David Jones,

"Looking some more at the nature of Christian 'certainty', it's worth reiterating that Christians do not know the source of the revelation"

And you know this because you are a Christian? Presumption again!!! Something of a theme, huh?.

I've already mentioned several times that if there is a God (which you don't know either way, so for you it should be hypothetical) then His omnipotence would provide objectivity (proof/true-knowledge). In the meantime I explained it is reasonable to suggest that God's revelations may be suited to the individual (ie. past generations free choices); explaining multiple faiths.

In the case of the individual Christian they may or may not have the revelation of God (many don't and are false Christians), and may or may not have God's confirmation of the truth of Christianity, or for a Catholic the confirmation of the reality of His Church, which would explain why many switch without yet having lost faith in God himself.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"Do you really know that because you can see and feel your hand that it concretely exists?"

I think therefore I am and, like everyone else, I have to assume my senses work in order to function. This line of argument takes you nowhere sensible here and you know it.

Your subjective certainty 'defence' is in tatters. Believe what you like but at least have the grace to recognise the irrationality of it in the real world.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones :"As far as presumption goes, we all have to answer the question "How should we live?" and practical atheists usually answer from what we know and can reason from."

All based on assumptions, which are themselves unproven. Do you really know that because you can see and feel your hand that it concretely exists? Of course not: you could be a spaghetti monster having a dream. You have no actual mechanism of knowledge or proof, which at least hypothetically a religious person does have. All the 'proofs' of atheists always turn out to be evidence, not proof. Non-religious reasoning is based on various assumptions, and in your case presumptions. Yes, that can be true of religious as well depending on how much God has revealed and how prone to presumption the individual is.

In the meantime religious rules are not forced by christian authorities on people of other faiths/belief (excepting abuse). But if the governing authorities are religious you should probably leave.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I mean that Catholic ethical teaching has a ring about it which demands consideration, irrespective of whether one accepts or rejects it. It's very pro love and pro life in itself.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

If I meet someone who is utterly convinced that they are the Messiah, as a result of a self-determined 'revelation', then are they being rational by acting as though they are the Messiah? As a practical atheist, would I be 'inexcusably rude and impertinent' to not give quarter to his certainty? I'm thinking of someone like David Icke, for instance.

What about someone who is certain he is Napoleon? Afterall, some people are convinced reincarnation is possible and I don't know for sure it isn't although I think it is so unlikely that I dismiss the possibility for all practical purposes. Is he the rational one given his certainty and am I the irrational one for not treating him as Napoleon in case I was wrong about reincarnation?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"...so long as you are willing to treat humans as commodities, the unborn as non-human and non-living, and treat choice as if it were freedom. Your 'ethics' are murderous."

Actually, I treat humans as 'ends in themselves', zygotes as clusters of cells, early term foetuses as the never unconscious which are ethically valuable but less valuable than the existing mother, and choice as freedom but only without causing significant harm.

As far as presumption goes, we all have to answer the question "How should we live?" and practical atheists usually answer from what we know and can reason from. What would be irrational is for people to be utterly stymied without guidance from people who claim various certainties of belief but cannot objectively prove them.

Hopefully, I've cast significant doubt in the last few messages on the validity and reliability of your subjective certainty defence to allow it to be reasonably dismissed by non-theists and non-revelation theists.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"...or, well, lots of things where Catholicism is ethically unsatisfactory. "

...so long as you are willing to treat humans as commodities, the unborn as non-human and non-living, and treat choice as if it were freedom. Your 'ethics' are murderous.

There is a high cost to being free, including death, that the irreligious are not willing to pay.

In anycase all your assertions presume the falseness of religion when in fact you cannot prove it. It is absurd to call us unethical when your 'ethics' kill the innocent while having no proof of your god-free position. Presumption strikes again.

In our case we do have proof. We have the one objective experience of this world : God's revelation of himself to the individual who asks for it. Since you have no mechanism to truly 'know' anything (for all you know this may be a dream) while the religious do have such a mechanism, at the very least hypothetically, it is incumbent on you to stop your anti-catholic assertions.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

So, Greg, your insistence on a particular and very narrow definition of atheism is simply so that you can dismiss it in a couple of sentences and not feel threatened by the undermining of your irrational religious beliefs by practical atheists.

Unfortunately, dismissing atheism because of the irrationality of being absolutely certain there is no god doesn't touch practical atheism and its body of rational arguments against theism. If you can delude yourself about something as basic as that then it's small wonder you can embrace something as comprehensively irrational as institutionalised religion.

Meaningful debate is about testing the validity and premises of specific arguments. If you think forcing an ill-fitting label onto the debater and dismissing the arguments en bloc because of the label is meaningful then you're very much mistaken.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg, I'm part of the universe so I can't be certain there is no god or gods. I'm absolutely sure of that. However, I give no more regard to promoters of the Christian god idea than I do to promoters of ideas about Ba'al Hammon or Zeus or Odin or Krishna. One might be true I suppose but, in the absence of convincing evidence, I might as well believe in fairies and unicorns too if I accept any one of them.

I realise this is unpalatable to you but I'm afraid that's what practical atheism is all about. You can define away atheism in your own mind as often as you wish using your straw man argument but it is still there in the public domain with all its clarity and reason in juxtaposition to the wild assertions and wishful thinking of the religious.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

If the main defence against irrationality for the religious is the 'certainty' some get from a non-rational, subjective experience then it's worth looking at that more closely.

I've had competing reports from Christians about the nature of the experience and clearly the experience produces differing moral directions in different people. The experience also seems to require prior knowledge of the 'good news' as it seems to be able to produce feeling or a mindset but not impart testable knowledge.

Of course, revelation is not confined to Christianity either. The prophet in Islam apparently had detailed revelation in competition to Christianity, and sufism has a similar mystic flavour to Christianity. So whose certainty are we to give quarter to when deciding or assessing ethics if the details are different? Do we work with our existing shared values which are probably biologically and socially based? Or do we say and do nothing in the face of differing certainties?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Looking some more at the nature of Christian 'certainty', it's worth reiterating that Christians do not know the source of the revelation. It could be the Christian devil for all they know. Or a rival god as in, say, the Cathar religion.

The Cathar parfaits must have been very certain of their gnostic 'knowledge' to endure being burned and tortured on the instructions of the Catholic pope of the time because of their religion and the perceived threat it presented!

Perhaps more likely, revelation could be a biological predisposition to religious-like belief together with a very worldly trigger when in a certain mindset. There are indications from neuro-biology along these lines which might be quite revealing in the not too distant future.

So, to summarise a couple of messages, there is a lot of 'certainty' of revelation around, with differing content, whose external source (if any) is not known by the recipient, and there are possible worldly explanations for it.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Father Bryan : "Being Catholic certainly helps enormously to work through these tricky decisions about life and death"

Father Bryan, it only helps if one has 'certainty' (which is required for genuine faith and belief), whose nature and source we are discussing. If we are without rational certainty then being Catholic helps nothing at all: in fact is much worse than being non-catholic (terror of hell etc).

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg, my point about multiple god-like things and observed differences in 'divine' moral guidance between Christians was to show that your reliance on a non-rational, subjective experience for certainty is irrational.

Dawkins, from what I've read, is not being irrational when he makes moral condemnations. Like most people (even the religious), he appeals to shared values and argues from those. When you say he's being irrational in not giving the benefit of the doubt, you assume there's a single and probably absolute moral theory to find. That's not necessarily so, and I doubt it is so too.

If the religious were honest and open then they would not appeal to shared values as they have a clear and defined basis for morals, and one which most people don't share. The sensible response for most people is to say: "go away, we don't agree on moral premises so you've immediately failed to convince me". That's not so with the non-religious.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Jesus has it right. God denying is hearing the Word and finding something else to do. A little more application persisted in, leads to life abundant. We need a rich soil for the Seed. Mary sat and listened.

Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

So, Greg, your insistence on a particular and very narrow definition of atheism is simply so that you can dismiss it in a couple of sentences and not feel threatened by the undermining of your irrational religious beliefs by practical atheists.

Unfortunately, dismissing atheism because of the irrationality of being absolutely certain there is no god doesn't touch practical atheism and its body of rational arguments against theism. If you can delude yourself about something as basic as that then it's small wonder you can embrace something as comprehensively irrational as institutionalised religion.

Meaningful debate is about testing the validity and premises of specific arguments. If you think forcing an ill-fitting label onto the debater and dismissing the arguments en bloc because of the label is meaningful then you're very much mistaken.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg - it's nice to have a forthright discussion, but why are you so insulting and hurtful to atheists if (?) you're sure of your position? You accuse David of being rude and impertinent. and making "nutty" statements. But he is merely stating his case in normal, polite terms. -- And it is intolerable how you repeatedly try to make us atheists into "believers" by insisting on your preferred definition of atheism.. You seem frightened to admit that there are people who are without faith, godless, and who don't need any belief. Perhaps this makes you doubt your own belief. -- You say we don't "actually know the answer as to whether or not religious claims are true". Well, Greg, with all due respect, neither do you. So much for the "certainty of religious persons". -- Greg, I refer you back to my previous comment about the rationality of a-theism as opposed to agnosticism. Please read it again, and give me a straight and, if possible, polite reply.

alan, cologne,

Although many instances of evil infiltration and bad approaches within religion can be cited, nothing disposes us towards evil more than denying or ignoring God. God is the heart and soul of all morality, especially in the area of enthusiasm, persistence and good motivation.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Greg, my point about multiple god-like things and observed differences in 'divine' moral guidance between Christians was to show that your reliance on a non-rational, subjective experience for certainty is irrational.

Dawkins, from what I've read, is not being irrational when he makes moral condemnations. Like most people (even the religious), he appeals to shared values and argues from those. When you say he's being irrational in not giving the benefit of the doubt, you assume there's a single and probably absolute moral theory to find. That's not necessarily so, and I doubt it is so too.

If the religious were honest and open then they would not appeal to shared values as they have a clear and defined basis for morals, and one which most people don't share. The sensible response for most people is to say: "go away, we don't agree on moral premises so you've immediately failed to convince me". That's not so with the non-religious.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg, I'm part of the universe so I can't be certain there is no god or gods. I'm absolutely sure of that. However, I give no more regard to promoters of the Christian god idea than I do to promoters of ideas about Ba'al Hammon or Zeus or Odin or Krishna. One might be true I suppose but, in the absence of convincing evidence, I might as well believe in fairies and unicorns too if I accept any one of them.

I realise this is unpalatable to you but I'm afraid that's what practical atheism is all about. You can define away atheism in your own mind as often as you wish using your straw man argument but it is still there in the public domain with all its clarity and reason in juxtaposition to the wild assertions and wishful thinking of the religious..

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David Jones : "It's the reality of institutionalised religion that's cosmetic with respect to those very real concerns. "

That's total presumption on your part: and you don't actually know the answer as to whether or not religious claims are true, since no one has proven that God doe snot exist. Plus you give no quarter to the certainty of religious persons, which is inexcusably rude and impertinent of you.

It is actually quite nutty of you to say something like that and yet claim to lack belief rather than actively believe there is no God. You are demonstrating irrationality.

Of course more likely you are saying these things because in fact you don't lack belief but rather actively believe there is no God, and are therefore a true atheist. In which case you are again irrational since your belief/disbelief has no proof: your certainty (which is implied by belief) is without proper grounds.

Most unscientific of you, ironically.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones of Loughborough, UK. Of course institutionalised religious can be bereft of love like the rest of us yet the Way, Truth and Life that respects life and sees the essence of sexuality to be pouring out from the procreative understanding leads to a hundred times more friendship and love. Love comes first and foremost from a respectful attitude.That's what I'm saying.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan, those people have real lives, here and now, and they do need love and compassion and respect. It's the reality of institutiuonalised religion that's cosmetic with respect to those very real concerns.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I had those things inmind when I said what I said, David Jones of Loughborough. We need the reality of love , not the cosmetic.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

"Being Catholic certainly helps enormously to work through these tricky decisions about life and death"

Unless you're homosexual, or living in a country with high HIV incidence, or the possible beneficiary of stem cell research, or a child in need of adoption, or dying with a degenerative disease, or, well, lots of things where Catholicism is ethically unsatisfactory.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

You missed the word 'decisions' in what I wrote, Alan of Cologne. Religion is actually about finding love in this life and hereafter. Your summary is rather wanting.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Actually, Bryan, you are quite right. That's what it's really all about - life and death. So many people are fearful of death and what will be afterwards. Then someone comes along and says everything is OK. As long as you worship this god, you'll have a blissful, eternal afterlife in paradise with him. No wonder so many people are only too eager to become faithful. -- Then along comes one of those awful atheists and says "Look, that's wishful thinking" and casts doubts on this cosy prospect of an eternal afterlife (to make up for the deprivations and injustices of the present one). And the faithful find these doubts very disturbing. So the best thing to do is to reassure themselves by telling that awful atheist that he doesn't know what he's missing, having no faith. -- (I've tried to sum it up in less than 1000 characters.)

alan, colgone,

Being Catholic certainly helps enormously to work through these tricky decisions about life and death

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

I'd like to ask Greg and other contributors these questions:
At 2pm on 23rd Sept. 2007 I INVENTED a "five-legged spotted galactic goblin living in a black hole". Now no sane person can "believe" he really exists. But his existence cannot be logically disproved . Now to my questions:-
Does the fact that it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of a concept (in this case: my goblin) preclude the total, rational and logical disbelief in this concept?
If total disbelief in my goblin is logical and rational, is it also logically and rationally possible in the case of Zeus or Thor?
Or god?
Does this make non-believers atheists or agnostics?
I would appreciate answers from those cleverer than I.

alan, cologne,

alan, cologne,

"...then all I can say is:- Greg, you'll believe in anything! Which proves my point, doesn't it?"

You also don't know that your 5 legged creature isn't an idea put in to your head by a divine being in preparation for the fact that you are one of them, and not a human. You shouldn't be so hasty to believe without proof.

"The Matrix" is a good illustration of this philosophical problem. Perhaps you didn't see it, or didn't understand its implications.

In anycase: so much for your claims to logical thought: I said I am agnostic. I never said anything about believing in these ideas. And the only things I do believe have been proven to me. Seems I am more 'logical' than you. Which rather proves my point (that atheists are irrational), doesn't it?

Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course. Bye.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Aha, Greg, you've let the cat out of the bag now. You say you're definitely agnostic regarding the existence of fairies. Well what about the existence of the Five Legged Spotted Galactic Goblin living in a Black Hole (I've just invented him). If you're agnostic about him too, i.e. you're not sure whether to believe in his existence or not, then all I can say is:- Greg, you'll believe in anything! Which proves my point, doesn't it?
---- You see, I don't believe in him, totally, 100% not. That's my atheistic position.

alan, cologne,

David Jones: "Where does demanding this definition get you..." [ re: Atheism : to deny the gods/God]

It is THE definition. Aren't you the one who insisted on using a dictionary? I'm only demanding that atheists clarify their positions, and not mangle definitions as they have with the words 'belief' and 'faith'.

It is only atheists who have begun to redefine the word 'Atheism' as passive 'unbelief'/lack of belief, like alan from cologne appealing to the greek root 'a' - 'lack'. This confuses everyone and is not consistent with morally condemning religious believers since unbelievers must give the benefit of the doubt. And yet all the while 'agnostic' is much the best fit to describe the unbeliever.

