Gregg..dictionaries are not authorities. Simply not good enough. Authorities are those who have done work in the field, generally over many years and have produced a considerable work on the subject. Compiling dictionaries is for generalists so it is unlikely they would be authorities in theology.

You are confusing the meaning of words, origins of words with actual authoritative work on a subject. The people I am quoting are internationally renowned theologians and philosophers.

If you are depending on dictionaries, the OED or whatever, you are really not getting what is being said in theological work, historical or contemporary.

The first definition...is a definition of theism...the second definition is to show that atheism is a rejection of theism. Atheism is not just a rejection of any old idea of God...it is a specific refutation of a specific understanding of God, and in most cases that is theism.

Ok let's leave it at that.

Sean McGrady, York, UK

Sean:"if you do not recognise the names you know nothing about the subject"

You have inferred somewhat too much. Not being impressed is not the same as not knowing.

"to all available dictionaries? Not good enough."

The OED and Websters are authorities enough, and their etymologies, on which definitions hang, are almost certainly more accurate then your chaps with their obscuring ideas. The enc. brit. is the latest. And since your 'authorities' do not agree with each other we can safely say the dictionaries are more reliable.

Here is my last word: the two definitions are PLAINLY not equivalent, one being quite flatulently imprecise and the other a mistake:

1)"the denial of the existence of a personal creator"

2)"the denial of theism"

Spelled out : 2 means either the denial of the existence of theism or denial of the claims of theism, or may be even somehting else, but not 1.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

alan:"But I have no god. I'm an atheist. Is this too complicated to understand?"

From what you've described you're an agnostic strongly of the opinion that there is no God. Atheist wasn't defined by atheists but by believers and is, and still is, intended to convey belief that there is no God. All authoritative sources are agreed: it's only atheists who are bodging the word, and trying to allow for overlap with 'agnostic'.

What is interesting about your position is that I suspect in your heart of hearts you really do believe that there is no God. I've not detected any openness to the religious possibility. I doubt you would look for truth in the Bible, rather contradiction. You are fatally biased.

But ultimately all material proofs can not defeat the problem of subjectivity (which a God hypothetically could) so well illustrated by the psychotically mad. No one can trust even their own mind, let alone senses. So any genuine belief not rooted in a God is irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I'm beginning to lose my patience.And I'll tell you why.
Because I don't believe in god, and Greg + others keep telling me I'm not an atheist.
Why? Because I somehow fail to conform to their chosen dictionary definition of an atheist.
But I don't believe in god. I have no faith. I am godless. An infidel. An unbeliever. I consider all this faith-stuff to be claptrap. I don't fall for the false arguments of the preachers.
So - whether you like it or not - I'm an atheist, 100%. I don't think god exists.
Of course - I can't prove it. Nobody can. Only a fool would try ...
But don't try to make an agnostic out of me. Everybody is agnostic, because we do not know the ultimate secrets and mysteries of our existence. Nobody does. Not even the pope. So, in the strict sense, he's agnostic too.
But, at the same time, he's a believer. He believes in his god, others believe in their gods.
But I have no god. I'm an atheist.
Is this too complicated to understand?

alan, germany,

Yes, and what sort of proof would you like Bill? I have this very odd feeling that you want a proof that God exists in the way that you could show that a cow exists, or a star, or the Loch Ness monster? If so, by what token do you give precedence to that sort of proof? If not precedence, complete dominance.

Theologians (unless of the fundamentalist breed) do not regard God as an object in the same category as the Loch Ness monster, and quite rightly so. And this is where a lot of people get stuck in useless debate.

The existence or non-existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis in the same way that my love for my wife is not a scientific hypothesis.

Nor is a personal God one that has human characteristics like you and me. Another gross misunderstanding. A personal God is one where human beings find the source/ground of their essential being and therefore they can find a personal commitment and have faith in it. Answering. Why is their something rather than nothing?

Sean McGrady, York, UK

bill, towoomba:"merely word play."

And pray how is that "God proves his own existence." wordplay?

