'We'd be better off without religion'

Richard Dawkins was among the speakers at the debate sponsored by The Times and organised by Intelligence Squared at Westminster Central Hall in London last night. More details on The Times Faith Page, and you can also listen to the podcast. There is also an entertaining blog just up, summarising this post and some of the comments.

It was apparently sold out, even though I counted  more than 100 empty seats behind my front row on the side where I sat in glorious near-solitude, with one person to the right of me and none behind or to the left. This was only after I managed to squeeze past the slightly scary but fortunately very thin security guard barring the door and telling me there were no empty seats. I was barely able to see any of the speakers but I was at least able to hear them. And this was a debate sponsored by The Times! I'm telling you this just to prove that my employers are so fair-minded as to make sure conditions are such that no special treatment, reserved seating, pre-debate drinks, anything of that sort, could possibly influence their own staff to write a report prejudiced in favour of an event they've sponsored. And it worked. By the time the debate actually got going, I have to confess I was feeling pretty cross. I was looking forward to getting more fuel for my crossness from Richard Dawkins and going home in a right old temper to take it out on this blog.

But to my sorrow, Dawkins thwarted this intent.

The motion was: 'We'd be better off without religion.' On his side were Professor AC Grayling and Christopher Hitchens. Against were Baroness Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and Nigel Spivey. The incomparable Joan Bakewell was in the chair. At these debates, styled along the lines of Oxford and Cambridge debates but disappointingly less hecklesome, a vote is taken at the start and another at the end.

The first vote was 826 votes for the motion, 681 against and 364 don't knows. By the end, the voting was 1,205 for the motion, 778 against and 100 don't knows. And would you know, so thrown into confusion was I by being almost convinced of the case by Dawkins that I actually voted for the motion at the end. Is God - I have no doubt that such a being exists at least - trying to tell me something I wonder?

The debate was not about the existence of God. It was about religion. But none of the speakers gave a proper definition of religion, not even those arguing in its favour, thus handing the opponents a gift. In addition, all the speakers for the motion spoke without a script. All those against it read from notes or a script. Keith Porteous Wood and Terry Sanderson from the National Secular Society sat in the 'congregation', grinning. 

At one point, when he was speaking, Dawkins seemed suddenly to realise that religion had not been defined in the terms of the debate, and that therefore its definition was up for the taking, and therefore religion could perhaps be broadened to include all kinds of things that he quite aproved of, such as worship of the scientific glories of the universe, or of the beauties of complex mathematical equations. He visibly faltered and a look of shock fleetingly passed across his face as he felt the pull of temptation towards this rational black hole. He quickly recovered. It was 'odd of God', though, that with the exception of Hitchens, they all seemed to veer half the time towards arguing for the opposing side. And I'm not sure I'd ever want Hitchens on the side of religion.

Nigel Spivey, who teaches classical art and archaeology at Cambridge and Rabbi Neuberger were particularly anxious to emphasise their non-religious credentials. Julia repeatedly emphasised that she was so liberal as to be almost near to dropping off the edge, and Spivey likewise was keen to make sure we knew he was not one bit religious himself. Oh no. He was just enormously appreciative of the enormous contribution that religion had made to art and archaeology. The religious instinct was an intrinsic part of human nature, he said. It was either there because it was necessary for survival, in a Darwinian sense, or because it was an ineradicable side-product of some other essential gene. I felt here that I was a bit like a monkey, still in thrall to this strange religious gene, and Spivey was a zoo keeper, observing the phenomenon and its benefits. He had evolved to the point where he was aloof to it all himself, but he was happy to nurture and acknowledge it, especially when usefully caged in the prism of arts and architecture. Spivey actually opened the debate on the side of religion! I knew then we'd lost it. 

Professor Scruton was the best for religion. I could have listened to him for hours. Central Hall is of course a place of Methodist worship and several of the speakers seemed to have long links with it. Rabbi Julia had been taken there for synagogue worship. It was used as the overflow by the West London Synagogue on festivals and highholydays. She described fasting during Yom Kippur and long services at Central Hall, having to smell the odour of fish and chips floating up through the wooden floorboards from the cafe below.

Scruton likewise had been introduced to Methodism at an early age by his father. 'When it crossed his mind that he could not bring his kids up totally without religion, he looked for the gloomiest chapel he could find and it was the Methodist chapel. We were sent there every Sunday and he did not attend. It had a profound effect on me.' His rebellion was to bunk off chapel, and secretly attend the nearby Anglican church instead. 'This was totally unrelated to the fact that there was a very attradtive girl there in a white makintosh. That was my first encounter with a transcendental religious experience.'

That's the thing that its opponents will never understand about religion. As this blog bears witness, so much of its appeal is that it is actually about drives and instincts related to love - love for our fellow humans as well as for the transcendent.

In a debate redolent with platitudes, Scruton was the least platitudinous, in spite of lecturing us on why Plato got it wrong in his Republic. Arguing on rational grounds that a society would be better off without religion was like arguing that society would be better off without love, he said. And as we all know, love is frequently irrational. He did not deny that there were wrong ways of pursuing the religious quest. But there was nothing irrational in looking for what is sacred. It was part of the human condition to search for meaning.

Hitchens, I thought, almost lost it for the anti-religionists when he interrupted Rabbi Julia with a vituperative: 'How dare you!' as she was speaking. She had been casting aspersions about the sensibilities of atheists. Joan Bakewell quieted the beast and reason took hold once more. And soon it became clear that the pro-religionists did not have a hope, given the calibre of Dawkins and Grayling.

ACGrayling, whose new book is called Against all Gods, was philosophic. By that I mean quick of tongue and logic. His mind at one point went too fast for his tongue and he lost me. But I got one paragraph down that contained the thrust of his argument: 'You do not need supernatural agencies or religion or scriptures to explain the fact that human beings are capable of good and that most of the good in the world has come from that source and not from some alleged supernatural source.'

Not surprisingly, Dawkins had no difficulty at all destroying Spivey's argument. I suspect that they are in fact on the same side. 'Speak for yourself,' he said about the allegation that the religious gene is in us all. 'It is not a part of me. It is not a part of the great majority of my friends in universities in England and the US and elsewhere.' (Dear Dr Dawkins, that's because you and your academic friends are all 'zoo keepers' in the Spivey sense. Spivey wasn't talking about 'people like you'! He was talking about people like me.) And as for Spivey's point that religion had given us the Sistine Chapel and other similar great works, Dawkins correctly pointed out that great artists painted about religion because the Church had the money to pay them. Even Hitchens was right to to note that every brick of St Peter's was paid for by a special indulgence.

It is strange how Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion and Channel 4's Root of All Evil programme, came over as an angry man. Because he is not at all like that in the flesh. Especially when seated next to someone like Hitchens.

'There are very good grounds to believe there is no actual truth in the claims of religion. I rather liken it to a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort,' said Dawkins, perpetuating a common but gross misunderstanding of why people need religion. Some of us, I suspect quite a lot, are not religious for comfort. It is because we need to be battered, reduced, to have our monstrous egos squashed so we can control them properly. Speaking entirely for myself here of course.

Dawkins also compared giving children a religious education to erecting in their minds a firewall against scientific truth, rather like a computer firewall against viruses. He was particularly upset about a well-known Christian geologist who had abandoned his science when it became clear it was not compatible with a literal reading of the Bible. 'He said that even if all the evidence in the world pointed against creationism, he would still be a creationist because that is what the word of God pointed him to.' Well I'd be upset if my son became a creationist but there is no chance of that, not in the Church of England at least.

Dawkins did not have to work very hard to win the argument last night. His problem is that he takes religion too literally, and as many have pointed out, is too fundamentalist about his own atheistic creed. Apart from that fleeting moment of doubt I spotted, we are all creationists in his eyes. But I hope I might have the opportunity to explore some of these areas in an interview with him soon. I'll still be using in in my mind the nickname I have adopted for him: 'Mobius Dick.' But after last night I accept that Dr Dawkins does have more than two sides to his soul, more that two dimensions to his spirit. He just doesn't know it... yet.

