What I seem to understand from reading assorted “pros” and “cons” is that both believers and non-believers writing to this site consider themselves to be moral beings, at least in the sense of being aware of some moral principles. In fact the world is full of people from both camps (and neither) who behave morally, and whether they believe or don’t believe in theories as to how the world came into existence is as relevant as Swift’s big-endians v little-endians. We should be focussing on those values which seem to be inbuilt into the human spirit, and which struggle, sometimes vainly, with the greed and selfishness which are also inbuilt into all of us.

Joe, Glasgow, Scotland

Rees Mogg considers the tragic effects if Prof Dawkins were to lose his 'faith' in scientific method, and the 'terrible' conclusions that might follow. Would they really be so 'terrible' ? I suspect that Dawkins reserves the right to change his mind as any good scientist would. Is that not what science is all about ? I discharged my 'faith' many years ago as I preferred the freedom of being able to change my mind about what anybody else might press upon me. I could find no reason to accept their infallibility, and if I was not allowed to change my mind how could I possibly explore aal the dimensions of this life in which I had found myself ? I would not expect anyone to 'believe' what I have discovered so far, unless they had tried the same experiments. My experience shows that those who have anchored themselves to a 'faith' would be the last ones to attempt such a leap, and sadly I may have to include R.Dawkins among them.

John Lloyd, Charlton Marshall, Dorset

The memory of dear Sister Patrick of the Sisters of Mercy in Nottingham will never leave me. She was the antithesis of Bin Laden: truly the sweetest and most Godliest person I have ever known in my life. As we sat around her feet, just five years old, she would fill our young hearts with her gentle warmth as she told us how much Jesus loved each one of us.

Regrettably though, in all her innocence, Sister Patrick's methods were little different to those of the evangelical Christians and the fanatics of other faiths. As children, we were indoctrinated, and the power of Sister Patrick to indoctrinate our defenceless minds was far greater than that of any ranting evangelical preacher.

It is because indoctrination of young minds is the principle weapon of religion that Dawkins focuses attention on the arguments of the indoctrinators rather than those of theologians. Theologians have no relevance to the daily lives of believers, nor to the means by which they come to aquire their faith

John Gosling, Torrox, Spain

"Kidd Garrett of Bristol, kindly focus on the explanation of matter which consists in parts outside parts."

What do you mean by this? This is about as obtuse a request as can be made. Are you referring to a specific model of matter? Remember, clarity of thought is usually partnered by clarity of expression.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Ed Bradbury of Bournemouth, the religious way is much better for this life too - much, much better..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

it all boils down to if or not we expect an afterlife

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

I share your concerns, Alan of Cologne yet with Faith all these things become more than bearable. One cannot lightly write this off as hallucination or something similar.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I have some more questions: I'm quite happy with all things bright and beautiful which (if I remember the hymn correctly) the lord god made. What worries me is all the nasty things. The volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, famines and droughts are bad enough, but I suppose they can happen if god created the global pre-conditions for them. But what about the creepy-crawly beasts that pester us? I mean malaria-bearing mosquitos, tse-tse flies, tapeworms, tetanus bacteria, ebola viruses etc. - Even animals suffer - gadflies and foot-and-mouth viruses ... the list is unending. -- Did god create them? Were they all on board Noah's ark? Or are they the result of evolution since then, and, if so, why did god allow them to evolve? Somehow I'm beginning to have my doubts about the good intentions of god. -- Perhaps some qualified person (professional believer) could supply the answers.

alan, cologne,

I follow Jesus and that's enough for me. Nobody else makes as much sense.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What's happened? No more contributions? Hope you are OK, Bryan. -- The following questions have occurred to me which I'd like to put to believers: Do you believe in Mormonism? Do you believe in scientology? Do you believe in Voodoo? If you don't, why not, and to what extent do you not believe in them? -- (I thought this might put some new life into the debate.)

alan, cologne,

hasn't anyone noticed that when writers use the word "rational" that they do so when outlining their point of view? In five hundred years time will all the ideas of today be thought of as "rational"..I doubt it . just as ideas of five hundred years ago (flat earth) were then perfectly "rational"

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

I say again that morality is just skin deep without the God concept personally embrased to affect a deep change in personality. That is what we look for in others . That is what they look for in us. Pure materalism cannot do it. Jesus is right. We yearn for God in the bottom of the psyche and are usually prepared to say anything to put off the hard work of spiritual conversion. These debates are helpful and revealing.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The ranters are those who profess "true faith", when their faith reflects psychological neediness or fear of permanent death. Don't blame the messenger who points out the limitations of this primitive reasoning.

harrison wilkes, east sheen,

Kidd Garrett of Bristol, kindly focus on the explanation of matter which consists in parts outside parts. No diversification please.The ultimate explanation has to be in what is indivisible as Professor Dawkins realises. That can only be in the immaterial. Have you heard of deliberate misunderstanding?. That is a fairly common tactic in debate. Thanks for reminding me of the good quotes, just the same.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

So I appear to be a joke, talking nonsense, a casuist, I haven't read Dawkins, don't understand, I'm ignorant, I pretend to know what I don't know, I make meaningless, strange statements, dodge the questions, I'm obsessed with particles. (I'm not God of course so I do not make eternal judgements although I may soon be told I'm doing that). I don't see any rush to read the scientific evidence of Aldous Huxley on spiritual experience in the world. Particles necessarily need spiritual explanation. I examine them more and more. Sorry to see many dancing around and ignoring them. I hope to be open to learn more with the help of this compelling spiritual territory._ Prayers and greetings.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan,

I feel compelled to poke my oar in again. To pick a quote:

"Matter requires non matter (spiritual) for its proper explanation."

Why?

For one, who says that there is a "proper explanation", for two, why should it be spiritual? YHWH didn't do a particularly good job on explaining cosmology, from what I remember of Genesis, why should he be any more capable when it comes to String Theory, or Branes, or Quantum Gravity, or whatever it may be? Are you now saying that YHWH and his works are effable after all?

I think you are a victim of your overestimation of your eloquence - "inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity", as Disraeli would have it. Clarity of thought is almost always matched by clarity of expression; that most of your respondents patently have problems understanding what you are trying to convey speaks volumes.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Alan, I say we can only begin to free ourselves of mixed motives for our behaviour with the idea of God in our minds. He judges us, not I. Matter requires non matter (spiritual) for its proper explanation. Bad behaviour such as you mention is everywhere. When we do wrong things, it's because we lose sight of God.The God deniers' published manifestos can do nothing to help the interior conversion we require. Evil is within religion too as you notice. Jesus confirms this and calls us to something better. It's a great way to follow Him.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan,

Can you really find a justification for your pronouncement?

"So you refute the Mission of Jesus who said outward morality is no morality at all because just superficial."

Surely the person whose acts are moral (ie they are outwardly moral) is a moral person, while those who proclaim their christianity (or... pick religion of choice) and profess an inward morality while perpetrating acts of venality, cowardice and greed are the superficial ones.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Bryan - strange that you admit I "refute" the mission of Jesus. I think you mean I reject it. -- (I'm all for clarity of speech and I hate incoherent ravings about non-particles.) -- Sorry if I sound arrogant or condescending, but what choice do I have when believers write such undiluted bilge.

alan , cologne,

Once again, Bryan, your "eloquence" appears to have run away with you. Are you saying (in plain words): Without god there is no morality? If so, why don't you say it quite clearly instead of wrapping it up in the usual Bryanist ramblings? -- I don't know about Ben, but this makes me an immoral character. But I'm sure - as a good Christian - you mean no offence.! Actually, though, I like to think I do have morals. Indeed, when I look around me and see the way so many of the devout conduct themselves, I go so far as to consider my actions far more moral than theirs. Priests abusing little boys is just one example. -- Anyway, Bryan, I look forward to your next comment. It's always amusing trying to fathom out what exactly it is that you find so difficult to formulate.

alan, cologne,

Mr Rees-Mogg, You may have slightly more than basic literacy skills but this does not entitle you to brandish such a patronising attitude. That you are not as convincing as Mr Dawkins in this debate may well be because of the respective merits of your cases - bestowing insults, however apparently politely you may express them, is no way to advance the argument. I am disappointed, I really am.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Alan of Cologne and Ben of York, picking up on your points, you coincide with the gathering of information by Professor Dawkins which leads to the conclusion that God isn't necessary for morality. So you refute the Mission of Jesus who said outward morality is no morality at all because just superficial. Morality to be the radical thing it has to be needs to be an interior conversion, a change around of the emotional forces. The only way this occurs, as Jesus says is by growth into the idea of God. There's nothing else with the magnetic power to convert to the kind of change we'd all like to see.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Father Bryan,

It seems that rather than admit your ignorance (as many are only too happy to do, those called scientists by and large, for example), you seek to claim a special knowledge.

Please, just admit that you haven't the foggiest idea what is going on and salvage something from your impending intellectual and moral shipwreck.

Please don't play fatuous casuist games is if they were clever or illuminated anything. That crack about particles, dear oh dear oh dear.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Does anyone else see Dawkins as a inverted version of one of those American faith healers?,preaching with zeal to people who share his viewpoints and mocking anyone that doesnt as fools who need a "comfort blanket" .He speaks wih the same mocking ,arrogant tones about people who think they are going to heaven as the worst of the fundamentalists do about people they think are going to hell! Dawkins is a very clever man whose realised he can make a buck or two,much like his christian(and muslim etc.) counterparts from people with firmly held beliefs.I expect much more hardline fudamental atheism to come in his future books...of which im sure there will be plenty.We don't know if there is a God.Its unlikely but so were dinosaurs before fossils.We will,all of us find out someday.Let believers have the comfort blanket of heaven and let atheists have the comfort blanket of intellectual superiority.

Darragh, fleet, hampshire

It's a well known fact, Bryan, that a lot of people, when faced with some adversity, are unable to cope and flee into religion in order to find comfort. That, of course, is why priests and preachers turn up when people are grieving, desperate or dying. -- Of course I don't know what made you opt for religion, Bryan, and it's none of my business. But in the course of my long life I've experienced happiness and sorrow, joy and grief. Never, though, never have I once been weak enough to flee from reality and seek the deceptive "comfort" of a faith in some imaginary creator. I have been strong enough to retain my intellectual integrity. -- This is why I have told my loved ones that, if a priest or preacher should approach me as I lie on my deathbed, they should see him out of the room with a powerful kick up his backside - metaphorically at least.

alan, cologne,

Bill of Towoomba, I got some help from Buddhist insights at one time. Yet Jesus is unique. There's no resurrection without the crucifixion and all that this implies. Life is empty without this understanding.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Zen Buddhism implies all phenomena are impermanent and emptiness, that self is an illusion, that nothing is permanent, everlasting, and eternal. That there is no individual soul. So does Christian teaching consider Buddhism to be truly spiritually enlightening, if it denies the concept of a soul and self? Or misguided?

bill, towoomba,

Don't dilly dally, Frank of Sydney. Any particle.Crack it open and explain its existence.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The most of it is by going over to the spiritual, Jim Rogers of Sydney.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Alan of Cologne. I'd not have your so called real world for all the tea in China, thanks. I was brought up on it. I keep on about explanation because of all you artful dodgers. What's this about getting real? Listen to it!

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

War is not really an issue as roughly ten times the number of people have been slaughtered as a result of non-religious conflict as have been because of religious war. So to say that religion causes war misses the point as clearly its people who cause wars. And sometimes those people who cause wars hold a religious belief. As for wanting proof...The only way to disprove the existence of a God would entail looking under every rock in the universe and looking under every rock in the universe at exactly the same time (just in case God decides to move or something.) So until scientists/religionists do this and prove either way, I will continue to hope that there is something more to life than pointless bickering and finger pointing.

Jordan, Manchester,

Which Alan are you referring to, Bryan? I ask because your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted. I asked why you are so obsessed with an "explanation". Surely, Bryan, you must see that there are things we humans don't understand, can't (yet) explain. Why do you have to invent an "explanation" (and then defend it although it's really just phantasy)? -- As the saying goes, Bryan, "Get real". Forget about all those miracles, saints and devils, hell and original sin, and water turning into wine. Come down to earth again and join me in the real world of common sense. You will feel very relieved and intellectually free from dogmatic shackles. Why don't you give it a try? I can recommend it. -- (On second thoughts, though, I think you'd better not. Anyone so conditioned to "faith" is likely to suffer depression if he comes to his senses and realises he's only been deluding himself - and others.)

alan, cologne,

There it is, Alan. You underline the point. You would not shunt off explanation in the material field . Why do you say we do not know when we have to know that matter can only be totally explained by non matter? You are not alone. Many just do not want to know. Yet despite the banging on about the admitted evils connected with the Crusades and other things, reflect on the unique wisdom of St. Bernard who said that only with God in mind can our deepest fears, worries and anxieties (central to our being) be converted into peace, joy and love.The late Malcolm Muggeridge put the camera on faces to illustrate it.Yet, I know that many do not want to know. Jesus left villages because nobody was interested.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

"Life on earth has been generated over billions of years in a single branching tree--The Tree of Life--by one algorithmic process or another" (Dennett).
Natural selection has produced us, but if the program was re-run, variables would be unlikely to produce a result that is the same. There was no certainty that evolution would produce US.
At a more individual level, every conception is an algorithmic process with so many variables that we are all here by happenstance. Two lovers may feel powerfully that "we were made for each other", but that is of course not a rational concept when referenced back to their random conceptions. It merely reflects stimulation of certain neurological areas involved in satisfaction and reward, in love and fulfillment, post-event.
None of us need be here, but for a happy combination of events. That we are here is cause for celebration. All we can do is make the most of it.

jim rogers, sydney,

Alan of Cologne, I ask you to look at the lives of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Mother Teresa,Padre Pio, Bernadette of Lourdes and many others. Stop selecting bad examples please. We all have bad things in our natures with which to cope, even Alan. For all its failures, the only proper medicine to improve us spiritually is God worship. I try to follow Jesus on war and peace matters. I'm pacifist but not absolutely so.Sorry I forgot to tell you before.
Frank of Sydney. You are in circles and keep blaming it on me. I didn't ask you from where matter comes or the journey it makes and the method of arrival, I ask you with Professor Dawkins to put the microscope on being itself . No energy or matter can adequately explain its existence or the existence of any other particle individually, collectively, finitely or infinitely . So the explanation has to be in non matter which intrinsically does not have as part of its makeup coming in and going out of existence, change and development .

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

People can be changed emotionally, psychologically and spiritually by having religious faith, for better or worse. There is no argument there. However, there is no evidence these processes are at any stage effected by any external supernatural being or magical grace acting on any part of anyone's brain, mind, essence, spirit or being. Religious beliefs, God and faith are generated within the brain and mind, and by feedback within that same brain and mind, initiate these changes. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

frank, sydney,

Bryan - what's all this nonsense about particles explaining particles? Why are you so totally obsessed with an "explanation" anyway? Can't you be humble enough to admit there are things humans cannot explain, and leave it at that? Why invent an explanation? But no, on second thoughts, don't reply - because your reply will be just another senseless repetition of the Necessary One being the Absolute Explanation (or some similar semantic acrobatics intended to hide your helplessness at countering atheistic logic). No offence meant.

alan, cologne,

So the Crusades, Inquisition, other religious wars, and Islamic suicide bombers, with God in mind, were/are due to God's marvellous help?

frank, sydney,

Bryan - do you really think that "with God in mind" moral behaviour "marvellously" improves. How come so many human beings have been slaughtered under the battlecry GOTT MIT UNS? And haven't priests been known to bless tanks and even atom bombs? --Let me repeat my question to you: Do you tell Catholic soldiers not to kill? (I believe that's one of the commandments, but correct me if I'm wrong.) You know my opinion of hypocrites.

alan, cologne,

If it looks like a particle, and tests confirm it's a particle, then yes, a particle is a particle.
If you mean, BS, where did matter come from, who knows? You're going in circles again.
If you mean, can physical non-intelligent matter lead to life, and to intelligent beings with subjective awareness and consciousness, then it obviously can, as blind evolution produced the animal kingdom and mankind.

frank, sydney,

So you too, Dr. Lewis of Tenterden, believe that particles can adequately, entirely and thoroughly explain particles?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Again you miss the point Alan. I asked you to see the evidence amassed in the Aldous Huxley study contained in the 'Perennial Philosophy'. A complex character's studies should not on that account be shunned. There is no indication that you have referred to this book. I was asked to read more of Richard Dawkins than the books and studies I had already made. I have done this and am continuing. Much more to come.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

With God in mind moral behavious always marvellously improves, Frank of Sydney.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

OK, FBS, which particles, where in the brain and body, and in what way are they physically changed? What evidence exists for this change, beyond your or someone else's unsubstantiated belief? ( I have great doubt, as do numerous experts in cognitive science).
(and don't just say "it's obvious" due to the way people change behaviour or thinking, for that proves nothing except that people can change).

frank, sydney,

I don't have to read thick volumes on astrology to know that it's balderdash. The same applies to books on theology. As to "perennial philosphy" - - it's fine for anyone who's hellbent on finding a proof for some divine existence. But for the critical observer, it's just another example of semantics and wishful thinking. -- LOOK:- You hear thunder, but you don't know what it is, so you're frightened. (Ignorance + Fear). So you think up an explanation (Thor?) and pray to him not to harm you. Superstition (and most religion) probably grew from a combination of fear and ignorance, both prevalent at the time the bible was written. Its authors knew more about cleaning a camel's hoof than the structure of the atom.Today we (or most of us at least) are a little more enlightened. Some of us have drawn the logical consequence and cast superstition and religion to where they belong - on the rubbish tip of history.

alan, cologne,

No, Bryan, I do not agree that my last comment was unfair. When you quote Aldous Huxley, that's to the point. When I quote his much more eminent and respected brother, the scientist Sir Julian Huxley, you say that's not to the point. Oh well, just another example of Bryan-logic. --- But what's this I see? Aldous Huxley is also quoted as saying "You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion... Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from catmeat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly." Is this a quote from the book you refer to?

alan, cologne,

I strongly support Richard Dawkins views on religion. There is absolutely no detectable evidence for the existance of a soul. Moreover, there is also only one somewhat belatedly recorded
example of a resurrection. I would submit the the evidence is not statistically significant.

I was a little disappointed with Professor Dawkins latest foray on television. This was not his fault but there were really no pausible 'enimies of reason to demolsh, they just fell over.

However, please carry on the good work.