Further it makes God so much more accessible than trying to thumb through people's funny ideas: all you have to do is ask with sincerity and perseverance :"If you exist, God, please tell me". No one's left out.

Much of what you write suggests strongly that you are a true atheist, really believing that there is no God. Your snooty disdain of religion doesn't fit with with an acknowledgement that God may exist as even a near-atheist agnostic must. I reckon that if you were really honest with yourself then you would admit that you truly believe that there is no god, even without knowledge of the fact, and so are irrational.

The acid test, I reckon, is that you will never sincerely and perseveringly ask God that all important question, because for you the conclusion is forgone. And in anycase, with your twisted view of religions, you wouldn't want it to be true anyway.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"It is true that I can't prove the existence of God, but I don't need to as He did it himself for me, which is why my belief is rational." (Greg). This is personally meaningful to you, obviously, but beyond that merely word play. If you can't prove what you believe to others, then you have no proof your God isn't merely a personal, brain-engendered entity that doesn't exist outside of your neuronal pathways.

As other authors have written long before, there is a range of agnostic belief that can be close to theism but with a few doubts, to the other end of the range when it is close to absolute atheism (the belief that God could not and does not exist). Many choose to call themselves atheists because they are closer to that end of the scale, even though they, like me, are honest enough to say there isn't proof either way. Spending hours debating the semantics seems pointless.

bill, towoomba,

Greg...clearly, very clearly, if you do not recognise the names you know nothing about the subject. Clearly then a theological/philosophical illiterate.

What legwork did you do?....to all available dictionaries? Not good enough. It's academic work that your legs, and mind should be directed to.

You brought up the "authorities". You said ALL authorities disagreed with me without showing one (apart from a dictionary definition. And which edition of the Enc Brit are you referring to? Different authors different editions) I showed two authorites that agreed with me..want more. So clearly not all disagree with me.

My authorites both state that that atheism is the denial of theism. Theism being as I stated before.

Overall, you ignore the really important theological work, by people like Tillich, Jaspers etc. If you think they made little impression then it seems that you have been looking in the wrong places...dictionaries I suspect.

Sean McGrady, York, UK

Can any Christian please explain the oxymoron concept of a "righteous" Christian knowingly killing innocent people let alone enemy fighters in war, so as to gain material advantage, when they know Jesus would not have done so, would not do so if he lived now, and did and would not condone killing for personal gain?

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you"
"Do unto others whatever you would like them to do to you"
"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."
"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back"
"And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"
"Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement"
"Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times"
"Be merciful just as your father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. "
-- Jesus Christ, alias Lord, alias God

jim, sydney,

Sean Grady: "One Authoritative source I can give you...."

Come off it, buddy. Your two authorities are contradicting each other.

One of them agrees with the dictionaries and enc. Brit., but inserts the word "personal", and the other agrees with you, but no other source.

Rather than depending on your inventive sources go and do the leg work as I did.

You then talk of the possibility of a non-personal God lending meaning and purpose, but justify such a loony position not with reasons but names. It is difficult to be impressed with people who left so little impression.

So which is it: denial of an impersonal God, denial of a personal God, denial of a person who believes in a personal/impersonal God, or denial of the O in Sean Grady?

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg Lorriman..."All authoratitive sources disagree with you"...I am afraid you will have to come up with some evidence of "ALL". and "authoritative".

One Authoritative source I can give you....A A Hodge in Outlines of Theology..."Since the usage of the term Theism is fixed in all modern languages, atheism necessarily stands for the denial of the existence of a personal creator and moral governor."

The Philosopher JJ Smart in Atheism and Theism…”Atheism I take to be the denial of Theism….”

As you will have to show with... "the intent of those who coined the word, who were not greek, was 'To deny the gods/God' ". Who exactly are you referring to when you say those who coined this term?

An impersonal God does not mean as you say, that it is the same as having no God at all. Neither is it true that reality would have no meaning or purpose. This is what I was talking about when I was referring to theological illiteracy. In this case you are being philosophically illiterate. Spinoza's God is one such example where a personal God is denied but a meaningful, puposeful reality is affirmed. See Copleston, Hampshire, Jaspers, Tillich on Spinoza. See Tillich’s Systematic Theology to undertand a non-theistic idea of God.

