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 beautiful piece of music ever written. I have, however, requested that whoever chairs my funeral service (it won't be a clergyperson, of course) should discreetly make clear that my enthusiam for Tallis' s music did not extend to my sharing his religious beliefs in any way...

J.Fletcher, Canterbury, UK

Religious fantasy loses its intellectual respectability before it loses its social respectability. Magnus Linklater has the misfortune that his attitudes are stuck at this half-way point.

Richard Cheeseman, Wellington, New Zealand

Religious devices such as the Church's comforting proverbs and its soulful music can make the non-believer feel comforted because they are presented as old and wise, and even because they remind us that we are all small parts in a much larger machine. But the atheist should remember that if religion and all its history is lies, then we cannot really take comfort from it or any of its proverbs, hymns or prayers.

I agree that its a shame that Dawkins and Toynbee use such strong language and rhetoric - probably to raise their profiles. It seems to discredit the argument that our society should not be affected by religious opinions for which there is no real evidence.

Dan, Bath, UK

Could someone please explain to me why it is better / more honourable / more satisfying ..whatever ... to be a bitter atheist than a bitter fundamentalist?

The world I live in each day and the people I meet each day needs compassion much more than arrogant rants from any person or group.

Norman Hamilton, Belfast,

Challenging religion is one of the hardest things you can ever do.How do you challenge something that is ingrained in people from birth?How do you question someone's faith? How do you respond to the firmly stated beliefs of a religious preacher who has spent his or her life fine-tuning arguments that are basically impossible to prove or refute?Because religion dominates our society, because it is so fundamentally difficult to challenge and because atheists don't have a cause to fight for, nobody ever bothers.Dawkins raises a whole plethora of valid arguments that challenge the religious status quo. In order to have any impact, his arguments have to be comprehensive.Read them, take them at face value and decide for yourself.I simply can't believe that people are attacking Dawkins' arguments solely on the basis that they are so thorough.What's the guy supposed to do? He's forcing people to justify their thoughts,beliefs&behaviour.And they are responding by chucking toys out of the pram.

Phil, london,

most religions have a decidedly intolerant flavor about them that is also anti intellectual and irrational.therfore they constitutes obstacles to a free life and open inquiry.we may be sympathetic to the needs of those who cling to their irrational fantasies and tolerant of their rituals and doctrines but we should resist their efforts to control thought and science

tom mulhern, new york, usa

Be careful, Sir, to avoid confusing God with religion.
The notion that God is an exclusive deity belonging to a particular province of humans is vain and illogical. Faith, on the other hand, is a liberating and enabling reaction by humanity to the hideous notion that all is chance and that existence is a random construct.
Atheism is, by that definition, illogical - a faith paradigm that denies the reason for faith. Dawkins misses the point when he rattles on about selfish genes and pervading memes.
Give me faith, and the conviction to live for compassion and solidarity with those less fortunate, above hopeless conjecture any day

Terry White, Tokyo, Japan

In Dawkins you have created a straw man. Dawkin's position is hardly extremist - simply put - reason based on evidence. Common sense stripped of wishful thinking. Religion, on the other hand, has a sinister capacity to unite people in common purpose around unfounded belief, no matter how meritricious, led by self serving scoundrels trading in human credulity.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

What strikes me most about atheists, particularly the evangelical ones, is their total lack of understanding of the nature of religious belief. We are not talking of extremism, politicisation or militancy, but of the quiet inward assurance experienced by the genuine believer. Let the atheists declaim. I feel sorry for them. They are missing so much.

