Dawkins: Robust or rude?

In Saturday's Times Richard Dawkins replied to critics of his book The God Delusion.

This morning, William Rees-Mogg responded to his assertion that moderate religionists are numerically irrelevant. I want to respond to another of his points.

He began his article with a defence of his robust style of argument:

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. I don’t know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas “blasphemy is a victimless crime”.

Richard Dawkins finds it incomprehensible that an intelligent person could believe in God. How could they be so stupid, he wonders. And this sets the tone for his work.

To which I make two replies.

The first is that many clearly intelligent people do believe in God and advance arguments in favour of his existence that are worthy of serious debate.

The second is that serious debate should be courteous and respectful and should always allow for the possibility that the other person may have a point. This does not need to involve giving any quarter. I am not impressed by Professor Dawkins's idea that he need only be as polite and respectful as a scathing politician or a snide restaurant reviewer. The behaviour of these individuals does not exactly elevate debate.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to require the Professor to behave better than that.

Comments

[Munin]

I'm sure that Dawkins is familiar with the concept of the Overton window.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

I'm not suggesting that he exaggerates his views for effect; rather that by debating on the fringe of acceptability he can shift the terms of the debate. As a result, less vociferous criticism of religion becomes more acceptable.

[Jim]

He is both rude and ill-informed on theology and philosophy. It is tedious that he is given so much media space.

Well said Rees-Mogg and you.

[Sean]

"Richard Dawkins finds it incomprehensible that an intelligent person could believe in God. How could they be so stupid, he wonders."

From this alone I can tell that you have either not read or not understood The God Delusion. He does not find religious belief "incomprehensible" and has never said that all religious believers are stupid.

Please stop arguing against what you want Richard Dawkins to have said and address what he actually did say.

[AndyC]

Tosh. In print and in person, Professor Dawkins is almost unfailingly pleasant and polite. The fact that his arguments are unanswerable leaves his critics unable to respond, so you resort to calling him rude in the hope that his reputation among the public at large will suffer. Shame on you. We need more people like the Professor, not fewer.

Mr Finkelstein, I would be hugely interested if you could post just one of the 'worthy arguments' for the existence of any gods you allude to in your post. I fear you will not be able to, and you will content yourself with the smug mudslinging.

[Mary Shelley]

I would agree with Daniel F and go a little further. Not only do very intelligent people believe(d) in God (Augustine and Acquinas were the intellectual giants of their day & Maimonides was no slouch either),most who do belong to a religion and this religion and the rituals and spirituality it entails is precious to them. The religious space, the space where they meet, is sacred. Religious folk gain strength from their observances.

It is thus distressing and hurtful to hear these beliefs (often held very close to the heart) trashed and ridiculed. While today a rascist remark is not tolerated, an anti-religious taunt is. I would note that religious leaders of the calibre of Dawkins--who is today the (self) appointed high priest of atheism--do not hurl similar accusations at atheists. Have we merely replaced racist rants with anti-religious taunts??

[Simon Stephenson]

I can't let you get away with this, Daniel. The central problem all agnostics have is that any discussion they have with believers is circumscribed by the believers' incapability of allowing into their imagination a world in which there isn't a beneficient God. A whole enormous section of possible explanations of the truth is therefore not only out of bounds to the discussion, but also written off as being completely impossible, and not worth breath discussing.

Particularly frustrating for us in today's world is that, with so much mediocrity, and so many things going wrong with society, we are required to discuss these things on the basis that they are aberrations in what is fundamentally a well-intentioned, good-doing world of people. A people who, if at all, contribute through their actions in an absolutely minimal way to causing the bad things that do happen. Many of us believe that this is an impossibly unlikely explanation unless, of course, one is prepared to accept the assumption of a normal, natural state of faultless humanity. Not to accept this assumption, of course, allows one to consider that there may be aspects of accepted social behaviour that are responsible for the aberrant behaviour at the fringes; that we could be, largely, the architects of our own problems, and that it may be false logic to think that we can cure them without first admitting that we are the ones who are at fault.

[TDE]

People really do not like hearing what Dawkins has to say.

He speaks straight to the point and does not apologize for finding fault in most religious thinking. Because he directly confronts people's beliefs they find him to be rude or shrill, however his manner is anything but. Your reaction, as well as Rees-Mogg's is a perfect example of the special protections afforded religion, proving one of Dawkins' points.

So he is attacked for his style, or knowledge of theology, but I see very few arguments against the substance of what he is saying.

[Simon Stephenson]

" ... many clearly intelligent people do believe in God and advance arguments in favour of his existence that are worthy of serious debate."

OK. I accept this. However, perhaps you would like to consider how many of these intelligent people have ARRIVED at their belief in God though

(a) application of their adult experience and intelligence unfettered by parental or peer-group expectation.

or through

(b) growing up in an environment in which non-belief was too frightening to be an option.

I'd suggest that (b) would prevail overwhelmingly.

[Susan]

How can you debate the existence of something that doesn't exist, politely or otherwise? The God Squad would do better if they used some of this most vaunted intelligence to contradict Prof Dawkins arguments instead of concentrating all they're attacks on him personally.

[Robin Willis]

If "serious debate should be courteous and respectful" why do so many religions/religious people tell me I will burn in hell etc because I do not believe?
In any event, cultural diversity should admit my (and Professor Dawkin's) right to the traditonal British form of debate which is anything but invariably courteous and respectful: do not confuse the form with the substance.

[Stephen]

"The first is that many clearly intelligent people do believe in God and advance arguments in favour of his existence that are worthy of serious debate."

Example please?

[Bob Green]

Please explain fully why religion , and those who proffer it and believe in it , should be off limits to robust criticism , debate ,and ridicule.

Why should it be necessary to be "courteous" to those who offer fantasies and myths as truth and attempt to indoctrinate others to their unintelligable meanderings?

Time those with religion entered the real world and ceased to have the protections they have enjoyed , through influence at the highest levels in our country , for so long.

[Hermann Burchard]

On C-SPAN I watched a lecture by Dawkins at Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Lynchburg, Virginia a few months ago. He is combative, wants to stamp out religion, not rude in his manners, but rudely opposes what many of us value most, our way of life, THE WAY being Jesus for Christians.

Rees-Mogg quotes an opinion that "he often ignores the best of religion” but then appears to get side-tracked & argues that the vast majority of religious believers are closer to the beliefs of American evangelists or of blood- thirsty Islamic terrorists than to quiet and rational religion." Here I must take strong exception to the implied equation. Evangelists may use questionable, to a Briton, means of spreading the gospel, but most do preach right religion, not hatred.

Ruth Gledhill in her interview is similarly "impartial" (??) and never asks Dawkins about Jesus. There is no point of discussing religion if the gospel and all of the NT is not addressed.

[Nick]

"To which I make two replies.

The first is that many clearly intelligent people do believe in God and advance arguments in favour of his existence that are worthy of serious debate."

Such as?

[Gordon]

Why, Oh Why, Oh Why, do these straw men not actually read the book before commenting on it? He is not a fundamentalist for dogs sake! The onus is on the believers not the sceptics. And on the point of theology, why isn't as much intellectual debate given to the celestial teapot or fairies? Historical study of theology is important. There is no more rational for a theological debate of Islam of Christianity than that of the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

[Roxy]

I am not a "believer" but has Prof. Dawkins actually proved that God doesn't exist? If he has then he is a dead, dead, clever bloke. If he hasn't then what's all the fuss about? If people want to believe or not beleive then let them. Live and let believe.