Dr WHP Lewis, Tenterden, UK

So, are you saying particles are the complete and satisfactory explanation of particles, Frank of Sydney?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Yet particles adequately explain particles through and through, Alan? Come off it.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

We understand little of what causes one person to develop cancers or other diseases while another doesn't, or why one responds to therapy and another doesn't. The many billions of chemical reactions involved in health and cure are not by any means understood, nor how our immune surveillance system breaks down, or seems to pick itself up and do the job again after seeming to falter or fail. Emotional and psychological difficulties may be addressed and reversed, and though this may be a slow and painful process, they may at times only need another major emotional input, or a "sea-change" decision to be set in motion, to be dramatically helped. This doesn't ever require any magical forces. Attributing mood and inspirational changes to supernatural forces is madness.
If a drug worked only less than 0.001% of the time, no-one would consider that it likely works at all, yet for unexplained events, that sort of hit rate is enough for superstitious, gullible, or already biased believers to claim divine intervention and miracles actually happen! And the evidence for this intervention? Non-existent!

frank, sydney,

There is no doubt, Frank of Sydney, that there's a rearrangement of particles through relationship with God. Aldous huxley shows this in his great study.The spirit when allowed in influences the whole being from head to foot -most marvellously, have no doubt.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

BS, you are back at the start of Groundhog Day, asking what was before the Big Bang, which has been discussed many times before. I seem to remember saying you don't like the answers, so you keep asking the same questions, and now here you are yet again......

frank, sydney,

With all due respect to the sensible people who reply to Bryan, the debate is not about big bangs and molecules, matter and energy etc.. This is just a typical red herring to divert attention away from the real question. Since the pro-god-people can find no evidence, nor any other logical reasons, to believe in the supernatural, they seize on every opportunity to begin a discussion on something entirely irrrelevant. The big bang, matter, energy etc. are the subject of scientific investigation resulting in theories which are modified or falsified according to new scientific evidence. Not only are they quite independent of any supernatural being, they are certainly cannot be used as evidence of any "god" either. We should leave them out of the debate and concentrate of showing how logically absurd religious faith is.

alan, cologne,

If you decide to lift your hand and arm then pick up a knife to butter your bread because you are hungry, does the decision begin in your brain, or in a separate non-physical mind/spirit? Does the feeling of hunger merely come from the limbic system responding to hormonal and neuronal activity? Does it then get transported to a "mind" which then sends signals magically back to the brain? If not all brain-based, how does the signal get from the separate mind to the frontal cortex planning the act, and to the motor cortex to initiate the movement, or to and from the visual cortex involved in vision, or to the cerebellum and other areas involved in co-ordinating the movement, if not purely by neuronal activity?

If you lift your hand and arm to stab someone you feel angry with, is there any different process involved other than different brain areas being activated, including the amygdala, memory centres and various frontal/prefrontal areas?

fran, sydney,

Alan, do keep to the point. None of that latest posting is news. I ask you to study what Aldous Huxley reveals in the Perennial Philosophy. Thats no a fair way to answr, you have to agree.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Frank, you dodge my question. You say I go round in circles, boringly saying the same thing. That's because I get no answer. I ask again, how on earth you avoid wriggling in bed at night when not confronting the question ' how can God deniers really expect others to believe in them when they posit the idea that matter and energy which are intrinsically contingent, be the adequate explanation of existence? Yet you say you're scientists and list all the books? No wonder you get so uptight with God worshippers.Professor Dawkins leads you in this dodgem business. My gold fish are in an interesting aquarium too. They never stop exploring in their confinement, keeping each other company. I suppose it's like that. Yet I rarely see horses with blinkers now these days.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Nothing explains how a supposed soul and brain interact. Our thoughts, emotions, feelings, memory, personality and identity come about by neuronal processes. The balance of brain areas active at any one time appear to cause what is going on in our minds at that time. Some things are in consciousness, but most activity is unconscious, at any one time. If a soul and divine grace have any role, they must be able to change neurone thresholds, activity and firing, neurotransmitter formation, release, uptake, etc, to change the balance of activity in various brain areas. If not, then one's "soul" would be separate and irrelevant to how we feel, think and behave. Grace would have no mechanism by which it could inspire a person to change in any way.
If the spiritual realm can't change the way atoms, molecules and cells move, interact and react, then the concepts of a soul and grace become meaningless. Then everything we are is purely a physical process. I believe this to be the case, and our spiritual side is just another neuronal process.

frank, sydney,

So Bryan, the net amount of matter and energy combined has somehow appeared to increase magically after the Big Bang? When? How?
You must write up your findings in a scientific journal.

frank, sydney,

Frank, are you trying to kid us that the Big Bang is the origin? I think your friends will be a bit cross with you.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan - you refer to Aldous Huxley, who experimented with the hallucinatory drug mescaline, dabbled in Bhuddism and took his own life on an overdose of LSD. I'd rather quote his scientist brother, the eminent biologist, Sir Julian Huxley, who said of religion: "The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat ... God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." - Huxley also said: "The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants ... So did religion." - Huxley also said: "God is a hypothesis constructed by man to help him understand what existence is all about. ...To say that God is ultimate reality is just semantic cheating, as well as being so vague as to become effectively meaningless." Which Huxley do you prefer, Bryan?

alan, cologne,

The problem with the reasoning of Willian Reese-Mogg is that he brings the term God into his argument as though the meanings and implications of that term are fully understood and agreed upon by all the speakers and hearers in the world in the same way that we all understand what is meant by the terms bricks- or - custard. In fact the term God is short-hand for a large group of metaphysical ideas.
Metaphysical ideas cannot or logically should not carry the predicate He, which is properly meant to describe an animal of the masculine gender who carries the male gametes within his sexual reproductive system. In fact a line of reasoning which purports to give the same value to "life" a well known condition of existence and the theory of evolution; an argument which seeks to explain the question of how the multifariousness of life obtained and the term "God" is in fact incoherent without a prior satisfactory explanation of what the term God is supposed to mean. God is, but only in the mind

Brian Harris, Brisbane, Queesnsland Australia

Frank of Sydney. Not possible.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan, you are back to saying how the Big Bang came about, as all matter and energy derives from that point. The Bog Bang has been discussed in these blogs many times. You spend your life arguing in circles.

frank, sydney,

Alan, FSM is an absurd materialistic, a false mocking god put up in place of the God who has to be spiritual. The imagination runs riot when God is pushed out. There's enormous evidence of what I say about God.Seen Aldous Huxley's evidence yet? Trouble is as Professor Dawkins says on page 117 of GD one must be 'steeped in it and swim about in natural selection'. No greater indicator of the intensely blinkered approach that does not home into the necessary spirituality of the ultimate explanation whose intelligence in bafflingly transcendent yet ever provoking us to further thought instead of the closed up minds that the Professor states is the consequence of the movement to penetrate the immaterial.( page 125). Even intelligence has to be necessarily complex. Well well.Yet all is not lost in the materialistic nose bag. Professor Dawkins claims causality when talking about possible simulators. Bravo! No wonder he's not so sure as to put himself in number 7(page 51).

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan - if you explain the existence of matter and energy by the existence of your god, I explain it by the existence of my Flying Spaghetti Monster. He exists in my head and He cries out from my conscience. He is invisible and He is all-powerful and full of love and needs worship. If you don't worship Him it leads to self-worship, the cause of many delusions. The anti-FSM-people are always trying to deny His existence, but they can't prove it. No, a-FSMism is a riduculous absurdity. Without Him there can be no basis for true morals. He is the Necessary One who explains the existence of matter and energy. And everything else as well, for that matter. --- (I'm only kidding, Bryan, but I'm using the same "arguments" as you. Perhaps you now understand how they appear to non-believers.)

alan, cologne,

Ben, what is this about science contradicting Scripture. Explain please.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What? Who are you to declare this without evidence? And it is not enough to cite "because invisible" (!?) and say science is not enough as it either can, or given time will, explain all. And it all contradicts scripture, so that cannot be used as evidence.

I am not one of the psychiatrists you say cannot cure us, but I can diagnose you: delusional.

Ben, York,

Doctor Trudgill, you must have experience of the ego problem for which you cannot prescribe anything. The psychiatrists and counsellors may analyse, make evident and point the direction. The only deep cure, however comes from regular worship of the God in Conscience made clear by Jesus who caused much irritation in saying it all to the point of His being crucified..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Ben, you should really be worried about Professor Dawkins who in the 'God delusion' (31-54) does not understand the senses of Scripture and fails umpteen times to distinguish being from facet of being and is thus led to make false deductions about God and polytheism. Most of all, he subscribes to the idea that something can come from nothing. ( page 31). In his summary of what is central to his thesis, page 157, he demonstrates he has not understood Aquinas by the falacious reasoning that led him to get muddled over polytheism. He focuses on design and intelligence to obscure the pivotal question of existence. Every being, individually or collectively,however connected, whether finite or infinite, needs sufficient explanation of its existence. This is necessarily unable to be scientifically detected because invisible ( from vital immateriality). The Professor with Ben and his blog friends are thus (page 50) enabled to move from milestone 6 to 1 and be in company with Carl Jung.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

How do you explain the existence of matter and energy, Frank of Sydney?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I have never seen a 100% proof of god. So, Bryan and the thiests, surprise me.

Ben, York,

Thank you Doctor Trudgill of Gloucester. I know we 'religious ones' are often irritating. Surely you agree that there are enormous problems through with not taking seriously the kernel of the religious message viz the importance of curbing the ego? I agree that there is sometimes more apparent effort among those who ignore or oppose the religious communities.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Dr. Trudgill, thank you for what you write. Your testimony is unusual and helpful and endorses my principle point more than may be immediately apparent. We find God through working through our egos. Progress on this front is sometimes more apparent in the world of those who oppose or ignore religous communities than among us who are part of them. I'm sure you've not got it right in thinking there's a tide of religiosity in our country, however. There are enormous problems everywhere through not knowing how to begin to curb the ego and great opposition to any idea that such is necessary or desirable.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Some things cry out to you, and seem obvious to you, that are don't and are not to me, nor to many others. You have no right to assume you are more correct than anyone else.
Jesus and so called saints may have suffered from their own delusions and illusions.

frank, sydney,

Frank of Sydney, the supernatural simply cries out from the natural. Non perception of it is due to other involvements as Jesus so rightly says.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Father Storey
I am not part of an anti God lobby (not yet anyway). I simply do not believe in God, because I am rational, and I do not feel the need to worship any being (including myself). I don't suffer from depression because of my lack of belief - indeed, I find it liberating, and my only sense of despair is for those people who find it necessary or appropriate to live a life that is not governed by reality. My married life is happy, and I am not ill.

Why is it that those with religious views continue to believe they have some kind of moral precedence over the views of other perfectly courteous, compassionate, and rational human beings like myself? My life is not empty because I do not worship another being. In fact it is quite the contrary.
The tide of religiosity in this country may slowly be changing, but for me it can't change quickly enough.

Dr Trudgill, Gloucester,

I have never had experience of and see no evidence for the supernatural anywhere.
What's with this self-worship idea? I don't worship myself, I just try to lead a normal decent life. Your harping on this idiotic point is very irritating, and not just to me, from what I read here and on the other blogs. You must have a very unusual way of perceiving your "ego".
I don't think an ego theory of self works. I prefer bundle theorists explanations.

frank, sydney,

Frank, I find it astonishing that you think Infinite or infinite is not supernatural. You have some experience of this after all? Explain yourself please. I agree that there are loads of conscious and unconscious illusions within us. I say the only way to reduce them is by getting away from constant self worship to the practice of worshipping God even if unhappy with the idea. Such will help and enlighten in a great way as demonstrated by Aldous Huxley.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Many people far cleverer than you and I see this, Alan. I know there are clever ones in the anti God lobby too. We have the choice but the search must continue. I am open to be convinced by the anti God ones who've been at me by various means all my life. I've even sought out and devoured their books since I was a youngster. They only confirm me in my convictions. I have no doubt that the anti God lobby comes from non worship, irrationality, leads to depression and despair and greatly contributes to the breakdown of married life and many illnesses. Its infiltration of religion is the cause of many things blamed onto religion.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The concept of infinite does not imply supernatural existence.

Many, after realising their religious belief is a misguided sham, see reality more clearly, and appreciate life and the world around them more freely, without the clouds of spurious, pious dogma and rhetoric.

Religion offers the illusion and delusion.

frank, sydney,

Aha - infinite explains finite - you could have fooled me. Existence has to be explained - is that absolutely necessary? Our nature is fallen - speak for yourself Bryan. Vision blinded by illusions - speak for yourself again, Bryan. -- Oh, I think I'm suffering from a bout of non-acceptance of the infinite. That's got me somehow confused. I think I'd better go away and play conkers - it might help to bring some sense back into this debate - like mad..

alan, cologne,

Frank of Sydney, the proof is that finite does not exist without infinite to explain it. Existence has to be explained but you prefer to play conkers, put your head in the sand or look the other way. You are by no means alone. Even many 'clever ones' claim the same. Yet it's there. Some, after conversion admit they now see what they did not see before. It's more likely that because of the confusion within our fallen nature, the vision was blinded by illusions. We're hardly ever free from some. Non acceptance of the Infinite encourages this like mad.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I might suggest that the rational to attack the worst of the religious first is the same rational that one applies to removing the largest and most pernicious weeds from a garden first, that they provide the greatest threat, but if the last religious person standing were the current Archbishop of Canterbury I would still encourage him to consider how his religious belief reduces his capacity for rational thought due to its requirement for the concept of 'truth'.

Mark Wilson, Nottingham, England

As a maths teacher used to tell us, Bryan, if you can't prove what you're writing down as the answer, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Now why does that make me think of you?

frank, sydney,

Ben, tell us about this enormous truth you alone seem to have got from the Professor. As a great professor used to say to us students ' don't come and tell me it's in the book or you know it, if you can't spell it out. If you can't spell it out for us, you haven't really grasped it. Come on, Ben, we're entitled to know what it is from you.'

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

The quote, Ben, is from the great St. Augustine who refers to making idols of people and things in a way that excludes God. That is disasterous during our lives and greatly undermines the natural quest for interior peace.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Having heard a preview of Richard Dawkings attack on Homeopathy ( due to be broadcast tonight) claiming that it's apparent success is solely the result of the 'placebo effect' , what about the British Association of Homeopathic Vetinary Surgeons ? The Soil Association on its web site advises of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of mastitis in cows. Are the cows and other animals imagining themselves better ?

Kim Shah , weston super mare, somerset

What are your grounds for that Bryan? The heart rests when we die. We end. Live (and die) with it. And as for your NOMA thing, read the book and try to understand. As Dawkins says, you need a consciousness raiser.

Ben, York,

Perception does not exclude some imagination, Frank of Sydney. That's rather different from this sophistry of which you anti God ones speak so much. The human heart never rests until it rests in God is an enormous truth. As the man said to me 'try it'.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The heart is an organ developed by evolution to pump blood. The poetic heart is part of the brain, and no more divine that any other body part. As usual, Christian sophistry appears to cloud reality.

frank, sydney,

Of course we know, Ray of Dundee. God is there and has to be. The fact cries out from every finite, limited being whose existence has to be properly explained by something we cannot help not seeing. The anti God ones keep wanting us to put Him in a test tube. That's just ridiculous. If we saw Him, it couldn't be God.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

These scientific answers are highly interesting but always avoid the heart of the matter. The human heart is made for God.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Come on, let's have your arguments, stop throwing your books lists around and say something.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I prefer to sit back, and state quite simply "I don’t know" We are ALL only human beings, no different from animals in many respects, whether your a Priest, a President, or a homeless person. The truth is that NO ONE knows, or will ever know (in their life time) if God exists or not. We all have theories, and opinions, that’s all. Any one who says that they know as truth, the existence of God, or lack thereof, is either deluded, or sees some personal gain in stating such rhetoric as fact.

Ray Krachan, Dundee, UK

Not talking of time but explanation of the existences.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

When quantum effects are taken into account, that all-important intrinsic uncertainty can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.
What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing. (Paul Davies)

frank, sydney,

Read Stephen Hawking or Brian Green or any number of physicists/cosmologists who write books for the public, and you'll get an answer. Or google for the theories that are around. You won't get it sitting in your back garden.

frank, sydney,

Because, Frank of Sydney, the answers are no answers at all. What's beyond 'big bang'?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Too true Frank. Bryan, I urge you to read the book with an open mind and all your questions will hopefully be answered.

Ben, York,

There have been many postings on these sites giving explanations for a universe without God, and about conscience and consciousness, Bryan, as you well know, but you don't like them, which is your prerogative, but why keep asking the same things, unless you just want the same answers posted yet again?
How about you just accept not all people agree with you, and for what they feel are good and justified reasons?

frank, sydney,

To focus on intelligence has little meaning without focusing on explanation.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What interesting distinctions you now make, Ben. Is it the same Ben writing? What do you wish to say of this? Why focus on intelligence rather than explanation? It's interesting how God opponents are focusing. Do say more. This is getting really interesting. You are now speaking of a created universe. Now that's fascinating too.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Surely you can see the difference between human action through conscious choice and the unintelligent (but marvellous) processes that created the universe? Unless you advocate the long-refuted intelligent design theory?

Ben, York,

I see no difference in principle.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

That is completely different and doesn't answer the question.

Ben, York,

If your house were burgled Ben and there were no trace of the burgler, would I be justified in saying nobody did it?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Ask a serious question that science does not answer. Except there are none. I ask you just one question - what evidence is there for God?

Ben, York,

The debate makes it clearer. The idea that God is a delusion obviously springs inevitably from the breeding ground of all illusions, irreligion. Worship of God is the only way to reduce our proneness to live in an illusory world. Current religious responses do not begin clearly to aknowledges this. A real religious revival is urgent.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Ben, I've mentioned before that religion is often used to promote irreligious things, especially tribalism dressed up as religion. You ought to know that elementary fact. Religion opposes murder. I expect you therefore now accept the first Commandment?. Play the game. I expect Professor Dawkins will be quite pleased to know you find him elegant. I've not heard that one before. How can you say there's no loophole in what he says when he doen't even start to face the acute problem of the explanation of existence beyond fascinating, proximate scientific events. ?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Documents or human life? Hard choice. Tell that to the millions who have died due to religion. Dawkin's argument is elegant, clear and has no loopholes - the exact opposite of the bible.