Atheists who confuse the meanings of these words also hide their irrationality, make themselves moving targets and make meaningful debate impossible. The atheist would convince agnostics to be enemies of the religious also, who would otherwise not have been.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones "So, lying to a murderer to save a potential victim's life is out then?"

Indeed. Catholics are only allowed to "keep silence", even if that silence reveals the truth. As Christ says : "If you deny me I will deny you", which could apply to the above problem in a more extreme version. His statement appears to be unconditional. No where else in what He says, that I am aware of, moderates its hardness.

Many Christian writers have tried to get around it, but Catholics aren't allowed. Interestingly it is probably a venial sin, ie. harms friendship with God, but does not break it. A true saint would not do it. Much depends on trust in God: if you don't trust him much then you are more likely to lie. But trusting him also means the possibility of the worst of earthly outcomes: loss of all you hold dear. Christians don't have it easy.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones,

Multiple god theory : philosophically a hypothetical God is reality itself, ie Truth. Mormons try to say that each person of the Christian Trinity is a separate God of infinite truth. However that is to treat truth like a material thing, as separate blobs. When I point at a fork and say "That is a fork" three times I don't get 3 separate truths: they are the same truth. Nevertheless 3 aspects of the same truth may be possible (ie. the Trinity).

Religious differences : the revelations of God may be merciful and so vary by capacity and situation in so far as a Catholic is concerned (Catholics accept that at core other faiths have truth with error, and lack the fullness of Truth, but may be saved without conversion). Also all have free-will (even Popes) and can presume and sin. Ie. Creationists that the Bible is literal. All (true) religious are at least given the basic revelation (that God is), but more than that may require our asking, which presumption defeats.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Alan, Cologne,

"But I am as much atheistic in my view of god as you presumably are in your view of the Spaghetti Monster, or Father Christmas, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. - Greg, tell me please, are you "agnostic" or are you "atheistic" about the existence of these non-provable concepts"

he he. Alright: I am definately agnostic. Yes, truly. I'd be jolly surprised if fairy's existed, but it isn't inconcievable. As for the SM, well I have to admit that though I know without spiritual doubt (mental doubt is another thing) that God is and that the Catholic Church is true, I don't know that I am not otherwise a loony typing on an imaginary keyboard in an asylum, and that indeed there are no humans, only spaghetti monsters, and I am in fact a spaghetti monster. I love the irony; nearly Divine. Possible, though. Dawkins may be right: you might be a spaghetti monster having a most lucid dream.

I try to presume nothing. I strive to believe only God and the Church.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"Catholics don't allow for the end justifying the means, so condoms are out."

So, lying to a murderer to save a potential victim's life is out then?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

I have another thought on: "they should avoid moral condemnation because they must give the benefit of the doubt; it would be irrational not to".

A religious person may have had a non-rational, subjective revelation and thus have a sense of certainty others without a revelation lack. However, if there could be multiple god-like things giving subjective revelations of their being the only god-like thing then the religious person cannot rationally make moral condemnations either.

Afterall, there is no way he can know for sure that the god-like thing is actually the supreme god and the source of a universal and absolute morality so he must give the benefit of doubt to others. Given that there are apparently heartfelt arguments in the Christian world about moral direction (in particular about sexual ethics), it's reasonable to at least allow the possibility that the revelations are all authentic but different to some degree or other.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg - still harping on definitions? Well, I don't have an OED handy, but you quote it as saying "not to believe". QED. (That's me in a nutshell.) -- As for "rejecting the truth", well it's a matter of opinion what the "truth" is. And your opinion is different from mine. -- Actually, the differentiation between agnosticism and atheism is indeed interesting. Agnostics wobble - they don't like to commit themselves one way or the other. As an atheist I have as much belief in god as you, Greg, presumably have in the Spaghetti monster. I realise that we can't prove or disprove the existence of either. But I am as much atheistic in my view of god as you presumably are in your view of the Spaghetti Monster, or Father Christmas, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. - Greg, tell me please, are you "agnostic" or are you "atheistic" about the existence of these non-provable concepts. - Come on, Greg, admit it! -- (I would like a straight answer.)

alan, cologne,

"If a person does not have certain knowledge, like the agnostic, then they should avoid moral condemnation because they must give the benefit of the doubt; it would be irrational not to."

Greg, there are people who are utterly convinced that they're Napoleon or the messiah. There are Christians who are utterly convinced they have had revelations from their god too yet have a different moral compass to you and other Christians. The Anglican Communion is currently bordering on a schism because of it!

People of all types can quite rationally make moral condemnations provided they can argue their case from moral principles. The condemnations, like yours, are dependent on those principles. This is why atheists like me can disregard the condemnations of the religious because we don't accept your premises.

Your rationality is based on a non-rational, subjective experience. That might be okay for you but it's useless in the real world where ethics are public and shared.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Bryan - you mention "other forms of worship". Didn't god say in the first (?) commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? What other gods? To which of these other gods was he referring in his commandment? What has become of these other gods? Just how many gods are they? Where are they now? Are they still around? If so, why should we plump for this particular god who seems to want full attention for himself like some egomaniac? Sounds a bit selfish to me. If I'm going to believe in a god, I'd certainly like a choice between the different gods on offer, rather than have my choice arbitrarily limited to one. -- (Please don't say the other gods are money or sex or something like that. They are not gods.)

alan, cologne ,

alan cologne,

Thanks for the selective dictionary quoting. You'll find that the OED and Websters and the Encyclopedia Britannica don't support your position. Nor does history. But taking your definition :

"OED : disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of."

Notice the mix of both meanings. But in authoritative dictionaries atheist includes "deny [or disbelieve]..." on the same line, which means only the active "Reject the truth...." definition is intended since otherwise they would have made second definition.

As Britannica says : "Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not...."

....just as does your passive "unbelief".

The commentators do note that modern atheists often wish to be called 'unbelievers'. The "weak" atheism crowd. Actually just the confused and confusing crowd.

Admit it: you're an agnostic.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg - this is getting tiresome. For your sake, I checked the dictionary definition of atheism. My Chambers says "A disbelief in the existence of a god", so I then checked what "disbelief" means and Cassels says "to have no faith ". An atheist is therefore someone who has "no faith in the existence of god". QED. -- My Collins says atheism is "rejection of belief in god" and so I checked what "rejection" means, and Collins says "to reject" means "to refuse to accept". Therefore an atheist is someone who "refuses to accept a belief in god". QED. -- Gregg, you may prefer your definition, but I prefer to go along with the dictionary definitions. They make me a 100%, rational, atheist. I hope you'll now accept that, and stop trying to make me either irrational or a wobbly agnostic. -- If god wants to reveal himself to me, he'd better hurry up, as I'm getting rather old. But if he did, I'd wilingly become a believer. The same applies, of course, to the Spaghetti Monster.

alan, cologne,

I know you won't like it, Alan of Cologne, but the greatest cause of instability, growth of delusions and irrationality is the dropping of God worship in favour of all the other forms of worship in which we can indulge. That First Commandment is unbeatable in all its implications. It's not just a fairy tale you know, it's a reality.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Alan, cologne,

Atheist is not defined as "without god" despite the greek. True enough: if you were to take the greek as the definition it allows for "lack of belief", but the formal definition is still "To Deny the gods/God". The irrationality of the genuine atheist (which you aren't) is in having certainty/belief without proof, which ironically is how the word 'faith' has been redefined by atheists. Actually it is more like "To believe because God has proven it", as God does to the individual who sincerely asks, ie "If you exist, God, please reveal yourself".

