I still recall the exact times and places when the Big Questions
declared themselves to my childish consciousness. The first arrived when I
was in short trousers and knew even less than I know today.
I had been playing with some friends on a disused aerodrome near my home in
Cardiff. We used the abandoned carcasses of old aircraft to attack the
squadrons of imaginary German bombers droning above us in the darkening sky.
When we had wiped them out, my friends went home for tea. I hung around. It
was one of those days when my mother, a hairdresser who worked from home,
was giving a perm to a neighbour and I hated the stench of the chemicals.
By now it was dark. The glory of the night sky had yet to be lost to light
pollution and on cloudless nights the stars went on for ever. That was what
troubled me. How could they go on for ever? And if the universe was
everything, what was it all in? And how could it be in anything because that
would have to be in something else and . . . and . . . and so on. And what
was there before any of it existed? And how did it all come into existence?
And finally – the really, really Big Question – why?
The other Big Question came to me at about the same age. I was on a bus
returning from our week’s holiday in Aberyst-wyth. I hated buses. I was
always sick on them. It was while I was hanging over the platform at the
back that I discovered mortality. For the first time in my short life I
realised that one day I would die.
Once again the question was: why? What was the point of being born if all
there was to look forward to was dying? For the length of that ghastly
journey and into the next day, everything seemed completely and utterly
pointless. Then the normal service of childhood was resumed and it went
away. But it came back. Questions like that always do.
It took me a few more years to grasp that rather a lot of people were worrying
about their own versions of the Big Questions and had been for quite a long
time.
The 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal described the predicament of those
who do not know “. . . why I am set down here rather than elsewhere, nor why
the brief period appointed for my life is assigned to me at this moment
rather than another in all the eternity that has gone before and will come
after me. On all sides I behold nothing but infinity, in which I am a mere
atom, a mere passing shadow that returns no more. All I know is that I must
die soon, but what I understand least of all is this very death which I
cannot escape”.
Pascal did not come to believe in a personal God until his early thirties. I
was one of the many whose questions were answered by the church right from
the beginning. There was no question of my not going to church. That’s what
we did in my family.
At 15 I left school to work on a local newspaper and then, two years later,
left home to work for a bigger paper in the Welsh valleys. It was then that
I stopped going to church. Saturday night was pub-crawl night, which meant
that Sunday morning was spent recovering. But in any case I realised that
going to church was a meaningless exercise. I was bored by the ritualised
responses, by priests who seemed to have nothing to say, by my own failure
to be genuinely moved by any of it.
Yet I continued to pray. I prayed every single night without fail for half a
century. The problem was that I had absolutely no notion of the God to whom
I was supposed to be praying or, for that matter, why I was praying. Did I
really think my prayers would make any difference? I doubt it. So, if I was
getting nothing out of it and neither were the people I was praying for, why
was I bothering? Mostly, I wanted to believe. I envied friends with an
apparently solid faith their certainties and the comfort their faith
appeared to bring them.
My years as a reporter and foreign correspondent took their toll. I was not
much more than a boy when I watched the miners of Aberfan digging for the
bodies of their children after the coal tip crushed their school. A few
years later I was watching weeping mothers trying to free the bodies of
their children from the ruins of houses wrecked by an earthquake in
Nicaragua. In various African countries I have seen children, all hope gone
from their blank and staring eyes, slowly starving to death. In divided
countries all over the world I have seen the bodies of young men horribly
mutilated by other young men for no other reason than that they belonged to
the wrong tribe or religion.
In war zones I have listened to soldiers – ordinary people like you and me,
with their own children to love and care for – justify the slaughter of
other entirely innocent human beings, other children.
And over and over again I was asking myself the other Big Question, one that
would not have occurred to the innocent little boy on the aerodrome: where
was God?
My spiritual journey – if that’s not too high-falutin’ a notion – took me from
my childish Big Questions to my ultimate failure to find any corresponding
Big Answers. I have ended up – so far, at any rate – as a doubter. It’s
clear that I’m far from alone.
In almost half a century of journalism I have never had such a response to
anything I have written or broadcast as I did to last year’s Radio 4 series
Humphrys in Search of God. The letters arrived by the sackful. It felt a bit
like putting my fingers on the religious pulse of the nation; and the pulse
is still strong. However empty the pews may be there are plenty of people
with a sincere and passionate belief. There are also plenty of people who
think it’s all a load of nonsense.
What surprised me is how many think of themselves as neither believers nor
atheists but doubters. They, too, are sincere. Devout sceptics, if you like.
And many of them feel beleaguered. I’m with them. SINCE starting to write my
book, I have fallen into the habit of asking almost everyone I meet if they
believe in God. And here’s the interesting thing: it was only the atheists
who seemed absolutely certain.
Of course, this proves nothing: it’s purely anecdotal and statistically
worthless. But let me try to sum up the attitude of those militant atheists
who seem to hold believers in contempt:
1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever
as atheists.
2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them
through life.
3.They are also pathetic because they can’t accept the finality of death.
4.They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a
“Christian child”, for instance – just a child whose parents have had her
baptised.
5.They have been bullied into believing.
6. If we don’t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation
as we know it is doomed.
7 Trust me: I’m an atheist. I make no apology if I have oversimplified their
views with that little list: it’s what they do to believers all the time.
So let’s answer each of those points:
1. This is so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with. Richard
Dawkins, in his bestselling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a
“study” by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between
intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the
Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Some believers are
undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but I’ve met one or two
atheists I wouldn’t trust to change a lightbulb.
2. Don’t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesn’t prove
anything about either.
3. Maybe, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Count the number of atheists in
the foxholes or the cancer wards.
4. True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay
with it.
5. This is also true in many cases but you can’t actually bully someone into
believing – just into pretending to believe.
6. Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to
be taken seriously. But we’ve survived monotheist religion for 4,000 years
or so, and I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat
to civilisation.
7. Why? For those of us who are neither believers nor atheists it can be very
difficult. Doubters are left in the deeply unsatisfactory position of
finding the existence of God unprovable and implausible, and the comfort of
faith unachievable. But at the same time we find the reality of belief
undeniable.
It’s bad enough being a failed Christian – sneered at by atheists and
believers. It’s even worse being what I suppose you could call someone like
me – a failed atheist. Or maybe it’s not. That’s what Giles Fraser has been
calling himself for years and he happens to be an Anglican vicar.
Here’s his own description of himself when he was younger: “a bolshy kid who
discovered Marx at school and gave myself over to it hook, line and sinker”.
During the miners’ strike in the mid1980s he realised what a sham it all was
– “a privileged public schoolboy like me playing at politics”, as he told
me. His “faith” in Marx-ism collapsed but he remained an atheist.