Ben, York,

Jim of Sydney, these arguments from silence are very weak especially when one takes motives for silence into consideration. What of the destruction of Christian documents during the days of the 10 persecutions? Strange you do not mention that. Your whole stance cries out 'I'm a biassed sort of unobjective bloke who really wants to do down this Christian business'. Professor Dawkins tries the same thing with some fascinating scientific knowledge along with some unreliable RE. What are you up to?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

"It is also very striking that supposedly definitive sources blithely cite the Jewish historian Josephus as independent evidence of Jesus’ life. But all fail to tell us that the authenticity of the passage has been under suspicion for centuries and, in light of modern research, must be dismissed as a clumsy Christian forgery inserted into Josephus’s work. Christians themselves do not begin to quote the passage until several centuries later, although many of their predecessors knew Josephus’s work well and would have found the passage very useful".
"It is also significant that another Jewish historian of the same era, Justus of Tiberias, made no mention of Jesus whatever and yet he, like Josephus, came from Galilee.
Without the disputed passages neither does Josephus and this seems extremely strange if Jesus went about their own homeland of Galilee working prodigious miracles and attracting vast crowds". (from David H. Lewis)
The Jesus of the gospels is a late first century mythical creation, and in real life (whoever he was, whatever his true life) no more God than me, you, or anyone else.

jim, sydney,

Bill, towoomba - A challenge for you - try to get a response from Bryan that directly addresses reality, not some kind of wild acid trip.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bill of Towoomba, the religious industry as you call it has many imperfections and evil within it. Yet, it helps in the promotion of human love in a way your outlook could not begin to do because if you deny the Invisible One or live as if He's not there, you actively undermine the Source of Love.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

I write on Bastille day 2007. Is Dawkins prepared to focus his scientific critique on other faith based fundamentalisms? I refer to the unthinking acceptance that liberty, fraternity, equality and even more rights are good for us or sustainable. The Old Testament at least acknowledges human folly. I fear we mostly prefer lies to uncertainty, prefer feel-good chemical surges to experimentally validated evidence of which policies (or invasions) are likely to work with the grain of our evolved brains and which will throw up unintended consequences. Swopping religion for Utopian dream-weaving is hardly progress. More scientific rigour, more experimental psychology please.

john sharp, Oxford, UK

Nothing increases man's many illusions more than worship of a deity. I'm not anti-God, because I don't see any evidence he exists, but am anti the religious industry that feeds on people's insecurities, hopes and fears with threats, carrots and guilt.

bill, towoomba,

Bill of Twowoomba, nothing increases our many illusions more than failure to worship God. These references to sophistry and platitudes are 'put downs' which are not worthy of anti God people.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

It seems platitudinous statements rule, so:
It is theists who practice any formalised religion who have lost insight. All believers perhaps should acknowledge that, and also need to acknowledge the wonders of "conversion" to reality based non-theism and rationality. Sifting through their inner selves will guide them to this truth......

bill, towoomba,

Dominic: But you do realise there's an ocean of conflicting emotions within us which need sifting partly through the inner guidance we have. The handful of friends I know and others who've written of their experience in conversion speak of seeing the same things differently. Dominic, it's not that difficult to see. You need to ackowledge this just as I acknowledge that people lose this insight and go your unenviable way.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan : There is no religious world inside me and if there was I'd choose the Flying Spaghetti Monster as given the available alternatives he is the most credible.
Back to your "ex-atheist friends" - what were their reasons for no belief in mythical entities and what precise evidence (not vague mumbo-jumbo) persuaded them otherwise ? How many people are we talking about ? What do they consider a reasonable standard of evidence ? For once answers that deal with reality would be nice.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic, we're all rather defend ourselves against intrusions yet the great challenge involved in the inner development is greatly liberating. There's a religious world within you, awaiting further development.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

They say it was always there in embryo. That to me is pretty obvious. No illusion to have a well founded belief in God. It brings out life's full meaning. The boot's on the other foot, Bill of Towoomba. Come. come!

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Or they prefer delusion to reality....

bill, towoomba,

Dominic: They now see what they failed to see before. You must know this psychological process. Scales fall from the eyes.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan : I'm curious - these "ex atheists friends" of yours - what was their reasoning for moving from a position where they saw no evidence for believing in magic to removing the requirement for evidence?
I see a few possibilities; the main one being - They really weren't atheists, simply people who weren't much bothered either way who for whatever reason now go with the magic explanation. Good luck to them, its much easier than critical thinking I guess. Would they like to invest in my new perpetual motion machine ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan : With the greatest of respect you are not me, and I think its time for me to stop messing about - frankly and honestly I struggle to come to terms with how little intelligence people apparently have if they think simple common decency requires anything from a mythical supernatural entity. I have not been influenced by anything religious other than to see from a very early age (about 6) what a ridiculous sham it is. I do find it very difficult when I discover that someone I think of as mature and intelligent actually has the religion virus in an active form. Having no religion goes back at least 3 generations of my family as far as I have been able to determine - maybe I have a genetic resistance.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Thanks for that response, Dominic. Your parents only sparked off something already within you.You may have been uninfluenced by religious bodies yet there is a Voice from within that links up with and needs the inspiration of the outside religious teaching when that is somehow more freed from the obvious warts.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Oh, Bryan, if only you could see what an amazing species humans are. We have no need to worship anything else.

This forum clarifies three things:
1) Nobody can prove god doesn't or does exist.
2) Current science suggests god doesn't exist.
3) Current science is not perfect, and exists to be proved wrong. Until then, we have to go by the best of science.

Well put Frank of Sydney. This is me blogging out. As you said, enjoy this amazing world however it was made.

Ben, York,

Priests and other religious professionals are in an unenviable position. Whatever their innermost beliefs, it is not in their interest to question religion.

Seb Carroll, London, London

Sophistry, William. Years of accumulated evidence and scientific theory cannot always be demonstrated in a lab test.

All the evidence available to us suggests that life exists, that Darwinism is generally correct, but not that God exists. I enjoy your writing but I am dismayed by this self-duping.

And I speak as a self-duping believer myself.

Seb Carroll, London, London

Frank of Sydney, my ex atheists friends thought like you they tell me until the vision improved and they saw the wonders of life with God, available to us all through turning to the Lord. Have a try. It never stops improving to the point that you wonder how you could have been so satisfied with so much less.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : If I couldn't tell right from wrong without the aid of a book of fairy tales or invisible friends I would consider myself not a complete person. My code of behaviour and personal ethics came first from my parents then as I got older from observation and reflection totally unhindered by religion. I was born into a totally non-religious background before you ask.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Another puff cloud Dominic but not quite so posh. Let us start with your inner self. What do you learn about code of living from your inner self? Now don't tell me that's a contradiction, fairy tale or shove Professor Dawkins, the darling of the 'atheists', down my throat.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan :The argument from anecdote - to be honest I find this the least compelling line of reasoning, lots of people think all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, but if they can't back this up with any evidence then in other than matters of personal taste then they are wrong as far as I'm concerned. "Better" or "worse" doesn't come into it - just wrong.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Brien : Nice dogma, where's a single piece of evidence ? Free clue : A book of fairy tales is not evidence. Care to enlighten me with one instance of magic ever being the solution to a problem ?
If you throw away the requirement for evidence then you have to believe everything that can be imagined.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Frank of Sydney, my former atheist friends who are now Christian tell me that's just how they thought before they converted. Not a few non botherers tell me they're better than we who pray. Could be but making God big and important opens up amazing vistas. This phenomenon open to all, cannot just be pushhed away by quoting all the books of science one has read. That indicates an attitude which says ' I only wish to eat at this trough' The Sower and the Seed tells all. Away with the posh puff clouds. Science is an important part of life but only a piece of the story.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There has to be a primal cause and that is God, a Creator or an Eternal spirit. It is best to revere God and all his creation including the animal kingdom. Albert Schweitzer's creed of reverence for all life was compelling.

Brien Comerford, Glenview, Illinois, United States

Thanks Dominic, I'm blogged out here and on My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic, and other sites here for now. You, Ben, Alan, Jim and many others remain an inspiration. Enjoy. this great life..

frank, sydney,

Thanks Frank, you've said it all and Bryan if you think there are only a few people who don't believe in the supernatural then you are wrong, its just that most people are very uneasy about openly questioning religion, many think it just not polite to challenge religion because of the unjustified privileged position it has. I don't really care what people think but I will continue to comment on beliefs that are simply fantasy.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

No-one is asking anyone to change their lives, but merely to realise that a life lived without religious beliefs can be at least as moral, fulfilling, happy, loving and joyous as any other.
That some find religious belief worthwhile and compelling isn't disputed. The reasons people believe are complex and varied. Some like Bryan find it so compelling as to dismiss totally non-belief as anything other than a delusion. Many however simply don't feel any need or desire for religion, or evidence to show such belief is based on anything other than man-made ideas; they live comfortably at peace with life and themselves. For them, like me, to try to live or think any other way would be an abomination. As has been said, such is life....

frank, sydney,

Dominic, I only want to argue from the world and ourselves. I'm frankly completely baffled that a few of you are so closed to this idea of ultimate and adequate explanation while coming up with so much that's extraneous, diversionary and so on and saying I do not follow dawkins writings and science. I just cannot believe in such blinkered attitudes. Such is life. You have a choice. I wouldn't change mine for all the tea in China.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : You can't retreat into metaphysics and from there pronounce on the real universe sorry. I don't have a problem with the god delusion if it accepts that it is not real and doesn't affect anyone else like a childhood invisible friend. However this is the big problem, most people won't leave it there and insist on it having some kind of special treatment which affects us all and causes tribalism and hatred and must be deferred to. This I won't accept - ever.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Who the hell told you that? I don't believe anything not proven by science. God isn't obvious as nobody alive has seen him, and probably nobody ever has. I have said that it has done harm and good but that doesn't make it true. Old boy was a nickname for the devil, as were many others. Ever read the Crucible? It shows what religion does and refers to the 'Old Boy', Satan. And I don't have to prove a negative as unless you believe every dream, myth and story, you have to rely on hard evidence. Do you have any?

Ben, York,

I thought the discussion was to do with what is beyond Science- metaphysics. I do not need to display my scientific knowledge for this.The problem is to do with illusions that have to come from no interest in proper explanation. 'tis sad. All right, goodbye.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

No, Bryan its not. Can you prove that Medusa, the Tooth Fairy and Vishnu don't exist? Of course not, yet you surely don't believe in them? The majority of mankind used to believe in witchcraft and that the world was flat. It is often those who stand up to this idiocy that are right, even if they are a minority of one. Copernicus is a prime example of a pioneer crushed by the traditional religious nutters.

Do you have proof or not Bryan? If not, shut up as you obviously have little to no knowledge of science.

Ben, York,

What is the problem with accepting that a young, unmarried, teenage girl called Mary had sex, fell pregnant, and had a baby called Jesus? The father is unknown, and could have been the love of her life whom she couldn't marry, or a one-night stand or casual friend, or she may have been raped, or she may have conceived Joseph's child out of wedlock. We will likely never know, and 2,000 years on, why should anyone care?

as if it matters, sydney,

Nonsense Dominic.That's not a question of logic but of fact. The onus of proof has to be on those who are crying against belief in what the majority of mankind by far, find in their very existence.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : Another logical error, it is up to someone who says an entity exists to prove its existence. To demonstrate the near impossibility of the converse, please disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This is elementary logic - and people are fooled by this kind of "proof" ? "Its obvious" - it couldn't be further from obvious.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Mark of Brisbane, I bet you believe in many other invisible causes. I admit, it means exertion to accept God but it's enormously worth while. You'll wonder why you ever had such a crazy attitude to Him.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

'Old Nick' is the name for the devil not 'old boy', Ben. It's up to you to give evidence for this 'atheist' thing. God is so obvious. You are always implicitly appealing to Him in your fight for Conscience and goodness which you say is absent in all except those who deny Him. You've shown you believe in other invisible things. But God? No, not Him, you say. He's there even with your so called denials. Who is really stifling debate?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintafgel, UK

Sorry Dominic, it is obvious you are a considered and enlightened atheist, it was a brain snap...one of those when one sees one thing while writing another. Just a small example of how the mind plays tricks on us at times. Not a fraction of the trick the mind played on those disciples who supposedly believed they saw a ghost...

mathew, broome,

Matthew - I think you have me sadly confused with someone who has religious beliefs, I emphatically do not.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, last time I looked God was invisible or non-existent, so that counts that out.

mark, brisbane,

That's OK Matthew,the shock at being thought to be religious has worn off now, I can go back to worshipping myself now :-)

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, I think I've said more than once that I don't accept anything for which no credible evidence can be provided. Furthermore when we deal with the currently unknown I am consistent in my approach that since no evidence has ever been provided for any supernatural entity then it is farcical and redolent of the Dark Ages to say "Oh it must be magic then"

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, we are all putting in thought except you. You stick to your belief and try to stifle debate. You never actually put forward and real arguments apart from that we are better with religion. Whislt this is true for some, the opposite is true for others and it doesn't make it true. Well, get some evidence and I will believe. Trouble is, there is none!

Ben, York,

Bryan, an old name for the devil was 'old boy'. I hope you aren't implying athiests are in league with evil? Have you ever read the Crucible? It shows what religion does and how it thrives. And about explanation, there is plenty of evidence for the big bang (red shift etc) and none for god. Dominic's Harry Potter analogy shows that the bible is not reliable. Can you produce any evidence for god that would stand up in a court of law?

Ben, York,

Reviewer, can the prior letter and this one if you have the chance!!


Sorry Dominic, it was Chris of Epsom that made that optimistic statement about the bible, I wrote the reply too quickly for my own good during making dinner, as the kids take over my computer much of the time! You make a lot of great comments, and seem very sensible and learned in your blogs.

mathew, broome,

Dominic, you said " there is evidence for God's acts - the Bible". As Dawkins so eloquently pointed out: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

mathew, broome,

Dominic, of course not. Yet I ask you if you only accept explanations that are here and now visible.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Bryan, is that actually English ? Just so we are really clear, are you saying that any potential explanation that doesn't involve a supernatural entity is wrong by definition ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Chris your questions about "before" the Big Bang are perfectly valid, excellent ! The problem is that you aren't consistent and don't ask what about before your god existed - instead you seem to retreat into mumbo jumbo.
The fact that a book is widely read does not make it in the slightest bit true. as JK Rowling, author of some exceptionally widely read books would testify.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

All the middle east and the rest of us really need is the best of the golden rule (a concept that is intrinsic to man's moral nature, and which developed in India, China, Greece, the old testament, and elsewhere, before it hit the new testament). Lets just stick with that, and drop the dogmas, and stop harping on about necessary anythings or ones, or worship of invisible idols.

frank, sydney,

That's not a logical error, Chris old boy. Yours is just that by denying the major without argumentation and more than a little gratuitous throwing of rubbish into the court. Come off it, let's get down to some thought in this matter. This is a debate, not a circus. It's too vital not to encourage self worship instead of the worship of the Necessary One.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Before the Big Bang scientists say there was a load of energy in a tiny space. Where did that come from then? There has to be a beginningto the universe.

The 'book of fairy tales' is in fact the most read book ever. If the world saw the guidance it gives us for life (Going beyond the simple common sense morals) all the conflicts in the world at the moment - the Middle East etc. - we could make progress.

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan, I was disproving one argument, the ontological argument. I say, as do scientists (see Dominic's posts) that there is a perfectly rational, non-god reason for everything, eg big bang, evolution. As for saying religion is embedded in us, why do the faithful fear death? Surely that is saying "Oh no, I don't want to go to eternal bliss!" and hints that reason and instinct tells us religion is ridiculous?

Ben, York,

Chris and Bryan, read the comments about quantum theory and the possibilities that there was a spontaneous event, or alternatively no edge to space-time. There may have been a prior Big Crunch for all we know. We don't know, but we just don't necessarily need to implicate a supernatural being.
Then you can get back to discussing the irrationality of the rest of religious belief.

jim, sydney,

Chris : Strong feeling of deja vu
Bryan : You seem to be falling into the "argument from personal incredulity" logical error - there is nothing as half-baked as saying "It was magic". Quantum Mechanics is the strangest theory yet devised but that doesn't stop it making predictions as accurate as measuring the distance from New York to San Francisco to a precision less than the width of a human hair - care to enlighten me on predictions made from the book of fairy tales that stand up to any examination ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Do you have any other ideas for what what there before the Big Bang then Dominic?

Chris, Epsom,

Ben, simple things also require proper, full and satisfactory explanation. It's not design on which we need to focus. That red herring should be put aside in favour of explanation. Who leads daily life saying 'nothing causes it you know' or giving half baked answers and explanations. Come on, Ben, let's get down to it, keeping on the ball. Enough of this escapism.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. (Stephen Hawking)

jim, sydney,

Chris : Whatever the answer is it won't involve magic, trust me, read up on Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory and Superstring Theory, these may not be the ultimate answer but they aren't based on magic, they are based on theoretical physics which makes predictions that then get tested and if they are shown to be false they are thrown away, they don't become dogma.
This is how real progress is made, any sign of any progress made by reading fairy tales ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event. (Paul Davies)

jim, sydney,

Chris - those people thought the world was flat, Earth was centre of the universe and witchcraft was real. As was said of Richard Nixon, "Would you buy a used car off this man?" Would you believe them?

Paul, I was only stating how simple everything is, not requiring design.

Ben, York,

Do you have any ideas about what was there before the Big Bang then Dominic?

Chris, Epsom,

Chris : "before the Big Bang there must have been something there to cause it. That something was God"

Evidence, evidence - where is it ? You don't know the answer to something therefore the answer must be magic - Chris this is the 21st Century, not the dark ages. Has a magical solution to anything ever stood up to rigorous analysis ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Ben - It is clear that you do not understand the concept of God. try reading the Bible and it might help you comprehend him better. It may be strange to say that everything needs a cause except God, but if he is infinite he does not need one.

Think about it: before the Big Bang there must have been something there to cause it. That something was God.

Chris, Epsom,

This is a mouse trying to roar at a lion.

Can't create life in the lab?

How long will that remain true? Twenty years? Fifty?

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

"We are 90% water and are formed from protons, electrons and neutrons, as is the planet. These are very basic and do not need a creator." Has anybody had any success creating any of the above recently. The houses we live in may be 90% earth and wood but that is no argument against the neccessity of having an architect or builder to put it all together.

Paul, Barcelona, Spain

Dominic - there is evidence for God's acts - the Bible. Do you think that it is all a hoax, given how it links together so well?

Chris, Epsom,

Chris:
1) How would you know?
2) Aren't we made in 'god's image'? So surely it would resemble us and be finite.
3) I'm not anyway. It simply seems strange to say EVERYTHING needs a cause EXCEPT...

Ben, York,

Ben, you're likening God to being a human, and thus have a beginning and an end. He doesn't. Atheists tend to treat God as a human when trying to argue that he doesn't exist, an argument which doesn't work because he is beyond human comprehension.

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan, it doesn't. If everything needs a cause, why does the thing you want to not require one? You can't just say 'It just is' without evidence. And in answer to your question, through conquest, war and subjugation, through the dismemberment of local faith. South America - colonised by the Spanish and Portuguese and converted. Africa and Asia - same, different nationality and religion of missionaries. Europe - converted by the Romans or, in Eastern Europe, as part of political alliance systems. It is wrong that you forget this disgrace.

Ben, York,

Dominc, even an eternally existing Universe requires explanation bacause always contingent . Only Necesssary Being can explain what is contingent because not itself contingent. Yet the idea of God strongly breathes within us and needs enlivening. How did it get there?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris : You misunderstand, I have utter certainty that I won't give anything for which there is no real evidence any credence, whether this is astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, fairies, goblins or gods.
I'm sure that people do indeed derive comfort from delusions, why else would delusions exist ?
As for atheism being a "Belief", you could argue I suppose that not collecting stamps is a hobby, plus I'm not an "Atheist", I'm someone who does not believe in things for which there is no evidence for and sees no reason to invent them.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

You are missing something Chris and Bryan. The default position has to be that god doesn't exist as otherwise you have to believe every idea and every hypothesis ever suggested. Until something is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we have to assume it doesn't exist, otherwise we get a million religions worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Banan the God of Fruit. We are not debating religion as such, which can do good and harm, but the existence or otherwise of a Christian god. Bryan, I'd rather be shallow than wrong, but surely reason isn't shallow?