[Roy Schaetzel]

Mr. Dawkins' arguments may be rude and robust, but for sure they are scientifically silly. For religion has been around as long as man, so that a real scientist would not waste his time trying to destroy it, but rather would seek to study it to understand its longevity and its influential place in the human operation. Further, does he realize how unlearned he appears to the average human he seeks to affect? For he calls the apostle Paul a liar and no average human would ever make such an unintelligent conclusion. And if Paul is not a liar, where does that leave Professor Dawkins?

[Pillpopper]

Mr Dawkin is as much entitled to his strong opinions as anyone else is.Challenging people's set premises is not a bad thing even if it upsets the conservatives amongst us.Why do people always fear the non conformists.?

[Alexei]

Intellegent people who believe(d) in God, just to name a few: a.) among scientists the prominent examples are
Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, b.) writers - Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Boris Pasternak, Joseph Brodsky, S. C. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton.
It is quite common among believers, especially nowedays, to come to religion in their mature age. This is especially the case for those who had a "good fortune" to be born in totalitarian atheistic societies and see the practical applications of the ideals preached by Prof. Dawkins.

[Tina Rhea]

"If people want to believe or not beleive then let them. Live and let believe." That would be splendid if the believers would let the rest of us live and not believe, but the loudest-- and least truly Christian-- of them want to mold laws and federal regulations in their own image, and that is why they must be vigorously opposed. There is no reason for religious belief to be uniquely privileged (and churches untaxed).

[jim rogers, sydney, australia]

Maybe Christians should examine why they get so upset when atheists or agnostics question the validity of the Christian articles of faith.

The answers may lie totally in their psyches, brains and synapses.

As Melvin Konner quotes in "The Tangled Wing" (an evolutionary analysis of human thought and behaviour), Descartes understated reality when he said "I think therefore I am". We are emotional beings, and a more accurate statement is "I think because I feel I am", as we can't divide our thoughts from our emotional responses, and more than that, those feelings are part of the thought process! We are prey to our own deeper brain structures like the amygdala (fear/rage centre?), hippocampus, the rest of the limbic system, the hypothalamus, and the connections between these and other deep structures and the higher cortex. With this brain we perceive the world through our senses, see, hear, experience life, love, hate, fear, desire, think, believe or disbelieve God's existence, feel his presence, feel love for him, or not. We have a centre or centres and connections for vision, hearing, visiospatial awareness, language and speech, music, maths, and for our various emotions, for our sense of identity, and we have or likely have brain regions more specifically wired to be involved in morality, spirituality, and religious yearnings and belief.

The religious experience can be awesomely powerful, and can fill the believer with a deep love for God/Jesus/Allah, in a personal way, using many of the same synapses switched on in romantic human love. This is partly why attacking someone’s God is taken as a personal attack, as deeply hurtful to the believer as a verbal assault on his partner or family. People struggle to dissociate their thoughts about an abstract God from whatever feelings they have about him personally. Our feelings drive us. In addition, Man's sense of identity gets tied up in his spiritual beliefs, so is also threatened when his religion is threatened. A personalised and personified sense of godliness and goodness (as felt in a personal and loving identification with Jesus, or Muhammad, or saints etc) seems to much more powerfully stimulate human emotional and spiritual responses via our "wiring" in the "God" parts of our brains, than mere contemplation of abstract beliefs does.

The strength of feeling religious belief can engender doesn't necessarily make it real beyond the mind experiencing it. Religion and God may be totally a human construction. Atheists believe they are. This is a theory, as is theism. Spirituality and morality are separate issues to both.

"Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness." -- Dalai Lama

"The sense of the religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality—a person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being." --Albert Einstein

[Mouse]

God? Gods surely? Or is it the case that most believers in God are atheists about other peoples Gods?

Dawkins just rules out one God more!

[Keith Smith]

As someone who has read both Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins. It is clear he believes that he has updated Darwins work and is entitled to be seen as greater than Charles Darwin. Arrogant? Rude? Maybe but to research and write such books maybe you need a driving force when in your eyes there is no God to encourage and motivate.

[Stephen Henderson]

Dawkins has no more need to be polite about religion than I have to speak nicely about Rangers or the Tory party.
In actual fact he has every right to be rude because there is no good argument for the existence of a god.
It doesn't matter if some people are thoroughly nice if the idea of god itself is baseless.
Some religious people may indeed be clever-- but they are usually religious becase of their culture or life-history-- and no matter how clever they are no-one has made a reasonable argument for gods existence.
Oh and finally peole who think it is clever to say "you cant prove god doesn't exist" are beneath contempt.

[Desmond Persaud]

You ask for an example of a "clearly intelligent person who did believe in God and advance arguments in favour of his existence that are worthy of serious debate."
How about Charles Darwin?

By the way, a very clear and simple guide to the arguments for and against the existence of God is "The Puzzle of God" by Peter Vardy (£5.99 on Amazon). Vardy is very fair to both sides and is not to be confused with the evangelical christian car salesman of the same name!

[Ken]

"I want to respond to another of his points."

Looking forward to that. These personal attacks on his style are getting beyond a joke. His opponents just seem like a bunch of crybabies, wailing about how he calls them names, apparently unable to counter his arguments.

[Robert Skailes]

As is almost universal, Rees-Mogg attacks Richard Dawkins' person rather than his arguments. Unfortunately I rarely see 'The Times', and only saw R-M's reply and not Dawkins' Saturday article, which also I've not yet located on the Times website - only the responses on the Comment site. 'The God Delusion' is a carefully written and very thoroughly researched book, and needs a reply of equal quality, which I have not yet seen. Two specific comments: R-M drops the name of Bonhoeffer - would he please reference the latter's writings on the subject of the existence of God? Bonhoeffer was a brave and active moral philosopher operating under extremely difficult circumstances, and paying for it with his life, but I think his writings assumed God's existence as a starting point. Secondly, in his book Dawkins makes use of arguments in which he reverses the words 'religion' and 'science', and R-M thinksd he has been very clever in the conclusion of his short piece, where he quotes T.H. Huxley and makes a counter-reversal. But there is a huge difference - the majority of scientists, of all faiths and of none, accept Darwin; whereas there are many religions (and Gods), and the rival brands have caused many of the world's problems in the past and continue to do so today - N. Ireland, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, Bosnia, to name but a few examples. In Iraq, Shia and Sunni are klling each other - but how many know the reasons for their schism over 1200 years ago? At least there is no violence between the few opponents of Darwinism and the majority. In some cases the former just pocket the Templeton money, or the Bushie kudos, but no violence erupts either way.

[Lee]

It is interesting to see the 'believers' finally stick their heads above the parapet a few months after the initial hype over Dawkins and his book. Had these personal attacks been raised at the time tey would have attracted a deluge of comments dismissing them as personal attacks and completely devoid of any substance to the argument that God is as likely to exist as any other fiction we can conjure up.

The fact is that people have got a little tired of this debate, including people such as myself who have actually read Dawkin's book. I think Rees-Mogg and Finkelstein have picked up on this and are trying to sneak their arguments through the back door. Or, at least, are 'fishing' for some attention.

There are so many rational arguments against organised religion it is getting ridiculous. And, as mentioned by other posters, if a God does exist it is up to a beliver to prove it does, not the other way around. Discoveries aren't just made up believe it or not- they are discovered.

As to providing examples of what you talk about, I would like to point out to believers that nealry every single culture has there own completely different religion. Are you actually blinkered and arrogant enough to think that your culture is the only one that is right? Or do you think that maybe it is human nature to make up stories to explain the unknown?