It was his interest in atheism that made him take religion seriously. He did
his PhD on Nietzsche, and theology became “a sort of hobby”. He immersed
himself in the great theologians and, after years of looking into theology
from the outside, he discovered that he was on the inside looking out. He
realised that he believed in God. He seems genuinely puzzled by it.
There are many like him in the Anglican Church who share his scorn (if not
contempt) for the more traditional approach to Christianity. He is
embarrassed by “stupid” Christians thinking they know more about the nature
of the universe than clever atheists like Dawkins. Ask him to prove that God
exists – one of the subjects of his philosophy lectures at Oxford – and he
cheerfully admits that he can’t. He goes further: “The so-called proofs of
God’s existence are all rubbish.”
Ask him if the resurrection of Jesus Christ really happened and he says: “Umm
. . . dunno . . . can’t prove it.”
Ask him about evangelical Christians and he snorts: “Evangelicals have
misunderstood the Bible. They turn it into some bloody Ikea manual.”
Ask him to sum up the state of battle between militant believers and militant
atheists and he says: “Atheists have the best arguments, which makes belief
such a precarious thing.”
In hours of conversation over the kitchen table I have tried hard to pick a
proper argument with him about theology – he teaches it – but I
have failed. That’s partly because he freely acknowledges that theology is
not some sort of intellectual platform on which faith can be built. He
quotes Augustine: theology is “faith seeking understanding” –
which means you get your faith first and then try to make sense of it. And
faith is not a belief that certain propositions about the world are true. It
is not grounded in rational argument and neither is there any good line of
reasoning that can persuade one to believe. Belief just isn’t like that,
says Fraser. So what is it like? Why does a believer believe?
What’s interesting is that you get much the same answer to that question
whether it comes from a philosopher/vicar like Giles Fraser or a
theo-logian/archbishop like Rowan Williams or an old lady who has never read
a book on theology in her life and wouldn’t know the difference between an
ontological argument and a pork pie. Why should she? Theology, as Fraser
says, is not the foundation of faith.
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the little old lady might use a different
vocabulary to try to explain why they believe, but it comes to the same
thing in the end. They believe because they believe. This is not about
intellect or learning: it’s more basic than that. It is both more profound
and more simple.
I suspect that on the most primitive level it is not all that different from
the little scrap of blanket that so many small children rely on. They need
it whenever they get tired or life looks a bit threatening.
I invite you to imagine the impossibly grand figure of the Archbishop of
Canterbury sitting on the steps of his cathedral with his thumb stuck in his
mouth, stroking his bearded cheek with the little bit of satin at the edge
of his comfort blanket.
This image may not do a great deal for the dignity of the primate’s office,
but the comfort blanket is not a million miles away from what religion
offers at its most simplistic. Strip from Christianity the notion of proof,
evidence and historical events (or nonevents) and what drives belief has
little to do with the head and a great deal to do with the heart.
Many atheists, as my list suggests, say that people believe because of the way
they were brought up: children are credulous and accept what they are told.
As they grow older they get rid of their comfort blankets and often the
beliefs with which they were inculcated. But not everyone does that –
and even those who do may return to belief, in one form or another, in later
life.
There remains what the atheist philosopher AC Grayling calls “the lingering
splinter in the mind . . . a sense of yearning for the absolute”. There is a
profound longing for something that will stimulate and satisfy emotionally
and spiritually.
Grayling and other atheists understand that longing perfectly well, but what
puzzles them is why it cannot be satisfied by pottering about in the garden,
a walk in the hills, watching a sunset, listening to a piece of great music.
Yet that misses the point.
Believers may very well find comfort and solace in all those things but where
atheists are wrong is in failing to recognise and understand that most
believers want something else as well. It is hard to talk to Christians
about religion without them eventually using the word “love”.
Grayling co-wrote the play On Religion in which a lead character is loosely
based on Giles Fraser. One of his main scenes is taken from Fraser’s own
life.
He told me about it: “The night before I got married my brother sat me down in
an Indian restaurant and (too many beers) got me to make a list on a napkin
of why this girl was the right person for me to marry. One side of the
napkin had all the pros and the other side the cons.
“What was fascinating about the list was that nothing I could write down –
kind, pretty, warm, sexy, etc – could ever add up to “I love her”. To
marry and make the love commitment is the nearest thing to faith I know
because it is something done with the same degree of risk.
“Would a person who needed everything fully evidenced and rationally
demonstrated ever be in a position to say, ‘I love you’? Couldn’t a
Dawkins-type figure make a case for love being a fiction, a function of
human need, a function of biology and selfish genes? He may have many useful
and persuasive things to say but there is something deeply mistaken about
thinking love is simply reducible to the chemistry of the brain.
“Love, like faith, is to make more of a commitment than one can prove. But
there is a truth to it that I won’t – indeed can’t –
back away from. Of course, there is much to say about all of this and I can
think of a dozen reasons why faith and love might look different. But the
truth of both is, for me, found in the poetry, not in the science.”
Militant atheists seem to have enormous difficulty in understanding why so
many people – many of them just as clever as they are – manage to
live by their beliefs. Here’s what Dawkins told Laurie Taylor in New
Humanist magazine: “I don’t know what it would mean to say that we live by
faith in our daily life. There is, I suppose, a sense that we are sometimes
too busy to reason everything out, but otherwise I don’t know what it means.”
It seems to me that he misses the point entirely. It’s not necessarily that
people are too busy to reason things out. It’s more that they don’t want to.
They want to believe. In spite of the terrible things that have been done in
the name of God over the millennia, religious belief brings immeasurable
comfort.
Personally, I do not accept the divinity of Jesus. I do not believe that his
mother was made pregnant by the Holy Ghost, that he was resurrected after
his death on the cross, or that he physically ascended to heaven. But that
belief enriches the lives of many.
It does not make them stupid, let alone deluded. It makes them human. Their
faith gives them a context into which they can fit their lives and a hope of
better things to come – if not in this world, then the next. And if the
next world turns out not to exist . . . well, they’ll never know, will they?
I HAVE talked to many people about God – eminent theologians,
historians, scientists, clerics – but let me finish with a woman called
Mrs Buchanan. You’ll never have heard of her and I can’t give you her first
name because I knew her in the days when children did not call adults by
their first names. Even my mother called her Mrs Buchanan or Mrs B. Her
life, I now realise, was sad. The one thing she and her husband wanted above
everything else was children, and that was not to be. There was no IVF in
the 1950s.
My own mother had five children. There was often very little money and
sometimes she struggled to cope. Mrs B was always there to help. She was a
stalwart of the Mothers’ Union at our local church and she regarded it as
her duty. Monday was washing day, and every Monday afternoon she would turn
up – her hat pinned firmly to her hair – to help with the ironing.