Ben, York,

Dominic - you also have utter certainty in your belief that there is no God. You cannot prove it (Just like religion cannot prove easily that there is a God) so therefore atheism is based on faith. And religion does not warp people's minds. It gives them a greater understanding of our world, and sets them up for life.

Chris, Epsom,

Isn't it shallow just to deal in proximate causes, Ben?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Ben - even if there is no evidene for God in a form that w can understand (See what I said earlier) thereis evidence for the effect religion has on people. Im talking about the Bible, a book which I feel is only beig doubted because it s now a long time sice it was witten.

Chris, Epsom,

Ben - even if there is no actual evidence for God in a form that we can understand (See what I said before) there is evidence for the effect religion has in a way that cannot be explained without needing God. I'm talking about most of the Bible, a book that I feel is only being doubted because of the length of time between its compilation and today

Chris, Epsom,

OK Bryan the eternal infinite regression question : What created your non-existent creator ? Let me guess - all of a sudden your rigorous search for truth changes into "It just is" ?
The lesson of the last 200 years is that what once appeared to be magic has a perfectly rational scientific explanation once the necessary insight has been arrived at. Can you give one example of "magic" that has stood up to serious examination ? Where does the "God of the gaps" hide when the gaps disappear ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

So evolution isn't the logical answer... right. We are 90% water and are formed from protons, electrons and neutrons, as is the planet. These are very basic and do not need a creator.

Ben, York,

But Chris, that is the beauty of science. If conclusive evidence was found, everyone would believe. As it is, there is no evidence for god and plenty that explains everything without recourse to god. Same goes for Bryan's argument.

Ben, York,

Right now on TV, Keith Allen's documentary about the crazy Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas demonstrates the uniquely weird way in which religion warps people's minds and the utter certainty they have in a collection of fairy tales. Keith Allen is true to form being more confrontational that Louis Theroux was when he visited them.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic - if the requirement for evidence were to be removed there would be no reason to say that we must belive everything. Your point doesn't make sense.

You are also placing limitations on human knowledge. There may well be plenty of evidence, but not in a form that we can understand yet.

Chris, Epsom,

Dominic of Cardiff, away with the puff clouds, misapplied words and confusions. The evidence for a Creator is all around us- all these beings which have to have a proper and final explanation. If they don't, we're in cuckoo land. We really have to play it straight. We're only explained by the Necessary One who's not limited in the way dependent and contingent being is or He'd be in the same category of requiring explanation. They'd think us potty in normal life if we just said' oh, there's no reason or explanation you know.'

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Well I compare Jesus to thousands of scientists and the latter clearly make more sense. You can't possibly know Jesus was 'incomparable'. And your comments to Brian are pointless - substitute "the god of spoons" for "god", as no evidence exists for either, and you will see how much sense you make!

Ben, York,

I had no idea that Father Storey was a wanderer on the seashore of life and picks up pretty pebbles from time to time in his search for truth. His use of the title "Father" suggest that he has already acquired a faith which he will defend against allcomers. "God is no delusion" is a dogmatic statement without any factual support - or at least which God are we talking about? When young men of one of the important faiths of the world are blowing themselves up, it does seem to me important that we do not merely engage in asking rhetorical questions, but really do reach some conclusuions at time when we are all face-to-face with each other - at last.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Bryan, the South Americans were forcibly converted by Spainish and Poruguese invaders. Plus, how do you know that god exists? That is delusional and not seeking answers.

Ben, York,

Bryan - where's the evidence ? Evidence underpins everything, if we throw away the requirement for evidence to back anything up we logically must believe in everything that can be imagined, not selective things. This way takes us back to the Dark Ages.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic, I think it's important not to limit failure to think it through in the way you do. It's vital to keep seeking explanations, most of all the explanation for existence which is adequate. To call belief in God a delusion is switching off from the vital search. That's not a scientific pathway. In fact it's the way to muddle and confusion.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Brian Lewis of Manila, my approach is concerned to keep to the basics of this debate. Nothing odd about that. There are attempts to divert but let's keep to the thesis. God is no delusion. Deny Him and delusions multiply. Most people who reject God do so because of strange ideas they've picked up. Humility is necessary before the Creator. Entrustment is the basis of the answer to your question. That is the occasion of His great Grace which raises us up. I figure the one who told you about the simpletons of South America was pulling your leg or didn't know the situation too well. Good not to underestimate anybody.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Brian - I didn't say that you have had any bad experiences, so I don't know where you have got that from.

The reason the different religions disagree with each other is that they all have different interpretations of who God is, told to them by the different holy books - the Bible, the Qur'an etc. There are many common features of these religions so to say they all disagree with each other is not entirely correct.

Chris, Epsom,

An "intellectual dropout" would be someone who just blindly accepts dogma without questioning it. An intelligent person doesn't accept simplistic - "because it is" reasoning unless they have been brainwashed from an early age to cultivate this blind spot.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

I find it odd that Father Storey tries to argue without much reference to Christianity, or indeed to all the other religions that today will have to reach some sort of accommodation with each other if the world is to become a better place. I really enjoyed Bible study at school, and was and am most impressed by the words of Jesus, perhaps as philosopher, but much less so with the results of 2000 years of constructing Christian religion, tradition and dogma in many different forms. I have never really understood the Christian argument that we cannot be saved by our own actions and good works, but in the end will have to rely entirely on God's grace. Perhaps Father Storey will explain? If I understand that doctrine it may be of no avail to the faithful at all! I recollect that when I went to South America in 1961, I was asked not to talk to simple village priests, as I might confuse them and destroy their faith - and worse replace it with nothing but doubt. But was I right?

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Brian Lewis of Manila, we know more of what God is not than what He is. He's invisible yet unless we wish to live in an absurd world of no explanation, He just has to be there. To deny Him is to elect to be an intellectual dropout whatever our credentials and worldly successes. To relate to Him is to begin to find real life.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Ben, I speak of the incomparable wisdom of Jesus.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, u

Chris of Epsom is an example of one who speaks with authority except I cannot see why his words really mean very much. Who is this being he calls God and why do people in Riyadh, Tokyo, Rome and Tibet disagree with each other. Why he should think I have had some awful experiences I don't know, but I do have a clear idea of what truth ought to be and I search for it! If words are not necessary (I suppose he means faith suffices?) then there is not much point in discussing at all!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

What makes you so certain? And you cannot just say "oh, this is unbeatable" without any justification - that is not an argument!

Ben, York,

All the delusions come from lack of God worship, Chris. As a great man once said, when we do not worship God, we just worship anything. We never stop worshipping.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Then you remain very poor in spirit yet you'll say you're fine and it's the others who are the problem. Read Jesus again please. He's unbeatable.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

You've twisted my words Dominic - religion is one of the best ways to stop yourself getig involved with these things and the reason fewer peopl are turning to it is the negative image it is getting in the press and from people like you, who arein some ways equally as dogmatic in that you dismiss any chance of their being a God

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan, we clearly do not believe in god. Acccepting a tiny possibility of something doesn't make it true!!! And anyway, who says we accept even that!!!

Ben, York,

Oh I forgot about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, everything you need to know about your noodly master is here http://www.venganza.org/

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

In this debate,Brian Lewis of Manila, it's not necessary to speak more than to mention the innate idea of God within us all. That is not very vague. Quite clear. We must not let words confuse us. You must have some awful experiences, Chris of Epson.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris : We've been here before - is religion the only thing that stops you breaking the law ? I find this possibly the most scary thing that religious people claim.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dave - your analogy isn't a good one to make. If you understood the effect religion has on people's lives, and how it deters them from doing these things, you will see the link between the two trends.

Chris, Epsom,

Father Storey writes 'with certainty' in the vaguest of terms. I suspect he means a Christian God, and maybe even a Trinity. Who can doubt that we all would like to know where we come from and where we are going! One of my doubts about these important people in society is that they seem to speak 'with authority'! I have alwys doubted my own right to speak with authority because I am unsure and I wonder where this temporal authority comes from - who bestows it upon some but not on others. This can only lead to my thinking that so much of modern authority does not really exist or is very fleeting!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Hmmm drug abuse and crime rates are on the increase as the power of religion declines and that is a link is it?!

Well interestingly enough over the same time period I have eaten an increasing quantity of mayonnaise in my sandwhiches, I've drawn a graph and the correlation is perfect. I think I can confidently say that my mayonnaise consumption is causing all the problems in the world, not the decline of religion.

Either that or picking two random correlating trends and attempting to manufacture some sort of causual link is a rather pointless and time wasting excersize.

dave, worthing,

Ben, Hindus support the idea of God. Dom, when you've finished throwing the rattle out of the pram, explain more of FSM.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Sorry, the only delusions I know of are those that involve "A fixed, false belief" - the kind for which no hard or repeatable evidence exists, the kind that is unfalsifiable, the kind that makes no testable predictions, the kind that says "Believe all this and don't ask questions".

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

I'm curious, where does your "Convert friend" stand on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, that is not true. Inner being, yes. Belief in God, no. And what makes your creator better than the Hindu idea?

Ben, York,

Dominic of Cardiff, be that as it may, fact is that not developing the God idea innate in us all, leads to an almighty increase in our delusions.My convert friend, standing beside me, is nodding assent.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Actually Mr Rees-Mogg you are wrong.

In science, it only takes one tiny little matter for the whole edifice to be wrong. For instance, Newtonian mechanics had perfect match with experiment for hundreds of years and it still does unless you are dealing with extremely large objects or extremely small ones and the evidence in it's favour is far, far stronger than any such for "God" but at the end of the day it is wrong. The standard model of physics is in perfect match with experiment and has never had a prediction that was not confirmed - and we are talking an accuracy comparable with measuring the width of the US to a hair breadth - but again it is considered wrong because it cannot handle Gravity.

As for the experiment argument, may I politely suggest you didn't understand Dawkins response. That humans evolved from a common predesesor has a mountain of experimental proof - from molecular biology to fossils. Evolution is been tested literally millions of times and passed easily.

Danny Shobrook, Edinburgh,

Dominic of Cardiff, problem is that if we do not grow into the God idea, lingering in the depth of our psyche, our delusions keep on increasing.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Brian Lewis of Manila, I'm just saying with certainty that there's no development of us that ignores our inner being. This can only occur through growth into that faint idea of a Creator within us all.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Brian : Agreed, this is where Richard Dawkins is so misunderstood, when he says "Delusion" he means it not as an insult but in the literal meaning of the word. It is very hard to think of another word that captures the essence of the situation so well.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Father Bryan Storey seems to be on personal terms with his God. Very lucky to go through life with such certainty. I would wager though he is a typical example of a caucasian upbringing, brain-washed at a European school in a recent Middle East religion scarcely 2000 years old, and probably speaks Latin! I am still not quite sure what he is trying to say except he has found truth in a small insignificant corner of the world denied to the rest of us so far, - and to hell with the rest of us.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Ben, we men and women need to develop spiritually in a way that is not necessary for the elephants.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Bryan, that attitude is typical of religious people - shoot anyhting different down that puts forward another view. Elephants, for example, work together to protect the collective young. This is moral, no? Last time I checked elephants didn't go to church or have a concept of god.

Ben, York,

"There can be only one" Was the tagline for the film "Highlander", are we mixing up fact and fantasy ? Oops silly me its a discussion about religion!

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Rob - maybe some morals come from nature. But not all. Forgiveness is something that humans are doing less and less of, and it is that that causes some of the problems we have today. If everyone were to look at what religion has to say on that subject, and realise the good it can do, we would improve as a global community. Forgiveness doesn't come from nature.

Chris, Epsom,

Brian Lewis of Manila, this debate is about a transcendent Creator. There cannot be more than one.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

After reading all the comments on the existence of God - or Allah, or Bog or Deus - the only conclusion I reach is that you have invented a word for the inexplicable or the unknown. Once that is accomplished you assume God exists and steer as far away as possible from any clear definitions or explanations. I do not see that the names used need refer to even one supernatural entity, but that's what everyone seems to think. The other noticeable thing is that where we were born and our own cultures determine how we define God and the strange rites that accompany faith. Culture does not necessarily define truth. My main complaint is still that all these religions and their priests cannot agree on what is true and right. Indeed many of them prefer not to meet people from other faiths, who even I can see, they think must be wrong by definition - at least to some extent.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

If anything is really morally good, it comes from God. There are many 'atheists' who have moments of belief just as believers have doubts..

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris, Epsom,

To draw a conclusion on your bouncer it would be necessary to actually speak to and see the bouncer, you would not expect a psychiatrist to diagnose a patient wihtout seeing them first so how do expect anyone to draw any conclusions on the scant detail you have provided. Besides even if he had not shown an interest in god he would still have been aware of a concept of god and hallucinations are not that uncommon.

Morality is almost certainly not anything to do with religion, it can be seen in nature (caring for young, cooperation)from primates right down to ants, and may well have developed from the need to cooperate to achieve mutually beneficial results. It certainly did not happen all at once as can be seen from the ever evolving morals over time, on the other hand if religion did give us morals wouldn't you expect them all to be clearly set out from the start.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

I have never seen any benefit that cannot be achieved by being a good, moral person without any faith in god.

Ben, York,

Ben - Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism's teachings are where we get the morals from, not necessarily directly from God.

Chris, Epsom,

Ben, obsession with the sins of Christians blinds you from the benefits of the central core of religion.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

"Religion only claims to shed much light on life, not to have a complete book of answers."
That is EXACTLY what fundamental religion claims. See Copernicus, Galileo etc.

Ben, York,

Alan - you think he wanted it to be true so badly he convinced himself it was? He hadn't been religious before then, so he would have no reson for wanting it to be true.

My point about morals is that (I've said this before) we have all been influenced by religion during our life, either by seeing people do good acts and copying them or seeing what they do throught the media etc. I am not accusing you of being immoral but I still do not think we would not have morals if religion had never existed.

Chris, Epsom,

Don't be deceived, religion provokes more honesty much to our personal discomfort. Yet it illuminates and renews us. Religion only claims to shed much light on life, not to have a complete book of answers.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Just because certain things can not be explained properly does not provide evidence for a god. Many things in the past could not be explained and gods were used to try and make sense of them. You need only look to Copernicus and Gallileo. Science and reason do not profess to have all the answers but they aim to seek them, unlike religion which claims to have answers and would rather we did not go looking any further just in case the scam of it all is revealed. Socretes summed it up beautifully when he said the wise man is the man who knows how little he really knows.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

Chris - regarding your bouncer: -- Firstly, I assume the story is true. -- Secondly, dead right - he obviously did want his "vision" to be true so badly that he convinced himself it was. -- That is exactly the reason why so many people "believe". They want to believe so badly that they're prepared to deceive themselves. Many atheists like me would quite like to "believe" but we can't, because we're not prepared to be so intellectually dishonest with ourselves. --- By the way, people who have visions or hear voices usually need professional help. Perhaps your bouncer does too. --- One final word: No morals without religion???? Are you accusing me of being immoral?

alan, cologne,

Right then Chris: the bouncer may be schizophrenic, drunk or on hallucinogenic drugs. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism teach strong moral values and none believe in god. How's that?

Ben, York,

Leave aside diversions and polemics focus please on the really serious need to explain satisfactorily rather than whistling in the wind. Nor sure of this Ted but I pick up points.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Ted :Don't have a clue what the "sand castles" is all about. Copernicus and Galileo were threatened with torture by the Inquisition for daring to suggest that the Earth has no special place in the solar system and goes around the sun. I'm guessing that your sympathies lie with the Inquisition here as a force against rationality and critical thinking. The "Big Bang" is accepted as scientific fact, when we think beyond the Big Bang there are ideas such as M-Theory but whether M-Theory is reasonable or not, one thing is absolutely for sure - its a theory that does not rely on magic, superstition and dogma, I've yet to hear a theory that proposes where magic beings come from.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Ben - I don't know it: I simply think it unlikely that we will be able to answer some of these questions.

There sre a few points I have made that Dominic, Alan and Ben haven't answered. You haven't proved the bouncer's vision to be a delusion, and you haven't shown me where humans would get our morals from if religion had never existed. Until you can prove those your arguments do not hold properly.

Chris, Epsom,

What, a metaphorical story? Sounds familiar.

Ben, York,

Don't you know Ben that church going may help a little but we have to take it more seriously for its effects to develop. Read the Sower and the Seed again, please.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris, your mind is closed to anyting you don't want - how can you know that?
Bryan, why would we not exist if god doesn't? There is a good scientific definition of 'exist' (it is possible to check something's properties and they are not conflicting, eg a chair does not have both two and four legs). God's properties cannot be checked and it is unlikely that god and evil would coexist. Another question - why? Why would and omnipotent, all powerful creature wish to make a tiny world, short of to be praised and worshipped. Now that's egotistical!

Ben, York,

So... go to church and drug abuse stops? Colombia is a Christian nation, converted by force by the Spanish, and produces most of the world's cocaine

Ben, York,

Andy, there's much more depth than you're currently seeing in the statement that if God's not there neither is anything else. Many have moved on to see it.
Alan, of course we 'religious ones' have our egotistical illusions but the only way to make progress through the mountain of illusions in human personality is through worship of God. That's the wisdom of the first Commandment inscribed in our hearts long before Moses.
Yes, Ben, truth is dynamic; it's also constant.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

<<Adam G - perhaps now we could try and live without religion. But eventually, it would disintegrate, like ours is starting to do (Curiously at around the same time as religion is declining). If we had started a civilisation without it we would not be in the position that we are today. We would be far worse off>>

If one draws up a list of the best places in the world to live, almost all of them are run on secular lines. When religion gets into power, it usually makes life hell for people.

P.S. Bryan Storey: You exist, therefore my apple is bitten.

Is that a proof of anything? No. Neither are your repeated statements linking existence to god.

Andy B, London,

Dominic - there are some things evolution cannot explain, and I think it very unlikely that it ever will.

Chris, Epsom,

Dominic - can you not see the link? Church attendance is declining, and, though maybe not a direct result, the problems of crime and drug abuse are getting higher. Your final paragraph seems to say that you want the rates of these problems to increase. Are you sure you want that?

Different religions do not hate each other - only the fundamentalists do. I have Muslim friends: I do not think any less of them just because they are Muslim.

Chris, Epsom,

Ted, yes I do not accept things that have no evidence for them.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan - I realise it's futile to try to get through to you through your protective cocoon of "faith". Neveretheless, here goes: You believers have created for yourselves a "god" to your own liking. A god who tells you that as a "believer" you are righteous and good, whereas those who don't believe in him are sinners, probably destined to end up in hell. You've created a god in your own image who tells you what you want to hear. You have in fact created an abstract image of yourself. and in worshipping him you are in reality worshipping yourself. - So much for the self-worship you accuse non-worshipping atheists of.

alan, cologne,

Bryan, evolution by its very definition is not the last word. It simply has more evidence to back it up, so rationally should be believed. When was the last time the Catholic church evolved?