Angela Barratt, London, UK

Why not a bit of Poseidon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFIBsO5w4Fs

Hugo Ball, Boston,

I found Mr Linklater's article quite refreshing as a believer myself I am tired of the tirade by some atheists against religion in general. Why are they so against everyone who professes a belief in God? There is such a range of expression of religion, from the fanatic to the apathetic. What the militant atheist arguments forget is the enormous good that much of the social side of religion does, from the work of the Salvation Army (homelessness etc), many religious charities and relief agencies( e.g. Christian Aid). Many of our best know social welfare in the UK came from foundations that were Christian. We must also remember that even today with Chrisitanity on the decline, a massive amount of youth activities and work are done by the church. Lets live and let live. Let 's have more respect for the views of those who believe in a God and also those who do not.

Colin Johnson, Leighton Buzzard, England

I agree with pretty much everything this guy says. The logic behind Dawkin's beliefs is pure reason: yet I too find his utter contempt for religion distasteful, and above all, unrespectable. Many atheists may say 'I will only respect something if it doesn't involve the ridiculous idea of a ficticious omnipotent being', but the key to respect is understanding and accepting other people's beliefs. They believe they have found their everlasting solace and understanding with religion: we have found our solace and understanding with atheism. They are the same, why shouldn't we respect? All in all, I think Dawkins is far from the best spokesperson mainstream atheism could have. The way he slanders religion is in the same way his own hated preachers demand redemption from hell. Just a thought.

Gary Green, Guildford, Surrey, UK

Passion for gods is similar to passion for baseball. I can see why some people get a kick out of it, but find it boring sitting next to a fanatic. However I see no more reason to call myself an atheist than I would to call myself an a-baseball-ist, nor would I go out of my way to tell people to stop wasting their time watching baseball.

John Bow, London,

Britain is at the same decision point that Israel was at the time of Joshua. Having seen mighty deliverances at the hand of the Living God, the question still had to be raised and the decision point reached, "Choose this day whom you will serve". Even though the heart of Britain's Constitution is the central oath made by the Queen at her Coronation, to the utmost of her power to maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, those who claim to be atheists and agnostics are taking centre stage as if this were not so and erosion is taking place. We are hearing much from those who do not know God, in a nation that committed itself to serve God. This is the nature of the vulnerable position Britain is in, where a philosophical free-for-all is the order of the day. Well, look at the fruit of this in our society, which is more directionionless and lacking identity by the day. Those who are blind will not see this of course.

Clifford Denton, Norwich, England

Fascinating article, especially coming from an atheist. By coincidence, I'm currently reading "Black Mass", by John Gray, the central tenet of which is that the most destructive philosophies in history are not religions per se, but utpian ideals, notions which hold that once "our" beliefs (whatever they are) become predominant, the world will have arrived at the New Jerusalem. He includes Marxism and Nazism under this heading, and also the current dogmatic neo-con philosophy coming from the US. The kind of bullying, proselytizing atheism espoused by Dawkins would certainly come into this category. I can see a day coming when, in righteous defence of this Utopia, children who speculate on the existance of God will be sent to remedial classes and churchgoers will be classed as suspicious and denied certain "sensitive" jobs.

David Smith, Edinburgh,

Great article. Dawkins seems to subscribe to a militant form of atheism that is more akin to religious fundamentalism than to a simple freedom of mind. I'm a fervent atheist, but that's my choice and by non-belief. I don't place myself as the intellectual superior of people of faith (there's no proof for either the existance or non-existance of God, any of us can be wrong!). The smug self-righteousness of Dawkins et al display the very worst of atheism in the same vein as religious zealots. They denounce those who disagree with them, presenting them as inferior. Militant atheism is (in my opinion) simply anti-religious fundementalism, and is no better than the faith-based kind.

Hannah, Leamington,

I read with interest that 42% of a sample in the UK thought religion has a harmful effect. Long may it remain so. I am not a ‘militant atheist’ – in fact I doubt there are too many of those. Unlike militant fundamentalists atheists tend not to bomb churches, synagogues or mosques, kill doctors or teachers or punish those who have recanted their beliefs. I am militant only to the extent that I want to make sure that the beliefs of others are not foisted upon me by way of overtly religion based laws, such as Sharia law. Neither do I wish to see a society where not being a believer means social ostracism. It will be a very bad day when UK politicians feign religious beliefs for fear of otherwise making themselves unelectable, as is now the case in the USA. By all means let those with religious beliefs practice them. I was quite happy to attend school carol services when my children were young. But religion should be personal. It can influence but must never control society.

Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,

Views like Linklater's are what continue to set the world back. He clearly thinks of himself as a liberal atheist, but in fact what he is saying is it's OK for other people to believe in God because they're not as clever as me. That is elitist and illiberal atheism, and does nothing to further society. As far as I can tell, l most people can't, when they think about it truly and honestly, rationalise the idea of god with what they see in fact. But instead of being outraged at the control an imaginary deity has over our lives, they take the easy way and say "oh well it's not that bad really." Notions of religious doctrine among those who are not part of the "weakened" Anglican Church, or indeed any church or faith, have set back AIDS treatment, vital stem cell research, women's rights, children's rights... the list goes on and on. Linklater's attitude just perpatuates the nonsense upon which so much of the world is governed.

Camilla, Burnley, UK

If you find going to church for a friend's funeral comforting, there's no reason for you to stop going. Atheism doesn't automatically prevent you and your friends and family joining to share grief at a communal event, such as a funeral. Neither does it prevent you and your friends sharing joy at a friend's newborn child, or someone in your family getting married.

You need to face up to the fact that there aren't any gods dispensing comfort. Any comfort or feelings you gain are from having decent good human beings close to you. No deity required.

Much of atheism's 'militant' perception comes from a mistaken presumption by society and media that religions should have a privilege that isn't granted to any other group.

In addition, I imagine Prof. Dawkins shares no small measure of irritation and frustration at his and his colleagues' work being denigrated by ill informed people who's only reason for objection is a reprint of a bunch of badly cobbled together bronze age myths.

PaulH, Londongrad, USSK

I didnt get to finish, I ran out of room. I wanted to address the funeral point brought up already. Funerals, quite simply, are for the living, not the dead. I am an Atheist, my wife Agnostic and my family are Catholics. I have already given them permission to give me whatever kind of funeral they see fit, after all, I'll be dead and as long as they are happy and think they may have gotten me past the pearly gates, so be it. Though I know, I'll be nothing more than bug food.

Joe, philadelphia, pa,

ian dyble comments:
"There is something rather hypocritical in the likes of Dawkins and Toynbee arguing absolutes froma post modern perspective."

I don't know about Polly Toynbee's views on postmodernism, but Dawkins considers it to be empty, pseudo-intellectual posturing. Dawkins' "perspective" might variously be described as "scientific" or "rationalist", but "postmodern" it is most definitely not. Doesn't anybody ever bother to find out what other people's views actually are before critising them any more?

Iain Walker, Cambridge,

You call Dawkins "the master of certainty", yet on a scale of 1 (absolute, unquestioning religeous belief) to 7 (absolute, unquestioning atheism), he rates himself a 6 (pretty sure there are no gods, but if some evidence came to light to show otherwise, I'd change my mind). It is religion that offers certainty, not science.

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

Dare I say it, but secularism is a broad church. While there are those who, like Dawkins, see nothing but harm in religion, there are others who accept the evolved psychological function it serves - and will possibly always serve for some people.

The fundamental tenet of secularism, as embodied by the National Secular Society, is that religion should not have special privilege in society. It is not, as is sometimes charicatured, that religion should be banned.

Secularism and belief have their opposing figures - strong vocal believers need to be resisted by strong vocal unbelievers and Dawkins fills this role well. Sometimes it can take a strongly stated opinion to shake fence-sitters one way or another. More moderate believers who accept the tenets of secularism are reflected by more moderate unbelievers.

Dawkins may not be everyone's secular ideal but, like believers do, we should take from him and others whatever is useful to ourselves.

