is more about having faith that there might be something of value in an account which is not necessarily literally true; that one has a world-view which ascribes a positive value to discourse which may be taken metaphorically, or symbolically, or which has some other utility.

Your post makes this distinction very clearly. Dawkins, however, often seems to go astray when he tries to take the second type of belief and treat it as if it were the first. It is obviously a tactic designed to make the holders of religious beliefs look silly, but it is why many intelligent religious types don't bother with him - he simply doesn't get what they are talking about. Dawkins and his followers talking about "sky fairies", "invisible friends", and the like, and talking about prayer as if it were exclusively intercessory or petitionary, is simply irrelevant for them.

Very fine post indeed. The best thing I have read about her today - intelligent and measured. Many thanks.

"He doesn't mention the other criteria that will be applied, but it's not hard to think of ones that apply equally to native jobseekers. Such as: low educational attainment, age, a drink problem, a patchy employment record, or (most of all, perhaps) lack of available jobs."

One important criterion that does not apply to both types of jobseekers is whether they have only recently arrived in the country. The distinction would be between native-born unemployed who cannot find a job and must therefore remain on benefits, and recently immigrated unemployed who would be expected to go elsewhere. Cameron might be banking on the fact that sufficient numbers of the electorate would find this distinction unobjectionable.

All trials are narrative events. It's just that some people pride themselves on having rarefied tastes to do with the public interest, etc. and try to invalidate the more visceral emotions of the less refined.

Nothing homophobic about my comment, WML. Just reminding people of an Equality & Diversity angle to a story about mendacious politicians in positions of power.

I think we should question all the male MPs as well. Just because none of them have so far complained, doesn't mean, etc. This is the party of Thorpe, Cyril Smith and Oaten after all.

Just emerged from the dungeon unscathed, but much better informed. I was however disappointed to see that there was no account of the influence of pornography upon the classification of fallacious reasoning. As Anthony Flew once said, you can shit on us, but no true scatsman would deign to do so.

"But what is *the* sex myth?"

"As far as sex is concerned, I am better informed and sussed and so much more cool than all the other deluded fools."

Well, it works for me.