Ben, York,

Dogma, Dominic? You are free from it? Doesn't have that ring about it. It's being open, questioning and being satisfied with nothing less than thorough and complete explanation that's the nub and rub of the issue.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Ted : No theory is the last word, a theorem is the last word but that is inapplicable here. For a theory to be better than evolution it would need to explain things evolution cannot and it would need to be totally free from dogma, superstition, magic, pseudoscience, pixies and invisible friends.
This rules out a better theory coming from religion really doesn't it?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Chris : The "Society is declining" message has been said by every generation from the year dot, its nature's way of telling you that you are getting old.
I would rather "society declined" based on reason and logic than people carried on in pink, fluffy clouds of dogma and delusion whilst hating other people who have a different set of delusions.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

What is this crazy idea that evolution is the last word?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Adam G - perhaps now we could try and live without religion. But eventually, it would disintegrate, like ours is starting to do (Curiously at around the same time as religion is declining). If we had started a civilisation without it we would not be in the position that we are today. We would be far worse off.

Chris, Epsom,

But what makes your version true, rather than evolution? Dominic is right.

Ben, York,

Surely the difference between the religion of the 'Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini' variety and the 'Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury' variety is merely one of degree? . Both believe in a supernatural being as the cause of our existence and that we should pay it homage.

However much we argue for the 'Leap of Faith' there are many who choose not to, for quite legitimate reasons, or because they are in fact unable to. What most atheists - of which I am one - object to, is the attempt by religious believers to inculcate or impose not only their religious Faith on the rest of us, but also to insist that we all adopt their moral and social agender. Much of what Christianity teaches in this respect is simple common-sence any way and does not need the backing of any kind of divinity.

wellwisher, London, UK

The adequate and ultimate explanation of existence, Dominic? Or are you into building sand castles too?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Ted : "without God, you do not exist. Has to be" - That's "logic" unworthy of a junior school child, it proves absolutely nothing other than some people are apparently persuaded by nonsense.
It is identical in terms of truth value to the statements :
"Without my cat Emily, you you do not exist. Has to be"
or
"Without the Flying Spaghetti Monster you you do not exist. Has to be"

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Ben, without God, you do not exist. Has to be.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris - we do not need religion to have a moral society.
Would you like to enforce all punishments as set out in the bible? All of them- think carefully about that.
I`m hoping the answer is no. So you must be making a choice that some areas of the religion are right and some are wrong. This must be using a morality that is external to and not generated by the religion.

I am frankly appalled by people who think a moral life is only worth living if someone (i.e god) is watching. You must have so little respect for humans, and therefore yourself if you believe that.

Adam G, Sydney, NSW

I don't worship god. I exist. Two facts nobody can deny. I do not need nor want religion to keep me happy. I have a good life and self esteem. Why should I grovel to an unproven entity?

Ben, York,

Chris
Just like in my remarks to Alan, you are confined by your dogmatic view of the world - my sense of right and wrong had nothing to do with religion and is as simple as "Would I like that done to me?"
I can demonstrate that my "morals" don't come from religion quite simply by stating that I don't care one bit what consenting adults do in the bedroom and it is none of my business.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Nice attempt Alan and I agree totally but the problem is that when dealing with people who have the religion virus you have to remember that they absolutely refuse to believe that a world exists outside their way of thinking. Ttherefore "morals" can't simply come from common sense (as they undoubtedly do) and everyone has to "worship" something - just watch how not worshipping anything is itself somehow worship of something just as disbelief in things that don't exist is apparently a "Belief system" in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Alan, there is no reality without the Almighty and relating to Him. The world is upside down and false without a God relationship

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Dominic - the fact that you were 'subjected' to religion at school shows that we have all been influenced by it. Therefore what I said earlier about religion providing right and wrong is valid, because if the world had never had this concept of religion we would not have it. Humans are not inherently moral, and need religion to keep a civil society.

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan - I don't want to hurt your feelings, but worshipping anything - be it god or devil, popstar, dictator or material wealth - is in my eyes an undignified and indeed dangerous absurdity. I, and many like me, have no need to "worship" anything, least of all ourselves. - The illusions you mention can be fostered by self-deceit, i.e. an inability or unwillingness to face up to reality. And many illusions (or perhaps better "delusions") are spread by those who deceive others with religious or ideological constructs aimed at brainwashing the inexperienced and the gullible.

alan, cologne,

Alan of Colgne, do you not see that we are always worshipping something else if not God. That's how we are. The greatest illusions are fostered through our tendency to self worship. Only worship of God lessens this.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris - with respect my point about evidence in court is entirely valid, on the face of it you are blindly accepting something that more critical thinkers would find extremely difficult to believe actually happened in any other form than a delusion.
You also make another error with the statement :
"live had not involved religion in any way"
I was fortunate enough to be born into a household where religion had no place - on going to school however I had to attend assembly where you had to sing nonsense songs and pray to invisible sky fairies and later there were religious education lessons - religion has a completely unwarranted grip on what should be secular life and we are all subjected to it whether we want to be or not.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

It's quite simple: "Believers" are either deceiving themselves or deceiving other people.

alan, cologne,

Dominic - this bouncer is real, and he is not a witness in a trial, so your point about a court is irrelevant. And even if there are not many or these cases, it is still evidence for God.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris - There is a saying - "The plural of anecdote is not data"

Returning to my court question - if your hypothetical bouncer used such a line of reasoning at a witness in a trial, would any credence at all be placed on this ?

Extending the crazy line of reasoning, Bobby Henderson : the prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster had his conversion instantly, having previously lived a life devoid of pasta worship, what else other than divine revelation could be responsible for this ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic - there was a case of a nightclub bouncer who one night while driving home had a vision of God. Until then his live had not involved religion in any way. Do you think he wanted it to be true so badly that he convinced himself it was true? I think not.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris, no not fools, simply deluded - some people want something to be true so badly they convince themselves that it is true.
Earlier in this conversation I asked you about jury service and arriving at a decision that the evidence supports.
Would a defence in court of "God talked to me and made me do it" convince a jury of anything other than insanity ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

So Dominic - do you think that all those who have seen visions and heard God speaking to them, telling them to go and change their lives to serve him, are fools? The way we are today, no one would do that unless they were so sure that it was God who spoke to them. That is evidence for him, so therefore religion does have some evidence, Ben.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris : How is dogma and magic the answer to anything ? Saying that as soon as you don't have an explanation (or don't understand the explanation) for something then the answer is that a supernatural being did it is demonstrating the sophistication of Stone Age Man.
I have talked to people who dismiss all the work of science as wrong - however the hypocrites don't see why they should abandon their 21st century lifestyle and live in caves - how very convenient for them.
People's ability to deceive themselves is staggering, if only that thought could be directed in a useful way.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

What makes your version better than that of science? At least science acknowledges it is not perfect, and has some evidence.

Ben, York,

Religon is not ludicrous. It is the answer to life, and why we are even here.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris - We are going around in circles, do I take it that you accept everything about the Fying Spaghetti Monster including the fact (you can't prove otherwise) that the FSM heaven has beer volcanoes and stripper factories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster#Beliefs

Good pointers that something doesn't exist is if there is no evidence for it at all (old fairy tales in a book is not evidence) - when it is as ludicrous as religion and you think of the mind control behind it then it is easy to see it for the fraudulent nonsense it is.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic - how do you know they aren't true?

Chris, Epsom,

Ben - we must be careful not to blindly accept evolution, as in the past many theories once held as true have been disproved, and there are problems with evolution. And no, I'm not a creationist. I'm not convinced either way.

Chris, Epsom,

Ben : They aren't interested in evidence of any credible kind, they just play games about metaphorical meaning and do the whole "I'm so deep I can understand things on a level you can't" hogwash.

Believing things that aren't true doesn't make them deep, it just makes them wrong.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Who's denying evolution? Yet that's a fraction of the answer . Why get a fixation there like a CD that gets stuck? Why hold up human development by this obsessional approach?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

People hundreds of years ago, when the bible was written, thought the world was flat. How can anyone accept that they were right about anything scientific in light of that? I have said this before, EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG HAPPENED. This is a good explanation proven by science. You cannot seriously think that the world was created in 6 days with humans around from pretty much the start. What about dinosaurs, red shift, carbon dating of ancient rocks etc. To deny evolution is to deny your heritage and leaves no room for rational debate.

Ben, York,

God is the proof of you, Ben. I cannot accept your existence without a proper explanation of it. Whence this idea of flat earth and only metaphor in the Bible?.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Funny ideas? Can you give me a shred of evidence for God? The bible is metaphorical, and was considered equal to saying the world was flat. You must refute the latter, why not the former? Chris, read the article. Religion has done good but we don't need it any longer. And passover, plagues on Egypt etc are an utter injustice - and what's more, the bible practically boasts of it - purely to keep the average 14th century peasant in line.

Ben, York,

Whence come your funny ideas, o Ben?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Andy B - how is the Bible 'utter injustice'? The main reason people now doubt its truth is that it is now a long time since it was written. Atheists make a habit of choosing the worst bits and claiming that that's what it is all about.

Adam G - we're not gullible. Religion provides us with reason, and doesn't skate over it. Can you not see that if the
world had never had religion, our lives would be very different because we have all been influenced by it, whether willingly or not.

Chris, Epsom,

Where is the evidence that Jesus was anything more than a nice bloke? The bible is METAPHORICAL. At that time scientific knowledge was so low they thought that the world was flat.

Ben, York,

Your amazing imagination could do with some Christian enlightenment, o Dominic. I'm not Ted by the way.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Father Ted, yes rather like the suffering that Pirates had to go through to prove that they are the chosen people of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the evidence for this is exactly the same.
Jeff the God of Biscuits had to personally intervene in the holy war between Hob Nobs - the Marine of biscuits who were cruelly slaughtering the weaker Rich tea.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Andy, those unusual things were done by Jesus to fulfil His Mission which teaches that the real world of which you speak is not real at all. It needs radical reform, starting with you and me.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris, Epsom wrote:

<<Dominic - try reading the Bible. It might help you arrive at a reasonable judgement on it.>>

That's good advice, and one Dawkins gives everyone. I recommend it too.

There's a good resource on the web which has catalogued the utter injustice encapsulated in this poetic, yet contradictory and sometimes obscenely violent and unjust collection of works.

Just search for skeptics annotated bible.

Then, as Chris, from Epsom suggests, make your own mind up.

Andy B, London,

The person you would truly want to debate this point with is Jesus! And yet if Mr Dawkins were debating someone claiming to be the son of god, this same critisism of only debating nutters would arise!
If you believe that Jesus was born of a virigin mother, died and came back, walked on water and could cure the sick by touch (or any one of these) then you are quite simply rejecting the real world.
Which brings us to the essential point of difference. No matter how frilly and reasonable the words used to describe it, religions require you to believe the words of a few hundred pages (of one of the many competing) religious texts over a sense of reason, and the evidence before our eyes. I wouldn`t think it possible for people to be this gullible.
I hope intelligent aliens exist somewhere out there, and that one day a Roman Catholic has to try to explain his religion to one of them - it will be hilarious!

Adam G, Sydney, NSW

Chris :
As you may be aware Religious Education lessons were (stiil are?) compulsory in British schools so we did have to read the Bible to some extent - it bored me senseless, there's nothing that could induce me to voluntarily read it again. In O Level Latin I had to read Ovid's Metamorphoses - is everything in there also true ?

A question - you think the bible is the complete literal truth I gather ?

Just taking one bit of lunacy at random - the bit in Kings where god makes bears kill 42 children for making fun of a bald chap - am I to assume that this is historical fact and not simply the insane ravings of the people who made this stuff up ?

There is a challenge with a prize of One Million dollars to anyone who can prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point of this is to demonstrate the foolishness of the "You can't prove it false therefore it is true" line of reasoning.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

David NZ
What a bizarre "argument" - evidence is not related to one media, viewing motion pictures on a screen is one method of obtaining information - what makes something "evidence" is the method behind it.
Dogma for instance, however displayed or retrieved is only evidence that ancient men with large beards decreed it so.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

It is sad, and dispiriting, that so many (not all) atheists seem to have a limited & distorted understanding of Christianity (I cannot speak for other religions). To understand Christianity - limiting oneself to books, which is a severe limitation - try reading:

The New Testament
Christ the Eternal Tao (Hieromonk Damascene)
Books (mostly short) by Archbishop Anthony Bloom
The Roots of Christian Mysticism (Clement)
Books by Thomas Merton and John Habgood
Anyone who reads these should at least know what Christianity is about.

As regards science - a major human achievement - unfortunately very few scientists have any understanding of the philosophy of science, and the various (unacknowledged) metaphysical assumptions upon which it is based. Michael Polanyi, a professor of chemistry, wrote 'Personal Knowledge' & 'Knowing & Being' to explore why science is not self-explanatory and why humans - products of the evolutionary process - can understand that process.

Dave, Wrexham,

The Bible is one ancient text, was written after the event, the events occured in one area of Israel so are impossible to verify (as in that now we would know about everything anywhere), and is only one of thousands of possible answers (eg what about other religions, science etc). You wouldn't believe every word in Harry Potter, would you?

Ben, York,

Dominic - try reading the Bible. It might help you arrive at a reasonable judgement on it.

As to your remark about jury service, of course I would arrive at my decision based on the evidence provided. Translating that into religion, I have based my decision on what to believe based on the evidence that exists - of Jesus' existence. There is plenty of it, if you visit that area.

Chris, Epsom,

Dominic. "try watching the film" and "listen to the evidence". So what you're saying is you get your evidence from TV?

David, NZ,

Chris - try watching the film "The God Who Wasn't There" - the Bible is a mixture of folklore, legends, fairy tales and some pretty horrific nastiness.
Have a look at the Urban Legends site www.snopes.com notice the powerful need for the human race to invent compelling tales that are fervently believed, retold and altered until they become "real" history.
Whether Jesus existed or not I cannot say, certainly stories are told that he did, what do those stories prove ? To me about as much as stories about Greek, Roman and Norse Gods that were compelling to those people.

Evidence Chris, evidence - suppose you and I are serving on Jury service together, we listen to the evidence, I try to arrive at a decision based on the evidence provided, what would you base your decision on ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

I have been traveling the world for 40 years and everywhere I go I am told I am wrong. The people who tell me this disagree with each other. I wonder sometimes where they get their authority from. They imply their authority comes from (a) God, even as they disagree with one another. That seems illogical to me. I am beginning to think that maybe I am right! I do wish - before engaging in argument - someone would tell me rather more clearly what God is and why there are so many variations on the theme! Where indeed is the evidence!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

So what do you think about the Bible Dominic? Do you think it was all a hoax? It's too perfect for that, not a 'mish mash of immoral acts', Andy B. The Bible is the world's greatest ever book, that everyone has been influenced by.

And what do you think or Jesus? That he didn't exist, or that he did exist but didn't do anything? You're denying something that you didn't see, and what other people did.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris :
Because not a shred of evidence exists, if we turn it around and say that we should believe everything regardless of evidence, that means we must believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Jeff the God of Biscuits, Wotan, Thor and so on into infinity.
A compromise which many people seem to adopt is to selectively believe in things that don't exist which is no more valid a position than believing everything. However if you like the sound of Jeff the God of Biscuits I can probably knock up, sorry discover his sacred 10 commandments for you.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic - how do you know that there is nothing?

Chris, Epsom,

Father Ted
Sorry, I inhabit the real world and after I'm dead, just like before I was alive there is nothing. Its tough but we should get used to that and make the best of this reality not live wasted lives worrying about illusory afterlives with invisible friends.
Anything else is fantasy and delusion.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

To Bryan:

Has it not occured to you that were you born in Calcutta, you would probably be telling us about a heaven full of Gods, including one with an elephant's head?

Your arguments are built on nothing, and it's why church attendance is dropping away.

Whoever allowed the bible to be translated into English made a big mistake. It's just a mish mash of immoral acts, some nice stuff, a lot of wars and violence, and curious claims about the God of the Universe's fixation with anal sex.

Sky pixies aren't real.

Andy B, London,

Why should we keep following like sheep? That is what susatined the church for centuries. Dominic is right - science is the only satisfactory answer to anyone with any independence or curiosity.

Ben, York,

I find you're still in the world of scientific and religious illusion with a little verbosity and not a litttle wriggling. It's ultimate, adequate explanation beyond what you're saying that's required not the pursuit of illusory and false trails. Keep to this ground please.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Father Ted : Of course we search for answers but supernatural explanations only satisfy the simple-minded or deluded. Some of us want evidence, peer-review, repeatability, an explanation that fits with the known laws of physics - the kinds of things that differentiate truth from fantasy.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

The Big Bang, evolution etc are answers.

Ben, York,

Dominic - 99.9% of people do not come across a situation in which they would have to choose whether or not to murder someone. To debunk my argument on that is stupid.

Every single person has been unfluenced in some way by religion. it will not go away, so for those who call it 'the epitomy of unreason' think again. It's got us this far, and it is still needed.

Chris, Epsom,

Chris in Epsom - Nutty American fundamentalists use this fatuous argument all the time - would you maintain as they seem to that the only thing that stops you from murder is belief in an invisible friend? If so I can only describe this as utterly bizarre.

Right and wrong comes from the simple "Would I like that done to me?" - good grief its not hard is it ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Surely you search for answers, you objectors. Why this enormous exclusion zone? What's behind it? Explanation is normal.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Chris, how about being human? Buddhists do not believe in god and have a very strong moral code.

Ben, York,

Chris: Certainly not from the Bible. How do you choose the good things from all the bad? Society has moved on, and religious dogma no longer holds it back.

Kieron Wilkinson, Kent,

If we don't have religion, where the heck do we get right and wrong from?

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan, you are hiding behind vague philosophical statements and twisting people's words. There is no evidence to say God was responsible for creation, at all. To say otherwise ignores thousands of scientific studies. Now who is burying their head in the sand?

Ben, York,

Father Ted
The crime comment ? The only answer to that is "What?"
How does that have any relevance to - well - anything ?

Imaginary sky pixies apparently have no perpetrator - how convenient.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Science is based on evidence not faith ( if the evidence alters science normally alters it's view unlike religions which believe in the same nonsense no matter what the evidence). There is no such thing as "faith" in science: science formulates a plausible theory to fit the evidence available. If later evidence arises which contradicts a theory science normally amends the theory. As for W Rees-Mogg's "arguments" regarding evidence and laboratories, he needs to remind himself that the evidence that life exists is all around us (grass, dogs , journalists) ditto with evolution and the fossil record. Where's the evidence that "God" exists except for the hallucinations of the brainwashed or ludicrous ancient texts (or slightly more modern ones if you're a scientologist)? They're hardly reliable evidence! On the balance of probabilities, I'll go with Dawkins.

Steve, Swansea, UK

Wouldn't we'd say somebody' s crazy who holds that a crime has no perpetrator? Now I wait to see how you'll wriggle out of that.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Father Ted
I'm baffled as to what you are getting at - opaque language doesn't prove a thing any more than "God of the gaps" reasoning does. If its a "First cause" type argument then how does an imaginary pixie avoid needing a first cause ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

So everything has a cause... except the thing you want to be uncaused? And you say Rob is crazy. Before the Big Bang, nobody knows what existed.