David Jones :

If a person does not have certain knowledge, like the agnostic, then they should avoid moral condemnation because they must give the benefit of the doubt; it would be irrational not to. So Dawkins is irrational as an agnostic ("lack of belief"), and atheists are irrational by definition, so either way Dawkins is irrational. Catholics don't allow for the end justifying the means, so condoms are out.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

" Keep in mind that the proper definition of atheist is "To deny the gods/God"" Perhaps we ought to call it the Lorriman definition for clarity?

Where does demanding this definition get you and why are you arguing for it across multiple sections here and multiple news sites? I'm honestly interested.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Greg - if you are really open to logical argument (which I'm beginning to doubt), then consider the following. -- An absence of belief is NOT the same as a belief in its absence, repeat: An absence of belief is NOT the same as a belief in its absence. And as belief is absent in me, I don't have a belief. So how can I "believe" my belief is absent? I hope that point is now quite clear. -- Secondly, about atheist or agnostic. Greg, my non-belief is 100%. If you're prepared to accept logic, that makes me a 100% a-theist. I'll put it another way to make it abundantly clear to you: A-theism means "without god", and l am 100% without god. I hope that's clear. -- Agnostics wobble over whether to believe in god or not. I don't.
(Forget about baskets full of apples.)

alan, cologne,

Sorry, but I get rather annoyed when told that I am "irrational" if I say I'm an atheist. Atheism is not irrational. Atheism is perfectly rational. A-theism means "without god". And, yes, I'm 100% without god. That makes me a perfectly logical, reasonable, rational atheist. ( Not a wobbly agnostic.) I hope I don't have to explain this again. ----------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, god-believers take up an "atheistic" (rather than an agnostic) position with regard to, say, pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. They are 100% without belief in them., even though they can't prove it.

alan, cologne,

Alan, cologne "Non-believers are not doing something - isn't that passive?"

Well yes, but not when you tack on "..because there is no God", as does the atheist. Keep in mind that the proper definition of atheist is "To deny the gods/God", which is active and not the same as "To not recognise the gods/God" which is passive. Your unqualified statement,above, is therefore agnostic compatible.

A belief in an absence is still a belief (atheist), rather than a lack of belief (agnostic). Rather like looking in to an empty basket and saying "I believe there are no apples in the basket" which is active rather than "I have no belief in there being apples in the basket." which is passive and doesn't ackowledge either possibility: apples or no apples..

In my experience most that call themselves atheists admit that there is a "highly unlikely" possibility of the existence of God: as such they are actually agnostic: they do not really deny the Divine, but are of strong opinion (not belief)

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg: "However his moral condemnations of religious suggests that he is truly a disbeliever: an atheist, and therefore irrational." ... if one accepts your specialist definition.

Atheists and theists make moral arguments based on different premises. We might end up with a similar conclusion a lot of the time thus sharing ethics but that isn't necessarily so. Ethics are about behaviour, not mere intellectual argument, and are therefore very important.

For example, discouraging the use of condoms in areas of high HIV incidence through religious hegemony and the use of missionaries is an evil act fully deserving of moral condemnation by my moral assessment. It also puts a duty on people with other moral principles to act against evil like that.

Let's suppose we accept your sophistry and most atheists allow your re-labelling as almost-atheist agnostics. Where does that get you and why are you arguing for it? It doesn't buy you any more legitimacy.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Perhaps many of the posters below should read The God Delusion before creating a straw man from Professor Dawkins' views. He isn't trying to ban religion but he believes religious beliefs shouldn't be given special privilege, whether in public funding of faith schools, bishops in the House of Lords, or simple immunity from criticism (which many of the posters seem to advocate). Religious beliefs are just opinions. You wouldn't want special privileges for those who joined New Labour or the Conservatives over those who had no political affiliations so why single out religious beliefs for special attention? Have whatever beliefs you want, just don't expect everyone else to uncritically accept them because you're too precious to have them challenged!

Simon Robinson, London,

Gregg - I hardly expect anyone who's "studied theology" to have any great regard for logical thought. You seem to be a prime example. The "positive act" you refer to is the act of believing in a god by the faithful. Not believing is indeed a passive act. Non-believers are not doing something - isn't that passive? Believers are doing something - believing - and that's a positive act, and therefore something for which they have the burden of justification. -- My definition of atheism is "not believing". The definition you prefer is "denying god". Not in logical terms, but only in practical terms, do I "deny" god - to the same extent (100%?) as you deny the pink unicorn in the sky. I therefore feel entitled to call myself an atheist - and I'm proud of it. -- (-Why do I have to keep explaining this?)

alan, cologne,

David Jones:"If your definition of atheism doesn't cover professional atheists like Dawkins..."

Nice that you mention him. Without making proper distinctions communication is impossible, that's why it is naughty of atheists to muddy the waters by attempting to redefine one thing in to something else that already has a word, ie twisting 'agnostic' to mean 'atheist'.

Dawkins is a case in point : he uses the word atheist to describe himself, but then claims unbelief (lack of belief) because he, like many educated atheists, is aware of my so-called "specialist argument" (lack of proof of non-existence hence irrational belief of the atheist). So technically he would be an agnostic. However his moral condemnations of religious suggests that he is truly a disbeliever: an atheist, and therefore irrational.

Part 2: the Antlantean has no mechanism of knowledge. The religious has the omnipotence of a hypothetical God: that He could prove himself. So we cannot be presumed irrational

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"It is strange how many professed atheists actually have no real understanding of Christianity at all."

Presumably, as a Christian you doubt every other religion. Do you need a "real understanding" of Hinduism, animism, Norse paganism etc. to doubt them?

It is clear that many of the people here criticising Dawkins for condemning religion whilst having no background in theology, have not read a single one of his books (for example, someone called him "postmodern", even though he often criticises such thinking).

Why do atheists have to be experts on religion before they can doubt it whilst theists can dismiss others having no knowledge of their ideas?

Is knowing that other religions and atheism are wrong without taking ten minutes to learn about them a privilege that only religious people have? "I don't need to understand the things I criticise, it's part of my faith"

Ana Theist, somewhere,

Paul Farrant of Sevenoaks. You refer to God as if He is finite. The infinite One has no benefit from our prayers. Trusting through all the mysteries, the great dividends are ours.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Surely a god who is truly great doesn't need people to worship him but release them from that daily grind and get on with living their brief lives. Having made a couple of design faults, it surely doesn't take a couple of thousand years to put them straight given the very brief time it took to create the miracle. A bit of humility from the great one wouldn't go a miss.

Paul Farrant, Sevenoaks,

Greg: "I've studied theology." So what? You could be a Jesuit priest for all I care. Words are symbols for other things. If your definition of atheism doesn't cover professional atheists like Dawkins then of what worth is it other than as a base for your contrived argument?

As to the sort of 'knowledge' you consider proof (to yourself), I'm reminded of the woman Dawkins interviewed in "Enemies of Reason" who claimed we were descended from Atlanteans with special DNA. How did she support the claim? Well, she just 'knew' deep down. I'm sure the rest of us know she's just irrational, at least with respect to that particular belief anyway.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"God lowers himself to our level, dies the worst of deaths in order to mercifully rescue us from having not much more than the life of a chicken, and by his own power breaths life in to the clay of his unjustly murdered body, thus re-asserting justice."

It's probably not odd to people who have been brought up with concepts like this but I can't tell you how really odd and creepy that sounds.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Mark, London :

"once you've grasped the utter nonsense of religion such as believing that someone actually, physically did die and then came back to life before disappearing up into the sky to live with his Dad"

What's wrong with that? Let's reword it :

God lowers himself to our level, dies the worst of deaths in order to mercifully rescue us from having not much more than the life of a chicken, and by his own power breaths life in to the clay of his unjustly murdered body, thus re-asserting justice.

Your wording appears to presume that the material is all there is, and that there is no Divine being. I would appear to presume the existence of such a being. Only one of us can be right.