Tessa Kendall, London,

I don't think there are "atheistic heretics" they are better known as himan beings with all the doubts and uncertainties which go with that condition. Quite a lot of religious practice is based on a sort of insurance policy, "just in case" but there are significant questions to which the atheist has no satisfactory explanation. What is infinity and when did time start? Or when and how did matter get created and by what agency? Perhaps there has to be a supreme creative being after all and I'd rather be on the safe side!

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, UK

I envy those of strong faith even if I am puzzled how they arrive there.Though I acknowledge the warm cocoon faith can provide I
cannot help but share with Professor Dawkins the idea that the reasoning behind belief is self delusional and in the absence of evidence little more than wishful thinking.
Polly Toynbee is an athiest! Then I shall revert to being an agnostic who chooses his soulmates by other criteria.

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

I think that people mix feelings of spirituality and love towards other people with that feeling of religion. Sure, religions have beautiful traditions that may make you feel good, and funerals with religious themes may make people feel better, but that feel-good love and passion for humanity and good-will is -not- exclusive to religions.

And as for people comparing "faith" in science to faith in religion, they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You cannot disprove the existance of a God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Look up the term falsifiability to determine what makes a good theory and why scientists call it a theory rather than faith-based guesses.

Gloria, Chapel Hill, NC

Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens cling as rigorously to their tenets as believers do. Both are evangelical. Personally, I'd like both to leave me alone

JD, Madison, WI USA

religion is a movie that has been over for too long, but ppl wont leave the theater...

John, CHICAGO, IL

Dawkin's book is a wonderful work of fiction.

For a much more intellecutally satisying book however, read Alistair McGrath's 'the dawkins delusion: atheist fundementalism and the denial of the Divine'.

Atheism is not so much the denial of God (although it requires it) as the fervent and entirely blind faith that all reality is merely physical and that there is no difference between you and the chair you sit on - everything is all part of the random chemical soup of physicality which randomly forms random patterns - oh and strict ignorance/explanation of the problem of where the finite laws that apparently form those patterns come from.

Personally it is beyond me how someone can have so much blind faith as to honestly and sincerely hold to this atheist worldview and maintain that 'they' are nothing more than an empty illusion created by physical compenents of their brain (what/who perceives that illusion?). As the Word itself says, 'the fool in his heart says there is no God".

Simon Hocking, birmingham, UK

I would like to thank Magnus Linklater for standing tall, facing the far horizon, and demonstrating a healthy independence of mind, and indeed a healthy mind, in this eloquent challenge and critique which exposes with pinpoint precision, the inconsistencies and errors of militant "anti-religionist" atheist such as Richard Dawkins. I would encourage other "half-decent atheists," or indeed "atheist heretics," to similarly engage in resisting the anti-religious zealotry of Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, because the here and now is all there is, and your destiny is in your own hands. ;-)

Robin Edgar, Montreal , Quebec, Canada

Atheists are irrational.

The proper definition of atheist is "To Deny the gods/God" which isn't a lack of belief ('unbelief') as some claim defines atheism, rather it is active belief in a negation (disbelief). Since a genuine belief implies certainty (which a mere 'opinion', however strong, does not) then that makes atheists irrational since they have no proof to back their certainty only evidence, and evidence is only enough to form a strong opinion.

A strong opinion that God doesn't exist makes for an agnostic.

Ironically Christians claim that if asked (as we are told to by Jesus Christ) God will prove his own existence to each individual without need of signs such that the real definition of faith is :

"To believe because God has revealed it" or "Assent to Divinely revealed Truth" (latter is RC definition).

Nothing irrational about that, eh? The atheist definition of faith is "Belief without knowledge", which fits. Only the atheist one is taught to our kids.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I'm glad Dawkins does what he does - somebody has to - and I agree with what he says, but there's no reason why you have to feel guilty. You've already done the right thing, which is openly tell the truth about what you believe. That's what makes it safe for other unbelievers to tell the truth about whatever it is they happen to think: that's the good thing Dawkins does, and now you've done the same. You're a freethinker, and you're unpersuaded about certain things, that's all.