[jim rogers]

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence -----Doug McLeod
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart ---------------H. L. Mencken
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.---------- Penn Jillette
And on the trillionth day, Man created Gods.---Thomas D. Pate
Gods are children's blankets that get carried over into adulthood. ------ James Randi
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.------- Mark Twain
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in.-- Dan Fouts
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.
------- Robert M. Pirsig
In a dangerous world there will always be more people around whose prayers for their own safety have been answered than those whose prayers have not --------Nicholas Humphrey
The Bible has fingerprints all over it. And none of them are God-sized.------ unknown
God is like Santa Claus; A great, amazing and lovely person but sadly untrue.------- Mimoun Raddahi
If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly, the teachings of the new, he would be insane -------Robert Ingersoll
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. -----Isaac Asimov
If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil...... the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever -------Woody Allen

[Lee]

It is interesting to see the 'believers' finally stick their heads above the parapet a few months after the initial hype over Dawkins and his book. Had these personal attacks been raised at the time tey would have attracted a deluge of comments dismissing them as personal attacks and completely devoid of any substance to the argument that God is as likely to exist as any other fiction we can conjure up.

The fact is that people have got a little tired of this debate, including people such as myself who have actually read Dawkin's book. I think Rees-Mogg and Finkelstein have picked up on this and are trying to sneak their arguments through the back door. Or, at least, are 'fishing' for some attention.

There are so many rational arguments against organised religion it is getting ridiculous. And, as mentioned by other posters, if a God does exist it is up to a beliver to prove it does, not the other way around. Discoveries aren't just made up believe it or not- they are discovered.

As to providing examples of what you talk about, I would like to point out to believers that nealry every single culture has there own completely different religion. Are you actually blinkered and arrogant enough to think that your culture is the only one that is right? Or do you think that maybe it is human nature to make up stories to explain the unknown?

[andrew]

People who follow a religion are religious.

People who follow Dawkins are dorks.

QED.

[Cliff Pooley]

Mary Shelley's argument is typical of those of many agnostics and atheists. It is based on a false premise as so many of Dawkins' own are. She claims that believers are incapable of allowing into their imagination a world in which there isn't a beneficient God. However, there are countless religious people who believe no such thing. Similarly Dawkins regularly makes ad hominem criticisms of believers that are based on sweeping generalisations and constructs tortuous arguments to discount claims that are not in the least essential to the beliefs of religious people. In his previous article he suggests that Religious people need there faith as a comfort blanket. I know many religious people for whom it is no such thing. In the long run Dawkin's arguments will have absolutely no effect and people will continue to have religious faith long after he is forgotten. The only people who really need his books are those who need someone to articluate for them a rationale for not believing - a comfort blanket if you like. He is welcome to the company of your correspondent who is not at all embarrassed to admit publicly that he believes that there is no more rationale for a theological debate of Islam or Christianity than that of the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

[Joe]

To those asking for clever people advancing arguments for God's existence - Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are just the most prominent of many, many analytic philosophers offering such arguments.

[David Simpson]

as an atheist and enthusiastic reader of Dawkins previous works I have to say that the tone of The God Delusion disappointed me and reminded me more of fundamentalist religious ranting than anything else.

[Mary Shelley]

Dear Cliff, are you sure it was me? All I said in an anodyne little post was that the religion of most believers was precious to them. If anything the post was descriptive not argumentative and I would criticize it as circular: y'know most believers in God are ,well, religious and their religion concerns the ehmm sacred..So they are not pleased when the is sacred trashed. I guess they would call this action a "sacrilege."

*This* is a "typical argument of atheists and agnostics"? All I can say, as a practicing Catholic, is that I am going to have to take a course in dialectic! Incidentally, what POV are you espousing?

[Toby Cosh]

Spot on, Mr Finkelstein!

With his inability to debate the issue in a respectful manner, Professor Dawkins undermines his own argument against the ignorance and stupidity of Christians.

From his ivory tower of intellectual authority he derides Christianity's "faery fancy" faith as lacking intellectual credibility and empirical foundation. And he does this in the unusual style of a headline-grabbing tabloid journalist.

However, his obvious and embarrassing ignorance of the Christian faith shows that he lacks either the ability or the will to understand that which he argues against. As a result, his 'logical conclusion of atheism' is not even worth the paper it is printed on.

I value Professor Dawkin's passion in his discussion. It is exciting, appropriate even, to have lively debate about such matters. But by aggressively attempting to 'disprove' a belief system that you don't even understand, the only only place deserving your heated opinions is the restaurant review section of the local newspaper.

[Mayer Cohen]

It's been some time since I've read "The God Delusion", however I still remember most of the material and I especially enjoyed his analysis of biblical massacres and other such imoralities which are passed off as the essence of Judaism or Christianity. Having said all this I think that Dawkins unfortunately doesn't understand why religion started and why it is still with us today. For such an understanding I would turn to Karl Marx who in his critique of Hegel's philosophy of Right, he states that religion is the heart of a heartless world and the demand to give up illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. Marx therfore clarifies religion as being the opium of the masses which gives them comfort in a hostile capitalist society. Finally I would like to congratulate professor Dawkins on his humanist morality which has no place for religion or God.

[Cliff Pooley]

Many apologies Mary Shelley. I wrongly attributed the subsequent contribution to you. I agreed with your sentiments. If Mr Dawkins' book confined itself to the science and omitted attempts to refute the claims of some religious people it would be a very thin book. What he fails to acknowledge is that many religious people probably agree that many of the things that religious people believe are pretty silly but that in no way proves that God does not exist. For example, I can be a Christian without believing in the Virgin birth. Let's face it. Many atheists and agnostics believe some pretty silly stuff too.

[Husband of excommunicated wife]

Much has been made in this debate of the offensive manner of Professor Dawkins. Within the True Faith of William Rees-Mogg, there are ways of convincing that the professor would not dream of.

Coming across my wife’s old school exercise books I found the following dictated note from a R.E. lesson in her Wigan state Roman Catholic School:

“If a Roman Catholic marries a Protestant outside his or her church, he or she will be condemned by God to eternal damnation.”

It has never impressed me as a civilised approach to religion

[james hazan]

I do not believe in the existence of "God",on the other hand to be on the safe side,many decades ago,I spoke?to Him."I am ready to believe,so please make yourself personaly available to me, give me a sign.Some 60 years later i'm still waiting and time is getting shorter.

[G. Tingey]

"The debate should be courteus and repectful"

OK, provided you feel it is all right to be courteous and respectful to people who:
1. Insist that women are inferior to men ( both the bible & the koran).
2. That we are all damned eternally to HELL - unless we instantly embrace (insert appropriate belief in fairies here) the "debater's religion, and reject all the others which make the same promise.
3. Allow religious thought police to demarcate our day-to-day behaviour.
4. Believe things witten in (insert appropriate "holy book here) which are patently impossible, or flat wrong, and disregard the findiongs of those nasty, emipical scientists.
etc .....

In other words, we should debate politely with liars, blackmailers and mental (if not physical) torturers.

I think not.

[Karen B]

If God really does exist surely he is powerful enough to deal with a mere outspoken mortal like P.D? So why are the religious so worried about his robust exercise of his right to freedom of speech?

[Bob Finbow]

To Mary Shelley: You say "While today a rascist remark is not tolerated, an anti-religious taunt is.". I, and many others, feel that the spectre of racism is raised all too often nowadays but I can at least see the logic of outlawing racism. One cannot choose one's race - it is a fact so people cannot be held responsible for their race. Religion, however, is a choice and, as such, should be as open to criticism as any other lifestyle choice. Your apparent wish to see criticism of religions outlawed, take us all the way back to the inquisition (or the Taleban if you need a modern-day equivalent). I sincerely hope we don't go this route in the UK!