The hat stayed on. Outside her own home I never saw her without it.
Mr and Mrs Buchanan were an unremarkable couple – quiet, honest, decent,
God-fearing. They worked hard – I have his old teak toolbox beside the
desk in my office to this day – and made no demands of anyone. The
church was an important part of their lives, not that you would ever hear
them talking about their belief. It was simply there and they were glad of
it. It provided structure and, I think, some meaning to their lives.
What have the Buchanans and the millions like them to do with the militant
atheists and their supercharged campaign against religion? The latter will
say it is irrelevant. They will probably accuse me of viewing the world
through the rose-tinted spectacles of half a century ago when society was
altogether less cynical and world-weary. They will say that people like the
Buchanans – if they still exist – would be better off if only they
could see religion and the church for the nonsense that it is. And they’d be
wrong. For them, what matters is what can be proved to be true. That’s it.
But in the real world, outside the walls of their intellectual ivory towers,
that’s not it.
This is not an intellectual game. Even if we know what is true – and we
don’t – you cannot reduce life to a set of provable realities.
Humanity is too complex for that. In the end, it comes down to whether the
world would be a better place without religion; and that is a matter of
judgment, not certainty.
Yes, we loathe and fear the fanaticism that leads to a man strapping a bomb to
his body and blowing up other human beings. But we should also fear a world
in which the predominant values are materialism and consumerism, and the
greatest aspiration of too many children is to become a “celebrity”. The
existence of religion can offer some balance in a society obsessed with
image, which turns vacuity into virtue.
As I write these last few sentences I look out from my office onto the tennis
court facing my house. It is a hot, muggy day and a group of young women are
playing. They are clothed from head to toe in black, their jeans poking out
from beneath the chadors. They look peculiarly ungainly and they must be
stifling. As a nonMuslim it seems a bit odd and a bit alien to me, but so
does a lot of other things – such as the fashionably dressed young
people who get so drunk on Friday and Saturday nights you have to think
twice about venturing into the town centre. We each make our own choices.
One choice is to accept the conclusion reached by Jean-Paul Sartre in The Age
of Reason: “There is no purpose to existence, only nothingness.”
That is a perfectly rational conclusion if, like me, you cannot accept that we
exist in order to worship God. It is very hard to see any purpose in a world
where an accident of birth determines whether a child leads a long and
healthy life or dies an early death in grinding poverty; a world of hunger
and war and disease; a world that we may be destroying through our own greed
and stupidity. But however much he may appeal to our reason, Sartre’s
conclusion is too bleak for me.
Trite it may be, but most of us can see the beauty as well as the horrors of
the world and, sometimes, humanity at its most noble. We sense a spiritual
element in that nobility and, in the miracle of unselfish love and
sacrifice, something beyond our conscious understanding. You don’t need to
be an eastern mystic or a devout religious believer to feel that. We should
not – we must not – be browbeaten by arrogant atheists and meekly
accept their “deluded” label. They are no more capable of understanding this
most profound mystery than a small child making his first awe-inspiring
discoveries.
As for the fanatics – religious or secular – history suggests they
succeed only to the extent that we allow ourselves to be defeated by our own
irrational fear. For every fanatic there are countless ordinary, decent
people who believe in their own version of a benevolent God and wish no harm
to anyone. Many of them regard it as their duty to try to make the world a
better place. It is too easy to blame the evils of the world on belief in
God. In the end, if we make a mess of things, we shall have ourselves to
blame – not religion and not God. After all, he doesn’t exist. Does he?
© John Humphrys 2007
Extracted from In God We Doubt by John Humphrys to be published by Hodder &
Stoughton on Thursday at £18.99. It is available for £17.09 including
postage from The Sunday Times BooksFirst on 0870 165 8585
There is a scientific proof of God explained in a new book entitled 'Who We Are, Why We Exist & How To Achieve Eternal Life.' It is quite futuristic though and you have to understand where fundamental human nature will lead us in the context of the Universe before you can understand God.
Will, London, England
John Humphrys is a journalist not a philosopher. Probably that's why he's written such a good philosophical book which contributes to human understanding. He and I differ in our conclusions but his argument is far more sound in nature than the scientism of Dawkins and others.
Dr Phil Thomas, St Helens, UK
John Davidson is quite right- Moses supposedly gave the commandments to the Jews a long time before Jesus. One thing is certain though god didn't hand them out.
Atheists can be as militant as any religious fanatic but at least their assertions are more rational. That is no reason to attack religious folk, however, as most are harmless. If believing something with no supporting evidence gives them peace of mind, well good luck to them i say.
Ace Ahern, London,
This essay really resonated with me. I grew up a religious Jew, and recently turned to atheism. But soon after, i read a memoir in which the author, a non-conformist if there ever was one, was actually advised by her psychologist to find some form of religion, and then embarked on a religious journey through Catholicism. After the unhappiness imposed by my religion, with rabbis who insisted that Orthodox Judaism was provable and the only truth, this was the first experience I had that irrational faith is good - not by some priest or rabbi, but a woman who found happiness simply by believing in the virgin Mary. After much thought, I concluded that faith, as long as it leaves you free to think whatever you want (i.e. not fundamentalist) can actually be good. I'm too rational to ever actually believe, but I can sympathize with those who do.
sarah, Seattle,
John Humphrys implies that be an atheist is arrogant whereas to be a believer is not.
Why should it be more arrogant not to believe in something which ,he admits, cannot be proven than to believe something because of some personal,internal ,irrational,emotional impulse.
I'm sorry but for me it remains the absolute arrogance for mankind to "believe" itself , uniquely ,out of all life on earth "superior" and destined for immortality.
And why should the continual and persistent evolution of life not have meaning in itself?Why should "spirituality" be confined to believers in God?If we spent more time looking at ourselves and less time searching for unreachable answers from the outside we might learn to enjoy life more.We might also make the world a better place.
Charles Masraff, Yerevan, Armenia
Per Edman of Stockholm is getting a bit confused when he says that the commandments are about having one, true, christian god. Does he not know that the ten commandments were given to the Jews by Moses a very long time before the foundation of Christianity.
John Davidson, London,
Damien, I think the problems you describe pertain to mankind not to God.
Paul, Barcelona,
Sorry ed, but another book recommendation. All who doubt evolution, but don't understand it, should read The Language Of God by Francis Collins (who headed the human genome project for years, and is a committed Christian).
