Richard Dawkins
Win a holiday
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From
May 12, 2007
How dare you call me a fundamentalist
The right to criticise ‘faith-heads’
Read the best of the comments on this article
The hardback God Delusion was hailed as the surprise bestseller of 2006. While it was warmly received by most of the 1,000-plus individuals who volunteered personal reviews to Amazon, paid print reviewers gave less uniform approval. Cynics might invoke unimaginative literary editors: it has “God” in the title, so send it to a known faith-head. That would be too cynical, however. Several critics began with the ominous phrase, “I’m an atheist, BUT . . .” So here is my brief rebuttal to criticisms originating from this “belief in belief” school.
I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.
Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.
I agree with Professor Dawkins, not to mention St Paul, in rejecting the argument that people should be allowed their religious comfort
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”.
You can’t criticise religion without detailed study of learned books on theology.
If, as one self-consciously intellectual critic wished, I had expounded the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope (as he vainly hoped I would), my book would have been more than a surprise bestseller, it would have been a miracle. I would happily have forgone bestsellerdom had there been the slightest hope of Duns Scotus illuminating my central question: does God exist? But I need engage only those few theologians who at least acknowledge the question, rather than blithely assuming God as a premise. For the rest, I cannot better the “Courtier’s Reply” on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website, where he takes me to task for outing the Emperor’s nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear. Most Christians happily disavow Baal and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without reference to monographs of Baalian exegesis or Pastafarian theology.
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
You’re preaching to the choir. What’s the point?
The nonbelieving choir is much bigger than people think, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks that showered my North American book tour, my articulation of hitherto closeted thoughts is heard as a kind of liberation. The atheist choir, moreover, is too ready to observe society’s convention of according special respect to faith, and it goes along with society’s lamentable habit of labelling small children with the religion of their parents. You’d never speak of a “Marxist child” or a “monetarist child”. So why give religion a free pass to indoctrinate helpless children? There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.
You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.
No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.
I’m an atheist, but people need religion.
“What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?”
What patronising condescension! “You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion.” In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. The God Delusion doesn’t set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo. I am pleased that the opening lines of my own Unweaving the Rainbow have been used to give solace at funerals.
When asked whether she believed in God, Golda Meir said: “I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God.” I recently heard a prize specimen of I’m-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: “I believe in people, and people believe in God.” I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives.
© Richard Dawkins 2006. Extracted from The God Delusion, published in paperback by Black Swan on May 21, priced £8.99. Times BooksFirst price is £8.54, free p&p, on 0870 1608080; timesonline.co.uk/booksfirstbuy
He's a dangerous person preaching a decline in morals that will have you living in a place with twisted or few moral standards, the benefits of only oneself and virtually no charity! Try living in it before thinking its some kind of utopia, it most certainly is not!
Sam, Beijing, China
If God does not exist why does believing him make us this much pleased and comfortable?He is the one whocreated us ,and he gave us all these feelings and put inside of us the need for Him.What does one lose when he finds Him(nothing),what does he gets when He loses him(unfortunately nothing)?
Seyma Bekar, Leicester, UK
RD sneakily shys away from spirituality. You create your experience of the universe by your thoughts words, actions. BUT if you don't believe this then you automatically switch off your power to create! God DOES exist, but it's more like the force from star wars not white beardy man. Sorry Dawkins!
B Smith, Chelmsford, Essex
"I find it surprising (and funny) to see how people can get so interested in something that does not exist. I mean atheists.
fpedrero, Groningen, Netherlands"
What makes it interesting for us athiests is being surrounded by people who cannot see the emporer is wearing no clothes!
James Steel, Clitheroe, UK
"I too believe in people. I believe that, given proper encouragement to think, and given the best information available, people will courageously cast aside celestial comfort blankets and lead intellectually fulfilled, emotionally liberated lives."
Where is the evidence?
Suhail Merchant, Exeter, UK
Bryan,
Please explain how prostrating oneself before the mythological god enhances intelligence, as you have declared in this thread.
Cormac, Galway, Ireland
Bryan,
Please explain how love cannot grow without "letting" the mythical "god" into our lives?
I love my wife, my family, and quite a few other people too. Yet I am an atheist.
Are you declaring that I am a liar?
Cormac, Galway, Ireland
Bryan,
I note that you say some of the Old Testament is history, and some is not, but that it is a more reliable guide as to how to behave than those suggested by Professor Dawkins.
How do you deal with the fact that god ordered rape, genocide, murder, the murder of children, and theft in the OT
Cormac, Galway, Ireland
Bryan,
I note that you complain that the anti-religious don't offer a case, by which I suppose you mean that we fail to produce evidence.
It is for theists such as you to produce evidence. You are arguing for something extra after all. The onus is upon you to produce evidence. Please do so.
Cormac, Galway, Ireland
"Compared to Dawkins' spiritual progeny, we have nothing to fear of religious fundamentalists."
Gee, did any of dawkins "followers" ram jets into the world trade center? Engage in honor killing of teen age girls? Let a Wisconsin girl die of diabetes in the name of faith healing?
Chris , Saint Paul , USA
Don't call me a fundamentalist, he says but don't dare disagree. I'm right you are not!
Problem is that Darwinian evolution doesn't work and never has. Shouting louder and abusing ones critics is well, a tactic dare I say it, of a 'Fundamentalist'!
Alan, Luton,
Why attack Dawkins? He is just promoting a reasonable argument. This thing is bigger than us all. We're just fish squabbling in a small pond. Sacred is just a word.
Marty, Crystal,
Glad that at least someone has the courage to stand up to the tide of religious extremism sweeping the world. Even those who just go along with it to fit in, like Hillary and Bill, even though they know better, contribute to the problem. Time to call it what it is: addiction to endorphin and placebo
Cheryl, fleamont,
Like it or not, Mr. Dawkins' rant is certainly breeding intolerance elsewhere. One has but to scan a few internet forums to see how quick Dawkins' supporters have been to insult and belittle. Compared to Dawkins' spiritual progeny, we have nothing to fear of religious fundamentalists.
Sohail Mirza, Mississauga, Canada
As a temple convener & student of Popper, I faced a dilama between belief and reason. My solution: We need both. But, to solve problems in the materialistic world, use reason, NOT faith. And don't use reason to solve faith based problems like Dawkins. The choice between the two is philosophical.
Professor Bill Rao, SYDNEY, Australia
Owen; Scientific discrepancies: The flood, there is not enough water for it to happen, Noah’s ark not big enough. Historic ones: Mary Magdalene being a prostitute, John’s books were not written by John the Apostle.
Alejandro, Bristol, UK
It really makes me feel guilty, but I can't help thinking that religious/superstitious people must have some kind of intellectual defect. The only other explanation that I can think of is that they're kidding us.
I'm extremely annoyed that I have to feel guilty for thinking this way. But I do
alan, germany,
Oweh H from Eastbourne- what a totally ignorant post. Dont ask me to disrpove God, the burden of proof is on you since you believe. I dont have any evidence that Zeus doesnt exist either, but why would I even begin to believe in him anyway. What is the reason for your belief.
Karl, London,
Jim G, London, UK
To be honest with you, you are just the prototype of a deluded mind like that of dawkins, who is just a an egoistic and wicked human that ever will have trod on this earth. Can u in any concrete example tell and show me in what way is the Bible full of historical and scientific descrepancies? Have you even read the Bible only once in you life time? Just basing yourselves on shaky assumptions from a deluded coward, who only after money and satanic fame, is to abate yourself from the dignity of a man made in the image of God.
I challenge all of you, so-called atheists, which are in reality fools, to disprove the existence of God!!! What are your arguments? Evolution? Creation? If God does not exist, why talk about it? God is not confined by the frailty of religion, because God is not about religion!!! Science or religion cannot prove His existence, simply because who makes the boundaries? What is science? What is religion? All those are human inventions.
Owen H., Eastbourne, UK
Syd- Cambridge "Real science doesn't start with a conclusion."
And neither does Dawkins.
Charlie, Bloomington, USA/Indiana
To Pete of Newbury
Well Pete, I notice you provide no answers, your proof seems to be to ask questions. I assume you do this to prove that your particular theory is correct.
Well sorry but that is not proof. It is simply conjecture. To then go and disparage everybody else who does not accept your proof is not really science now is it?
I would like to see real science and a real proof before we start the arm twisting.
JohnW, Oldham,
To JohnW from Oldham - you say "The science of evolution has the same sort of credentials as quack medicine".
Oh please, what a ridiculous comment! - and you say you're a scientist? You're the one who is talking drivel.
Where do you think dogs came from? Were they zapped into existence conveniently for us? Where did all the other domesticated and farm animals (and plants) come from? We dont need a complete fossil record to show us the engine of evolution. There is evidence all around us.
We have simply used artificial selection to shape the form of dogs and cats etc, as opposed to Nature where time and competitive pressures have driven natural selection.
Show me the same degree of evidence for the existence of God, or more pertinently, the evidence for the various miracles or other mumbo jumbo of the various religions.
Pete, Newbury,
Richard Dawkins is not a fundamentalist. He is an egoist - and above all, a coward. When I hear him stand up and unequivocally berate Islam in the same way he has done Christianity, then I will start to treat him as a man of integrity.
robert coates, Bologna, Italy
Richard
I think the song says that when yoy believe in something that you dont understand.. its superstition. Given that the theory of evolution to all intents and puposes is an unproven theory, which you believe, how can you claim any superiority to anyone else who believe in things they cannot prove. You claim to use scientific methods, but you have no repeatable observations, its all supposition and conjecture. You science cannot be compared to the real science of physic and engineering etc.
The science of evolution has the same sort of credentials as quack medicine. This is why people listen to your arguements and cry "fanatic". You associate yourself with real scientists but your level of proof is very low. I am a real scientist and I cannot support unsubstantiated drivel.
JohnW, Oldham,
Theodor Opatowski, your "proof" of God can only get us to the deist or pantheistic God. It doesn't even tell us if this God is conscious or intelligent. And the bible is full of scientific and historical innacuracies, and hence can be confidently rejected as the creation of ignorant men.
Jim G, London, UK
Mark of London wants proof that God exists. Just look at a single atom of any element. It consists of a large amount of ordered energy; what was originally just disordered energy or energy and entropy, the Tohu and Bohu of the Bible. That atom is repeated an astronomic number of times in identical form. Thus the total amount of energy and entropy – the sum af all atoms – from which the universe was formed was an astronomically greater amount of energy and entropy, and forming that raw material into the myriad of ordered forms of the world, above that of the atoms themselves, shows the enormous power of the entity that caused it all to happen. That entity we call God. Creation was an enormous reduction in entropy, a reduction that science will tell you is impossible in wordly processes. God's attributes come from, and only from, the Bible. You can believe that the Bible came from God or not but that God exists is certain.
Theodor Opatowski, Nahariya, Israel
Regarding free will; the only free will that we have is whether to accept the evidence for God that exists or to reject it in favour of the evidence for an accidental origin of the universe; evidence that was created precisely to give us that free choice. All the rest follows because we each of us then interpret life in terms of that choice.
Theodor Opatowski, Nahariya, Israel
The whole Dawkins-promoted 'argument' between science and religion is a complete red herring: there can never be any ultimate conflict between the two, because they look at the world from different perspectives and are not commensurable.
The conflict with religion that Dawkins identifies is a result not of science, but of Dawkins' view of science which is, precisely, fundamentalist. He understands science to be a body of complete, fixed, explanatory facts, whereas it is better seen as a body of incomplete, ever-changing, descriptive theories: you can always find facts to support your theory, but the real question is, how good is your theory?
The result of Dawkins' view is that he claims exactly the same unchallengeable, immutable and universal status for scientific statements that religious fundamentalists claim for their own beliefs. The conflict is not between science and religion generally, but between two sets of fundamentalists whose views are incompatible by definition.
Kieran McCann, Brighton,
All atheists have one thing in common. They believe that what they know now, is all that exists and is measurable. We are on stepping stones of knowledge. It would be incredulous to rule anything out when future discoveries are unknown.
As for the believers they are narrow minded and don't wish to open their minds to other views.
I think if Dawkins was a real scientist, rather than an author who liked to make money out of wasting paper and chemicals in producing this boring rubbish, he would profess a position of neither knowing or not knowing concerning the existence of God.
As a biologist his life should be devoted to helping future humans remain healthy in outer space, for that is surely the only possible future we have that is worth contributing to?
John Clarkson, Camborne, Cornwall
I know it sounds arrogant, Dave but that is it. The conversion we need to be loving has to be open to that psychological process. I have noticed God deniers or doubters who have this outlook with out realising it. It is so easy to be egoistical and difficult to be really loving.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Music, art, and poetry are examples of human invention. They are a consequence of intelligent human consciousness. So is morality.
Certain genes code for the brain regions involved in different types of artistic expression, inspiration and interpretation, in the creative artist and in the listener, viewer and reader. Man evolved from primates under Darwinian principles, but Beethoven's 9th, the Mona Lisa, and The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, are themselves not directly due to gene selection, and are only a very indirect consequence of gene survival, and could not ever be predicted by the genetic codes of their human creators.
The general concepts of music, art and poetry themselves are not the product of any definable group of genes. They are not a phenotypic expression of the genotype. In a sense they are the product of all human genes, or rather human-ness. So are love and morality.
jim, sydney,
Bryan to say that
"love only grows through somehow letting God into our inner lives"
is patently untrue. When I first met my girlfriend she was just a person, I had no feelings about her one way or another as I did not yet know her. As time has gone on I have grown to love her, I may in time grow to love her more, who knows? What I do know is that as an atheist this has diddly squat to do with god.
To suggest otherwise is to tell me that you know my mind better than I do and that would be arrogance beyond belief.
Your comment suggests that atheists and I suppose all those who follow polytheistic religions are incapable of love which is a bit out of order really.
dave, worthing, uk
Rosemarie of Cherry Hill, NJ, USA: Yet love only grows through somehow letting God into our inner lives.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
16-Oct-2007 - Rosemarie of Cherry Hill - I loved your post, because you are being kind to people, and that's important. But one thing - nobody is born with a belief in anything. It is something we are taught. If you are a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim, the chances are that your parents were before you, and that's where you learned it. Belief may be in your heart, but only because somebody put it there when you were a child.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
As I cant compete with the educational background I also had trouble understanding the article because of the advanced vocabulary. However, Iv managed to get the bottom line. Anyone who has taken a science class or a western civilization class can begin questioning their own organized religeon if any. But to go as far as saying that people are ignorant because they lean on a belief for comfort is bold and yet the author wants them to buy his book. I say science and history are outstanding, but you cant deny what you were born with. Its whats in your heart that allows you to believe in a creator, God, Buddha, Allah, etc. It isnt something youre taught. All of your research could never be more rewarding or more sustaining than the belief and the love that comes from within your heart. Unless you dont have one.
rosemarie, cherry hill , america, NJ
All who doubt evolution, but don't understand it, should read
The Language Of God by Francis Collins (who headed the human genome project for years, and is a committed Christian).
Questions are answered, very sensibly, by an excellent scientist. He discusses the Big Bang, evolution, genetics, ID, and faith. On the plus side for theists who feel threatened, he answers the questions with faith intact.
gene, greenwich,
Much preoccupation with material things lessens the ability to look beyond and improve the insights vital for daily living.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Prof. Dawkins seems to think that it is intellectually honest to fight rhetoric with rhetoric, regardless of the accuracy of his statements. Are his scientific papers couched in rhetoric? Why not?
I submit that Prof. Dawkins is not interested in the truth about religions, he is interested in winning an argument with ignorant people using their ignorant methods.
Shame.
Ann Olivier, New Orleans, USA
Yet it's forever irrational to say there's no adequate explanation.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
God is a concept formulated by Man.
Someone may love a film star who doesn't know that the lover exists. The lover can experience many of the trials and tribulations of Love, yet have no real or true feedback from the object of desire.
People can love a non-existent God, yet "experience" love of an unconditional kind in return, because they believe it exists. Areas of the brain involved in "love" are switched on and stimulated positively, in a feedback loop. This has no bearing on whether a god in fact exists or not. It is a function of their belief.
frank, sydney,
03-Oct-2007: One problem with miracles is how to decide when you have one, and not just a case of a hitherto unexplained natural phenomenon, or even a hallucination. It is as illogical to say "there cannot possibly be a natural explanation" as "there cannot possibly be a god" because we don't know everything. The best we can say is "I cannot explain this phenomenon" which is rather short of pronouncing it a miracle.
Another problem with miracles is that if you do call something a miracle, you are saying that it cannot, even in principle, be investigated and understood. You are shutting the door to understanding and giving in to ignorance. That is no way for people to behave.
If you believe in god, you presumably believe that you were given a brain for some purpose. Why not use it to explore and discover and marvel at the wonderful material universe we live in? Then produce great music and poetry and art to express your appreciation!
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Re miracles: I suppose I'm a debunker of miracles. Well, yes. But a certain amount of healthy scepticism is advisable when someone claims a miracle. I don't believe in magic, even if something unexplainable happens, and I don't believe in miracles - partly because I've seen so many cases of people (deliberately or not) trying to deceive others (or themselves). Gullible people seem to revel in it. They want to be deceived. Especially if it strengthens them in their faith. Yes, I must admit - I'm sceptical.
alan, cologne,
allen .... years ago I put the same argument (about freewill) as I put to you, to a religious friend...he replied "I see what you mean but I dont agree" then promptly changed to another point of view...youve done exactly the same...as you dont agree (that freewill does not exist,) would you be gracious enough to read again my short and simple argument and tell me where or how it is flawed?
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Amy from the East Coast of America testifies to miracles and there are people in my church who can testify to miracles. It is a question of whether you believe these people are liars because something supernatural happened in their lives, or whether they are telling the truth. The life and death and resurrexion of Jesus is one of the most well attested historical events (far better than the life of Julius Caesar) yet because it falls outside the constraints of what man considers "normal", people like Dawkins cannot accept its truth.
We can all make challenges to God to prove that He exists: but does God want to play that game? If God says "Look around, and you can see what I've made, and open your ears and listen to what I have said.. that's all you'll get - because I want relationship with those who believe me, not those who call me a liar and a delusion " then man has to accept God on his terms because He's God and not someone you can manipulate to satisy your own ego.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
26.9.07 I find it odd that Christians are asked to immerse themselves in scientific literature to see that science has the answers to the meaning of life, while those who suggest this, dismiss the evidence and records of the experience of Christians as pathetic and clearly lacking in credibility. Scientific theories which have been proved by scientists to be incorrect or in need of adjustment should not be dismissed by me but more of the same and new theories should be studied!! To what purpose? Truth is a fixed thing - but scientists have faith in the "truth" as they it see today knowing that the "truth" may be different tomorrow. That seems to me to be illogical. The truth about God doesn't change. The man centered world view of some scientists who exclude God as the reason for life doesn't alter real truth.
Science has no answers to the meaning of life and what man's purpose is. If we are carbon based infestation on the planet, then what good is that conclusion?
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
"*You*can't understand why intelligent people do something. What does that tell us?" -- Norman,, Anstruther, UK
Sir, this could also tell us that *intelligent* people are thinking to deeply and bypassing the big picture. On the basis of probability alone, it seems very likely that the creation of life in/and the Universe was deliberate and not by accidental/chance. I cannot accept that infinite number of coincidences were needed to create the Universe and life on Earth. Additionally, our universal environment is also responsible for our "day-to-day life decisions"...we explore areas where we haven't been or seen.The environment created by God is keeping us alive, not the other way round.
Mohammed, London, UK
30-Sep-2007: Mohammed of London: You say "I can't understand why intelligent people would disregard existance of God when they know that miracles do exist." I think you have summarised your problem in a nutshell.
*You* can't understand why intelligent people do something. What does that tell us? More about you than about them.
*You* describe certain things as miracles - ie happening in contravention to natural law. This presumes (a) that *you* know that natural law has been contravened, and (b) that natural law actually exists, rather than being the best scientific model we have so far, but liable to be disproved tomorrow. In both of these you are speculating way beyond what is firm ground and into the unknown. Which is OK, except that you then try to sell this speculation as the basis for day-to-day life decisions.
Just like Bryan of Tintagel, except your speculation doesn't match his!
Norman, Anstruther, UK
"Mohammed, the overwhelming majority of renowned modern philosophers, scientists and mathematicians..." -- bill, towoomba
I can't understand why intelligent people would disregard existance of God when they know that miracles do exist. Bill, don't you think that the existence/mystery of life and universe is a true miracle? If you were to ask any renowned scientists or philosophers to estimate the composition/makeup of our universe at it's beginnings. They'd surely suggest some type of lifeless material[s]. I am pretty sure life as we know it didn't exist at the beginning (big bang). So there we have it. Lifeless materials turned into life. That is the miracle. It cannot be a 'coincidence'. Furthermore, imo, if the planet Earth was a certain distance farther or closer to the Sun, life would probably not exist and we wouldn't have a perfect solar eclipse, now think about that within the context of our Universe. Our Universe is purposefully designed with incredible accuracy.
Mohammed, London, UK
The supernatural is experienced through the self emptying process involved in long periods of deep prayer. See Aldous Huxley's erudite study as mentioned by me before.(See by the way how deeper insights than current psychiatry were available centuries before).
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
28-Sep-2007: Peter of Canterbury: we can't investigate the supernatural because we have no way to do so. Consider investigations into the efficacy of prayer in healing. Either the supernatural entity (SI) behaves in predictable ways (eg always granting a request if it begins "I beseech thee o lord") or it doesn't (ie it grants or denies requests according to some inscrutable plan).
In the first case, the SI is not really supernatural, since the outcome of a prayer can be predicted on entirely natural grounds; all that happens is that our picture of the natural world expands to include this new entity. (Think of how our world expanded to include germs and microbes when they were discovered to bring disease.)
In the second case there is by definition of "inscrutable" no way in which we can predict the effect of a prayer. It's not even random and subject to statistical analysis.
The natural world is plenty mysterious enough!
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Mark .london dont give up yet we are only up to 773 comments ...and I read today that they are looking for and hoping to find...wait for it......yes ...Noahs ark
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Norman - Why can't we investigate the supernatural? The whole point of my argument is that scientists tend to limit themselves to what they can measure and deduce using the material or natural world, and then have the temerity to pooh pooh the supernatural as non existent or delusional while knowing full well that inside their own heads stuff goes on that they cannot explain. Discovery in science comes from leaps in the imagination yet the unexplained experiences which have physical outcomes are often dismissed because they don't fit into the current limited knowledge.
You say science doesn't know the cause of the creation of life, yet scientists suggest random chance because many dismiss the idea of a creator. Dawkins and others do not say they don't know... they say that life happened and no creative intelligence was involved. The absence of a causal factor with intelligence leaves only one other cause: chance. If you can think of another cause, let me know.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Mohammed, the overwhelming majority of renowned modern philosophers, scientists and mathematicians and other interested academics state that man can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. There are many articles and books over the past 400 years outlining this. A comprehensive proof in support would be enlightening though surprising, given the body of knowledge thus far. Platitudes and simplistic impressions without substance don't go very far.
bill, towoomba,
Peter, regarding miracles, one can take the attitude that assumes any unexplained phenomena are miracles, but as you know, that is often shown in time to be a wrong interpretation, and a material cause is uncovered. "Unexplained healing" is best considered as just that, as in time the miracle claim may well be found to be false. One person's miracle may be another's easily explained event, with knowledge replacing the blissful ignorance and faith of the believer and his ignorant doctor.
mathew, brisbane,
25-Sep-2007: Peter of Canterbury: You are so close to the point it's tantalising. You write "Rather than rule out an intelligence behind the creation of life, they ought to say they have no idea how this happened, and leave it at that." Science is quite happy to say "we don't know" - but why leave it at that? Don't you want to investigate and find out how it happened? Apparently not - and that is the religious viewpoint.
You also write: "Random chance is the only cause if there is no intelligence behind the creation of life." This is pure speculation. Science doesn't know - but you know it is one of just two things.
We can either investigate the world around us or not. We can't investigate supernatural powers, so we investigate nature and find out what that can tell us. So far it's told us a surprising amount, and it shows no sign of letting up.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
24.9.07 It's very sad that when miracles happen, people want to debunk the experience of others as delusion and constrain all activity in the universe within man-made laws of science which encompass but a small part of all the knowledge that may exist.
Scientists are supposed to have open minds to possibilities outside existing knowledge, yet so many have preconceived notions that mean that they don't want to accept the evidence that goes against what they believe already.
Doctors the world over see unexplained healing, and can attribute no cause. Given that a common thread is the faith of the person healed, dismissal of this as a cause is illogical.
There is more to the universe than the things man can explain, and mockery of the unexplained is the refuge of the ignorant rather than the approach of the wise who would just admit their ignorance. The logic and science of atheists fails to explain the unexplained and instead says it doesn't and cannot exist!
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
What sheer rubbish the "irreducible complexity" argument is. It is exactly BECAUSE living creatures slowly evolved over millions and millions of years, the best adapted individuals surviving and procreating, that complex organs developed. If a god had created everything at one fell swoop, why should he have made things so complicated. A creator would surely have avoided the many unpleasant things that evolution has left us with as relics of our four-legged ancestors - our appendix, or the human backbone which still hasn't quite got used to our upright, two-legged gait. And why should practically all vertebrates look so alike at the embryonal stage? No, that's not evidence of a creator. It's evidence of evolution, as anyone not blinded by faith will admit.
alan, cologne,
It helps to realise we're all sometimes rather rational and sometimes otherwise. The greatest help to our growth in rationality is in the realisation that we are finite. This only takes off in the contemplation of the Infinite. On their own admission, Bill of Towoomba, God deniers have to be unspiritual yet they take the term spiritual and apply it to the material. Jim of Sidney, we know more of what God is not than we know of what He is yet the emptying of self and the contemplation of the vastness of the infinite often free us from the illusions which abound in the finite condition.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
ed - the faithful tend to blame humankind's free will (granted by god) for eveything bad that happens including, illogically enough, earthquakes, volcanoes, nasty viruses, etc. I'm not a philosopher, but I see three possibilities:-
1) we have free will, 2) our free will is restricted by our instincts, our physical bodies and our environment (for example, you're free to stop breathing, but just try it), and 3) god has "pre-destined" everything. (I go for number 2). --
and Chris, I refer you to my arguments against faith and religion in previous comments on this site. I really can't keep on explaining them over and over again.
alan, cologne,
21-Sep-2007 Peter of Canterbury: Behe's "irreducible complexity" is nothing more than an argument from personal ignorance. What he can't explain must be due to God. If you see a man on a roof, do suppose he climbed up, even if there's no sign of a ladder, or do you think he was lowered from infinity?
Geologists can't predict when volcanoes will erupt. Does that mean God makes them blow?
And you dismiss evolution now, because of evidence that will disprove it in years to come?
Somtimes scientists ARE reluctant to change their collective minds. A case in point is tectonic plate theory. (I guess, since you can't see the plates move, you don't buy into that theory either.) But when a large number of people who have studied a subject for years agree on some point, that carries some weight. Or do you think that more agreement is just more evidence of herd behaviour or a global conspiracy?
Norman, Anstruther, UK
That evolution theory is itself "evolving" is quite true, and no-one pretends to have all the explanations and answers. It is amazing that those so skeptical of it rarely avail themselves of the chance to immerse themselves in that knowledge, despite the weight of evidence and literature being widely available and accessible for the average person of average intelligence to explore in depth.
That they are so accepting of angel sightings, visitations by spirits or the dead, claims of divine revelation, and other bizarre events, when the evidence for such happenings is pathetic and clearly lacking in credibility, shows how easily people can fool themselves when they want to be fooled and are already biased in favour of an eternal, heavenly existence after death.
jim, sydney,
The greatest herd-like mentality is found filing into churches, mosques, temples and other religious gatherings,to be followed by rote prayers, chantings, speaking in strange tongues, never questioning the irrational, illogical, implausible and impossible nature of childish, impoverished, primitive beliefs.
Science forever asks for evidence, evaluates it, questions it, and moves on to new heights of understanding. Religions and believers prefer to be shielded from facts and change in a primitive, ancient, unquestioning past.
jim, sydney,
A 'Vile, contagious mental problem' Oliver?
If that's your opinion of religion then you clearly have not experienced it properly. Something that tells you to love each other and forgive (that doesn't happen enough any more) can hardly be described as that.
And how can you make the connection between religion and more pupils failing at science GCSE? This 'phenomenon' is simply a generation of lazier kids, at a time when religion is declining.
Alan - what valid arguments are there against our faith? I would love to see them.
Chris, Epsom,
alan.... on the question of freewill ..isn't it true that as we are bound to choose whatever we see to be "best" ( or feel to be the most "comforting" choice) is an example of our being hardwired and therefore freewill is non-existant?
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Mark and Dave, why all this prevarication?. What is finite demands Infinitude for its completion. It's not the only thing you cannot see. There's a real problem for you in your stance so adamantly held to, in that finitude is bereft of understanding without a relationship to Infinity. The application involved is greatly worthwhile and stops a limping around with a half sort of existence with which one may be satisfied until the better existence is tried for a while. Professor Dawkins needs to try it, then we may have a real genius.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
"Experience" of the love of God cannot ever be proven to definitely happen as such.. The is nothing that proves it isn't a self-generated experience. It comes down to personal preference as to how the "experience" is ascribed. Mystical experiences, or profound self-insights, may be perceived as a gift, or blessing, or life changing, yet still have a neuro-scientific basis. That doesn't necessarily devalue them, it merely puts them in a non-supernatural possible context, and perhaps stops them being misinterpreted, or over-interpreted as having a supernatural significance they may not deserve.
jim, sydney,
Peter Hollander,
For someone who's beliefs are based so strongly on Faith in the seemingly impossible you are extremely defeatist. Your argument seems to be that because scientists are unable to recreate a process which billions upon billions of years to occur naturally then it can't be done. The truth is that no, we can't be absolutely sure right now, and we certainly haven't been able to create life, so far. Therefore I suggest a challenge. On one side the scientists can attempt to recreate the origins of life in a lab, and on the other we can wait for god to repeat his miraculous feat of creating everything in existence in 6 days. I am not expecting any results soon, but I'm pretty sure where I would put my money.
Also, Mohammed in London, the existence of life and the magnificence of the universe are proof that there is life and the universe is magnificent, nothing more, nothing less.
Dave, worthing, uk
Dave of Worthing: As usual the central question posed is avoided by pointing out how you think life evolves. Life at it very simplest is so complex from the outset that it defies explanation that chance collisions of atoms produced it. Random chance is the only cause if there is no intelligence behind the creation of life. I suggest that if some scientsts are so confident that no intelligence exists in the cosmos that they create life from inorganic atoms instead of hiding behind the fact that they haven't got billions of years to experiment, because no matter how hard they try, they won't manage to get these atoms to form in an instant a complex double helix spiral of thousands of atoms, which can absorb energy and which can replicate by splitting exactly in two and not die in a matter of hours. Rather than rule out an intelligence behind the creation of life, they ought to say they have no idea how this happened, and leave it at that.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
"I gave up after reading 100 or so comments. Could someone point out to me the post which proves that God exists? I think I missed it." -- Mark, London, UK
It is so much easier to say God doesn't exist, than to 'prove' that God does exist. Think about it. No amount of books can disprove Gods existence. However, just the existence of life and the magnificence of the universe is proof of Gods existence.
Mohammed, London, UK
I agree Simon ....some people may even say that it's irrational.......
But perhaps only if they themselves are irrational...but maybe it's irrational to say that it's irrational....I'm confused....
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Amy - as an atheist I'm not sure about this, but I always thought working miracles was like an entry ticket to sainthood. (I read they're trying to get some recorded miracles together for the last pope). I suggest you report your miracles to the Vatican at once.Sounds to me as if you (and/or your husband) are well in the running to become the newest saints.
alan, cologne,
Oh Amy, such deliberate ignorance or innocence. There is no easy way but to say that your belief system is based on delusions. Unfortunately it seems childish and primitive beliefs in magic are rife in the world, especially our USA. As a country we have many great attributes, but fundamentalist, narrow-minded religious views, and general ignorance of history, science and logic, and belief in magical events, cloud the landscape. So many believe in supernatural and paranormal phenomena, portents and omens, astrology and star signs, pseudosciences like iridology, ghosts and spirits, contact with the dead, and more. Your views on miracles are closer to a belief in witchcraft and the occult than you realise.
hank redford, san francisco, usa
When any testable, plausible evidence for ANGELS becomes available, please may anyone let the world of atheists and agnostics know about it. Until then, I will not believe anything supposedly done or announced by angels. This includes virgin births, resurrected bodies, and all pronouncements by self-proclaimed prophets who say they had visitations. Until evidence is forthcoming, I will consider angels to be primitive folklore, childish fantasy, dream experiences or schizophrenic delusion.
jim, sydney,
Hi Andrew Berkley, et al.
Just because you don't KNOW about the evidence for the supernatural doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you were given a religious vaccine as a child - a dead version that inoculated you against the real thing.
I was instantly healed of a herniated belly button as a baby. My friend Kelly's long-time knee injury was instantly healed through prayer. (I can list at least a dozen major healings I know of personally) . My husband prayed for an employee whose foot was run over by a forklift. By the time they reached the doctor, there was no SOURCE INJURY to explain the blood all through his sock. Many times my husband and I (separately) have been given knowledge we had no physical way of knowing.
It is not our power. The Holy Spirit is real and is at work in humans. More importantly than healed bodies, though, He heals hearts and frees people from the power of sin over their lives. Praise Jesus, the King of the Universe! He's alive!
Amy, East Coast, USA
we further regard to freewill as God is far-seeing .omnipotent (and omnieverythingelse) He therefore always knows what we will choose..... so freewill is not so free
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
With regard FREE WILL.
Free will is NOT free, that to exercise said option spells damnation?
derek, fremont, ca. usa
I cannot believe so many people have the audacity to argue one way or the the other so forcefully on this subject when there is only a 50% chance that they are correct. God either does exist or does not.
I believe that God exists.
Paul, London,
I find it surprising (and funny) to see how people can get so interested in something that does not exist. I mean atheists.
fpedrero, Groningen, Netherlands
21.9.07 The Darwinist approach to evolution leaves many unaswered questions which some people just like to brush under the carpet... I suggest that people read Prof Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" 1996. Simplistic suggestions that lifeforms adapt gradually with chance mutations giving advantages and disadvatages is not borne out by evidence of gradual variation in speciation. Scientists often have theories that satisfy them, and when faced with contrary evidence, they go into denial, until it's so uncontravertible, that they tend to be herd like in all agreeing "new and better understanding" has made them change their minds. So world weary responses to make me accept the obvious (i.e. received opinion of today's herd of agreeing scientific experts) and understand evolution, are made by people who don't want to see evidence that contradicts today's received opinion, which is probably going to be proved wrong in years to come.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Gregg - if god revealed himself to me - and why indeed shouldn't he? - I would willingly believe in him. But in seven decades of life, he hasn't. If he wants me to believe, then he should reveal himself quickly, because I don't have much time left. --- You're quite right that science never gives proof (unlike religion!!), but operates with theories that are valid so long as they are falsified. So the scientist always tries to disprove his theories, so that he can get improved ones and so come nearer to the truth. Thus a scientist (or any rational person) would never, ever, become a fundamentalist. --- Believers do the opposite: They cling steadfastly (desperately) to their "theory" (faith) and refuse to acknowledge valid arguments against it. They would be devastated if they realised it was wrong. --- Atheists, by the way, are not all "scientists", just ordinary, rational human beings. --- (Gregg, I love your semantic acrobatics to show free will is not free at all!)
alan, cologne,
It is unbelievably trite and arrogant, ten times more so than anything any atheist writes, to imply only Christians can be truly spiritual or completely so. As has been pointed out many times already, believers can be so cocksure as to be blind to any other ideas.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. [Terry Pratchett]
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. [Benjamin Franklin]
The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it. Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. [Robert G. Ingersoll]
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. [Bertrand Russell]
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]
bill, towoomba,
There is constant comment on how levels of understanding of science at GCSE are falling, perhaps the most telling indicator of this phenomenon is that there is still religion infecting the minds of British children. Dawkins is absolutely right to unrelentingly combat this vile, contagious mental problem.