[alan]

Could someone please, please, give me one RATIONAL reason for the existence of their god? And please, please, too, one RATIONAL reason why this particular god is the only true god? (Only rational reasons, please.) I'm waiting.

[William Crotty]

Mr. Finkelstein, I would suggest a distinction between argument and unsupported assertion. Believers in religion invariably offer the latter, the simple reason being that argument implies reason and evidence - both of which tend to be in rather short supply among people of faith. There is, of course, argumentum ad hominem - the only kind of argument which religious people seem to be able to muster against Professor Dawkins.

[David]

There seem to be two common threads that run through the majority of comments made in this noticeboard:

[1] Those who believe in God are apparently simple, ill-informed, certainly obdurate, shrill, very afraid, insecure, intolerant 'God-Squad' extremists who are far too susceptible to fantasies and myths and are quite clearly in need of comfort blankets.

[2] Those who believe in God can only maintain their beliefs by attacking those who question them.

Ummmmm!?

PS: Some contributors have 'thrown down the gauntlet' (golly!) and demanded just one proof of God's existence. For those who really do want to know what the proofs of Gods existence are then you could do worse than starting off at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm. Most of the proofs were posited by Aquinas who many of the contributors to this post would apparently classify as being...well, um... a simple, ill-informed, obdurate, shrill, very afraid, insecure, intolerant "God-Squad" extremist I suppose.

[Fellow Traveller]

Alan, what do you mean by a rational reason? I think you may have misunderstood the term. And do you think it is rational to claim that you have proof that there is no God simply because religious people can't articulate a rational reason for God's existence or if there is disagreement among them about God's nature?

[Adam]

For those who want to be introduced to the arguments that counter Dawkins, 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath is a good introduction.

[Simon Stephenson]

Jim Rogers

Many, many thanks for both your contributions, particularly your first one, which added a huge amount to my understanding of why humanity, in general, behaves in such an irrational way, that is usually disadvantageous to its own best interests.

Cliff Pooley

It is I, not Mary Shelley, who is the author of the comment to which you objected. Perhaps you could try to explain me out of my confusion:-

1. There are certain assertions that believers of, say, Christianity regard as fact. Not fact conditional on being a believer, but fact, full stop.

2. Believers of another religion, say Hinduism, also consider certain assertions as universal fact.

3. These two sets of "facts" are not identical, nor are they necessarily consistent with each other. In fact, on occasion, they are directly contradictory to each other.

4. How, if there are facts that are inconsistent with each other, is it possible to establish that each of them is correctly treated as universal? Is it not more appropriate to say either that:-

(a) they are only "facts" to those people who choose to believe that they are - and that they are therefore opinions or suppositions to everyone else.

or

(b) they are not facts at all, and that anyone who insists that they are is merely acting in a delusionary way.

Or is there a sort of linguistic and philosophical "Third Way" in which whatever we want to believe can be given universal fact status?

[Marcus]

The day Richard Dawkins straps a bomb to himself and blows up in a crowded market, calls for centuries the persecution of the Jews because they allegedly killed his saviour or burns religious believers at the stake in the middle of Oxford town centre is the day religious people have the right to criticise the him for being rude or too robust. Until that time all believers should beg Richard for forgiveness for the thousands of atrocities committed in the names of their various gods.

[Paul Caira]

Dear Cliff Pooley,
Here's a silly thing religious people believe: Catholics (such as WR-M) have to believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Contrary to popular error, this is NOT the same as the Virgin Birth, but is the idea, defined as infallibly true, that Mary the Mother of God was conceived without stain of Original Sin on her soul, so that she could be a fitting vessel for the Godhead which was Christ Jesus. Most Catholics I know don't even understand what that means, let alone believe it. And once we accept that some ideas are silly where does it stop? Original Sin - The idea that Adam disobeyed God and as a punishment all his progeny for eternity were unclean in God's sight? (If we believe in evolution, as Catholics claim to, who do we substitute for Adam in this supposedly symbolic story?) What about Redemption - the idea that Jesus Christ's violent death absolves people of their sin. I know you'll say I'm caricaturing, but to some extent all religious people are dealing in nonsense, all the way down to the intractable Problem of Evil. The fact that it makes them feel included, gives them a sense of community, and makes them feel positive about their death in no way alters the irrationality of it.

[Paul Caira]

Adam,

I read "Dawkin's God" which attempted to counter one of his atheist positions by saying that it was out of fashion and modern scholars didn't value it any more.

Is "The Dawkins Delusion" of any higher intellectual rigour?

[Diana Brown]

There is a great deal of heat and not much light generated by religious believers attacking Dawkins. It is clear that quite a few must be commenting without having read The God Delusion. Dawkins does not claim to prove the non-existence of gods: he merely gives reasons for thinking that gods are highly improbable. He also does deal with Aquinas's "proofs" of god, which few people take seriously nowadays. Most theists prudently concede that they cannot prove the existence of their particular god.

The ad hominem attacks on Dawkins appear to stem from outrage at the mere fact that anyone should attempt to expose the imaginary nature of the Emperor's new clothes. This is lacking in "respect". Dawkins in debate is invariably an attentive listener and a polite opponent, but he does not shrink from treating religious ideas just as most of us would treat other categories of idea, such as political ones.

Religious believers frequently demand "respect" for their odd ideas, and the UN Human Rights Council has even gone as far as to demand the outlawing of "defamation of religion". These demands implicitly acknowledge the weakness of religious claims and suggest that religion needs extra, special protection since it has so little intrinsic merit that it is unable to stand on its own feet.

Non-believers have long been used to gross insults from believers and it is not so long since voicing unbelief could lead severe penalties and even death. Of course, in some Muslim countries that is still true. It is ironic that when at last a high-profile individual mildly but publically attacks some aspects of religious belief, he should be the target of disproportionate vilification

Dear Fellow Traveller - I'm still waiting for just ONE rational reason for the existence of their (your?) god. (By the way I didn't claim to have proof that there is no god. I don't have proof that there's no Jack Frost either.) - I repeat: I'm still waiting for someone to give me just one single RATIONAL reason for the existence of ANY god. I'm still waiting ...

[Paul Caira]

Yes Fellow Traveller, I would think we do have the beginnings of a proof of a thing's non-existence if no coherent account of it can be given. There are no plane triangles with angles of 270 degrees. There are no dogs which aren't mammals. There are no wholly good, omnipotent beings who curse them with the sin of their ancestors and only explain when it's all over. It's the Problem of Evil, and no one's ever answered it. If Christians believe Christ is God, and Jews believe he isn't, there's no point pretending that these views are consistent. Jews believe Christians are WRONG about Christ's Divinity, and Christians believe the same about the Jews. The can't both be right. In fact, neither is.

[Bruce Finch]

The central part of most religions is "love thy neighbour as thyself" which is both strong and has inspired people to do great good and undergo terrible persecution in the name of their faith throughout the centuries. That creed is inspirational which is why so many follow it. When Richard Dawkins is dead he will be soon forgotten as so many others like him have been but the strength of that creed which underpins Christianity (and indeed Islam) will not. So let him argue as he wishes because his views will not be significant in the long term

[Paul Caira]

Desmond Persaud:

Darwin didn't really believe in God by the end of his life, and clung to an outward demonstration of it to avoid upsetting his devout wife. He found it difficult to continue believing a benign creator who created the Ichneumon wasp. This was because this creature, as a necessary part of its life cycle, stings a caterpillar so that it is paralysed but living, and then lays its eggs inside its body. The grubs then have fresh meat to consume when they hatch.