Questions are answered, very sensibly, by an excellent scientist. He discusses the Big Bang, evolution, genetics, ID, and faith. On the plus side for theists who feel threatened, he answers the questions with faith intact.
gene, greenwich,
I always get the impression that when contributors (on both sides) finish by imploring the opposition to read this or that book,that they are getting a bit desperate or tired (or both) and are hoping that the written words that have inspired them in the past will do the same for their opponents.....I've always had the impression that they would be wrong.
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
No prize to you Alan of Cologne for guessing I'd say 'no'. Your fascinating reflection leaves me no option but to repeat that we tend to create spirit from matter. That confusing imagination! The confusion isn't limited to 'religious ones' you know. The final explanation of matter has to be non material. Matter hasn't got ultimate explanation within itself. It's no good stuffing 'spiritual' within the evolutionary process. That's a non starter. Spirit is that which is non material, having no parts outside parts. It cannot develop and change. It has to be there or there's no matter and that's absurd. As I say, my goldfish are content and fascinated with their limited world, always exploring, noticing change and evolution. They do not look beyond. They are locked in.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Bryan, as I pointed out, I was quoting the ideas of the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775-1854). Maybe you didn't pick that up.
Having said that, all animate organisms are composed totally of inanimate atomic particles, acting together in ways that become animate. Every atom in your body is transient, with atoms turning over numerous times, cycling to the air, earth and other organisms and other humans. The inanimate could be considered potential life.
If there is no human soul, then inanimate is also latent "spirit". Existence of a soul is a theory.
You may have no atoms in common with your former body from a previous period in your life from the past. What you have in common is part of your history and memories, plus genes, changing and older cellular structural foundations, and some common traits. The bundle that comprises your self now is different to your former self.
jim rogers, sydney,
a military man having often been close to the front line,once said "I have seen many men dying and calling for their mothers .....not once did I ever hear them calling for their god"
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Bryan - the idea that "spirit" - I prefer to call it consciousness - can arise from matter is certainly not ridiculous. Consider the following: Stone or water, for example, can hardly be described as having any conscience. But take a tree or a mimosa plant - don't they seem to act consciously in some very slight way? Then proceed to the ant or the bee - might they not somehow have some primitive rational awareness and act accordingly? Then move on to the polar bear and the chimpanzee - now we're getting nearer to the thinking process. One stop further and we're with homo sapiens. -- From the stone to human beings seems to be a gradual process. Where did it begin? Can it be that somewhere along the line of evolution, some molecules interconnected in such a way as to form a cell, the beginning of what you would call "spirit"? And this line of development - once started - gathered momentum over the billenia and ended up with the human brain? - Bryan, I bet you'll say: No.
alan, cologne,
Maxine, If God gives people the privilege of disbelieving, why have so many been tortured and murdered throughout history for their disbelief? Why do many Muslims still believe physical punishment, even death, is appropriate for disbelievers? Why did George Bush snr say atheists could not be considered patriots? Why is atheism treated as an illness in US politics?
damien, maine,
Does JH really think creationists are stupid? Or is he referring only to militant Young Earth creationists? A believer in God, must, almost by definition be a creationist, for if we are not created then there is no God is there?
Robert Owen, Beaumaris, United Kingdom
As a teenager from the sixties, the arguments between believers and non-believers are a bit like those between Beatles' and Stones' fans - or Paul's and John's fans. It's what you "feel", that cannot always be described or argued rationally.
I think that one problem with religion is when it is applied to non-believers. The Old Testament was written by Jews for Jews, and is biased towards Jews, so Biblical "promises" of a certain bit of land should not be applied to others; Palestinians, for example. Similarly the Koran was written by Muslims for Muslims, so should not be imposed on others. I lived in Kuwait a few years ago and it was illegal for anyone to eat or drink in public during the day - including foreign workers on building sites - in 50+ degree heat. Similarly, the attempted imposition of Islamic law here in Malaysia on non-Muslims causes trouble. The Chinese resent being unable to drink brandy at a special dinner, as was attempted a few years ago on the east coast.
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Jim of Sydney, where did you get the ridiculous idea that spirit arises from matter? Matter requires what is spiritual for its explanation. There are funny evolutions in the mental processes at times.Now if you didn't spend so much time focusing on the imaginings of 'religious ones' you'd see it's a universal problem. It's soluble however.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The distressing, and sad, thing about many atheists is that they seem to think that if anything cannot be shown to be 'scientifically' true, then it is not true. But all the most important and meaningful things in life cannot be scientifically proved to be true - love, beauty (music, art & poetry) & truth itself. Science cannot explain why the universe exists & we shouldn't expect it to. Science has an immensely important job to do - but one of its main tools (mathematics) is a mental construct of the human consciousness. How does a product of evolution understand the processes of the universe? We cannot even 'prove' causation - David Hume demonstrated that all we can observe is 'constant conjunction'. Most scientists have a large number of unacknowledged a priori assumptions. Michael Polanyi, a Professor of Chemistry, realised this, & in his "Personal Knowledge" showed that the reductionist assumptions of many scientists (not science) were mistaken.
Dave, Wrexham,
Ed Bradbury of Bournemouth, I'd be happier if through reading his brilliant predecessor Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy in which he deeply studies sparkling world wide spirituality, Professor Dawkins decided to take up 'dying again' Christianity. No resurrection without it. Aldous Huxley sees it with incisive perception..
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
dont go for a doze Kevin ..you may miss the letter that could produce tomorrows headline "Born again Christian ,Richard Dawkins admits letter posted by Father Bryan Storey changed my life"
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
The simple fact is that most people are worried about dying and what comes afterwards. What better, then, to have a god who promises a blissful, eternal afterlife? This however is problematical, because anyone questioning the existence of this god is casting doubt on this afterlife business. So atheists come in for some stick from the faithful. Which annoys the atheists, of course. And leads them to writing provocative comments like this. (which are none the less perfectly true).
alan, cologne,
Jim of Sydney, yes it's usually as you say but I do remember a well known God denier at the time of great stress, getting on his knees and calling out 'whoever you are, wherever you are, help me now' and another hanging from the roof after an accident calling out 'Lord help me'. Methinks in any case, time and again, you unconvincingly deny God a little too much.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Maxine, yes. lots of them. I'm a physician, and have treated many atheist and agnostic patients who seemed to remain so at the end.
I've had some admirable relatives and friends who died at peace, while professing atheism.
I don't know of any famous atheist philosopher or writer who changed tack at the death. There must be people who have a late "conversion", and priests and other clergy likely have the greatest exposure to that, but whether the change of heart would hold up for long if the person managed to recover and live for a significant time may be doubtful.