Atheism is no more responsible for the gulags or the "great leap" forward than a heady brew of Roman Catholicism and Paganism is responsible for the Holocaust, or Christianity is responsible for the concentration camps in British ruled Africa. Evil people cause evil, their belief is too often a scapegoat. there are, however, occasions where the religion itself is to blame. Think Islamic terrorism, murders of abortionists, and the conflict between Muslims and Hidus at the time of the partition of India.
Oliver Kandasamy, Bideford, Devon
Bob Gibson :
Faith is often defined as "Belief without knowledge", but that is a bogus definition pedalled by modern philosophers, even confusing Christians. People with genuine faith (and many so-called Christians don't actually have it) believe because God reveals himself directly to the individual, without need of external signs. In other words though the evidence you criticise may be lacking the believers themselves have ultimate proof by Divine omnipotence. So at least as far as the impartial observer is concerned believers have a mechanism for rational belief. Also science never ever gives proof, only conditional evidence waiting to be 'falsified' (re: Karl Popper). So philosophically the situation is the opposite of what you describe. As for free will: there is no problem if the will aligns with that of God. The contradicting will (of the evil) immediately loses its freedom (by aligning to untruth): so no free person is ever contradicting God. Ie. "freewill" has limits.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
For those who have responded to my postings. thank you, and thank you for the advice for me to be better informed and to get my facts straight according to your way of thinking.
Science for me doesn't provide the answers to the questions of life that I am asking. Many assertions of scientists are not absolute truth, but hypotheses requiring faith to believe them. I prefer to have faith in God and rely on what I see of the world for myself. Since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Some prefer to be blind, but blind men cannot say that those who see colours and beauty are deluded, for they know not what others experience. My proof is my experience of the love of God, and no amount of science can prove love. There are a billion Christians and the number keeps on growing: they experience the supernatural.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Alex of Arbroath, Scotland. Problem of a morality without God is that, as Jesus teaches, it has no chance to deepen and mature. The Saviour came to show that shallow spirituality is not on. It withers away especially under threat. I have seen this happen many times.There's positive experience of spiritual development inevitably comes when there's involvement of God.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I went to a Christian school until June this year, but every time there was an interhouse speech contest I would write a speech that tried to undermine the religion that the school was founded upon. This is because, in the age of enlightenment, people should believe in whatever the evidence indicates is most likely to be true, at the moment that means the view accepted by science. Refusal to believe what scientists tell you that you should is idiotic. They have no reason to be biased, unlike Christian "scientists".
I absolutely loved the God delusion, it changed my perspective. I now realise that moderate religion facilitates extremism, and more worryingly, that belief in a 100% literal interpretation of the given holy book, is rife. I've always said to the religious: "You only need the comfort of an afterlife because your life will never as rich as mine is, now that I've found physics."
Oliver Kandasamy, Bideford, Devon
JIm, ..."coloured in our judgements by our feelings"..exactly.....isn't it the same with the McCann (Madeleine) mystery (nothing may ever be proven or disproven) but we seem to want them to be innocent,don't we?
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Peter Hollander, I will say this one last time.
You as a believer think that without an intelligence behind the universe then everything we see around us would have had to have happened by pure chance. That is NOT and I cannot stress this strongly enough, it is NOT the stance of the atheist or indeed any who believe in evolution.
Evolution is a process of selection where certain aspects may be favoured above others. The changes occur by chance but are favoured according to the relative advantages they create. Those changes which survive create the living world we see around us, which is in continuous flux. Those which are not beneficial are discarded.
Dave, worthing, uk
16-Sep-2007 - Reg of Portsmouth - You sound as if you can explain your reasoning - how come you found Dawkins' arguments were put forward extremely well, but now believe in prayer even more?
I'm curious as to what this means. Did you only believe that 10% of prayers were answered, and now believe that 20% are? Or did you only believe that prayers were good for the person praying, and now believe they are good for all society? Or what? Please do explain!
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Francis Bacon 400 years ago described the false notions that beset wayward thinking, and act as distorting factors in our human nature. That we tend to believe our senses as evidence when they can deceive, be coloured in our judgments by our feelings, and impose interpretations on what we perceive based on our expectations and own ideas. Such is the way with "intelligent design" creationist theories (an oxymoron), which are based on personal preference and ignorance of the scientific evidence.
jim, sydney,
An intelligent God would create a universe that worked without the need for tinkering and constant or periodic tweaking and tuning.
A not very smart one would need to intervene to fix his mistakes or design faults, to achieve some divinely planned outcome. Such a need would deny his existence.
bill owens, orlando, florida,
I find it somewhat amusing that people can devote a large proportion of their careers and reputation on attacking something and be known for nothing else.
Simon Davies, Norwich, UK
Peter, your privileged modern way of life is a consequence of scientific understanding and discovery. You seem happy to be the beneficiary of others efforts in the past and present working to achieve your society's progress, while denying the human and scientific methods leading to that outcome.
It is madness to assume that, because many things occur randomly, then every event is random. Complex, directed, and often predictable non-random events occur all the time within our cosmos, at macro and microscopic levels, due to the fundamental laws governing our universe. This isn't chance creating complexity. Opportunity can exist within seemingly random disorder for an ordered process to be initiated and propagated, for logical scientific reasons. Sometimes this may only be explicable by human scientific endeavours post-event. We are still learning. To accuse atheists of holding a belief that all physical and chemical animate or inanimate reactions are random is foolish, deliberately blind, unscientific, and pathetic. You really don't understand science at all, do you?
jim, sydney,
For those who has responded to my postings, thank you.
To those who advise me to be better informed, thank you also, but more scientific information doesn't provide an answer to why nature or matter behaves in the way it does in the cosmos.
Those who believe in God, believe by faith in Him, and believe the truth of what they believe has been revealed to man by God. The spiritual experiences of believers reinforce faith. Christians believe that God is the being that can control everything, being all powerful and all knowing, but that in creating nature, nature behaves in ways planned by God. So man has free will to do good or evil, procreate or remain celibate.
Atheists do not recognise that there is any creator in the cosmos, which means there is no intelligence behind nature and that the order of things must be a pure matter of chance.
That is an unbelievable delusion because the evidence all around suggests that chance cannot create the complexity of the cosmos.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
It's not 2006, but 1006 or 0006, as far as the believers are concerned!
thomas, liverpool,
Jim Dykes, you make the same point I have heard over and over again about the eye, the ear, the complexity of the human body and use it as an argument for god. This to me is unfathomable. If I were an all powerful god and the laws of nature acted as I dictated why would I need to design an eye so complex as our own? An all powerful god could simply place a rock where our eyes are and give this rock the capacity to "see" in the way our eyes do.
In fact it is the very complexity of the human body (of which the eye is a good example) which argues against the existence of a god. The eye MUST be the way it is because if it were not it would not be sensitive to light in the visible range (that which is most useful to life forms of our type), it has evolved to give us the ability to focus and alters according to light conditions.
An eye created by a god would not need these characteristics, it would simply be.
Dave, worthing, uk
Norman of Anstruther, UK. Problem with your stance is that there's an ocean of human knowledge which is just undiscovered unless we train ourselves and others in the worship of God. The value of these debates is that they reveal the dire need, underlined by Jesus , to become much more aware of our finite position. Without this, we're deprived in umpteen directions.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
15-Sep-2007 Ted of Philadelphia - Have you read "The God Delusion"? I don't think you'd ask such a question if you had. We must be free to make up our own minds about religion. What Dawkins argues against - not forcing, just arguing - is the assumption that we we must give religious beliefs special privileges just because they are religious. For example, why should Sikhs in the UK be allowed to ride motorcycles without helmets when everyone else has to wear one? Just because their religion means they wear turbans. I'd say, in that case they should not ride motorcycles. But no, they are accorded special privilege. There's countless other examples. And why should anyone "respect" someone else's beliefs? They're nonsense. I respect other peopel's right to hold nonsense beliefs. I'll even defend their right to do so. Isn't that enough?
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Will the gods and the magical heaven places always be the grand "filler" of all the gaps in our limited knowledge? Will we always need 20, 50 or a 100 years in order to rationally explain the properties of a rain drop - as opposed to our belief that they are tears of a god?
Also the word play surrounding religion is always a matter of interest to me. For example; the tenancy to use the word "unanswerable", when a rational person would use "as yet unanswered". The difference? One implies that the answer will never be forth coming; the other one suggests room for growth and expansion. Does this sound familiar to any one?
A structured debate on the subject on our less conventional and somewhat irrational mental tendencies is important as far as our self-exploration is concerned. Why would I think the movement of the star Alpha Sagittae will influence my boss to give me a raise? This type of self-delusion has to be explored.
But why can’t we discuss Zeus for a change?
Eli Morales, Bklyn, NY
Peter, we all agree that every living multicellular organism is amazing. Your body's development from 2 gametes to a single blastocyst, and from there in utero into a newborn, and continuing after birth to you now, is an incredible feat. A trillion atoms are turned over in your body every millionth of a second. Each cell is involved in billions of chemical reactions. Are you saying every single chemical reaction in living things only takes place because a divine being directly guides every step, every time, every instant? Does God also dissolve the sugar in your tea and the salt in your soup? Do you believe anything happens without divine intervention? How and where do you draw the line? Does God do this work at the cellular, molecular, atomic, or subatomic level, or all of these? Sometimes or all the time? Did he guide every single mutation over the billions of years of evolution, including all the failed mutations, as very few mutations lead anywhere except to death or defects. Or do you prefer to keep the concepts nebulous, having no idea where such a line would be drawn?
jim, sydney,
Andrew, that's an interesting argument, but a little drastic. Everyone should be perfectly free to believe or not believe whatever he likes, of course. But, as you point out, should anyone have the right to indoctrinate (brainwash) children with whatever belief he or she adheres to? This is a question of parents' rights against the children's rights. As an atheist, I'd like to take the children's side. On the other hand, shouldn't parents be free to send their children to church or sunday-school or baptize them etc.if they so wish? The only thing I'm really sure about is that teaching religion in school should be teaching ABOUT the various religions, not indoctrinating them to one particular religion. -- Finally, anyone if free to preach religion. It is not a criminal offence, and so no one should be sent to prison for it. But teaching about religions in school might enlighten children sufficiently to make them less susceptible to these preachings.
alan, cologne,
It takes a much greater leap of "faith" to deny the existence of God than to believe in the very clearly defined God of the Bible. One can take any one of three directions of study, and you can be convinced there is the one true God, (1) Creation
Look only at your own body, the eye, the hand, the ear, etc. (2) Conscience. Why does anyone have a sense of right and wrong with feelings of guilt? (3) Christ. The perfect man, or rightly the perfect God/Man. There is more evidence available to convince one there is the one true God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, than the evidence required to condemn a man to death in a court of law. People do not believe because they don't wnat to have to answer to a just God. They prefer to wink at God's existence, teasing their mind with the an impossible premise that God can just be dismissed from one's thinking. The one repeatable experiment that there is truly a God is the transformed life of millions who simply believe Christ died in their place.
Jim Dykes, Jonesboro, Georgia
Being a fundamentalist for sound reasoning, evidence, and the scientific method is not a vice. We must learn the fundamentals of these important things. I applaud Dawkins for being a fundamentalist when it comes to these things.
What of religious fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of some of the most popular religions today? Their "holy" text contains sexism, racism, homophobia, bigotry, statements of nature that are false, and so forth. This is why the fundamentalists of religion are reviled.
Being a fundamentalists isn't always bad, it depends on what you are a fundementalist about.
Nella Spels, Washington,
It is not even worth the effort to argue with the religious. Dawkins is wasting his valuable time on these fundementalists. The fact they have come to a view point totally unsubstantiated by any verifiable facts is in itself sufficient evidence that such individuals are a totally lost cause. Who cares what they believe? - providing they don't molest children by trying to indoctrinate them with their fanatical belief systems. To learn about religion, one should have to be over the age of 18, a consenting adult. I find the mental abuse of religion akin to child abuse by a paedophile - a particularly sick violation of a young person. Those preaching religion should be imprisoned for life.
Andrew Berkley, NYC,
You underline a problem, Bob Gibson of New York in that the sort of evidence you ask for is overwhelmingly compelling as a result of the research inevitably involved in the adoration of God. Your query about God and free will becomes insignificant in the greater realisation through this of the gap between the finite and Infinite. Our great problem is that we find God worship taxing. It always is. The need to apply to this is universal since we are inveterate worshippers, often doing it in unhelpful directions. Only worship of God begins to bring about the necessary balance.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Alan Pavelin. You are a believer, because you have a need to believe. Certainly your life experience plays a part in this. My focus is on the evidence that believers need. Much of what is quoted as evidence for belief is hearsay. The standards of proof required are less than those used in the law and far lower than those required by science. This leads religious people to live with inconsistencies. If you do not believe me, then try and reconcile the absoluteness of God with human free will. I rest my case.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Loved the book and found the arguments were put forward extremely well.
After reading the book the result was probably the reverse of what that author intended-my faith in Christianity has been strengthened and I believe in prayer even more!
Reg Heath, Portsmouth, UK
These religious people are all fools. Religion is not the path to god. Religion is merely men trying to control the thoughts and actions of other men by claiming that God wills it so.
Religion is the ultimate evil.
All a man who believes in god needs to do is to live a good moral and humane life. The rest will take care of itself.
Alex, Arbroath, Scotland
My thought for the day (14.9.) -- Did "God" create the smallpox virus?
alan, cologne,
Peter : you seem to be confusing evolution and evolutionary astronomy with a prejudice about 'randomness' inherent in these things. Dawkins's book will point out that evolution (in case you haven't yet been to secondary school) is the opposite of random. Successful mutations are rewarded by nature and perpetuated; unsuccessful mutations lead to extinction. If you examined the universe and its planets (hundreds of thousands of which have been closely studied by astronomers) you would find that, so far, less tghan 1% of them ever had life. What design is there in that? To use your analogy, it would as though a calculator were designed so that 99% of the buttons and screen did not function. If this is the efficiency of a 'god', we would do better to deify Alex the Parrot. One per-cent seems more random than designed, but even this is only slightly nearer the truth. You would do well to read 'The Blind Watchmaker' and discover that Dawkins's claims are actually substantiated -unlike others
A C S, St Andrews, Scotland
Peter Hollander, you have failed to grasp how evolution works. Inform yourself and you will understand. -- By the way, did the intelligent creator create the smallpox virus and the tubercle bacillus and the tapeworm and all the other nasty little beasts that inflict animals and humans alike? If he did, why? If not, who did"create" them? (Evolution, perhaps?)
alan, colgone,
I gave up after reading 100 or so comments. Could someone point out to me the post which proves that God exists? I think I missed it.
Mark, London, UK
Peter, we all agree that every living multicellular organism is amazing. Your body's development from 2 gametes to a single blastocyst, and from there in utero into a newborn, and continuing after birth to you now, is an incredible feat. A trillion atoms are turned over in your body every millionth of a second. Each cell is involved in billions of chemical reactions. Are you saying every single chemical reaction in living things only takes place because a divine being directly guides every step, every time, every instant? Does God also dissolve the sugar in your tea and the salt in your soup? Do you believe anything happens without divine intervention? How and where do you draw the line? Or do you prefer to keep the concepts nebulous, having no idea where such a line would be drawn?
jim, sydney,
Greetings Peter Hollander, I understand where you're going with your argument. I strongly believe the reason for such a phenomena exist because the ''why'' questions are not quite in the field of study to the scientists than the more scientific ''how'', ''what'', ''where'' and ''when''. Conflicts arise when either side try to answer the other's area of study. So to me, its not so much of why the other side fail to answer these ''why'' questions, but why is it necessary in their field to give an answer. When both coexist in their own field of understanding life, everything would entwine peacefully.
Wayne Morrison, London,
Peter, we all agree that every living multicellular organism is amazing. Your body's development from 2 gametes to a single blastocyst, and from there in utero into a newborn, and continuing after birth to you now, is an incredible feat. A trillion atoms are turned over in your body every millionth of a second. Each cell is involved in billions of chemical reactions. Are you saying every single chemical reaction in living things only takes place because a divine being directly guides every step, every time, every instant? Does God also dissolve the sugar in your tea and the salt in your soup? Do you believe anything happens without divine intervention? How and where do you draw the line? Does God do this work at the cellular, molecular, atomic, or subatomic level, or all of these? Sometimes or all the time? Or do you prefer to keep the concepts nebulous, having no idea where such a line would be drawn?
jim, sydney,
A wealth of empirical knowledge and theory can be used in place of 'proof'.
Even the best of scientific minds can not prove gravity. They can merely show it's effect. It can not be generated nor measured. How it is made in nature is unknown as is the mechanics of how it works.
But very few people currently are so bold as to say that gravity does not exist.
Science does not disprove nor prove god any better than science can prove that angels are responsible for the cosmic forces that cause planets to orbit and hammers to fall.
A lot of words are written for the age old question of faith,"If I can't see it how can it exist?"
Name Withheld, , usa
Being 'intelligent' is a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to accessing God - he catches the wise in their craftiness!
Antony Gray, Glasgow, Scotland
13-Sep-2007: Peter of Canterbury - it's difficult to avoid mockery when people display such ignorance of the subject matter. Darwin coined "natural selection" to distinguish the mechanism from "artificial selection" by man, in the pursuit of animal (or plant) husbandry. Read his book: it's superseded but still powerful, and quite approachable. Dawkins has written several very good explanations of how evolution works. Read one.
Why do you think that biologists, who study this subject in depth, come down in favour of evolution? Is David Attenborough stupid or wicked to espouse evolution? How come you know more about living things than he does?
Science attempts to describe and explain what is. I don't have a problem with saying I have no idea what, if anything, lies behind that. Is that clear? I just plain don't know.
What puzzles me is how theists think they know so much about the origin of the universe, natural laws, etc.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Perhaps there is only one person in Australia - sometimes known as Frank, sometimes as Jim.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Mr. Hollandar,
There is no meeting of the minds when religionists can claim 'natural selection' is not the reason for evolution simply because we do not yet know the fundamental cause for all scientific laws.
Just because we can't currently explain the reason for an observable, repeatable scientific result; that doesn't mean God must be that reason. Also, 'selection' may imply choice (assuming you meant 'intelligent' choice) in some contexts, but in the context of 'natural selection' it simply implies the principal that genes most conducive to an organism's survival and successful reproduction are the ones most likely to be propagated to subsequent generations.
Mockery of the suggestion that God DOES NOT exist is the fallback position of religionists who refuse to answer why nature behaves the way it does and why they believe it just happened because God made it that way without any evidence to justify that assumption.
Eric, Richmond,
Norman of Anstruther, UK. There's nothing nonsensical in asking for explanation. In fact I think it's bonkers not to do so. I think Professor Dawkins sees that too. That's why he leaves the door open a little. The evolutionary information is always fascinating andi interesting. Yet it tells us so little. Some of you are a bit like religious dogmatists who say 'no more questions. That's enough! Now run away and play'
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The majority of mutations in the process of evolution don't lead to an advantage. Large mutations almost always fail. Only a minority of mutations therefore translate to improved survival or reproductive success, are are passed on through generations.
One can only ask again why a divine intelligence would choose a process that so often fails to lead to a better design, if the process is to be considered completely guided by a divine hand?
jim, sydney,
This is all so 2006.
tim, Brighton,
Mike in Monterey, CA: Yes, it's truly a pity that Richard is so blind he can't see the invisible sky god. </sarcasm>
MrPeach, Manchester, NH/USA
The problem of course is - people believe in religion because they want to LIVE AGAIN, it's about immortality, if christianity or ISLAM promised a kick in the ass, nobody would believe a word of such barbarism. They'd have some other pagan or other new age religious belief system or simply a belief in a higher power.
Bob, TO, ON
Smart bloke that Dawkins, the world needs more people like him.
ed , Melbourne, Australia
Ted, I'll try to reply to your points:- No, I'm sure Dawkins doesn't want to force others to be atheists. He hopes they will do so of their own free will, after recognizing the absurdity of religion. -- Marx wrote a brilliant analysis of the capitalism of his day. (He also wrote some stupid things about the necessary developing stages of societies.) But don't blame Marx for the way Lenin, Stalin and others abused his ideas and turned them into a belief-system with all the consequences of a religiously held faith. -- There is abundant scientific evidence for the existence of Jupiter (the planet, I mean, not the god). So it is only good common sense to accept that this planet exists. (That has nothing to do with blind faith.) That's the difference between believing in the supernatural, and accepting as true something for which there is evidence or for which there are genuinely credible grounds. --
alan, cologne,
the question i want to ask is, does richard dawkins think he or anyone else has the right, to compel or force others to be atheists. I think it is no less wrong were that to be the case, than for a terrorist to present their frequent choice of "convert or die". However illogical or allegedly destructive you might believe some form of belief or thought to be, it is and should be illegal in most western countries to force that on others. the writings of marx have encouraged violent revolutions in many parts of the world; shall be ban them, shall we by extension persecute anyone of leftist persuasion? THis is what many of the faithful fear you are encouraging. A witch hunt against religion, where as in China, peaceful people are sent to prison for posessing bibles or other religious parephranalia. i have never SEEN jupiter, but I know it exists, is that "blind faith" too? I believe the scientists that say it exists. All of us have to have some kind of "faith".
Ted Koenig, philadelphia, pa
Peter Hollander, your assertion that the probability of complex molecules coming about my random chance is nil is eronius. You mention the fact that there are billions of years for this to happen but that this is not enough. Well if we were talking just about one planet you might be right.
However I can make billions of chemical reactions take place in a small flask in a lab in less than a minute. Now replace that small flask with all the oceans on the planet, now think of all the planets, not just in this solar system but all the solar systems in the galaxy, and then all the galaxies in the universe. Now instead of talking about one minute think of billions upon billions of years.
The pure number of chemical reactions we are talking about is so large it would be a miracle if they didn't create something quite special (like DNA and eventually complex life forms like us). Asking scientists to recreate all that time and space in a lab, now that is wishful thinking!
Dave, worthing, uk
Dave, Maybe it's a miracle? Thought transference? Second name I never liked much?
frank, sydney,
Richard - please read my last comment again - it answers all your points. -- Just let me clarify one thing: True, you may not personally "generously award " the attributes to your god. No, you merely accept that he has the attributes generously awarded to him in the past by fearful and ignorant people. These are then handed down from generation to generation by professional preachers and eventually end up with you. -- As I said, for all other points, please re-read my last comment.
alan, cologne,
Science and religion use the same principle: attribute what you experience to something else.
For science it is the laws of nature.
For religion it is God.
We need to take responsibility for our attributions. Only then will we see the world as it is.
Douglas G. Danforth, Menlo Park, California
I think that the arguments for and against the existence of God or something like God are intellectually stimulating and are a good thing. Two things annoy me. First is the issue of religion. One can believe in God and still detest religion. I also believe that for many religious extremists, God is not important and religion is merely an instrument of power. Second is the notion that belief in God is inherently irrational and/or stupid. There are many very smart theoretical physicists who seriously consider the existence of some kind of God a real possibility and many believe that it is probable. More than that will refuse to rule it out as impossible.
Tom Gallagher, Greenwich, CT, USA
The question of the existence of a creator - an intelligent agent who made the universe - is on a par with the paradox of how absolute nothing can become something (the most intractible problem of cosmology). Even science is faced with seemingly unanswerable questions that lie at its foundations. As long as such mysteries remain (and there are many more) there will always be room for the possibilty that 'God' - in some sense - exists.
Robert Nield, Hartford, Cheshire
Laurence in Ayr, I am sure this point has been made a number of times, a good few dozen by Dawkins himself on any given page of any given book, but it bears repeating again. Evolution is not a process of mere chance. I really don't have the time to go into a full explanation but try reading Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". I think that should help dispell this myth of "random chance".
Dave, worthing, uk
Before our observable universe there was God, nothing, or a universe that always was. Believe what you prefer. EVERYTHING in the universe is ultimately explainable by fundamental laws of science, maths, logic, reason. This is a hypothesis. Some observations are considered robust enough to be held as theories or laws. Much is yet to be explained, but civilisation is young, and the universe complex. Be comfortable living your short life without many of the answers, for there is no point stressing that the answers to many questions will be far in the future when you and I won't be around to marvel.
Adam, Perth,
How sad that religious people are posting "arguments" here that fail to address the central issue: they are believing in something as true with no proof (thousand year old books that claim to be true do not count as proof) and a mountain of contradictory evidence.
Martin, Pasadena, Ca
I am an atheist, probably because I did not have a religious upbringing and now find it strange that other people by-pass their reason and postulate the existence of magical beings. Such wishful thinking is one thing, but it should not have a role in governing nor should it be a part of the education of our young. I'm with Professor Dawkins!
Paul Stokes, Nuneaton, UK
Dave, I agree with you absolutely about Jim and Frank being one and the same but what HAVE you written?? "I got the IMPRESSION that Jim and Frank....etc" ..??..... Not in this debate you didn't.....can I correct you? "you concluded, using rationallity and reason that Jim and Frank" etc (and for allen of cologne, "using applied thinking"......) ( probably all with a touch of logic and intuition...) Impression indeed!
incidently dave, know anything about basket-weaving?
ed.bradbury, Bournemouth, Dorset
Bob Gibson - You state that “Religion on the other hand requires faith. That faith, must be maintained in spite of any evidence to the contrary.†This is a complete misunderstanding of what we Christians mean by faith. You seem to think it is “blind faithâ€, an unreasoning, arbitrary, and illogical adherence to some sacred text, or the teachings of some guru, regardless of anything else. In practice, we are all more complex than that. We derive our beliefs, whatever they are (including atheism), from our total life-experience, and we all act on faith to some extent. For example, to be slightly provocative (you may think), I have faith in those historians, experts in analysing ancient texts, who tell me that the accounts in John 20 and I Corinthians 15 about Jesus’ resurrection meet all the requirements of historical validity, unless one has a dogmatic belief that it could not possibly have happened.
Faith should, in my view, always be open in principle to revision, should there be a compelling reason for it. The theologian Bernard Lonergan is good on this. But if you demand proof for everything, you will spend your whole life sitting around waiting for it.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, UK
Peter, conception involves one of millions of ova meeting one of over 100 million sperm. Does God direct this seemingly random process? If he does, why are the majority of conceptions doomed to end in abortion? Why is he so hit and miss?
Microbial antibiotic resistance is an ongoing simple example of natural selection. If God directs every evolutionary step, then he must want microbes to have the ability to be more debilitating or lethal to mankind. Does God mind that this process creates illness and kills millions of people? Does he do this to punish people? Keep doctors on their toes?
If a divine intelligence directs every step, why is he so clumsy about it?
jim, sydney,
13Sep07. Peter Hollander of Canterbury England: Natural selection does indeed imply choice! Consider the textbook case of the male peacock's colorful tail. Female peacocks CHOOSE their mates and they happen to prefer the males with the largest most beautiful tail feathers. This is sexual selection, one of the many types of natural selection. What you fail to understand is that there is nothing random about natural selection. Let me say that again: There is nothing random about natural selection. Adaptations occur in response to environmental pressures. Adaptations which result in a change in genotype are related to the random joining of DNA during meiosis. This is where your random variation occurs. These random variations only accumulate when it confers an advantage in the most reproductively successful or organisms. Adaptations are in a sense "chosen" by the offspring who successfully reproduce in the largest numbers. Natural selection is therefore driven by successful offspring.
Tim Carter, Seattle, Washington State
13 Sep 07 - I pity Dawkins for his inability to fathom anything larger than himself, and his inability to mentally reconcile science and religion. I am a firm believer in both. Just because you can explain something doesn't mean God didn't create it.
Mike, Monterey, CA,
13.09.07 There is no meeting of minds when scientists can claim "natural selection" is the reason for evolution, because the two words imply so much that is already assumed. Nature behaves according to scientific laws which are inexplicable, and selection implies choice rather than random activity when there is no scientific evidence that nature has a mind to make choices. So the seemingly impressive two words are merely descriptive of an apparent process which is assumed to have no reason for its existence and no intelligence behind it, yet natural selection produces things of such complexity, logicality, beauty and consciousness at higher levels as to defy any probability that no intelligence was behind creation.
Mockery of the suggestion that God exists is the fall back position of atheists who refuse to answer why nature behaves the way it does and why they believe it just happened by itself by chance without any evidence to justify that assumption.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
12-Sep-2007 Bryan - I love you, but you talk nonsense. Complexity in living organisms arises through natural selection. There's no mystery there.
BTW I think we should include our date of posting, as above, because I've had several posts appear long after, and out of order, which makes them hard to follow.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
For basket weaving one goes to other websites. The proof for God is in the inadequacy of matter which can only be resolved in the spiritual. This is realised when we are on a purely materialist trail and always failing in attempts to 'spiritualise' pure matter.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Ed, I agree with you. There is little chance of a conversion in this correspondence. I have stated before that most people approach religion out of a sense of need. Whether they are hardwired or not I do not know. The question that divides us is one of evidence. In science there is a complete protocol for establishing and examining evidence. It involves quantitative assessment and reproducibility. Religion on the other hand requires faith. That faith, must be maintained in spite of any evidence to the contrary. So we get people who will discount all of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, because it conflicts with the dictates of their faith. The main thing that faith appears to give them, is an unsupported certainty. They no longer have to say I do not know. Looking at this from an objective point of view I feel that it is a form of gambling. The only difference between it, and betting on a horse race is that , in a horse race you know the odds.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Jim of Sydney...thanks ..your answer confirms what I first said...........Summarizing , ... "conscious equals mystery" . ... why bring mystery into serious conversation?....why use the word at all if we don't fully understand what it means...must lead to confusion and incorrect ideas....scrap it ,I say,at least until the fat lady has sung.
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Irrational--- definition: Not endowed with reason; affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent; marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment; without logical or meaningful connection; not rational; void of reason or understanding; clearly contrary to reason; easily disproved by reasoning; absurd; lacking logical thought.
Why is a universe without God deemed irrational, if it follows logical, coherent laws of science and logic? The logic of such a position seems irrational to me! Surely our universe is by its very essential nature a completely rational universe. Intelligent conscious beings within that universe, including us, but assuming others exist, are by nature also essentially rational. This is not to say individuals can't make idiotic, "irrational" deductions due to our limited intellect and emotional liabilities.
jim, sydney,
If existence is the product of irrational activity, to attribute rationality to stuff that happens is illogical. Everyone can see that the complexity of the cosmos is not the product of random activity, just as no one would assume a pocket calculator assembled itself by the wind blowing the elements of its component parts in just the right order to make it, however many billions of years are allowed to make this a probability: the probability is nil because of the need for each component to be made individually. If one looks at DNA in the most primitive lifeform, each component cannot be made from inorganic elements, let alone a long spiral which has to self assemble, self feed, self replicate and programme itself all in matter of hours for it to survive rather than be a dead piece of DNA. The probability is nil. Logically something else has to have put the bits together, just as an intelligence has to put a calculator together in the right order and program the software.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
You don't need a 'detailed study of learned books on theology' to criticise religeon.
I am not a Master Carpenter - but I recognise a wobbly table when I see it.
G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE
I now see more clearly why Professor Dawkins does not quite shut the door on God's existence. He's looking for the solution to complexity in the material Universe. Wisely he's not sure it's there.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Why do I get the impression that Frank and Jim are the same person?!
Dave, worthing, uk
As groups became tribes, higher orders of rules and conventions developed, and religion evolved with a host of gods constructed (by man, for man). Moral sense developed independently of religion, though religion was then later conjured up as a way of explaining the natural world (much of which is now easily explained by science), and as a way of adding social order, developing moral ethics further, and formalising laws to control behaviour.
Don't confuse the inanimate process of evolution as far as genes are concerned, with the separate social, intellectual and moral "evolution" of mankind.
Religion has been and is a part of that latter process within individuals and societies, but it is very wrong to consider it to be the only factor driving our moral development.
frank, sydney,
When Richard Tallach argues that some humanist and atheist scientists attribute evolution and the creation of the cosmos to acts of random chance - which by their vary nature cannot be rational, he is accused of being unscientific and advised to go and study some more so that he can see that evolution and the creation of the cosmos is not irrational. Every scientist knows that the foundation of science is based on the assumption that nature exists the way it does and that no one knows why it exists, or how it came to exist or what the reason(s) for its existence might be. To say the universe exists for no known reason and is a product of chance is to say its creation is irrational..
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Dear Ed, The argument isn't futile. The Bible teaches that the evidence for God is plain for all to recognise, from the creation, from within man and from the Bible. But because human beings are sinful they deny or distort the evidence.
It also isn't futile, because atheists have become Christians; as indeed professing Christians have become atheists.
God the Holy Spirit can use reasoned argument to change people's hearts. "So [ Paul ] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews ..... and in the marketplace every day with them that met him, including also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers" (Acts 17:17-18). Christianity is a reasonable and rational faith, based on reasonable and rational premises. How irrational chance and/or determinacy provide a foundation for the currently observed laws of science hasn't be explained? Though no doubt atheists have faith that it will.
Your own views, Ed, that human beliefs are irrationally determined, would make any conversation futile.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Good points Alan, but when has Bryan ever given a straight answer? Don't hold your breath. I can only assume he doesn't really have any evidence. Why else the word games?
Study science and read the whole of the GD, Bryan and the other religious people out there. Hopefully then you will be saved (to borrow from religion).
Ben, York,
what is astonishing to me is how so many obviously articulate and knowledgeable people can engage in an argument that they themselves would admit (probably with reluctance) to be a futile one..with only one possible result - stalemate. People who "believe "are not insane (nor are those who don't) but there is a question mask against those who want to argue about it( which includes R.Dawkins! )The conclusion of a recent investigation conducted by a u.s. university has shown that people who are drawn to mysticiam, superstition and religious belief are genetically inclined that way......the truth is that we are all hardwired in our beliefs (or non-beliefs) Few will admit it but It seems to confirm what a full-page article (page 10) in the Sunday Times (August 5 1996.) suggested,"You could be a machine" Now there is an interesting argument ...
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
ed - you're being unreasonable again. Stop it. Go back to skipping.
alan, cologne,
Dear Laurence, I agree it is simply obvious that evolution isn't possible, and the earth is in fact flat, and the stars, sun, moon and planets are moved across our sky by angels. Subatomic particles are fantasy. Give me the 4 ethers any day. Science? Who needs that. Lets keep ideas simple. Damnation, my candle went out.........where's that carrier pigeon..............?
blinky bill, newcastle,
Muqbool, the world awaits your proof of God's existence.
You profess to know Dawkins' views well. How many of his numerous books have you read? None I suspect. His position is consistent with yours in one aspect, for he, like Einstein and anyone who contemplates the wonders of life and the universe, is left with a sense of awe and humility.
The proof that all is designed is totally lacking.
mathew, broome,
for heavens sake, have a vote on this and discus something sensible ...like basket-weaving
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Muqbool,
The God of St Paul is obviously focused on Paul's belief in Jesus, but is still based upon the anthropomorphic God of the Old Testament, just as Allah is. Allah also suffers from the human traits attributed to him. In the Quoran he may be at times described as omnipotent, benevolent etc, but is still often given negative human traits which make him explode with rage, revenge, hatred and punishment, or condone such actions via human instruments, all directed at fallible humans supposedly of his making.
Whether one believes in an ultimate intelligence/creator or not, it makes no sense to believe in a vile, emotionally sensitive, psychologically fragile, judgmental one.
mark, brisbane,
Richard, you are certainly persistent. Hypotheses with more evidence supporting them may be considered theories, and if always true, laws. Fundamental laws of science and mathematics and logical principles are considered fundamental because they are predictable and can be reproduced, and hold for all occasions and measurements. If they are shown to be sometimes wrong, then we would not consider them laws. They have been deduced by human intellects, using rational thought processes, and can be proven correct again and again using mathematical and scientific methods, experimentation and logic.
Philosophers and scientists from the past and present don't use or need the bible as a reference to make these deductions, nor use their church group or clergy on their CV. No scientist can prove or disprove the existence of God, and few have tried to. No-one here should have to keep saying this obvious point.
frank, sydney,
Dear Alan,
Were Zeus and Thor said to have the same attributes as the God of the Bible? I don't "generously award" attributes to God, but derive them from what Scripture says. If you don't really know God exists in your heart of hearts, how can you think at all, because if nothing Necessary and Trustworthy exists upon which the laws of thought are based then all my and your thinking is meaningless. Deep within, you must have faith/knowledge that thinking is not meaningless but meaningful, in spite of not thinking that the Necessary and Trustworthy God is.