And another thing. How come when churches put up big posters proclaiming "New Life" at Easter, it's always a picture of a chick, and never of a tapeworm or a liverfluke?

[Sarah N.]

"Most theists prudently concede that they cannot prove the existence of their particular god."
Would it not also be prudent for Professor Dawkins to concede that he cannot prove the non-existence of God?

However, Prof. Dawkins does believe in memes - I would like to see one, or at least have its existence 'proved' to me.

[Nicholas Mapstone]

A search in Youtube for Richard Dawkins will show him performing at a number of venues. He is unfailingly courteous, often under extreme provocation.

You are wrong to call him rude.

[Cliff Pooley]

Paul Cara, I'm not at all confused about the difference between the Virgin Birth and what I consider to be the error of the Immaculate Conception. I agree that religious people are wrong about lots of things. My point is that this doesn't prove that there is no God. Scientists are wrong about lots of things too. Simon wants a rational explanation for the existence of God. I've asked him what he means by "rational" but in the absence of a response I'll assume that what he means is a reasoned argument subject to scientific criticism. But I'd like him to tell me why he thinks it rational to discount every claim that can't be tested by his preferred methodology other than a non-falsifiable assertion that nothing can be known unless it is capable of being tested by scientific criticism.

[Terry Collman]

The reason for attacking religion is because religion is used as the excuse for so much of the evil in the world - Shia versus Sunni in Iraq, for example.

[Dan Allen]

There is no rational reason not of any kind to believe the various and many claims to know the nature of God.
It is revealing and pathetic argument that people endlessly debate the potential for there being a God and silently assume at the what they believe it is their conclusion that it is their god that exists.
No one can produce any evidence not of any kind that God exists and they are all several orders beneath any form of proof at all that the God that they claim (but can not prove) exists is the one of their religion.
Anyone who believes their God exists and everyone who believes in a specific God is contradicted by at least (in total) three billion people.
Anyone who makes any important life decision on the basis of such obviously uncertain facts must be considered on any rational level a fool.
I understand why Daniel might find that offensive but that doesn't make it untrue. Firm belief in a personal knowledge of the nature of God is foolish nonsense and people who have it are fools. I regret any offence but can not be made responsible for the truth how ever little someone might not like it.

[Peter Brawley]

Rees-Mogg would "require" Prof Dawkins to "behave better" than he does. Evidently he yearns for past eras when churches could indeed "require" us to defer to religion.

No more. Ever.

Religion merits no more deference than any other ideology. Meanwhile Dawkins is unfailingly polite. He did not say religious belief is "incomprehensible"; he said it is irrational. Which it must be, otherwise it would not require faith. And he said that the gods that most religious humans worship are, on the word of the holy books that reveal them, monsters. As obvious, as sensible, and as polite as reminding a Marxist that Lenin, Stalin & Mao were monsters.

[Chie]

The real problem with Dawkins is that he is intellectually arrogant and too cocksure by half. His dismissal of agnosticism is sheer sophistry and demonstrates that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. Atheists are just as dogmatic and blinkered as believers. Agnosticism is the only rational position for an intelligent person. The problem is that Dawkins' intellect is trapped in the binary approach so characteristic of Western-trained thinkers. He is apparently unable to live with uncertainty. I am right behind his arguments against religion (but I think Sam Harris does a better job), but I think he reveals his intellectual limitations when he starts talking about agnosticism. And yes, there is no excuse for rudeness, however smart you think you are!

[Toby Cosh]

The back cover of 'The God Delusion' says it all. It includes praise from Derren Brown (mind-manipulator and author of 'Tricks of the Mind'), and Phillip Pullman (a fantacist author).

Hardly the calibre expected for a work of such loudly asserted significance!

Might I recommend a book that exposes the catastrophic flaws of the God Delusion argument:

'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath (Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University).

McGrath easily exposes the incoherence of Dawkins' arguments. Once the froth has been removed and intellectual rigour has been applied to Dawkins' assertions, there is little left but an awkward silence.

The back cover of McGrath's book reads as follows:

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why."
(Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University)

[Matthew Shaw]

That "intelligent" people believe in God does not lend anything other than social credibility to the belief in God. One could make the same arguments for belief in Ayrian superiority, or for belief in Communism. Intelligent people believed in those things too, and many continue to do so.

The facts are that (i) a claim that God exists is a claim about the world, about reality, for which in every other sphere of their lives "intelligent" people would demand evidence, and (ii) there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists.

Religious texts and teachers, however complex, fascinating and inscrutable, have no answer at all to this, the essential argument that Dawkins makes.

[Atique Malik]

The professor has spent too long as a tenured teacher at a famous university to care what others think. Perhaps if he lived among the common people he would understand that very little is as it appears, and he may learn some humility in the process.

[zzzzz]

Doubting the worth of a religion is certainly not comparable to doubting the worth of a race, however you define race. Race is just a set of genes with which a person was born. OTOH, religion is an explanation of the universe. Its claims can be vigorously debated and when disproved, a rational person would abandon the particular explanation.

Whether religion can or should be stamped out is a completely different question. Some people obviously find comfort in the rituals and in the beliefs they rationally know are silly - just like some people enjoy reading their horoscope.

There's absolutely no reason to persecute them for it, but when e.g. important public decisions are taken, neither horoscope nor religious beliefs should be used as valid arguments.

[George Pell]

God doesnt exist. Santa Claus and the easter bunny do. I know I've seen them!

[James Burke]

"Please stop arguing against what you want Richard Dawkins to have said and address what he actually did say."

The straw-man argument is usually raised when you have no valid rebuttal and nothing substantial left to debate.

You have shot yourself in the foot ... again Mr. Rees-Mog.

Disappointedly,

James Burke

[J Green]

After watching the recent panaroma program I now get the distinct impression that scientology is in fact a religion as they claim.

Those in other religions, predominately Christianity are responding in the same way as the scientologists do. These religionists have responded with a campaign of histrionic abuse in rudely attacking the man and strawmen arguments of what Dawkins represents.

Robust criticism of beliefs and ideas is what progresses our understanding. Though it requires grow ups on both sides of the debate.

[Blackstone]

without wishing to be rude, one might compare Prof D to a 'flatlander'. That is to say he has no notion of the concept, repeat concept, of the transcendent as a possibility. Hence he cannot see or weigh or measure the transcendent so he assumes it is disproven. If God exists 'he' will not be subject to the tests of natural science. Simple as that.

[J Green]

Fellow Traveller says "For those who want to be introduced to the arguments that counter Dawkins, 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath is a good introduction."

Whatever McGarths' book is, it certainly doesn't introduce any arguments that counter Dawkin's arguments against the worst aspects of religion.

[Terryk]

I don't think Richard Dawkins' robust style of argument is any great worry for theists. But the writer does have a point. If theists used Dawkinsian robustness themselves in arguments against atheists, they would certainly be labelled "fundamentalists".

[Mary Shelley]

Bob Finbow writes: "Religion, however, is a choice and, as such, should be as open to criticism as any other lifestyle choice. Your apparent wish to see criticism of religions outlawed.."

I would dispute your view on two points:

1) You say that racists remarks are proscribed because one can't change one's race. For some of the very holy (athiests would call them something else, but hey! this is *my* post) religion is not a choice, it is part of their innermost nature. When you ask them, they will say they always believed. Proof of this is found in the Christian martyrs who died rather than be forced to abandon the core of their being. The behaviour of Buddhists monks in Tibet in the face of the Chinese onslaught also lies in this category. The great sociologists Max Weber regarded them wistfully and called these holy people "spiritually intelligent."