(Update: Dawkins, who celebrated his birthday recently, has called me to reassure me there was no 'moment of doubt' whatsoever. More soon I hope.)

 

Comments

[Shiro OTA]

I think what the blogger may be mistaking about Professor Dawkins is that he has some childish vendetta against religion - understood to encompass all the myriad contradictory definitions we give it nowadays. Rather, Dawkins opposes religion proper - that is: religion as belief based on faith. And 'faith' is to be understood as a belief devoid of; or contrary to, the evidence.

When understood in this way, it's clear to see how Dawkins and other atheists like myself can retain all the good of religion (the rituals; the ethics*; the community; the wonder) while exempting ourselves of the anti-reason and progress-hindrance (to say nothing of the violence and unethical activity that is justified by the particular religions we're currently enthral to). I'm unaware whether or not you have read Dawkins' writing (I assume you have since you say he sounds angry, I don't recall noticing this myself), but he does go to great lengths to explain this in his book (The God Delusion), and the same idea is heavily elaborated on by the superb Sam Harris in his 'The End of Faith'.

(*There are plenty of ethical systems that require no reference to the supernatural, and, being modifiable by reason, are able to progress - rule utilitarianism for example)

Moreover, I think you have mistaken Dawkins' position on God. He is not CERTAIN there is no God in the sense of saying that its non-existence could not possibly be otherwise (as with logical facts such as '2+2=4', or 'a=a') - to be so would be to commit the same error as the religious people he is arguing against. Rather, as with all scientific positions, he is holding to the theory that is most highly probable (as he is with water being H2O; or evolution; or gravity; or his having hands). In the same way that you, I'm sure, are an afairyist (without being certain that there are no fairies), Dawkins is an atheist.

Religious 'moderates' present religion in a way that is hard to fathom. On the one hand they insist that it makes no comment scientifically or philosophically (used in the academic sense). They insist that it can progress; and that it is an entirely personal thing that makes no call on its followers to push it on others. But on the other hand, they're fully aware that it is a set in stone dogmatic doctrine (including myriad orders on how to live one's life, as well as how to treat those who don't comply); they suggest it gives an objective moral grounding; and that it can provide meaning; that it answers the 'why' questions; that it opens one's eyes to some spiritual sense that apparently atheists are lacking (I very much doubt it, but who knows); and that it's legitimate to feed it to one's children as something other than fairytale. It seems that such 'moderates' understand religion both in an entirely non-objective sense - like a favourite story book that brings the benefits of comfort and community etc., AND in an objective sense as something that can legitimately define morality; or meaning; or purpose to the universe. It's no good to reply that it doesn't insist on this objectivity, only that its followers 'subjectively' find these things in it, since in order to work; the followers would have to at least be attributing some semblance of objectivity to its claims: it's no good suggesting the benefit of your religion is that it gives you an objective moral code that nevertheless you're fully aware you're only following because of its compliance with your personal whim (and would alter if your personal preferences changed - isn't that what theists erroneously insist us atheists do?).

Whatever the case, if such moderates genuinely are not harming anybody else (including their kids), and genuinely would not stand in the way of moral progress; or science; or philosophy (reason) - then Dawkins would take no issue with them. His complaint is that they shield, propagate and glorify the frankly monstrous notion of 'faith'. Often theists like to point out that there have been secular fascists; secular dictatorships etc., but such observations are not genuine challenges to Dawkins position. Such regimes come about, and are sustained by, a 'faith' in their righteousness and the glory of those upholding them - they are just as shielded from reason as religious faiths and as such, are just as condemnable. Pointing out that humans are naturally prone to faith is no more a defence of it than pointing out that we're naturally prone to lust as a defence of rape. If there are parts of human nature that are damaging, they must be contained if society is to prosper. Faith is the enemy, not ritual; nor beauty; nor art; nor any other beautiful thing that has in the past been linked to religion.

Fundamentally, Dawkins' point is that religion brings a hell of a lot of bad, which it continues to be able to generate as its evils are not argued (and therefore vulnerable to reasoned counter-argument) but held on faith (thereby making them immune to reason), and that what good it does bring is entirely available from non-faith sources (the wonder from science and philosophy; the ethics from reason; the ritual from... well, non-religious rituals like carnivals etc., the community from non-religious communities, and so on). As such, he suggests we push faith and the religions that feed off it aside, as we have with other negative human activities we've upheld in the past (as well as all the parts of the bible and other religious books we now find too detestable to uphold - I wonder what ethical standards they could possibly have been conflicting with given that religion is the only source of morality).

Presenting Dawkins' position otherwise than here-in only serves to demonstrate that one either (1): has not read/understood his writing and is therefore unaware of his genuine position, or (2): is unable to earnestly respond to what he has said and therefore must resort to ad hominem attacks against him.

If you're a freethinker, in any sense of the word, he's not the enemy.

[Ken. Houston Scotland.]

I just can't help thinking, when I read anything to do with the bible, the story that came from world war one when the command given at the outset was,"send reinforcements we're going to advance" only to get to the end of the line and be given as, "send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" Given the time involved regarding the storys in the bible, the mind boggles at how they must have started out. How anyone in this day and age with a reasonable level of intelligence can take any of it seriously beggars belief.

[Christopher]

Jim, you are no doubt right about current scholarly thinking on the authorship of the gospels and I have no doubt people like NT Wright would have to agree. But here's a question that those of us who are not so informed about scriptural origins can still apply our brains to. It is set out on YouTube as "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Also for Ian who raised the question of Dawkins's reference to the Sodom story, perhaps Dawkins is a bit out of date if he thinks the Sodom story is about homosexuality. I am sure Irene will agree with me that the Jews have never interpreted the story in that way and since these scriptures are theirs before anyone else's I think Christians and Muslims might take on board what the rabbis have to say on the interpretation. What the men of Sodom wanted to do was to humiliate the outsiders (the angels). By anally raping them they would have subverted the angels' masculinity (if angels have that). This is the point of rape - it is as much about control and theft of identity as it is about sexual pleasure.

Indeed if the angels had complied it would have taken away the point. When Lot offered his daughters he showed that he was complicit in what the men of Sodom wanted to do, but at the same time he recognised he had a 'higher' duty to protect the sexuality of his guests (because they were guests demanding his protection whereas his daughters were his property for him to dispose of? Or was it because men's sexuality is more valuable than women's so raping a man is more terrible than raping a woman? I think I heard the late Lord Longford say something dangerously like it when he said that if a man of 16 has sex with a man he is ruined for life but for a 16-year old girl it is just unfortunate.)

In the uncannily parallel story set in Gibeah found in the book of Judges, a certain Levite and his concubine find themselves looking for accommodation in the town square. They are eventually taken in by an old man. As in Sodom, so in Gibeah, once night falls the men of the city come clamouring at the door demanding that the old man bring his guests out that they may 'know' them. The old man offers his own daughter and the Levite's concubine, but like the men of Sodom the men of Gibeah really wanted to rape a male since that would emphasise their own patriarchal and heterosexist status and teach the despised foreign males who was boss. Playing the role of inserter did not impugn one's heterosexuality in the cultural mores of the time any more than it does now in Mediterranean shame culture. (Schmitt in Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Moslem Societies has remarked that in Middle Eastern society 'it is the right of men and their duty to lie on top' and that 'sodomisation of one's slaves or of a Christian is not only sanctioned by public opinion, but some jurists as well'.) The man who is raped or who willingly undergoes penetration is entirely compromised and loses his heterosexual status because he has been treated like a woman (forcibly or volitionally does not seem to matter much). This shows that in both stories the citizens are about marking out the foreigner as 'other' and to demean him to a less than human status by the standard of compulsory heterosexuality. In the Gibeah story there are no angels to save the day, so the Levite grabs his concubine and shoves her out to save himself. The men rape her all night and she is discovered dead or dying on the doorstep in the morning. The Levite cut her body into twelve pieces (did he kill her or was she dead already?) and sent them throughout Israel. Both stories are about mob-rape, yet rape only gets to take place at Gibeah, where there is no divine retribution only a war instigated by humans. Sodomy is named for the would-be crime instigated at Sodom but Gibeahy (where a crime did occur) has not been coined for the mob-rape of the concubine. We may well ask ourselves why, but in the meantime for a fascinating discussion of how this biblical myth became one of the foundational myths of Christian homophobia it is worth reading Michael Carden's Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth. So, the wickedness of the Sodomites wasn't because they were gay; quite the reverse, in fact.