Your position is unproven and therefore irrational (unless you think evidence is the same as proof). The Christian position is that God proves himself, and you can not know that that is either true of false.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David Jones,

I've studied theology. I'm quite aware that atheist websites participate in the confusing of terms. Many atheist say things like "If we define atheism as a lack of belief....". They can define it as whatever they like but it remains "To deny the gods/God", and is a positive not a passive act. The best fit for the passive is the agnostic.

Faith has also been redefined by modern philosophers as "Belief without knowledge", which is obviously irrational, and fits the atheist position well both in deriding that of religious, and ironically in their own belief as well. However the origin of the word 'faith' does not imply believing without knowledge, indeed quite the opposite. Religious believers believe because they have proof from God, given individually, and there for the asking. In other words they believe because of knowledge.

You'll find "Belief without knowledge" as the definition of 'faith' in your dictionaries, so I wouldn't depend on them too heavily.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Paul Medhurst: "If there is no truth in Christianity, one can't help but wonder why Atheists so frantically and persistently try to destroy Christian credibility?"

Your hyperbole aside, it's because it's not limited to the private realm. It's also not just Christianity but other religions.

In the UK, we have an established church and bishops are part of the legislature as a result. Christianity is also involved in politics through its individual members and through lobby groups.

There's still the opinion around that the religious have some special privilege over morals that the non-religious don't have.

There's also some sort of inappropriate privilege accorded to religions over their beliefs that don't seem to apply to other political groups, such as the Labour Party or the BNP. We're told to respect religious belief, and some of the religious try to limit freedom of expression: witness the furore about Jerry Springer The Opera, the Sikh play, and the Danish cartoons.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Yes, matter can only be thoroughly explained by non matter (spiritual). Eternally existing universes are eternally contingent, needing spiritual explanation. Spiritual experiences need to be recognised as was expertedly done by Aldous Huxley (Perennial Philosophy) in his scientific study which is profound compared with what one reads in current Scientific journals. It's not just a question of comforting hymns and funny inside feelings but of the necessary interior conversion for all our sakes. The Bible needs interpretaion especially in regard to the Senses.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

"Atheism is *not* defined as a 'lack of belief' the modern liking for mangling of definitions notwithstanding. It's proper definition is "To deny the gods/God". Only the ignorant confuse it with agnosticism,

There is nothing curious in the irrationality of the atheist as belief requires proof which they don't have. Evidence if only enough for an opinion, which makes for an agnostic."

Greg, please do yourself and atheists a favour by buying a good dictionary and visiting a few atheism websites. You persist in trying to force this quirky, contrived definition so you can build your specialist argument on the top. It's really quite pointless.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Jesus speaks of a hundredfold reward in interior life of peace, joy and love by going away from the purely materialistic existence. Hundreds of thousands tesify to its truth. It's much, much more than comforting services.It's not just a funny inside feeling. It's there for the finding. Do not let the irreligion that's also within religion blind you to this fact.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with Father Bryan Storey. Surely to suggest that the existence of the universe is a miracle is 'skating around the problem'. Why does the 'miracle' of existence have to be a miracle? Why can't an infinite universe exist independently of a creator? To me an infinite and eternal universe that exists out of subtle logical necessity sounds infinitely more beautiful and wondrous than something slapped together 'in seven days'.

Stephen Hill, London, UK

Methinks Professor Dawkins protests far too much and with a lot of noise. For all he says, he doesn't quite close the door. For all his amazing discoveries, he at present shows no idea of the wonders of the spiritual life in a world of discovery here and now if he'd apply a quarter of the energy in that direction. I'm glad he's left the door ajar. Those beautiful liturgies are nothing by comparison.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

From my experience religion has only brought about division, antagonism and hartred. I'm starting to question whether God is really a God of Love and Peace or God who hates, and is full of rage and anger.

Sam Mira, Manchester, UK

Father Storey - you say atheists skate around the issue of existence. I confess I do not know how the first particle came into being. And, quite frankly, it does not bother me. I do not see the need to place faith in there being some overarching God to explain what I do not know. I accept my personal ignorance and know that there is a logical explanation that we may or may not establish at some time in the future. You chose to believe in a construct that has its origins in a time when ignorance ruled, when many thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the world. If it does require a 'god' to explain the start of the world then all I can say is that having pressed the button he buggered off to find something more exciting to do because nothing since then suggests he takes any interest in what he created. As for heaven and hell and life after death - pure fantasy. If there is a judgment day it will be based on what you did not what you did or did not believe.

Kevin Miller, Kent,

A wonderful article, and refreshing for an atheist viewpoint to be expressed without resorting to the fanatical rhetoric employed by some others.
And if anyone is seeking "scientific" evidence of God's existence or non-existence, why not read "The Language of God", written by Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project - who takes the opposing view to Dawkins? I don't think it is possible for science to categorically prove or disprove the existence of God - the reason we call it faith is that we don't need physical proofs.
For the record, I am a Christian - but I don't consider myself intellectually deficient because of it. I do, however, wonder why certain atheists find it necessary to denigrate my intelligence and/or character because I choose to believe something they don't.

AJ, Brisbane, Australia

It is strange how many professed atheists actually have no real understanding of Christianity at all. Perhaps not so strange - some churches & supposed 'Christians' are in a similar fog - an inherited security blanket, as some have pointed out.
Science cannot prove or disprove God - it is only concerned with the nuts and bolts of the universe, & how it has evolved. It has nothing to say about values or ultimate meaning. Michael Polanyi, a famous Professor of Chemistry, saw that the universe is not self-explanatory. To understand the scientific process itself, a personal dimension is needed. In his 'Personal Knowledge' he discusses how scientific work requires a link between transcendence & immanence, knower & known, subject & object (though most scientists don't think about this).
As for Christianity, at its heart is a contemplative understanding of the divine - see Olivier Clement's 'The Roots of Christian Mysticism' & books by Anthony Bloom, John Main & Thomas Merton.

Dave, Wrexham,

One would think that Atheism would be a confident end in itself - but obviously not - it also has it's share of 'evangelists' with an urgent mission - to try to disprove God's existence as taught by Christianity (Judaism seems more rarely attacked).

If there is no truth in Christianity, one can't help but wonder why Atheists so frantically and persistently try to destroy Christian credibility ? Perhaps for the same reasons that the Soviets put more than 1000 agents through the seminaries to discredit the Church from within ?

Christianity seems to pose a serious threat to Atheists. How strange this fear which grips them, if its root cause really doesn't exist…

Unfortunately, Atheists don't seem to present a shred of evidence to prove their case.

My learned professional peer, Professor Dawkins, blends established fact with personal speculation and cobbles it to into a single commentary in which fact and truth is no longer distinguishable - to a degree that would put Fox news to shame.

Paul Medhurst, Vienna, Austria

I am always deeply concerned by the arguments that it’s wrong for people of religion to proselytise, yet atheists seem to proselytise more than anyone else. Many atheists vehemently deride anyone who has a religious faith and maintain that we all must follow their line of ‘Anti-God’ thinking. For example, why do atheists outside of Africa try to impose their religion upon Christians, Muslims, Animists and so on within Africa? South America is generally Catholic, Africa is Christian, Muslim or Animist, Far Asia is generally Buddhist and central near Asia Muslim. India is Hindu, Muslim and Christian. Europe is the only continent on earth that seems to deny the presence of a God. Is Europe proselytising another Eurocentric philosophy to the rest of the world in the form of Atheism again? Is Europe once again arrogantly telling the world how to think because it knows beset as an enlightened society? No, Europe would never do that after past colonial lessons – would they?