Sean McGrady, York, UK

Everyone seeking a relaxed life should believe in something or even nothing in relation to religion

Biggest danger is those who believe in nothing believe in anything

currently the most insidious is that Man causes global warming

The object of any religion is to exert control and extract rent to sustain individual brands of religion

Brand identity must be established

But if punters get satisfaction at Waitrose rather than Netto [my favourite whats the problem

In the supermarket of religions I am increasingly tempyed by Buddhism and when inebriated Hinduism

Let the market prevail

alimac, Cambridge, UK

"Throughout history, faith resurgent, the Church militant - be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism - tends as it gains enthusiasm to become more extreme." [Facts? Proof?]

Andrew Heavens, Khartoum, Sudan

Sean McGrady:"Strictly speaking atheism, thus A-Theism, refers to a denial of a theism, belief in a personal God, "

All authoratitive sources disagree with you. You are mixing greek and english. The Greek is effectively "without God" or even "lack of God" which is equivalent to agnostic in the loose sense (not huxlian), but the intent of those who coined the word, who were not greek, was "To deny the gods/God".

And you've mixed in "personal", which isn't part of the definition, although I would agree that an impersonal God would effectively be equivalent to having no God at all as all the attributes of atheism would be true: no purpose, no meaning, etc.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Strictly speaking atheism, thus A-Theism, refers to a denial of a theism, belief in a personal God, transcendent of and immanent within his creation. There are atheistic religions such as Buddhism.

This is just a small point to illustrate the huge ignorance, not to say theological (and philosophical) illiteracy that's on the loose, and on the loose, would you believe in the name of enlightned rationalism, here in the comments on this article and elsewhere.

It was Terry Eagleton (not your usual defender of the faith) who said of Dawkins crude book, The God Delusion, that it exhibited extraordinary theological illiteracy by quite cavalierly bypassing powerful works in theology and installing in their place fundamentalism as the voice of theological matters.

Matthew Parris commits the same sort of error here by conflating two different concepts of faith, faith as a religion (eg- The Catholic Faith) and faith as a personal response to unconditional Being. This is not good.

Sean McGrady, York, UK

alan, germany, "The atheist....has come to the conclusion that, on the evidence, he cannot believe their god exists."

This is not the definition of atheist, under that definition you could be a deist. The OED has "To deny/disbelieve in God/gods". Other dictionaries go for the more straightforward (and historically accurate) "To deny the gods/God". The Enc. Britannica also affirms that atheism is to believe that there is no God.

The fundamental nature of these definitions (atheist/theist/agnostic) comes down to belief, and is binary: you either believe there is no God/supreme-being, or you believe that there is a God. Agnostic is the null position : no belief/unbelief, and is passive.

All the confusion caused by modern atheists over the definition of "atheist" is because they acknowledge that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, and so irrational to be atheist, but refuse to call themselves agnostic.

It is rational to be theist because God reveals himself.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Can't we, once and for all, reject the illogical argument that it is foolish to be atheistic because it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist?
By the same argument, it's foolish not to believe in, say, Father Christmas - because you can't prove he doesn't exist either.
Absurd arguments like this merely strengthen my atheism.
As to agnosticism, strictly speaking all of us - atheists and believers - are agnostic, because nobody can KNOW whether any god exists or not.
The atheist, though, is a person who, after listening to all the false arguments and fairy tales of preachers, priests and popes, has come to the conclusion that, on the evidence, he cannot believe their god exists.
Is this so difficult to understand?

alan, germany,

bill, towoomba:"if you can't prove God DOES exist, then by your reasoning, to believe and live your life accordingly is irrational"

I wrote that God proves his own existence. It is true that I can't prove the existence of God, but I don't need to as He did it himself for me, which is why my belief is rational. He will prove Himself to anyone who satisfies the conditions outlined in the Bible : to seek the Truth and to keep knocking on the door. Effectively that means to persevere in asking the conditional question: "God, if you exist, please reveal yourself, and tell me what I should do about it". A true atheist won't do this because in their heart of hearts they really do believe there is no God, which is irrational.