Of course, if there is no God, it is also a waste of time, but harmless at that stage of life!
jim, sydney,
That is fine that people can express their disbelief of God. God gives us the privalige of belieiving or not belieiving in him. I would like to knowif anybody has ever met a dying atheist?
maxine, london,
That's a deep problem, Kevin Sell of Peterborough. We do tend to prefer to sleep rather than apply to these crucial problems concerning human behaviour. Jesus refers to it in the parable of the Sower and the Seed.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
You people obviously don't have a lot to do. Haven't you yet realised there is no answer to this question. Must go, I feel like having a doze.
Kevin Sell, Peterborough, England
Schelling expressed the belief that Nature IS total reality, perpetually evolving. From lifeless matter emerged life. Nature is seen as a unity. It is not a state of affairs but an ongoing process. Life is not separate from matter. Man is not outside of Nature, for humans have emerged as an integral part of it. The inanimate and animate are different aspects of a single continuous process. Matter by itself is potential or latent spirit. Nature is creative, creating Nature, as other life forms. Man is a self-aware being with powers of reason, logic and artistic creativity, formed by and as part of Nature.
jim, sydney,
It's human to err, Jonathon Anthony of London yet the understanding of what is finite has to be very poor indeed in the absense of some relationship with the Infinite. That is a consideration far outweighing anything thing else especially that of measuring and comparing of human inteligences.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
An astonishingly inept piece. According to the revoltingly righteous Humphrys, The God Delusion is some sort of doctrine for atheists and some of its more direct logic defines it as extremist. I do not recognise the Humphry's militant atheist in any of the recent rise of atheist polemic. I do recognise a much needed direct style that demolishes long held illogical prejudice, whether wrapped up as tradition or culture, or worse. Humphry's silly list is totally bogus. Atheists cannot be coralled into groups, militant or otherwise. They are free thinkers, and do tend to be more intelligent, and, although we inherently tolerate them, form the good of man, the religious DO need to be taken down a peg or three.
jonathan anthony, london,
David, no-one should fear death, because there is no suffering or pain in non-existence. Why worry? Live life to the full while you can. Enjoy, love, strive, care, explore. This is our only shot at it. After that? "Nothing" seems the most plausible answer........
C'est la vie!
jim, sydney,
A very thought-provoking article. I have found that being a Christian has it's challenges, your human curiosity ensures that you still have a million questions e.g. Why do evil things happen to good people? Why does God seem to be so sparing with this power and goodness? Why do good people seem so helpless? Why is the creation story so confusing?
His answer seems to be: "Why do you feel you ought to know everything?". If we knew everything we would make God even more irrelevant in our lives. Knowledge [and the power that comes with it] without the balance of love and regard for our fellow man is the most dangerous thing in the world as history has taught us. It is sufficient for me to know that God is a loving Father and that He has an eternal plan for my life. A Christian should no longer fear death because God demonstrated through Christ Jesus, that He had power over death by raising Him from the dead.
My biggest challenge is learning to love God and to trust Him more.
David Pitan, Sutton, Surrey, UK
Religion scientifically speaking is just fantasy. There is 0 evidence for existence of God. It is a fantasy that has been abused by the power hungry since time began and the power of it is evident from every 11th century cathedral. We know now that there is no explanation for how this world started, but that a God who expects to communicate with us by paranormal manipulation of individuals does not exist. There would be proof if it happened. There is none. It does not.
How we get it out of our lives I dont know, but we need to base our lives on reality - leave fantasy for dreams. Nothing in any Gods name, only our own long terms interests whatever they are.
Peter Godfrey, Leeds, North Yorkshire
The problem that John Humphrys experiences at a personal level is that of apprehending/experiencing God. We can never This only comes with practice in prayer. St Francis de Sales said very simply just to 'put oneself in the presence of God and talk to God.' Trust that God is there. The problem at a social level is the evil and all the difficulties one experiences - how can a good God allow all this suffering and pain? God allows this so that we have free will to choose between good and evil. It is our responsibility to alleviate suffering and pain and to lead good lives. In this effort to find the truth, and to lead good lives, God is there for us to give us grace, through the Holy Mass, sacraments and prayer. As in science one is discovering new things about creation, so too, will our knowledge of God become clearer to us as God reveals Godself. God's nature of love was revealed in Jesus Christ and in knowing him we know God. Lord Jesu, let me know you that I may love you.
Penvronius Miles Cambrensis, sfo, London N17 6AX , Greater London
Mr Humphries should try the following experiment: read a random chapter of The Bible and a random chapter of, say, a biochemistry textbook. He must then ask: Why? Why is this chapter so written? Why this way and no other?
The answers to why particular biblical messages exist range from the purely silly (they came from Angels) to the profoundly prosaic (they are a complex mixture of mythology, ethics and law). But also ask of the scientific text: Why? Why did this set of reactions evolve rather than any other? Why do changes in the arrangements of certain quantum particles govern memory, behaviour, love? Why those particles? Why those emotions? The answers to these are conceptually difficult and tantalisingly incomplete, but there is a wonder and mystery hidden within the slightest workings of the natural world that dwarf any illusion of completeness conjured by theology. Mr Humphries- embrace this complexity and publish a more uplifting sequel: “In Doubt we Trustâ€.
Chris, Oxford, Oxon
"Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards."
You could also count the number of atheists anywhere else. I think you'll find it's a pretty similar proportion....
Andrew Clarke, Nottingham,
Jamal, the Quran is full of not very nice references outlining punishments dished out by an anthropomorphic God or by people who decide how to enforce ideas and rules in his name.
Such as: "for those who die while they are disbelievers...we have prepared a painful doom."
The Quran suffers from the faults of the Bible, being written by mortals assuming they know what God wants or thinks, outlined in ancient, outdated ways, without any good reason on which to base such an assumption.
(I don't believe in angel visitations, nor should any sensible rational person).
bill, towoomba,
As usual people like John Humphreys, who are amongst the least able to understand nevermind articulate the subject, are given the most press. There can never be a 100% proof of Gods existence or nonexistence , or anything for that matter, except in a mathematical sense and even that is open to question. The point then becomes one of its usefulness, the belief or otherwise. Richard Dawkins has not come to his conclusions by aimlessly wandering around looking at stars. He believes that the 'Gods' of organised religions doesnt even warrant a theory because of the almost complete lack of evidence. A belief in God simply cannot be used to explain the universe as observed in an objective way.
Andrew, Santiago,
I'm sure that I would often be less pleasant to friends and family if I thought I'd be seeing them again in heaven....happily for them all ,I'm a non-believer
ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset
Good article. In esssence you either believe or you don't. Currently no 'proof' exists one way or the other. Maybe someday it will maybe it won't. Extremism in any form and any attempt to impose 'your' views on others either as a believer or non-believer is wrong. It really is quite simple, allow others to have their own beliefs and accept that they have the right to do so. Nobody is 'wrong' or 'right' it's what is right for each individual. If you are comfortable in your beliefs then criticism is irrelevant and meaningless.