[jim, sydney]

The gospels are not based on purely historical facts. There are scholars who highlight that the gospels are not four independent accounts penned by disciples or witnesses of Jesus, and that such an idea has been unsustainable for over a century. The gospels are biased novellas. They are designed to tell a tale about Jesus as Christ and Messiah, and as such outline a moral code from a prophet, and set out to record a story which supports his divinity. All 4 gospels are based on Mark, which itself has been said to have been written outside Palestine in a Greek-speaking environment. It seems to be based on the lost document Q, which was likely based on an oral story of the first century about a Jesus, who maybe, possibly or probably (and which of these is the case is unknown) lived in the early 1st century or earlier. Who he really was, and what his life really involved, is speculation.
Understandably, established Christian Churches shows little enthusiasm for telling people that what has always been taught as literal truth should now be discarded. The very earliest Christian records from Paul and others entertained a dramatically different picture of Jesus from that which we have long uncritically accepted from the gospels. These earliest witnesses to Christianity consistently and independently fail to corroborate, and often actually contradict, what we assume from the gospels.
Whether the gospels are over 95% mythical legend, or less, is unknown, but they are known by all honest scholars to not be historically accurate. I and many qualified scriptural scholars believe they are much more myth than fact. If the miracles, virgin conception, angels, old testament prophesy fulfillments and resurrection were embellishments, as common sense suggests, then the gospels are by extrapolation flawed, inaccurate and suspect in everything else they say. There may be a few facts, but they are not integral to the storyline or aims of the authors.

[Stephen Chin]

What's all this fuss about? Man is a child at heart. When adult he still needs to hold on to the hand of a parent. So he created God.

[Ian]

In 'the God delusion' Mr Dawkins talks about the men of Sodom wanting to and insisting on buggering someones house-guest. Mr Dawkins also talks of how the house-holder ofers up a virginal member of his house to appease the sodomites lust.
In the Revelation of St. John it states that Jesus was crucified in 'Sodom & Egypt', but he wasn't put to death by Homosexuals or pharoahs was he?
The Bible is a spiritual book and the likes of RD have no clue as to what it means, they know less than the priests they condemn.
A sodomite is a religious individual whose custom it is, to force his traditions upon all who enter his city
An egyptian is pilate, or those men who sit as rulers in goverment and rule according to men's will, today we call them politicians.
Dawkins is a sodomite, he has his atheist religion and he wants to ram it down everyones neck

[Ken. Houston Scotland.]

In a hundred years or so people will look back at our time and laugh at the nonsense of religion and the harm it did. Pathetic weak minded and easily led will be how they would describe us. It's a pity I won't be around because the world will be a much safer place.

[Ehsan]

I am a fan of Professor Scruton.

Bearing in mind that the whole universe is a Book written by a masterly pen,and thinking about the Chaos,the curling smokes in the darkness,the last Explosion,the two Couples,the forbidden tree,the skies,the winds designed to carry seeds in order to plant some new trees wherein no human can put them in the earth,the soft breeze making you fresh and make you cry of joy or sorrow,the tears itself,the complex anatomy of both humans and animals,the moon,the sun and their transitions to make us sleep and to wake us to work…
we will realize that all of them are lines of a poetic fiction tended to make us think.however,since human beings are relative in both knowledge and thought,that is,they can not reach the borders of truth by their own thoughts and brains,(nonetheless I do not deny the power of human thought,I just say it is relative)the intelligent designer or the master writer determined to send some interpreters for his book.that is all.and Religions(some human-made,some ethereal and transcendental)was born.
all I can say is that reading about the debate I remembered lines of a poem by Simon Armitage:
You`re beautiful because you believe in coincidence and the power of thought/ I`m ugly because I proved God (or here ,Religion) to be a mathematical impossibility.
The very subject of the debate,and the true answers to problem of Religion,leads us to some philosophical question about Life and Death,...

[alan]

The fact is, believers, that although you can think up a god, give him all the attributes you wish, let him say what you want to hear and make him promise to reward you with afterlife etc.etc.etc., nevertheless, when you die, your god dies with you - why? BECAUSE HE ONLY EXISTS IN YOUR MIND. (Or do you think Zeus and Thor really existed except in their believers' minds?)

[jim rogers, sydney]

So Mohammed, you believe God deliberately kills? Strange vile God.
Good and evil are adjectives, and pertain only to human, not animal behaviour. (Though you seem to attribute evil to God as well!)
Moral development commenced before religion (see other explanations in my long posting May 3rd.)

[Richard Steel]

The arguments that condemn religion to be the source of a multitude of evils are generally fallacious. Some of the most evil despots and dictators the world has ever seen were atheist, Stalin and Mao being two notable examples. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and forgive them. That doesn't sound like the fuel that lights fundamentalist fires of visceral hatred, carnage and murderous mayhem does it? Moreover, there is very compelling evidence for Jesus providing veracity for God from both a historical and contemporary perspective.

[Mohammed]

Humans before religion can be compared with dinosaurs before meteorites (savage cannibals, living without purpose). If humans go back to their savage ways, they'd also be next on Gods extinct list.

[luke]

Jonathan, Revelations is the nuttiest book in the bible, and written for schizophrenics and lunatics

[jim rogers, sydney, australia]

JP Walsh should read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype and Unweaving The Rainbow.
Then he'd understand his blog is rubbish, as he doesn't understand Dawkins' explanation of genes and evolution.
Peter, read those, and you'll be a wiser man....

[don]

a true understanding of franklin and freedom would end the debate

[Joshua]

Kamal, I agree. And what a brilliant list of thinkers!

[Kamal]

The organisers of stuff like these really need to get eminent conservative Christian philosophers, scientists and theologians -- like Alvin Plantinga, Francis Collins and N Thomas Wright -- to participate in these discussions.

[Jonathan harvey]

The word hell by the way is discribed in the Bible, for a shallow grave,not a place of firey torment where people go after death,the interpretation was put apon this word was to frighten people with supperstitious nonsense.Hell was therefore translated for the words Hades, and She'ol, both means the common grave of mankind thats all.

[Jonathan harvey]

religions record down through the centuries has been one of apalling blood shed,this has not gone unoticed by God who will shortly call to account in the near futre her conduct, by using the political elements of this system to bring her down fall.The book of Revelations chapter 17 and 18,describes a harlot in symbolic terms, who has a name written upon her forehead,Babylon the great,the empire of false religion, she sits on many waters and has authority over the kings of the earth, these political leaders will come to hate and turn on her shortly and will deverstate her.Because of her meddling in political and inteffering in world affairs.The rulers of this world will see no use in her any more,and thereby bring her to her end.As she lives in sameless luxury whilst many of her worshipers are impoverished living in squallar and appalling conditions.Past and presant she has supported wars and her influence has caused the deaths of many,as Revelation discribes the situation, her sins have amassed to the heavans and the blood she has caused has reached to horses bridle.Mind you there are some very sincere and nice people comitted to religion and do some very good works,but the God of heavan is encouraging peopel to get out of her before her downfall, and before its to late.A similar situation was seen during the last days of the Jewish system of things in 70,CE.This was when the ruling empire used its millitary force to dispell the up rising of religious zelots in Jerusalem thereby bringing an end to many centuries of pure worship in that city.The events surrounding then, at that time has also a greater fullfilment in our time,Matthew 24:

[J.P.Walsh.]