What you describe is an agnostic (although many atheists try to define themselves in terms of agnostic while calling themselves atheist, which is silly).

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Greg, if you can't prove God DOES exist, then by your reasoning, to believe and live your life accordingly is irrational. Atheism is merely to acknowledge there is no proof God exists, believe he likely doesn't, and to choose to live as though he doesn't.

Christian army is an oxymoron, as Christ was a pacifist who did would not support killing in war.

bill, towoomba,

To Leigh in Cardiff and Stephanie in Larnaca - the vehemence with which you express yourselves tends to confirm the dissatisfaction I mentioned in my comment. We can, surely, engage in disourse and dialogue, while at the same time maintaining mutual respect and civility, can't we, or is this ot possible? At no time did I say anything which disparaged the views of the atheist or agnostic - even though I do not share them.

David, Ljubljana,

I think Tony Blair is more concerned with a political after life, that is to say a life after politics, than anything specific. Religious ideology seems to have replaced the political as the main excuse for agitation. We used to have Carlos as the mystery man, now we have bin Laden. It is probably unfair to blame religion, when it is seemingly being exploited by other influences because in this global world, with multicultural countries, it resides conveniently within many different regimes.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Frosbert: "A fool says in his heart there is no God." And the fool who cites it thinks it proves something!"

It does, yes. It is the short form of the fact that so far as anyone can tell it is impossible to prove that God does not exist - it has never been done. So one must be a fool to be an atheist: ie. irrational.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Does Matthew Parris really think that his criticisms of Blair's resurgent faith do not apply equally to his own protestations? Overstatement, simplification and blind spots are evident throughout. My own view, for what it's worth is that the religious tolerance of which Blair speaks cannot be rationally grounded in Parris' naturalistic worldview, since he regards all metaphysics pure nonsense. And that is no basis for measured discussion, as his article attests. At least the Christian, Muslim or Jew who believes that God loves the whole world - which, admittedly, is not every person of faith - find in this doctrine the rationale for treating with respect and friendship those with whom they profoundly disagree. I thank God that many atheists are aesthetically attracted to tolerance but they cannot ground this attraction in any truth of their worldview. When a Christian acts intolerantly s/he defies a core principle of the faith; when an atheist does so s/he defies a simple preference.

John Dickson, Sydney, Australia

Does Matthew Parris really think that his criticisms of Blair’s faith do not apply equally to his own protestations? Exaggerations and blind spots were evident throughout. And there was a larger point he missed. Religious faith can provide a rational basis for tolerance in a way that atheism cannot. Those who believe that God loves the entire world – which, admittedly, is not every person of faith - have good reason for treating with respect and friendship those with whom they profoundly disagree. By contrast, the atheist, who rejects every religion as metaphysical nonsense, has no rational basis for tolerance toward the religious. Thankfully, at the moment many atheists are aesthetically attracted to tolerance but there is nothing within their worldview which rationally grounds tolerance. In short, when a Christian acts intolerantly s/he defies something fundamental to Christian faith; when an atheist does so s/he defies little more than a preference.

John Dickson, Sydney, Australia

There is far too much religious fundamentalism in public life, and I am simply fed up hearing religious fanatics delivering divisive sermons at every opportunity. I would prefer that Mr Blair keep his religious dogma to himself.

Des, Edinburgh,

ironic that people now pursue atheism with a crusaders zeal!

great article

Vincent Ryan, saigon, vietnam

What a fundamentalist diatribe from Mr Parris.

Ted, Rome, Italy

Only one comment;

God save me from organized religion...and Tony Blair.