James, Bristol, Bristol

I apologize. I am an absolute athiest. I do not beleive in any organized religion. Then again i do not beleive in any religion. i look at it all as the same mythological concoction of an elder or preist or king. To me not a single one of any (and I do mean any) religion holds any truth. It is all hope for life after death and a means to control you (or at least scare you) while you are on this earth in there domain. Jesus and Mohammed and Krieshnu(forgive my spelling) are great role models but nothing more. They are not prophets nor the son of god nor god but means to control u. Why do they call it faith?

Jeffrey Lawrence Hardy, Greenville, sc

Nina, in the USA says "all the well meaning atheist and agnostics out there... when it's your turn to die,.... to your agony and regret, you will find out that your views on the non-existence of God - though well intentioned and sincere are wrong." I'm not sure its Christian to take such relish in phrases like "your agony" Nina. I assume you are a Christian and not for example a Bhuddist - they have a gentler view of life! If death proves me wrong and god exists I take comfort that a good god will be so foolish as to judge people by which relgious club they joined or whether they joined one at all. Why exclude the greater part of mankind just because they never heard or failed to appreciate the Christian message? Silly thought! God will decide on the basis of what sort of life you lead. The Amazionian Indian who has yet to receive the benefit of American culture must have as good if not better chance of heaven than anyone else. Do good things - the rest is fantasy!

Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,

Kidd Garrett,

Atheism is *not* defined as a 'lack of belief' the modern liking for mangling of definitions notwithstanding. It's proper definition is "To deny the gods/God". Only the ignorant confuse it with agnosticism,

There is nothing curious in the irrationality of the atheist as belief requires proof which they don't have. Evidence if only enough for an opinion, which makes for an agnostic.

Neither is the 'belief' of the atheist equivalent to that of the religious since the religious claims proof by direct Divine revelation, without need of material evidence, so they have proper grounds for belief and cannot be presumed to be irrational.

Plenty of christians,however, have been hoodwinked in to believing that faith is "Belief without knowledge", which is even taught to Cathilic school kids, when in fact it is "Belief because of knowledge". And there are many christians who have never had an authentic experience of God and actually do not have faith.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

All the 'atheists' I've ever known skate around the problem of thoroughly accounting for existence. If you stop of course, you're there, encountering the spiritual .

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Thank you Mr Linklater for honesty without antagonism. I'm happy to live in a world which encompasses faith (my personal stance) and atheism, happy to assume that everyone sincerely thinks through the arguments and comes to a rational conclusion (as I have). I'm happy to admit that a rational consideration of the evidence can lead people to conclude there is no god, and I wouldn't criticise the intellectual rigour they have applied. I simply disagree with their conclusions. I'm not about to tell Richard Dawkins what he "should" believe, or tell Polly Toynbee what she "ought" to do, although I notice a lot of shoulds and oughts coming from thier supporters in this long, long thread. I would, however, prefer to have a rational discussion without the pouring of intellectual scorn on those who clearly don't have the requisite clarity of vision to agree...
Perhaps it would be fairer to acknowledge the intellectual richness of debate and enquiry in communities of faith as well.

Phil Clare, Oxford, UK

Oh Hannah, you see the problem that Dawkins and all atheists have is that, once you've grasped the utter nonsense of religion such as believing that someone actually, physically did die and then came back to life before disappearing up into the sky to live with his Dad, you find it impossible to engage in arguments over religion at that childish level. The argument moves away from finding those kinds of proof and towards trying to counter the deeply annoying fact that humanity is still bogged down and held back by these archaic and naive beliefs. It's important to counter religion, especially in it's most feeble minded adherents, as they are just encouraging it's leaders to carry on with the whole, control freak charade. Disproving what is obviously mumbo jumbo is pointless, there are bigger fish to fry.

Mark, London,

Dawkins/Toynbee's 'militant convictions' throw the baby out with the bath-water. Instead of their negativity we need a strong system of positive and shared values. In its absence flourish religious extremism, self-centred consumerism, unruly and uncaring yob-culture. .

The Single Equality Duty is about to impose on us a duty to promote equality between people of different religions/beliefs. This highly subjective and emotionally charged area should be excluded, being very different from the other grounds for equality, in that it cannot be objectively defined , and gives rise to infinite variety of interpretation and disagreement.

But we need to recall that for centuries Christian ethics have underpinned our society. We have worked hard to develop a society where men, women and gays can work happily side by side and where uncovered faces promote communication and openness.

Instead of Dawkins/Toynbee negativity, we need to promote the shared values of our nation and heritage.

Jill, London,

"I find myself repelled by the way that Professor Dawkins so expertly picks off each and every argument put up by those who cling to their faith, while the virulence of Toynbee’s attacks on the evils of state-sponsored religion is unattractive, at best. They may be intellectually rigorous, but they do not win me over."
"Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives"
People like yourself use the terms "rant" and "smug" to describe the indisputable logic of Dawkins.
You don't like the way it sounds because deep down, inside your mind, you want to believe.
There might be a god. But there also might be a 1,000 pound gorilla that's going to eat you as soon as you're done reading this.
Dawkins said some of his favourite music stems from religion. Sure there's good things about religious practices, albeit few, but to think that god had something to do with it is inept.

pffft, lethbridge", Can, AB

Cleverer people than Dawkins have believed in God.

Marie-Louise, Brussels, Belgium

You don't have to be clever to be brain washed. In fact I have seen research that suggests intelligent people are actually more susceptible to falling afoul of cults. This is certainly true of christianity just as it is for scientology/moonies and similar confidence tricksters.

James Sanders, London, UK

Why do people think it wrong to question the activities and tenets of a slew of cults with a disturbing history of barbarity and intolerance, misogyny and rapacity? Why is the application of a little rationality to these bizarre superstitions "chilling"?

I find myself assailed on all sides by religion, whether it be an architectural monstrosity or a lay preacher indulging in a little fresh-air proselytising, it is nigh on ubiquitous and, as far as I am concerned, iniquitous. Are only the "believers" to have a voice? Is that on aesthetic grounds? How aesthetic is a fatwa or an auto da fe?

Atheism may be described as a "lack of belief in the existence of god or gods." Most atheists do not seem to be sufficiently bothered about bronze age spooky stories to try and actively deny the existence of gods, they just see no reason to believe.

Why then this curious insistence that atheism is no more rational than theism because the existence of god cannot be positively disproved?

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Is not the article summed up by Diderot's rebuke to I forget which French 18th century "philosophe" at a dinner during which the latter was attacking religion -" Shh, not in front of the servants!"

Asmodeus, London,

Thank you Magnus Linklater,

The more often people look into this can of worms the more likely it is that sensible decent open-minded people will prevail and the more likely it will be that the intolerant bigots will be deprived of the power accorded them by bravado, brainwashing, custom and habit.

I for one am grateful that I live in a society where we can make comments such those above by Magnus Linklater, without living in fear of reprisals to ourselves, our friends and families (well, most of the time).

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

As long as there is religious objection to the non-religious choosing abortion, performing research using stem cells, having same-sex relations, depicting all aspects of culture in art, indulging in stuff that might be religiously offensive but harmless, and so on, then I think religion is fair game for honest criticism. In fact, it's probably our duty to subject it to honest criticism.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Mr. Linklater, Mr. Dawkins, and all the well meaning atheist and agnostics out there: At the end of your lives, when it's your turn to die, as you surely will; - to your agony and regret, you will find out that your views on the non-existence of God - though well intentioned and sincere are wrong.

Nina, Annandale, Virginia, USA

Dawkins is a great scientific genius (as opposed to Christopher Hitchens who is merely a glib journalist), but what most popularizers of atheism often fail to value sufficiently is the sacredness of the spiritual life (or interior life, if "spiritual" bugs you) of all humanity, atheists included.