2) Secondly, even for the rest of us--not saints!--you write that that that anything we choose to believe is open to criticism. But Daniel F's post is about intentional rudeness not criticism. There has always been the latter, but only recently the former--at least in Britain. Consideration is the key here. Some hold these beliefs sacred, if not self-evident. A little courtesy might be appropriate?

But I would say some mockers just like to mock and religion fills the bill just fine (for now).

[ian payne]

Who the hell is this guy anyway ? I've never heard of him - perhaps he is better known by the intellelctual elite of the UK.

[Enetia Robson]

Why does the Simonyi Professor for The Public Understanding of Science at Oxford spend so much time lecturing about the God Delusion and so little time advancing the public understanding of science, which is probably at an abysmallly low level, considering how much is known?

When was the last time he did some scientific research or gave a lecture on the latest developments in genetics? Why does he not emulate Steve Jones, who enthralls us while increasing our understanding of how coral reefs were formed and how they function and survive?

What's so important about telling us we're God deluded when we're shamefully deluded about much more important things like the viability of ever increasing air travel, or the extent to which we can afford to continue burning fossil fuels largely for our own comfort and amusement?

And what about the effects of ever increasing poverty and AIDS; are these matters not worthy of scientific study and scientific solutions?

There are many 'practical' delusions entertained by civilised people en masse, not the least of which might be the delusion that science alone is capable of solving all our real problems and that any problems it cannot solve are not real!

[RogerDButters]

In a recent letter to the Times from four 'Scientists' the inaccurate and unfair statement was made that Professor Dawkins claims that science can rule out the supernatural. On the contrary, in his book 'The God Delusion' the author specifically states that science can never make such a claim.

This is obviously correct, since in a possibly infinite universe the non-existence of anything cannot be logically demonstrated.

A good deal of heat could be removed from this discussion if it were more generally accepted that all mental states contain a greater or lesser degree of doubt. Logically there can be no empirical certainties. Science consists of a body of codified human experience gathered together under the single rule that scientific statements relating to such experiences may not be made which are mutually inconsistent with each other. Such consistency can never absolutely confirm an empirical claim, nor in a world of false positives and false negatives can any empirical claim be absolutely falsified.

Since certainty is beyond the reach of the human mind, it is perhaps wiser to accept that the best we can do is to make assumptions. These 'assumptions' are to be distinguished from 'beliefs' in that they do not carry the implication of conviction.

The assumptions made by Professor Dawkins, which in large part I share, no doubt differ from those made by those who disagree with him. However the unfortunate fact is that there is no way of conclusively demonstrating that one set is more truthful than the other.

One of the first questions I always ask a religious believer is 'What evidence would you require which would induce you to change your mind ?'. The only consistent reply would be something along the lines of 'Ah - you don't understand; it is not a question of evidence but of faith.' At this point, again in my opinion, no further fruitful dialogue can take place. My ’assumption’ being that any and all knowledge can only be gained as Russell said by 'Experience' or by 'Description', in other words that I assume that empiricism is generally correct. On the other hand my believer friend assumes an additional valid input to his mental state which we may refer to as 'Knowledge by Revelation'. Such revelation being either experienced by himself or by someone whose testimony he is prepared to trust. I am unable to accept this additional input since I have had no previous experience which would lead credence to the concept.
It seems to me that at this point, as claimed above, no arguments that either of us can produce will have any influence on the other. It is this barrier to communication which causes me to doubt the likely success of Richard Dawkins efforts. As Hume is said to have remarked to a friend as they passed down a narrow Edinburgh street between, and underneath, two housewives shouting abuse at each other from upstairs windows, “Those two will never agree, they are arguing from different premises”.

The above sceptical thoughts are of course basically Humean in origin but I have never seen any argument put forward which for me effectively counters them.

Taken to their logical conclusion they appear to deny the possibility of both doubt-free knowledge, and the existence of valid rational belief; and thus leave conviction-free assumption as the only acceptable self-consistent mental state. It may be a source of regret but the search for certainty must remain for ever a wistful human dream.

I
Posted by: Roger D. Butters | 3 Apr 2007 21:13:43

[J Green]

TERRYK, you are correct, theists have no need to be worried, however maybe some should ask a few more questions of what they actually believe. Obviously Dawkins was so nuanced that most managed to misinterpret the message or maybe most of the theists just fell in behind the noisy fundamentalist evangelicals that appear to control the neo-christian religion these days.

Since the outspoken churches of christianity already use such robust methods against anything secular or non-theist and have for numerous years then by the same inference they must all already be "fundamentalists".

Though this latest wave of rudeness and direct attacks on the people who raise questions or disagree with them, must surely qualifiy them for "militants" or even "terrorists".

I guess they are just preaching what they practice. I wonder where all the true followers of Christ are?

[Simon Stephenson]

Bruce Finch - The Golden Rule of Reciprocity - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely and irrevocably the foundation stone of my belief system. Yet I find that I am at odds with most of the people most of the time, and all of the people some of the time. I'm not sure which of the following most accurately describes the Golden Rule that ACTUALLY prevails in our society:-

1. Do unto others as you would hope they're not smart/selfish enough to do unto you.

2. Do unto others as much as you can possibly get away with under the legal framework of society, without regard for their utility, welfare or feelings.

3. Deal with others in the way that you forecast they will deal with you.

4. Ensure when dealing with others that your contribution is never greater than that which you acquire.

5. Do not worry about reciprocity - the market will ensure that what you contribute is automatically the equal of what you acquire.

Chie

I agree with your atheism/agnosticism comments, and, like you, I believe that discovery usually requires a completely different path than that which is taken by those looking for certainty. I'm sure it's to our disadvantage that we are dominated by the latter group.

Blackstone

I don't think anyone would dispute that there are linguistic/philosophical ways of supporting just about any belief, religion included. I think though the central point at issue is that, within rationalism, non-believers are adamant that there is no proper way of being able to conclude that any God exists. Outside rationalism, they are really not interested whether or not it's possible to conclude that God exists. But they ARE concerned by the methods of believers who are willing to claim as true within rationalism something that is incapable of rational justification.

[J Green]

Mary Shelley writes "There has always been the latter, but only recently the former--at least in Britain. Consideration is the key here. Some hold these beliefs sacred, if not self-evident. A little courtesy might be appropriate?"

Maybe the Churches should have thought about that before they started to push - Doing God - into everyone elses face. There isn't a year that has gone by without some attack on secularism because it doesn't follow the beliefs of the so-called Christians or Islamists. Then of course the more militant ones are all screaming their demands for respect whilst at the same time continuing to criticise all on sundry. Respect is earned and the way the religionists are acting, it isn't going to earn them any, any time soon.

[Conrad]

Resorting to an ad hominem attack on Dawkins only serves to prove his point.

[Harry P]

"For some of the very holy, religion is not a choice, it is part of their innermost nature."

They made the choice to make it a part of their innermost nature. Though it could be argued that this is a limited choice given our social constructs.

"When you ask them, they will say they always believed."

Since they were indoctrinated with it, yes.

"Proof of this is found in the Christian martyrs who died rather than be forced to abandon the core of their being."

It's called being stubborn! Something we generally try and lead children away from but some teach as a virtue when it is actually a vice.

Islam has it's martyrs as well, just look at 9/11 or 7/7, in fact look at the two major theist religions and you'll see lots of people killing and dying for something as changable and uncertain as an idea taken as belief.