Ben, York,

Rob, Necessary One has no need of explanation outside itself. It really is crazy to deny contingency.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

No Father Bryan, the explanation does not reside in the necassary one as it can never explain what caused the necessary one which by your terms has to be contingent on something. If this necessary one does not have to be contingent why does any other theory require a cause? Personally I do not think everything is contingent, cause is a temporal idea that requires time, things outside of time (ie before, although thats a really bad word as it is contingent on time a bit like saying north of the north pole, the big bang the start of space and time) do not need cause. Also time being a function of the universe the laws of time don't apply when considering the universe as a whole. (For some good reading on the subject check out Stephen Hawkings, or have a look over string theory and M-theory)

I do not claim to have the answers, unlike religion, but i am far from burying my head in the sand.
(Oh, and your dig about no answer being found was exactly what I said before)

Rob, Birmingham, UK

Not talking about stories but Logic Ben. So Rob,the explanation which is vital has to reside in the Necessary One who has the answer to all that's contingent. If you still posit a contingent solution, then no answer has been found. An answer is imperative. We'd never bury heads in the sand on other issues so why here?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Father Bryan,

(Sorry to butt in Ben)

I'm sorry but the argument from universal causation simply does not stand up. A child can see the obvious flaw in the argument. The argument is hinged upon the idea that every effect needs a cause, however the solution you propose is that god kicked the whole lot off and does not need a cause, why not? If everything requires a cause why does a god not need a cause, as you say, to assume this is simply crazy. Ergo belief in a god is crazy (these are you words).

Rob, Birmingham, UK

Um ... Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, millions of other works of FICTION.

Ben, York,

Start with the idea, Ben that it's simply crazy to say effects do not have adequate causes.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Where is the "reasonable basis" for religion? The Bible, a metaphorical book?

Ben, York,

Faith cannot crucify reason. There's a reasonable basis for Faith from which it develops, like reaching the top of the hill and seeing the view, knowing there's more beyond what you are seeing, carrying on from it.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

If Dawkins were to read, for instance, Wittgenstein's Lectures on Religious Belief, he will discover that his arguments are literally a nonsense, for evidence and faith are diametrically opposed. Wittgenstein's points are logical, not religious: if my belief in God required proof then, whatever else I have, I do not have faith. Faith crucifies reason, just as the Holy Trinity crucifies arithmetic. Religious belief is not rational, so applying the tools of rationality to counter it is a pointless exercise. People are not "argued" into their belief in God, and so cannot be "argued" out of it. Dawkins should not import the method of science into areas where it has no validity. God cannot either exist or fail to exist (another logical point) for ALL existence occurs necessarily in the empircal realm He purportedly created.

S Ford, Sudbury, Suffolk

Hello Ben. God can only be an illusion if you and I are too. If we're not illusions, God is there.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

I am sorry, I really do not see where you are coming from Bryan. God is an illusion, a figment of the imagination. If you cling to that,fine. But God is dead as a real entity.

Ben, York,

Ben of York, those illusions increase without relating our lives to the God we cannot see. Nietzsche really knew it.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

In response to Chris from Epsom I would have to refute his implication that a religious person has any better moral code than an atheist.

I recently read Prof. Dawkins outstanding book The God Delusion and recall in particular a reference he made to an experiment undertaken to test this exact same hypothesis. As I recall a group of believers (I do not recall if they were all of one faith or mixed faith but believers they were) and a group of atheists were asked a series of questions designed to present them with a increasingly tricky moral dilemmas. When the results were in it turned out that there was little or no difference in the responses of the two groups.

In all honesty all this really did for me was to confirm what I already thought. Human beings are inherently moral and do not need the advice of some supposed divine being to know the difference between right and wrong. The minority who lack this moral fortitude furthermore can be found on both sides of the belief barrier.

Dave, Worthing, England

"God is dead, but men's natures are such that for thousands of years there will perhaps be caves in which his shadow will be seen." Friedrich Nietzsche

Ben, York,

"God" appeared on the scene when Bronze Age man (not woman apparently) wanted a explanation for the forces of Nature; hence a force,immense and unexplainable.
A sort of "not me guv" type of reasoning.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

Dawkins is good at arguing and that about it.

Champ, L.A., CA

If atheism is based on faith, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Tony F, Kangaroo Island, South Australia

William Rees-Mogg says:"To knock down Christianity on the basis of American evangelists, while failing to face up to the arguments of Bonhoeffer, who was both a very wise man and a hero, is not a scientifically respectable proceeding. Yet this is what Professor Dawkins tries to justify." Why does Rees-Mogg not spend some time explaining to us in what way Bonhoeffer's arguments counter those of Dawkins rather than resorting to an ad hominem attack on Dawkins? A strange irony that while Dawkins is willing to deal bravely with substanital issues, Rees-Mogg can only ever-so-politely complain about what he perceives to be a hectoring tone. William Rees-Mogg, are Times readers so intellectually impoverished that we cannot be privy to your substantial response?

Conrad, London,

Whilst I am not a believer, I find Dawkins' attitude to be challenging.

I am open to the potential for a god or gods, but cannot find a solid starting point for such a belief.
I have no problems with people who have faith, as faith is a useful physcholgical condition that gives much of the worlds and moral guidebook.

I admire the acceptance of other faiths that is a part of Hindiism. I admire the lack of agression in Bhuddism. I admire the values of forgiveness that Christianity teaches. I admire the element of charity that is a key part of Sikhism.

Whilst scientifically baseless, religious beliefs bring much that is positive to society.
God, Religion and Scientific Process can be good bedfellows.

Chris, Buderim, Australia

What a ridiculous column from someone as eloquent as WIlliam Rees Mogg.

I thought the section I read was some prepatory piece to a longer incisive comment, instead it ended. It had absolutely no intellectual point whatsoever except to claim that Dawkins has somehow tried to invalidate belief in God through criticism of the religious fundamentalists. What utter specious piffle. This is a desperate, desperate argument designed to distract from Dawkins' valid arguments against the likelihood of the existence of God in principle.

The desperate piece at the end of the column is extraordinary and utterly irrlevant to the issues. It seems to to suggest that Dawkins is not competent to comment on the scientific invalidation of God and that simply because Dawkins is emphatic and robust in his arguments he is some modern incarnation of the bishop. What utter drivel. Dawkin is right, science supports his viewpoint as does the evidence and Dawkins is right to make the case emphatically.

Mark Goodall, leighton buzzard, Uk

Chris in Epsom:
Regarding religion being the best moral code - I'm sorry but that is nonsense, frankly if people can't work out right from wrong without the intervention of superstition, ignorance and fear then I would rather they did the "wrong" thing.
Doing the "right" thing because you fear eternal punishment if you don't is a sad, sad indictment of the human condition - we are better than that - at least I know I am.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Something that I have noticed is that one of the reasons religion appears to be in decline is because it is now a long time since Jesus was around. In today's world, a society completely different from the time of 2000 years ago, it seems so hard to believe. People then could: we can't.

Say religion is completely removed from the world. can you imagine the problems there would be? Religion is the best moral code to live by, and without it society would disintegrate. One of our problems is that so many cannot forgive people. Religion helps you try to forgive, and as religion has faded society has started to struggle.

Chris, Epsom,

We are attempting to debate and explain which demonstrates our conviction that we can do both. Isn't it odd how many stop this before ultimate, satisfactory and adequate explanation?. In the Parable of the Sower and the Seed, Jesus gives a profound explanation of this phenonenon.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

It is possible (if unlikely) that God was the prime mover that started evolution, the big bang etc. What is not possible is that God made the world in 7 days and cares about us. Dawkins, and myself, have no problem with the former, which allows for debate. It is the latter that is wrong.

Ben, York,

Still waiting for a counter-argument to disprove Dawkins ... mmm ... could be a long wait

Adela, Amsterdam, Holland

Never do bussines with family, my dad told me, don't sell a car to your sister; what if it breaks down after 2 months?
I agree with wittgenstein that neither a believer or nonbeliever are able to discuss nonbelieving and believing between each other, because off both their linguistical gapps.
So, let us remain family and dodge the undiscussable discussion. And this out off love and respect for each other.

raf verpooten, antwerp, belgium

To Bob in Gloucester:

<<So Professor Dawkins is arguing for a meaningless accidental universe with no purpose to its own existence. Is there, then, any reason why evolution exists as a process - after all what does life evolve to?>>

The two mistakes you make are:
a) That you have decided that there *must* be a purpose to life as a premise. There's actually no evidence for there being a 'purpose', and a lot of evidence for God, were he to exist, not giving a damn.
b) That evolution has a 'target'. Humans are not 'the most evolved', and we're far less well prepared to live into the distant future than a large number of other forms of life.

Andy B, London, UK

They say that the devil works in mysterious ways i wonder if this is true?

TOM, DUNDEE, SCOTLAND

" We cannot create life in the laboratory, but that does not mean that life does not exist. We cannot call up God in the laboratory, but that does not mean that He does not exist."

We can't (sorry: haven't) yet created life in the laboratory, but it is pretty easy to perform an experiment to show that life ***was*** created (= started)... Cosmological evidence supports the idea of a universe with a finite age. Opening your eyes and looking around demonstrates that living people *do* exist. Therefore, life *must* have been created at some point!

The issue is: there is **no** reason, at all, to suppose the existance of God. The concept that God exists is **completely baseless**. No reason, no reason at all.

Matt, Guildford, UK

To Marc Zappala, USA:

"Richard Dawkins and others like him consider me delusional. Yet...he doesn't know what I have felt and experienced. So why should I take his arguments, or anyone's arguments, over my personal experience? "

Marc - a gambler feels *certain* that he will be successful on the next throw. The point about the human mind is that it is capable of being deluded. To the deluded person, it feels *real*.

There's only one way to tell the difference between delusion and reality, and that's to use reason and evidence as the basis of what you believe.

"I believe it if it's real".

Andy B, London, UK

To Frank Upton
<<Even mathematics rests on axioms, things that cannot be proved, but which we need to assume because they lead to useful and reasonable results. In other words, it rests on a mystery, something we do not understand and cannot test. >>

Mathematics is a pure abstraction that neither rests on mystery, nor refers to the physical world. It is a tool which we can use to build models to predict outcome in the real world.

The success with which various models of reality match up with the experimental evidence is striking, and impossible to ignore.

There will always be things we do not know. Why do people want to fill this gap with pretend knowledge?

Andy B, London, UK

As an atheist, I would love to hear all religious people make the following statement:-
"I believe that it is common sense that a person's religion is a function of their birthplace and their culture, so that a person born in South America will normally become a Catholic and one born in the Middle East will likewise become a Muslim (or a Jew if born in Israel) etc....
However, we all worship the same God, and will all go to the same afterlife provided we live our lives according to the rules of our given religions. Even atheists who live a moral life will be accepted into Heaven. I respect and encourage the flowering of all these religions."
This would be a good pre-requisite for a constructive debate about God's existence.
Until I do hear this - count me out, because otherwise it's all brainwash.

arnoldo, Coventry,

Kevin in Kent - Atheism is most emphatically NOT based on faith, it is specifically the rejection of faith based dogma and instead basing your world view on what can be proved in a peer-reviewed, systematic and repeatable manner.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Alice and Isaiah. It is nice to see that irony is alive and well. Hopefully no-one takes too seriously your contention that believing in a god makes you discover and invent new things faster than anyone else.

Dennis, London,

To Ian, Exeter, UK

You state that the onus is on RM to prove that a God exists.
Personally, I'd suggest that there are two things that you might mull over:

[1] What would you consider to be proof of Gods existence?What is the 'ruler' or measure that you will apply in deciding whether an immortal, all-powerful Creator-of-Life exists? Its easy to say that others should provide the evidence, but have you given any thought to what form that evidence should take?

[2] Theists claim that God created and supports all life which, ultimately, will return to him to face his judgement. If that's true then it has enormous implications for you. If its not true then you won't have lost (or gained) anything by vociferously denying the existence of a God. However, that balance between respective outcomes is worth thinking about....Do you really intend turning your back on the possibility of God's existence, no matter how remote you currently think that possibility is?

David, London, UK

"Whatever else may be said of the archbishops of Canterbury or Westminster, they do not bear the faintest resemblance to the personality or doctrine of bin Laden."

There is a very important respect in which the archbishops are similar to bin Laden. They are trying to foist the moral values of a geriatric tome on the rest of us. What is worse, in part, they have succeeded.

Gordon Hide, Ruislip, UK

Lord Rees-Mogg makes an excellent point that Dawkins prefers the soft target offered up by ranters, rather than taking on the more worthy representatives of a religion.

Jesus calls his enemies 'blind fools', 'hypocrites', ' a brood of vipers', and claims that the Queen of Sheba will rise from her grave to judge people who do not believe in him.

That sort of ranting theist is the sort Dawkins prefers to take on.

Present him with a sophisticated theologian and he wouldn't have a clue.

Steven Carr, Liverpool,

"He has been thoroughly trained in the scientific method. That requires him to examine conflicting theories in terms of their strongest arguments, not in terms of their weakest."

Rees-Mogg, please justify this claim.

It certainly flies in the face of Popperiamism (perhaps not how science is done, but many believe how it should be done). If a theory has a weak spot, that is the obvious place for a scientific attack. Falsify it!

Davi, Fitzroy, Australia

Does atheism have a detrimental effect on science? Yes, and Dawkins is a good example of it. The man hasn't done any science in decades; instead, we witness his long slide from idiotic theories about selfish molecules and invisible mind-parasites into full-blown major-length rants about religion. Dawkins is a sad example of scientific potential rotted away by atheism and bigotry.

Zottwi Jerbudda, Washington, USA

Imagine an insurance salesman knocked on your door and he asked you to sign a contract which makes you legally bound to many clauses( the ten commandments, humble yourself before God, make regular donations to the church, pray to God on a regular basis, never question His divinity, not allowed to believe in any other gods etc.) for the rest of your life. When you questioned the validity of the contract or when you asked why you shouldn't take out the policy with a different company. Suppose he just simply replied: 'no need for proof , just have faith in me because you reward would be eternal happiness after your death. Failing to sign would mean eternal suffering in Hell after you die. Just trust me, you'll see all the proof you requested the moment you depart from this earth. ' Would you sign such a contact? Surely any con artist would give his right arm to migrate to such a place where all the inhabitants are so trusting and gullible! Rationality or blind faith, a very simple choice.

Wing, Poole, UK

It is nice to know that all these great intellectual giants can be rolled out to speak against Dawkins, it is a shame that none of them actually try to refute his arguments rather than making ad hominim attacks on the man himself or his media image (which most interviewers comment is unrepresentitive of their experience of him).

It seems that there is good money to be made by being anti-Dawkins without the difficulty of addressing his points.

PJ, Chinnor, UK

Yet another "rebuttal" to Dawkins which contains little more than ad hominem attacks - "His tone is not like that of Charles Darwin himself; thoughtful, reflecting detailed observation ..." In fairness this article is better than most I've read and does make some valid points.

Still it's obvious that Dawkins has really hit a nerve amongst religious believers and they have nothing to counter his arguments but personal attacks.

mark johnson, Edinburgh,

"Faith" is the acceptance of an idea without proof or reason. As the epitomy of unreason, a person of "true faith" is wholly unable to engage in debate: whatever one's arguments, his faith ensures he will not be persuaded.

The position of the "rational theist" is acceptable to Dawkins because such a theist is open to debate (not merely token arguments) - and so is not a Believer at all. Like the atheist he seeks the right answer, not the answer he was raised to accept unquestioningly.

It is not the theory of God that rankles Dawkins, it is the blind acceptance of this theory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, by vast swathes of the population, and their willingness to defend it to the exclusion of all else.

Anthony Charlton, Swindon,

It is hard to determine what is meant by true faith or for that matter untrue faith?

Mr Rees-Mogg's rebuttal does not hold up. You cannot extend the agruement that because life has not been created in a laboratory but clearly exits that God can exit when He has not been created in a laboratory.

That Dawkin 'might' have concede to the arguement that, 'We cannot call up God in the laboratory, but that does not mean that He does not exist' , may have been because there is in it nothing to refute. It is rhetoric or methaphysics.

If Dawkin gave the possibility for the existence of some 'entity' it may have been on the basis of residual sceptisim which allows for almost anything. However, it is not reasonable to pre-fashion what such an entity will be. Faith and belief are humble matters that might help in everyday life. But, one cannot move from faith and belief to religion, law and God as Rees-Mogg cannot with his premiss.

Wigglesworth, Gachnang,

Three points.
A. One does not have 'faith' in the scientific method. It purs forward hypotheses to explain the observed facts and ASKS to be rigourously tested. If they fail the tests, they are abandoned. If they successfully explain what happens in the Universe, they become acceped scientific facts which are SEEN to be true.

B. Yes, "people should be allowed their religious comfort, even if it is not true" but that does not give them the right to parade it before our eyes or ram it down our throats. This is something that is private to the individual and should be kept so. Multiply 'private beief' by ever so many millions and you still get 'private.' It cannot be transmuted into 'public knlwledge.'

C. Critics of the God hyopothesis are constantly asked to prove it wrong. This is perverse. You cannot 'prove' a negative. The believers MUST PROVE their hypothesis. So far they have signally failed to do so.

Bill , Suzhou, China

On the whole, I think Professor Dawkin's approach is a valuable one. After all, whilst religion is generally benign in Britain, it should not be forgotten that in comparatively recent history Britain and Europe was tormented by the spectre of religious warfare and it is only in the last century or so that a welcome secularism now pervades throughout our society.

Who is to say that in the near future we will not regress into a land where the unelected, unaccountable (except to a fictitious god) minisiters of some religion begin again to wield real power?

Some will say this is a dramatic view. Is it? One only has to view the rise of religious (Christian) fundamentalism in Europe after the collapse of a largely secular (by their blasé approach to religion) Roman Empire; the Thirty-Years War; The Papacy; The Glorious Revolution et cetera.

We have just come into the light after our eyes being shrouded by religion for so long. Let's not retreat into the darkness.

Daniel, Belfast,

A being with the powers attributed to god, is as I understand it, quite possible. The idea that such a being would be interested in being worshiped by a hairless mammal living on a little planet orbiting a small yellow star on the outskirts of a medium galaxy, is at best, moderately preposterous. To say that god, or if you like a being with the powers we attribute to god does not exist is a belief, not yet provable or disprovable by contempory science, and thus in my opinion atheism is as irrational a belief as theism. That said, most religions are mutually exclusive, that is if religion "A" is true, then all others are wrong. I may be wrong, but probability theory tells me, that says they are all wrong. Life after death, the great reward of religion may well be possible, I don't know and I don't think anyone else does. If it is possible, then it will be due to the laws of physics, not the laws of god.

Tim Rankin, Bowral, Australia

To view the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible as nothing more than the rantings of murderous racists is the result of a failure in the education system, and particularly in the education of those training clergy in the Church of England.

Those at the top of the Catholic Church, and especially the Pope, appear to be very well grounded in Jewish sources, including Bible, but also Midrash and Talmud.

Whatever your correspondents' goal when they attack the 'Old Testament', such an attack is nothing less than an assault on the faith of the Jewish people and as such should be vigorously challenged by those with knowledge of those sources.