And equally there's nothing wrong with anyone having false beliefs and ineffective practices, as long as they don't try to make them compulsory. I don't believe in God and nobody thinks I do but that doesn't stop me having a nice Christmas.

Elie, London, UK

As a Catholic I dislike 'established' religion. The Church of Emgland could well be stronger if it were independent of the State and the monarchy.

But the Dawkins/Toynbee axis seems to want to deny people like me our place in democracy. Their utterances stick in my gullet.

John Steggles, Buckingham, England

'but still I shudder when I hear words refering to everlasting life beyond the grave spoken about someone I know to be a doubter or outright non-believer. Something at the back of my mind always say "so why doesn't the priest say he believes the departed will have gone to hell then?"
I don't agree, Martin Baines. The departed will, by now, have found out once and for all, what none of us can ever know until we ourselves are 'departed'!
It is not for us to decide that a non-believer or a doubter is irrevocably consigned to hell. We 'hope', and that's the best we can do.
I myself could never be an atheist, could never live with an atheist partner and I thank God I don't have to. My husband gives thanks for every day that dawns, regards his life as a gift, and I love hearing him say the Lord's Prayer in our Methodist church. Given his background (Jewish) which he rejected way back, it might not have been so.

Margaret Stoll, Rochford, Essex, England

Cleverer people than Dawkins have believed in God.

Marie-Louise, Brussels, Belgium

In our post modern liberalism, even if I am wrong, and there is no God, surely I have the right to be wrong. There is something rather hypocritical in the likes of Dawkins and Toynbee arguing absolutes froma post modern perspective. They are, after all, more evangelical about aetheism than many Christians are about their faith. St Paul commented that 'Now we see in a mirror dimly, then we shall see face to face....' If I am wrong then my life will have been spent applying the principles of loving God and loving my neighbour to then melt into oblivion. If they are wrong they have spent a life of cynicism followed by......Oh dear!

ian dyble, holt, norfolk

The best thing to be said for the established religions is that through their teachings and narratives, they offer ways out of the horrors of the human condition, the fears and hatreds that give rise to bigotry and persecution.
In religion, it's all there, the good and the bad,that's the whole point .Today, the Churches are ducking out of the debate about rising fundamentalism, for fear of aggravating their own divisions. This is doing them no good at all, the (exhausted?) Rowan Williams should note.
Pure rationalists for all their highmindness, tend to avoid emotional depths and heights. The biggest worry is that if we lose through ignorance the capacity to respond to the chords that religions can still strike, we will start to lose our appreciation of the profondities of our culture. It's worth remembering that one of the strongest campaigners for the Book of Common Prayer orginally drafted by Cranmer in C16, was that impeccable atheist and aesthete Jonathan Miller.

Brian Walker, Ealing, London, UK

Although I thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins' and Toynbee's and Humphrys' demolition of religions and the religious, atheism is itself abhorrent to me because it is just as indefensible logically. Agnosticism is the only truly rational position that a human being can take in the absence of any hard evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. I fear that Dawkins's inability to see this comes from his intellectual limitations, probably induced by a tendency for Western intellectual training to prefer a binary approach to probelm-solving. Linklater doesn' have to share Toynbee's or Dawkins' beliefs, or evn feel comfortable with them. He has a mind of his own. All he needs to do is use it a bit more and he will see that atheists need to go a bit further before they can feel truly intellectually satisfied with themselves. There is common ground though that atheists and agnostics share: their exasperation with religion and the peddlars of pardons etc. that go with it!

Chie, Tokyo, Japan

“I wonder, then, why I find the militant convictions of the anti-religionists so chilling? Far from converting me, 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.”
I find this statement chilling and unattractive, at best. It is like saying, ‘while I don’t believe the earth is flat the protagonists pushing forward this ideal really damage its validity’, which is clearly nonsense.
Why can people only produce ad hominem arguments to attack atheists?