Re chance and/or determinacy being the alternatives to God, I don't know what other alternatives you could posit as being behind the world as we know it. Your agnosticism about how the universe came about - apart from the fact that you somehow know that it wasn't created by the God of the Bible (or any other god?) - is irrational. If you don't know how it started how can you exclude God?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
The intellectual suicide is on the part of atheists who leave themselves with nothing but irrational chance and/or determinism at the back of all things including nature, human reasoning and behaviour. Predication about anything is impossible according to such professed presuppositions. The intellectual suicide is total and fatal to the atheist case.
But because of their innate knowledge of God, deep within them, atheists and other unbelievers are able to use the laws of science, logic and morality - sometimes to the advancement of humanity. But to advance the view that the God of the Bible doesn't exist is to the detriment of humanity.
The fact that we can know the true God and yet consciously deny him is taught e.g. in Romans 1-3. This not just true of atheists. Even true Christians, who know Him as Lord and Saviour, do not live up to their knowledge of God in thought, word and action each day. We are all sinners and this affects our reasoning about God's existence and nature.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Ed, "Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing harder to explain." The hard problem...is how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience." (David Chalmers) "Human consciousness is just about the last surviving mystery." (Daniel Dennett).
I make no pretense at having the answer to the mystery, but recommend Susan Blackmore's Conversations on Consciousness (interviews with 21 experts), and her Consciousness an Introduction. Also Rita Carter's Mapping the Mind (for an intro to cognitive science).
jim, sydney,
A human being with all its complex physiological and enzyme systems could not possibly come about by mere chance.--Simple as that!
LAURENCE MARCANTONIO, Ayr , Scotland
John Chadwick of Toledo, OH, USA. and Bob Gibson of New York., Alan of Cologne. I find that ego is present at every attempt to reach out for truth and to do what is good rather than what is bad. The only way to purify the situation is to act in union with the Creator even if much doubt about it all is in our hearts. I hope there is not too much condescension in what I write. I try to represent it as I find it. Of course the Bible is not a book sent down from God. One has to see the sense intended and the moral guidance. For me the guidance of Jesus is supreme, outstanding and unique. Religious communities can be good opportunities for the inlfiltration of evil forces as Jesus so clearly warns.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Oh dear... Richard: I've said it before, so may I say it now for the last time? -- Why do you think I can't "deny" god (which I don't, incidentally) wthout pre-supposing him? No more than you would have to pre-suppose the Sky Goblin if you want to deny him. I do hope that little ploy is exploded once and for all. OK? --- I don't "deny" god, I just don't think he exists. OK? -- And who are you to deny Zeus or Thor the same attributes (everlasting, almighty etc.) that you so generously award to your own god? Those who believed in Zeus or Thor would be mightily insulted.OK? -- And what on earth do you mean by the universe being created by "determinism" or "chance" ? I don't know how the universe was "created" (if indeed it was created) and, quite frankly, neither do you. OK?-- In using our intelligence and observing reality, rational people have recognised that natural phenomena obey certain "rules", eg. drop the apple, it falls (gravity). We don't need any god to recognise this. OK?
alan, cologne,
frank and jim just a short while ago I read that "consciousness" and "conscious" have never been understood or explained in the scientific world...perhaps they have in sydney....let someone know a.s.a.p
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Evolution favours successful genes. Determinism is certainly not part of this process. The conscious human "vehicles" for human genes don't need to behave solely in the interests of their genes. They can even decide rationally not to pass them on. Man evolved via a natural evolutionary process. Early hominids with larger brain, language, and living in groups, had consciousness. They developed socially to the point that they would act, not just selfishly for their own "happiness" or benefit alone, but for the good of their family or group. Thus reciprocal altruism expanded eventually to include true altruism. This was human nature and natural evolution leading to the development of an ethical sense.
frank, sydney,
Evolution favours successful genes. Determinism is certainly not part of this process. The conscious human "vehicles" for human genes don't need to behave solely in the interests of their genes. They can even decide rationally not to pass them on. Man evolved via a natural evolutionary process. Early hominids with larger brain, language, and living in groups, had consciousness. They developed socially to the point that they would act, not just selfishly for their own "happiness" or benefit alone, but for the good of their family or group. Thus reciprocal altruism expanded eventually to include true altruism. This was human nature and natural evolution leading to the development of an ethical sense. As groups became tribes, higher orders of rules and conventions developed, with religion and a host of gods being constructed (by man, for man) to help explain the vagaries of life and the natural world, and to further develop a social order and morality.
Moral sense developed independently of religion, though religion was then later conjured up as a way of explaining the natural world (much of which is now easily explained by science), and as a way of adding social order, developing moral ethics further, and formalising laws to control behaviour. Don't confuse the inanimate process of evolution as far as genes are concerned, with the separate social, intellectual and moral "evolution" of mankind.
jim, sydney,
I think that science has made a significant difference to the defenders of religion. They are no longer as eager to defend the truth of their position as they used to be. Even when asked a direct question about truth they tend to skirt the issue. Many people who consider themselves religious also have grave doubts about the truthfulness of the Bible. Father Storey has several times been asked direct questions about truth. He has always adopted an attitude of paternalistic condescension. But, has avoided a direct answer. This seems to be the current technique for religious defenders. Things have changed considerably over the centuries. At the time of Galileo, the authorities would have considered themselves on much more certain ground. Even in this correspondence, opponents of religion use the word truth more than twice as often as do the defenders. Perhaps there is the basis of good study for the Templeton Foundation here.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Dear Alan, You show that you know the God of the Bible in your heart of hearts by your use of the laws of the universe. If the universe was as you say it is - not created and governed by the God of the Bible - then it is created by irrational chance and/or determinism (that is the only alternative) and thus we would have no faith in these laws. You find many things mysterious and yet you are sure that God wasn't responsible for origins. The fact that atheists cannot even deny that the God of the Bible exists without presupposing His existence in their use of logical absolutes - unless you are saying that the laws of logic are mere human conventions, which would also undermine rational discourse - is eloquent testimony of His necessary existence. When we look at Zeus and Thor, etc, they do not have the attributes necessary to explain the world as we know it. Only the God of the Bible is both Personal and Absolute (infinite, eternal, unchangeable, omniscient, omnipotent). The I AM.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
As you say Bill of Towoomba, there's much anthropomorphism in the Old Testament but there is reference to God and attempts to see the spiritual significance which are not unimportant. Some is history, some is not. There's a tendency to see God on the victor's side. Behind it all there's a stretching out to God and the significance much preferable to and much more reliable than those God deniers' manifestos of how to behave referred to by Professor Dawkins in his attempt to throw out the Bible. It's difficult for you with your stance to grow into it.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Let me get this straight. 6 thousand years ago God created the universe & populated it with Adam & Eve. He's all-powerful and all knowing which means he purposely created them knowing full well that they would disobey him. Then he banishes them and their descendants from the garden for four thousand years and suddenly has a change of heart. He forgives them only after he makes his son suffer and die to slake his savage thirst for justice? vengenance ? you pick.
Even after this wonderful savior comes along, 2000 years later
billions of people still suffer and die in this cold, cruel, dog-eat-dog world where animals steal the life of other animals just to remain alive, where cancer, war, disease, starvation and pestilence ramage accros the planet, where children are raped and murdered and born with all manner of physical and mental defects. All of this condoned by a loving god that forgave us 2000 years ago.
And you think evolution and the big bang are far-fetched!
John Chadwick, Toledo, OH USA
Richard Tallach, you are clearly intelligent, but you need to do two things:
1. Stop presuming the existence of a god and attempt to show its potential before arguing. And CERTAINLY stop quoting the Bible in scientific discussions. It is not welcome, or relevant.
2. Understand that evolution and creation of the cosmos is not irrational. In fact your comments show a clear lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Do not hit back, just accept it, study and see if I'm right.
Christian Linnell, Auckland, New Zealand
Come off it, Bryan, you know your position is indefensible. Otherwise how could you write such ......(censored) about contingency requiring a Necessary Being. I tell you your Being is not necessary. Your Necessary One is totally unnecessary. And, yes, it would really be an extraordinary result if I were to find a lump of myself. Really, Bryan, replying to you is so pointless that I would desist from it if it were not so hilarious. -- (What happened to your non-particles?) -- By the way, we know about god, but is the Devil also necessary? Am I going to meet him when I die? Please enlighten me, Bryan.
alan, cologne,
Yet nothing is more liberating and compellingly interesting than being released from the sealed up materialistic vortex.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
A gentleman, above, claims that "Human beings bomb whole cities and justify killing the innocent to get at the guilty rulers who may be outside the city in their bunkers, yet if God destroys a city because its people disobey and hate Him, man says He is wrong. " He doesn't speak for me however and how sadly ironic. In saying that human beings justify bombing whole cities to get the guilty rulers, he indicts the biggest "christian" of them all. GWB is the most recent human to bomb cities to get one guy and there are lots of atheists, including me that say he is just as wrong as his god.
The God of the bible is irrational and capricious. Omnipotent and all knowing, he creates humans that he KNEW would violate his will. Then he banishes them and their descendants from the garden forever, waits four thousand years and forgives them through the blood of his own son and then forces their descendants to 2000 more years of utterly pointless suffering - Some Father!!!
John Chadwick, Toledo, OH USA
Prof. Dawkins perpetually makes the same mistake of saying God does not exist because there is no evidence. There is a mountain of scientific evidence but he chooses to draw his own limited conclusion on the basis of it.
Perhaps his fundamentalism is born of a vain desire to reconcile modern science with the Christian image of God portrayed in the New Testament by St Paul.
If Richard were instead to try and reach the limits of science and nature, he would realise he cannot possibly reach any limit because the universe is designed by an intelligence far superior to his human brain - even with all its billions of neurons.
Muqbool, London,
I really wouldn't bother replying to Bryan's hilarious contributions if it weren't so entertaining. -- We are now informed that there is a Necessary Being, and moreover it has to be invisible and immaterial. Well, it would be, wouldn't it? Bryan, this Necessary Being is not at all necessary. (To you maybe, but not to me.) -- And then (if I understand this confusion correctly) if we have a relationaship with this unnecessary Necessary One, we're going to find a lump of ourselves. And this lump is something we didn't even know was there! Well, I've looked around for the lump but got no joy. Maybe it's unexplainable by a non-particle. Keep it up, Bryan - let's have more Bryanisms to keep us amused.
alan, cologne,
There are wide genetic variations in brain substrate, and differences also reflect differing life experiences, especially in early life, leading to long term physical differences in structure and function. Brain regions may be structurally different, vary in size, or be more or less active, or the connections may be better or less well developed between regions. Neurotransmitters and hormones may vary in structure, release, uptake, levels and activity.
Some people appear to have a greater or more easily triggered capacity for either or both spirituality and religious belief, or susceptibility to a creed, which may change over time. We vary in what we believe and why, due to differences in upbringing, emotional influences, education and social interactions, and our individual genetic make-up, brain capacities, cognitive substrate and connections involved in how we come to hold beliefs. We also vary in the degree of our desire or need for belief or faith. No wonder we can't all agree here!
frank, sydney,
Dear Richard, I think I do understand your position. You put a god at the base of your world view. I do not. What worries me, though, is that you don't really seem to understand my position. I don't openly espouse a world view governed by chance, nor determinism for that matter. How the universe began? I don't know, and - frankly - neither do you. (No offence meant.) I have learned to understand how life has developed (not by chance, but by a natural process of selection of the best adapted in the struggle for life). I know my bible better than most Christians, which admittedly isn't saying much. But I have no knowledge of any god. Nor do I miss him or need him, no more than I miss Thor or Zeus. And I don't understand your argument that logic or morality or scientific methods should have to have some sort of holy backing in order to exist. I have no difficulty in thinking logically and trying to live a "moral" life as best I can according to my conscience. Why a god? Why a devil?
alan, cologne,
Here we go again, Richard. Why do you put words into the atheists' mouths? Why do you think that atheists have a "fundamental ... belief (!) in chance and determinism as ultimate", whatever that means? -- As an atheist. I look around and observe reality. Much of it is understandable - that the earth is round and orbits the sun, that humankind developed through an evolutionary process, for example. How life began? That's a mystery that I can't comprehend. How the internet works is explainable. Where space ends is not - to me at least. Can't you understand, Richard, that I'm pefectly content to use my wits to understand what I can, and equally content to admit the unexplainable? Can't you undersand that, to me, it is intellectually dishonest to invent an "explanation" in the form of one of the many gods in the market-place, none of which appears to be more than the figmet of gullible people's imagination? -- (Misrepresenting atheism is unfortunately typical of believers.)
alan, cologne,
''Scientists who attribute all existence to chance have no proof of that assertion / guess / opinion''.
They cannot even assert it or the non-existence of God, because in an atheist world the "laws" of logic, science and morality are the result of irrational chance or irrational determinacy and therefore are not laws at all but just the way that the world, the human mind and behaviour are irrationally arranged. The writer of Ecclesiastes declared that without God all was meaningless, and many (some of them prominent) atheists have declared that life and the universe fundamentally have no meaning. Paradoxically, they still want us to take their writings seriously!!
The fact that atheists do believe laws of logic, science and morality are real and use them from day to day - denies their professed faith in irrational chance and determinism - and shows that in their heart of hearts they have some knowledge of God.
This is what the Apostle Paul points to in Romans 1-3.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Our vision deceives us often, as our brain makes large and rapid assumptions about what the eyes see, sometimes very incorrectly misinterpreting what is there. Only 2% of our visual field is in fact in full focus at any time, with rapid saccadic eye movements critically needed to increase the yield, and our brain fills in the gaps often, for we see mainly movement, edges, and variations. What we think we see may sometimes be embellished or misrepresented by combination with imagined images and inaccurate memories. In poor light all sorts of tricks occur, for example a horse front on or other shape in the darkness being seen as a woman in a cloak or other human form. Clouds or other scenes may briefly be seen as animal or human shapes. Witness accounts of an event or suspect vary widely, and may be perceived as true by the person, despite being a constructed false memory, created with gaps filled in post-event. When we read, we don't look at every letter, syllable or word (so proof reading often fails). Other senses may also be wrongly computed and interpreted. What we hear may similarly be misheard and constructed as our reality. Our world is in the end constructed within our heads.
frank, sydney,
You're still dodging it, Alan of Cologne. Rhetoric interesting, however.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I fail to understand how an omnipotent being, who should be free of human emotional foibles such as anger, hatred and rage, could be assumed by believers to act out murderous punishments on fallible humans of his own making, who had varying degrees of guilt, and some of whom were undoubtedly innocent. How does perfect love, and being all merciful, fit in with thunderous rage and petulance? The only mature, sensible answer is that these things are inconsistent, and that the bible is a man made attempt to understand God, written in human terms that are in parts inadequate, limited, and at times plain wrong. What's the problem with the bible being human and fallible? One can then easily reconcile the paradox. The OT was written largely well after events, and is a constructed story, not pure history. The anthropomorphic attributes of the OT God are human invention. How anyone can believe otherwise defies understanding.
bill, towoomba,
The Catholic document The Gift of Scripture states:
"We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision".
"Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide".
michelle james, sydney, aust,
We all owe a debt of gratitude to Bryan for entertaining us so hilariously with non-particles and necessary explanations. I thought it might be interesting to hear his views on other matters so here are a few pertinent questions:- Are we looking forward to Christ's reappearance on earth, and if so when? Will Armageddon happen, and if so when? What will be the fate of non-believers like me? Does the Devil live in Hell? Did Adam and Eve really live? Does wine really turn into blood in church? Do you eat a bit of Jesus during mass? Did Jesus say we should love our enemies and, if so, why do Catholic soldiers kill them? Why is the church so rich, whilst so many people die of hunger? Do miracles really happen? -- The mind boggles. I can't go on. If I were to become a Christian, it would take a miracle. -- PS. I don't expect a straight answer, only non-particles.
alan, cologne,
Christians say that God is a mystery and what He does cannot always be seen as "right" in human terms. The UN's ideas of human rights are man made constructs, which men don't apply to lower life forms, because man considers himself superior, like God does in relation to man.
Human beings bomb whole cities and justify killing the innocent to get at the guilty rulers who may be outside the city in their bunkers, yet if God destroys a city because its people disobey and hate Him, man says He is wrong.
Christians say that God is the creator of the universe and is eternal without beginning or end and outside of time. Science cannot prove existence outside of time but can see it exists theoretically. Particles behave in given ways - different for each element and type of radiation - because they were made that way. Being made implies thought, not thoughtless chance. Scientists who attribute all existence to chance have no proof of that assertion / guess / opinion.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
But Frank of Sydney, it's you who's going round and round with your big bangs and big crunches and infinity of contingency. There's your proof. Contingency requires Neccesary Being which has to be invisible and immaterial. What's the problem? No effect without adequate and complete cause. Could it be that Jesus is right after all? That many just do not want to know what is obvious? Of course it requires application to the hardest thing in the world, regular relationship with the Necessary One. Change of lifestyle to find real love. Extraordinary result of it, again as Jesus says, is that we find a lump of ourselves we never knew was there. Alan of Cologne tries to get me to give up and follow the God denying way. Not on your life would i go down that empty, rubbishy irrational road.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard, you somehow avoid the obvious conclusion to the question of God being an accomplice to murder. You say God sent the Israelites to destroy and murder the Canaanites, in multiple cities and towns. How were they warned? God doesn't seem to appear as a burning bush or talking cloud or via angels to tell us things nowadays. Usually some self-righteous, self-interested person decides he knows what God wants and what is best (which not surprisingly is what is best for him). So did he appear before the Israelites to tell them, or did he put an idea into someone's head that this was right and righteous, including murdering infants, children, women, the infirm and anyone who happened to be a nice guy? If he did, then he would be guilty in our society and get life imprisonment as the architect of genocide. How do you make any other conclusion? Do you condone murdering the innocents? Every act of mass genocide is vile, and no decent spin can be put on it, despite the murdering Israelites feeling morally vindicated for their crimes.
bill, towoomba,
Peter and Richard, you don't understand modern science and Darwinian theory to say that complex molecules can't be formed over the course of millions and billions of years by tiny incremental steps. Each of which may be very small, and easily occur as a minor change, but which added together over hundreds of thousands or millions of steps allows complex macromolecules to be formed and changed.
If you don't believe that can happen, then on a daily basis you must believe EVERY single chemical reaction of any sort throughout the universe, be it in living things or inanimate, can only occur by God ACTIVELY doing the moving, mixing and changing. In other words, nothing can be explained by science, or occur naturally at all!
mathew, broome,
Dear Alan, You are starting to understand my position. When we compare the atheist and Christian Theist worldviews, we have at the bottom of the atheist worldview irrational chance and determinism. At the bottom of the Christian Theist worldview we have God, a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, goodness, love, justice and truth. The atheist worldview is impersonalistic at base, while the Christian theistic worldview is personalistic at base.
For the person - like the atheist - who uses his intelligence and exercises his conscience, as you mention, as all human beings do to some extent, this shows the deep and innate knowledge of the God of the Bible that there is in man. While openly espousing a view of the world that says that it is governed by chance and/or determinism, the commitment of the atheist to laws of logic, morality and science reveals his knowledge of Something More.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Question: Is Bryan being serious, is he getting desperate, or is he just trying to provoke us? Look at his latest posts:- He asks us to crack open a particle, any particle. And once we've cracked it open, we're invited to explain its existence. He says that particles can only be explained by non-particles. And - wait for it - this is the ENORMOUS TRUTH. -- Not only does he appear to be obsessed with explanations, but with particles (or non-particles) too. I find this particlerly amusing. -- Meanwhile here's another question I'd like answered. If god exists, does Satan exist too? I would really like to know - honestly.
alan, cologne,
Richard, the OT says "the LORD our God delivered him before us", and "the LORD our God delivered all unto us". If God "delivered" the Canaanites to the Israelites so that they could be wiped out, then God is a murderer. If he didn't do this, the the Israelites murdered under their own auspices, and wrongly deduced God wanted them to commit murder, and Deuteronomy got it wrong (hence these "words of God" are wrong).
The UN has strong views on murder within war. This qualifies, without doubt.
bill, towoomba,
Every brain is not quite the same, and constructs the world in a slightly different way from any other. This is true for all sense perception. One person looking at a scene will vividly see colours more intensely, another shapes and edges, another 3D geometry, some see the detail, others something more diffuse. We respond differently as individuals to music, art, everything. The differences between people are even more evident for higher centre cortical functions, conscious thought processes, unconscious emotional responses, and memory. These differences effect all the ways we think, and all we do and feel, including our natural body processes, our appetites and desires, moods, pleasure and pain responses, how we experience things like love and fulfillment, anger, fear, guilt, sadness, horror, joy and happiness, our decision-making, our imagination, inspiration and aspirations, and our moral consciousness.
frank, sydney,
Ed, you bring up an interesting point. There are different brain areas for vision, hearing, taste, touch. smell, movement, emotion, and non-sensory, non-emotional thought. However, areas don't seem to be stimulated alone in isolation, without feedback and links to other areas, so you are right. We don't have non-emotive, pure thought, though some thoughts drive or are driven by our emotional areas more than others.
Some people have marked synaesthesia. This causes sensory perceptions (sound, sight, smell, touch, taste) to blend, so some synaesthetes see sounds or textures, others smell sights, and almost all combinations have been reported. These sensations are real experiences, and part of that person's reality. If light waves for one person become music, or sound waves as words may give feelings of texture or taste, or numbers when seen or heard can have colour, who is to say light waves create vision rather than another sense experience, or molecules rather than sound waves create taste? It all comes down to which neuronal pathways are activated.
frank, sydney,
All right, there are problems with religion as everywhere else and it's good to put the focus on religious infidelity. Yet the wisdom of Jesus is unique that we only become ourselves through the reduction of the ego. We can only do that through worship of God. There was some indication on this blog that some think they have no ego or are quite all right as they are. Our friends and enemies would not agree with that especially if we take that line. We just have to lose ourselves in the Necessary, non particle, Spiritual One. Then we begin to find our real selves. Our deepest fears, worries and anxieties are only converted in this way and converted they are. So, let's stop all this God denying business.The material cries out for the spiritual. Thanks for all the scientific knowledge, some of it new and interesting in the process of beating around the bush. There's a lot of liking for dodgem cars.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
alan you may have noticed that often nowadays an interview goes like this "how do you feel about the world economy Mr.Brown?..."Well, Jeremy I feel we're ahead of other countries"..."and your feelings on.... etc. etc.. etc.. the whole interview could be conducted with no mention of thoughts so explain please ..1)could we replace "thinking" with the word "feeling"....the answer's " yes" is'nt it? or give me an example of when you can't ....... and then tell me..2)..do we "use reason" to get the right answer from our feelings ".... no ,we just have a gut feeling that its the right answer based on our knowledge.....Alan... 3) .everything comes from "feelings" and if you don't agree, tell me one thing that doesn't... answer all 3 please
ed bradbury, Bournemouth, dorset
I agree with Richard Tallach that until atheist scientists can prove that chance and random interaction have the ability to create something from nothing, and to create ever more complex things from simple things, they are basing their assumption that this ability exists on an irrational assertion driven by their unwillingness to look at other possibilities. For existence to have any meaning it has to have a purpose or reason for its existence.
Atheists always denigrate God because they cannot justify with reason and logic their assertion that the universe and existence is a matter of chance and the complex patterns of matter that exists in the universe are a result of random activity of matter. The chance of life existing by random collisions of particles of matter is the same as the wind blowing through junkyard and creating a fully operational jumbo jet... a logical impossibility given the intricacy of the assembly of all the tiny bits. DNA didn't happen by chance.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Dear Bill, Deuteronomy really is the Word of God. God didn't act as a "murderer or willing accomplice to murder" any more than he would be a murderer if He took you or me away in a natural disaster or a war.
The judgement on the wicked nations of Canaan had been predicted as far back as the time of Abraham, the progenitor of the Israelites. In Genesis 15:13-16, God told Abraham that his descendants would go into captivity, that the nation (Egypt) would be judged and that the Israelites would return to Canaan as instruments of God's judgement.
But God - being a merciful God - did not want to exercise judgement on the Canaanites for many centuries; they had not yet reached the level of wickedness that merited God's judgement. They were given time to repent.
Israel were to be the agents of judgement on the Canaanites, something that has not been commanded to any nation before or since. This task was carried out imperfectly by the Israelites - causing them future trouble.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Professor Dawkins is only shrill in the debagging of the belivers to have his voice rise above the remarkable fact that a belief in magic is societys default postion.
Their is ,it seems an all knowing wizard that loves us all as individuals but allows these individuals to suffer unbelivable horrors and privation, for what purpose?
The gentleman is just frustrated and I can understand why,when the rational is subornd to the suposition of faith. It's a big loud job to move people to question superstition.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
Dear Matthew of Broome, You are just begging the question. If the atheist worldview is correct then impersonal and irrational chance and/or determinism, not God, are the ultimate realities. Can these account for the laws of maths and physics? I'm just trying to point out that the debate about the existence or non-existence of God - I'm talking about the God of the Bible - has far reaching implications for our metaphysics(one's theory of reality: what kinds of things exist, their origin, relationships, etc); our epistemology (one's theory of knowing: the nature, limits, methods and standards of knowing) and our ethics. If the God of the Bible doesn't exist the atheist has ultimately committed him/herself not to a Rational and Absolute Person at the back of everything, but to an irrational dialectic of chance and determinism at the back of everything. Is this sufficient to account for reality - including laws of logic, morality and science, or is the atheist whistling in the dark?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
I love Richard Dawkins. Finally there is a voice for all the people who find it remarkable that others blindly live their lives and wage wars because of the writings in an old book.
-
Just because a book is old doesn't make it any better than a new one. If The Joy of Sex had been written first, I suppose they would all be killing each other over sexual positions instead.
-
I remember being forced to go to Sunday school at an impressionable age and having to listen to all that "gospel truth'. Then I was told that Star Wars was far fetched and bad. Thankfully, even then I could see fiction as fiction, no matter how it was presented to me.
-
I decided to clean cars on Sunday instead. I was being good to other people and learning rudimentary business and people skills. Much more improving and forming for my later life than trying to part the red sea.
Mark King, Soho, London, England
Jimof Sydney, what's the point of all your extras if you keep encircling the enormous truth that particles can only finally be explained by non particles?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, you ARE arguing the same point again and again, and denying it! You are merely asking yet again how anything came into existence without your God. Look back on previous answers. For all we know the Big Bang 14 billion years ago was preceded by the Big Crunch of a previous universe, preceded by a big bang, preceded by a big crunch, ad infinitum. There is no evidence for that, and no evidence for your God, apart from wishful thinking, and the preference you and others have for belief in one.
I have enough trouble getting my head around our world and universe. Consider any list any of the innumerable properties and incredible facts you can find about our universe, the beauty of nature, the wonders of man and knowledge, the power of love and consciousness. Why add a complex, unproven deity?
frank, sydney,
Bob Gibson, I rejoice at so many of your thoughts. Questioning without end- I like that. I assure you that entry into the Absolute while still thinking and questioning enriches us tremendously.I always admired that fellow who lost his job in the TV because he said he believed that nobody deserves absolute, unquestioning respect. Yet I find Thomas a Kempis so powerful when he says we need to make sure we see nobody worse than ourselves. We only do it safely with this attitude. Cracking open the inadequate particle to see beyond is vital.
Cormac MacGowan of Galway, how did you get fixed so much on the evils within Catholicism? Glad my mother encouraged me to travel much even on a shoestring.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
We seem to be going back over the same ground. The thing that ties all religions together, is the way that they provide "answers". The "answers" do not involve any supporting evidence. They are generated purely by faith. How do we know they are true? We don't, but feel it would be nice if they were. Then we can go on to talk about the close relationship between religion and ethics. Is it ethical to convince someone that your answers are true when you have no evidence? Or, should you simply say I do not know. Or should you talk about sciences inability to provide information. If I conduct experiments on the most elementary particles known, they will provide me with facts that I do not currently know. Is this information at its lowest level, or are we talking about something else? Religion seems to have a way with words, which, like their principles does not involve a clear definition of what they mean. Jimmy of Nottingham has the essence of the problem.
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
We seem to be going back over the same ground. The thing that ties all religions together, is the way that they provide "answers". The "answers" do not involve any supporting evidence. They are generated purely by faith. How do we know they are true? We don't, but feel it would be nice if they were. Then we can go on to talk about the close relationship between religion and ethics. Is it ethical to convince someone that your answers are true when you have no evidence? Or, should you simply say I do not know? Or should you talk about sciences inability to provide information?If I conduct experiments on the most elementary particles known, they will provide me with facts that I do not currently know. Is this information at its lowest level, or are we talking about something else? Religion seems to have a way with words, which, like their principles does not involve a clear definition of what they mean. Jimmy of Nottingham has the essence of the problem.
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
Is Deuteronomy really the "word of God", and did God really act as a murderer and willing accomplice to murder? If not, then the biblical description of God's contribution to mass murder is fiction and a figment of primitive men's imaginations. Which is is? I ask any Christian, Jew, Muslim or other theist to enlighten us on this. Was God a murderer, or were these biblical interpretations fiction?
bill, towoomba,
Christian Theists believe in the use of reason as a handmaiden to their fundamental belief in the God of The Bible as ultimate.
Atheists believe in the use of reason as a handmaiden to their fundamental (and contradictory) belief in chance and determinism as ultimate.
When a comparison is made of the two worldviews - with their respective fundamental presuppositions - it is the Christian Theistic one that is the more rational. E.g. Neither chance nor determinism provide an adequate basis for human reason or atheists having confidence in what they call "human reason".
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Jason, can your omnipotent God be a victim? Is he that sensitive and "thin-skinned" that a few words injure him? No wonder he smites people he doesn't like.
mark, brisbane,
Having an invisible friend is quite common in early childhood. Usually we grow out of it quickly. There is another strange condition which affects religions and can last much longer. If we suspend reality, and logic, we usually end up by metaphorically painting ourselves into a corner. The only way out of this is to make a leap of faith. The more often this happens the bigger and more outrageous the leaps of faith become. In time, some people feel that this has gone too far. Then, they go off and start another sect or even a new religion. This, along with the desire to get in on the material rewards which come with a religion, is why we see so much diversity. If an individual, constantly builds greater and greater questionable truths it is considered pathological. When it is done by a group or organization it is much better tolerated. This group of symptoms is normally described as a delusional state. Might be the start of a good book!
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
We seem to be going back over the same ground. The thing that ties all religions together, is the way that they provide "answers". The "answers" do not involve any supporting evidence. They are generated purely by faith. How do we know they are true? We don't, but feel it would be nice if they were. Then we can go on to talk about the close relationship between religion and ethics. Is it ethical to convince someone that your answers are true when you have no evidence? Or, should you simply say I do not know. Or should you talk about sciences inability to provide information. If I conduct experiments on the most elementary particles known, they will provide me with facts that I do not currently know. Is this information at its lowest level, or are we talking about something else? Religion seems to have a way with words, which, like their principles does not involve a clear definition of what they mean. Jimmy of Nottingham has the essence of the problem.
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
Ed, to be serious for once - you seem to have a problem. I know you reject reason as nonsense, nevertheless I'll now try to argue reasonably. -- If, as you say, the "mind" hasn't been identified scientifically (!!), does this mean you are mindless? -- I know what goes on in MY head, even if science can't "explain" it. -- I don't care whether anyone understands "conscious" or "unconscious". As I write this, I'm conscious. When you wrote your comment, I suspect you were semi-conscious (sorry, but I love provoking). No doubt now you'll protest and claim you were fully conscious. QED. -- And finally, I don't care whether psychologists have understood the thought process. Thinking reasonably and logically is enough for me. -- Ed, when you read this, you will think about it and consciously give reasonable, logical thought to it, using your brain to see whether you agree or disagree with it. It's so simple. Why make such a fuss about it?
alan, cologne,
Richard - your first paragraph illustrates perfectly how we differ. Your position (if I understand rightly) is, basically, that without a god nothing can have any sense, meaning or morals. I accept that that is your view and I don't want to sound arrogant!! -- But my view is diametrically opposed to that. I can live my life perfectly well without a god. I simply use my human intelligence to explain to myself as much of existence as possible. What I cannot understand, I leave at that, without having recourse to an (invented) god. -- As to morals, I see that it is "better" to live peacefully that to kill one another. I recognise that murder is bad and compassion good. It's just common sense. We should be answerable to our own consciences (or to the law, of course). OK, some people might have evil consciences and maybe fear of a god can control evil people better. But if that is the only justification for faith, then the faithful should admit it.
alan, cologne,
Dave Worthing thanks for an example of reasoning ....Here's one without reasoning we ,under hypnosis can be told something complicated , say the string theory , then woken to spout quite a lot of what we've been told for quite some time ....so no "reasoning" much there was there?'
It was probably just the same process as learning....
hypnotists themselves don't even understand hypnotism so
don't try saying "oh,well that's different "!
You can teach someone the the six times table under hypnosis quite easily...any hypnotists out there?
ed. bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
We seem to be going back over the same ground. The thing that ties all religions together, is the way that they provide "answers". The "answers" do not involve any supporting evidence. They are generated purely by faith. How do we know they are true? We don't, but feel it would be nice if they were. Then we can go on to talk about the close relationship between religion and ethics. Is it ethical to convince someone that your answers are true when you have no evidence? Or, should you simply say I do not know. Or should you talk about sciences inability to provide information. If I conduct experiments on the most elementary particles known, they will provide me with facts that I do not currently know. Is this information at its lowest level, or are we talking about something else? Religion seems to have a way with words, which, like their principles does not involve a clear definition of what they mean. Jimmy of Nottingham has the essence of the problem.
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
That's interesting, Ed. I'll have to think about it.
alan, cologne,
Truths can exist without God. Some truths, such as fundamental mathematical principles, just ARE. 2+2=4, and God can't make it equal 5, and isn't needed to explain that the answer is 4, which any intelligent, conscious being can deduce, on our planet or elsewhere in the universe. In the same way, fundamental laws of physics within our universe can exist without God.
mathew, broome,
Dave Elliman, you make a lot of good points. To try to follow moral teachings such as the golden rule is admirable. It is not unique to Christianity. However, Christianity as expounded by the Churches also carries a lot of baggage and a lot of dogmas, that many feel ARE nonsense, as part of its credo. Why accept the doubtful extras, if for example the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, ascension and other magical happenings didn't in fact occur as written?
Morality may be considered an intrinsic trait of humanity. If so, then moral choices are rational.
The problem of explaining how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience, or how to explain consciousness, remains one of the greatest challenges for science, philosophy and psychology. It won't be answered in our lifetime. This doesn't mean mankind won't get closer to answering it, and may yet one day.
jim, sydney,
What makes Dawkins a fundamentalist is his two-dimensional, black and white, view of people of faith.
Despite all of his protestations, anyone who wants to lump 80% plus of the world population into one group is a fundamentalist.
He offers no valid intellectual ground for anyone of faith. You can't get more fundamentalist than that.
Tom Paine
Dayton, OH
Tom Paine, Dayton, OH
Ed, your argument against reason is flawed in that both the examples you give are a result of learning, which is the logical step to follow reason.
When I was learning my times tables as a child I had to work out (or reason, different words, same meaning) that six times six was thirty six by starting from six and adding six more five times. Now if someone asks me the same question I respond without thinking because it has become a learned response. Never the less without the ability to reason the answer, I could never have learnt the correct response.
Then again, I never was very good at skipping.
Dave, worthing, uk
alan of cologne ... just to "educate" you (sorry) on the "workings" of the "mind"
A) I would ,except that the "mind" has never ,ever, even been identified in the scientific world.
B) What goes on in our heads is the least known of the functions that make us "tick"
C) "conscious" or being "conscious" has never been understood by anyone (neither is conscience) in the world of science
D) "thinking" has never been understood in the scientific world
even dreams and hypnotism are a complete mystery...
in fact they know nothing .....so if you want to help out please call any scientific journal and tell them you know how the "thought process " (if there is such a thing) works,as you seem to, and I assure your instant fame The nearest they ever got was a theory that "thoughts COME TO US"..(as in "it entered my mind") Example What was the first thought that entered your head on waking this morning? Who put it there?Did you ,and how? and the second ?