Richard Dawkins may be a very good scientist, but like many academics, he seems sorely lacking in emotional intelligence. His approach to the Hebrew Bible is therefore puerile in the extreme.

As Maimonides said, in order to approach the Hebrew text, it is necessary to have the tools, just as with science..

Dr. Irene Lancaster, Haifa, Israel

It is a delusion of many people that, because they understand a little, they understand everything. We ought to accept that we understand very little, not to be content with that, but because it is true. Fanatics are people who think they know it all, that everything is simple and that no further thought is necessary.

Even mathematics rests on axioms, things that cannot be proved, but which we need to assume because they lead to useful and reasonable results. In other words, it rests on a mystery, something we do not understand and cannot test.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

What is the correct procedure, I wonder, for ascertaining "true" faith from false? How did Mr Rees-Mogg come by this knowledge, and how does he know he is right? For all its faults, the lovely thing about science is that you don't have to take anyone's word for it; evidence is always queen.

Nullius, San Diego, CA, USA

This would be a more convincing riposte if it did not itself engage in smoke and mirrors - Dawkins use of medieval theologians in his article was to point out he (wisely) could not debate with people whose starting point was that God existed. It was not, as implied here, a way of avoiding contact with modern moderate religious thinkers.

Perhaps therein lies the problem - moderates see Dawkins as a threat, so end up lining themselves up alongside the fundamentalists. The reasoned argument would indeed be to point out God's existence is incapable of proof (or, should the religious be correct, incapable of proof before death or ecstatic vision), but also to undermine Dawkin's thesis that religion causes suffering. To do this, the truly religious need to stand alongside those such as Dawkins and accept that much that is done in the name of religion is simply wrong, and explain why in their terms. The extremists create a need for Dawkins, so they remain the problem.

Allan, Birmingham,

I am an atheist, and yet WRM's position strikes me as more reasonable than that of Dawkins. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of things in general, except by definition. You can prove there are no integers 2 whose square is five, but our ancestors were pretty sure that no black swans existed, and were mistaken. As recently as the thirties, mathematicians were pretty sure that whatever was true could be proved, and were wrong about that, too.

About the farthest you can go, or at least the farthest I will go, is to say that there is no convincing evidence for a God and no necessity for one. To go further and declare that there is no God, period, seems to me to be an example of wanting to have an opinion on something without knowing the facts.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US

I take it from his comments that Mr Rees-Mogg is the arbiter of who, and who is not religious. I think fundamentalists have as much right to believe in God as those of a less extreme persuasion.

Religion is merely the earliest form of government known to man. The most interesting aspect of all religions is that God invariably reflects the worshipper.

All I know is that before I was born I did not exist, and when I die I will return to that state.

What is worse, death, or eternal life, in this world, or the next? Richard Dawkins book contains more than simple eloquent denunciation of organised religion. To understand religion, read the Bible, especially the Old Testament...

Stuart McIntosh, London,

However much I respect Wm Rees-Mogg as a journalist, on faith, I have to disagree. We iive on small planet orbitting an insignifiicant star in an outer spiral arm of an insignificant galaxy that is one of at least 250 million others. To say that a "Christ" in the Greek meaning of messiah came to this tiny speck of the universe is more than implausible, it is an absurdity.

Also to say atheism requires an act of is arrant nonsense. There is such a thing as the null hypothesis where you state something is not and then try to find evidence if it`s exsitence. Let me state the null hypothesis, There is no such thing as god. Now all ye faithful the ball is in your court. We atheists have nothing to prove.
Denver Watt Osaka

Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan

I'm sorry Mr Rees-Mogg, fairyology is fairyology, no matter how sophisticated or nuanced the arguments might be, including those of Bonhoeffer or your Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm afraid that the gulf between you and Richard Dawkins is as deep as ever. Long live reason and clear thinking.

Tony F, Kangaroo Island, South Australia

Does anyone remember the article in the Times a while back that suggested that the clergy was worried because a poll of young people indicated they had no need of god? Do I need to refer to a supernatural being in order to explain the world? No. Do I need to refer to a supernatural being to follow a certain code of ethics? No. Religion had its place, 2000 years ago, but it is slowly becoming less relevant. Is there much difference between a state run on Sharia law and one where the ten commandments are displayed in a courthouse? Hmmm. Whilst we are at it, can someone explain why we believe that the crucifixion shows god's love for us? It strikes me that the only form of sacrifice that an omnipotent being could credibly make would be to give up his omnipotence, rather than allow folk to be crucified just in order to resurrect them again when no-one's looking. But that is just the sceptic in me...

Dennis, London,

Bob, Gloucester - you say "Is there, then, any reason why evolution exists as a process - after all what does life evolve to?" I think you're wrong. Evolution isn't a process, it's a result. Natural selection is the process, and this occurs simply because there are insufficient resources to allow all offspring to survive. In a world of infinite resources, natural selection would be unnecessary nand evolution would not occur since even the less-well adapted ('fit') would survive and breed. "Evolution by a process of natural selection" is simply an interpretation of the real world that has, for 150 years, defied all attempts to disprove it to such an extent that most people consider it as near as can be to a scientific certainty. Rather than your claim the "Logical Positivists" claim "What you cannot see does not exist?", I would say that "there is no reason to believe what you cannot see does exist?" unless is shows some form of physical manifestation.

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

Rees-Mogg employs a standard polemical trick. Distorting what the opponent says and then attacking the distortion.

Rees-Mogg says:
"He [Dawkins] makes an assertion, that is contrary to common experience, that the vast majority of religious believers are closer to the beliefs of American evangelists or of bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists than to quiet and rational religion."

This is a distortion. Dawkins simply does not assert that. Dawkins says that the moderates and fundamentalists both believe in something that does not exist, and that they share a common delusion. It is a different point. Dawkins then says that the moderates give protection for the more extreme beliefs. This is also a different point.

The rest of what Rees-Mogg writes is built upon his distortion and is worthless as a result.

Donald, London, UK

Richard Dawkins claims to base his analysis of religion upon scientific methods, but provides no empirical evidence for his allegation that ‘most believers’ are fundamentalists akin to Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact, he has conducted no scientific research amongst "most believers" at all. Without such research, his allegations are mere assumptions or even bigotry.

DP, North of England,

Rees-Mogg not only fails to produce counter-arguments, but also misrepresents Dawkins. RM suggests that Dawkins only attacks the weakest of the theists' points, but that is patently not true to anyone who has read The God Delusion or other of Dawkins's books. He very clearly makes powerful arguments against the existence of god(s), based on first principles. The theists tellingly never address those arguments, and seek always to shoot the messenger instead. How rude of Dawkins to upset the cosy little world of ridiculous fantasy the religious have enjoyed - backed by the most barbaric persecution and suppression - for so many centuries.

W Waterman, London,

I love it when faith-heads use words like "reason" and "argument". Faith, by its own lights and on its own terms does not have an argument. It abjures reason, truth, logic, evidence (not to mention ordinary usage of the word "know) in favour of mere unsupported assertion and metaphysical blather. Suppose Rees-Mogg's son were to be accused of a serious crime. Would Rees-Mogg be content to have his son's guilt or innocence established by the same abysmal standards of proof he reserves for establishing the truth of his faith? Faith is immune from reason and ridicule. Faith-apologists abandon intelligence the moment they start talking about... the thing nobody can talk intelligibly about. It's been suggested that we should be courteous in our dealings with the delusional. But since when have these ignorant and sentimental reactionaries demonstrated comparable continence?

Kim Harris, London, UK

Well said, Isaiah from Texas - and don't forget when you put on your radio to enjoy the Catholic Beethoven and Mozart and then on holiday the Catholic Michelangelo's paintings and sculptures; we must not forget also the Catholic Descartes who wrote his most famous and influential work because the Pope asked Catholic Philosophers to try to find a way to answer and help people overcome the all-pervading scepticism of the time. We also have Pascal whose name is mentioned daily in Maths classes.........and let's not forget Ampere and his amps......................

Alice J McCabe, Doncaster,

Religion and atheism are both based on faith. As an atheist I believe that science has most of the answers. It can explain the development of our physical world over billions of years. Those who take the biblical view that the world is no more than a few thousand years old are sad in their delusion. However, there are questions that science has not yet answered, such as how did the first life start to enable evolution to take place? Whether science will ever resolve that question matters not. It is no reason to resort to the supernatural – to religious faith. Belief in a God also enables religions to attach to this being all sorts of other mystical powers and benefits, like resurrection and heaven. This has allowed religious hierarchies to control their flocks with fear and hope. It also enables religious fanatics to inspire the ignorant and the gullible to commit atrocities in the name of their faith, believing they will be rewarded in their supernaturaral fantasy world.

Kevin, Kent,

Rees-Mogg says we cannot create life in the laboratory. Clearly, he is ignorant over developments in the new science of "Synthetic Biology" which can assemble DNA building blocks to do precisely that. And we can repeat the process of evolution in the laboratory; it happens every day with the (unfortunate) development of antibiotic-resistant infections and randomly mutating cancer cells which become resistant to treatment.

Also, Rees-Mogg takes Prof Dawkins to task for having "faith" in science. Not so. Scientists do not have faith in the scientific method -- they just follow what gives predictable and reproducable results. When occasionally this fails they are happy to move on with a better theory.

It is not up to Dawkins to prove that gods do not exist any more than he needs to prove that elves, pixies and pink elephants do not exist. If Rees-Mogg irrationally believes in something implausible, it's up to him to provide the proof: unlikely claims require extraordinary evidence

Ian, Exeter, UK

I am an old-age-pensioner and an atheist. One of the things I most resent about religion is the fact that - growing up as I did in a remote Lincolnshire village in the 1940s - I was left in a state of confusion. I read about evolution and immediately had my doubts about what the local parson and everyone around me said about God creating the world in seven days etc.etc. For a long time I was puzzled, even worried, because all this religious stuff - prayers, divinity at school - made me wonder if I was different from everyone else in not being able to deceive myself or be dishonest with myself and ""believe" in God. Thank goodness I relied on my common sense and intelligence and later had access to books and discussions with people who shared my atheistic views. Today nobody need be left in the dark about religion or atheism, but I was in those days and I am still very angry that attempts were made to brainwash me. I still regret being silly enough to be confirmed when I was fourteen.

alan, cologne,

I thought that the beliefs of the Logical Positivists had been dicredited years ago. What you cannot see does not exist? What about the implications of quantum theory, multidimensions etc? So Professor Dawkins is arguing for a meaningless accidental universe with no purpose to its own existence. Is there, then, any reason why evolution exists as a process - after all what does life evolve to?

Professor Dawkins is, like anyone else, entitled to his view, but I cannot see that his view is really any more logical, or less assumptive than those of an orthodox believer in one of the major religions. After all, the major religions could (admittedly without empirical evidence) be argued as steps in the process of evolution of life into moral, as distinct from purely physical beings, within this universe, and does not preclude the revelation of this by a universal God in another part of that universe. Why not then assume that there is an all-knowing God who loves all his creation instead?

Bob, Gloucester, UK

Prof. Rees-Mogg says we cannot create life in the laboratory. That doesn't mean that we won't in the future. Science has had only about 50-60 years real knowledge of what DNA/RNA is and does. One also has to consider what "life" means, is a computer program that generates ever more complex "organisms", starting from a simulated environment where natural selection acts, capable of producing "life"? How long will it be until life is created in silica? Religion always seems to fall back onto the argument that science cannot discover everything, that God can be found in these gaps in our knowledge.

I too am a ranter, but why not? I was forced to study christianity from an early age in school assembly and R.E. lessons. I was told if I didn't believe I was destined to burn. I only heard about evolution in my GCSE years and still had to sing the praises of something I didn't agree with, on threat of punishment. How is scaring children and forcing faith on them "great"?

Edd Almond, London, England

Yes there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, yet the biggest genocides and abuses of power that have lead to the most lives lost, have been at the behest of those who outlawed and/or disdained religion. Lenin, Stalin and Trotsk, Mao, Hitler, enslaved and brutally murdered more than other despots, religious or otherwise throughout history combined.

They sought to torture, to dehumanize entire groups of people, to exploit for power and ultimate control. They attempted to eradicate hope and free will.

No religion on the face of the earth is perfect, just as no human being is perfect. But in spite of that reality, human beings and human faith have enabled us to rise above our limitations and to reach out to our fellow man and achieve amazing things.

If I am going to believe anything, it would be Christ's message and the example he set for us. Mr Dawkins dogma sets and example that speaks to intolerance and bigotry.

Jennifer Perry, Attleboro, MA US

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I believe in God because of personal experiences with something greater than myself, something to which only the word "God" can satisfyingly be attached. Richard Dawkins and others like him consider me delusional. Yet gifted though Dawkins may be as a scientist, he doesn't know what I have felt and experienced. So why should I take his arguments, or anyone's arguments, over my personal experience?

Religious tenets can and should be questioned. But if God Himself is a delusion, He's a remarkably persistent one. I personally think that a majority of people are going to go on believing in Him regardless of what atheists have to say.

Marc Zappala, Alexandria, VA, USA

The critics of Dawkins hope that if they attack the messenger, then eventually, the message he has will be drowned out.

I challenge anyone to find a piece written about the God Delusion which makes an honest attempt to meet the debate head on. I've yet to find one, by WRM or any other supposedly intellectual believer.

Richard Dawkins is just a man, and it is of no interest to read ad nauseam that he is occasionally 'rude'. It really doesn't interest me. What interests me is the strength of his arguments. Is he right?

Perhaps William Rees Mogg can reflect on that. I recommend he read one of Dawkins' other works - the Ancestor's Tale, then ask himself which of his ancestors was the first creature in his family line deemed to be human enough to be worthy of a soul and judgement by the God his culture told him was real.

Andy B, London, UK

Richard Dawkins is not dogmatic or arrogant, he simply says things the believers in pixies, fairies, goblins and assorted other invented beings don't want to hear and he refuses to do it with the pointless deference that us non-believers are expected to show to something we can see is a delusion.
There is a $1 Million reward I believe for anyone who can prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - go on then you "true faith" types - go and collect it.

To quote Bertrand Russell :
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible”

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

If Professor Dawkins sees a motor car, I am sure he would say it had a creator. But he looks at a human being, and says it has none.
I found his book disappointing, and couldn't finish it. Bashing established religions as practised by a flawed humanity is pointless; rather he should have concentrated on the ideas and ideals of the religions themselves, especially Christianity. The gospels as we know them were completed within a decades of Christ's death, and caught on like wildfire, even in that most advanced civilization, Greece, and cannot be dismissed as poorly documented hogwash. Mr Rees-Mogg's analogy with trying to create God in a laboratory points out another weakness in the book. Prof. Dawkins also seems surprisingly ignorant of the dominant form of Christianity in Europe, the Orthodox Church, which helped sustain the longest surviving empire ever seen on earth, which lasted over 1,200 years and we now call Byzantium.

Martin, London, UK

"True faith is greater than the ranters" - Whose true faith would that be, Professor. Christians? If so, which sect owns the monopoly on the truth I wonder. Is it the Catholics, the Prodestants, the Anglicans? I would submit that the title of this article should be "Blind faith is called Blind faith for a reason."

Dan, Hampton, UK

If Dawkins is such a great scientist what are his inventions/discoveries? Dawkins strays into an area he has only a juvenile sense of. His theories and rantings are immature. His writings are calculated to generate cash.
I have been in Silicon Valley and watched truly creative minds at work. Nano machines being created by people with names like Muhammed, or last names Islam. Dawkins ranks up there with the wannabes. When i listen to the radio I'll thank the Catholic Marconi, when I drive my car, I'll thank the Escopalian Henry Ford (he made mass production of the auto possible, , when I use electricity I'll thank the Italian Catholic Volta, when I fly I'll thank the Episcipal Bishop's sons the Wright Brothers, when I read newspapers I'll thank the Catholic Guttenberg. Genetics:: Gregor Mendel; Vaccines, the Catholic Pastuer; What did the atheist gas bags bring us?
Communism and Fascism!

Isaiah, Dallas, Texas

Angus
You could look at your argument from another way.
Why is it that people who don't believe try to prove that because they don't they are intellectually superior and use biased argument to try and make them selves feel strong
You ask why should William Rees Mogg defend his beliefs?
Why should William Rees Mogg's beliefs be attacked? surely people who don't believe are secure enough in their own non belief not to have to lash out at others who have a differing opinion to make themselves feel more secure?

Derek, Macaé, Brasil

Phil Anslow's self-moralistic post makes me feel happier than ever to be agnostic. If others want to worship fables of an invisible super-being in order to get through life, that's their choice. In my experience, the only religious people worth listening to are those that don't trumpet the tenents of their particular faith, but quietly put into practice their beliefs in everyday life.

Put that in your pipe and gainsay it.

Dan, Hampton, UK

Can we not identify people with competence in mathematical modeling, statistical analysis, scientific method, core scientific knowledge, logic, and both empirical and metaphysical philosophy who can be designated as a Useful Contributor to the debate that so many intellectual chancers demean. So much arrant nonsense is paraded in the media today that the ability to assess contributors' competence to address their subjects before reading them and finding that so many are incompetent would save a vast amount of time and enhance the quality of an important debate. Had such a designation system been in place, the absence of UC (Useful Contributor) after Mogg’s name would have saved me the several minutes puzzlement I experienced before ascertaining he was little competent to address his subject

Howe Ver, London, UK

It is ironic that Dawkins is refered to as 'ranting' simply for giving evidence based arguments in terms which would be mild coming from many pulpits and minarets.

I wish these so-called intellectuals would prove that they merit the name by applying themselves to disputing the message rather than the messenger, cease the ad-hominem attacks and debate on the issue!

PJ, Chinnor, UK

John from Wellington - Dawkins has read and scrutinised the Bible. There has not been a shred of evidence for the existence of a god. Ever. If somebody in the far future worshipped Harry Potter, you would think them very strange indeed, and yet there is the same evidence for that as there is for the Christian concept of God. Personally, I think we should all become athiest Buddhists, who live better, more moral lives than most Christians.

Ben, York,

I wonder what Lord Rees-Mogg's physics results were at school? 25% of today's Times article is merely a rebuke culminating in a transposition which reduces Huxley's shaft to a mere pin-prick.

There is neither faith nor prejudice in science, your Lordship. An argument which relies upon defective insults like this is clearly lost.

John Fitton, Kettering, England

I think Mystic Meg has confused "necessary" with "sufficient".

Jim, Canterbury,

The styles of the two groups of correspondents are telling. On one hand insightful and witty comments from the atheists, on the other the faithful, clearly on the back foot, offer ad-hominem attacks, nebulous assertions and unfettered codswallop.
We must all hope that a continued onslaught of rationalism will galvanise those who need no superstition to live a good and happy life.
I have sacrificed a cockerel and a weasel to mighty Thor that it might be so.

George Lennan, La Rochelle, France

If there is such a thing as a creator, God, why has it chosen to reveal itself in different forms/guises to different peoples around the world? The God in the UK appears to have a different set of principles to the one in Vietnam, to the one in India, to the one in Saudi Arabia to the one in the Italy etc etc. Seems fairly silly. All of these Godly religions seemed to have resulted in only one thing - wars and genocide.