John, Reading, UK
Very good article from John Humphrys; it's not an easy subject to write about, as for believers, as well as atheists, there is no empirical proof either way. Scientists can no more disprove the existence of God than believers can really prove it. But the subject does beg a couple of questions. Firstly, what sort of a society would emerge if it was known that there was no creator God? If it was true to itself, surely it should be nihilistic, self-seeking and totally unconcerned with consequences for others, as they are also as meaningless as one's self. Secondly, what is the role of evolution in all this? Evolution is often quoted in opposition to any organised religion, but what if Darwin only stumbled on the complex mechanism by which the world and universe that we live in is in a state of continuous creation? As a Christian believer, why limit evidence only to the empirical? The possibility of planes of existence beyond our physical sight is still there, and there are ways of access
Bob , Gloucester, UK
Bill of Towoomba. If we concentrate on being that good person you advocate, we become a delusory projection of ourselves. We only change by concentration on that God concept deeply ingrained in us all.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I would be happy to talk about my atheism and what exactly has lead me to think in such a way. I'd also be willing to answer a multitude of questions about my faith.
However, i find that when i start questioning believers, they become defensive and feel they are being attacked. They do not want to justify their beliefs, they believe because 'THEY DO'.
Many people believe in religion with a passion but cannot discuss it with a passion. I do not understand this.
As a rationally thinking person i cannot understand how people can devote their life and their time to something which they do not have sufficient evidence to believe in other than the strong desire to.
I am not a militant atheist. But i do not throw my beliefs in others faces as jehovars witnesses do.
We are all entitled to our beliefs and opinions, however i am far too polite to tell the expectant jehovars at my door that i am an atheist; for fear of having to deal with an insulted and angered person on my doorstep.
Hailey, Oxford, England
Nathan, Andrea etc: I don't doubt your sincerity, nor your inner experience, but...............it's all in your head!
To achieve inner peace, humility and fulfillment doesn't require following a faith like yours.
If you concentrate on being a better, more moral, loving person, you get to the same end, without clinging to a spurious belief system like Christianity or any of the other world religions.
bill, towoomba,
Right Dave... because the old testament is 100% true...
Ben, York,
Drew, I grew up with glib, smug religious folk enthusiastically telling me about heaven and hell, tortured souls in eternal damnation, or chosen ones living in eternal bliss...............
It didn't take long (though it was in hindsight way too long) before
I saw the nasty side to their certainty and exclusive, selective self-righteousness.
I'm comfortable living without belief in a deity, and without all the answers, unlike them, and maybe unlike some here.
frank, sydney,
Dear Jamal,
Christianity is totally monotheistic. The early Christians, as devout monotheists, came to believe in the One Holy & Undivided Trinity as a result of their experience of God the Father, the Risen Christ & the Holy Spirit, and over many years hammered out the doctrine of the Trinity - Three Persons (inadequate human language) indwelling each other, in mutual love, within the Godhead. As for the Bible, it has been subjected to relentless academic literary and historical criticism for over 200 years - it has been tested almost to destruction, & has triumphantly survived. This was probably a necessary process, even though the 'criticism' often missed the main point - the meaning - & distressed many believers at the time. No other religion has had its scriptures subjected to such critical & historical scrutiny, which is inevitable in the modern world. If scriptures are valid, believers have nothing to fear, even if much 'criticism' is misplaced & often misses the point.
Dave, Wrexham,
Agnostic, atheist - they're both weak and dated words, trying to create distinctions without real meaning.
We need skeptics, humanists, scientific-minded people. Science, not faith, has advanced our societies and continues to do so.
With billions of galaxies and countless planets, even were there a God, how could he/she possibly be concerned with earth or any given individual of its 6 billion inhabitants? Why would he/she require praise and worship?
The idea is just silly, an extension of the place of a man in the families of two thousand years ago.
There are so many versions and notions of God on the planet, on what basis would any thoughtful individual decide to put faith in one over the others?
Which one of dozens are you even to be an agnostic or atheist in regard to?
JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada
"1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they’re not as clever as atheists."
This is clearly false as a quick read through most of the previous comments shows.
I do however agree that "militant atheist" is an unfair term. "Glib" or "Smug" are much better descriptions.
Drew, Chertsey, England
Jamal, amateur psychology doesn't help explain away religion's faults.
It's a pity a blog like this couldn't happen in Muslim countries without violent reprisals against the authors or publishers. Islam needs reform as much or more than any other religion nowadays.
frank, sydney,
Mr Humphreys fears "militant atheists" because they think that people like him sit on the fence trying to have a bet both ways. What's the point? If a god really exists (in the form that most people believe) he would be sent straight to hell (or certainly not to heaven) for doubting His existence. If He doesn't exist then what has been the point of 50 years of miserable self contemplation.
Nobody requires a god to have a good and fulfilled life. Mr Humphreys should unburden himself from his self-guilt for never having a strong faith and go travel, meet people, volunteer and help people. Millions of people do this without having to interpose a God in there somewhere.
Stuart Blackie, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, United States
I read your long article, and i don't know what I will say now will come in the 1000 characters permitted. I see that you are by heart a believer but lack that zest to believe since you were not given the reason to believe by your parents. Your mum had no time for you that is why you thought Mrs. Buchanan to be a good person. You idealized her and wanted to believe like her.
Since you doubt the trinity, you are by heart a monotheist, you like to defend monotheism but you do not know since you have not cracked your own cocoon and are living in a shell where you dont want to doubt but are doubting since there is anger inside of you of why have I not had a family who can tell me who and why to believe.
Unfortunately you are not properly aware of the final Divine Scripture. The Quran came since both the Old, and New Testament were corrupted with dogmatic literature. My final word of wisdom would be that you read the Quran. This is not a way to make you a muslim, but to help you believe.
Jamal Saddozai, Islamabad, Pakistan
What is the point of life without GOD ?
Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,
Who needs a 'point'. I'm quite happy to live my life until it ends- perhaps in the next 5 minutes, perhaps in a few decades. If you did need a meaningful 'point' you'd be better volunteering to help others or at least minimising your own impact rather than praying, struggling to reconcile conflicting Biblical stories or reading John Humphry's muddled and unsupported assertations. Mr Humphrys seems to reject the overwhelming evidence for 'love' being a physical/ chemical rather than spiritual experience on somewhat whimsical, nostalgic grounds. As with religion, many have died in the name of 'love'. Romeo and Juliet is a classic tale of two dysfunctional families where the central characters end their lives due to their belief in an afterlife- much as suicide bombers do. As athiests do not believe in an afterlife, I imagine they're in a much better position to respect and enjoy their own lives and that of others.