Richard Dawkins writes about selfish genes.Some of the genes are selfish enough to result in malignant disease.But in the field of proliferative disease, scientists have made a major contribution,that of nuclear weaponry and its radiation damage to the genes of those unfortunate enough to have survived a nuclear attack or Chernobyl-like incident.
But Dawkins'public standing now gains recognition from his proselytising promotion of his Darwinian-derived atheism.As a scientist he is well aware of the lack of proof for Darwinian evolution.But as an atheist he holds the view that Darwinism has summarily dismissed God.Dawkins is embarked on a manifest crusade to rid humanity of an irritating tendency to persist in religious adherence.Atheism is the way forward.
But the Dawkins'hypothesised problem is a pandemic and persistent virus-like gene -the "mene" (sic) - which confers religion on any that it infects.
Now we are,indeed, in "Fairyland"
and Dawkins has fairies at the bottom of his thinking.
Peter Walsh.

[Joshua]

Thanks, Denis.

And, yes, let's debate more on another thread - this one takes an age to load now (and yes I did a cut and paste into Word then took out all the 'Denis Collins' posts, one doc was 65k, your doc was 30k words).

Here is one thought to end with tho'. The argument about God is not that there is another mystery beyond the universe/matter that requires explanation - the 'so where did the designer come from' problem. It is, I believe, about something which is not matter but other dimensional - much as Dawkins muses in 'Dawkins transcendant'.

[MaryC]

So, Son of King Kong accuses Alistair Mcgrath of cashing in on his name. Really! the hypocrisy of the man beggars belief.
If God doesn't exist, then both Dawkins and his bank manager must be eternally grateful that someone had the foresight to invent him.

[Denis Collins]

I doubt many people are still looking at this blog so I'm reluctant to answer Joshua (I'm sure nothing I say will change HIS mind), but since he asks for a response I suppose I should give it.

He says:
'Denis, thank you for responding to my comments and for calling my metaphor stupid. It makes an excellent start to my post.'

I called it 'stupid' because, well, it is, but also because you called my earlier (valid) point 'silly'.
If you can't take it you shouldn't give it out.

'Re, the long-windedness of ahteists, I must apologise to the atheists on this blog. Apart from Denis that is. In a blog of 90k words I think Denis you have written about 30k of them,'

I haven't bothered counting but I know I haven't posted anything like one third of the material on here. One tenth might be more accurate, and that is because, as I have said before, there is so much faulty logic, ignorance of facts and even downright dishonesty on here from some (not all) of the religious brigade that it takes a while to respond to it all adequately.
Ironically, however, about a third of the material on here is made up of the mindless cut-and-pastes of Christians.

' which makes my point and as Mary Shelley said:

"1) Denis Collins is *extremely* long-winded. Unbelievably long winded! He could do with a good editor, or two, or three."

So maybe it is just you Denis who is the hobby debater. You certainly entertain.'

I also inform, as a few comments on here and more e-mails I have received about this blog show.
Moreover, I have to wonder what exactly blogs like this are for if not for 'hobby debating'? Perhaps Joshua is just annoyed that I do it better than him! hehe

'And you certainly misunderstood the Tidal Wave metaphor. Of course it begs the question! Duh.'

Indeed it does, which is why it is stupid- performing a logical error in an attempted parody of a statement by myself which does NOT contain any such error is, I'm afraid, stupid.
I understood your metaphor, and it doesn't work- see below.

'I say there is a Tidal Wave coming and, yes, I believe in Tidal Waves. You don't. So what. I am not going to wait around to prove it to you, I am off!'

OK- I never asked you to! You can believe what you like, I'm not stopping you.
When I said the onus of proof is upon you- which indeed it is- I meant if you WANT to convince me that your particular deity is real THEN you need to do so. I'm not ASKING you too.... the Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my door, I don't go round and pester them at home!

'If you don't want to believe in Tidal Waves it is entirely up to you and furthermore you have to prove to yourself there are no Tidal Waves not me. The onus of proof is on you to prove to yourself something that as important as a Tidal Wave is not there. To sit back and say, as you did say, 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'. is to my mind much more stupid.'

Yes, 'to your mind' it is much more stupid- which just demonstrates the limitations of your mind.
There are an infinite set of possible 'dangerous things' which, should I not believe in and take heed of them, could conceivably cause me harm- the Yettie for instance, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductors, or poltergeists, or Allah......
Oh, by the way, if the world's one billion or so muslims (they will outnumber Christians by the end of this century) are right then YOU, Joshua, are destined for the eternal fires of hell for not heeding the words of the Prophet!
You see, to take your (dodgy) metaphor a stage further, Tidal Waves aren't the only things that come out of the blue and kill- have you considered earthquakes? The muslims have.... is the onus on them to convince you that such dangers exist? Hmmm...
God (your version as well as all the others) is a member of this hypothetical set, and so I treat him the same as all the others- show me some evidence.

'Now you may feel that God is an entirely different matter but the argument holds - if you understand it that is. (or maybe you were just spinning it out of all recognition - your entertaining flair again!)'

Ironically I understand it a lot better than does Joshua, which is why I know it is specious.
This is simply Pascal's Wager restated- that it is better to play it safe by believing in God than not, *just in case* he does exist- because if he does exist you will then not incur his wrath after you die, while if in fact he doesn't then you haven't really lost anything anyway.
With the excepton of Plantinga (we'll come onto him) few if any contemporary professional philosophers accept this argument as valid. There are lots of things wrong with it.
One is that belief is a state, not an action- you cannot FORCE yourself to believe in something, either you believe or don't believe. And it is no good simply PRETENDING to believe in God- God (by definition) would know this!
Worst of all, Pascal- and Joshua after him- assumes that the only such thing you need to 'play safe' and believe in is God, that is, the Christian deity (and even he is available in various flavours among the 30,000 or so extant Christian denominations- how do you know that you believe in the right one?). But what about Allah? Or Krishna? Or Zeus? Or Thor? Or...... an infinite number of deities that people have believed in or else *could* believe in, all of whom by definition could punish you after death for not believing in them? Of course, we have no evidence for their existence- but then we have no EVIDENCE for the Christian God either- just, as Joshua admits, question-begging. So this approach simply doesn't work, even as a wager or a 'hedging of bets'.

'Also I don't think you realise quite how silly Dawkins 'meme' hypothesis appears to normal rational beings (that will be me then).'

Someone who thinks that a watered-down version of Pascal's Wager is valid and Plantinga is a reliable logician does not strike me as very rational, I'm afraid.

' I once heard Daniel Dennet in a debate saying that memes were like words - so why not use the word 'words' or 'ideas' - why make up a new word if what you really mean is, as you say, consciousness or ideas.'

Because memes have something in common with words (Dennett actually says their mode of existence is LIKE that of words, not that they ARE words- I know because I chaired the first talk in the UK that he gave on this subject), and with consciousness, and (especially) with ideas- but they are not identical to any of these things. So Dawkins, for the sake of clarity, coined a neologism. This is something that happens all the time in every field of study- check out the annual supplements to the OED.

'Did you read Palntinga on Dawkins? I think you would like him. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html'

No, I shall do so at some point. Having read and heard Plantinga in the past, though, I shan't hold out much hope of any sense emerging. For one thing he doubts evolution- and I've made clear above (as has Dawkins) how ignorant (at best) are people who still do that today.
For another there is his infamous 'Valid Ontological Proof' which claims to logically prove God's existence..... except that it is simply a sophistic restatement of Anselm's mediaeval supposed proof, and though people like Joshua who read and quote from Christian websites might be taken in by it, to my knowledge no other contemporary logician is.

'Denis you say "SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them. "

They "MUST"? No evidence, no proof, no experiment, they just must.'

I was making a statement not offering a proof, on something which is only tangentially concerned with the question set in this blog, but which someone else brought up. Memetics is a complex subject which I don't have the time or inclination (since few people are reading this blog now anyway) to go into here.

'So for you some things MUST exist, and " Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities."

Er...like God?'

No, not like God. I gave a list of things previously which certainly exist in SOME sense, but which are nevertheless not themselves physical objects. Here are some more of them:
Christianity, the Second World War, politics, pronouns, prostitution, charity.
But all of these things certainly *pertain to* physical objects in some way or other. The same is true of memes, but not of God.
(I'm reminded of the witty aphorism of David Papineau, a philosopher who once spoke to CUAAS: 'Ontological discussions should only be held behind closed doors between consenting philosophers'! hehe)

'Are you saying that a logical proof is enough to argue for the existence of something immaterial?