"The behaviour of Buddhists monks in Tibet in the face of the Chinese onslaught also lies in this category."

And herein lies the danger of projecting theism onto the other religions. Buddism is about the striping away of being to uncover the true self. Not hiding it behind fixed false ideas of a self, that people would rather die defending.

"The great sociologists Max Weber regarded them wistfully and called these holy people "spiritually intelligent."

Then his greatness should be questioned.

[DP]

I think most of the posters have missed the origins of the recent spat in The Times. This was Prof. Dawkins' allegation last Saturday that "most believers" were fundamentalists akin to Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini. If you don't believe me, look at last Saturday's paper. Yet he provides no empirical evidence for this assertion. In other words, he appeals to reason and science in theory, but resorts to denigration and bigotry in practice. It is a pity that he chooses to undermine what could be a fascinating rational debate in this way.

The critics of "believers" need to realise what an important part doubt plays in the lives of many people who have some sort of religious belief. Even Jesus is depicted in the Gospels as consumed with doubt, first in the Garden of Gethsemane and again while dying on the cross. So when the critics of religion depict all believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whoever) as mindless automatons, they are resorting to caricature. The problem with Dawkins' arguments is that he tars all religious belief with this brush, rather than recognising the full range of doubt and certainty that exists in that most wonderful of creations / evolutionary developments, the human mind.

Incidentally, Dawkins' views are also locked tightly into early twenty-first century Western European culture and so far more historically subjective than he and his supporters recognise. His presentism is curiously ahistorical and jars with most current intellectual thought, which has long since rejected logical positivism (along with the certainties of doctrine and dogma) in favour of postmodernism and its successors.

I've read lots of comment on how rude Mr. Dawkins is, how unknown he is in America, how his "followers" are "dorks", his arrogance, how he resorts to denigration and bigotry, yes, how even intelligent people believe in god - but I am still waiting for someone to give me just one rational reason for believing in the existence of god, a god, any god or gods. (I don't mind which god.) Just one rational reason ... Please, please, I'm still waiting.

[SZJ]

The existence of god has and will always be a controversial issue. Believers will let you know that god is too great to be aprehended by us mortals. If god exists at all, he/she/it is nothing like religions have made him. The universe was initiated about 12 billion years ago through a huge catastrophic events that was organised almost immediately by some common physical laws. God is certainly not interested or capable of watching our every move and interfere on personal level.

The arrogance of humanity is our belief that we are special and god had created us in his image. This is especially the case in the christian belief but less so in other religions. For instance, Islam insists that god is unique and unequalled, was not born or given birth.

Life evolved slowly through 3.5 billion years from amino acids. It is not as portrayed in religious stories of creation. The sooner we understand how negligable we are in the general scheme of things the better we treat each other and all life forms

[Sion]

Talking of the arrogance of Prof Dawkins - I cannot fail to be struck by the arrogance of the posters who all assume the discussion is about the Jaweh derivative god.

Prof Dawkins is not rude, he just asks rational questions and makes rational statements about a subject with which many people feel uncomfortable about engaging - almost certainly because they have their own inner doubts about their belief's veracity.

Confusion also arises - and is often used in counter-argument against atheists - around morality. P. Dawkins certainly doesn't attempt to undermine the morality of believers but he does attempt to show that the frameworks within which religious moral systems are based are fanciful - and at times highly immoral by modern standards. Most modern philosophers would agree that it is entirely possible have a moral framework without the imposition of a deity.

Above all P.Dawkins is a scientist. Yes science is a "faith" - but it is a self-consistent faith - one which will allow its fundamental tenets to be questioned and replaced without becoming inconsistent. The application of scientific enquiry to any modern faith is uncomfortable for believers - primarily because there are few factual edifices upon which to build a case for their religion. In the case of christianity there is little historical evidence for the central figure of the myth. Once a religion has been scrutinised from top down and found wanting with regard to observed (and accepted) scientific fact there remains little reason for believing in a god.

My own observations concur with those of P.Dawkins - by the time hard reality has disposed of the majority of a myth's framework, the role of God is left to that of "God of the Gaps". Further scientific endeavour reduces the necessity of God in specific gaps, and a classic reasoning from mathematics - Reductio ad absurdum - pretty much banishes the necessity of a deity until the start of space-time. At this point anything is up for grabs - but for those who want to believe there is little left but a lab assistant who initiates a physical process in which they have no more interaction. For me I prefer the solitude of Prof. Hawking's answer "What came before the big bang"

To paraphrase:
"You cannot ask that because the big-bang singularity represents the beginning of space and TIME - you cannot ask about things which exist BEFORE time"

[P Sandhu]

Professor Dawkins in his "The God Delusion" does list some of the main arguments put forward for the existence of God....and systematically and faultlessly destroys each and every one of them. No argument has ever been put forward for the existence of God which could not be dismantled through logical examination. Dawkins does not deny that there is a place for moral values which should underpin human behaviour, but what is not needed is to ascribe the origin of those values to an invented figure. Why can't we humans be a little less modest and say we were intelligent enough to come up with those values all by ourselves?

[Bob Finbow]

Mary Shelley writes "For some of the very holy (athiests would call them something else, but hey! this is *my* post) religion is not a choice, it is part of their innermost nature". That just doesn't hold water. You might as well say a violent criminal is merely expressing his 'innermost nature' and shouldn't be criticised or brought to book for it. Quite rightly, he is treated as if he chooses to act on his aggression, even though aggression as certainly more of an 'innermost nature' than is a religious belief. As far as your reference to Daniel F's concern being rudeness, not criticism, I was answering your posting, not his. You introduced Racism as being equivalent to criticising religion. I am saying the two things are in no way equivalent, for the reason I gave earlier. And I cannot see that stating ones point of view clearly, with the reasons for having that point of view, is being rude. Nowadays there is a tendency to interpret as 'rude' anything that we don't like to hear. What it comes across as is an objection to 'belief' not being accorded the 'respect'the adherents think it should have. Well, respect has to be earned. There is no justification for the idea that every belief is as deserving of 'respect' as every other. Unlike Richard Dawkins, I have no objection to other people's beliefs as long as they do not impinge on me. However, all religions have long, sometimes bloody, histories of interferring with the freedoms of non-believers and, given the chance, there is no reason to suppose they would not continue to do so. For that reason they have no right to expect immunity for being challenged

[Andrew Ryan]

Roxy: "Mr. Dawkins' arguments ... are scientifically silly. For religion has been around as long as man, so that a real scientist would not waste his time trying to destroy it, but rather would seek to study it to understand its longevity...".

You could say the same about any scientist trying to cure a disease. Instead, according to you, he should simply seek to study it. In fact he should seek to study it in ORDER to destroy it. Which is exactly what Dawkins has done. Perhaps you haven't actually READ his book...

[Another husband]

Dear HUSBAND OF EXCOMMUNICATED WIFE

You wrote:
"Coming across my wife’s old school exercise books I found the following dictated note from a R.E. lesson in her Wigan state Roman Catholic School:

“If a Roman Catholic marries a Protestant outside his or her church, he or she will be condemned by God to eternal damnation.”

It has never impressed me as a civilised approach to religion "

I completely agree, that is not a civilised approach to religion. The person who wrote that should not be allowed to represent the Catholic religion.
I do hope, however, that you would not insinuate from this that just because certain individuals within a religion espouse a repugnant view such as that above, that it is the stance of the religion itself. That would be like saying all evolutionary theory is evil because Hitler was and evolutionist and thought that his ethnic cleansing would speed up the process.