Jay, Aviemore, UK

It is not Prof Dawkins arguments themselves that are important, it is the fact that we are lucky enough to live in a time and place where we can go into a bookshop and buy his book without being burned at the stake or beheaded as a heretic or infidel, for daring to doubt something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Chris, Whitley Bay,

I am a Muslim, and still, I probably don't like the same people whom Professor Dawkins does not like. we agree that yes bad people exists in religion as they do in science. Remember Dr Shipman? The strange truth is that Bin Laden is further from God than is Dawkins. But unlike the Professor, my power of reasoning does not make me conclude that existence of bad people proves that God does not exist. The Professor Dawkins seems to be saying that extremists' existence means there is no God. This is not a very logical deduction. Dawkins hatred for rebels against God is making him deny God. Hatred for members ought not make one dislike the institution or its founder.

Z Hussain, Rochdale, UK

Dawkins is a pompous overbearing know all,in love with the sound of his own voice.People will STILL believe in God long after his bones have crumbled into dust.
It is precisely because there is no proof of God's existence that faith is required;simple really.

Michael J Rigby, Chorley Lancashire, England

By definition, religion is the requirement to believe absolutely in a 'truth' without a shred of any evidence.

That is what 'faith' is.

And we let people use this as a basis for educating our children.

Simon, Ulverston,

Why do religious people feel such a strong need to defend their religions from healthy criticism? Do they fear that their God has low self-esteem issues...
People will always believe what they want to believe and in this respect this argument is fairly pointless. Why does William R-M feel the need to defend his own beliefs unless he is unsure of them himself? How pathetic to call Dawkins dogmatic just because he has a point of view that does not agree with his own.

Angus Spinoza, ediburgh,

We believe in the wind even though we cannot see it; we believe in the sun even when it's not shining; God is all around, we cannot see or feel or hear Him, but if you have faith then you know he is there, and it is in the believing that He becomes our real Saviour. He offers us his hand, but we have to accept and take it, or walk the other way. Yes, many churches are awful, so choose wisely. Science just reveals reation to us.

Jean, Sussex,

Such nonsense...

I can observe life all around me. I have never observed, nor seen any credible evidence for, this bizarre concept "god".

Allardice, Shenzhen, PRC

True faith is greater than the ranters" - Whose true faith would that be, Mr Rees-Mogg. Christians? If so, which sect owns the monopoly on the truth I wonder. Is it the Catholics, the Prodestants, the Anglicans? I would submit that the title of this article should be "Blind faith is called Blind faith for a reason."

Dan, Hampton, UK

Phil Anslow, wake up! Let go of the ancient semetic tribal superstitions that, bizarrely enough, became mainstream European. Use the brain that evolution has given you! Think! It's the most wondrous thing that humans can do, and we should rejoice in this happy age where we no longer need the comforter of atavistic superstition.

David McGregor, Fitzroy, Australia

Whilst criticizing Professor Dawkins for "taking the silliest arguments" I wonder how he managed to write "We cannot call up God in the laboratory, but that does not mean that He does not exist" with a straight face.

Michael Laughton, Runcorn, United Kingdom

I find it very sad that Prof. Dawkins should have to resort to such bad-mannered language as 'faith-heads'. This demeans his article. If he cannot rise above the intemperate people he criticises, he is no better than them.

The greatest delusion is pride in oneself, and it seems Prof. Dawkins has that in abundance.

gillian crow, london, UK

"After all, Professor Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one. He has been thoroughly trained in the scientific method. That requires him to examine conflicting theories in terms of their strongest arguments"

This is wrong. Science has no truck with arguments. You have a theory and arguments only until you find a way to observe the universe giving up its secrets. Science is about facts not ideas, it examines the world not arguments. This is why it is not philosophy or theology, and probably why Dawkins is so bad at arguing.

Statten Roeg, London,

really you cannot prove anything if the other person refuses to accept the facts of the matter.

ben, no wilkesboro, usa/nc

The god confusion
One of mankinds biggest problems is that, if you can stay clear of a criminal conviction, being inhuman has no cost. It's something a self-respecting, complete religion you think would address. The best (incomplete) that is on offer is summed up by the pope on a visit to Brazil. "Drug barons will be called to account by god". Let me guess. They'll endure eternal separation from peace. Was this not the case before 2000 years ago? Why does the meter only begin to take effect when you're dead? Would 2000 years ago not have been a bigger success if it made a difference in this life? If heaven and hell existed before 2000 years ago, what exactly are we to believe in, and how has 2000 years ago changed anything. I'd be grateful if you could shed some light on this.

Pat, Limerick, Ireland

After all the column inches lavished on the childish prejudices of Professor Dawkins, it is refreshing to read such a fine, lucid and concise critique. The Professor does not annoy intelligent Christians by virtue of being an atheist, or by arguing for atheism - we have been engaged in that debate for centuries - but rather by the arrogant assertion that rationality and atheism are one and the same. All thoughtful Christians are aware that rationality, science and faith can and do walk hand-in-hand; the current Pope is a strong advocate of this position. If Professor Dawkins wants to do something useful he can join us in arguing this point with the fundamentalists, rather than by tarring us all with the same brush.

Syd, Cambridge,

More people in this world have been and continue to be murdered, besmirched and held in contempt by people who believe that 'God', in whatever form, exists and that to hold any other view is irrational or insane.

Others believe that they are what they are because of 'God's will' and use 'God' as an excuse to sit around and do little to alleviate the suffering in the world. All the prayers in the world will not solve one problem until humans get off their knees and get to work.

'God' appears to me an excuse for inaction in dealing with the real problems faced by the world. Polio is not being eradicated in the world by 'God' but by the actions of a secular charity.

You may not agree with Dawkins' argument but the evidence is that "God' does not exist if you only open your eyes to see.

Peter Thomson, Kirkcudbright, Scotland

Whatever the misrepresentation and sniping from his opponents, Dawkins' central point is this: conviction without evidence (ANY evidence) is irrational. There may be degrees to which irrationality is harmful, but irrationality itself is not defensible. Rees-mogg, and others, do not of course attempt to defend the indefensible; instead, they attack style, tone, rhetoric. It's a lawyer's trick, and It won't wash.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Perhaps Prof. Dawkins fault is that, being a scientist, he takes scripture as a formal system, and assumes that if you accept it, you accept all of it. In all religions, scripture is canonical.

Until and unless the Anglican church decides that the Old Testament is not part of the canon of belief, then it and all its true adherents must believe that its god is a racist and arbitrary god, rewarding for all time the descendants of a near-psychopath and punishing for all time the descendants of his honest brother (Jacob and Esau respectively).

This may not be the pick-and-mix kind of church which Mr Rees-Mogg apparently wants us to see in the Anglican church, but I would say that essence of a "religion" as opposed to a "spirituality" is that it is _not_ pick and mix. You either subscribe, in full, or you leave.

Perhaps the Anglican church has already decided that the Old Testament is not part of the canon of belief. If so, would it not be a good idea to tell people?

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

"Science discovers and attempts to explain what God has created – true faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is sufficient explaination."

If that is sufficient, why are you using the internet, and probably using a train, car or bus to get to work every day, living on a diet of food that has been produced all over the world and flown to your local supermarket?

J, London,

Mr Rees-Mogg. Can you PLEASE, make an attempt to refute the actual content of The God Delusion, that gods do not exist, rather than just offer even more meaningless prattle about how you don't like its author.

I appreciate this must be a big ask (as no theist has tried yet), but if you're as clever as you obviously think you are, surely it is easily within your capabilities.

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

The reason for focusing on the extreme, ridiculous and insane is that they are perfectly logical behaviours in a world were evidence is not required for belief. This is why paradoxes are illuminating in philosophy - they illustrate flawed arguments.

Second, religions so often claim the moral high ground, or that faith inspires humanity and I think it valid to point out that this argument is also flawed.

Now please, if you have a problem with Dawkins' arguments against God, try actually countering some of them.

Damon De Ionno, London,

What Mr. Rees Mogg fails to mention is that, pushing 65, Prof. Dawkins will soon be required to retire from his teaching post at Oxford. His best scientific work long behind him and still wishing to be heard and revered (as high priests of the academies do) he is looking for a second career. With the death of Bertrand Russell in 1970 the post of professional atheist has been long vacant. Dawkins anointed himself as heir. He is now the new scion of atheism, has gone forth proclaiming the gospel and is set for the next twenty years at least!

(That he knows neither philosophy nor theology is irrelevant. Neither do his acolytes.)

Mary Shelley, London,

Can't the Times and the religious lobby really do any better than to wheel out another WRM lecture on the intricacies of his faith?

If religionists really wish to enter into debate about the issues which Prof Dawkins has the gall to reject and undermine with reasoned comments , logic and evidence shouldn't they really be putting up someone who might clearly get a reasoned point across to ordinary people?

The inference to be drawn from this age old traditional approach is that they would rather fight reason and logic with spin , smoke and mirrors. And if at all possible move the central arguments elsewhere.

But it always beehas n so.

Bob Green, Essex, England

What are the statistical chances of intelligent life existing on one planet out of nine, in a planetary system such as our own, whose like has not been observed anywhere else in the universe? I would say zero if I weren't sitting here writing this comment.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

"I object to Professor Dawkins’s methods of argument much more than to his assertions of fact, mistaken though I think them to be...." I could not agree more. This has been the most worrying thing about Professor Dawkins' pontifications on God since he started his crusade. Much has been written - in other debate columns in this paper and elsewhere - on this topic. The question in my mind is: why is Dawkins trotted out at every turn?

Alice J McCabe, Doncaster,

Professor Dawkins clearly worries the Christians, as they attack him so comprehensively. This is no doubt because he makes his arguments so clearly and logically, and his book has sold so well. They must perceive him as a threat to the power and influence of Christianity and, possibly, to their own religious faith. All Professor Dawkins is saying is what many of us have thought all our lives, but he puts it more eloquently. At a time when self-professed religious adherents are acting so oppressively, intolerantly and, worse, violently, all around the world, Professor Dawkins' book is well-timed and necessary. It is not we, the atheists, who treat women as second class citizens and practising homosexuals as evil, nor do we purport to have a monopoly on virtue and decency, in the way that believers in God routinely do. They are the arrogant ones, not us!

Cathy, Bristol, UK

You wont find God in the Newtonian paradigme. Creation and evolution are not incompatable. Who said Creation has stopped. The Truth isn't out there, just be silent for a moment you will find it.

John , Johnstone, Scotland

Mr Rees-Mogg,
the Dawkins book was, so far as I can discover, panned by every critic who read it. To dignify this mountebank by writing an article about him is to treat him with a respect which seems very difficult to justify; this is a man who writes abot a subject where he himself admits he can't be bothered reading the literature and rebutting it. He's no academic, he's merely a charlatan.

John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand

What the real mystery is how an intellectual like William Rees-Mogg can believe in man invented religions. Popes, Bishops, priests I understand. They have a carrier to protect just like prominent figures in the former Soviet Empire and in its semi autonomous satrapies who had to assert their Marxist beliefs or else. There are not many Marxist now in the East although some are still around in the West.

Peter Kaldor, Woking, U.K.

Professor Dawkins protests far too much. There's something unscientific, closed and rather worrying about it all.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

We cannot create fairies in the laboratory, but that does not mean that fairies do not exist.

Stewart Ware, London,

I think it's a pity that all commentators can't all write with the same conviction and clarity of Dawkins. Life's too short to ever fathom what Rees-Mogg means.

CARR, Co,

Christians believe God, Creator or all, the Alpha and Omega (Beginning and the End). Non-Christians don't, preferring other religions, theories (including Darwinian Theory) or their own greatness. Only God puts Christian faith in man and understanding with it. Those without this faith only have science and theories to rely upon for their answers and will defend and gainsay these against faith. All start this way but a living church where the Word of God is preached in truth has changed many. God does it - even to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. “Those that have ears to hear...” Science discovers and attempts to explain what God has created – true faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is sufficient explaination.

Phil Anslow, Brentwood,

Leave Prof. Dawkins be! His argument is about living in a world which finally acknowledges and is comfortable with the non-existence of god. if god (ie believing in one god or another) makes you feel better about yourself, gives you solace etc fine by me, but by the same token, let me enjoy my godless life and don't impose your values, judgments on me. let children go to schools where they are told that there is a jewish, christian, muslim, buddhist etc (lack of space) GOD and let them decide for themselveswhat they want to believe/ not belive in. The question is: who needs HIM (ie GOD) and why have god (ie faith) around when it's such a hassle?! The God Delusion is a self-help book for people who DO NOT NEED TO BELIEVE in order to qualify as decent, law abiding honest human beings. we do need this sort of help - there are people out there who do not need to belive in any sort of god in order to live a happy, fulfilled life, pay their taxes, NOT lie, steal, kill, rape or what ever

daniel, London,

The most pertinent comment I have ever seen relating to religion, was, i believe, made by a Hindu. - GOD said,' I will give you my Word'. And the DEVIL said, ' And I will give you religion.'

'God' may or may not exist, just as 'Nature', may be said, in a rather crude way, to 'exist'. It is not they which are the point at issue. It is at the stage where prophets and theologians, who have produced many harmless and a great many pernicious interpretations of 'God', and scientists, who when they do their 'job properly, produce only non-prescriptive analyses and 'best-guess' explanations of 'Nature', step in that the divide begins.

When priests, mullahs and the like(prescriptively) foist their interpretations of 'theology', on an unsophisticated mass audience, the real difference appears. Scientific ideas have been transformed by technologists into a mass of innocuous, many 'good' and a few 'evil' inventions. But we are free, using reason and scientific analysis, to CHOOSE from these

L. Waring, Montevideo, Uruguay

None of this intellectual smoke and mirrors convinces me that god exists. Therefore, it's still belief in the absence of evidence. What could be more contemptible than that?

Hrothgar, Schaumburg, IL, USA

I tried substituting scientific for religious in the Huxley quote as you suggested and got the following extract:-

"a man of restless and versatile intellect – who, ........ plunges into religious questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric"

I am sorry but, whatever else you accuse him of, Professor Dawkins' rhetoric is anything but aimless.

Roy Marsh, Singapore, Singapore

Belief and faith may have a useful basis in everyday life - but they are not absolutely necessary. They are a short form for longer reasoned explanations but have nothing necessarily to do with religion. You cannot step from faith or belief to religion. You cannot step from belief to the existence of God.

That you cannot start life in a laboratory clearly does not allow you then to say, therefore, life does not exist. There is other evidence, which is clearly on the side of the Darwinians, that life emerged and developed slowly. This is empiricially founded and does not rely on faith, belief,religion or God.

Importantly, this lack of laboratory created life does not allow anyone to then postulate anything about the existence or not of a God or 'entity'. Nor, does the existence of the church or religion - belief or faith.

The single premiss that Rees-Mogg believes Dawkin's 'might' have agreed to, gives no comfort to anyone, as useful conclusions cannot be derived from it.

Wigglesworth, Gachnang,

John Koczera,

Scientists and atheists are often wrong. This should not affect scientists too much, as when a theory is proved wrong, a 'good' scientist must accept it. The atheist view of an eternal universe is inaccurate but from your post it seems they are still rejecting the theory of the Big Bang.

Cosmologists now posit, well can 'prove' with CMB raditation, that the universe is not eternal. It was created--along with time--at the moment of the start of all time and all matter. St. Augustine wrote about this in AD500, and it looks like he was right all along.

But then atheism as a (non)religious belief system has always been slow to admit error.

Mary Shelley, London,

Mr Rees-Mogg has failed to notice that moderate liberal religion is on the decline. Literalists are driving much of the religious debate even within the mild Anglican church which looks to continue to fragment along fundamentalist lines about the role of women and homosexuality.

From the US, the evangelical right has driven us to war with Iraq, restricts funds for contraception, intimidates women on issues of sex and abortion, openly discriminates against homosexuals, reduces funding for basic science using stem cells, and apparently wants children to be taught that the world is only 5000 years old or so.
This is not to mention the growth of radical muslims.

Prof. Dawkins is, I believe, acting in response to this. Aspects of liberal secular modern life are being challenged on the basis of "I beileve this and you can't prove otherwise" - no evidence, no room for debate, Dawkins is simply throwing it back the same stridency the literalists use and demanding they show evidence.

Saul, Barcelona, Spain

Sorry, but (mostly) absolute drivel.

God(or a similar being) is incredibly unlikely to exist - no proofs and/or probabilities.

Religions have little if anything to do with God - more to do with control, power, philosophies and sets of rules by which people live their lives - who am I to say this is wrong, more that many inflict these on others and often take these beliefs to extremes - fundamentalism.

Why should I 'suffer' in respect for much of these beliefs and to my mind delusions.

Ask yourself, if it was absolutely proven tomorrow that God does not exist, would that mean the end for religion? I don't think so!

Stephen_R, Belfast,

The fact is that there is less rational evidence for the existence of God than there is for the truth of astrology - and I hold no brief for astrology. So those who need a God on which to base their religion have a problem. If they cannot prove his existence, they must fall back on other methods such as faith or revelation. To justify this they argue that, as God is beyond the limits of human understanding, it is mere vanity and folly on our part to attempt to base our belief in Him on our own rational, reasoning processes.

This is a proposition that puts one ominously in mind of Goya's phrase, "The sleep of reason brings forth monsters".

Have we not yet had enough of the many monsters brought forth by religion to realize that this is not a path we can wisely go down any longer?

David Ambrose, London,

From the theory, 'The truth always lies between the extremes', I would like to propose the following 'truth' for consideration.

Creation and evolution are two sides of same coin, called existence. It is the what AND the how.

For what the religious call 'creation and the passage of time' and the not-so-religious call 'the big bang and evolution' tis not but the same.

The joke would go: "Creation is what He did, evolution is how She is bringing it along".

DanO, Mt. Vernon, USA

So what are these clinching and persuasive arguments which Dawkins ignores? Theology is replete with clever and moderate academics whose analysis is fascinating. But ultimately the evidence for the Christian and other beliefs just isn't there. That is why they rely on belief. This is what Dawkins and others like him argue. That is the central delusion. Dawkins is reasonable enough to admit that we do not fully understand the way the universe works and how we came to be here. He merely points out that an absence of knowledge does not or at least should not be an excuse to invoke superstition.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Q: Who created God?

A: God always existed.

Q: If you can accept an entity that always existed is it not more probable that this Universe and everything beyond it always existed? That this Universe changes forms but was not created and will not be destroyed?

A: You stumped me on that one. Yes the Eternal Universe may be the alternative answer to God.

Q: Why would God choose Sons and Prophets to send us mediocre messages in scriptures that were written thousands of years ago?

A: Please !!! Don't make me look more foolish than what you already have.

Q: If God wanted to speak to us He would appear during football games , tennis matches and speak to us directly, each one of of us, in a language we could all understand.

A: I give in. We cannot prove God exists. We know the Universe exists. We should pass laws teaching children religion and the lie that God exists.

John Koczera, Boston, USA