Thomas, Alicante, Spain,

As Mr Blair saunters off, eyes cast up Joan of Arc style, he might be repeating to himself (with the quiet certainty of someone who knows something we don't), 'Lets just wait and see, shall we?' He used to repeat this endlessly when those of lesser faith were beginning to doubt whether that further resolution would ever be passed by the Security Council. He similarly used to repeat it endlessly when those of lesser faith were beginning to doubt whether those weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq. Oh to have such quiet certainty, such faith, ...

Erol, Brighton,

Parris:"That core is fundamentalist."

Define your terms, Parris. What is a "fundamentalist"?

For a Christian it might be "Love God with all your strength, love your neighbour as yourself, love and pray for your enemies, turn the other cheek, lend without hope of return".

Fanatical, isn't it?

For all the atheist talk of religious using "strawman" arguments the atheists do it more. Even Dawkins points to the Bible belt Christians to 'prove', via evolution, that the Bible is false, conveniently forgetting that most Christians by far are not biblical literalists and can accept evolution. Dawkins justified this by saying that religious fanatics are not straw men when they throw bombs. Well, alright, maybe they aren't literally made of straw. Absurd!

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

"A fool says in his heart there is no God." And the fool who cites it thinks it proves something!

Frosbert Eglantine, Paris, France

I like the point about stopping TB (PM) in the early stages before it was "too late"
Many years ago in reply to an exasperated comment of mine the Sgt Major replied; "Dont blame them for making him a
Sgt, its the ones who started him on the path by making him a L/Cpl we should criticise"
A lesson I have never forgotten..

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

One enormous problem with all this discourse is the European (especially English) chattering classes are no more enlightened, sophisticated, or "smart" in their analyses, language, clarity, or freedom from assumptions that those they purport to be criticizing. MP, like many before (and after) him, conflates an individual's particular beliefs (& past & personality) with one dimension of religion (itself multidimensional), and in the traditional of good English journalism presents a gloss no better or deeper than that which a raving fundamentalist anywhere in the American South might present. Small wonder English politics and society have so many problems--so much chattering away with so little insight. Except for Simon Jenkins--can he be cloned, please?

Jeff, richmond,

I could never understand why whenever Tony Blair re-emerges it is so grating for every body then the reason struck me!
Tony Blair is a plate of cream cakes. We showed poor judgement indulged themselves and gorged on the whole plate. We now feel sick and have of feelings of self disgust whenever 'that plate of cream cakes reappears' to give us a nasty reminder of our ridiculous gullibility for being tempted. Whenever this plate of cream cakes reappears its presence jars.

tari, London, UK

Forget the religious philosophising. Blair is a self-deluded psychopath. The great worry is that people are prepared to give him a platform

David, Bromley,

Tony Blair doesnt beleive in God! The legislation that HE introduced has been anti-family and anti-christian. He simply uses religion as he has used everything else in his career.
Anybody who is for globalisation cannot have any sense of belonging, as that is the whole principle of 'the third way'. It is where commercialism meets communism and where man has no belonging. It is a one size fits all society where man exists to consume and where religion would simply get in the way of marketism.
Like many other events in the past, the future is also about to show us that Tony Blair's 'third way' was also the wrong way!

Matt, Napoli, Italy

I'm fascinated with any talk of this religion being better than that religion...etc. It reminds me so much so of semi arguments you'd listen to back in the 80's about Betamax v VHS or Microsoft v Apple. Today I remind myself perhaps of their relevance...Microsoft at least leads the pack, so far.

But the startling truth for me is that all religions...just as with Microsoft, are man made programming...except Microsoft is still today useful.

Most people here in the UK practice no religion...save weddings (an excuse to get drunk) and Christenings (and excuse to get drunk and have a fight). The majority...something Blair never trifled concerning himself about...aren't interested in religion.

We're certainly in a post Christian phase of our development, so why does it occupy show much of our media coverage? Is it because we have nothing else better to talk about...or as with one or two other religions, the future without man made religions frightens people?

David Downes, Chester, UK

George, you say 'Tony was a bad politician who made poor decisions because he had the temerity to express a faith.'