Dan, Oxford, England
Nathan away and boil your head. Humphreys I would like to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They are full of love and selfless acts. But I don't! One cannot use a non-existent being as a basis for action or belief, at least that's what my non-existent being tells me.
Andrew, Scalloway,
Before anybody says anymore nonsense using Dawkins as a base, I suggest to read "The Dawkins Delusion" in which a scentist puts to light Professor Dawkins's ignorance in scentific, theological and spiritual matter.
Once closed the Dawkins matter, I want to point out the fact that there are very few Christians in the world, VERY FEW. A Christian nowadays is a precious rare thing. It is because a lot of people that call themselves Christianns misunderstand what Christ is all about. So a question to the Atheists comes spontaneously: if somebody that wants to believe in God misunderstands Him, how can you understand anything about Him, and say He is not true!?
I say Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life because I have seen it, I have experienced it. But Atheists!? They say He is a fake on the basis of what? Of not having experienced it!? Even tho A LOT of people did?
It's the same thing with darkness and light, light exists, but darkness is just...absence of light.
Nathan Pipe, Italy,
why? Maybe there is not a "because.." response. It just doesn't exist. Or it is such a simple one that few people will feel confortable with it. I think getting free of religion gives you a sense of humility, because reason gives very hard responses to those "why" questions.
Ivan, Caracas,
Before anybody says anymore nonsense using Dawkins as a base, I suggest to read "The Dawkins Delusion" in which a scentist puts to light Professor Dawkins's ignorance in scentific, theological and spiritual matter.
Once closed the Dawkins matter, I want to point out the fact that there are very few Christians in the world, VERY FEW. A Christian nowadays is a precious rare thing. It is because a lot of people that call themselves Christianns misunderstand what Christ is all about. So a question to the Atheists comes spontaneously: if somebody that wants to believe in God misunderstands Him, how can you understand anything about Him, and say He is not true!?
I say Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life because I have seen it, I have experienced it. But Atheists!? They say He is a fake on the basis of what? Of not having experienced it!? Even tho A LOT of people did?
It's the same thing with darkness and light, light exists, but darkness is just...absence of light.
Nathan Pipe, Sudbury,
I pray that everyone reading this could all find what I have found in Jesus... the 'peace that passes understanding'... God asks us to come to him as children. We have become too focused on having to explain and prove everything, it's only when we realise that it's NOT about us... but about the amazing, awesome God who created us, that He owes us nothing, yet in His mercy has done everything for us through His son, Jesus... only when we realise that can we truly understand and see His purposes in things. Praise God for His unending mercy and love. He loves every single one of us and longs for us each to know Him... don't miss out on the most amazing relationship you'll ever have and on your salvation, everlasting life that can only be found in Jesus! I am not pathetic for having a faith, I just know the truth that He has revealed to my heart. John Humpreys said only the atheists were certain of their answer to 'Is there a God?', well he was asking the wrong Christians! God exists 100%!
Andrea, Reigate, Surrey
Bill, not that old ploy again. Why do you think atheists are militant? We may be confident that our position is quite rational, in that we don't believe this supernatural stuff. But otherwise we're just as harmless as the faithful - in fact in many cases a lot more so. I don't have to list the crimes of intolerant religion throughout history, do I? - - And as for that old argument about Stalin, Hitler, Mao and co. - well, surely I don't have to explain to you again and again and again that these dictators killed their victims because they had a faith too. They believed it to be the only truth, and anyone opposing them was a heretic or a traitor or an inferior creature. Just like most believers do. In fact Stalinism, Nazism and Maoism were faith-systems, pseudo-religions. Yes, faith and the worship of its gods are dangerous indeed. More dangerous than harmless atheists, Bill.
alan, cologne,
Chris, you are right that very few Christians now torture or murder in God's name. History tells a different story, for all religions, and some religious societies still clash violently, actively repress others, and even murder, or have harsh, primitive punishments for those with alternate views, while invoking God's name. There is still no shortage of fundamentalists in all religions who vocally and politically push a narrow version of their belief onto others, often with negative social ramifications for others within that society.
There has undoubtedly been a trend over the years for Christians, also seen in other religions, to follow a more benign, mature faith, concentrating more on inner spiritual growth and interpersonal camaraderie. This greater tolerance and moral growth is indicative of natural moral evolution within societies, and is not purely a religion-engendered phenomenon. Knowledge growth in general (a small part of which stems from religion), and social interaction in human societies, leads to this over time.
2nd posting, 1st missing, aust,
Exactly Bill. Tell that to the millions killed in the name of god. What you think privately is of no concern to me, yet I must be allowed to think you naive or ignorant, by the same token.
Inner peace is desirable but religion is not true because of it.
Ben, York,
I grew up in a relitgious family, was religious myself until age 22 or so when I became unable to continue believing. I tried to hang on to belief for a while. It felt like a real loss not to believe anymore.
I've been an atheist for about 30 years now and in that time have been asked repeatedly why and how I could not believe in god. Why as in a suspicion I must have been seduced by evil. How as in "look at the stars and tell me there is no god". My lack of belief, admitted to when believers pressed, seems to be taken as an attack on others' belief. Good manners has often led me to refuse to discuss the issue with believrs. It sems the height of bad manners to try to undermine the faith that givs someone solace or strength.
But I do enjoy the fact that non-blievers are currently saying in public fora what is hard to say in private ones--I do not believe in magic.
j, adelaide, australia south australia
A very interesting article which I enjoyed Immensely ..... one which misses the point entirely however. It betrays considerable misunderstanding of the points which so-called 'militant' atheists raise.
DAWKINS is mentioned over and over: if his was a truly 'militant' explanation of the issues - which I cannot accept - then further explanation is required of the prologue to his paperback edition of The God Delusion.
He outlines what it would take to change his mind about the apparent non-existence of God. His weighing of the evidence inclines him to believe that there is no God, on the balance of probability .... in his 7-point scale (where 7 represents a person who is certain of the non-existence of God), he rates himself as a 6 - ALMOST certain.
That some may find belief useful, it is not proof anything. The major starting point must be WHETHER God exists, or not.
Someone is right in this argument and the likelihood lies with atheism.
Michael BROWN, Birmingham, UK
Rosemary, there lies some scientific basis for upping one's immunity levels and augmenting our healing process through "faith healing", which at times we refer to divine force.