David Rothwell, Brighton,

I have nothing against atheists - just the ones who keep trying to ram it down our throats all the time.

Jo, Cambridgeshire, UK

The problem, such as it actually is, lies with evangelicals and fundamentalists. This is irrespective of whether they are for this religion, that religion, or atheism.

They are (at best) a hectoring, bossy lot; they think one size fits all; their mind-set is narrow; their contribution is negative.

Best regards

Nigel Sedgwick, Beaconsfield, UK

As a Christian believer who has some doubts about the 'religious' elements of some aspects of Christianity and mostly disagree with many so-called 'fundamentalists', it was refreshing to read Magnus Linklater's experience as an atheist who disagrees with Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee. There is a parallel here; not so much the ideology but the way it is presented as an all-or-nothing philosophy. There are universal truths in Christianity (some also shared by other faiths and with secular humanism), and atheism as an absolute position is one of integrity. The alternative is a universal agnosticism, a maybe, maybe not approach. But this is equally understandable given human nature. We can all have doubts about our spiritual position at times. There is a mystery that cannot be approached except by faith; one must ultimately keep an open mind. Even Jesus had his doubts at times. It is only with hindsight that we can judge whether or not he was right.

Bob, Gloucester, UK

Snap! (or perhaps "amen")

Guardian reader, London,

"What unites both Dawkins and Toynbee is their absolute insistence that we sign up to the fixed and rigid agenda they have set us."

It's hardly an agenda; it's simply asking for answers to "How should we live?" reasoned from secular principles instead of answers based on an absolute "Because god X tells us so" principle.

Our society is diverse and therefore it has diverse values and people hold shared values with different intensities. Let the religious have their absolutes, but only in the private sphere.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Children believe in many things from 'The Bogeyman' to 'Father Christmas' and the 'Tooth Fairy' but when they mature they realise that it was a ploy to teach them right from wrong or to behave and not be 'naughty".
As an athieist I feel the same way about religeon and I am surprised that more people have not 'matured' and seen religeon for what it is - a promise of eternal life in heaven only if you toe the line and believe in God.
Until this letter I had kept my views to myself - unlike most religeous people especially if they are famous (Cliff Richard), who seem to start every sentence with 'As a Christian.'

G J BUNTON, SLOUGH, BERKSHIRE

I am not entirely sure the point mr Linklater is trying to make here. The whole point of a lack of belief is that there isn't one. From what I am aware, Professor Dawkins has not set any 'agenda' for atheism. I think that would be an impossible task to define or to execute, given the nature of atheists. As for Polly Toynbee, I cannot comment on her position as I don't read the Guardian, but I feel sure that I would agree with her at least on Faith Schools.

I get the feeling that the above is simply the author coming to terms with his newfound freedom of mind. It is not always easy, I know. Incidentally, I find religious funeral services deeply disturbing. Particularly this 'sure knowledge of the afterlife' thing.

garry sutherland, Glasgow, UK

It's rare to read an article and find it articulates your own opinion on a much wider stage than you yourself can manage.
This is one such for me.
I say I'm agnostic just to put a little more distance between myself and Richard Dawkins.

Guy, Oxford,

Polly Toynbee may be stating an extreme version of the case against the established church but sometimes one needs to pull hard to tear something apart that has been in place for centuries. The Anglican church may be a fractured weak animal today but having any established church sets a precident for "faith" being given a special status and that leads to things like schools funded by my taxes that can teach the "truth" of a religion when it is at best an opinion.

I must say my personal experiences of attending religious funeral services as a non-believer is different from Mr Linklater's. Yes there can be grandure and beauty in the place and music and some of the words but still I shudder when I hear words refering to everlasting life beyond the grave spoken about someone I know to be a doubter or outright non-believer. Something at the back of my mind always say "so why doesn't the priest say he believes the departed will have gone to hell then?"

