Midas Dekkers on Homosexuality

[leo-rcc]

I didn't mean to cause argument Leo, but you must understand that I knew nothing of this guy, so I had to question his credentials when they failed to come up.

I can imagine that, but be assured that when it comes to Biology he knows his stuff. He is not doing academic research actively any more, he is more into writing books and columns to educate laymen on the topic of biology.

If you say he is an atheist, why does he refer to the bible as "THE book", and then proceed to quote from it to back up his argument, as well as saying that the bible is true? Could you please explain this behaviour to me?

Part being ironic, I think you missed it in the subtitles but he said something along the lines of "also out this week is another book" referring to the bible.

I think where it went wrong for you was when he said "natuurlijk" which was translated as "of course!" with exclamation mark. The intention though (that got a bit lost I admit) is that in this case when the bible asserts homosexuality is unnatural in his view the bible has it right in that aspect. That does not mean he thinks the whole bible is correct. He refers to the bible in various columns as a collection of bronze age myths and refers to Dawkins, Hitchens and Stenger with regards to God as a failed hypothesis.

He also said that the Theory of Evolution is a brilliant theory, bot also very nihilistic and a theory of chagrin. There is nothing comforting, no special privileged position for humans, just a product of self replicating DNA and natural selection. But just because its not a happy theory, doesn't make it any less true.

And as referral as the bible as The book, keep in mind it is very common to describe the bible like that.

I think the problem probably does from the subtitles, since they portray a very fundie take on homosexuality.

I think it is a matter of interpretation, which is very difficult to convey trough subtitles. I think it also helps that if seen his programs and read his columns for close to 30 years so I know his style. He has a knack for setting you up for starting to think in one direction and then completely overthrow that idea with an alternate view in the end.