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
This debate is going nowhere until the atheists accept that science's foundations are based on the philosophy of naturalism or materialism which says "nature is what nature is" and "nature is made up of particles". It follows from this that matter had to do its own creating and that the means of creating must exclude external power (such as God). Science has been unable to prove this assertion yet bases all its findings on assumptions made about "nature" which behaves the way it does because it does. Why "nature" exists, why nature behaves as it does and not in other ways and how chance and random interaction can create anything of ever increasing complexity like "evolving lifeforms" are questions not to be addressed. Dawkins concedes as a zoologist that the simplest organisms contain immense amounts of genetic material and that natural (a deceptive word because it is meaningless as a explanation) selection cannot demonstrate any information creating power.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
Richard Dawkins is a distinguished biologist and I found his explanation of evolution in books like The Seflish Gene to be enthralling. Of course the scientific method is the way in which theories about the world must be tested, and it does seem that without this discipline people are capable of believing the most fantastical nonsense. When he is talking about Science I find myself in whole hearted agreement, and when he is debunking a nonsense like astrology I am right with him all the way.
He misses the point with religion though, because he has not understood what it is. It is true that many religious people believe nonsense, and that is to be regretted, but this is merely naivety and is not at the heart of what religion is for. Religion is there to give life substance and meaning. Science cannot tell us why we are conscious and how we apparently have choices that are moral and not random. To try to follow Christ is a valid choice and does not require one to believe any nonsense.
Prof Dave Elliman, Nottingam , UK
This debate is going nowhere until the atheists accept that science's foundations are based on the philosophy of naturalism or materialism which says "nature is what nature is" and "nature is made up of particles". It follows from this that matter had to do its own creating and that the means of creating must exclude external power (such as God). Science has been unable to prove this assertion yet bases all its findings on assumptions made about "nature" which behaves the way it does because it does. Why "nature" exists, why nature behaves as it does and not in other ways and how chance and random interaction can create anything of ever increasing complexity like "evolving lifeforms" are questions not to be addressed. Dawkins concedes as a zoologist that the simplest organisms contain immense amounts of genetic material and that natural (a deceptive word because it is meaningless as a explanation) selection cannot demonstrate any information creating power.
Peter Hollander, Canterbury, England
People who believe in any form of religion and a 'super being' do so from a belief that is not founded on fact. Their belief is generated by their faith.
I believe that all religious people are nuts. I have no facts to back this up, but it is my belief. So, according to religious peoples' rationale I must be right because it is my belief without any factual justification.
Nuff said !
Jimmy, Nottingham, England
"Life on earth has been generated over billions of years in a single branching tree-The Tree of Life-by one algorithmic process or another" (Dennett).
Natural selection has produced us, but if the program was re-run, variables would be unlikely to produce a result that is the same. There was no certainty that evolution would produce US.
At a more individual level, every conception is an algorithmic process with so many variables that we are all here by happenstance. Two lovers may feel powerfully that "we were made for each other", but that is of course not a rational concept when referenced back to their random conceptions. It merely reflects stimulation of certain neurological areas involved in satisfaction and reward, in love and fulfillment, post-event.
None of us need be here, but for a happy combination of events. That we are here is cause for celebration. All we can do is make the most of it.
jim, sydney,
Logic, reason and morality are intrinsic traits of evolved, intelligent human consciousness. Good and evil only have meaning when used as adjectives to describe human behaviour, and beyond that are meaningless. There is no moral absolute. Intelligence is not conditional on a scriptural god which has been created by ancient minds.
The laws of science are merely there to discover, and are not created by anyone.
bill, towoomba,
Bob - Sorry ...
alan, cologne,
Dear Alan of Cologne, I'm simply saying that the existence of the God of the Bible is the precondition of intelligibility. If the God of Scripture doesn't exist and human beings have no sense of Him, then nothing intelligible can be said about anything.
The existence or non-existence of God isn't some kind of "add-on" or "take away". The implications if He didn't exist would be far reaching. If God does not exist the universe is fundamentally irrational, there is no Rationality out there (or in Man for that matter), irrationality controls matter, time and energy, and there is no standard for good and evil - good and evil do not exist. Not only are life and the universe fundamentally meaningless, but every thought, sentence and action is.
How can you account for the laws of logic, science and morality, without the existence of a Being that is both Personal and Absolute as the foundation for them - along with the other attributes of Christian Deity?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
I think that human beings have a built-in need for completeness. Some people are only happy if they have a sense of completeness to such an extent that they are prepared to manufacture one if it doesn't already exist . The religious person says I need God for completeness. The atheist says I see so little evidence for God, that I will discount it completely for the sake of completeness. This search for completeness can be misleading. Most optical illusions are based on a false sense of completeness. Both the body and the mind can deceive themselves. What we should say about any solution, is that this is the most complete answer I have at this time. We may state that the speed of light is a constant and have a great deal of supporting evidence, but that is to completely discount the future. My feeling is that all things, even the immutable absolutes should be questioned continuously. Our urge to seek completeness can be a benefit but it can also lead to self deception.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
For us to exist, the universe had to be the way it is, with its current laws of science. This set of conditions allowed the cosmos, our earth, evolution, and us to exist as they do. Had the laws and conditions been different, humans and our conscious minds wouldn't be here to contemplate it.
We are not a necessary product of a universe and evolution, but, given that we are here, the Big Bang and Darwin's explanation of our evolution from a common ancestor are correct deductions from the evidence.
The universe doesn't exist FOR us, we merely exist because conditions were such that we do.
jim rogers, sydney,
Bob Gibson of New York: I'm not entering any exams just now, just giving my reflections. I regret any unintended offence but hope I'm fair.
Frank of Sydney. You're more than tough and over the top this time. Few would go along with you.
Dave of Worthing,UK. All I say is that the change of attitude induced by prayer and meditation is well known as a positive help in health matters. This is when the relationship with God is on a deeper level than much of what passes for religion and is mentioned by you with that negative term, religiosity.
Wow Murali of Derby : Locuta est, causa finita est.
Reflections would coincide much more in breaking through that tough, hard barrier of intrinsically inadequate particle to peep a little at Infinity.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
If God exists, then blasphemy is not a "victimless crime".
Jason Lawton, Ruegsau, Switzerland
It's great to hear someone speak with intelligence and clarity about religion. It makes you realise how silenced we have been by religion.
collins, Belfast,
So Alan of Cologne and Ed Bradbury of Bournemouth UK, are you really thinking the puff clouds are exclusively from 'religious ones'.? If so, I find your conclusions quite amazing.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, I pity you that you find the world to "limp badly" and go "astray" without some kind of magical guidance. I take by "spiritual" that you are referring to magic, rather than "morality". If you're referring to morality, you can't seriously suggest that without religion it is impossible to live a moral life, are you? I presume that you're a catholic priest by the fact that you refer to yourself as "Father". How do you justify the vast wealth of the catholic church? The vulgar display of greed dripping from every stone block of Vatican City? The "faith" that led to the invention of plenary indulgences so that the pope could marry his sister to French Royalty, and refill the coffers so that he could once again engage in his depraved lifestyle? The censureship of people like Romero, the banning of "Worker Priests"? So much for the leadership of the church. How a person can be so wilfully blind I'll never understand.
Cormac, Galway, Ireland
Pretend friends are a form of mental illness. Many psychologists consider that the concept of belief without evidence (i.e. faith) is also a form of mental illness. Belief in Jesus (or Allah) is belief without evidence and belief in a pretend friend for which there is no evidence. Anyone caught teaching such religious nonsense as truth ought to be locked up to prevent them from harming others. Anyone who defends religion is essentially saying “Delusion and mental illness is good and necessary because….â€
Amina Hassan, manchester, uk
There's no foolishness to compare with the foolishness that wants to explain energy and matter by the same. I say this viewing my own stupidity. Yet day and night I do not imagine or believe but just know that no particle or collection of them ever adeqately explained the others.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
TO FATHER Bryan Storey of Tintagel, UK
I guess my point of adherence to codes of conduct by
scientists was not enunciared well enough. Just because
a scientist, of the repute of Profesor Richard Dawkins strays
from the code of conduct,, it does not follow, the rest of us
should take bait.
Two WRONGS never make a RIGHT.
Ironically, BRAHAMA D. SHARMA now reaiizes the folly
of having contributed to this debate.
BRAHAMA D SHARMA, PISMO BEACH, CA , U S A, /CALIFORNIA
ed - reason is useful when thinking, not when skipping.
alan, cologne,
Bob Gibson New York.... so that's it Bob, you're not spiritual enough to understand........let's ask Father Bryan for a spiritual understanding of the following,seen on the internet (click on Google "freewill")....Summarising, the bible tells us we have freewill however as Gods "omni-something" means He knows in advance what we will chose ,then we do not have freewill..To get round this the church authorities advise "we should believe that both are true and try to work with them "side-by side" omigod what are we up against
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Alan, My remark about death was a poor attempt to be ironic. Your reaction shows how poor it was. The statement is clearly a illogical. I do not see myself in heaven, debating with Father Storey for all eternity. Neither do I think that I will be reincarnated. When I die, my epitaph, if I have one, will be: For eons I was not, Then for a brief while I was, Now I am no more. That seems very tidy to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
I'm reading some strange examples of "reason"...when a young girl is shown how to skip with a rope does she have to reason each time that she needs to jump to avoid the rope ?No, it becomes automatic ,doesn't it?Do we reason that when we put a key in a lock it will turn...no, experience and practice tells us.....we've done it before ,haven't we? Same as skipping,ain't it? "Reason" is one of those rubbish words I might have mentioned before!
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Fundamentalist.
Tom, Chicago,
Dawkins says: 'Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini.'
That is rubbish. Most believers practise decent religion. It is only the fundamentalist morons in the US and the Middle East who give religion a bad name.
Religion cannot be dismissed as a bad thing. It teaches values like humility and forgiveness that if were more widely followed, would lead to a better world. For that it can only be a good thing
Chris, Epsom,
Charles Darwin described how a Non-intelligent Artificer (Evolution) could lead to the development of all species, including Homo Sapiens. Humans, with consciousness and powers of reason, are the end result of this natural process thus far, so why do some feel a need to add a superfluous, unproven divine designer as a part of the process?
jim, sydney,
Bryan Storey says he tends to agree with Richard Dawkins views on NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria, coined by Gould). That is interesting and surprising, as Dawkins (p 56) says that "if they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the providence of theologians as well...............I am tempted to go further and wonder in what possible sense theologians can be said to have a providence."
I agree as well that theologians haven't got a firm basis for their theist or Christian views, beyond personal preference for a divinely inspired world and a perfect afterlife.
dave, melbourne,
"And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took...................there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us." (Deuteronomy 2, 33-36). This "righteous and upright" God of yours, RT, is a frightfully smashing chap. So long as he doesn't decide to smite you and your innocent family and children.
bill, towoomba,
If anyone on this site can make sense of what Richard Tallach is saying, please come forward and explain.
alan, cologne,
To simplify this argument (and I'm a simple man), it seems to me that it's much easier to believe in a god, whichever one the individual chooses, mostly as a result of childhood indoctrination, than not to.
Belief in a god usually comes with some reassurance of an afterlife, and a comforting guiding superbeing.
Theists find it too hard to accept that we are simply another life form, here to survive and procreate, too insecure to live their lives and accept death as a natural end, too arrogant to believe that man is no better or more important than other species.
Cynics might add that religion can also be a source of power and income for those inclined to exploit the vulnerable, giving them plenty of reason to perpetuate it.
graham harris, peterborough, uk
'It can be clearly shown that God exists' (Richard Tallach).
Carry on Richard, we eagerly await your demonstration.
Graham Harris, Peterborough, UK
Richard, I am not aware of any proof that God exists. I tend towards the opinion that some people have a need to believe in God. This can arise in many ways. The Jesuits say give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man. Early imprinting maybe responsible in some cases. In others it may be a response to some catastrophe. Or it may just seem like a good idea. I don't know of any serious work which covers this area. My concern is with the idea that a given religion has a corner on the truth. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that this is not so. If you choose a religion, then enjoy the benefits as you would a placebo, for as long as they last. However, you should carefully consider the ethics of convincing others about your supposed truths.
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
there seem to be only 3 categories(believers ,atheists and agnostics) mentioned in this debate but a 4th is ignored...and I hope my letter may join me with someone out there. You see I don't give a damn one way or another. before some bright individual writes and says then why are you poking your nose in then? I reply, (A) I love practicing my typing (B) I love the spelling check and hope one day they will have a grammar check (C) old friends I knew years ago will know where I am and (D) I sometimes have nothing better to do
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Dear Norman, The Logical Positivists believed that only those things were meaningful which could be measured empirically in their desire to exclude metaphysics from discussions such as this. Their position - which you seem to have sympathy with - was self-refuting and therefore wrong as the principle itself could not be verified on its own criteria. If we only believed in things that can stand up to scientific experiment, we'd end up believing in nothing. Some of the most important things which we believe as human beings have valid evidence for them, but canot be verified by putting them in a test tube. On what basis do you believe that there are scientific laws, or do you believe that they are all in our minds, and have no objective reality?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Father Brian, I am not as you say out to get that religious dog. My purpose is to understand what you are saying. I agree it is challenging to get out of the illusory world's that we build. That is why, my focus is on reality. As far as the prerogative of religion being the accumulation of power, money and control. Surely the evidence is built into the institutions and edifices we see all around us. I see nothing wrong in this, it is fundamental to all human institutions which last. However it is true that the displays of wealth and power, put on by today's religious institutions rival those of yesterday's monarchies. It is also difficult for me to understand why you dismiss reality so contemptuously. It seems to me that as time goes on science or materialism as you prefer to call it, is continuously making inroads into areas that were once considered the sole province of religion. This is the opposite of what you are saying. Question all things seems right, no absolutes.
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
Bob Gibson - I expect you will be pleased that Bryan rejoices over your posting. But consider the following. -- Your descripitions of the atheist and the agnostic standpoints are more or less correct. -- But then you say, and I quote you "The religious persons says, there MUST be a god, because I NEED one ... " And why does he need one? " ... to explain the apparent vagaries of life and the FACT that I do not really die when I am dead." --- Do I really need to comment on the absurdity of this argument? (But it makes Bryan rejoice. Which makes me wonder whether "IQ increases by God worship".)
alan, cologne,
thank you alan of cologne for aiding my vocabulary with your letter using the phrase "flowery pontifications".. a term which can be applied to most writers on the religious side who need to cushion their arguments in an endeavour to fog up the whole issue..... as an example may I suggest one simple alternative phrase to use....in place of "a reasoned rational assessment was a logic one based on intuition and proved correct" .. just say simply "a great idea (or a gut-feeling) proved right"
But you won't will you ..... it won't sound clever enough and is too easily understood
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Bob Gibson of Nw York, it is not right that you have experienced my dismissing the material world contemptuously. It just limps badly and leads astray without a spiritual understanding.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Father Brian, I am not as you say out to get that religious dog. My purpose is to understand what you are saying. I agree it is challenging to get out of the illusory world's that we build. That is why, my focus is on reality. As far as the prerogative of religion being the accumulation of power, money and control. Surely the evidence is built into the institutions and edifices we see all around us. I see nothing wrong in this, it is fundamental to all human institutions which last. However it is true that the displays of wealth and power, put on by today's religious institutions rival those of yesterday's monarchies.
It is also difficult for me to understand why you dismiss reality so contemptuously. It seems to me that as time goes on science or materialism as you prefer to call it, is continuously making inroads into areas that were once considered the sole province of religion. This is the opposite of what you are saying.
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
Richard,
You continue to assert that human reasoning is more specific than it really is. I gave you 2 examples, I could have given a thousand. We are now able to perfom live action scans of the brain which is conducted under each of these thousand scenarios would show the same area of the brain working in each case, the situations may be different, but the mechanism is the same.
As for your suggestion that reason alone is ill equipped to answer the god question. I agree, the point is that faith is in no way related to reason and therefore reason can never remove the convictions of faith. What it can do is show such faith for the smoke screen that it is. By contrast faith alone can never have any impact on those things we can evidentially prove.
An example, when approaching a door with a key in it reason tells us there is a 50/50 chance the door is locked. Should it be locked all the faith in the world will not open it, but reason tells us that turning the key, will.
Dave, worthing, uk
A Parable. Brian and I sit a maths exam. There are 10 questions they are very hard. At the end of the exam I have answered four. I hand in my answers on five sheets of paper. Brian hands in one. On his sheet is written the following; I have answered all 10 questions and checked them with my God. You must therefore give me 100%. If you do not, I can only assume that you are, (A) prejudiced against my God. ( B) prejudiced against me. (C.) You are not certified by the Personal, Rational, Moral and Absolute Being and therefore should not be marking my exam. If you were the examiner what would you do?
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
i love how people put God outside the laws of physics, or logic or reason, so to bypass them.
Dawkins is correct on everything he ever says, because everything he says and writes about is based on....basic logic and reason and common sense. Faith and religion isn't based on any of these things. End of discussion.
muorali, derby, uk
Miracles are an illusion. This doesn't mean nothing happens, just that the interpretation of how and why things happen is misinterpreted.
Miracles from the bible are uninterpretable. No documentation, no idea what the diseases were, or what conditions were hysterical, psychological, temporary, etc. Infectious conditions that resolve? De-myelinating diseases that remit? There is no documentation that permanent cures in fact occurred, no evidence of true cures at all, just hearsay written 30 to 70 years after the supposed events by unknown authors on the word of unknown "witnesses" of unknown reliability.
The bible accounts of miracles are totally worthless as evidence.
frank, sydney,
Father Bryan,
you have stated more than once now that IQ is increased by worship of your god. I have no idea where you get your statistics. I do not know if this trend is true for the whole world but certainly it has been shown that in America (a deeply christian country with a large sample population) there is very strong correlation between IQ and religiosity, but certainly not in the direction you would like us to believe.
As to the health point another study conducted showed that critically ill patients who are prayed for show no better recovery rates than those who are not. However those who know they are being prayed for are statistically more likely to die. In this case it seems that prayer and worship actually have a detrimental effect on health.
Dave, worthing, uk
Brahama D. Sharma. This fascinating debate has arisen because a Professor of Science says God is a delusion, though he's not quite sure as he admits (pages 50-51). I tend to agree wiith Professor Dawkins on NOMA ( pages 53-54). All would of course be much more apparent if we 'religious ones' took it more seriously but it's strong challenge to convert on a deep level.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Alan Pavelin, thanks for your cogent reply. At least you argue in good plain English in contrast to the flowery potifications of other opponents of atheism. I therefore take your comments very seriously. -- I agree with you that, since the Christian Church claims certain truths have been revealed, it is possible that this is correct. It is indeed well worth investigating. The difficulty, as I see it, is how to investigate revelations and apparitions. They rest solely on what the person(s) involved tell us. And unfortunately I usually assume that they were either mentally unstable, under the influence of some kind of drug, drunk or lying. (Please excuse the drastic language.) - However, if I were personally to experience such a revelation, I would indeed change my attitude. --- Since I don't "believe" that god is revealed in the bible, this is just about the only way I could be converted to a faith.
alan, cologne,
Dear Bob of New York,
Atheism is not a viable philosophy. It can be clearly shown that God exists and indeed that in their heart of hearts all human beings presuppose his existence. Whether people wish to be persuaded of the evidence and move from having an innate knowledge of God, to consciously believing in Him is another matter.
Your argument that ''necessity'' explains e.g. the laws of logic is flawed. In an atheist worldview nothing at base is Absolute and Necessary. In a Christian Theist worldview God is both Necessary and Absolute. He is the Great "I am" upon which all else is ultimately founded - making human use of logic and predication possible.
Otherwise atheists are saying that the laws of logic are mere conventions or pragmatic rules with no basis in any ultimate reality, and that they not only believe, as many of them have said, that life and the universe is ultimately meaningless but also that their arguments against Theism are also meaningless.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
As a retired chemistry professor, it is imperative to point out,
in scientific research treading into the domain of' scientific
disciplinres not one's own discipline is structly off limits.
Furthermore, even in one's own domain the code of
conduct demands to keep clear of the field not one's
specialization. For example an organic chemist is not
likely to venture into the evaluation of research works in inorganic chemistry. The domain of Religion is so far removed from the domain of science and the basic criteria of evaluatuion in the two are diametrically opposed, it is wise for a
scientist to not get embroiled in public debate on
matters of sience with a religious preacher and it is
wiser for a scientist to understand that science cannot prove or disprove the hypothesis of "GOD".
BRAHAMA D SHARMA, PISMO BEACH, CA 93448-1626, U S A, /CALIFORNIA
Alan of Cologne - You say that if a truth were "revealed" to you by some supernatural means you would accept it. Maybe, maybe not. But the truths of Christian revelation do not come directly to everybody in that kind of way, at least not in this life. What I put to you is this: the Christian Church, which has been going for 2000 years, claims that certain truths, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, have been revealed. Is it not possible that this is correct, and is at least worth investigating? If, of course, you are a dogmatic atheist, you will rule this out on principle, but this doesn't seem a very intelligent way of approaching the subject.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, UK
Ed Bradbury of Bournemouth, thanks for that but remember we all need to let scales fall from our eyes every day. You will be hampered in your quest if you think the problem is mainly in the religious field.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
PS, If you are saying that you will not consider the God of the Bible because you cannot do scientific experiments on Him - even although there may be sound evidence of another kind/other kinds for Him - you are apriori excluding the possibility of His existence by closing your mind to the types of evidence you are willing to consider e.g. that this universe is unintelligible without a Personal, Rational, Moral and Absolute Being as its foundation. Even discrete meaning(s) has//have no basis without Absolute Meaning.
Re the "capricious" deities you mention, I certainly would put no confidence in them . The One Living and True God of the Bible is not capricious but like a Rock upon which the universe is founded.. He is a God of faithfulness and justice in all his dealings with Man. He is righteous and upright, (Deuteronomy 32:4) guaranteeing meaning, reason, and laws of logic, morality, mathematics and science.
If He is not, there is no meaning and no law, and that is impossible.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Richard Tallach, I do not know whether atheism is viable or not. The reason is that I cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist. Therefore I prefer to say I do not know. Whether atheism is true or not, there is still a basis for the laws of logic, or science, morality aesthetics etc. it is known as necessity. Since all of the above, are desirable attributes which enhance the status of man, their presence, shows that those groups which had them survived better than the ones that did not. This line of reasoning, gives us an open-ended solution, because things can either succeed or fail. The idea of personal, rational and moral absolutes is closed ended. The basis is take it or leave it. How does one make progress in that kind of environment?
Bob Gibson, New York m, USA
p.s. to Father Bryan, I shall be keeping my sick bag close at hand
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
So Bob Gibson of New York is convinced that particles can be adequately explained by particles. No accounting for folk. I thought we were in a scientific, evidence demanding world.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bob Gibson of New York. I rejoice over your latest posting. Our outlook is similar.Yet to try adequately to explain matter by matter is to leave it totally unexplained. In this debate I hear of big bang almost as much as book lists, intelligence and qualifications. So now tell us how the intrinsically limited that comes into and goes out of existence is the adequate explanation of the universes. Professor Dawkins leaves the door slightly open (page 51) but does not answer the question. Norman of Anstruther, UK.- overemphasis on human intelligence inclines towards God denial. That helps to explain much God denial where there's high IQ. The Aldous Huxley book I recommend should be helpful in your quest. God cannot be convincingly denied by those who've not tested it by persistent self forgetful prayer- a crunch point in the Jesus teaching. Paradox is, IQ increases by God worship. Stability increases and health too. Many more advantages. Watch this space.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
So far, I think the discussion can be summarized quite simply. The atheist says, that since there is no reliable evidence for the existence of God, the probability of his existence is infinitesimal and can therefore be ignored. The agnostic says, since there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, he must say simply I do not know whether God exists or not. This leaves open the possibility that at some future time evidence may be found. The religious person says, there must be a God, because I need one to explain the apparent vagaries of life and the fact that I do not really die when I am dead. The atheist and the the agnostic rely on probability and the apparent lack of evidence. The religious person, relies on absolute certainty, in spite of the lack of evidence. In other words the true believer needs no evidence. I can see where probability and need play a part in this discussion, but I do not see any compelling evidence for truth.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Alan Pavelin - Why do you attempt to "explain" to me what my position is? Your version of my position is twisted. This often happens when someone disagrees with the atheist's standpoint.. Please read carefully what I say and don't put words in my mouth, OK -- Having said that, what on earth (!) has an undiscovered Mercury moon got to do with my argument? If such a moon were discovered, it would increase our knowledge of Mercury - that's all. -- And as to the truth being "revealed", I've already told Bryan Storey that if any supernatural being (a god, angel, spaghetti monster) were to reveal itself/herself/himself to me, I would be quite ready to alter my atheistic position. -- (Why should this be unlikely? Didn't god talk to Jeanne Darc and G.W. Bush? What about those shepherd girls? And angels have appeared to lots of people in history - or haven't they?)
alan, cologne,
Dawkins is a failure story of science. He has done great damage to the very thing he is trying to protect. He's failed to fairly collect or evaluate evidence. Newton and Einstein didn't find what they did by closing their minds like Dawkins has. Good science would produce a hypothesis, neutrally evaluate evidence and produce a conclusion, not start with a conclusion.
He has repeatedly produced intellectually poor research into an area outside of his expertise as a zoologist. It is a big step from Darwin to quantum physics. Arguing for evolution over creation would be more understandable but instead he forgets the universe is not a species of animal (or at least it's not currently understood to be).
Obviously a critical thinking A-level is not needed to be a professor at Oxford. Slippery slopes could easily be the most commonly used word in reviewing his work.
There are many more interesting, better qualified experts like Keith Ward so what's the obsession with Dawkins?
Nick Roxburgh, Ormskirk,
Ed of Bournemounth - I'm not sure what your point is: are you saying we should not try to be rational? If so, it seems you are arguing your point rationally, so I'm confused.
There is one point in your message which I have touched on before: it is easy to dream up rational, logical, explanations of things. What's not so easy is to find explanations that can stand up to experiment. That's where science separates from religion - you can't test a capricious supernatural entitiy - and why I find pretty much all religious talk to be literally nonsense.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Dear Dave of Worthing,
According to the evolutionary scenario, our reasoning powers were developed with very practical tasks in mind - as per the examples you give - not debating whether or not God exists. Yet evolutionists believe that unaided human reason can decide such matters. Their position is self-refuting.
I - obviously -don't believe in the hypothetical god that you mention. The "god of navigation" tells lies. The God of the Bible doesn't and is the guarantor of Truth. It would be foolish to follow a god of Untruth rather than the God of Truth.
The moot point here is whether atheism is a lie ("delusion") or not. Atheism must be a delusion because if it were true it could not be true - since it offers no basis for the laws of logic, or science, morality, aesthetics, etc.. In an atheist universe there is no Personal, Rational and Moral Absolute. Just a meaningless vacuum or bottomless pit which offers no foundation or standard for human thought, speech, action.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Father Bryan...my objection to the continued popular use and misuse of certain terms and words such as reason ,rational and logic(all favoured by the way ,by the religious army who hate anything described in simple terms and endeavour to draw a veil over controversial questions by introducing mysticism ,superstition and red herrings...a fact well recorded) however here is an up to date example.. working as an engineer in the usa when a major problem was encountered the boss would simply say "lets get together and throw some ideas around" Had the boss been like a lot of the writers of a lot ot of the letters in this debate he would have said...'let's get together and do some reasoned logical and rational tthinking " yes, I shall still keep my sick bag handy
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Ed Bradbury, that was a few hundred yars ago. You mustn't get sick any more. Read the up to date ones. In any case, you refer to a few notorious ones they quote a lot. There's rubbish written by us all in every age. Yet we talk more rubbish than we write down, thank God.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard Tallach of Perth,
I think you are attributing the concept of rational reasoning with a little too mcuh specificity.
Mans ability to reason rationally was not developed to deal with any one specific situation.
I am able to use reason to decide which sausages to buy from the butchers, or which route to take home after work. If there were no sausages it would in no way affect my ability to work out the quickest route home.
A belief in a god however could affect my ability to determine the route home. Imagine for example I were a devout believer in the god of navigation. If the teaching of this god told me that the quickest way home were to turn right at the end of the road, even though I knew for a fact that my house was just a few yards away on the left, would it not be exceptionally foolish for me to follow the dogmatically prescribed path rather than that which is evidently there before me?
After all, I want to get home before my sausages go off.
Dave, worthing, uk
Alan of Cologne - The position of yourself and those who think like you seems to be that any truth-claim which cannot be scientifically proven is worthless. You rule out in principle any knowledge, or belief, however important it may be to our lives, which cannot be proved in this way. To give an example: suppose it were discovered that the planet Mercury has a tiny moon. This would perhaps be interesting, but would hardly affect our lives. But if it is the case that we have the offer of personal salvation, in the Christian sense, even though it cannot be "proved" but is claimed to have been "revealed", you assert that this should be immediately dismissed as of no account, however important it might be, if true, to our lives. Can you not open your mind to the possibility that some truths can be "revealed" in this manner?
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst,
I posted this some time ago on Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess blog:
"I don't see why religions have it in for good old materialism - by which I mean the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality, not the desire for wealth and material possessions etc. Matter is amazing stuff. How wonderful that it can produce everything from galaxies to genomes; that we, who are pure matter, have consciousness, creativity, understanding and appreciation of the beauty of the universe.
Actually, I guess I do see why religions - and most people - have it in for matter. They can't see the possibilities of 90-odd elements, and rather than put some thought into understanding how complexity arises from simplicity, prefer to "explain" complexity by invoking even greater complexity. Thus, we have gods, spiritualism, and animism in various forms. Personally, I find the idea of Mozart as Matter to be rather more mind-blowing."
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Dear Ed of Bournemouth,
I hope you're not saying that we should dispense with human reason in the current debate. We shouldn't use reason and logic in the Great Debate?! Maybe we should use baseball bats!!
All I am asking is, which can account for human reason better, presupposing that the God of the Bible exists or presupposing that He does not?
If we assume for the sake of argument that He does not, we are in a universe with no personal and rational ongoing foundation or origin, in which man's "reason" developed from certain accidental collocations of atoms, starting with the prebiotic soup. Added to this man's "reason" developed in order to preserve his genes, not to debate whether or not God exists.
Therefore, isn't your position that the God of the Bible doesn't exist self-refuting and false? If the God of the Bible doesn't exist, you are left without a rational basis on which to argue He doesn't exist.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Father Storey, you are correct that our knowledge of infinity is finite. But by the same token so is our knowledge of God. The difference between us is that I can demonstrate my knowledge of infinity in a number of clear and unequivocal ways. I therefore, would have no qualms about teaching people what I know, even though it is not the complete picture. New discoveries will be made and current errors, if any, will be corrected over time. Religion is different. Little or no viable proof is presented to support the claims made. Yet you would have no problem persuading people to accept the concepts. Indeed you would consider that you were doing them a service. To me, this is a truly closed minded position. What you are really saying is that you know you are right regardless of the presence or absence of proof. I think you are perfectly entitled to impose that on your self, since you are a free individual. But I worry about the people who you persuade by such arguments.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Bryan - "bowing before God regolarly and deeply, enhances and develops this particular faculty, to say nothing of others"
I don't suppose you'd have any evidence to back this up? There's quite a bit of evidence to show a correlation between IQ and atheism. Does bowing work for your god only, or will any god do?
I understand that studying, say, chess, also improves your intelligence. Does this mean that the chess god exists?
I don't think that you are suffering from a loss of intelligence. It looks to me more like a very specific blind spot. Your critical faculties (which I'd say are in good working order :-) just switch off at this particuar point. The funny thing is, if you had been born an Aborigine or a Hindu or whatever, you'd have the same blind spot, but in a different place.
A minor point: atheists are not anti-god, just non-god.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
I see you're currently entrenched in your position, Bob Gibson of New York. Your ordered listing of thought about the here and now and attributed motivation, all scream out ' get that religious dog'. It really is challenging to get out of the illusory worlds we build in our minds, the sort that also encourages us to think that it's the prerogative of religion to be concerned with money, power and control. Come, come, Bob Gibson, I realise you're in the area of tower blocks. However it is not just 'superior' but common sense to see around if you do not like the word 'beyond'. Materialistic considerations have to lead us to the inevitable spiritual ultimate explanation if we're not to be penned into boring, head in the sand play time of switched off no explanation. Religion's failures are your failures and mine.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
all this rubbish about human rationality ,reason and logic makes me want to reach for a sick bag.... prior to the 15th century wasn't it "reason " that made the great *thinkers" say that the sun revolved around the earth and wasn't it "logic " then to think that the world was flat, ... it was all "rational " thought then ,wasn't it?
it ain't now!
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
The question is then "what evidence will convince you otherwise?" I put it to Dawkins that he has decided what evidence he is willing to consider, and in doing so has swept aside a body of evidence for God and spirituality that is quiet compelling. He is a fundamentalist, or at best, so passionate that he is not willing to consider evidence that he sees at unworthily of his consideration. Intellectual arrogance disguised as saving the world from the folly of belief...
Ryan Ballantyne, Cape Town, South Africa
Coming out loud and clear from Professor Dawkins and his supporters on the blog, is an anxiety that God worship involves loss of human intelligence. My opponents to my taking up religion used to try to put me off by saying 'it's only for the unintelligent'. Quite apart from the evidence that there's plenty of embellished nonsense talked in the anti God world, the paradox is that whatever our level of intelligence, bowing before God regolarly and deeply, enhances and develops this particular faculty, to say nothing of others. Quite paradoxical as Jesus says. Can't really dismiss Him in the way you're doing, you know.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
and beyond evolution Ben? the adequate explanation.? You're a slippery one!
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Ben of York, What I'm saying is, if you are an atheist you believe in atheistic evolution. If you are a Christian Theist you may believe in theistic evolution or creation or whatever; but you believe that Reason (i.e. the Absolute, Necessary and Personal Rationality, the God of the Bible) designed man's rationality and because He is at the foundation of the Universe and through all the Universe we have a basis to have confidence in man's rationality. Atheists posit that Rationality does not exist before, above and beyond the Universe. This means that if man is claimed to be "rational" according to atheist beliefs there is nothing rationally objective "out there" to which his rationality can correspond ; no objective standard by which it can be judged to be rational. How can man be rational if he exists in an irrational universe? Also, if man's reason evolved - atheistically- in order to help his genes survive is such a "reason" suitable for judging between e.g. atheism/Theism?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
O Bryan, you reply to my Spaghetti analogy. If you object to the FSM, I could take a Sky Pixie or a Galaxy Goblin instead to demonstrate my point, it wouldn't make the slightest difference. In everything you say, I could substitute them for the word "god". E.g. my Sky Pixie is necessary for existence, is all powerful and demands worship, and if you deny Her existence it leads to many delusions. She cries out from our conscience. She is invisible and explains infinity etc etc. ad absurdum. -- Give the Sky Pixie or the Galaxy Goblin the same attributes as you give god, and you get the same "evidence" (or "proof", as you prefer) of their existence too. -- Bryan, as usual you have been totally unable to reply to any of these arguments. Since I don't think you are stupid, I must conclude that your "faith" makes you ignore logical argument and close your eyes to reality, living as you apparently do in another world of miracles, angels, saints and dogmas.
alan, cologne,
Plein d'espoir - fools say all sorts of things. Some say in their heart there is no god, some there is a god. But we should not be swayed by what fools say or do not say. It would be very foolish to imagine that Dawkins is a fool.
What are you full of hope for?
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Storey asks what lies beyond materialism? I think the question is rather artfully posed. Beyond, has a connotation of being superior.. I would rather ask the question what lies outside materialism. The answer is what ever you wish. It might be myth, fiction, pseudoscience, metaphysics, mysticism, religion the list just goes on and on. Man has always sought explanations. I think it is inherent in his nature, and there have always been those who would supply explaination at a price. Difficult problems like the apparent randomness of nature have given rise to all kinds of suggested solutions. Some of which have stood the test of time and others have failed. The ability to predict has always had mystical properties. That is why religion and astronomy are so closely connected. Historically religion has provided a path to money, power and control. This like the curates egg, has been good and bad in parts. I find that religion has done very little for man's perception of truth.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Bob Gibson of New York, what we know of infiinity is finite and limited. I do not need to change my terms. I see you are not too open where religion is concerned. I start from the here and now in what I say. You would be rather closed up to see it as semantics. I know we are often pretty naughty ones who are not too nice but it's like that everywhere. We all need to get beyond our masks. I supposed it's more sickening when coming from stuck up 'religious ones'.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The Dawkins Delusion - another proof of the old saying "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God". Quo vadis Dawkins?