In actual fact, individual people are fallible, regardless of their ideology or worldview. No one is perfect. Not Christians, Jews, Muslims, Scientists, Agnostics, Atheists, scientologists, ...

On a different point, there is a very noticable similarity between the Catholic deviant quoted above, fundamentalists of various religions and Richard Dawkins. They all claim to have a knowledge of the objective truths of the universe - they see themselves as objective - that is they are the ultimate subject of judgement in their universe. The Catholic claim to know what God would do to the 'traitor' to the faith, the fundamentalist believes that his view of what God is like and what god requires is uniquely correct. And RD assumes that there is no God, because there is no evidence for one - though this evidence would need to fit his own preconceived ideas of what evidence would be suitable.

The way I see it, we are finite objects in the universe. If there is a God (which I feel is more likely than nothing creating everything) then He existes on his terms, not on Catholic or on Dawkinsian terms. The only way humans could ever have any understanding of God would be if God chose to reveal Himself to humanity - there is no logical way for a created being to comprehend its creator unless the creator willed it. Dawkins claiming that there is no God is like a computer claiming that there are no such things as humans because it can not comprehend the complexity of a human. the only way for a computer to know about it's creator is if the computer-creator inputs (reveals) information into the computer.

Thus the argument of God's existence can only be inconclusive. there cannot be any proof either way. The only option that is left for us is to evaluate the claims to revelation and see if any fit well with human purpose, logic and emotion. If not the only honest outcome is agnosticism.

As it happens the large proportion of humans over history and the present have found revelations to resonate with their being - so it is lazy to discredit them all on the grounds that they need to prove the existence of God.

[David McCullough]

The comment about intelligence and belief should be understood like the question "How can intelligent people smoke?" Of course they can, and of course they did all the time before it was proved that smoking ruins your health. But anyone over 50 who smokes or believes in a god is not using their intelligence. For practical purposes, they are stupid. I would not hire a smoker because they don't use their brains. I would not vote for a believer for the same reason.

[Another husband]

Dear Sion

Your point about the 'God-of-the-gaps' has a number of problems. Christianity does not attempt to answer any of the same questions that science answers. If you read the gospels (which incidentally give a significant amount of historical evidence for the central figure of the 'myth' - what do you want? photographs? video? How about you talk to any serious historian about the proof of existance of individuals in the first century) you will find that Jesus doesn't talk much about physics, chemistry of biology. Science and religion are perfectly compatible - they just answer completely different questions. Science can explain how things work - but can never give an answer to why.

Purpose is a huge part of the human life and all of us spend the whole time (consciously or not) purposefully doing things. It is part of being in time. To say that there is no 'Why?' as Dawkins and co do, is not a satifactory answer. on what grounds can they say that? Is it up to them whether or not 'Why?' exists? As I said in an earlier post - if God (or the source of the great 'why?') exists, it is on his terms not ours.

So when you said:

"For me I prefer the solitude of Prof. Hawking's answer "What came before the big bang"
To paraphrase: "You cannot ask that because the big-bang singularity represents the beginning of space and TIME - you cannot ask about things which exist BEFORE time" "

I agree, SCIENCE cannot ask about things BEFORE (or outside) of time, but the fact that we do ask, and that so many people find answers, suggests that there might well be an answer, and one which makes itself known on its own terms.

[David McCullough]

Correction: But anyone over 50 who smokes or believes in a god is not using their intelligence.

Should be: But anyone under 50 who smokes or anyone who believes in a god is not using their intelligence.

[Mary Shelley]

What the above comments demonstrate that--rude or no--atheism is merely another creed (atheology?) that will not tolerate creeds that procede it. It is right, those who believe otherwise are 'indoctrinated'--or worse, eg Harry P and ? who compared the religious instinct to an impulse towards criminality and ? to a disease respectively.

Hardly good demonstrations of the 'kindness' and tolerance which atheology alledgely inspires.

[Andrew Ryan]

If not believing in God is a creed, does that mean that 'not playing golf' is a hobby? And where has Dawkins been intolerant? Where has he said people should suffer in any way for not having the same views as him. Is saying 'I don't agree with you' now a sign of intolerance?

I don't see how comparing a delusion to a disease is that far off either.

[Martin Klocke]

To be honest, I have not read Dawkins book.
But it seems that he touches the most sensitive part of the belief-religions (that stem from the middle east...): Dogmas and belief in them.
A religion with dogmas that you have to believe in is very sensitive and instable in its nature. Because as soon as someone else DOES NOT believe, this is a danger to you and your religion plus dogmas.
So you try to convert as many people to believe in the same thing (missionaries) so you can life a more relaxed life.
If this would not be the case, there would not be missionaries and fanatics.
Talking about religion of experience (going to the far east), they do not have fanatics.
They also do not have dogmas. And you do not have to believe in something. You do not have to fill up holes in their theory with dogmas/excommunications/death-fatwas etc.
So, if Dawkins wrote something outrageous about these religions, there would not be any uproar. Their followers would take it as a different opinion, and that's it.
His point is thus correct when reffering to all the religions stemming from the middle east, a region famous for peace and harmony ;-)

[Dan Allen]

The basic fact is religious people believe in God because they want to believe in God.
That is absolutely no argument whatsoever.
They hate having this fairly obvious and basic flaw pointed out to them if their dodging fails, their last resort is to be offended.

Daniel Finkelstein is classic case of 'God is a No Go'.
He fills his columns with 'everything you think about X is wrong' expositions – some of them quite good.
I am genuinely surprised that someone who makes a name being a numbers man can't see the holes in religious belief as rational thought.

[Dan Allen]

Mary Shelley,

Go back to the horror fiction.
Science is a geninue and as far as possible honest endeavour to obtain a real understanding of the world and better the lot of mankind in the best ways we can find.
So on that level it is a creed.
But religion is a lot of unsubstansiated nonsense that does not one any good and has done a lot of people a great deal of harm.
It is juvenile to put the faith I have in our predictions for (say) the next solar eclipse on the same footing as Christianities predictions for (say) the second coming.
You have an enormous amount to learn about science if you can't see the difference between those two sets of predictions. I'm not teasing. Go to evening class and take Physics GCSE.

[Simon Stephenson]

Another Husband

I think most of us would agree that, once one has mastered the tactics, it is always possible in an unbounded discussion not to have to accept that one has been defeated. It's not actually very difficult - no one can disprove anything, so merely create a new level of understanding that just happens to confirm ones own particular viewpoint. Hey presto!

I can really understand why so many refuse to confine their discussion of religion and God-belief within the bounds of rationalism. I DO understand that to many the very ability to hold their belief is the most important necessity in their existence. I know that to them, the bottom line of any discussion is that they must not be forced into a position in which they must accept the need for they, themselves, to reappraise the validity of their beliefs. Despite their acceptance, in other aspects of life, of the primacy of rational discovery and truth, as far as their religion is concerned, their need to believe is stronger than their need to know.

This is not the case with everyone, and it creates a state of affairs where the believer and the non-believer are completely incapable of arriving at a point of agreement. There is, as far as the rational non-believer is concerned, a compromise position, in so far as it is quite possible to hold the rational position that for some people existence is not possible without the support of the rock of certainty that is embodied in religious belief. Would it be true to say that there remains a stumbling block to compromise through believers' inability to reconcile with their belief the concept that for some people belief is neither necessary nor desirable? If so, is it not possible for believers to try to construct a philosophical position in which they accept the right of some people not to believe without this concession destroying the rock of certainty that underpins their belief?