Actually he was a brilliant political operator who seemed to have a deep-seated mistrust of messy old democracy (remember 'back me or sack me'?) and made his decisions according to what he 'thought was right' as he said on many occasions. Not what was actually right. Not what was even actually legal. Just what he felt like doing. He may have used his faith as his excuse, but true faith breeds humility. Blair ruled by ego, charisma and the gutlessness of those who should have held him in check. We and our children are paying the price, even now as his bullet-proof ego keeps him telling the world what he thinks it should do.

Nancy, London,

I see no reason why Mr. Blair sould not embrace a new
church. He is a quick study no doubt, but, wanting to talk about his enlightenment is a bit previous. See what he has to say about this in 10 years time. We trust confession will have been good for his soul.
Your point of view is always consistent. It reminds me of an old gay friend of mine. He belived that no one could be truly heterosexual. We were to him, people who tried harder and could not accept what was for him reality which could have no exceptions. At which point I made him tea (Earl Grey with two thin slices of lemon).
On religion and much else we differ but always an interesting read, thanks Matthew.

Lizbeth, Orillia,

Beautifully and succinctly put Stephanie... as for you David, in Ljubljana... you're very eloquent, but completely devoid of substance... Can you not see that we are no different to the goats and the ants and the dolphins? Can you not see that we share virtually the same genetic characteristics of the apes? oh, but we are oh so special!!! Can you please explain why a random supernatural being would see fit to make this horrific world we live in and surround it by an immense universe? Do you think he built it all purely for us too gaze in awe at? The universe will expire, the energy of the stars will burn out and it may or may not collapse in on itself, who knows, it may contract into a singularity before bursting out again to start all over... or do you think a man with a big beard (immaculately concepted in the ether of nothingness i guess) will wave his hand and all will be peace and light and holyness and you believers will float around for eternity being happy... dream on!

Leigh, Cardiff, UK

Religion is absurd it comes close to imbecility. HL Mencken

Bill Harding, York,

Religion is the mortal enemy of reason and faith is the mortal enemy of knowledge!
Belief is the mortal enemy of wisdom and superstition is the mortal enemy of enlightenment!
Since the earliest human looked to sky in abject terror at the spectacle of a thunderstorm, man has tried to find a reason for the good and bad things around him. Now the early human thought quite reasonably that a big powerful chief in the sky was shouting and throwing lightning bolts down! well you would wouldnt you? and through the many thousands of years his ancestors tried to find reasons for the world around them all the time getting a little further to the ultimate truth. religion is a tool to explain the world in humanistic terms, just as a child does and as the child grows he learns or should learn to make better sense out of the world.
Humans are still but children in the greater timeline so you would expect us to fall back on our childish fears and fantasies from time to time! One day we wil evolve.

Stephanie King, Larnaca, Cyprus

How comfortable to write columns for a newspaper knowing that all your readers will agree with you. You are brave to include Islam on your list of dangerous world religions. I notice you didn't mention the Dalai Lama on your list. But all religions are the same, aren't they, Matthew? Tony was a bad politician who made poor decisions because he had the temerity to express a faith.

If this comments section is anything to go by, you've found your self-congratulating audience. The problem is, people are turning away from your ideology of smug secularism. One might say that people (not Times readers obviously) are loosing faith in the prescriptions offered by secularists. So keep preaching to the converted while that religious revival, that you are incapable of understanding, carries on. I hope you are happy with the religious nutters who eventually come out on top in Britain. But you may find you miss those Catholics and Bible Belters.

George, london, uk

Has Matthew considered the possibility that Divine Revelation is a manifestation of an Intelligence/Wisdom which transcends anyone's abiity ot approach It, let alone define It, and that the ordered universe, which obeys and reflects the physical realm is a creation of this Source? The two concepts do not conflict and the muddled thinking displayed in our modern paradigm results from us trying to understand "God". We can't, but we can recognise, with a combination of reason and inner perception that certain phenomena are observable, and transcendant in character. Dissatisfaction rsults when the physical dimension is used to try and define all aspects of human existence, and found to be wanting. The various comments concerning the apparent conflicts between the various faiths take no account of the fact that even a cursory examination of the essential components reveal a fundamental commonality in the explanations concerning the relationship between the Creator and the created.