Um...like God?'

No I'm not...though that is an interesting question actually. I suppose one day someone just might come up with a valid logical proof of God's existence, but so far- after many centuries of trying- no-one has.
What I am talking about is looking at physical objects and processes and seeing what, if any, non-physical things must exist (that weasel word again) pertaining to them. Our Parliamentary system demonstrates that something non-physical called 'politics' exists; our Churches and what goes on inside them show that something called 'Christianity' exists; and our minds and the consciousness they produce shows that something LIKE 'memes' exist (although our understanding of consciousness is presently so limited that we cannot say for sure how accurate or not the meme model is).
Alas, we don't have any such indirect physical evidence for something called 'God', only faith and the claims of ancient books written by people who were clueless about how the world really is, as demonstrated latterly by science.

'You say that "The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false."'

Indeed.

'Like matter? How did that come about?'

No-one knows. Perhaps Allah made it..... so why don't you believe in him?

'Did the universe just pop out of nothing?'

For all we know, yes.

'Where is your evidence?'

Go and read a book on cosmology- any from the last forty years will do- and cure your ignorance. The more that has been learned about our universe the more clearly it is seen that it bears no trace of 'design' or the fingerprints of a 'creator'.
(Oh, and please don't quote me, from your Christian websites, statements by the likes of Philip Davies or John Barrow, physicists who in their POPULAR books claim that physics has uncovered the 'mind of God'- they've had their thirty pieces of silver for this nonsense in the form of bigger book sales in the US and $1million+ Templeton prize money.)

'Or are you back to a logical or philosophical rather than empirical proof ?'

No. The Big Bang is a unique scientific question in that, unlike every other scientific question, there is nothing else to compare it against; we cannot conduct an experiment upon it, or re-run the original event with controls; we cannot judge it against other, similar events (we don't know of any), and we cannot reach back before it in time to see what preceded it (according to most current models there WAS no time 'before' it). This does indeed make it very puzzling.
According to one model ours is one of a (perhaps infinite) series of universes that begin with Big Bangs, end in Big Crunches, and then start all over again.
According to another our universe is one of an (again perhaps infinte) set of universes that 'bud off' from one another.
Another model (this one, interestingly, has advocates in both physics and philosophy- see the work of the late David Lewis) reckons that our universe is just one 'slice' of the multiverse, a vast (perhaps infinite) number of universes which co-exist in some as yet not understood fashion.
And so on.
Not all of these models can be true, of course, and perhaps none of them are. Perhaps, after all, ours is the only universe, and perhaps it was created by the Christian God (though it is rather odd that he seems to have 'lit the blue touch paper and retired to a safe distance', as no sign of his involvement with his creation has ever stood up to scrutiny).
Or perhaps it was created by Allah.... or Zeus.... or Daffy Duck....or.....
But the simplest hypothesis which fits all of the (enormous) available evidence, scientifically and logically, is that it was not 'created' at all, but simply exists. And while that seems bizarre and weird to us, it is- of logical necessity- less bizarre or weird than the alternative that it was made by something else that pre-existed it. Because then you are left needing to explain the creator's own existence, and if you just want to cheat and say 'Well, he just exists!', then I can- and will- say 'Well, the universe just exists'- and my hypothesis is superior since it only entails what we already KNOW exists, rather than adding a hypothetical previous stage which itself requires explanation.
Occam's Razor slices again.

'No doubt you have heard Dawkins faith-in-science answer to this in the Dawkins vs Quinn radio interview. http://richarddawkins.net/audio/RD_tubridyshow.mp3'

No but I have heard him answer the same question elsewhere and he is correct- however hard it is to explain the existence of quarks and leptons (and science has already explained all the more complex physical entities that are made up of these simple fundamental particles) it is much harder (perhaps infinitely so) to explain God. So, pending evidence to the contrary (and we've already had a LONG wait for that) we should accept the former and reject the latter.

'Here's a quote to get your teeth into, RD says "the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve." Maybe he should try http://www.thegodargument.com/index.htm'

Maybe you should go and read a book on cosmology and cease inventing super-mysteries like God to explain lesser mysteries like our universe.

'You might also have already seen the 'Does Dawkins exist' spoof - quite amusing.
http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html'

No, I shall try to though.

'Looking forward to your reply.'

Well, you have it (though no doubt you will castigate me once more for long-windedness). SInce this blog is largely ended now, though, I shall forgo the opportunity to debate with you any further Joshua.
Go in peace.

[Joshua]

Denis you say "SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them. "

They "MUST"? No evidence, no proof, no experiment, they just must.

So for you some things MUST exist, and " Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities."

Er...like God?

Are you saying that a logical proof is enough to argue for the existence of something immaterial?

Um...like God?

You say that "The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false."

Like matter? How did that come about? Did the universe just pop out of nothing? Where is your evidence? Or are you back to a logical or philosophical rather than empirical proof ?

No doubt you have heard Dawkins faith-in-science answer to this in the Dawkins vs Quinn radio interview. http://richarddawkins.net/audio/RD_tubridyshow.mp3

Here's a quote to get your teeth into, RD says "the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve." Maybe he should try http://www.thegodargument.com/index.htm

You might also have already seen the 'Does Dawkins exist' spoof - quite amusing.
http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html

Looking forward to your reply.

[Joshua]

Denis, thank you for responding to my comments and for calling my metaphor stupid. It makes an excellent start to my post.

Re, the long-windedness of ahteists, I must apologise to the atheists on this blog. Apart from Denis that is. In a blog of 90k words I think Denis you have written about 30k of them, which makes my point and as Mary Shelley said:

"1) Denis Collins is *extremely* long-winded. Unbelievably long winded! He could do with a good editor, or two, or three."

So maybe it is just you Denis who is the hobby debater. You certainly entertain.

And you certainly misunderstood the Tidal Wave metaphor. Of course it begs the question! Duh.

I say there is a Tidal Wave coming and, yes, I believe in Tidal Waves. You don't. So what. I am not going to wait around to prove it to you, I am off! If you don't want to believe in Tidal Waves it is entirely up to you and furthermore you have to prove to yourself there are no Tidal Waves not me. The onus of proof is on you to prove to yourself something that as important as a Tidal Wave is not there. To sit back and say, as you did say, 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'. is to my mind much more stupid.

Now you may feel that God is an entirely different matter but the argument holds - if you understand it that is. (or maybe you were just spinning it out of all recognition - your entertaining flair again!)

Also I don't think you realise quite how silly Dawkins 'meme' hypothesis appears to normal rational beings (that will be me then). I once heard Daniel Dennet in a debate saying that memes were like words - so why not use the word 'words' or 'ideas' - why make up a new word if what you really mean is, as you say, consciousness or ideas.

Did you read Palntinga on Dawkins? I think you would like him. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

[Robert Halfhill]

If we consider statements that have no evidence either for or against them, one half or 50% of these statement will not turn out to be true. For example, there are medical theories derived from empirical evidence and a vast number of theories with no evidence supporting them. People who have tried to treat themselves according to unproven medical theories have ended up incurring bad consequences. If it were true that therries with no evidence either for or against them had a 50% chance of being true, half of the people trying to treat themselves according to unproven medical theories would have had a favorable outcome.
A theist onve asked me why negative sentences, i.e. the statement that something does not exist, wouldn't have an equally low probability according to my argument. The best answer to his question comes if we consider true or false mathematical statements. Suppose I ask you to guess what number I am thinking of when all I am thinking is that the number is not seven. Then there are an infinite number of numbers that would make your guess true and only one, seven, that would make it false. But if, on the other hand, I am thinking of the number seven, there is only one number that will make your guess true and an infinite number of numbers that will make your guess false.
Robert Halfhill

[Denis Collins]

I just spotted another interesting post among all the dross here, that by IB. He says:

'Prof Dawkins contravenes his own claims to be based solely on 'evidence', ie empirical data of the observable kind, by advocating 'memes'. These are not observable, they are a speculation of Prof D in order to account for human morality, aesthetics and culture, and religion.'

That is right, and this is why Dawkins is careful to differentiate memetics from genetics- the former is basically a sociological/psychological theory while the latter is an exact physical science.