Consider D. Midbar's essay on the atheist spiritual paradigm at www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com

Angel Cortzar, Boston, Massachusetts

I'm glad that Polly Toynbee is getting more PR in her new role as President of the British Humanist Association (BHA). I trust she will give BHA a stronger sense of 'mission' and will increase membership.

Chris Street, bransgore,

The real problem is irreligion outside and inside religion. Without God, morality becomes more and more superficial.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I'm religiously atheistic.

john m.f. moore, windsor, u.k.

A.N: "Mmmm.....guess all those galaxies and planets and stars and universes just popped out of nowhere and created themselves, just like.......nothing else in the natural order."

Crikey, you're right. I hadn't thought of it like that. But, hold on, what created the universe that god lives in then? Surely that didn't just pop out of nowhere either? Oh my head hurts.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

"Religion has served its purpose. It now presents a real danger to civilisation."

The usual irrational atheist hyperbole. Perhaps this is what Magnus is criticizing?

Damien, London, UK

Sociologists of religion recognise that religion is reviving all over the world, including western Europe, where traditional religion may be on the wane, but alternative religions and 'spiritualities' are on the increase. Hard-line secular rationalists like Toynbee and Dawkins are in the minority, a shrill voice of intolerance, as Linklater suggests. They are unwilling to confront the fact that their 'atheism' is also a dogmatic 'theism' of the same kind that they reject. Their hyper-materialism is intent on bringing existential nihilism. Religion is a form or culture with soft boundaries to art and music. It is an expression of a part of our consciousness - the part that senses an immateriality in the heart of our being, like love, or intuition, or any other non-rational impulse we feel. Telling somebody to not believe in God is like a Victorian papa telling some stupid son or daughter not to fall in love. Falling in love isn't exactly 'sensible' but life would be much less without it

MBC, Edinburgh,

There exists for everyone an indefeasible principle -The Principle of Cause and Effect - There is always a "cause" to every event. Nothing ever "happens" without a cause. This is the basis of all science/ life.

Every effect has a series of causes and invariably the penultimate cause is always a person.

This Principle underlies all scientific work. It is the basis of all the laws of all sciences. For people to propose an event resulted without a cause is to declare themselves fools or liars. For scientists to make such a proposition is to deny their own scientific work and their personal integrity; clearly demonstrating dishonesty or mental derangement.

Where does this put Mr Linklater, Professor Dawkins, Miss Toynbee who deny this truth? Do they believe the events in their lives are results without any associated causes? Their stance is absurd and will be so till they admit of an ultimate cause - a person who can make something from nothing, that is why He is called God.

A. Britten Ph.D, Sheerness, UK/Kent

Mmmm.....guess all those galaxies and planets and stars and universes just popped out of nowhere and created themselves, just like.......nothing else in the natural order.

A.N, London, UK

That rituals reflecting the traditions of your upbringing can be comforting in times of stress is hardly surprising. However, comforting familiarity is not sufficient reason to declare the entire religious enterprise beyond critique, especially where it seeks unwarranted influence in the public sphere.
I see no ‘militant convictions’ and no ‘fixed and rigid agenda’ being insisted upon - only that decisions affecting all of us be made in terms of reasoned consideration of the best available evidence and that it should not be taboo to voice criticism of religion.
I find it curious that whilst the religious routinely get to pronounce on the errors of those of other faiths and none based on mutually incompatible divine revelation, some atheists think that robustly pointing out the failures of religion is a form of militancy.
There is no need to support religions just for their rituals. The BHA provides non-religious alternatives that many find rewarding despite being fantasy-free.

nonplussed, London, UK

Mr. Dawkins is saying nothing new. He has simply spun existing theory around a personal "there is no God" hypothesis.

Daniel C. Dennet on the other hand sticks to the facts. While his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" does make quite heavy reading, it is well worth the effort. In the end you are left gasping for breath at the immense scale of the universe and the mind behind it.

Dennett makes little attempt to understand the nature of an immanent and transcendant Creator God. Why should he? He writes as an independent observer, without making "dangerous" dogmatic statements.

Calascione, Nederlands,

I would encourage anyone to read Turnings by Guy Chevreau (1 85240 396 9) and then you may be open to the notion that drives Christian believers in their faith. Put simply, our faith is in part based on the objective reality that the miracles mentioned in the Bible still happen in the current day.

Whilst in expressing the view that "Doctrines may be false but the religious sentiment is essentially human" Ernest Werner suggests a certain longing in the heart of those with no faith, it is not this longing the ties Christians to ther faith, it is the astonishing and frankly shocking realisation that it is the truth. This isn't someting that always happens in an instant.

Unbelief marks people as either unaware or unconvinced, it does mark the message as untrue.

The above book is written for a Christian audiance and is also about as far from "so called" American right-wing Christiology as you can get.

Steve, Romford, Essex

I'm very impressed with St. Bernard of Clairvaux who declared that only the God concept can deeply convert our fears, worries and anxieties at the core of our being, into peace joy and love.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Climate change is a wonderful opportunity for the Almighty to show up and convince us all with one of his miracles.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

I have yet to hear of Dawkins disprooving Jesus' existence. Once we agree that he did walk on this earth it is up to you to critically decide, did he really die and rise?

Have you critically thought that one through for yourself?

Hannah, Birmingham,

Notwithstanding the slightly condescending tone aimed at religionists, Magnus Linklater, having considered the 'evidence', has decided he is uncomfortable with his uncertain sitting-on-the-fence position of being an agnostic, and therefore more latterly made the decision of 'no belief'; in preference to not being 100% convinced there is a God.

In my view he is still agnostic but can no longer bring himself to admit it. A small giveaway is his continuing affection for spirituality, evidenced by his experience of attending a funeral service.

Don, Birmingham,

"Though I know, I'll be nothing more than bug food."

But Joe, you don't actually know that. See my previous comment on the irrationality of atheists.

Even if you were then to claim to be an unbeliever, lacking belief - as all intelligent atheists claim (and which would make you an agnostic) unbelief doesn't give knowledge that you'll be bug-food.

Either way you have just proven yourself to be prone to making irrational statements.

Atheism is irrational presumption.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

God still loves you, Magnus

craig, dallas,

What saddens me about Dawkins et al and their militant atheism is that it receives so much publicity. There is nothing new in their views, atheism has been around for centuries but today it is fashionable to be anti God and anti religion and Dawkins has made a career out of it.
The Anglican church has been a part of English life and society for centuries. Many of the political, social and educational institutions of the country were founded on Christian principles. Corrosive and cynical opposition to the church of the sort we see today does nothing for us as individuals or for the cohesion of the country.

Philip, Newcastle,

In many cultures, including some in the USA, monotheism makes no sense. To many non-Anglicized Native Americans - the AmerIndians - the idea of a single all-powerful, all-seeing god is far too simplistic a notion. For many (most) polytheistic cultures the term "god" is applied to all things material and spiritual - people, animals, birds, trees, flowers, clouds, sun, rain, dirt and rocks, etc, etc; each is imbued with its own "god". Perhaps that is a more valid view than the narrow, limiting perception promoted by most Christian religions. The Amerindians believed that "god" was part and parcel of all things and all creatures. I was recently asked if I was religious. I answered that I believed in, if not "god" in the monotheistic sense, at least a supreme being of some sort, but that I had no respect for man-made, organized religions. Such institutions were created by people to control other people, not free them. I believe in a higher power, but i don't believe in the church.

Dan York, Kansas City, USA Missouri

Despite our best efforts, we do not have access to “what happens to us after we die” and without the ability to test our assumptions, I find the discussion meaningless.

Mike, Brighton, Michigan, USA

Dawkins expresses a certain fondness for the Church of England (which I can't say I share) in The God Delusion. So he's not as uncompromising as you make him out to be.

