Come on. Russle Grant/Princess Diana/Dawkins?
That's like torpedoing ice cream. Quoting Dawkins et al FFS. He couldn't even hold a proper argument with a proper theologian of any creed other than bog standard 'organised'. He shouts and rants at the walls of his own box, and does very well out of it. Anyway, the man's a blinkered areshole. Has he ever looked into the 'serious' side of what he denigrates ? And yes, I have seen 'a fairie'. I prefer to think of them as Earth spirits etc.
No need to swear YFC. (You Funky Cat!)
I have always found Mr Dawkins a non-ranting, non-shouting, quietly spoken, intelligent and learned Professor and gentleman. I have attended a number of his lectures and met him a couple of times on his forays North. I have watched him deal courteously and effectively with born-again zealots who claim the Earth is 8,000 years old and that dinosaurs existed in "Biblical" times. He never denigrated or humiliated them. Even though they often turned up to deliberately disrupt his scientific lectures with religious mumbo-jumbo and hatred.
I find more wonder and spirituality in Dawkin's explanations of the origins and evolution of Life on Earth than in the bilge oozing from a dozen kiddy-fiddling RC priests. It is closetted theologians who live in boxes and shut out the real world - and try to shut others out of it too - through their "religious" interpretations of how they would like the world to be (women at home having babies, anti-gay, anti-Sunday sailings in the Western Isles for everybody etc). The theologians didn't like Copernicus. The world and the Universe was too much of a challenge for them back then. And it still is.
Any of the times I have seen Dawkins in debate he is informed. I've never seen him in what you describe as a "proper argument" and I don't know exactly who among us would recognise a "proper theologian" if we saw one. And if I take "a proper theologian of any creed" to mean someone who "explores the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition" then I am as qualified to speak as any "proper theologian" on this planet. But on matters of natural selection, the origins of life on this planet (and probably others) and the processes of evolution I'd rather listen to Richard Dawkins any day than some cleric. Or Russell Grant who claims he can foretell the future.
What did your fairie look like and what was it doing? Where was it?
Ha Ha! Sorry about the swearing.
Now, the problem with Dicky is this. He has no concept of Spirtuality other than that of organised religion, which I have absolutely no time for. On that we agree. It is an evil corrupt brainwashing power game that takes away our must fundamental birthright. Our freedom to think and fathom for ourselves. He aims squarely at fish in barrels. I would genuinely be interested in his views on the deep philosophies of Taoism and Buddhism. These philosophies do not propose a 'God'. It is not necessary. They do propose the absolute sacred interconnection of all things, and that we are part of a higher universal creative energy. This is echoed in the Hindu concept of Brahamn - the supreme reality, not a God. Only in symbolic form on some levels to convey meaning. The parallels between the core concepts of Eastern mystical philosophy and recent discoveries in Quantum physics are striking. They new and understood these concepts thousands of years ago. So there is no need for an anthropomorhic policeman in the sky. So where does that leave us. A spiritual view of the world that has no God, but a vast living chain of sacred being. This is where Dawkins would most likely resort to cheap shots at 'New Ageism', excepth that it is ancient knowledge. Profound and beautiful.
As for the Faerie, it was when I was living in Ireland as a child.
There was a neolithic burail chamber in the grounds of where we lived. I saw it sitting under a tree neaby one afternoon for about 10 seconds. It was just resting, looking in the direction of the chamber, before it dissapeared upon seeing me.