'Why have we not kept going on the 'nature red in tooth and claw' pathway, why have we developed altruism and love, self sacrifice, beauty, goodness and truth'

Because these are the inevitable side-effects of the evolution of large-brains and the complex social interactions that go with them.

' - well its because of 'memes'. That is to say a sort of notional 'gene' proposed but nowhere spotted at all.'

This is disingenuous, or else IB has simply misunderstood Dawkins' 'meme' hypothesis.

Dawkins has never claimed that memes are discrete physical entities like genes- they obviously are not. But Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities.
Words, thoughts, love, Marxism, colours, for instance, are all examples of 'things which exist' but which are nevertheless not themselves physical entities. They all do, though, *pertain to* physical entities in some more or less complex fashion- and the same is true of memes. 'Meme' is simply a convenient label for the things that minds process..... and minds are (with apologioes to the dualists!) what large complex brains do.... and large complex brains are... physical objects.

'This is back to metaphysics, and memes are just as notional as is - God! '

No, they are not- SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them.
The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false.

'Good old Prof D, good on biology, lousy as a philosopher.'

I agree that Dawkins is rather lacking philosophically (I said as much in an earlier post)- but NOT for the reasons IB has given, which are spurious.

[Denis Collins]

I just looked back in on this blog to see if anyone had made any interesting late points... and was most embarrassed to see my young pal Duncan eulogizing me! Ta Dunc!

Joshua's post is worth commenting on since he makes one fair point, one spurious one, and one that is absurd!

It is indeed a fair question to ask 'Would we be better off without atheism?' because, though atheism is true (well, on all the available evidence anyway) that doesn't mean that its widespread acceptance necessarily makes the human predicament in any way more bearable. This, I suppose, is the crux of this whole blog's initial question, but it is such a vast subject that I don't feel I should enter into it at the late stage! Sorry! hehe

But when Joshua says:

'The very long posts above (Denis, Duncan and Jim especially) show that atheism also provides a much needed outlet for hobby debaters.'

I have to point out that actually all of the longest 5-10 posts on here are from *Christians*, as can be readily checked. Of course, all of these very long postings were simply cut-and-pasted from apologetic (usually creationist) websites and are a veritable banquet of factual and logical errors (and sometimes downright lies), while all the long(ish) atheistic posts were mostly or entirely the 'original work' of the posters themselves, and well argued and evidenced to boot.
I suggest this reflects the relative intellects of the two sets of posters, frankly.

Then Joshua says:

'But it does worry me that some atheist posters let the side down rather. Here is a howler (from Denis)
"In order to be atheists we do not have to DISPROVE God's existence, the onus is upon those who DO believe in all or any of these things to provide some evidence for their views."
This is such a silly argument that any child would see through it in an instant. '

Oh really? Let's see how Joshua manages it then:

'For example - there is a tidal wave coming. I tell you there is a tidal wave coming but you say "Oh, believer of Tidal Waves, the onus is on you to prove to me that this Tidal Wave theory is imminent". My reply would be a short "Bye!"

This is so stupid- and I'm sorry to sound rude, but 'stupid' is the mildest word I can use for it!- that it is hard to know where to begin pointing out the multiple logical fallacies it entails.

I suppose the easiest way is simply to say that it is a classic case of 'begging the question'- that is, Joshua *assumes* the very thing he sets out to prove. If we KNEW (that is, we had independently verifiable PROOF) right from the off that God exists-that is, if God was an observable, measureable, recordable physical phenomenon like Tidal Waves- then yes indeed I would be silly to claim that I don't believe in it.

But of course God isn't like this- even if such a thing exists we have no way of observing/measuring/recording it and, moreover, every testable claim that has been made on its behalf over many centuries has proven false. Anyone who doubts this should get reading (Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker' would be a good place to start) and give themselves an education in the established scientific world-view, which not only does not REQUIRE a deity but which (for reasons I'll probably end up going into elsewhere) shows such a thing to be very unlikely.

Joshua's proffered example would only have any validity in an 'alternate world' (a favourite play-thing of modern philosophers!) in which Tidal Waves had NEVER been observed, in which all traditional claims of indirect evidence for Tidal Waves had proven unfounded, and where the only 'evidence' for Tidal Waves was that certain ancient books (full of self-contradictions as well as many empirically disproven claims) SAID such things existed.
In such a world I would be perfectly justified in saying to Joshua 'What evidence do you have of such a thing?' and, when all he could offer was 'Well, I read about it in an ancient book full of supernatural claims of all sorts!', in saying 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'.

And, to echo Joshua's misplaced rudeness, I'm quite sure that even when I was myself a 'child' I could have explained this to him.

[Howard Sherrington]

Many religions have been taken over by leaders who have strayed from the original. Man needs to believe in God otherwise he is no different from an animal. It is the word of God given to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai - the Ten Commandments that all religions must embrace. They are the core of universal morality. Unfortunately many religious leaders have lost sight of them and this is why religion is betting a bad name.

[bill shepherd]

An unbalanced panel with Scruton a weak advocate rigged this in favour of anti religionists. There is a woeful ignorance of the benefits through the ages of christianity. This was another bunch of salaried clever-sillies who should be spending their well remunerated time solving the problems of social disruption -the underclass - treatment of the elderly and the mentally ill together with the ubringing of children all of which have declined coincidentlly with the decline in religious influence.
To hear these comfortable people who are largely insulated from social decline, seeking to further remove some of the moral influences which have sustained civil society is a cause for despair at our intellectual elite conducting a trahaison des clercs.

[John Muir]

Everyone misses the point. Religion is a form of ideology, and it's very difficult (for me at least) to envisage a cohesive society without some level of common ideology.
The debate might as well be "Society would be better off without ideology"
All ideologies which I know of,theistic or otherwise, are inspired by some sense of higher purpose, greater than the individual self - be it "Freedom" "the supreme soviet" "democracy" etc. etc.
Ideologies, theistic or otherwise, trhroughout history have had potential to spawn extreme, intolerant sects, and the most destructive ideologies to date have been atheistic or have sought to replace God. Communism or nazism are clear examples.
The danger is not religion itself, but any undbending, intolerant ideology, at the same time societies NEED some form of ideology to exist.

[Joshua]

Would we better off without atheism?
It is a good question. What is it for, why does it exist? Or is it a delusion, a dream state created by the unguided evolved mind, a meme caught from some ancient tribe or 18th century literature? Who knows.
In the last couple of centuries atheism has shown it doesn't do politics well, has recently lost its power to inspire, has a lack of vision, no creative purpose and to have philosophically and culturally sidelined itself. Some may feel I am overstating the case, but I think this is reasonably accurate.
However I do believe atheism is useful. There is no doubt that Dawkins et al have a real passion for the truth and that in our present post-modern western society where relativism and the 'does it work for you' philosophies are much cherished his brand of passion for hard nosed, no compromising truth is very welcome.
The very long posts above (Denis, Duncan and Jim especially) show that atheism also provides a much needed outlet for hobby debaters.
But it does worry me that some atheist posters let the side down rather. Here is a howler (from Denis)
"In order to be atheists we do not have to DISPROVE God's existence, the onus is upon those who DO believe in all or any of these things to provide some evidence for their views."
This is such a silly argument that any child would see through it in an instant. For example - there is a tidal wave coming. I tell you there is a tidal wave coming but you say "Oh, believer of Tidal Waves, the onus is on you to prove to me that this Tidal Wave theory is imminent". My reply would be a short "Bye!"
Dawkins loves story about the Emperors New Clothes and this likewise exposes the wearer of a distinctly flimsy argument.
Entertaining but surely a bit out in the cold.

[Kim Kaze]

At the end of the day, Dawkins absolutely hates religion, especially Christianity.

That's the bottom line, really. He hates it. Those who equally hate it or just dislike it, will celebrate him at every given opportunity. Yet his book reviews constantly show that his arguments are not rational, and he gives no fair time to his worthy opponents. His one interest is promoting atheism.

I find him to be quite rude and a rather vindictive man.