Charming as it may sometimes be, religion is utter balls from start to finish, and there comes a time to reject a charming thing in order to decry its complete lack of sense. This is a judgment call. You can be soft and forgiving to the ancient, virulent idiocy, or you can join in the effort to knock it on the head for once and for all.

Felix, Nottingham,

Well said, Mr. Linklater! Thank you for a stirring defense of tradition, and the comfort it can provide, however irrational it may seem to those of an atheist bent.

Ted Brown, Eugene, OR

I think you're completely missing the point about Dawkins's argument. The slaughter and mayhem that has taken place in the name of religion is completely and utterly unjustifiable. Saying "I'm fond of a bit of religion" is like saying "I'm a bit fond of Hitler because he gave us the cute Beetle car, which makes us feel warm and nice inside."

Smoking also offers people solace. But that doesn't stop us from telling them to stop. Perhaps religion should also come with a warning: religion kills. As long as we let religion live, religion will continue to kill.

One other thing: just because Dawkins calls a spade a spade, that doesn't make his arguments strident. If you want to be lied to, go to religion. How can you be repelled by the arguments of someone who lifts the veils from you eyes?

If you still love religion, don't complain about Muslim women wearing the burkha, because you want to wear a religious veil and live in a deluded world.

PJ, Bangalore,

It's frightening to see reasoned debate being dismissed in a national newspaper for being too "intellectually rigorous" or expertly articulated.

Religion has served its purpose. It now presents a real danger to civilisation.

Some Christians believe the universe was created 6,000 years ago (you know, after the invention of the wheel). What's more frightening is the fact that people with such Stone Aged minds have access to real power - and nuclear weapons.

Dave Pollard, Nelson,

I have always been suspicious of religious people, who seem to need to be part of a herd with a common belief in rewards (or punishment) after death, to convince them to live a 'good' life now, (or in some cases to blow up other people). I feel much more comfortable with atheists who 'behave themselves' because usually, it is the natural human thing to do.
Religion has outlived its time. It served to unite people in history, albeit under leaders who used it to control the masses and often led them to war against other religions.
Surely it's time to move on and embrace the thoughts written by John Lennon in the song 'Imagine'.

tony, birmingham, uk

As a younger American who shredded his religious shackles 15 years ago in High School, I must admit that I am puzzled to this day as to why people STILL believe. The absense of logic in the whole idea of the god concept and religion is baffling to say the least. Though I fault no one who holds these beliefs sacred and true, I just feel they are uneducated as to where "it" came from or ignorant as to the facts surrounding the myths made truths. The reason there is belief is due to one word "Bible" without this, there would be no belief in an organized fashion, as we see today in the three big religions.
The Biblical stories that cemented everyone's belief have already been proven to be adopted and changed myths from civilizations that existed before Abraham and hence before there was a Jew. These stories were taken and changed and written down in captivity circa 600 bc by Jews held in Babylon. These core stories fin Genesis aren't true at all and hence neither is god.

Joe, philadelphia, pa,

The reason why I - and I guess Dawkins - criticise religious people (whether they still accept the whole thing as orginally designed, or just dip into bits and pieces as the mood takes them, as Linklater says), is simple. No respect can possibly attach to a grown up who chooses or affects to subscribe to a system of thought and belief which is manifestly untrue i.e. any form of supernatural phenomomenon, even if in certain cirucmstances it may well be more comforting to them than the truth.

julian, london,

I hate to break it to the likes of Dawkins and Toynbee, but the atheistic anti-religious view is a logically inconsistent one. If - as I believe - there is no 'god' or 'higher power', religion is nothing more than a human construct encompassing the cultural and moral framework of a society. As such neither religions or their adherents have any distinct characteristics from modern quasi-religions such as the 'Green movement' which similarly attempts to regulate society and morality in the name of posthumous benefit, by claiming to represent the unknown priorities of future life. By evidencing an all-but-in-name religious zealotry to evangelise their atheism, Dawkins and others lose any respect I have for their arguments by emulating what I consider to be potentially the most destructive and dangerous aspects of religion.

Dominic Graham de Montrose, London,

Atheists are not all spoiling for a fight, nor are they necessarily racked with doubt. I knew I was an atheist as soon as I could think, but after teenage attempts to make my pious elders seem wrongheaded, I learned to repect the right of others to their beliefs.

Playing the Headteacher/Priest every school morning without compromising my own or my pupils' beliefs wasn't easy, but I even managed to side-step the 1990 Act demanding that each school day must begin with a Corporate Act of Worship: our 'Act' was a few minutes of silent contemplation, during which pupils and teachers of any or no faith could pray or meditate in their own way.

It should be possible for us all to live together in peace and friendship if we could stop trying to bully eachother into religious or political creeds.

June lumb, Poole, Dorset, England

Thank you, Ernest. That was a very helpful insight for me.

Hippobabe, Johannesburg, South Africa

Perhaps Mr Linklater would declare himself a Skeptic (Pyrrho of Elis c. 365 -275BC), being critical of dogmatism, or indisputable truths. As Russell pointed out (" A history of Western philosophy",
1945 p233) : " A modern disciple ( of Skepticism) would go to church on Sundays and perform the correct genuflections, but without any of the religious beliefs that are supposed to inspire these actions".

Brian Hardy, Nantwich,

Is it wrong to be intolerant of foolishness?
Is it wrong to be intolerant of intolerace?

Jack, Beijing, China

I believe that militant atheists are as arrogant - and as risible - as ranting evangelicals. We humans, even Professor Dawkins, have finite minds. Unless you yourself are God, Mr Linklater, you are not an all-seeing and all-knowing being, therefore there must exist things beyond your knowledge and comprehension. The only logically tenable position is that of a searching agnostic.

Andrew May, De Panne, Belgium

I'm hearing this sentiment more and more. Something along the lines of : "of course I don't believe that mumbo-jumbo, but its all so nice and quaint. Do you really have to point out out the fallacies so clearly?"

Maybe this reaction is unavoidable amongst a certain portion of society as they're dragged free of the last vestiges of religion's hold.

It seems that a scapegoat is needed by these people. Will Richard Dawkins (pbuh) become the first atheist martyr?

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

One of the problems is a lack of clarity in the language of discussion:

All scientists (as scientists) should be agnostics in the sense that the scientific method cannot currently provide knowledge of God, so the existence of God is unknown. At present that could probably extend to the existence of God being unknowable by such a method. But all scientists must be at least receptive to the possibility of science one day proving the existence of God. If a scientist ignores such evidence he or she would no longer be acting as a scientist.

Prof. Dawkins and Ms Toynbee are rather the type of atheists recognised by Stanley in 1660, 'him who is an enemy to the Gods'. Belief in God here really does not matter, and it is lazy thinking to associate the two. One can believe in God but reject His pre-eminence on particular grounds (e.g the somewhat morally dubious behaviour of God in the Old Testament). That is very different, and requires careful differentiation between God and believers.

JS, Cambridge,

The reason the priest does not say the non-believer will have gone to Hell is because he doesn't think so. hell is very much downplayed in the modern church, and no one, even Hitler, stays there for long, even if it actually exists at all.

As a life-long atheist from an atheist family I am quite comfortable with attending church services, and often do for the music. I enjoy plainchant, Victorian hymns, Organ music, good choirs singing Tallis or Palestrina. Perhaps my ease stems from not having any doubts or questions about my own beliefs. Since it is all a fiction it does not matter, it's a show like watching Hamlet - you don't have to believe in ghosts. As far as funerals are concerned, it is easier and cheaper to go along with the C of E nonsense, and in the end it is all meaningless anyway.

alexandria, Sheffield, UK

Well said, Linklater! I am an atheist, and yet I would like Tallis's "Spem in alium" played at my secular funeral. It is mercifully short (11 minutes. maximum) and it is, for me, the most perfect and most beautif