Martin Baines, Bury St Edmunds,

Consider Kant who jotted down in a note found after his death (and I weakly translate): "God is not Something that exists outside of me but is my very own thought. It makes no sense ('ungereimt' -- doesn't rhyme) to ask if there 'be' a God. A verbum personale belongs to grammar." I suppose this latter may refer to verbs indicating a personal existence. He finds a sort of practical necessity in Ideas of God, freedom & immortality. Is Kant evasive, weak, cowardly, muddled? Any one page of the Critique of Pure Reason will dispel such a doubt. It is our own receptivity of mystery and miracle as aspects of reality that the religious community treasures & preserves. Doctrines may be false but the religious sentiment is essentially human.

Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY 14886, USA

Polly Toynbee tells us that "the here and now is all there is". So, no past, no future? No elsewhere? Accept that doctrine and there really will be no such thing as society.

Ms Toynbee and Mr Dawkins attack organised religion, but what are they if not self-appointed high priests in a church of their own devising? It is a godless church of a godless religion, but that puts them one rung higher in the hierarchy.

By the way, it seems that 58% think that religion has not had a harmful effect. In any election 58% to 42% would be a landslide.

Simon Richards, Brussels,

You athiest folks have convinced a Western Christian Derived Civilization that religion is not only wrong, but wrongheaded, and foolish in the extreme. In the smugness of Professor Dawkins, and others, you have come with perfect sylogism, conviction, and strength of purpose to show that religion is not only corrupt, but should be given the short shrift.

The problem is, that as you have noted, you have found in the "Comfort Blanket" of religion, that the ability of the "Ritual of the Familiar" is comfort not only for the greiving family, but has had infulence on yourself.

As a Liberal Protestant Christian (Congregational), I applaud your honesty.

jim johnson, framingham, ma

Actually the "arguments" that Dawkins makes are incredibly feeble - all it boils down to is that it is logically possible that God does not exist and we all knew that. You cannot conclusively "prove" that Other Minds exist, but it is not at all irrational to believe they do. Their shrill language is because they can't engage in reasoned debate about religion and have to shout and attack straw men (see Terry Eagleton's wonderful review of "The God Delusion"). As for that poll, it was you.gov so online and there are a lot of sad atheists online - it is not representative of the general public.

NBeale, London, England

"Atheism, he [Dawkins] says, "nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind, and indeed a healthy mind". I'm a bit worried about that "nearly always" – an uncharacteristically fuzzy phrase surely, from the master of certainty."

What Linklater doesn't understand is that Dawkins cannot claim certainty for this because to do so would be untenable, just as Dawkins says there is "almost certainly" no God. Methinks that the writer doesn't quite grasp how honest, scientific writers write.

Rick Hunter, Baton Rouge, USA

I was raised a Roman Catholic, but never believed in God or the rest of it. But I do like a Latin Mass in an old stone church. Not found these days, but I remember with pleasure.

I am an athiest who believes that religion is good for people. I happen to not believe, that is who I am, but I can see the beauty in religion, and I can see the benefit for those who do believe.

I leave Islam out of religion. I don't consider it a religion, but a cult of mind control and violence. The Catholic Church was once too, but it let go, and until Islam does the same, I do not respect it or call it a religion.

Mike Murphy , Sarasota, FL, USA

Richard Dawkins is a man without a TV, who subsequently concludes that there is no such thing as television. As I am struggling through his turgid book, it becomes apparent that he obviously has no regenerated spirit in him, he cannot fear death because he is already spiritually dead. He makes some good arguments about 'organized' religion, but his book fails to answer any real questions about God, or the lack of there being a God. I recommend all Christians to read his book, it would shake out the nominal followers and challenge the real believers to reaffirm their belief.

John, Alhuarin de la Torre, Málaga

"Is there, I wonder, something called an atheist heretic?"

Isn't that an anti-realist?

Kristian Carter, Leeds, UK