Plein d'espoir, Castres, France
All right, Ben but what is beyond all your materialism?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard, you clearly don't get the idea that evolution isn't chance or the anthropic principle, which is but explains life in general.
Therefore you are not someone I can reasonably debate with.
Ben, York,
I find it perfectly reasonable to question a philosophy (atheism) that prides itself on being based upon human rationality and empiricism alone, and yet places that rationality and empiricism on such a flimsy base.I.e. that human rationality evolved in order for man to survive - and may yet evolve; that the beginning of this evolution was an accidental collocation of events and that the universe is also accidental and that Rationality did not precede and does not govern the universe. Are atheists saying that the movements of chemicals in their brains, determined by the conditions before the "Big Bang" can tell us whether there is a God or not, or that there isn't a God or anything? Alan, You mention Zeus,Thor and FSM. Are they Personal, Absolute (infinite, eternal and unchangeable) and Necessary, in their Being, Wisdom, Power, Holiness, Goodness, Love, Justice and Truth? I'm not arguing that Thor can account for goodness, beauty and truth,etc, but that the God of the Bible can.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
I am a mathematician and I'm quite used to dealing with infinity and the infinite (Storey). We actually know a great deal about infinity and the infinite. I have never looked upon solving problems involving infinity as an act of prayer. It seems to me that much of the argumentation presented in this correspondence is mere semantic juggling. I have never had a problem admitting that there is much that I do not know. But then I do not present myself as an authority figure. Many authorities demand that you believe the most outrageous and improbable stories as a test of faith. Perhaps Dawkins is being kind in talking about delusions, may be hallucinations would be a more accurate description. I would suggest that Storey confine his future discussions to eternity, that is a much more intractable problem than infinity.
Bob Gibson , New York , USA
So Bryan can see the edges of the solar system and universe through prayer? I believe science advances understanding - religion was around for thousands of years unchallenged yet the greatest advances have been since religion was doubted (19th century onwards). This is no coincidence.
Ben, York,
The concept that God is infinite in all perfections, in the catechism, implies that the set of perfections can been chosen from the set of all attributes. Which in turn implies some form of judgment. If I make that judgment, am I using some of my own knowledge and characteristics to make it? If so, I am imposing myself on the judgment. If not and I have some form of revelation, am I making a choice at all. I also feel there is a problem with the concept of pivotal and adequately compelling proof. This clearly implies that we do not have all the facts and leaves open the possibility of a correction in the future. It seems to me much simpler and more honest to say, I cannot claim to know what I cannot prove. This I think is Dawkins position with all of the animosity removed.
It is disingenuous to talk about the amount of money that Dawkins has made from his book, since it pales into insignificance, compared with the amount of money made by organized religions over the years
Bob Gibson , New York , USA
as this futile debate is hopefully drawing to a close can i add the wise words of a former times columnist (now deceased) when asked if he believed in God replied that he didn't but if he did he would imagine God to be a rather unpleasant gentleman
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Alan, I agree with you, but having read previous comments from Bryan here is my guess at his response.
He will say, something along the lines of....
Because you do not worship god you open yourself to delusions, such as the FSM. Only by allowing god into your heart and blah blah blah, you know the rest. There really is no way he will ever accept your point, however valid.
Dave, worthing, uk
Bryan- Your claims are based on virtually nothing. It is easy to make up theories that are logically consistent and "explain" phenomena. The question is whether you can test their predictions in experiment. This is the only way we have found so far to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Your theories however are metaphysical which means they cannot be tested. I can claim that my coffee cup sustains the existence of all else in the universe. Even if you smash the cup, I can claim that its supernatural powers are inherited by some other object. You cannot disprove this. Or that its essence is in an invisible coffee cup that cannot be smashed.
Do you find this to be ridiculous? But this is how your metaphysical claims - and those of other religions - appear to me. It puzzles me how you can see through one set of metaphysical nonsense and be taken in by another which is virtually identical.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Problem you've missed Alan of Cologne is that God only wants us freely to serve through worship. We are the ones who lose out by not doing so. Not He. Your FSM is material (page 53). You are not reading your book with care, o Alan in addition to putting forward rather puzzling logic. We find life and vitality by decreasing in self absorbton in the only way possible, worship of the Immortal, Invisible Spiritual One. See what you've been missing recently. Take it up again. Now's the hour. Maybe you're catching on. There are some happy signs. Now don't take annoyed with me again. 'Never take a fence, only take railings!'
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
As ever Bryan I find that you have not cleared things up, however that is probably because I like clear unemotional, rationally thought out statements of fact. SO this is what I think you said. We cannot make assumptions about infinity based on our limited knowledge of the finite universe. I agree. However it does not follow that any form of prayer or meditation WOULD give any greater insight into the nature of infinity. Further more this lack of understanding in no way suggests a supreme being of any kind.
As for Miriam in Brimingham, I think as a Christian (which I am assuming you are, apologies if not) you have to be very careful when accusing Richard Dawkins of being an opportunistic businessman. I have no idea of ur opinion on evangelical preachers taking vast sums of money from the impressionable and ill educated in return for "salvation" but frankly it makes me sick!
Dave, worthing, uk
Bryan - maybe I can explain it like this: You say, basically, that the universe and human existence must have an explanation outside of themselves. Let me accept that statement for the sake of argument. --- Now I happen to have, in my head, a Flying Spaghetti Monster. He's all powerful, all-loving, all-present and He created the universe and all that's in it. My FSM is immaterial and invisible in order to be the required explanation. (Are you still with me?) He wants worship, and non-worshipping is the cause of many delusions. The trouble is, the anti-FSM-people are continuinlly denying His exisence. They must be immoral. --- This may be blasphemous to the believer, but in this discussion it is valid, because it demonstrates the futility of the kind of arguments you are putting forward.
alan, cologne,
Norman and Alan, again I put it to you that what does not have within itself the explanation of its existence has to be fully and adequately explained outside itself. All matter and energy in itself or taken collectively, finitely or infinitely existing with whatever arrangements and connections, is forever without explanation except in One whose essence is to exist. That One is necessarily immaterial and invisible in order to be the required explanation. Something from nothing is a non starter whoever may have put forward the idea! Professor Dawkins does not consider this in the appropriate section (pages 77-92). He seriously misrepresents Aquinas. Kindly address this point.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
In his chapter on 'a deeply religious non believer' (pages 11-27) Professor Dawkins complains bitterly at what he calls privileges accorded to religious believers while highlighting the evils within religion to the exclusion of the greater and unrecorded evils in the world generally. His central error is in failing to see that there's admixture of good and evil right in the core of human nature which needs the purification for which Jesus uniquely calls. Delusions are enormously encouraged by failure to worship God. The idea of God is in Conscience, Professor. Sorry if this irritates. I've often been irritated by things which eventually were helpful.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan of Tintagel - (Don't you love this naming convention - it's like being Leonardo of Vinci or Pythagoras of Samos) - once again you make unverifiable assertions about the "infinite" and the nature of explanations that you would have. Presumably this is part of your personal world view. But that is all it is. It may have no existence outside your head.
As for the big bang, I would agree it gives little insight into life compared to prayer, meditation, reflection and, most of all, experience. But that is parly because our lives are so much closer to us. By a kind of perspective, living overwhelms us with its immediacy, and like ducklings, we imagine our little pond to be the whole world. Science, not religion, has shown us otherwise.
But none of that detracts from the main thesis, namely that belief in god is a delusion.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
His Quote: "The true scientist, however passionately he may “believeâ€, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! "
Ironic in light of the growing evidence behind "Big Bang" and "Explosions" (of the Cambrian variety) and the paucity of fossil record evidence for Darwinian evolution. Darwinians are the ones ignoring the evidence. Even Darwin would not believe his theory after over a century of digging for the fossils that just aren't there. Just try engaging a Darwinian and it will be less than thirty seconds before he/she will try to discredit you by accusing you of believing in God (so much for sticking to the facts).
Doug MacGray, Wilmington, Delaware, USA
Thanks for the comment, Dave. Actually I've not read Dawkins and I only express my own views. My comment about the Anselm "proof" of god's existence (which is just playing with words anyway), was intended to provoke Bryan who said god was invisible. - ALL "proofs" of god are plays on words anyway. Just substitute the words Flying Spaghetti Monster for god, GIVE HIM THE SAME ATTRIBUTES AS BELIEVERS GIVE THIER GOD, and the proof applies to him/it too. The FSM as the Necessary One, the Prime Mover.!- If it is logically possible for the FSM to exist, then he exists!! The existence of morality is dependent on the FSM!! Our existence is best explained by the existence of the FSM - and so on. Substitute Father Christmas, Zeus, or a pink unicorn for the word god, and the "proof" is valid for them too. Pitiful attempts to deceive the gullible and ignorant. - (That doesn't affect Dawkins' " delightful logic" though, which appears to deny the existence of the FSM once and for all !!!)
alan, cologne,
A propos infinite and finite: We humans exist in time and in space. Two things are beyond my comprehension. When did time begin, when will it end? Where does space end, and what's beyond? Astro-scientists may have explanations for this, but they too are beyond my compehension. What conclusion do I reach:- Well, no magic, no inventing a "creator". I just do not know. I need no god, so I'm an a-theist. --- In practical terms, as my life is finite, I would dearly like to know what will happen to an atheist like me when I my life is over. I look forward to an explanation from believers on this site.
alan, cologne,
Miriam, lots of philosophy, science, history, comparative religion etc would be better than reading a limited book like the bible, I agree. I enjoyed the Blind Watchmaker.
Beatrice, oxford,
Alan I believe you are touching very closely on one of the arguments in Prof. Dawkins book. As I recall the way he presents it if God existed and was indeed perfect in every way and did create the universe and well everything, that would be pretty impressive. However would it not be even more impressive to achieve all of this while NOT existing. Therefore an omnipotent God which did not exist would be more perfect than one which did. Therefore to be the most perfect god imaginable (which we are to believe god is) must by definition not exist.
I don't think that argument helps this discussion greatly but I do find it the most delightful piece of logical reasoning.
Dave, worthing, uk
Wow, it's getting a bit touchy here and there. I can recommend relationship with God ( not 'my' God!) to help calm things here and there. Some confusion would disappear in understanding that we only know the Infinite through the finite of which we have immediate evidence. The Infinite which has to be there as explanation of the finite of which we've visible evidence cannot have the limitations of the finite. To have such would be to colour Infinity with our own limitations. Relationship with Infinity through persevering prayer and meditation is the beginning of seeing the reality without which we are rather like a blind man. The 'big bang' is an important event which gives small insight into life by comparison with what is discoverable by the grossly neglected art and craft of prayer. I hope that clarifies a little. More perhaps later on.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bob Gibson of New York: if a god is infinite and eternal, then there is no way it can "exist" in this universe, which is finite in time and space, using the ordinary sense of the word 'exist". Believers usually redefine 'exist" to have some metaphysical meaning.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
I find The God Delusion and The blind Watchmaker humorous at best. Richard Dawkins has no foundation in philosophy or theology. Instead he is a very good business man. He has spotted that todays society is one of fast fixes and a thirst for instant gratification, very few who ask ultimate questions would think to study philosophy or theology, instead they will come to an uninformed opinion, and look to back this up, this is where 'The God Delusion' makes its money. There are plenty of contemporary philosophers and theologians who would be much better to read rather than someone who has a very clever PR person.
Miriam, Birmingham, England
Don't be fooled - most of this is just fancy words and statements not backed up. Ignore it. I defy any thiest to write a water tight proof for god here.
Ben, York,
Alan, God in Himself is invisible. he communicates sometimes in the mind and imagination and sometimes by assuming a material form, outside of us. He also becomes visible through the human nature of Jesus and the saints.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan - my last sentence (I think you are referring to my statement that I would readily become a believer if the supernatural were to make itself evident to me) was meant in all seriousness. Didn't angels appear to Mary, Didn't god talk to Jeanne Darc? And what about Fatima? And all the other miraculous apparitions to people throughout history? So why not to me? --- One of the dodgy "proofs" of god's existence (Anselm?) was (if I remember correctly) that god is perfect and complete. He must therefore have the attribute of existence, other wise he would not be perfect. He therefore exists., QED. - But now you say he's not visible. Is he lacking visibility? If so, he's imperfect, incomplete. Have I got this right? Could you explain this to me?
alan, cologne,
Alan of Chislehurst: all these words about necessary and contingent may make sense, or they may be just nonsense. How do you suggest to tell which it is? I submit that you cannot; and unless you can provide a practical way to explain what you mean, I shall think you are literally talking nonsense.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
"His existence is necessary......then by logic his non-existence (were this the case) would also be necessary."
Sorry AP, you've lost me on this one. Absurd statements like this are beyond comprehension.
Some people including you have manufactured a concept of God. That's fine for you. Atheists see that as nothing other than a mind game.
frank, sydney,
Frank says that the atheist position is not that God cannot exist, but that there is no evidence for it. The monotheist concept of God is that His existence is necessary, not contingent, else it would not be God. If his existence is necessary, then by logic his non-existence (were this the case) would also be necessary. Therefore the atheist position should logically be that God CANNOT exist. Neither position (monotheist or atheist) is capable of having "evidence" in the scientific sense, so one might argue for pure agnosticism. But the issue is so crucial to our lives that it is ludicrous just to sit on the fence, and, for me, if anything at all exists, then so must God.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, UK
Bryan - a word about hypocrisy. According to the scriptures, the very essence of what Jesus said was that we should love not only our neighbours but our enemies too. -- But what do I see? I see Polish and Italian troops in the very forefront of the deadly attack on Iraq. Are none of them catholics? What on earth was the semi-saint pope doing - he was against the war, wasn't he? Why didn't he excommunicate them all? -- Do you, Bryan, have any soldiers in your community? If so, do you tell them they must not shoot at the enemy? Or is it OK to kill first and confess afterwards, so everything's fine again (except for the person killed)? -- What's that I hear? Just wars? - Bryan, you seem to know what Jesus thinks - whatever would he say to such hypocrisy? -- I repeat, this is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.
alan, colgone,
Bryan - sorry, I must correct you. There is indeed something that "compares with the ridiculous absurdity of denying God's existence". And that is the ridiculous absurdity of alleging god's existence. -- Anyway, the rational atheist doesn't deny god's existence as I've pointed out before. He simply says it's not provable either way. However he does NOT believe god exists. There is a difference which the anyone capable of logical thought can understand.
alan, cologne,
"the Supreme Being who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections" - no doubt these terms are expanded in more detail, but as they stand, they first beg the question of whether this being exists, and then don't give any sensible way of producing any evidence. I think the FSM has a similar definition.
What does "infinite in all perfections" actually mean? You may not agree with logical positivism but it is less of a "craze" than religion. I have a cup in front of me. How can I tell if it is infinite in any perfection? Is god infinitely round, infinitely square, infinitely sweet-smelling, infinitely rancid? If not, then just how round, square etc is he?
If you think these questions are contemptible, then return to the first one: what does "infinite in all perfections" actually mean?
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Father Bryan, how is it you haven't run out of communion wine yet?! Seriously some of the things you assert to be true (no opinions, stated facts) are ludicrous. There can be no knowledge of finite without infinite. Why? Why not the other way round? The explosion is a dot?! What on earth is that supposed to mean? Furthermore as a creationist you must surely believe that the infinite is defined by the finite as the finite must have come first. If the infitite was there in the first place then there was no need for creation of the universe to occur full stop.
And one more thing, please don't tell me to bow down and worship your god, I find it rude and offensive.
Dave, worthing, uk
The position of atheists has been stated here multiple times by many people. It is not that God cannot exist, but that evidence that he does exist is non-existent, and that everything within our universe can be or will likely be explained by the fundamental laws of science.
This is different to A Pavelin's mistaken understanding, or is he just deliberately misrepresenting non-theism to make his (weak) point? We can only use any of the scientific means available. I'm not sure whatever else he may propose to use to decide whether God exists, apart from gut feelings or quackery or blind faith. I find all these pathetic and unsatisfactory.
If you want to read about straw opponents being made up to knock down, read any book by any Christian apologist. Misrepresenting Dawkins, Hitchens and other atheists is a frequent tactic.
frank, sydney,
Jesus doesn't quite believe your last sentence this time, Alan. See Dives and Lazarus. Those religous problems you mention are only a tiny percentage of the evils of the world. These you mention are the reported ones, much due to the irreligion within and not anything like the irreligion outside religious communities. You may have heard too of the man who said he never went to church because churches are full of hypocrites. He was rather lost for words when asked what difference it would make then if one more were to go. Sorry you had some nasty experiences although as I mention you do seem to have an over sensitive nature at times. How does evolution go against God? I would have thought it rather in His favour. I still find it impossible to accept there is no Infinite One because I haven't seen Him when by definition He has to be invisible in order fully to explain materiality.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
It probably won't interest anybody, but here are a few of the reasons why I'm an atheist. 1) As a child I read about evolution and realized the bible had got it wrong. 2) I read various "proofs" of god's existence, and they were all tricky. 3) I have never been convinced by the preachings of vicars, priests and the like. 4) I looked at the various sects and religions, each claiming to be true, and saw contradictions. 5) I looked at the history of religions and saw inquisitions, crusades, repression and intolerance. 6) I was a little angry at being told by believers I could have no morals . 7) I was not happy to be told I would end up in the fires of hell. 8) I dislike hypocrisy, but I saw so many religious hypocrites. 9) I have never, in 72 years, seen the slightest credible evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. ---- But I'm quite prepared to become a believer, should the supernatural, in some way, make itself directly evident to me. Then, OK.
alan, cologne,
The essence of Dawkins' position (apart from his setting up of Aunt Sallies and knocking them down) seems to be: science cannot demonstrate God's existence, therefore He cannot exist. This is just a rehash of the Logical Positivist craze of the 1930s, popularised (and later refuted) by A.J.Ayer, which said that any statement which cannot be affirmed or denied by the senses is meaningless. There is no logic or reason in the assertion that anything which science cannot demonstrate cannot exist. I would go further, and claim that if someone did claim to have "proved" God by scientific demonstration, it would certainly not be God.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, UK
The Catholic Catechism definition of God is more than helpful. He's the Supreme Being who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections. Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas outline five ways by which we can come to an acceptance of Him. I am not original in saying that the third way is pivotal and adequately compelling proof, ( obviously short of testube!) but compellingly reasonable. Nothing finite without the necessarily invisible Infinite. From nothing, there's nothing. If there's something, adequate explanation is required . I don't think we need to go on giving book lists, our qualifications or raising doubts about backgrounds ( easily verifiable). We need to address Professor Dawkins' main point, clear for all to read. Don't get encouraged to get lost among the trees while looking for the wood. He says God is a delusion. I say only many delusions in the mind through negligence of the first Commandment, clear in human Conscience can induce such absurd statements
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Sorry if I offended Alan. Nothing intended like that. Debates are tough environments. We have to take as well as give.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan - you seem to have misinterpreted me, judging by your supercilious reaction. I said I didn't wish to continue the discussion with you because I was dismayed at the sheer helplessness of your contributions. I even felt sorry for you because you're obviously unable to take up the challenge of answering arguments put forward by non-believers. You reply with vacuous prevarications such as:
"there has to be an explanation which needs no explanation" - or "the concept of creator is latent down there within us" - or
"calling god a delusion is the product of not worshipping him" - or "if god does not exist in the normal sense of the word then there is no existence" - etc.etc.
And just look at your last effort. Can't you do better than this. If not, discussing with you in this manner is totally futile, pointless and irritating. Or aren't you interested in a serious discussion because you have no logical arguments? If you have any, we'd be delighted to hear them.
alan, cologne,
I have no god . If I do good it is because I make a good, human decision. If I do harm it is because I make a bad decision. I do not need a supernatural being to ratify or take the blame for my choices. It is insulting to be told by a priest that I am "incapable of doing good works free of self-interest" I am moral because it is logical to be so.
I do not think Dan Brown is a plausible historian - he is just a story-teller. Would the religious among you please stop telling atheists what they 'really' think.
I think religion was essentially a control mechanism. Tribal leaders had less trouble making people obey rules for their own safety when they dressed them up with "God says so." Simple and effective. No longer relevant; now abused.
I am not anti-god. I don't care if you have a god. A-theist=without god.
My world is full of beauty and wonder and I don't need a god to enjoy it. My emotional life is based on loving real people now. When I die I expect nothing. I live life NOW
Alexandra Waugh, Paralimni, Cyprus
Entropy, with increasing disorder throughout the universe over time, doesn't preclude the formation of complex, ordered entities within that universe. If the universe follows laws of science, it is not irrational. An impersonal universe doesn't preclude rational, personal human existence, thoughts and actions within that universe.
The use of the word fallen for the human race is pejorative, and implies a prior higher state, which is absurd, having evolved via Darwinian evolution from more primitive life forms.
mark, brisbane,
My word, whatever will the anti God people think of to say next to try to oppose and put others down? Yet nothing compares with the ridiculous absurdity of denying God's existence. That's one for the book. No wonder they've invented the posh terms atheist and agnostic as a cop out to describe this depression inviting sort of life. I realise we pro God ones have mucked things up quite a bit. yet, that's no reason to focus on the sins of the followers to the exclusion of all the other enormous evils in the world.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard - really, I'm beginning to despair. Look at your last sentence. "Does atheism have to presuppose the existence of God in order to deny His existence?" -- The answer, quite simply is NO. No more than you have to presuppose the existence of Zeus, Thor, Ra or indeed the Flying Spaghetti Monster to deny their existence.
alan, cologne,
The problem with this discussion is that we have not produced an adequate definition of God. It seems to me that the only definition we can make that is universal enough, is that God is infinite and God is eternal. If I accept God in these terms then surely I am going to define my God in terms that are meaningful to me. If I choose the same set of values Father Storey, then apparently I am in good company. If how ever my selection of values from the infinite set differ from Father Storey's I am sadly mistaken. Perhaps there is a danger here that, if we accept a God we do so using an image we have defined.
The atheist says that outside of the self-definition he sees no evidence that God exists and there is no likelihood of evidence being found in the future. The agnostic says that as of now no there is no evidence that God exists, however that does not mean that at some future time evidence may be found.
For my part I would rather say that I do not know if God exists.
Bob Gibson, New York, USA
Bryan - I didn't want to pursue this discussion with you as I see little point in it. All I ask of you is two things: Don't attack me personally. And please argue rationally. -- Now to humility: Don't twist my words. I merely said it is arrogant for believers to claim "I know the ultimate truth". In contrast, it is humble to admit "That is something I do not and probably cannot know" as atheists do. -- And as to phantasies, the atheist does not phantasize about the ultimate explanation of our existence. At most he may speculate on the basis of scientific evidence. But believers (of so many different religions) propagate the most bizarre explanations - which I choose to call phantasies. -- Finally, Bryan, I'm certainly for freedom of expression, although I'm sometimes unhappy at what's being said. I am not crying. And I've not been "resurrected (!)". So please try to argue rationally.
alan, cologne,
St Thomas Aquinas never said that the his '3 ways' were meant to prove that God's existence was obvious. He said exactly the opposite! He knew that reason alone could never prove that God exists, rather that reason could complement what is proved by faith. And I do have a PhD in philosophy!
Ruth Richmond, Portsmouth, UK
Bryan, read the book and the arguments in it with an open mind. Until then, don't tell us what is a good and meaningful life.
Realising the universe is bigger than you can imagine, bigger than your petty little god, is a wonderful thing and the knowledge we have no immortal soul makes us strive to make this world better. Don't you dare say that without go we are nothing as you demean a great species.
Ben, York,
There is no hard evidence to suggest that either God or the devil exists. People need to believe in God to prove their goodness and the devil to attribute blame for their evil. Man perpetrates heinous acts, punishable only by man; man performs acts of humanity, attributable only by man. People need to believe there is a greater entity which promises eternal happiness after death and intellectuals make excuses to rationalise why something good allows such evil. Indeed, the world without these entities makes perfect sense.
Carol, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Dear Mark,
Dawkins thinks that it's obvious that fallen (i.e. morally-tainted), finite and fallible human reason - which he also believes to have ("miraculously") arisen and is sustained in an impersonal and irrational universe - can best explain this world, and all in it including human reason, without God.
It is not a platitude to point out the problems of human reason (including Dawkins's) having a leg to stand on, if the world in which it evolved (according to Dawkins et al) arose by impersonal, irrational and accidental processes and is now sustained by the same. These are perfectly valid questions for both doubters of, and believers in, Dawkins' Godless universe thesis to ask. By attacking God - or the concept of God, as they would see it - are atheists attacking the very foundations of the human reason which they prise so highly? Is atheism self-refuting? Does atheism have to presuppose the existence of God in order to deny His existence?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Jim Rogers' concerns about God and other civilisations were being debated by Jesuits over fifty years ago. When one stubbornly refuses to relate to God, it results in naming God as a delusory concept. Nothing increases our natural flow of delusions more than not worshipping God. For the alternative is,sad to say, self worship in hundreds of subtle forms.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK:
You ar not a real "Father" are you? You just decided to put that title in your name on this and other debates just so one would take a slight bit of notice of you. You have not read Dawkin's book and constantly try to push arguments back on to the one's asking you questions. Stop the foolishness, you are devaluing the name of the respectable religous people
From an Agnostic p.s. got a PhD in Psychology ; - )
Peter Hamilton, London,
Bryan- *I've" done it again?
"Just the fact that there is no adequate and total explanation of the existence of anything of which you and I or anybody else have experience." I agree with you there!
"Yet there has to be this explanation which itself needs no explanation or it would be in the same boat." Who says there has to be an explanation?
"It has to be immaterial and therefore invisible and spiritual (ie non material) or it would again be of a contingent nature." These words are important to humans, but perhaps nowhere else.
"It follows that with no parts outside parts the UCC cannot die. There cannot possibly be more than one because the difference between them would bring about a superiority/inferiority sitation and you'd be back at contingency." I think you have invented an "explanation" that you like with no foundation except your own logic and emotional satisfaction. Your model of the universe is just that - one more untestable model of the universe.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
By platitudes I assume people mean statements like those often repeated here without proof, repeated too often, which are trite, banal, commonplace, hackneyed stock answers, parroting some timeworn axiom, such as all remarks about God's existence being in some way "obvious". It isn't obvious to over a billion people in the world, including me, and many writing here.
To say God obviously exists is patronising when stated without qualification. By all means believe what you like, but say "I believe...." rather than "I know...." when no proof exists.
mark, brisbane,
We am not a fallen ones, just human, and therefore subject to all the limitations and faults natural to our kind.
Sex leads to families! So that's how mine came about! Thanks.
jim rogers, sydney,
In answer to ‘fundamentalist London’ I will freely admit to being a fundamentalist scientist/agnostic and I do not say ‘I know best’ I say “I know nothing, but I make my judgements based on the evidence before me and when that evidence changes so will my views and the advice I offer based on themâ€. As to the faith I put in the judgement of evolved monkey’s brains, well some of them believe in god and others don’t so I might consider some more evolved than others. Finally I never rest my case, some new information might turn up tomorrow.
Mark Wilson, Nottingham, England
Alan of Cologne, I rejoice at your resurrection. Jim rose too. This debate was started by anti God people so don't cry when the kitchen gets a bit hot. You seem to want to have a freedon of expression which you don't want to share with those who oppose the anti God lobby. Finite can only be explained by Infinite. We have no right to expect what is intrinsically per se invisible to be visible whatever scientific school to which we belong. Fortunately we've been helped out by the Saviour. Are you now claiming you have the prerogative of humble disposition? Now that's something for the book. You remind me of the fellow who wrote a book on humility and recommended it as the best one on the subject. Phantasies just in the pro God camp? Come off it , Alan. You promote the multiplication of them by your position.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan- Your knowledge of the finite and infinite is quite impressive. I wonder where you obtained it. As far as I know, there is nothing infinite or eternal in the entire universe - and yet you speak with such authority!
Norman, Anstruther, UK
"Gee Dad, this saving every planet is killing me! Do I really have to die again!!?? Can't You or Ghostie do it next time?"
"How about you forget the original sin idea from now on, or maybe just send a better sign! I'm not keen on this being put to death caper all over the universe!"
"It's not fair, you guys out vote me every time!"
JR, sydney,
Dave of Worthing, UK. It's you who are astonishing. Finite is only fully explained by Infinite. The explosion is only a dot in it all. Infinite cannot be material or it would be limited. What is infinite cannot divide, be seen as having no parts and so cannot explode. Your fred's a fraud. Bow down before the One True God and get living. Worthing deserves it.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Father Bryan, your continuing determination to make things so just by saying they must be astonishes me, or would, if it weren't for the "Father" prefix before your name.
I think Norman made some excellent points on the nature of the UCC and whether or not is truely is necessary. You say there must be a UCC (which inceidentally due to the nature of the issue at hand seems a bit of an assumption in itself) which must be "immaterial and therefore invisible and spiritual (ie non material)". Since when were all immaterial things invisible and further more since when were all invisible things spiritual?
As I see it, you call the UCC god, I shall call it Fred, you say your god is looking over us, I say Fred exploded, the universe happened, there is no Fred left. Is there any reason why your god is any more likely than my Fred?
Dave, worthing, uk
Why, oh why, can't you believers understand that we atheists just DO NOT BELIEVE in god, any god. Do you understand? We DO NOT BELIEVE. Is this so difficult to accept? --- Atheists strive to increase their knowledge, but are humble enough to admit that they do not have a final explanation for the wonders and mysteries of the universe. We don't invent an answer. --- If you believers have the arrogance to invent an answer in the shape of your own god-concepts, fit them out with all sorts of phantastic attributes and make them say what you want to hear - well, that's OK by me. But please understand that atheists do not believe in your phantasies. We don't believe that you or your priests, popes and preachers are in possession of the ultimate truth. Nor are we happy when you try to indoctrinate the inexperienced and gullible with your bizarre ideas.
alan, cologne,
Jim Rogers - You raise a fascinating subject when you postulate the existence of many other civilisations in the universe. As a Christian I find the prospect very exciting, but you are wrong in saying that this would imply much more than a Trinity. The same God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) can rule over all these civilisations, and if their "salvation history" is similar to ours (God sending His Son to save us) it would be the same Son in His divinity, but a different human being in his (or her?) humanity. In other words it would not be Jesus of Nazareth, it would be X of Y. I believe this has very interesting implications for theology.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, UK
Without going into this too much at present (for that would snatch us away the central focus of the debate), Jim of Sydney, just ponder that natural sexual activity for us fallen ones within Marriage is a fundamental preliminary condition for the transmission of the fibres of human and family love. Do ponder long and hard on this fact.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Andy of Lardieres, France. Those problems are due to the irreligion within religion.There's a ton of that. Why focus on these problems to the exclusion of the enormous huge evils and problems in the much bigger world of indifference? Surely something's not quite right in what you say.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Richard - the existence of the FSM is also unproveable either way. Do you think it exists? How sure are you that it doesn't exist? Only 99%? Or perhaps 100%? Now 100% would be illogical, since unproveable. But in practical, everyday terms, I think you'll agree that your attitude towards the FSM (and mine towards gods) is more akin to your understanding of the word "atheistic" than "agnostic". ----- Now to logic. Of course you may put your god above all logic. I can do the same with the FSM. But for our discussion, this is irrelevant. Let's stick to logic. The concept of omnipotence is obviously logically flawed, as my example showed. ----- Finally, I can assure you I do not "know god", not even at a "more fundamental level" as you claim. In the same vein I would have to claim that you are fundamentally an unbeliever and with your "faith", consciously or unconsciously, you are deceiving yourself, and indeed trying to deceive me. But I won't.
alan, cologne,
I must congratulate Richard Tallach and Bryan Storey for their persistence in turning this debate into one about god, and not one about the god delusion. I am sure Richard Dawkins would be most upset!
J.Kelvyn Richards, Trikala, Greece
What I find so repulsive about religion is that it has led to even some of my closest relatives becoming blinkered in their view of the world. They see something beautiful and therefore claim that god exists. Or, something truly wonderful will happen and they will say that there must be some kind of spirit looking after us.
I will admit that about two years ago, I too was certain of god's existence, but after a year of studying religion at college, I can say that the very notion of god in the conventional sense(omnipotent, omnibenevolent &omniscient-you know, that old guy with a beard up in the sky) is laughable.
I'm not saying that there definitely isn't anything 'up there' (or down there, or anywhere else for that matter), I just don't think there is.
All I can say is that, if there is anything which comes close to the persona we humans have created, then it has some serious moral questioning to face.
Devika Jina, Birmingham,
Richard, In a world with God people have believed it is moral to commit murder, rape and genocide, as outlined starkly throughout the bible.
In this godly world of yours people believe in magical happenings of all sorts, dead people rising, manna falling from heaven, seas parting, bushes talking, loaves and fishes miraculously multiplying, people walking on water, substances changing form, statues weeping or bleeding, the dead appearing in multiple forms, angel sightings and other visions, cosmic movements of heavenly bodies, miracles by prayer or touching statues or bathing in holy water....and only space prevents me going on!
And you dare to imply your godly world is more rational?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
bill, towoomba,
The Newtonian mechanistic world view that Dawkins holds is obsoleted by quantum mechanics, the most successful scientific theory of all time. He bases his philosophical speculations on an archaic billiard-ball view of nature which leads him to a naive materialist nihilism. His pre-quantum model is a fine calculus for macroscopic prediction but quite unsuited to ontological deductions. The truth is that the creaky materialist enterprise originating in the 18th century is at a loss as to how to account for the phenomena at the root of nature, despite many pseudo-scientific (unverifibale) attempts to effect a rescue. In the quantum domain mind and information are primary, the experiential world is called into being by observers and the source of reality lies outside space and time. If the nature of ontological reality matters to you, read Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Wigner, Wheeler, Bohm, Dyson or d'Espagnat. Forget this naive nonsense.
Jeff Sinclair, Glasgow, UK
I have often dreamed of a massive hypnotist who would swing his watch in front of the world's ENTIRE population ... one ... two ... three.. when you wake up you will all have forgotten about religion .... CLICK
Just imagine the relief all around the world as one of the principal causes of predujice and conflict is removed ( of course others will remain, this is of course human nature )
The fact that most humans are now suffeciently well educated would ensure that the mumbo jumbo we call religion and those who exploit it would never come back.
Furthermore all the wealth and property currently locked up in the worlds principal relirions could be invested in schools education, science, hospitals etc for the benefit of all ..... aah if only .. but then pigs will fly first !
andy, Lardieres, France
Norman, you've done it again, just like the Professor - No chains, loops, branches, supports. Just the fact that there is no adequate and total explanation of the existence of anything of which you and I or anybody else have experience. Yet there has to be this explanation which itself needs no explanation or it would be in the same boat. It has to be immaterial and therefore invisible and spiritual (ie non material) or it would again be of a contingent nature. It follows that with no parts outside parts the UCC cannot die. There cannot possibly be more than one because the difference between them would bring about a superiority/inferiority sitation and you'd be back at contingency..
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
It seems that if you reject uncertainty, the contingency of knowledge, you look for certainty and necessity; and absolutes.
if you are unhappy with notions of many causes, causes as accidents, and that effects may be random not planned, you look for the first cause, for a god, the god.
If eternity is not a description of the continuous cycle of evolution in space/time, and you want to place boundaries around your existence and world, you will find a creator. I understand why others do this.
But I want them to know that I do not wish to do so. I live in a world of uncertainty, in which knowledge is contingent. I depend upon all other people.
There are many theories of the workings of space/time. There may be other thinking beings, like humans, living on some of the billions of planets. We may meet one day.
J.Kelvyn Richards, Trikala, Greece
Bryan- I went back to read St. Thomas's third way. It comes down to a need for an uncaused cause. Suppose this argument holds water, and a UCC enabled the universe to exist. It does not follow that the UCC can be identified with Jehovah - or even that the UCC still exists.
But my beef with Tom is that he bases his arguments on very uncertain premises. They are like word games, and they completely fail to convince me, because they seem to assume so much. For example, he models all objects in the universe as either contingent or necessary, so that there must be a chain of support leading back from every contingent object to a necessary one. But this "support" concept is dubious. I can't detect it or demonstrate it in any way. Even if it is correct, there could be more than one necessary object. Why can't the chains have loops, or be infinite, or branching? Because it's his model and he makes the rules. He might as well just say: "In my model of the universe, God exists."