David, Ljubljana,

"An examination technique I learnt early as a schoolboy was to go for an arresting general claim whenever hazy about the facts or the logic".

Does this apply to Blair's speech or this article? The two seem to deserve each other for sweeping statements and generalisations.

David Richards, London, UK

Seneca put it so succinctly: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"

Kieran, Leeds, UK

Are there others who suspect, as I do, that Christian America and fundamentalist Islam mightl eventually become allies against Europe/China/India as they were once allies against the Soviet Union? I realise that Israel is a stumbling block but suspect that both parties could agree to dislike only 'secular' Jews (you know, the ones who dont have blonde hair, blue eyes and come from Kansas).

E Skelton, cardiff, Wales

I suggest the Catholic church tread very carefully when dealing with their "new" convert. Mr Blair has a well earned reputation for joining organizations and stripping them of their core beliefs and principles. Sadly, we have found to our great cost that this man is a false prophet.

joe reilly, Spalding, England

"I can't stand politicians who wear God on their sleeves."

Tony Blair to the Daily Telegraph, April 7 1996

Lyn, Argyll,

No - at the core of his( new) faith is improving his chances of becoming President of Europe.
You where right sometime ago Matthew.This fantasist is ,and always has been, dangerous.He remakes the world in his own mind every time he gets out of bed.

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

A fool says in his heart there is no God.

John Woodrow, Geneva, Switzerland

Among the educated classes in this "Age of Reason" a belief in a god (of any flavour) means that you have considered and discarded a perfectly rational set of reasons for him/she/it not to exist. The reasons are Physics and History.

As such, you must be considered "wierd and suspect" and you shouldn't be running any country, especially one with a powerful army and a nuclear deterrent.

Pedro, Stratford,

In my opinion, the man is a villain and should be brought - along with Waterboarder Bush - before an International Court of Justice to answer for the war-crime of planning and waging a war of aggression, resulting in suffering and death for tens of thousands (and probably more) innocent men, women and children. A Christian???

alan, germany,

What woolly "thinkers" like Blair conveniently overlook is that, as Matthew points out, organised religion depends heavily on dogma. And different religions have mutually exclusive dogmas. To take just one glaringly obvious example: to be a serious Christian, you absolutely must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Literarily. On the other hand, to a Jew or a Muslim, this is blasphemy, as God is far too exalted to have kin of any kind. So Christians are blasphemers and heathen in the eyes of Jews and Muslims; and vice versa. The only way to get around that obstacle and rub along together is to decide that "these theological details don't really matter". In which case you are just using religion as a lifestyle accessory.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

Religion has always been about regulation and control of society, enforced by a self-appointed few and their servants, who achieve and maintain their status using violence and the name of a higher, magical extra-terrestrial authority.

Fundamentalism is not an aberration of religion, it is its core; it is tolerant, enlightened religious belief that is the aberration.

Democracy is the counter to this which is why it is the enemy and the target for religious resurgence..

Faith can be used in a positive way to bring about peaceful coexistence, tyranny does that - look at what happened in the Balkans after Communism collapse.

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

have i an infection? this is the third time that i agree with parris!
was blair continually going to change his views , on scottish and welsh parliaments,on reducing university grants,leaving the protestant church, iraq?
one can only assume the pm was always mistaken,and if anything was to highlight the importance of removing religion from the uk school system the thursday evening lecture gives it total credence.

john haydon rowe, javea,

+I absolutely agree with you Matthew. Another great flaw with the Blair/ Williams view of faith is their desire to find "common ground" with all other faiths . This proves to me that religious faiths are really political parties. Nobody actually believes the mumbo jumbo, the medieval tales, the fantasies etc. with the possible exception of the muslims. If you actually believed in God , you would have nothing in common with other beliefs as they should be mutually exclusive. I am so depressed by the march of the faith groups inthe world - but where could I escape to ?