[P.Young]

DAwkins is so poorly educated or miseducated or studied the wrong way all or most of his life that the most obvious fact that behind every creation is a creator;that this is not within the realms of our limited minds to comprehend a limitless being as God is;that my whole family has to debunk his childish idea.

[Kate]

Maynard: "What in heaven's name would a chemist or biologist or any '-ist' but a social-psychologist or sociologist or anthropolgist know about what welfare 'we' as a people or polity or society derive and/or forgo in hewing to one or another religion?"

Well Maynard, unless you imagine all "-ist"(s) exist in a hermetically sealed laboratory which, if medical research is correct, would damage their brains, might I suggest they are as able as any other living Being to observe and hold opinions on the good or ill visited on society (in general) by religions.

Further: "And who but each individual would be fit to judge what welfare s/he qua individual derived from the same?"

Surely that depends? It depends on precisely how the religious individual interacts with society. If religion is a private and personal matter, then indeed, only the individual concerned can assess its benefit.

If however, the religious seek to impose on others an ego-centric definition of what religion means; or seek to denigrate others with differing views; or seek to subvert the democratic will in the name of religion, then it is no longer a matter of individual 'rights' but a matter of concern to others?

It is significant that you (for example) denigrate discourse as "a meaningless chatter" and appear to wish to deny others the right of free debate.

[J Pearce]

"The honourable thing for all of these people, on all sides, to do is to shut the hell up; like all 'talking heads' on countless television screens, they make but a meaningless clatter."

Err…so whats the point of having a blog debating these issues then, Maynard? Would you rather chat about the weather?

[frank]

People should read the various sacred texts once, as they tell us much about our heritage and history, and outline part of man's early search for moral codes.
However, like a cigarette packet, all these texts should carry a warning on the cover: CAUTION: Open with care, this book could be injurious to your health; the contents within are not factual, and should not be taken literally!

[Maynard]

What in heaven's name would a chemist or biologist or any '-ist' but a social-psychologist or sociologist or anthropolgist know about what welfare 'we' as a people or polity or society derive and/or forgo in hewing to one or another religion? And who but each individual would be fit to judge what welfare s/he qua individual derived from the same? The people cited here are but mountebanks, and shrill Dawkins for his part is but whoring a book. The honourable thing for all of these people, on all sides, to do is to shut the hell up; like all 'talking heads' on countless television screens, they make but a meaningless clatter.

[Kate]

Duncan Crowe: "These freedoms, ... emerged ... only in the twilight of the age ... When the religious are in charge all the bad views get locked away and burnt. The people that profess them get burnt too. ...And the next time they get back in the ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs start all over again."

Thank you Duncan for a cogent and wide-ranging analysis, in support of which, I would note a recent return to self-righteous "ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs", and ironically, the 'unity' of Islamic and Roman immutable dogma.

Most pronounced, I think, is evidence of a deep-seated anti-intellectualism; a commitment to a common (learned or absorbed) ontology which is consistent, but far from complete in its rejection of further 'formal' knowledge or 'knowing' in the sense of Being in the world.

Denis Collins has indeed shown himself "a profoundly agreeable man" in a courteous and detailed exposition but, while belief or faith is, in itself a metaphysical concept, his detractors appear immune to meta ta physika i.e. ANY other possibility of a reality outside their own human sense perception or learned vocabulary.

It is a denial, in the face of scientific progress, that 'following' or investigating 'nature' opens doors to further understanding. I can only conclude, with you, that the antipathy is cemented in fear. Fear that a metaphysical absolute (a contradiction in terms) might (someday) be shown to be a self-deluding crutch.

What is missing in all this debate is any acknowledgement that GOD (if such exists) is a concept BEYOND, and patently immune to the machinations of the infinite variety of human beings who claim him as their own personal shield against a difficult and frightening world.

[Duncan Crowe]

Oh for a world without exams so I could join in properly.

First, does anyone have a link to the video footage for this debate? I suppose the audio would do, but it seems pretty bad form if no one bothered to record in properly in A/V for posterity.

For the sake of 'the meeting of minds' here are a few paltry replies to the last few posters. I apologize for their limitations, but tempus fugit and doubley so particularly in exam term.

Lia: Not necessarily. In a godless universe, while there are the usual things to be afraid of - large trucks for example - which if there was a particularly benign, interventionist deity wouldn't pose much of an issue there isn't anything more to be afraid of after realising there isn't a god then there was the day before. I think some people radically overestimate the activity of the pre-frontal lobes. The same folk that tell you that a godless universe is something to fear are the same folk that tell you if you stop believing in god 'there's no reason not to go raping and pillaging'. There certainly is; you feel disinclined to do so. You would feel bad if you did. The moral sentiments are present in most people and don't suddenly disappear when the metaphysical crutch you conjured to explain them gets taken away. Similarly, while there are moments when you might suddenly say to yourself 'my god! I'm trapped in a meaningless universe and I'm going to die and nothing matters and' so on and so forth... those moments are pretty few and far between. They go away. Who on earth decided that 'important' implied 'ultimately important for ever and ever and ever'. Family is important. One day all your family members will be dead. Pleasure is important. All pleasure is fleeting. Doing something to make someone you like feel good about themselves is very important. They might sink back into gloom the next day. In each of these couplets the latter half in no way degrades the former. Chill out; relax. There is no god and it doesn't REALLY change a damn thing, because there never was.

Simon: First, don't give up the day job. For one thing easy does not rhyme with needy. Second, your poem overall betrays the kind of sentiments found recurring in Christianity which really drove Nietzsche up the wall (apart from the Syphilis I mean). I'm not great fan of Nietzsche, but I invite you to reflect for a moment on the sentiment expressed in your second-to-last verse. It's certainly not out of pace with christian doctrine - the sermon on the mount expresses similar thoughts 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth' (don't fight). Christianity teaches that you should be content with the status quo because one of these days Jesus is going to come back and set things straight. Don't worry about other people's actions - just keep yourself straight (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), don't get involved in secular politics (render unto caesar what is caesars), don't bother to stand up against injustice done against you (turn the other cheek) and one of these days Jesus will show up and make the whole thing better. Well - I want to play Pascal's wager in reverse for you: what if you're wrong. What if Jesus is never going to show up. There is no good reason to think he will (such at least is the atheistic claim) - what you have done is adopt and endorse a system of beliefs which keep you meek and humble and waiting for someone else to solve your problems. The problem with religion - and by that, apparently to the utter bafflement of many of the people here) I include religious beliefs about messiahs, gods, heavens, hells - isn't so much that it's false but more than that. It drags people down: worshipful for mere sustenance, afraid to fight back against a system which represses them and all the time reassured that when the king returns all will be well. Well, in your holy book it says he'll show up again within the lifetimes of the apostles. All the great churchmen from Paul through to Jerry Falwell lived and died in the sure conviction Jesus was going to show up on their watch. Do you see a pattern here?

Brian: You are free to read what you want. You are free to engage in conversations as you see fit. These freedoms, I think it worth mentioning aren't those which emerged from over a millenia of 'christendom' in europe, but only in the twilight of the age when secular thinkers such as Paine, Hume, Mill and the American Founding Fathers (Founding Fathers get capitals, god doesn't - neat huh?) started arguing for and fighting for the freedoms of speech and assembly. When the religious are in charge all the bad views get locked away and burnt. The people that profess them get burnt too. And whenever we re-enter an age when that kind of thing doesn't happen any more the religious figures of the day say 'oh, no - that kind of thing isn't integral to religion. We've changed from then. That was then, this is now. We're more enlightened - not cause we've learned from philosophers but because that was jesus'/mohammad's/whoever's message all along'. And the next time they get back in the ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs start all over again. Same old story, and you're a part of it. What is it within you, do you think, that decides the when people disagree with him they are under the spell of the mythological manifestation of pure evil. Is this what you're like in day to day life, or is it just when religion gets involved. When someone cuts you off in traffic do you assume satan is in command of that Nissan Micra or is there one rule for religion and another rule for everything else? I know you. I know your works. You are the kind of person who when their religion takes over locks people like Richard, Christopher, Denis and me up. Or worse. You are the reason Richard Dawkin writes his books and isn't just content to sit happy with his disbelief quietly; because there are people like you out there who if left to their own devices will decide the 'satanically influenced' people they disagree with have to be dealt with. Stop looking for satan in the words of others - he's right there in your heart friend.