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Richard, the premise that the world of atheism is impersonal, amoral and irrational is a highly flawed statement which all atheists writing here would disagree with strongly. We are all human, with all the personal, moral and rational consequences that flow from our humanity, within the bounds of our inherent imperfection.
If God is moral, he should be easily and overtly seen to be, whereas the opposite seems to be the case.
mark, brisbane,
Father Brian Storey, be honest, it's not God you hope to see, it's paradise,eternal life. But have you ever considered the meaning of eternity, and what you would do for ever and ever and ever. Would you, for example, play games? Games are and extention of the competition of survival. Surely there can be no such competion in paradise. Perhaps you'll chat to people, but what will you chat about for ever and ever and ever: the weather? the view? What will you say to your dead relatives, how are you? How do you think they are in paradise? There will be nothing to do, nothing to say for ever and ever and ever. Sounds like a nightmare.
Lawrence, Liverpool, England
From a preview of Dawkins' new show : " According to Prof. Dawkins, there are two ways of looking at the world ; either through the rigours of logic or through faith and superstition.....In the first of a new series, he applies scientific inquiry to psychics, card readers, astrologers and dowsers in what amounts to a turkey shoot - listening to their 'betrayals of the Enlightenment' with the corners of his mouth turned down like a disappointed turbot." Dawkins seems to forget that when people cease to believe in the God of the Bible, they don't stop believing, but will believe in anything (G.K.Chesterton), including Communism as a particularly disastrous example. In a world without God no-one can say that it is immoral to believe what you want or feel is right, read horoscopes, try to contact the dead, or make as much money as you can from fraud (Dostoevsky) Ironically it is atheism that is undermining reason by promoting the view that the universe is fundamentally irrational.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Thanks, Filippos of Stavanger, Norway. Of course I accept the open search. That's what I'm advocating. The subleties of prejudice are very deep. We have to be aware. The anti God ones have hijacked the idea that they're more open. By proof you seem to mean 'produce God so I can see Him'. The proof is in the thing Professor Dawkins evades in a most unscientific way viz that being which does not have existence as its essence is only explicable by being which does. It's pretty obvious that such Being is invisible. The evidence from Conscience is also extremely compelling. The problem is as Marcella points out, that the less you actually worship the unseen God, the more you keep on saying He's not there. His presence becomes more and more evident through relating to the One you're not at all sure of! The reality becomes compelling in a way that's unfairly called 'blind prejudice, sophistry, pious clap trap' and the rest.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Alan,
If the existence of God is "unproveable either way", how are you so certain that there is no God. If you wish to define an atheist as someone who, as far as you know from your own experience, and examination of the evidence available to you, believes that there is no God - but you might be wrong - then that is a different definition of atheism to the traditional. It is more agnosticism than atheism. It seems to be the way Dawkins and his disciples are going. Your use of the laws of logic, science and morality, shows that at more fundamental level you know God, unless you can account for these laws and your faith in them in the impersonal, amoral, irrational and contingent world of atheism. The old chestnut you mention is flawed. "Is God so powerful that He can be illogical or immoral?" Can the Holy and Truthful God be illogical or immoral? Certainly God would cease to be God and the Foundation of the Universe would crumble in such a supremely hypothetical case.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
If one is to believe that Mary conceived Jesus asexually, then the mechanism is a valid point for discussion. Without going into the ethics of genetic manipulation and cloning, it seems strange that Christians would be vehemently against it, for Jesus would surely be the greatest act of genetic manipulation of all time (unless other virgin births in mythology also occurred). Cloning a human is merely to create an identical twin, and twins occurs 1 in every 100 births anyway, whereas Jesus conception involved directly creating all or half the building blocks for his DNA, which is no mean feat, and complex manipulation of nature in the extreme.
Likelihood? Start with a decimal point and add zeros till you get tired of it.....Evidence for it? Zero!
jim rogers, sydney,
Jim Rogers of Sydney and Ray Everitt of Gabian, France, no point in musing over God's nature if you say He's not there. Yet, like Professor Dawkins, you take up an unscientific position in denying adequate and appropriate causality. I remember an anti god man on the radio some decades ago, when asked about this, came out with the cadswollop that scientists expected a cause but that didn't necessarily imply that there is one! What do anti God people take us for? Better to put science in its appropriate serving position instead of over emphasising its importance. .
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Mark of Brisbane, are you trying to gang up? What is this platitude business? You need to tell us, please.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Mark of Brisbane, if any Theologian claims he knows the absolutes of which you speak, he talks nonsense. We only have some insight into the Absolute by the certainty that it has to be there to explain us whose essence is dependent and contingent and whose qualities are 'known' as not limited and finite like our own. It's meaningful though obviously necessarily invisible.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Marcella, There are estimated to be up to as many as 500 billion galaxies in the universe, with possibly 100 billion stars in each, so there are many billions of planets . If many millions or billions of these other planets have conscious life, at the level or above that of man, do they by being imperfect need a saviour? If they do, does the trinity become a "multiplicity"?
Why not propose a God like the Cat in the Hat, with an unknown number of gods within, to cater for a saviour for every inhabited planet in the universe?? Why stop at a paltry 3 in 1?
jim rogers, sydney,
Bravo, very fair and just ! Who was the first person to invent "god"?
Some frightened tinkering would be intellectuel-cum- philosopher
I dunno, but the brain is clear when not full of, to me, ridiculous notions of greater---- "wots"?
Ray Everitt, GABIAN, FRANCE
The absolutes that are beyond our human capacity for thought are those involving the intangible, incorporeal concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfect goodness, perfect mercy, divine simplicity, eternal and necessary existence, and so on, that are attributed to God. Despite what some theologians and philosophers say, we can only vaguely conceive these things as absolutes, for they extend beyond our comprehension, as infinity extends beyond measure.
To say logic tells us that 2+2=4 is absolutely true, and that such logic allows us to have a meaningful discussion, is a far cry from saying absolute truth by necessity exists in God, for that latter statement is unprovable and meaningless.
mark, brisbane,
Norman. Yes I admit those deceptions. We need to press on to worship the Creator in order to find improving love, joy and peace.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Jim of Sydney, you accentuate the negative rather a lot. Your resurrection question was anticipated by the Saviour in his account of Dives and Lazarus.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Ok, thanks Father. So 'conviction'....
Dawkins says that, as a rational person, he can happily change his mind on production of evidence. This seems to me a pretty open, fair and sensible way of making important decisions. I've not seen anywhere here, any evidence for God (or Flying Spaghetti Monsters or whatever...) and, I'm really sorry, but I can't help but feel that such conviction does seem a little arrogant. More so than Dawkins!?!?
Also, you say I should not yet "throw in the towel" (to non-belief in God), but when Marcella of London talks about ''just accepting it (God) as the truth", it seems a little lacking in curuiosity and intellectual rigour - almost like she's throwing in the towel to beleif in God!! No?
More confused than ever.....
Filippos, Stavanger, Norway
Norman of Anstruther, UK if you and Wikipedia focus on St. Thomas's third way, you might succeed in understanding what Professor Dawkins has skated around in the God Delusion. No need then to go on much with natural and supernatural. The here and now is the starting point.
Jim of Sydney at least shows us by his reappearance that the question of resurrection is again on the table.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard of Perth - AFAIK, the question of the origin of life on Earth is unsettled, though there are lots of ideas, but in the context of this discussion there are only two: either it was a natural process, or god did it supernaturally.
If it was a natural process then we can investigate it and wikipedia gives a good overview at "Origin_of_life". This study leads to all sorts of new knowledge that is wonderful to discover and can be used in all sorts of ways. It might even discover how life can arise naturally - but so far it's an open question. Certainly some of the components of life do arise naturally in conditions that the Earth had 4 gigayears ago.
If it was supernatural then by definition we cannot hope to discover anything about it unless the supernatural agent is still around and chooses to tell us. We can pass the time worshipping whatever we believe it was that did it, but saying "god did it" does not explain anything.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Jesus apparently rises from the dead, knowing absolutely by now that he is God, and chooses to appear triumphantly to a limited number of his friends and followers. He then leaves Earth, knowing full well that the course of human history will involve religious confusion, persecution of people of many faiths, the rise of Islam and other religions, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and so on, up to our current threatening religious wars. He had many options open to him. He could have chosen to appear in triumph before at least some of his persecutors and detractors, witnessed by Roman and Jewish scholars, so that his reality as the Risen Lord could have been well documented, beyond reasonable doubt. He could have left his own written instructions or teachings, or asked the disciples to write them on his behalf before he died, and even signed them, or done that after he supposedly reappeared on earth. He apparently chose not to, even though a decision to leave definitive evidence to history could have avoided needless religious conflict, and saved countless millions of lives, and untold misery. Has the Risen Jesus acted immorally, just to follow some divine plan or experiment of human nature?
jim rogers, sydney,
Chris of Sydney, I'm told that men are just more into these kind of debates by natural inclination.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Between the major religions there is great disparity on how supposedly the same God wants people to live. There is not one chance in a trillion that He would want so many differences, so by inference any God couldn't possibly care about any trivial part of religious practice, so all dress, food, and other social rules of living are totally irrelevant. Jews, Christians, Muslims and others have wasted and continue to waste untold effort on dogmas that only foster elitist, isolationist behaviour, encourage ethnic divides, religious enclaves and xenophobia, and discourage assimilation of races, nations and groups.
You are all misguided, and it all makes as much sense as reading chicken entrails and performing animal sacrifice. You will never get on as well as you should or would if all religions went the way of the lapsed pagan gods of thousands of years ago. I can't understand how intelligent people can become so pathetic, childish, gullible and moronic as when told by unknown authors or self-proclaimed prophets that "God says...!"
jim, sydney,
Kara of London, what you suggest will lead to anti God. We only get to know something of God through the religious practice of prayer and meditation. Non worship of God increases worship of self .
Mathew of Adelaide, you touch on the perennial mysterious question of predestination and free will. God's power and intelligence need to be absolute in order to explain us finite and limited ones or there is no explanation which is frankly ridiculous. Within His omnipotence, there is an area of our free will- high mystery. Professor Dawkins says Christians love to create mysteries. Truth is they are there for delving and accepting our limitations in the whole quest.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard - re origins of life etc. I'm not a biologist but as far as I am aware, all life on earth is divided into major groups, viruses, eukaryotes and prokaryotes. They have different internal organisation but all depend on the same DNA to represent their genetic information. If you compare what's alive today, you can see that more similar creatures have very similar genetics, (eg about 98% for humans & chimpanzees), while further distant creatures have less in common (eg 60% for humans and bananas). We can also measure a rate of mutation and divergence of genetic information. Working backwards we can see that we are all related with common ancestry.
There is no such thing as "empirically proven" - the best you will get is that the evidence is very convincing and hard to explain in any other way. Next - origins of life.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Marcella, Mere Christianity merely highlights what you said, that belief comes down to fideism. Lewis loves to make up straw opponents and cut them down, as verbosely as possible, cloaked in metaphors and similes. He was a strong apologist for Christianity, and seems to have been a good man, but his arguments for the existence of God, an for Jesus being divine, are very unconvincing, sometimes trite, and verging on platitudes, unless one is happy by faith to accept the improbable. "Miracles" was an even less convincing book.
jim, sydney,
Mark of Brisbane. I seem to have been on this ground before. It 's usually a not too subtle way of retreating and hiding.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Pointless debate really. To understand God you have to believe in Him first. At Catholic school we were told that to understand the trinity we just had to accept it first and the rest would fall into place. I didn't believe for a long time but when I just accepted it as the truth it all came together. Those who rely on science and 'logic' and such will find this difficult - like I did - because they want to understand things before they believe in them. That, I think, is the major difference.
Idk, read Mere Christianity if you haven't already.
Marcella, London,
Michelle. I believe I properly addressed your question. I can cite hundreds of more examples if you like. The seeking out of good is enhanced tremendously through reduction of the ego by the only possible psychological process which involves explicit or implicit worship of God. Many will just continue to deny it but it's true and shown to be so by the evidence I've given and can give.
J Kelvyn Richards of Trikala, Greece. I do not intrude if somebody has given an adequate reply, I promise.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Father Bryan Storey: Religion is is evil because:
1.God- the eternal bandwidth- does not need prophets, religions etc.
2. Religion is insulting to God, because it somehow wants to portray that it has some unique access to God. Like a middleman.
3. Religion divides people- 'chosen ones' & others.
4. Religion is wholly unnecessary in terms of access to God. Those who seek shall find the truth.
4. Finally- if you want to find God, give up religion. It will free your mind to devote yourself to answer the yet unanswered question and ask one that you cannot answer.
Kara Swart, London, UK
Filippos of Stavanger, Norway. Don't throw in the towel so easily. Keep at it. It's easy to write off conviction as arrogance or that other word that's used, 'stubborn'. There's some hard thought going on here and the anti God people seem to be giving up a bit. Thanks for your stimulating thoughts, Richard Tallach of Perth. It's exchanges we need and the admission when valid points are made.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The exersise of real raw power was atheistic scientific socialism ,the believers where gulaged for superstition.The USSR was formost in the space sciences for quiet some time I have come to the thought that atheism is little more than interlectual arrogance.and totally destuctive at that.The hay fields in my childhood where full of flowers then the farming (revolution) came Of course science leading the way .Its not suprising that scientist are atheists the military industrial complex is their stomping ground there isnt an Handels messiah that can kill anything not even a weed.Christianity opened the way to science but that was in the hope it would be for the wellbeing of people.Now it is the new religion it even has its own heretics.Dawkins is only trying to destroy the old religion for his new one.Sometime in the future that will be pushed aside for somthing new ,but I really dont know what that will be.
ANTHONY HILL, Rugby warwickshire, uk
There are limits on what an omnipotent God can do. He cannot make 2+2=5, or make a square circle. Can he create a rock he cannot lift?
So there are certain fundamental laws of logic, maths and science he is bound by, yet can break numerous others by acting to change the course of history and human lives whenever he arbitrarily chooses to?
This omni benevolent, omniscient being creates souls he knows beforehand are going to choose a life of evil, and will spend eternity in damnation, and yet creates them anyway. So is he still all-loving, kind and merciful? Isn't this a paradox and contradiction?
mathew, adelaide,
From a quick scroll through the 400 odd comments,I note that at least 90% of Sceptics appear to be men (those that supply first names)
Is Atheism a Male thing? Or are women just less intersted in the subject?
There is no doubt women are more superstitious,after all interest in Astrology is very much a womens thing.
The debate sparked by Prof.Dawkins book appears to me to raise matters of fundamental importance in this day and age.
Can anyone suggest why women appear to be under-represented in the discussion ?
Chris Forward (male), Sydney, NSW
Dear Richard - Please understand that I am not arguing whether or not god exists as it is unprovable either way. . Please accept that I just don't (and can't) believe in any god. That, Richard, makes me an a-theist.-- Whether or not there are "absolutes" I don't know. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by my "use of absolutes" and exactly what "absolutes" I'm using. -- (Maybe you are referring to the absolute power - omnipotence - that you attribute to your god. If so, I'd like to put to you the old chestnut: If your god is all powerful and can do anything, can he create a bird that can fly so fast that he can't catch it? - Logically this is difficult to answer. Of course you can abandon logic. Believers usually do when they run out of arguments.) - I'd like to continue the conversation and look forward to a speedy reply.
alan, cologne,
I agree JKR, but he keeps coming out with the same platitudes, and goading people into responding!
mark (and others no doubt!), brisbane,
Bryan - Worship of gods can be evil depending how it is done. I don't doubt that the 9/11 bombers believed that they were worshipping god. You may say they were misguided, or worshipped a false god, or whatever, but in their eyes they were True Believers doing god's work, and you and I were the evil ones.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Dear Mark of Brisbane,
Absolutes are very practical "concepts". Without us both using the laws of logic, you or I wouldn't be able to have this debate. We would not be able to think, speak or write logically. As for being unquantifiable are the laws of science unquantifiable?
I don't know what you mean about absolutes being beyond human thought. Is 2+2=4 beyond human thought, even the thought of children?
Do you believe that absolutes exist or only appear to exist? Are they only in the human mind or are they objective? Are they purely conventions? If absolutes are only in the human mind isn't this life a meaningless jumble or absurd joke, including this debate we're having?
The writer of Ecclesiastes and many atheistic philosophers have come to the conclusion that life without God is absurd and meaningless. Yet atheists want to have their cake and eat it.
How do you acount for absolutes and meaning in the impersonal, irrational and contingent universe of atheism?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Dear Norman,
Has it been empirically proven that life arose spontaneously and naturally, and that all life is related to one another? This is what Dawkins believes, although it hasn't been empirically demonstrated and although there are major obstacles of probability and possibility to it being the case. Has Dawkins any real clue as to how life arose from non-life and as to why sophisticated human beings can't even yet copy the trick that impersonal and irrational forces supposedly achieved? Or does he engage the "science of the gaps" in such cases i.e. attempting to explain what cannot be explained by science with Dawkins's theology and philosophy dressed up as science. "We don't have a clue as to how life arose, but we do know (based on our theology and philosophy) that it didn't involve God. We should therefore keep the faith that life arose and developed completely naturally and any problems will be resolved in the future, because by definition naturalism is true, isn't it?"
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
I'm confused. I'd hoped this debate would convince me one way or the other.
I'd like to 'believe' that God has all the answers, I really would. It would be so much easier to get them in one go. But I like a challenge and the scientific method does seems to have a more honest, accountable and logical framework for asking questions. To be frank, many of the comments from the theists here have just bamboozled me and I'm starting to reject the idea of God -because of their arrogance and arrogance. Nice work guys! But what I'm really concerned about is whether it's really the case that in all of this, the word 'God' can be replaced by 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'Fairies' and the logic of the statement still holds up.
Is that right??
Filippos, Stavanger, Norway
All right Mark, for the sake of the truth, forget the absolutes and concentrate on the ever prevalent contingences crying out for explanation. How? Why? We need to search and search and search again since wonderful science leaves us as we were.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
This debate has become a private conversation with a 'father Bryan'.
Or even a seminar with a tutor called 'father bryan'
And as such it excludes any other comment that does not meet the criteria of that conversation.
J.Kelvyn Richards, Trikala, Greece
Bryan, as you well know, I didn't say believers can't be very good and moral, for many are, but so are many non-believers, with no evidence in existence that I know of that proves one group is better than the other........As I said, hearsay, including anecdotes, and your opinion are fine for you, but not what I was asking for.
michelle martin, brighton,
Kara Swart, how can religion which is the worship of God be evil? Don't you mean religion is also one of the ways we can use to promote evil? There's no way to relate to God except through religion which is worship of God instead of self. Michelle Martin, the evidence of religion's positive effects is in the lives of the saints like Mother Teresa, Maximilian Kolbe, St Fancis of Assissi, Edith Stein. .
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Richard doesn't distinguish between God and Religion. Religion is evil, but it has nothing to do with God at all. At best religion is a self appointed middleman, preventing people from realising God- the yet unanswered question.
Why would God-omnipresent,omniscient,omnipotemt- i.e. the ultimate bandwidth- need religion as a communication device? Give up religion and you may find God- an understanding uniquely tailored for you.
Kara Swart, London, UK
Mine, his picture glows, is there a halo up there?
kt, london,
Alan, where did you get the idea that I'm hiding from being a Catholic Priest. What is going on in these pages? !!!
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Norman, just prescind from the details and concentrate in meditation. You'll find that the concept of Creator is latent down there within us. Yet that's how it works Mathew. Don't worry, one retains one's dignity and reduces the ugly ego a bit. It's not all grovel!
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Absolutes are theoretical concepts, like infinity, with no actual end point, and are not quantifiable in a meaningful way. Absolutes are beyond human thought, so are not useful as humanly conceived proofs of God's existence, and of themselves do not imply God's existence. As had been suggested, by adding together numerous absolutes, an impossible contradiction of properties and attributes is created, that makes such a being absurd.
mark, brisbane,
I don't know of any worthwhile evidence showing that those who believe in God are more loving, less controlling, better or more moral people than those who do not. Any true evidence, rather than hearsay, that proves this would be interesting to read. Anyone know of any?
michelle martin, brighton,
Dave Holbon, the essence of real growth into God is that we become more loving and less controlling of others. We are more controlling of others if we do not relate our lives to God. Of course there's much abuse of religion from within and without. Recorded historical events are only a small advertised fraction of life's daily reality. I still think the Aldous Huxley 'Perennial Philosophy' is helpful. Currently books by S. Biela are outstanding. Thanks for your message Alan of Cologne. I am ready to exchange again with you if you change your mind.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Had another check up and find that of Dawkins, I recall reading 'Selfish gene', 'Blind watchmaker', 'River out of Eden'. I'm also with hearing Dawkins debate,and reading his articles, well aquainted with 'A Devil's chaplain' and 'The God delusion'. May we now end the current inquisition on what I've read or not and get on with the debate?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The big difficulty with these arguments is the number of people who profess to know the unknowable---whether that is Richard Dawkins or some prelate from whatever religion. One cannot state truly that there is or is not a god. I am with
Dawkins in the idea that there is any sort oif entity which has the slightest interest in us is plainly ridiculous, but that does not mean that there is not something out there that started everything off. I just do not know---and neither does anyone else.
It should be understood that religion is about the exercise of power, howewver well disguised.
John Kelly, Wallingford, England
Richard - are you suggesting that Dawkins would cling to Darwinism if it were disproved by some new discovery? I feel quite safe to speak for Dawkins here! Like any scientist, he accepts the theory of evolution because no-one has come up with anything better - so far. As soon as a better theory is available, evolution will be out the window. It's not easy to displace a theory which is backed by so much evidence - but it does happen, eg Einstein displaced Newton after almost 300 years. Feel free to suggest your replacement for evolution. If it's good enough, you'll go down in history and we'll talk about Tallachism instead of Darwinism.
Science explicitly tests its theories and hopes to change them for better ones. Religion does exactly the opposite.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Bryan - "The God idea is quite clear in human Conscience." I'd disagree with you there. Without referring to any specific god, the ideas of perfection, omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory, since an omniscient being cannot learn, and a perfect being cannot change.
Then we have the contradictions about Jehovah in particular, eg how come an omniscient being made such a mess of creation he had to drown everything and start over? And what's different about the second attempt anyway, apart from rainbows?
Even if we did have a clear mental idea of god - so what? I have a clear idea of winning the lottery. David Hume thought that anything we had a clear idea of, must exist. But Hume was an atheist, so presumably he did not have a clear idea of god. (It would save a lot on experimental science. Instead of expensive telescopes or atom smahers or voyages of exploration, we could just sit back in comfy armchairs and reason about the universe. Not!)
Norman Paterson, Anstruther, UK
"Delusory emotions abound through ignoring the need to bow down before God".
And does this so-called God demand subservience and require fawning worship? Sounds more like a pathetic, neurotic dictator. Did he create imperfect humans to be sycophantic, obsequious, submissive, toadyish pawns in his play-world, to feed his feeble ego?
If not, then why bow down?
mathew, adelaide,
Dear Norman, I think you underestimate the simililarities between atheistic and Christian Theistic attitudes towards their fundamental beliefs - in some ways at least. You say that, "Theists value their faith and seek to strengthen it. Atheists disparage faith and seek to remove it," but it is clear that atheists do cling to and nurture their fundamental faith/ beliefs e.g. Dawkins has said that Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist. Is it not likely that this will be therefore a motivating factor in Dawkins' attitude to Darwinism and any challenges to it?
Dear Alan, the existence or otherwise of absolutes has a fundamental bearing on whether or not there is a God i.e. a Personal, Absolute and Necessary Being. As Christians we have a foundation for absolutes. If you don't believe in absolutes you should end your side of the conversation. You may not believe in God, but does your use of absolutes reveal a fundamental knowledge of Him?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
One could say, using the available evidence going back to beyond the crusades, that religious beliefs are just that. It’s my view that the word “religion†could be deemed to be the root of all evil if you count the bodies only. On the one hand it has by definition an implication of central control over its subjects or believers, all religions or even beliefs do this to some extent or another including modern day so called science. On the other it has its good points on occasion, in binding together individuals to the society in which they reside and therefore benefiting the whole and not just the individual, and here lay the issues or problems.
We must as a race progress beyond this type of thinking because if we don’t we will eventually kill each other, beliefs, religion and facts are only passing anomalies in the general scheme of things, we need understanding and belief in the individual as relates to the whole and not “I’m in this tribe†and “your in that†so your dead.
Dave Holbon, London,
As some may know from my contributions, I am a 100% atheist who delights in no-holds-barred debates on religion and I'll continue to have my say in no uncertain terms in future. But I think the time has come for me (us?) to lay off Bryan Storey and leave him in peace. If you want any more information, I suggest you visit the Tintagel Catholic website. From me at least, best wishes for good health, Bryan.
alan, cologne,
As father Bryan Storey has been asked numerous times, but refuses to answer, I googled him, yes to all who asked he is a Catholic priest.
Alan Crowe, Bixter,
In a debate with a religious friend who had taken me to task over my atheism, I finally asked her what evidence she would accept as proof that her faith was mistaken. "None," she said. "There is nothing you could say that would do that". When I refused to debate further on the grounds that she was a fanatic, she was highly offended. "But you are a fanatic," I said. "You have just told me that your belief is more important to you than the truth". Dawkins is right - the value of a belief may be measured by its willingness to change when the evidence does. Otherwise we would still think the world was flat.
Robert, Clevedon, UK
The Fundamentalist says that God knows best. He knows best that God knows best. Not much different from Dawkins or anybody else when they think they know best.
Robert Corfield, Birmingham, UK
Thanks for prompting me to go to read a little more of Dawkins. I see he makes enormous howlers when taking up St. Thomas Aquinas, calling his 5 ways 'five proofs'. Most of what St. Thomas says is in the way of persuasive points rather than proof. Yet there's a complete skating round the pivotal argument of St. Thomas through a big misunderstanding. The third way is nothing to do with (as stated)an infinite regress or infinity. It's to do with the fact that all that is contingent has to be explained by what is Necessary. That is the convincing proof and Professor Dawkins does not see it. No wonder he finds God a delusion. Delusory emotions abound through ignoring the need to bow down before God.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, classic 'god of the gaps' again. Read the actual book if you don't know what I'm talking about. All your arguments have been predicted and dealt with by Dawkins and it is frankly tiresome that you refuse to even read it and yet lecture us about how empty and unfulfilling our sorry lives are. Mine is pretty good. The uncaused cause is not satisfactory, it just puts off the first thing. If god was always there, why couldn't the singularity that caused the big bang have done so?
Ben, York,
I acknowledge my uncertainties and that I cannot know 'the truth' :
but have some working hypotheses.
1.I am part of an eternal complex evolutionaty cycle, and the product of the interaction of genes and cells. This interaction generates energy that enables me to operate as an organism. The formation of millions of these cells in the brain enables me to think. When the cells of such an organism stop interacting and generating energy, It will die, stop.
2.The earth is one of many planets that have taken millions of years to develop. The earth is part of one of many galaxies. When I look at the night sky, I am looking across time and space. Space is continuous without limit. Planets and suns are being generated and destroyed constantly in an eternal cycle of regeneration.
3 I am one part of a cycle of social interaction and change. I am not the centre of the universe. I depend upon communities of others.
4.'God' is to be regarded as another social construction for social purposes
J.Kelvyn Richards, Trikala, Greece
I'm having a problem because not all of my posts are getting through. I don't know which Hawkins you keep referring to, Bryan. I would certainly not claim to know "what's in The Times" if I hadn't read it. I would say something like, "I only managed ro read the first four pages" or whatever.
DMB, Figeac, France
Religions are simply superstition. Ignorance and fear feeds the imagination - people have dreamt up all sorts of gods down the ages to help them. When there's no consistently good outcome to their prayers, they reason that their god is just mysterious. For some reason the gods always keep hidden. Believers either have to guess what their god wants - odd, no? - or their god can only 'tell' them historically specific things. So, for example, the shepherd/warrior mohammed said he was conveying a god's commands, but there was nothing about mobile phone use, microwaves, blood transfusion, submarines.... They were limited to the period in which the chap himself lived... Yet believers just never get it. Charlatans will always claim to convey the truth, see visions & etc. Very wealthy religions are built on this stuff. Look at the catholic church - 'give to the poor'? In practice, they amass huge wealth. Time to jettison supernaturalism and accept the natural world.
cath, london, uk
Bryan, which of Dawkins' books have you read all of? I've read only 5 of them. You probably won't say, if you stick to your usual form.
I've read Huxley's Brave New World, and Antic Hay, but not his others.
I say that for you to say that calling God a delusion is the product of not worshiping him, is meaningless, unsubstantiated drivel. There is no evidence that your God idea is clear in human conscience, at all, and what's with the capital C. It doesn't make something god-like to add a capital.
bill, towoomba,
As I say Ben, all these things need proper explanation not a merry go round, skirting around the main issue. Yes, truth and beauty also need explanation. The mind and imagination boggle at Uncaused cause but it just has to be to and indeed is otherwise you and I and everything else would not be here. Relationship with the Almighty gives much more fulfilment and meaning to life as has been often witnessed and demonstrated.
DMG of Figeac, I have addressed your questions in another letter not yet published. I have sort out attacks on Christianity ( including much reading of Professor Dawkins) all my life and greatly benefit from them. What exactly do you want to say? I hope you're not doing this hiding behind books and VIPs business. Your point please?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
DMB. Would you say you don't know what's in today's Times if you haven't read it from beginning to end? I gave you a proper answer to your question. I know plenty of Hawkins, having read him for many hours. You seem to want to score a point rather than debate. What is it you want to say?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bill of Towoomba, I've read the whole of at least one of the Dawkins' books. I've read enough of the others to know what they're saying. I read and listen to their interviews now and then. Why are you putting these questions like this? Surely it's not reading a book that counts but how much one has absorbed the ideas.When I asked about the Aldous Huxley book once or twice I got no reply at all. So perhaps what you call a half answer is more helpful than none.Not sure what you refer to when you say I only give 'half answers' or 'slip around direct questions'. Would you be more explicit and I'll try again. I was brought up in unbelief and read more of what opposes than what agrees with my views. It helps. Enough about me. On with the debate. I say that calling God a delusion is the product of not worshipping Him. That is the source of all delusions. Answer, please. The God idea is quite clear in human Conscience.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The philosophical concept of absolute truth does not in any way imply the existence of God. Nor does the human mental process of logic, nor the fundamental principles or laws of mathematics or science, nor the concept or use of ethics.
Richard, your premise seems badly flawed. Your reasoning totally escapes me.
frank, sydney,
Bryan: Thank you for your somewhat oblique answer. I am now assuming that you have not read Dawkins’s book and that you are an RC priest. The former would not seem to be irrelevant to a discussion that is apparently supposed to be about the book. I’m not sure how you can make a comment such as “Professor Hawkins [sic] is hardly saying anything essentially different from what I've heard all my life†if you haven’t read the book to find out what he does say.
DMB, Figeac, France
DMB, I doubt FBS has read the whole book, for he always gives half answers about it, nor Hitchens' book, and slips around direct questions. Must be part of Catholic priest training to learn to avoid answering directly.....
bill, towoomba,
DMB of Figeac, France: I gave affirmative answers to your questions which hardly matter too much when one is debating. The important issue is what we personally ourselves have to say. Who we are and what we've read and not read may or may not become evident. There's been a lot of this quoting and book lists which are not too helpful. After all, the compellingly interesting and clever Professor Hawkins is hardly saying anything essentially different from what I've heard all my life. Now to the point. Now I've given some info about me, what are you putting forward?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Bryan, do beauty and love exist? If yes, god may exist as a figment of the imaination. If no, god cannot be said to exist either. This 'uncaused cause' is nonsense as any creator would need to be complex and therefore need a cause. And I feel fulfilled and fairly relaxed anyway, thanks.
Ben, York,
Bryan, I'm still waiting for an answer to my two questions. One of them was whether you had read The God Delusion. This answer to Ben -- "I am well acquainted with Professor Dawkins' ideas" -- suggests to me that the answer is probably "no", otherwise why wouldn't you just say, "yes, I have read this book"?
I wonder what sort of acquaintance you really have with Professor Dawkins's ideas. Have you read a few dismissive reviews? or perhaps McGrath's books?
Anyway, please do answer my other question. I'd like to understand the significance of your title of "Father".
DMB, Figeac, France
Richard, you don't make sense. I believe God's existence can not be proved or disproved, and find it irrelevant to living a moral, useful or fulfilling life. To say something is unprovable is not to say it doesn't exist, so the rest of your posting is meaningless gobligook.
The possibility exists that every human thought and emotion, including love of God, and the feelings people have of a relationship with a God, only exist in the mind, and nowhere else, that there is no soul or afterlife, and that God does not exist outside of neuronal activity within a brain.
mathew, adelaide,
Richard - I can't follow your "logic".
-- 1) Forget all this talk about absolutes. It's just a red-herring.
-- 2) I do indeed think that the existence or non-existence of any god is unprovable. But this is really irrelevant.
-- 3) As an atheist I simply do NOT believe in him . Atheism is the very absence of "faith" in the religious sense.
-- 4) Rational atheists do NOT deny the existence of god - nor of the spaghetti monster either.( I do, however, have pretty strong views about both of them, after careful observation and logical reasoning.)
-- 5) How many more times do I have to explain this?
-- 6) Where's the problem?
alan, cologne,
I am well acquainted with Professor Dawkins' ideas. It's not design where the focus needs to be but first and foremost on proper explanation. The main question is still not addressed. The delusions come from not worshipping God who is clearly there in human Conscience.You have incidently referred to Conscience several times in your asides, Ben.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan: I would like to discuss things with you, but first of all I would like to be sure that I understand where you are coming from. So far you have ignored my post where I asked two simple questions:
1) Bryan: are you a Roman Catholic priest? Your title of "Father" suggests it, but you could also be Anglican.
2) Bryan: Have you read The God Delusion?
I wouldn't have thought you ought to have any problems about saying "yes" or "no".
DMB, Figeac, France
Richard- Theists and atheists have opposite views of faith. Theists value their faith and seek to strengthen it. Atheists disparage faith and seek to remove it. To say that both "live by faith" is wrong. Like you, I live; but I live by my metabolism, not by faith.
Bryan- you are right, I am happy with the word "existence." I am part of it, after all. What puzzles me are questions like, why or how does anything exist at all? We can trace the universe back to the big bang: but in what way did the conditions exist (that word again!) that enabled (not necessarily "caused") the big bang to occur? I'm not a physicist, so I run the risk of asking questions that are meaningless. I'm still waiting for *your* explanation, however. Your reply only said how nice the explanation was, and that it did not itself require any further explanation. Please share.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
I think there seems to be many different interpretations of atheism here. For myself I would say that I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a god. However there is a big difference between belief and understanding. While I believe that there is no god, I understand that I am falible and that there is really no way to prove my position absolutely (although I do strongly contest the opinion that an atheist should have to prove the non-existence of god).
The difference I see in theists is that while they tend to overflow with belief they have little or no understanding outside that belief. I am frequently told by christian friends and relatives that they have no need to consider the possibility that they are wrong because god is perfect and so would not allow them to be wrong. Frankly I find this sort of circular reasoning thoroughly obnoxious and the very height of arrogance.
dave, worthing, uk
Don't believe it ,John Korn of North Bay, Canada. The problem stems from irreligion among us all. Mathew Adelaide, I've yet to see depth of understanding human personality that comes near yards of the understanding of those who've related close to God. Don't write religion off like that- not a scientific approach.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Matthew, You say, 'The arrogance of Christians and theists in general, who "know" what is unprovable, is astounding,' but you do not tell us what you believe is unproveable and why. If you already believe that the existence of God is unproveable, then logically, according to your worldview God does not exist. but can you account for your appeal to the laws of science as objective in a world in which there is no Absolute upon which these absolutes can rest. The fact that you know the rules by which we must have this debate - i.e. the laws of logic - is one proof that although you do not 'believe' in the God Who is Personal Absolute and Necessary in your heart of hearts you know Him.