Andrew, Ramsgate,

Leave Tony alone, he's doing an excellent job in providing an awful example. The faith based approach to world peace provided by Tony Blair and George Bush is a wonderful example of why we don't need religion in politics.

Julian Smith, Rochdale, UK

If religion needs a bit of PR and veneer then it will be in safe hands in Tony Blair. I miss him enormously as PM even if I thought his policies were rubbish. Brown does religion but with none of the endearing characteristics of Blair. However, since religion has been at the core of most of the world's problems in the last thousand years or so I hope Blair seeks his redemption from Iraq through doing good things rather than from talking about them.

Anthony Hollis, Frimley Green, Camberley, Surrey

Do not criticize Blair too much - he is just trying to earn his 'deserved' place in C. Church history.
Old people say: 'Never trust a convert - if he did it once he will do it again, it is just a question of price'.

Savo, London, UK

Mathhew Parris' article brings to mind the words of the 4th century Chinese philosopher Chuang-tzu:

Hence if you want to hear the very best of speeches
On, love, duty, justice, etc.
Listen to statesmen....
By ethical argument
And moral principle
The greatest crimes are eventually shown
To have been necessary, and in fact,
A signal benefit to mankind.

As for me, I wonder if God needs Mr Blair as much as Mr Blair needs God?

Michael Birbeck, Ongar, Essex

You know what? You're right - but not in the way you think you are. I don't agree with the general tone of this article, but I do agree with the last paragraph, which rather neatly expresses both the reciprocal nature of faith and also its nature as a private and personal exchange between "believer" and "beloved"..
"For all our sakes", the "fundamental" element of faith needs to be nothing more or less than the pleasantries you describe so concisely in this last paragraph, it seems to me.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley, Bacup, UK

Ah, but does god believe in Tony Blair ?

Wills, Soton, UK

My immediate post university career was spent writing research papers in criminal justice for among others, the FBI. These were the Reagan days and advancement prospects were bleak, because the people newly in charge already had all the answers, much like today.
Gun control? Answer - more guns, arm women and there's no reason why ten year olds shouldn't know how to handle firearms, for self defense, of course.
The primary perceived social problem was "Why do poor people make such pests of themselves and how can we get rid of them?" Answer, Zero tolerance - Lock 'em up.
That none of these solutions worked did not deter the true believers and, as Mr Blair would say "honestly" it never will.
Yet I retain a basic faith in God because I have so little faith in man.

glenn schaefer, holbrook, ny/ USA

Of course there should be more religion in politics. I mean look at the bang up job Bush, Blair and Osama have done so far in showing the true value of religiosity in politics.

BJR, Darwin, Australia

excellent, Matthew

anne warren, perugia, italy

So you criticize Blair for vague, ambiguous language, then you immediately follow that with a vague, ambiguous assault on the state of faith in the modern world.

David Mickelson, Vancouver, Washington

When does Spiritual Tony get elected Cardinal, " Pray tell me'

Ed Corbett, bridgend,

Hopefully, if we ignore Tony Blair he could just go away (I'm being polite). With any luck we'll see him on celebrity big brother 2012 trying desperately, and comically, trying to maintain his place in the public eye.

As far as religion is concerned though, I'm with Schiller: "Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain."

paul, sheffield, UK

Excellent, matthew

anne warren, perugia, italy

Not sharing in faith, MP must be lost in the world of TB's speech: "Faith is not something separate from our reason,.. the life purpose.. uniquely centred around kneeling before God." TB now is subject to strictures from Rome but free to start a great, worthy project, a very ambitious one. We wish him well.

Hermann Burchard , Stillwater , Oklahoma

I could not agree with you more. It really beats me why Tony Blair is being so sought-after as he apparently is.

Peder Madsen , Copenhagen, Denmark

Yes he perhaps does believe in god but in a very victorian and hypacritical way..think of his mansion in connaught square not to mention his crusade in Iraq,Seems to me that life for Tony as the previous PM is probably a bit dull and unfulfilling and he sees religion as a fast track back to being MR BIG .

gordon lonsdale, Northampton, uk