Richard Dawkins
Hitchcock
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
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
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 success