Surely it is arrogant of atheists to deny that they believe in the Personal, Absolute and Necessary Being and then use logical, mathematical, ethical and scientific absolutes to try and disprove His existence, when on the foundation of their worldview, they have nothing to say.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Bryan, have you read the God Delusion? You appear to be espousing the disproven Intelligent Design theory (in that you say 'God made it perfect'). Yet that is refuted by the simple existence of the human appendix. It serves no purpose and in some cases causes active harm (much like religion).
However other animals need it to survive. This suggests we have evolved from them so we don't need it but have not yet evolved to no have it. Also, if we were desinged, why would we have a useless but harmful part? Seems like poor design to me, akin to the 'Ultimate 747' having a bomb put on board by the maker.
Ben, York,
Norman, surely you need no explanation of the word existence?. Just try to explain the reality. Yes, it can cause headaches. What is inadequately explained by itself and collectively must be explained by explanation that doesn't require explanation. Relating in heart and miind to that Reality / Explanation sparks off an amazing fulfilment, making much more sense of apparent nonsense. Highly recommended.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Didn't all this religious claptrap originate in the 'middle east', and isn't this very area now full of the most hate filled doctrine in the religious world? Why on earth would you want to believe any of this drivel? religion was for controlling the ignorant masses, haven't we moved on from this? apparently not!
John Korn, North Bay, Canada
The arrogance of Christians and theists in general, who "know" what is unprovable, is astounding. Especially as cognitive science keeps pushing the boundaries, and is beginning to explain some of the ways our senses, thoughts and emotions stem from neuronal activity. This includes not just our usual emotions (anger/rage, pleasure, lust, love, laughter etc), but also "out of body" and other bizarre experiences. Ultimately it may well explain how, why and where people experience their concept of God. Now where would Christian certainty be in the face of that!
mathew, adelaide,
I have now read all the posts here. First of all, I would like to ask Bryan Storey of Tintagel a couple of questions:
1) Bryan: are you a Roman Catholic priest? Your title of "Father" suggests it, but you could also be Anglican.
2) Bryan: Have you read The God Delusion?
DMB, Figeac, France
The FSM is more likely to exist in an atheist universe(s) than in a Christian Theistic one - although it wouldn't be impossible in a Christian one. After all the duck-billed platypus was discovered to be in the Antipodes, who's to say what's on the next unexplored planet. There may be evidence for God that Dawkins has missed which will convert him. In order to get round the problem of the anthropic principle many atheists, including Dawkins, posit the existence of multiple universes. This virtually guarantees that there are FSMs out there somewhere and also flying spaghetti Dawkins's too. At least Dawkins is honest enough to admit that there are no true atheists.
Dear Norman, all human beings live by faith - including atheists and Christian Theists. It's part of being human because we're not omniscient,omnipresent, infallible, etc. Both atheists and Christian Theists have evidence upon which they base their faith and lay differing weight upon different kinds of evidence. More anon.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Bryan - I'd be interested in your explanation of existence. I must admit it makes my head spin when I try to think about it. Merely saying "I can't explain it, therefore god did it" would not count as much of an explanation, however.
Norman Paterson, Anstruther, UK
Ben and Mathew, I'm no ostrich whatever else I may be. I have to have the answers. You are teaching me much about escapism. I was once told I should do more of the same but it's just not my way.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Nature and the laws of science created the universe......and man, and man created the concept of God, and religion..........and blogs.
mathew, adelaide,
Bryan, there is no more evidence for god than there is for the FSM.
Ben, York,
We only need to explain existence, thoroughly and adequately. Forget all that other confusing stuff.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
God created science, knowledge and even Richard Dawkins!
Tina, South Wales, UK
It says; 'Read all 363 comments'.
Well, thanks but no thanks. The apologies, reasons and proofs for 'God' are as numerous as grains of sand in the desert. It has taken me nearly 50 years to shake off the indoctrination to which I was subjected as a child - there is no way back. Similarly, rational analysis won't dent the thick armour of the believers.
Let me follow, instead, the teaching of my fellow Scouser, John Lennon;
Imagine there's no Christians (of a multitude of persuasions), no Muslims and no Jews, no Buddhists and Hindus and such and Worshippers of the Sun or of Waterfalls and Cave Bears and Invisible Dragons, or Seventh Day Evangelists or Mormans or Ghosts in the Dense Forests. (they have their conviction and their right to their convictions too, don't they?)
We'd be left only with athiests. What would we fight about? We'd find something, no doubt but it would really turn down the heat, right now, wouldn't it?
John C, Cork, ex Liverpool
John Cullen, Cork, Ireland
Existence is the evidence for God. What else?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
If a person states that, given his experience of life and the world, and knowledge he has acquired up to this time, that the existence of God is so unlikely that, to all intents and purposes, he believes God does not exist, and considers this to be a reasonable definition of atheism, then this is called by some Christians and other theists "the height of intellectual arrogance", and "refusing to see the obvious".
Christians feel, however, that they can say there is no doubt that God exists, that this is THE unarguable truth of the universe, and are sure that they communicate with God daily = not arrogance????!!!!! Theists are far more arrogant than non-theists, for they don't admit to any doubt!
frank, sydney,
Richard- as I posted some time ago, it's blazingly obvious that god, as the Xians describe him, does not exist in the ordinary sense of the word 'exist'. The only way you can have that particular cake is to redefine 'exist' to such an extent that it is essentially meaningless, such as 'existing outside of space and time'. Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exists outside of space and time. How could you possibly tell?
If you want to have faith, that's fine, but the whole point of faith is that there is no evidence, no rational basis for it. If you want to work with evidence and reason, there's only one conclusion. The FSM does not exist. Or do you disagree with that conclusion?
Norman, Anstruther, UK
Thanks for clarifications, Alan. There is no ground for acceptance of the spagetti monster strange invention whereas the ground for accepting God in our lives is overwhelming.Yet we are free to relate or not. You close not to and say you're quite all right as you are and it's these religious ones who're a bit funny. You've no idea what you're missing.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Alan, It would be a very bad idea to deny all absolutes because then you would be unable to deny all absolutes.
Re the "FSM" , Dawkins is trying to get round the problem that atheists have of being finite and yet implying that they are omniscient or have access to omniscient knowlege by saying that they believe in a universal negative. E.g. in the next galaxy Dawkins may find evidence that he had not previously examined that proves God's existence. Ironically, in a real sense Dawkins would have to be God in order to affirm that there is no God - or at least he would have to have an infallible word from God. God has put Dawkins in a logical bind and so he has to redefine atheism as not saying that there is no God but that from the evidence available to him and examined by him the existence of God is as likely as the existence of the FSM. Once again ironically, the FSM is slightly more likely to exist from an atheist than from a Christian Theist point of view. More anon (DV).
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Richard and Bryan, i I did not in fact say there were no absolutes, but merely that PERHAPS it might not be such a bad idea to deny all absolutes. What I had in mind of course was the absolute qualities you attribute to your almighty and omnipresent god (the Necessary and Personal Absolute). --- It's getting tedious, but again I have to make it clear that I am not refuting (or denying) the existence of god, but simply saying I don't believe in him. I live without a belief in god just as I live without a belief in the spaghetti monster. -- Do you, Bryan and Richard, believe in the spaghetti monster - after all, you can't prove his non-existence? So is your attitude towards the spaghetti monster "atheistic" or "agnostic"? Yes or No? ( I assume you are pretty convinced that he doesn't exist, although you can't prove it.) -- Similarly, for practical, everyday purposes, I call myself an a-theist rather than an agnostic.
alan, cologne,
Margaret Robinson, have you ever read Harry Potter? In it you will find a Potter who is loving, compassionate, patient, merciful, glorious. If mankind had only followed His teachings and His example instead of ignoring, defying and corrupting them this world would be the paradise it was created to be instead of the total mess it is.
Of course, none of that makes him any more real. The Bible is a book, written by men with varying agendas. Nothing more.
Nicholas Ord, Guildford, UK
Alan of Cologne, to be fair to us all, you have to admit that with other 'anti absolutists', you select which you'll agree with as you obviously believe that 2+2 always make 4 and that there's no such thing as a square circle in any circumstances. Moreover if you now say you do not know about God's existence, you cannot use this title 'atheist'. The title 'atheist' is codswallop anyhow. You know as I do that there's an ultimate and mysterious, invisible explanation of us all. Science leads us to proximate, interesting and limited expanations. The ultimate explanation I call God find with millions that relating my life to Him brings an indescribable fulfilment. The happiness of which you speak and I've experienced is very inferior.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Dear Alan, Cologne,
''Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to deny all absolutes.'' - this is an example of a self-refuting statement of the order of someone saying, "I can't speak a word of English." Are you saying that it is an absolute that there are no absolutes? Are you trying to say that there are no absolutes apart from one - that there are no absolutes? Then you are saying that the laws of logic which you are using to say that , aren't absolute! According to your view of morality you have to use logical (absolutes?) to get to it.
Atheists, like it or not, need to use absolutes in order to refute the existence of God, but is their use of absolutes an ironic and inadvertent tribute to the existence of the One they deny?
Since atheists use such absolutes - how do they logically account for them - while denying the Personal, Necessary and Absolute Being that Christian Theists posit as the only reasonable foundation for them.
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Ted Baines, New York, to say that Jesus has been harmful to mankind shows ignorance and bigotry of the highest order. Have you ever read the New Testament? In it you will find a Jesus who is far removed from your description. He is loving, compassionate, patient, merciful, glorious. If mankind had only followed His teachings and His example instead of ignoring, defying and corrupting them this world would be the paradise it was created to be instead of the total mess it is.
Margaret Robinson, London, UK
Richard Tallach, I'll try to help you. Just for a moment, put God out of your head. Look around you. What do you see? A world in which people have to live together. Why not think logically about the most peaceful, honest, efficient, intelligent way to do so? Isn't it obvous that murder, theft, rape, lies etc. are going to be dysfunctional, counter-productive, dangerous, bad, evil? To me it is. -- And now, Richard, to the question of the "meaning" of the world. I, an atheist, admit I don't know. This doesn't make me unhappy at all. You (I assume, but correct me if I'm wrong) believe you can locate the meaning of the world in the, er, wildest theories propagated by priests, popes and the like. I can't believe their stories, and, quite frankly, I can't understand why anyone does. -- Finally, with respect, I simply don't know what you mean by the idea of a Necessary and Personal Absolute. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to deny all absolutes.
alan, cologne,
What basis does Dawkins have to say anything - or anything that we should take seriously - when by his denial of the Necessary and Personal Absolute he denies all absolutes?
What foundation does he have for thinking, let alone speaking or writing?
At least some of the existentialist atheists were honest to the extent that they admitted that a godless world was absurd and meaningless - while dishonestly expecting people to take their writings and plays seriously.
Do Dawkins and his kind believe that the atheist world is absurd and meaningless? If so why should we take them seriously? If not what is their foundation for meaning?
Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK
Atheists are not "anti-God". Atheists don't believe he exists. How can we be against something non-existent? That is why we are a-theists and not anti-theists.
alan, cologne,
Aziz anom of Thailand, we are all full of fears and anxieties. Only turning to the God who is evident as the only possible complete explanation of existence, can transform these anxieties into love and peace. It's foolish not to go that way.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Dawkins is absolutely right. But he should not call himself an atheist (I am not sure if he really does that) because there is no proof that god does not exist. Nor is there proof that he does exist. So we should really be calling ourselves agnostics
All religions are based on fear -- the fear of terrible punishments that await us after death if we did not believe, such as the fires of hell. Take away this fear and you will have hordes of believers leaving their irrational faiths.
aziz anom, hadyai, thailand
No I haven't read that book. What is it saying that is so important? You can say as you've read it. It's obvious both in the religious world and among those who are anti God, that we need much more of what you call the grovel- i.e. a deeper application to God. That's the need. Reading many books of science ( I do that too) gets to the beautiful and interesting 'how' rather than the profound and transforming 'why' of it all.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Have you read the book Bryan? As Alan of Koln said, don't confuse humility and grovelling. Science explains everything about the universe perfectly and beautifully, including morality. Read the relevant chapter in the book. And to assert your unfounded faith over every other faith, secular of not, without evidence is just plain stupid. Humility and athiesm can be combined, and anyway was the Pope humble when he said all other faith was wrong? Clearly, no.
Ben, York,
I've read Dawkins' book recently and I have to say that the thing that struck me the most was the sheer furore that Dawkins' beautifully rational and well argued book has created.
Perhaps I'm sitting in an ivory tower - I do work in the media industry in London - but I can't believe that there is a great swathe of British society who still genuinely believe in a deity in the traditional sense, if at all. One continually gets the sense that Dawkins is railing against a presupposed quorum of theists who I for one have never experienced (although I take the point that this is probably a different case in the US).
Without trying to spoil it, I found the most interesting part of the book is the experiments that prove human beings' inherent morality, across ages, genders and continents. How revelatory then that the one thing that was found to skew the results of the experiments were when the respondents had been brought up in a religious background - often with chilling results.
Winston, London, UK
The enormous problem in promoting an anti religious agenda is that growth into necessary human humility is not sustainable without growth into the idea of God. The truth of Christianity is upheld by the teaching society Christ founded whether or not verifiable in writing. It is a help that the writings are more than sufficiently there despite great attempts to destroy them.. Growth into God, well described for us in the first Commandment, latently yet clearly in Conscience, is invaluable in our quest for answers to vital questions in every field of education. Trying to resolve crucial questions just on fascinating and interesting scientific knowledge is highly unsatisfactory.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I am only half-way through The God Delusion. The first four chapters are off-putting in that they endeavour quite fervently to proselytise and to present an array of respected figures to validate Dawkins' position. Is this not the modus operandi of the religious? Few of us have unique personal beliefs; to believe, we need the validation of others, and the more who share the faith, the more faith we have ourselves. I wish the book had started on chapter 5 where the level-headed science begins.
My own belief as to why we have religion (and I'm hoping to find it in the book) is that the survival instinct and the understanding of our own mortality are not harmonious concepts. To mollify the former, the mind had to invent the notion of an afterlife
Lawrence, Liverpool, England
Dawkins argues that there is no God but cannot prove it. Many people believe in God because they feel it is so.
However belief in God is not the same as support for religious doctrine and many believe it is religions that stand between man and God. The oldest New Testaments like Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum do not contain the Christmas story, or Mary or the resurrection.The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits these items were provably devised, written and added roughly 800 years later so we cannot trust Biblical doctrine. Since Mary also appears in the Koran which is claimed to be complete before then I have to conclude that the modern Koran has also been edited. How are we to know what is original? I suspect that that the majority of believers accept a God that is in their hearts and reject the edited doctrine and power heirachy of religions. Surely the harm comes, not from belief in a God, but from following interpretations of invented doctrine.
Keith Budden, Essex, England
Just a word about humility: Kneeling and praying to a "god" isn't humility - it's grovelling. Claiming to have a god who will reward believers with paradise and send non-believers to hell is not humility but sheer arrogance. - True humility is accepting the fact that we do not and cannot answer ultimate questions about our existence. True humility means looking in awe at the wonders of nature and the universe in which we are so microscopic. True humility is being answerable to our own consciences (and not to some invented god) for everything we do and trying to make the world a better and more peaceful place to live in.
alan, cologne,
Comments by non-believers - logical. Those of the faithful - gobbledygook? Why, I wonder?
alan, cologne,
I bought and read Dawkin's book, he has not got the faintest idea what the scripture means. His idea and understanding of the Bible is as childish as is taught in kindergarten.
The flood account in Genesis was not an atmospheric H2O water flood, it was a flood of God's word that drowned all false faiths and ideas that had crept in. Noah the Hebrew and found to be clean so he (the faith) survived. The 'bow' God set as a covenant after the flood is not a post precipitation e.m. spectrum splitting thing. Before the written scriptures existed, God's word was heiroglyph'd in the constellations of the night sky - that is God's "bow" he left for us.
Dawkins is just pompous.
Ian , London SE8,
FF Robb of Eyemouth, Scotland, to speak of several Gods is to speak nonsense that compares with saying there's creation without proper explanation.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Far from being monothestic, Christian faith seems to encompass several gods. First, of course, the Creator, then the all-seeing Eye, the Mover or Steersman of things in the everyday world, the inner self, the creator of agents and ambassadors on his own behalf, the warrior againt Evil, the recipient and respondent of and to prayer, the Judge and soul disposer. And the list goes on.
So before we go to war over it, what god are we talking about? Other faiths have similar problems!
F F Robb, Eyemouth, Scotland
Every argument Ben? Absolutely all of them? The millions of them you can see in the world right now? Dawkin's doesn't fully understand God, and tries to disprove him when others have a greater knowlegde of him.
Chris, Epsom,
Yet Ian Morrison of Aukland NZ, what's the proper explanation of existence if not in God. That's no hypothesis.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
All religions are based on unproven hypotheses. But, then, so is humanism.
Why should we assume that our fellow humans somehow or other matter, that we have ethical obligations to them and, indeed, that there is something called "ethics" by which we should be governed.
Yes, of course, ethical behaviour is normal for humans (most of the time) but then so is religion
Ian Morrison, Auckland, New Zealand
I'm looking for Ben's summary.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Try reading the book Bryan, Mohammed and the rest. No, I don't mean the Bible or the Koran. It's all there - every argument for God analysed and disproved.
Ben, York,
Nicholas Ord of Guildford, thanks but I'm disappointed you've not seen the need for God crying out to us in creation. How do you manage not to see it? By the way Jim, the avid reader of Sydney, do you know how many ancient surviving manuscripts there are of Aristotle. Tacitus and the N ew Testament?..
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
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.
jim, sydney,
The 'theory of evolution' may explain why some humans cannot believe in the existence of God.
Some humans have not yet (maybe purposefully) been evolved enough to fully understand about Gods existance. The beneficial genetic code (belief in God code) which is responsible/necessary for humanity/survival of human species had not been preserved in some and may not (for some time) be passed on to the next generation. Some humans have been deliberately chosen by God as non-believers as life examples for comparison to the true believers. That is not to say some non-believers will/can not believe given time/guidance. Without belief in God, life for human beings is meaningless/inhumaneness. The the architect of 'evolution' is God. Analogical summary: In order for one to truly appreciate the sweet taste of honey, one has to taste lemon. In order for one to truly appreciate life, one has to experience death. (My theory and it maybe completely wrong. God knows best)
Mohammed, London, UK
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.
jim, sydney,
Chris and others, there are lots of books on the historical inaccuracy of the NT gospels, but this site gives a balanced view and other references, if you care or dare to look.
Jesus-History or Myth?
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517078.htm
bill, towoomba,
How can religion be rear view. It is that by which we relate to God. No good seeing Him and ignoring Him. How does that benefit?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Very simply- we are mixing up the concepts of God and Religion. God is the yet unanswered question. At every level of human intellect, we answer questions set by the previous intellect and ask ourselves questions that only a future intellect can answer. So there is always an unanswered question- God- for the current intellect.
God-omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient-has by definition infinite bandwidth and does not need religion. Religion, of course, needs God. To me, God is a view through the windshield, whilst religion is a view through the rearview mirror. To seek God, one needs to give up religion and its attendant prejudices.
Kara Swart, London, United Kingdom
Muhammad, your statement is untrue. If you read a few books on evolution and you won't make such statements, which to be brutally honest are cloaked in ignorance of scientific facts. Unfortunately most people with your view prefer to make up their mind based on a cursory brief contemplation or on feelings, which let you down badly. Read a few of Dawkin's early works, like The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, or The Extended Phenotype, or if you feel too biased against him, read other scholars in the field, then make up your mind.
Intelligent design seems superficially a needed explanation for the complexity of life and the universe. For example, for the eye to evolve from a simple flat, photosensitive surface, to the cupped, lensed, complex eye of a fish, it has been calculated to require 1,829 single percentage improvements, which could occur over 400,000 generations. If fish breed once per year, a pessimistic estimate, then this process takes less than half a million years, which is a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms. (Nilsson and Pelger's model). The eye may have evolved separately 40 times over! The more science probes, the more we find scientific explanations for the wonder around us, and the answers are often not intuitive...............
mark, brisbane,
Alan Cooper of Vancouver, I agree Dawkins is compelling and fascinating reading but I would with so many, hesitate strongly to put such an emotionally charged effort and limited switching off into the category of humility. There's no research to support your assertion that real humility is attainable without worship of God. As I say, human experience is right against this and the scientific study I mentioned earlier is greatly and outstandingly supportive of what I say.
Jim of Sydney, there's a mountain to oppose what you say with your neurotic conclusion as could be argued in another debate- Professor Dawkins doesn't go into this too much.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence. That these cells then gathered together ,and witrh no fore plan, designed the amoeba, let alone the human being is so outrageously obsurd that one must doubt the sanity of those that believe in this nonsense.
Muhammad Junaid, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Do you really think that Jim? Almost the whole of the Gospels is a myth? With stories in them that provide such good guidance on how to live our lives, why would they be made up? If someone were to make up a fake religion to fool people, I think that they would make it considerably more weirder and harm-causing than that. Anyway, how does G.A. Wells know that early Christians were silent about Jesus?
Chris, Epsom,
G.A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at London University argues that the early Christians are so completely silent or in such significant disagreement about the events that were subsequently recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were unknown to them, though they could not have been unaware of them had they really occurred (David H Lewis).
“If the very first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing he ever existed?â€
The gospels are not a historical account of a Jesus, but a compilation of ideas, stories and parables from multiple sources, created to make up a divine Jesus to fit the wants of the authors and the community for whom they were written. 95% or more of the gospels is myth.
jim, sydney,
Bryan Storey's personal experience does not of course preclude others from achieving humility without a god concept - and indeed a morality based on avoidance of hellfire seems more self interested than one that comes from exercise of a free conscience. But perhaps his concluding remarks suggest an emerging awareness of the idea that true worship does not require an object. Personally I see vastly more worshipful humility in much of Dawkins' scientific writing than I do in the pronouncements of priests popes and mullahs.
Perhaps the designation of an object of worship is the first level of blasphemy. The second being attribution of human emotions and thoughts to that object, and the third being the idea that any such thoughts can be expressible in human language. The bible may be a deeply flawed document and if god exists maybe it is the work of the devil, but at least it has the germ of our salvation in its proscription against "taking the name of the lord in vain".
Alan Cooper, Vancouver, Canada
It's deeper than that Mark, much deeper. The Pope is not to be underrated in that way.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Alex, Dawkins is an excellent scientist in his field. He only highlights the deficiencies in religious doctrines, texts and theology that a huge percentage of the world sees as well.
What qualification does Ratzinger have, never having had a real job outside of his religion, to pontificate (and I use the word deliberately) on matters of morality and social justice? What right does he have to say other Christian churches aren’t really legitimate churches in the eyes of God?
That a group of men many years ago deciding amongst themselves that a religious autocracy was deemed to be part of the divine plan seems a pathetic reason to take a shred of notice about anything he says.
mark, brisbane,
Dawkins is as shrill as any other fundamentalist he tries tooe hard. As a scientist is he not aware that we and indeed all other creation ,is made up of esentially the same particles /matter and it is the different energy functions that determine the form. hence some form of conciousness seems to be collapsing the wave function thus crystallising the various forms of life. Such cannot be explained in his over simplistic terms and certainly not by Darwinism which is correct in as much as it describes the evolutionary processes present in nature but does not obviate a creative plan or force
or indeed the existence of God.
p race, pulborough, west sussex
Bill, how do you know that they are fables? In the news recently a stone has been found that contains the name of one of Nebuchadnezzar's assistants. That's in the Bible. I think that was real.
I think the only reason you call the stories in the Bible fables is because it's now a long time since they happened. Unless you can travel back in time and definitively say they didn't happen you do not know that they are untrue.
Chris, Epsom,
To Ted Baines, NY: Your concept of god is in line with deism.
If, indeed, God is "that from which all blessings flow", this then, to me, describes the physical universe.
I endorse deism and view all the rest as a grab for temporal power and crowd control. History and the Pope's latest remarks, which I paraphrase; 'if your cross ain't my cross, it's the wrong cross', has and does nothing to make me doubt my thinking.
DanO, Mount Vernon, USA
Chris, the bible accounts you rely on for your beliefs are ridiculous fables, get real!!
bill, towoomba,
The crux of "The God Delusion" is Chapter 4 which seeks to show that it's almost impossible that God exists, yet in the crucial section on cosmology the author fails to introduce the work of Stephen Hawking who is the foremost living theoretical cosmologist. Does he not understand Hawking's work or is he uncomfortable with Hawking's findings? If space and time commenced at the formation of the universe, then whatever caused the universe to come about must exist outside space and time. If the cause of the universe exists outside time then it cannot have any origin. This is where the author's central argument about infinite regression crumbles, because the cause of the universe itself does not need a cause, and therefore no degree of improbability can be attached to it.
PeterB, Lincoln,
If God does not exist in the normal sense of the word, there's no existence. It's all illusion but I understand some anti God people hold it's all an illusion anyhow. What a way to live or is it to appear to live?! Quite chaotic -as the understatement of the century. Quite bonkers. Who really is real? Take your choice.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Jim of Sydney: What you and others to whom you refer write about our morality cannot be achieved without a sense , albeit implicit, of God which is deeply ingrained in the personality. There is no humility without the idea of God. Like many others , I've tried it and it does not work. Yet a great thinker once wrote that the 'atheist' who achieves goodness has somehow found God. I'm sure there are many 'atheists' worshipping within the personality as many believers are not doing it too much. Funny old world.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Who is Richard Dawkins to be debating the existence of God?
What exactly are his credentials? What makes him such an expert? For someone who is such a professed atheist, he seems to spend a lot of time writing books trying to prove that God does not exist. Who is he trying to convince, the public or himself?
Alex, Birmingham, West idlands
Self-esteem and self-love are positive attributes, as is self confidence, provided one keeps a realistic appreciation of one's human fallibility, limitations, and reliance on others. We need a perspective of life seen through a lens of humility, which an appreciation of and respect for family, friends, and everyone else in the community engenders, amplified by an appreciation of the wonders of nature, of science and of the vastness of the universe reinforces. We are expendable, trivial, fragile, yet remarkable beings.
Self-centredness is merely self-esteem and self-love taken to excess to become selfishness. Trying to keep the right balance is not a psychological/spiritual process necessitating formulas for religious practices or prayer to a deity, nor does it require subservience or subjugation to one. It does require an active moral sense, and active self-awareness and honesty, with regular re-appraisal.
That we have an inherent moral sense has been discussed previously by me and others. Grayling, Hinde, Schermer, Konner and many others write well on this.
jim, sydney,
It's blazingly obvious that god, as the Xians describe him, does not exist in the ordinary sense of the word 'exist'. The only way for theists to go is either to redefine 'god' - or redefine 'exist'. It's hard to redefine 'god' while retaining any god-like properties, so it is necessary to redefine 'exist' with some kind of metaphysical meaning that has no actual, discernable, meaning.
Norman, Anstruther, UK
When children stop believing in the tooth fairy and Santa, do they start to believe that their sixpence and presents prepare and place themselves under their pillow or the Christmas tree, entirely by the laws of nature?
Or do they continue to believe that those things happen because of intelligent purposive planning requiring competent planners (their parents, even though they never see them do it)?
Even belief in the fairies is vastly preferable to naturalism in these cases.
Dan Baynes, Barton Seagrave,
The God delusion - what a brilliant book, i have little problem with others being religous as long as I don't have to suffer their piety. I was once a christian but realised that a god was beyond improbable and could not exist. I can find no balanced argument for the existence of a god. I have no doubt there was a political activist called jesus with a band of militia. But he was not a god!
marcu, Haywards Heath, UK
Alan: "Of course it is impossible either to prove or disprove the existence of god."
You do not know what people livng 2000 years ago experienced. There is evidence for what happened then. You also keep saying that those who experience visions are in need of psychological help, when you do not know what they have seen. There is evidence for God, and you seem to be ignoring it.
Chris, Epsom,
I think Richard Dawkins and Sharia Law would get along just fine.
Chris Winn, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear
The strongest argument for the existence of God is to be found in Descartes' Cogito. But if we look closely at it we find that it is absurdly circular. It goes like this:
1. I doubt my existence.
2. Every time I doubt, I think.
3. I think, therefore I am a thinking thing.
4. I am a thinking thing, therefore I am, I exist.
5. Because the idea I have of my own existence is clear and distinct, all my ideas that are clear and distinct must be productive of certainty.
6. I have a clear and distinct idea of the existence of a perfect supreme being (God), therefore God exists.
7. As a perfect and supreme being, God does not deceive.
8. Because God does not deceive, all my ideas that are clear and distinct are guaranteed by Him.
This argument can be reduced to “every time I doubt my existence I can be certain of my existence,†which can be further reduced to “if doubt then no doubtâ€, which is a logical contradiction. (See p. 101 of BASIC FLYING INSTRUCTION)
CHARLES GIDLEY WHEELER, Kempsford, Gloucestershire
R Holmes - No. Atheism is not as illogical as belief. The atheist admits to not knowing the answers to the wonderful mysteries of the universe and human existence on earth. Of course it is impossible either to prove or disprove the existence of god. But the burden of proof lies with those who claim he exists. Without this proof or indeed any real evidence, it is perfectly logical for me not to believe. And it is perfectly logical for me to call myself an atheist. I think this is a decent position. (A-theist = without god.)
alan, cologne,
Agnosticism is another retreat from the reality that it's only by the development of the inner life that we can begin to find what we're really looking for. Yet we can only do this under the influence of the God concept. Think again about the powerful words of Jesus that we only find ourselves by forgetting ourselves. None of this can be sustained as a former Buddhist turned Christian has rightly recently written. The Voice of Conscience in us all, leads us in this direction.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Thank you Richard Dawson from all of us who, from an early age were sent to Sunday school, and as you say never knew we had an option, signed forms as being of Cof E, religion never giving it another thought, because we were told that we had a choice between heaven and hell.
Jim , Geelong, Australia
Because we're humans Bryan. Its what we do. R Holmes has a point. We can only follow the best of science and hope to be proved wrong.
Ben, York,
Dawkins is wrong about atheism being the only alternative to theism read Mordecai M. Kaplan or anything to do with Process Theology.
J.D.G, Cambridge,
So, Jim of Sydney, picking up the rattles you threw out of the pram, I ask you how 'atheists' remove our innate self centredness from their daily lives. Just how do you do it? Now don't divert to the scientists and all those muddled religious things and misunderstandings and misquotations, just answer that question for us. Please, kindly.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Unlike RD I do not make any money from parading my beliefs around. However, it does seem to me that that this is a sterile debate. RD cannot prove the nonexistence of a god anymore than believers can prove its existence.The only decent position is the be an agnostic and do no harm to others.Atheism is as illogical as belief
r holmes, axbridge England,
What I am saying Alan is that it's not the number of words used or the library of impressive book quotes that count but a straight forward answer to the essential question ' how is it you proclaim with such apparent plausibility that there's no God when the idea cries out from the centre of our being. How many times do you and I hear hear hundreds of words, saying next to nothing? An African Christian staying with me at present, says, what is obvious, that his people were worshipping something all the time before they heard of Jesus. There's a strident Voice of Conscience within us that cannot be just brushed aside. It's a universal phenomenon. How come 'atheists' are so full of calling for a better non religious world?
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I think the world is a better place after you give up believing or half-believing that god exists.
The act of not believing is liberating. Any thought that exists in your mind is yours alone. God is not looking over your shoulder. And we can begin to address any other superstitious beliefs that we've accumulated over the years.
Terry, Hawkesbury, Ontario
Bryan, you contradict yourself, though you may not have noticed it. You give the "anti religion people" credit for wordy argumentation, but at the same time claim they "refuse to give their case". We "anti religion people" prefer to use logical argument, not catchphrases such as the "Necessary One", "negative sound bites" and so on. And what's all this nonsense about throwing rattles from prams. Really, Bryan! If flawed two-liners (or even four-liners) devoid of logical argument are the best you can produce - well, I'm disappointed in you.
alan, cologne,
Dear Mr Dawkins,
The human mind is not crafted to make moral decisions hence the moral maze.
The soul is the vehicle out of which moral integrity, a moral conscience, and love flows. The manifestation of the Creator's life in the soul.
It follows that all mans inhumanity to man is caused by the absence of this life.
Now you know how to get out of the moral maze!
Mr C H Stobbs, Nottingham, England
Thanks for the exchanges Frank of Sydney.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, you have never given a shred of proof! And the whole 'I'm more moral than you' (the obvious inference) leads to ethnic conflict and prejudice against those different to you. Ever read the Crucible? My case is that the best explanations are scientific, not religious. You surely accept evolution as fact, therefore the Bible is no longer inerrant. You can't pick and choose what is right and wrong so therefore if some is wrong it all is.
Once more then (sorry for repeating but I can't get an answer), do you have proof?
Ben, York,
Bryanisms: "No way to remove our self centredness if God is ignored; morality is through and through egocentric when God is not part of it; if somebody is really an atheist he is INCAPABLE OF DOING GOOD WORKS FREE FROM SELF INTEREST: 'atheism' cannot for example... inspire the humility required to help keep relationships,marriage and friendships vibrant". Bryan, these are all your OPINION, pushed to the point of arrogance and blind dogmatism, which many of those on earth, atheist, Christian and other, find naive, narrow-minded, shallow, pathetic, and wrong, not just theoretically, but morally, and in a practical way every day, during our lives, and those of wives, partners, children, friends and community around us. So all atheists have unloving marriages and shallow relationships, eh Bryan? And a celebant or sterile priest knows this? You seem to believe you can look into the hearts of others after a superficial assessment, and know they think, live, love and behave. Now, who said something about getting logs out of one's own eye....
jim, sydney,
Bulldog Bryan, I know now why Dawkins at times seems a bit aggressive giving his point of view. Can't you let your bone go now and again, and consider other questions, and not just your favourite one, however important it may be to you? No wonder you never married, no-one could stand it! At your most narrow-minded you remind me of the last creationist Jehovah's Witness I had at the front door, who ignored everything I said and talked at and over the top of me; that day I got more sense out of my cat. You are so rigid in your thinking, nastily dogmatic and deliberately obtuse and unseeing, that there is no point writing any more here. You are a great add for non-belief, and the more you put your foot in your mouth the more you shoot your own sides' feet. cheers and enjoy life....carpe diem!...........
frank, sydney,
There is nothing magic about 10 commandments. They don't cover every moral question, so to be hung up on them is just another example of rigid thinking on your part............
grow up Bryan.
frank, sydney,
What's this racist jibe? Come on Ben, you can do better than that. So there are pseudo atheists? That's some of what I've been saying. The Commandment question follows from what you say.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The anti religion people just refuse to give their case while throwing more and more rattles from their prams in wordy argumentation, sounding quite posh at times, amounting to negative sound bites.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
John Tippler of Spalding, how is it circular arguing to ask for proper proof and explanation? Contingency and the phenomenon of human Conscience need to be addressed properly not just avoided. This dodging with a lot of plausible sounding words is just crazy!
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
An interesting debate that circles round the usual arguments. It is not up to a non-believer to prove the non-existence of god (or God). Rather, those who do claim belief must take on the burden of proof if they wish to convince others. They must show a valid reason for their belief. Sadly, all such efforts fall short. Father Bryan, for instance, litters his arguments with non-sequiturs, but is apparently unaware of their invalidating effect. (Rather as those doorstep purveyors of religious books fail to understand the invalidating effect of circular argument.)
John Tippler, Spalding, UK
Sorry Ben for any unintended offence. Stanzler answers for himself.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, how am I letting Britain down? That is a cheap insult and the sort of remark that causes war, genocide etc. Hitler said the same of his enemies. We are all stuck in the dark ages if we never dare to question a single book written 2000 years ago. Please enlighten me as to Stanzler's true meaning, but everything I have seen him write is ultra-conservative gibberish. The 'athiest' you refer to is obvoiusly not an athiest, or was asking a higher being - not neccessarily god ('whoever you are' is not the same as 'oh god'). You keep on about the commandments, which I don't want to know, and say that all other moral systems are useless! This is also racist. Oh, and you still don't give any evidence.
Ben, York,
No way to remove our self centredness if God is ignored, Ben. A well known 'atheist' in great crisis, got on hi knees and pleaded 'whoever you are, wherever you are, help me now.' That event is worth a lot of consideration.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I knew you'd take Stanzier of New York wrong Ben and sure enough, you did.You let GB down, you know. As I said before, morality is through and through egocentric when God is not part of it. Did you find the other 6 Commandments you couln't find? What were the 4 you found?