Mark: Yes indeed, though I'm not sure Karen Armstrong would be entirely comfortable with the company she keeps in your list. If you don't mind here are some other recommendations to add to your reading list: first up read Dennett's other works. I cannot tell your what numinous joy I feel when reading the articles in the Intentional Stance (pow! take that intrumentalist positions on the ascriptions of mental states ;) ) but at the very least Consciousness Explained, Kinds of Mind and Sweet Dreams are not to be missed by someone with a nascent interest in the nature of the mind. Steven Pinker, while I don't agree with everything he has to say particularly when he strays on to philosophy of mind, is suspiciously absent from your list and this should be remedied as soon as possible. As an antidote to Pinker you may also want to look into Ramachandran (Phantoms of the Brain) and Oliver Sacks (The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat and An Anthropologist on Mars) who will tell you everything you never needed to know about what happens when the brain goes wrong. If you are (and it sounds like you are) interested in naturalistic explanations of ethics, there has been a sudden rush of publishing in this area in the last few years, but here are a few of the - if not best, best known to me: Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue, Marc Hauser's Moral Minds and Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality. The locus classicus for common sense ethics is and always will be Aristotle and Hume, however. If only Hume had known about evolution, the last piece of the puzzle could have slotted into place. Ho hum.

Mary Shelly, though you hardly deserve your namesake: Denis Collins is a profoundly agreeable man if you ever met him in person and it gave me nothing but the most profound pleasure to see his name and that of CUAAS adorn this page. In between improving his mind and copy editing other peoples books he sends a considerable amount of time working (as far as I know without pay) in a charity book shop. Were the world populated by men like him we would live in a golden age... though speak in Liverpudlian accents so I guess it's kind of win-some lose-some. As far as the christian posters being the more logical... while I hate to sound like a man up an ivory tower when you have argued to the point where your erudition ends it does not mean you have proven your point, it simply means you can no longer understand the reasons you are incorrect. If you took the time to read the authors kindly listed by Mark below you, you might begin to understand why the majority of the allegedly logical arguments given by theists in this thread are incoherent, but are so in a fairly technical and subtle way (the cosmological argument which keeps coming up can be run again and again and again in a wide variety of forms. None of them work, but to refute them all takes time, and the fundamental reason they are all flawed cannot be expressed more succinctly than the manner in which Richard Dawkins himself puts it; 'what made god?'). I have myself been in fairly close proximity to John Polkinghorne when he (who, note, is championed as a model of the scientifically minded christian and has recieved over £700,000 for the quality of his apologetics) produced his two best arguments for belief in god - that the universe was simple enough that we can understand it; therefore there must be a god, and that there are aspects of the universe we cannot understand (music, love etc), therefore there must be a god - that were so prima facie absurd it profoundly shocked me to the point of revelation that when theists argue for belief in god they are not - as atheists in my experience tend to try and do - looking for a sure fire by-god-if-that-doesn't convince-em-nothing-will knock-down argument, but simply the nearest foothold that looks steady enough to bear the weight of the enormous emotional crutch handed down from their parents. Throw the crutch away - life's just as beautiful without it.

Duncan Crowe,
Cambridge, UK.

(ruth adds: Duncan, we did do an audio, there should be an MP3 file easy enough to find via the faith page, timesonline.co.uk/faith)

[Lia]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

God warned us through His word that there would be many false teachings: Passage Jeremiah 14:14:
Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds".

Man has always made gods to suit himself. Man is always trying to make their own self-righteous religions to please their gods, great example is Adolf Hilter. If somebody voices it loudly enough for many people to hear it, it is quite easy to get people to agree with you.

God has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with YOU!

Ultimately, as Ray Comfort quoted “Either there is a God or there isn’t. Both possibilities are frightening!”

Best is to go to the source where the truth is revealed and the lies unravelled!

[Bernard Walker]

I wish that God would ban all religions! It just might make the world a safer place.

Seriously though, what other concepts would people believe in, unconditionally, without proof, scientific confirmation or empirical evidence?

Dawkins has my vote.

[Simon Icke]

Looking For God In A Hard World
by Simon Icke c. 2000

Looking for God in hard world is not easy.
Does anyone care about the poor and needy?
Why are the rich and famous so greedy?

Violence, wars and hatred, famine and drought,
Why is it that so many go without?
It's no wonder people start to doubt.

Some people say there is no God,
But with the next breath they blame Him!
Don't you find that really odd?

With life in such a mess,
We could say, why care about the rest?
Have you thought this could be a test?

Perhaps after God's creation,
He just forgot to mention,
That this world would be full of tension!

Good will prevail over evil in the end,
And forgiveness a broken relationship will mend.
Wasn't Jesus sent to be our friend?

Ask and it will be given,
Knock and the door will be opened,
Seek and you will find.

[Ib]

Prof Dawkins contravenes his own claims to be based solely on 'evidence', ie empirical data of the observable kind, by advocating 'memes'. These are not observable, they are a speculation of Prof D in order to account for human morality, aesthetics and culture, and religion. Why have we not kept going on the 'nature red in tooth and claw' pathway, why have we developed altruism and love, self sacrifice, beauty, goodness and truth - well its because of 'memes'. That is to say a sort of notional 'gene' proposed but nowhere spotted at all. This is back to metaphysics, and memes are just as notional as is - God! Good old Prof D, good on biology, lousy as a philosopher.

[James Bannon]

No matter how many times the religionists try to tell me I will not believe there is an invisible pink elephant flying around in the room.Can I prove this? No, but every experience I've had suggests otherwise, enough to make me 99% sure there are no such things as invisible pink elephants. Oh, one more thing: rotten corpses don't walk!

[Brian Shenton]

I think it's time to rebuke satan and stop giving atheists a say on this site.It seems that if you read and respond to these shallow intellectuals, and engage yourself in a hearty debate with them, you are really just spinning your wheels and exhausting your God-given energy and time on the wrong stuff.Satan is trying to distract you from what God wants you to do.
All the negative comments just leave me feeling hurt and unsettled.I much prefer reading uplifting God-centred writing that put me in the mind of Christ.
On Richard Dawkins, and his book'The God Delusion, I find that he is a psychotic delinquent, invented my mad, deluded people.Dawkins is hell bent on a silly crusade.His salvo of outrage and redicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil:religion.He would call me a 'dyed-in-wool faith-head.And he is immune to argument.He comes across as a dogmatic, aggresive propagandist.
He believes that those who believe in God are sad, mad and bad.I embrace Christianity.I have found that the atheists are more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.
I am a responsible, informed Christian.The dogmatism of The God Delusion has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community.
Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotype and seemingly pathological hostility to religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own-goal-persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

[A J Gaspar]

It's ironic that while Dawkins lambasts all mainstream (and offstream) religion his own website resembles that of just another evangelist; you can even buy DVDs to improve your life just like you can from many other religious websites.

If Dawkins really believed his own rhetoric then he would find something more meaningful to do with is life. He may be right: We might be better off without religion; but we'd also be better off without smug, know-it-alls like Dawkins, too. The only thing he is really interested is in promoting his own self-importance!

[Peter Weatherby]

How reassuring that Richard Dawkins did not experience 'a moment of doubt'. A true believer, firm in his faith, beyond shaking. Has he realised this?

[darren]

Dawkins for Prime Minister

[mark]

The letter by Jim Rogers, explaining how the disciples and others subsequently could believe in something as magical and impossible as the resurrection, is one of the best letters on the subject I've ever read.
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Schermer, A.C. Grayling, (all with multiple books), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell is excellent, as is his other work), Mathew Alper (The God Part of the Brain), Karen Armstrong, and many other scientists, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, philosophers, psychologists, etc , all help explain the phenomenon of religion in human, non-supernatural terms.
We are intrinsically moral animals.
Pity so many people remain blind to the explanations, and prefer to believe weird things!