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Everything around us is the product of natural physical laws acting since the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. 5% of the universe is familial matter from protons, neutrons etc, 25% dark matter, 70% dark energy.
There are estimated to be up to 500 billion galaxies in the universe, with possibly 100 billion stars in each, with a significant percentage of these stars having orbiting planets.
There are more atoms in a glass of water than there are equivalent glasses of water in all the oceans.
For the eye to evolve from a simple flat, photosensitive surface, to the cupped, lensed, complex eye of a fish, it has been calculated to require 1,829 single percentage improvements, which could occur over 400,000 generations. If fish breed once per year, a pessimistic estimate, then this process takes less than half a million years (a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms). [Nilsson and Pelger's model]. The eye may have evolved 40 times over!
Humans share 98-99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Our divergence from common ancestors may have occurred only 5 million years ago!
The human brain has an estimated 100 billion neurones, each with up to several thousand connections.
We don't need to implicate an intelligent designer. The sense of awe I feel as a lucky human within this wondrous universe is immense.
mark, brisbane,
"...It is a learned verbal respone (a meme, if you like the term), and no closer to our genes than "bloody hell"!" -- frank, sydney
Frank, 'oh my god', 'bloody hell', 'oh dear', 'aha',...are verbally expressed emotions from actions or reactions of a person, (read: human consciences). 'Emotions' are not necessarily learnt through socialization. Emotions, like human senses (gene traits) will be passed on to offspring. A newborn baby automatically suckles (mental emotion expressed via physical action), s/he is not taught. Babies are genetically programmed with that emotion (as well as many others). Emotions are embedded in our genes. Faith is not an emotion, however, our emotions tell us to have faith.
Stanzler, New York, USA
Saying 'oh my god', isn't derived from our genes, unless you believe in the worst of Lamarkianism to an idiotic extreme. It is a learned verbal respone (a meme, if you like the term), and no closer to our genes than "bloody hell"!
frank, sydney,
Stanzler: that's indoctrination for you. Effective isn't it? Most of the human genome has been mapped and there isn't a 'religion gene'.
Bryan: Why? I can behave morally myself. Another example of indoctrination.
Mohammed: 1) In what way does prayer help others? And we can appreciate the universe still, and thank our parents.
2) I have already said, everything is from electrons, neutrons and protons. These are very basic and thereore would not need design. It is simply that evolution rejected those human forms that are not adapted properly. Survival of the fittest - a scientific term.
I suggest you all find proper evidence and come back then.
Ben, York,
Mohammed, intelligent design is a not-so-intelligent explanation for what has happened and continues to evolve via fundamental laws of science. Read more science and you'll come to appreciate why........
mark, brisbane,
Marvin, if you believe every human thought or idea is part of genetic evolution you need to go back to the classroom and study it better.
If you merely believe ideas evolve as memes, then you agree with Dawkins, who came up with the meme idea!!
jim, sydney,
If a person had found a watch buried in the middle of a desert, (s)he'd be 100% sure, it was created by some intelligent being, and didn't magically appear from nowhere.
The universe, galaxies, planets, stars...water, air, food, animals, and humans (which are far more complex than a watch) did not appear from nowhere. They were purposely created by a super intelligent being (God).
Human beings are the witnesses of Gods creations.
Mohammed, London, UK
Ben, it's getting a trifle difficult to debate with you because you don't read into what I and others are saying. Stanzier of New York makes a really good point about the genes but I expect you'll not see into it. I think you'd better get searching for those other 6 Commandments you can't fin.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
"name any good deed that could not possibly be done by an athiest" -- Ben, York,
Worship/thank his/her creator?
Mohammed, London, UK
Bryan, how would you know either way? You sound like an Inquisitor asking Bill as you don't know where science comes from. Bill never said we don't need morals, but they don't need to come from religion. You are so blinkered, you don't even accept science as possible. Why? There is much more evidence for it than religion.
Ben, York,
I betcha, most athists would automatically say (without realizing) 'oh my god', if/when they've suddenly been told about the sad news of the death of a close family member. Religion is embedded in our genes.
Stanzler, New York, USA
Bill Jackson of Nottingham, how can anything come before God? How did you get this idea? Moreover, can you be serious in not seeing the need for moral improvement?
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I read a great portion of the God delusion, and much of what Dawkins had to say about the behavior and utterings of so-called religious people rang true and was utterly hilarious. Truly, it had me laughing a good part of a flight from the west coast to Tokyo.
On the other hand, Dawkins' underlying thesis - that religion is pie in the sky, is the source of much of what is wrong with humanity, and that evolution is the only answer that stands up to scrutiny, seems to have a fatal flaw: If humanity and its discontents have evolved without 'external help,' then religion and its discontents are simply part of that evolutionary process, right? If Mr. Dawkins truly believes this, what's his point? To stop the very products of evolution from going beyond his own evolved imagination?
So, religionists call going outside the 'box' heresy; Evolutionists call it 'delusion'. Hmm! What a quandary.
Personally, I feel better that something, somewhere, is above all this.
Goodbye, Mr. Dawkins.
Marvin Alfonso, Portland, OR
Reason cries out for evidence.Religion wants the adherent to believe on the basis of faith backed up by a text that itself begs as many questions as it seeks to answer for all those willing to suspend the need for proof of a living God.
When all the arguments pro and against the existence of a higher Being are exhausted mankind is still left with the nagging question[except for those for whom faith is enough] of what came before God and why does He want to save us from ourselves anyway?
BILL JACKSON, Nottingham, UK
'Find oneself by looking away from ourselves' is a summary of a great teaching of the Lord. The Buddhist,'atheist', Ben, Uncle tome Cobbly and all find that first Commandment deep down through this practice. It's pivotal, the stuff of what you call being 'atheistically good', Ben. As Aldous Huxley demonstrates in his Perennial Philosophy, it's there. The 'good atheist' is finding God a sage once said. That's the answer to your question you keep saying I'm dodging. Hundreds of thousands testify. Keep on searching Ben. It's there.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Bryan, I don't believe in god, the 10 commandments etc. I can only name 4! This is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that Buddhist morality, which is pretty similar to most Christian morality, is inferior because they don't believe in god? I wouldn't do or not do something based on the bible. Conscience and religion are, in some people, totally separate. I am certain there is no such thing as a benevolent god so I don't think you can tell I do really and I just think I don't. What are you - a bad psychiatrist?
Ben, York,
So how does it arise that someone, without missionary contact, naturally worship what he thinks is the Creator? Come off it Ben, all the good you do stems from your Conscience not your 'atheistic' label. That answers your question.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
In my experience, when religious people try to define God they simply describe a "powerful Human" and then proceed to misinterpret the term "all Powerful". The fact that most religious people I have spoken to also beleive in Hell, effectively destroys all possibility of the existence of the God that they so crave. Sending someone to hell for eternity due to even the most monstrous of crimes is, unfortunately an all too human act of spite. If the Devil and God exist, guess who's laughing now!!
The God Delusion is the best non fiction book I have ever read and whilst I still keep an open mind to the "unknown", I doubt that the world of religion can match Dawkins's incisive and breathtaking clarity of thought.
Andrew Piearcey, Sheffield, England
No comeback to my arguments so just ignore them, Bryan.
Athiests 1, Religion 0
Ben, York,
Well it's not in me, or anyone at birth. It is only indoctrination of the young that keeps religion going. And you STILL don't answer my questions... unless you can't.
Ben, York,
Ben, you are reading me selectively. The 10 Commandments are as much in your nature as they are in mine and everybody elses including those who've ( to quote you ) not had it 'stuffed down them'. They for our Conscience. The first about God is pivotal. So the good you keep on about and do is on account of your Conscience not on account of this 'atheist' illusion. No operation can remove your Conscience of which God is an enormous part even though you deny Him. This is great evidence for Him- within you. There's more to be said , of course.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Bryan, you are simply ridiculous.
1) How would you know that athiests cannot love and have friendship without it being tainted by an unrelated belief?
2) You are insulting much of the human race by stating that athiests cannot do good.
3) God is not an explanation as explanation requires evidence.
4) The only reason an idea of god exists in everyone is bible-bashing and the equivalent indoctrination in other religion.
Ben, York,
It's neither childish nor speaking another language to accept God as a reality. The language is normal. Explanation, adequate and ultimate of my existence is only in the Necessary One, latently alive in the Conscience of every human being. It is the height of common sense for limited creation to relate to the Creator. When we do, we find a life full of meaning and fewer illusions. Professor Dawkins blew out an enormous puff cloud trying to confuse us with his illusions.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Wow, wow Ben.You do get me wrong. I was not speaking of aborigines. If somebody is really an atheist, he is incapable of doing good works free from self interest. As I say Ben there are many closet believers among 'atheists' just as there are many who do not believe too much yet claim belief. Atheism in itself cannot free us of self interest because nothing short of worship of a Creator explicitly or implicitly can do this. That reveals more of what I say about Marriage and friendship when God is ignored.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Many of the comments and replies to comments prove the basic fact - christians and atheists speak two different languages -faith vs proof, the past vs the present, eternity vs here-and-now, the soul vs the body.....and on and on and on. I prefer the latter in every case but christians simply cannot understand this. My reply is I've been there and I prefer my life apart from christianity.
Donald Hurst, Fonthill, Canada
As Hitchens points out,religious ideas originated in the childhood of our species.,when our brains were like the brains of infants.
When language was perhaps limited to few words,and a distinction between the natural and the supernatural unclear.
In this strange new world who would know what to believe about anything? To assume a fatherfigure somewhere who is responsible for "all this",would seem appropriate considering their ignorance of anything outside their daily struggle to survive.
And the comfort such an idea would bring is self-reinforcing.
So gods were born.All kinds of gods.
But that was then and this is 2007,and time to grow up before we're blown up by some devoutly religious madman,with the ideas of yesterday and the weapons of today.
colin nicholas, vernon, Canada
and what of the God idea lurking in every one of us Ben? You are taken up with illusory, emotional forces.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Stan Atlee of Randfontain, SA, it sounds as though you're on the path to the discovery of the real self, getting away from illusory fairyland. The love of God indeed passes all understanding. Keep firmly there. There's quite a bit of confusing ideas going around. Congratulations.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Exactly, and my conscience tells me that it is better to believe rational science than ancient mumbo-jumbo.
Ben, York,
Just because aboriginies believe something it is not true! They also thought the world was flat! And your statement is not even true - every people had different beliefs. Plus, athiests can have marriage, love and emotion. When have you asked me for an answer? You simply talk at me! So, one more time - name any good deed that could not possibly be done by an athiest
Ben, York,
Closure is not facing what's deep in the immediate, clear Voice of Conscience, Ben.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Bryan, you must see how closed that is! Those ideas came about millenia back and yet you see no reason to question them. Colin is right.
Ben, York,
I am glad you didnt see the need to study religion to denounce it. I think one of the most illogical arguments made is that one. However i do face a dillema. I grew up in an Anglican household, but pretty much steeped myself in the lore and discipline of science. Now I am a devout Christian. I believe in God but here is the catch, I cannot imagine a single way to prove him. I sometimes think that my intermittent faith is only a chemical reaction but then again i am not sure. It isnt enough that living a good life is good enough, i dont think that if i wasnt a Christian i wolud be a bad person per se but still i seem to have bit this Jesus bug deeply and wonder jus how much of it is Jesus and how much of it is me.
Stan Atlee, Randfontein , South Africa
Sorry Colin Nicholas of Vernon, BC, Canada, nothing cramps thought like rejection of God. This rejection lets lose illusions, far in excess of the funny ones religious efforts often bring out. We only begin to see properly when we realise more our finiteness. We can only do this by a growth into conviction about and relationship with th Necessary Infinite One. The First Commandment, big and often sleeping within us is always , eradicably there to be activated.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Religious thinking is by definition thinking inside the box.The bigger picture is outside the box.
In pondering the cosmos and the meaning of life
the God hypothesis prevents any further inquiry into what life is really all about.
Our ancestors,the people who invented religions and gods in the first place,were ignorant,illiterate and superstitious beyond our wildest imaginations.
Unable to make any kind of sense of their situation
they figured that there must be SOMEONE responsible for all this. If any of us had been around in those frightening times we would have agreed with them;and we would have used the god idea to explain everything,from the trees moving in the wind to the patterns of the clouds drifting by.
We've come a long way since then.We no longer have to pray to everything that moves.We know better.
We are now able to think outside the box called religion,and get a clearer picture of reality.
There should be no need of the supernatural in this brave new world.
colin nicholas, Vernon BC, Canada
You still dodge my questions. I say 'atheism' as such cannot reduce the ego which undermines any good deed and achievement, cannot for example inspire the humility required to help keep relationships,marriage and friendships vibrant. The way to do this is written in the human heart- love the Lord our God who is the fount of love and friendship. He alone gives us that vitality and strength to keep things going. This isn't just 'preacher stuff'. It's written within us long before Moses. It's the aboriginal guide to life.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I asked YOU a question - name any good deed that could not possibly be done by an athiest. Go on then...
Ben, York,
Your questions, Ben have been answered directly or indirectly. There is no smoke, there are no mirrors. If you insist, please explain. I try to remain open.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
That makes no sense and you are still ignoring my (reasonable) questions in favour of smoke and mirrors!
Ben, York,
Ben of York, our objectively good deeds are frequently undermined by our egoism which can only be curbed through worship of God.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Go on then Bryan. I challenge you to name any good deed that could not possibly be done by an athiest (not a part-time, faux athiest). I have never seen this. I have seen and heard of much evil that could not be commited by an athiest.
Ben, York,
Neale of Sydney, I could give you many examples of how not including God in our moral pursuits, seriously undermines it, leaving us with many illusions of goodness in our own eyes, not appreciated by others. Stability in Marriage is remarkable when there's turning to God.
Ben, there's no movement towards morality without some openness to the God idea. Many 'atheists' pray to God especially in stressful times. I've seen and heard it.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
I am yet to buy the The God Delusion ( but i will hence saturday) and ive got to say, i think we'd all be a whole lot better without religion. And as for the arguments that it helps people? What nonsense! Not only has religion killed millions of people, but i also dont agree with how after something like a hurrincane or flood has happened , the religious parties jump on the wagon as soon as possible and try to get more followers by praying on innocent people who are obviously not in there right mind at the time.
megan d, Birmingham,
Bryan, there is a world of difference between accepting there is a tiny possibility something exists in some form and stating it definitely exists in the form we want it to.
Ben, York,
Father Bryan Storey - you're wrong. Morality can be sustained without a belief in god or any kind of deity.
Perhaps difficult for a man who has devoted his life to religeon to accept - but true none the less.
neale, sydney , australia
Per se not, Rob but in practice there's much to be said for what you're saying. The real thing is a gem. There's a lot of the real thing around.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Ben, Buddhism does not reject God but leaves the question open. It looks as though you're doing the same. Of course there is something incomprehensible beyond as you say. As you know, it's not possible to be an unbeliever without doubting at times just like many believers sometimes doubt. I do not rubbish those who call themselves atheist. I just say that no morality can be sustained without an openness to the possibilty of the God concept. somewhere in the psyche.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
That's because religion is politics, just really old politics.
Rob, Birmingham, UK
I've debated with atheists and find many are closet believers like many of us believers do not believe too much.
Father Bryan Storey b, Tintagel, UK
Buddhism regards god as irrelevant. I, like Dawkins, believe there is something beyond our comprehension. But why would it care about us? And by saying only worship of god is good, you rubbish the achievements of every athiest ever.
Ben, York,
Andrew, it seems to me that evil is our uncontrolled ego. We can only find it more permanently controlled by relationship with God.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
The qualities mentioned as being found in Eastern religions and philosophies not claiming to be God centred are only achievable through an openness to the possibility of God. God is the backbone of all morality. I refer again to the first Commandment, written in human conscience long before written down by Moses. The greatest illusion is the idea that He's not there. That really is a deceit of great magnitude.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
"Your Genesis passage doesn't make God responsible for evil. Evil 's the absence of God." -father bryan storey
Bryan, would you care to explain how evil is the absence of god?
Andrew Rasmussen, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA
Strength, endurance and inner peace can be found by those who don't believe in god, and sound much like the aims of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taosim. These faiths do not invoke god. Rob, religion is not the cause of the Sri Lankan civil war, it is simply the Sinhalese majority fighting the Tamil minority who want independence. Hindus are accepted there. Japan is predominantly Shinto, despite historical changes that just show they cannot decide.
Ben, York,
Rob, your vision of religion is wrapped up in political spin. But that's often the way of it. I'm glad you are not deceived into thinking it's better in the East, another frequent political spin. I've even heard it saId Hitler was a devout Catholic! If the central core of religion were what you describe I would leave it immediately. Fortunately it's a rich and wonderful pearl of great price. We are very poor without it. Yet we are more than obviously free to chose.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
You're having a laugh father. Moral change! Religion is always the first to resist change and its cries last the longest to prevent it, and while it can no longer get away with it in the west, used to employ torture and execution to maintain it. Sadly the same cannot be said of all countries.
It is also worth noting that Buddhism certainly is not a shining example of morality either, ask the Hindus of Sri Lanka or those that suffered under Japanese buddhists (and Taoists) during the second world war, or their aspiration to recreate feudalism.
Rob, Birmingham, UK
Answers to that have been given and suggested, Ben. It's still mysterious yet the central point of utmost importance remains, well illustrated by Aldous Huxley in the 'Perennial Philosophy', that to find vigour and meaning in life, to find strength, endurance, inner peace and more love and friendship, we're just compelled to relate to God. Nobody puts it so well for us as Jesus. Many do not exactly tell the truth on this issue especially by saying 'I'm all right and don't need religion'. Your 'why?' is well informed in these considerations.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
But why? How can you be sure we are? So far, nothing has happened purely because of 'what God hath wrought'. And even if true, that is hardly a benevolent god. One question - why? Why would god want to make a world or a universe?
Ben, York,
I speak of moral and spiritual change, Ben. Reject God and we go down and down.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Evolution IS change. I believe that is the answer, you don't. Fundamental Christianity has not moved on in 2000 years. Evolution as a concept is much more recent.How much more change do you want? In other words, you make no sense.
Ben, York,
Sounds as though you don't believe in the need to develop and change, Ben. Now that's a real, big problem.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
So what if we have ego or self confidence? Good can come from anyone - religious or not.
Ben, York,
All our actions get more and more tinged with egoism if God is not a vital part of them.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
If I, by chance, could save a life tomorrow and did so, that would prove you wrong as I do not believe. Multiply that by millions for every good deed of every atheist ever and you will see that good can come from elsewhere.
Ben, York,
Those philosphies do not rule out God, Ben. All good influence can only come from HIm. Ego reduction is vital.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
for the language in the book. he is a bit harsh on relating about religion, but ain"t fundamentalist.
his audience is, or rather say "the targets are", the agnostics and the atheists who can claim up or stand on their own beliefs.
P.S.
been little bit late out since i've been on 4 projects
adrian, legazpi, Albay, Philippines
We can be moral without god, as Buddhism and Taoism show.
Ben, York,
Ben, you're right that evil has been done in the name of God. The ego ruins everything and we do often imagine God as a version of our own ego. Yet only God is goodness. He doen't want grovelling but relating of our lives to God transforms it to where it should be. Hundreds of thousands testify.Surely you believe in our need to change radically? Science is a good fragment of the answer but nowhere near enough.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
So what if we have self esteem rather than grovelling in the dust to something nobody can be sure exists? Worship of god has done terrible evil. And why is science not a proper answer?
Ben, York,
Yet we need proper answers.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
How can worship of God (religion) be wrong? We're all inveterate worshippers including Ben. If we're not worshipping the Almighty it's because we're worshipping something else, usually ourselves.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
No, I think religion is misguided and wrong. We do not need religion or 'irreligion'.
Ben, York,
So you think irreligion can do better? Nonsense Ben.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Exactly. Genocide and mass murder are great ideas! Btw that was sarcastic.
Ben, York,
Only God is entirely good, Ben. There's much better understanding of the Bible required as you say. There's no goodness without Him.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Ben boy, we can't do business while you keep on in this strange way. Sorry.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
It is impossible for evil to infiltrate something 100% good. It should resist if it is perfect. And does not the heart of the Old Testament include passover, plagues rained down on Egypt and genocide?
Ben, York,
Why ar so many hooked on the evil infiltrating the heart of religion instead of the wonders of the real thing? Interesting.
Father Bryan Storey , t, UK
"The price paid for intellectual pacification is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind."
John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
I myself have often yearned for the "comfort blanket" of religion, but after a few years in a Catholic high school, I can't bring myself to embrace the dogma of most religions today. For me, it's not the *existence* of a God that I'm worried about -- it's the fact that the God of religion is not worthy of being worshiped. (Visit skepticsannotatedbible.com or other sites if you're not convinced.)
By the way, faith has certainly helped... but it has also harmed beyond measure. Witch burning? Holy Crusades? 9/11? How many people has God himself killed?
"Malachi 2:3 Behold, I [GOD] will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it."
Chloe, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Faith can definitely help people. Nobody is denying that, but it should not be anything more than faith - whether god is real should be irrelevant and it shouldn't affect life. Blinkered is accepting ancient beliefs without question, never daring to question.
Ben, York,
All I can say is that nobody's here if God isn't. You've only to do a little research to see how many have been helped by Faith which cannot be measured in a test tube. Ben, you really do have to search around a bit more. We need not be so blinkered, you know.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
"Richard Dawkins believes God does not exist. I believe God does exist. Each of us has a fifty percent chance of being right - or wrong. Neither of us can prove our case. End of story, and PLEASE, end of all this idiotic fuss about it. -- jane, London, UK"
Hey Jane, You had forgotten the most important part of this 50/50 bet. Think about the consequences...
Mohammed, London, UK
"Ben of York, you obviously want religion without its irreligion. Agreed." - Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK.
OK, I think we need to address the notion that extremism is a perversion of the 'true' faith. How can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking any objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert?
Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom
How is what I wrote codswallop? It was ancient, written after the event, not a global event, and people believed in witchcraft etc. And your answer to Paul is strange, for example religious teaching caused the AIDS epidemic as it taught that barrier contraception is wrong.
Ben, York,
"Ben of York, you obviously want religion without its irreligion. Agreed." - Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK.
OK, I think we need to address the notion that extremism is a perversion of the 'true' faith. But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking any objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert?
Miles Kershaw, Shrewsbury, United Kingdom
Unlike many of those who have contirbuted to this column, I have read The God Delusion. I don't agree with all of it but he achieves his main aim of making people realise that they can declare themselves aetheists without having to suffer the guilt that believers in "god" try to impose on them. There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that "Jesus Christ" was "God".
Charlie, Birmingham, England
Irreligion within religion? Thought it was obvious that religion is blamed for the bad behaviour of us religious ones. Proper worship of God produces goodness.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Ben- Where did you get hold of that codswollop?
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
1. I find it ironic that those slamming Dawkins for holding forth on religion without familiarizing himself with the Bible, have obviously not bothered to read The God Delusion prior to holding forth on Dawkins! Had they read his book, they would realize that Dawkins is a savvy and erudite critic, with a sound grasp of Biblical exegisis. He quotes the Bible extensively in support of his case.
2. What is this spurious distinction between "religion" and "irreligion"? Central to Christian doctrine - even liberal Christain doctrine - is the notion that millions of non-believers will be consigned to the firy pit of Hell, to suffer eternally for their "sin" at the hands of this supposedly loving god, Jehovah! There is no way to sugar-coat this utterly abhorent, divisive and unforgiving doctrine.
Paul, Warwickshire
Paul Hayward, Leamington Spa, UK
One ancient book, written 400 years later, unverified as it occured in a localised area of Israel, touching only a couple of hundred lives in an age when people believed in witchcraft. A mountain of sound historical evidence?
Ben, York,
Come off it, Ben. Leave off with the spin. There's a mountain of sound, historical evidence for the God man, Jesus.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Dawkins says that most believers echo the fundamentalists (Pat Robertsion etc.) Nonsense! In my experience, as a Christian, the vast majority of Christians are NOT raving fundamentalists. From what I know of Muslims, the great majority are NOT followers of bin Laden (whose motives in my view are political rather than religious). Perhaps Dawkins should talk to the average person in the pew or the mosque, rather than the carefully selected fundamentalists.
Alan, Chislehurst,
Yes. A very good man like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, with no reliable evidence of any miracles. Why?
Ben, York,
Haven't you heard of Jesus, Ben?
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Am I missing something? God has never appeared to the world (unless I was asleep and missed it). There are many possible explanations for the universe. As for faith, as Martin Luther said, "Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is your God."
Ben, York,
A good rebuttal, Prof. Dawkins. I used to believe in the comfort that religion brings for people. But your argument against it is hard for me to counter. I need to re-think some things over as a result. I ended up buying an additional copy of your book for other people to read.
Cape Town Geek, Cape Town, South Africa
K. Phillips, God has already made Himself visible and told all. Nobado's forced to believe it.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
If you deprive the Higher Power of its necessary qualities, Martin, you've got to go on searching as you haven't found the necessary explanation of it all. Your Genesis passage doesn't make God responsible for evil. Evil 's the absence of God. There's a great human tendency to make God in our own likeness. That's more than evident in these exchanges. B.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Hi all,
Not read the book yet, so I can't comment on its content, but I can say that as a somewhat lapsed Catholic, what I've managed to pull together about Richard Dawkins' ideas from this forum makes a lot of very good sense.
I still believe in a higher power, but not in the light that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent - that makes little sense to me. As an all-powerful being, it would seem that He would have to be equal parts good and evil. There is a passage from the Old Testament that I find particularly enlightening in this respect (if anyone can track it down, I would be very grateful) but it speaks of God creating light and making the darkness, doing good and creating evil (or something to that effect).
That little piece of the Bible has driven my thoughts for a long time now, but I would never try and force my own thoughts on another.
'Unto you your religion; unto me my religion' / 'Let there be no compulsion in religion' - Koran 2:256
Martin, Manchester, Greater Manchester, England
If God does exist, and created himself out of nothing, and "is in the image" of a man (Genesis, chap. 1) and so thus has arms, legs, feet, elbows, knees, a head, genitalia, and presumably internal organs like kidneys, lungs, a spleen, a prostate gland etc.etc., (he can't surely be only a shell) and is therefore readily visible and not a product of H. G. Well's imagination (ie: The Invisible Man) why doesn't God get off his throne (which presumably he either constructed himself or bought from IKEA) make a spectacular entrance, shake hands with Mr Dawkins, and say "April Fool! Here I am!" Oh, and does God wear clothes? Mr Dawkins might be a bit taken aback if He turns out to be stark naked.
K Philips, London,
So Terry Wynne, you must mean irreligion has caused so much damage inside and outside religion. Surely, that's it.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Thanks, Joe.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Dawkins, like me, speaks out against religion at every possible opportunity because we see the damage that it does.
Terry Wynn, Liverpool,
No, Bryan, I'm not saying that.
The question I was responding to was...
'Why does Richard Dawkins spend so much time and effort in attacking something he does not think exists?'
There are 2 ways to deal with people who seek to follow intrusive militant spiritual politics.
Kill them or debate with them.
Dawkins has chosen the latter option.
Joe Cannon, Almeria, Spain
So, Joe, are you saying non believers are really good people by comparison?
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Paul, I was baptised and I believe none of it. Nobody baptised at birth cannot make a conscious decision.
Ben, York,
Because people who think god does 'exist' cause too much damned trouble
Joe Cannon, Almeria, Spain
I disagree with Dr Dawkins but suspect that people are mistaking his refreshingly direct style for fanaticism. Better to back off on the insults and ad hominem accusations, and grapple instead with the arguments. BTW, there is such a thing as a Christian child. It is one who is baptised. Also, people under 18 can experience and express belief.
Paul Danon, Acton, London, England
John, Richmond,
100 million did not die in Cambodia, the population at the time was only approx 7-7.5 million. Estimates put executions at somewhere around the 100,000 mark, the rest died from starvation and disease. Total esimates of dead range from 1-3 million. But lets not forget who was singled out for execution; speaking a foriegn language, wearing glasses, scaveging for food, crying for dead loved ones, businessmen and yes religious people aswell. But the regime did not execute them because of atheism but through fear they may oppose the regime and communism. The same goes for Russia under Stalin (who incidentally spent some time training to be a priest, so whether he was atheist or not is certainly a question). Then I suppose we must comment on Hitler, because you are bound to suggest he was an atheist, as this is a common misconception. In fact he was Catholic and made reference to his faith in both Mein Kampf and speeches. Why do you think he singled out the Jews?
Rob, Birmingham, UK
I don't particularly want religion (in that I would lose no sleep if it disappeared overnight), but so long as it does not harm or influence others, then it does not really matter.
Ben, York,
Dr Kevin Law, of course irreligion spoils religion which is worship of God. It really is bad science to say effects are around without adequate causes.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
"Why does Richard Dawkins spend so much time and effort in attacking something he does not think exists?"
Why do creationists spend so much time and effort in attacking evolution if they think there is no such thing?
Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK
The day someone shows me categorical proof a diety exists is the day I will accept the concept of god/s. Until then I just see sad, weak insecure human beings desperatly trying to reassure themselves that there is someone, somewhere looking out for them. A surrogate parent figure. Still we need religion. What else would give religious types the reason to fight wars and slaughter each other in petty squabbles about whose god is best.
Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK
Ben of York, you obviously want religion without its irreligion. Agreed.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Eddie Ward - Richard Dawkins spends 'so much time' attacking religion, or belief in god, not "god" itself, and is therefore attacking something which quite obviously does exist. It would be rather difficult to criticise a non-existent entitiy. Furthermore, the reasons that Dawkins attacks religion in all guises are outlined very clearly in his book. If you really wonder why he bothers attacking religion at all (apart from the obvious reasons that are self-evident to most people), why not read the book and find out? You might even be surprised...
Kate, Birmingham,
Professor Dawkins informs us that the Passionate can change itheir minds but the Fundamentalist cannot. Can he kindly provide the evidence for this.
He also advises us that as a true (weasel word) scientist he relies on evidence. What then is the position of leading scientists who are christians, moslems etc.
It seems to me that God can never be proved or disproved scientifically, though we won't stop trying, but that he can be proved or disproved to an individual's satisfaction.
Adrian Collier, Reigate, UK
Kevin of London, have you ever heard of the crusades, 30 years war etc? Some people, rightly or wrongly, go to war over religion.
Ben, York,
Mr Taylor,
If one flips open the Koran at random, what does one find?
p300: "Those who strive to confute Our revelations shall suffer the torment of a harrowing scourge"...."Truly those who deny the life to come are doomed for they have strayed far into error" (SHEBA 34:5 and 34:8)
You can find similar promises of the torture that awaits the infidel on any page. Isn't this at least an indication that Islam doesn't have quite the limited scope you suggest?
Paul Caira, London, UK
Mr Ted Baines
I am a Muslim and not offended one bit by your comments. I am a little dissapointed though that you describe Islam as a cult. If you read the Koran (and it is obvious you havent - not insult intended) then you would know it is not a cult.
"...would make no laws other than the law that we be good to others and preserve this earth and the rest of the universe" are already basic Islamic principles.
The main problem is that 'RELIGION' is not flawed, but it is the interprestation and implementation by man that is flawed. As an illustration, people may argue that a country's policy of theft is ok (ie you may not steal and will be punished for theft) but the interpretation of theft and implementation of punishment for theft are flawed.
I wish everyone continued enlightenment on this disucssion.
seth taylor, cambridge, uk
John Lancaster, the problems that concern you are not caused by the real liberation that religion is. They are cause by irreligion and false understanding.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Thomas Beecham said "most people do not understand music, they just like the noise it makes". And the same can be said of religion. Many derive comfort from it, others say it satifies man's inate spiritual dimension, others like the language and the music of its rituals. Those (mostly men) who have rammed religion down the throats of others, have, throughout history, given rise to most of the world's conflicts. Those who simply profess their faiths within themselves have done no harm to anyone, and should be respected. Those "fundamentalists" who have caused us such pain, misery and discomfort have retarded the "ascent of man" and deserve the wrath of all. The God thing is appealing as an idea, but not as a fact.
John Lancaster, Belgrade,
Certainly Richard Dawkins is an excellant writer. The problem is that he IS a FUNDAMENTALIST, and a high priest of evolution.
If he stuck to science he could debate creationists.
If he read the bible he could challenge Christians.
However he just resorts to insults & froth blowing. I wonder if he secretly realises that he is wrong?
Stephen Martin, East Grinstead, England
Mr Dawkins, the only criticism I have is that you seem to confuse faith and religion on several occassions. I believe in God, but recognise that it is a personal assertion only of importance to me, personally. Religion is a way of impressing others with your personal beliefs.
I don't ask others to share my belief, nor do I try to prove it to others. Its mine and not for sharing. Let someone else have their own belief. Something created the universe, and I choose to call it God. As you rightly say, that does not give me the right to inflict that belief on others. But doing so would be demanding religion - behaviour defined by custom and habit. I can do that without ever actually believing in God at all. Please don't confuse faith and religion - it upsets those of us who really do believe and don't feel the need to prove it.
KR, Stockport,
David Wilson, Hull, UK.
There are two points that need to be raised about your comments.
Firstly, why do you assume that Richard Dawkins has not read the bible? He is undoubtedly an intelligent and rigourously scientific scholar (this is not in doubt, you can disagree with his philosophies but as a scientist he is right up there) and thus it would be naive to assume he has not researched his subject before commenting.
Secondly, "most atheist believe Dan Brown to be a credible historian". I would be most enlightened to discover what statistics you base this observation on. In fact when the furore erupted around this book it was not atheist getting involved but the church which felt it had to renounce it, giving it more credibility than it deserved.
Perhaps, David, rather resorting to evidence you hope/believe/have faith is true, you could actually construct a reasoned argument based on some facts /evidence. But of course that would go against religious reasoning.
Rob, Birmingham, UK
My favorite comment is, "I don't believe in God - but I wouldn't call myself an atheist." I hear that comment a lot more frequently than one would imagine, particularly given that it is so utterly nonsensical.
The belief in the patently untrue is a poison. Our society is so addicted to this poison that merely declining to poison oneself is viewed with dangerous hostility.
Micheal Planck, Tucson, USA, AZ
I definitely believe in God.
Unlike fundamentalists, the usual believer, the usual
atheist, et al, when God gave me life on this planet,
I signed a pact with God;
I don't tell God how to run the universe,
and God doesn't tell me how to live my life,
God gave me life and said, "There it is, do by
it the best you can."
John, Memphis, TN
Dear Tom Price,
Why is God immune to reductio ad absurdum? Because you say so? If the assumption of God's existence leads to logical contradictions, as it unquestionably does, it is perfectly rational to conclude that he doesn't exist.
Where's the problem here? Where's my "mistake"? In what way does the 'form' not 'allow the inference'?
Paul Caira, London, UK
No scientific researcher wpuld conclude that something must be true brecause it is widely thought to be true. Where is the proof?
Bob Gibson, New York , USA
Paul Caira makes the mistake of thinking that a reductio ad absurdum renders God non existent. The logical form of a reductio ad absurdum doesn't permit this inference.
Tom Price, Beconsfield, Bucks
Dawkins' claim that "decent, understated religion is numerically negligible" simply does not reflect reality. And it's even more untrue of the UK than the US.
Let's take the US for a moment. Who are the dangerous crowd? The Southern Baptist Congress, and probably a bunch of small Pentecostal-flavoured groups.
According to http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html, they cover 17.4% of the population. That's smaller than the 24.5% of the population who are Roman Catholic, and it's not close to a majority of the 85% of Americans who self-identify as Christian. It's not even a majority of the 44% of the US population who regularly attend a Christian place of worship.
Andrew Bromage, Melbourne, Australia
No scientific researcher would conclude there's no adequate explanation just because he couldn'e see or imagine it.
Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK
Lucy,
No, it's quite easy to prove a negative. You can prove, for example that the square root of two can NOT be written as a fraction. You can prove that NO flat triangle has 270 degrees (by proving that they all have 180). You can prove that there are no gods (not like the Christian one, anyway) simply by observing that the ostensibly good and omnipotent God of created a world which contains evil. Wherever it came from, it ultimately came from him, and freewill arguments don't get us anywhere. (Why, for example, wouldn't they apply in Heaven?)
God is a logical contradition, and hence reductio absurdum, does not