Researches have proved that when a person comes out from the state of "dump" and low down spirits, and feels motivated or even ecstatic , there are evidences of changes in our bio-chemicals , endophrines and secretions in our blood. It improves our neuron-transmission process . Our brain guides and sends signals to the ailing organs to revv up or rejuvenate their functions. At the same time, our self-immuno systems get bolstered, to eradicate and weed out toxins and other harmful allergens from the body. Its like inducing self generating anti-biotics into our systems. With regard to Supersonic fighter pilots experiencing "nirvana", or state of formless levitation, the possible cause is ceasation of mental thoughts and rational mind. The state of "no-mind" induces fearlessness like Near Death experience.
Witty, New Delhi, India
Thankyou John for opeining the door and letting in some fresh air in this debate. The only thing I would add is that of course militant athiesm has contributed to millions, of deaths around the globe. I need only mention the opressive communist regimes that once existed in russia and china. And it is against that backdrop that I have concern regarding some of the more aggressively athiestic comments that appear on sites such as these. What happened to tolerance?
Bill, Yeovil, UK
Rosemary, we know only a little as yet of what causes the rush of positive feelings that may be associated with spiritual experiences. These can be linked to religious belief, but can be unrelated, and can occur with positive reflection and meditation on self, goodness, love, altruism, and oneness with mankind and the universe.
Suicide bombers have been noted to have an inner calm and peace, and walk to their murderous death with a serene smile on their face. That such feelings can occur in a setting so far removed from your idea of the power of the "holy spirit", is just one of many possible examples that spiritual feelings are not necessarily tied to externally derived divine grace, but created from within.
2nd attempt to send, sydney,
Rosemary, we understand the limbic system poorly, but feelings of love, happiness, peace, satisfaction, pleasure, fulfillment and joy, reflect neurotransmitter activity and endorphin balance. Our frontal, prefrontal and other cortical areas are linked together and with the limbic system to potentially direct or follow this emotional activity.
You believe, as many do, that God's grace inspires your experiences, but there is no objective evidence for that. What if it is all self-generated from within, with positive reinforcement?
2nd sending of this too, sydney,
Rosemary, we know only a little as yet of what causes the rush of positive feelings that may be associated with spiritual experiences. These may be linked to religious belief, but may be unrelated, and can occur with positive reflection and meditation on self, goodness, love, altruism, and oneness with mankind, and the universe.
Suicide bombers have been noted to have an inner calm and peace, and walk to their murderous death with a serene smile on their face. That such feelings can occur in a setting so far removed from your idea of the power of the "holy spirit", is just one of many possible examples that spiritual feelings are not necessarily tied to externally derived divine grace, but created from within.
We understand the limbic system poorly, but feelings of love, happiness, peace, satisfaction, pleasure, fulfillment and joy, reflect neurotransmitter activity and endorphin balance. Our frontal, prefrontal and other cortical areas are linked together and with the limbic system to potentially direct or follow this emotional activity.
You believe, as many do, that God's grace inspires your experiences, but there is no objective evidence for that. What if it is all self-generated from within, with positive reinforcement?
frank, sydney,
I'm an atheist, sometimes - in my spare time - an agnostic. John Humphrys' article leaves me speechless. Excellent, intelligent! Congratulations!
Oliver Affolter, malters, switzerland
Michael Polanyi, the famous Professor of Chemistry (who corresponded with Einstein), came to realise that the universe is not self-explanatory. He asked how Man, the product of evolution, could understand the processes of evolution and could (partially) understand the universe. In his "Personal Knowledge" and "Knowing & Being" he showed that all knowledge (even scientific) had a personal dimension, & that the structure of knowledge linked transcendence & immanence, knower & known, subject & object.
So many atheists (& admittedly some Christians) do not understand Christianity. I can only suggest the following - Olivier Clement's "The Roots of Christian Mysticism"; also books by Anthony Bloom, John Main & Thomas Merton.
Dave, Wrexham,
So creationists are "stupid" then. Why, you must work for the BBC! If only the Beeb would address the issue properly your comments could be better informed.
Steven, Tunbridge Wells, UK
Could those people who care about the stress and anguish still being suffered by the firemen involved in the 911 World Trade Centre terrorism attack please join with me and support the victims and their families by sending them a “Blessing from God†certificate from the website http://www.godsblessingsforyou.co
These people will gain great strength and comfort when they receive one of these tasteful Blessing from God complete with your personal best wishes.
All firefighters will also benefit as the site donates part of the proceeds to the Disabled Firefighters Fund
http://www.disabledfirefightersfund.org/
God Bless You
Reverend Thomas, Boston,
D+
Must try harder.
Chris, London,
Stephen, the answer to your question is quite simple. God has all the qualities the "believer" wishes him to have. All-powerful. Omnipresent. Loving. He guarantees a blissful afterlife. He reassures the faithful that they are on the right side, and non-believers are not. -- Most people don't work this out for themselves, but are brainwashed by professional preachermen and missionaries. -- I think it's true to say that all civilizations have got the gods they wanted. In desert areas a protector against drought and locust-plagues, for example, (provided, of course, the faithful "worship" him). -- So Stephen, I wouldn't bother my head too much about the nature of god. You can give him the nature you would like him to have. He only exists inside your own head anyway. When you go, your god goes with you - just like Ra, Zeus and Thor did ( to name but three of the many gods man has thought up in the past and which have landed up on the rubbish-heap of history).
alan, cologne,
Chris, thanks for the clarification. No news is good news, they say. I think your "good news" is bad medicine. -- And may I correct you. Dawkins doesn't earn money by writing about something he does not believe exists. Wrong. He earns money exposing the craziness of people gullible enough to believe what the hordes of "professional christians" tell them - in churches, schools, the media or in missionary activities all around the world.
alan, cologne,
The Catholic document The Gift of Scripture states:
"We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision".
"Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide".
The Old Testament is a fallible document outlining a people's attempt to understand their world and God. It is an evolving narrative, made up of mythical legends, metaphorical stories, moral lessons, poetry, wisdom sayings, and both factual and constructed glorified history. Many "prophesies" were written after the event, to stress a point. It wasn't written until after 800BC, and maybe not until closer to 600BC. An ancient people described their God with human properties, for they only understood the concept of an anthropomorphic God. They put "their words into His mouth", as they evolved morally over the ages.
There are lessons to be gleaned from the bible, and it can be considered by those who believe as "inspired" by God, yet still not even close to historically accurate.
michelle james, sydney, aust,
Despite what Humphrys says, atheists know why many people say they believe, for many atheists were immersed in religious upbringings and believed initially what they were taught, and have family and friends who still have faith. We do find it surprising that people can feel a need to cling to dogmas such as the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension or trinity, that many "believers" themselves suspect may be groundless or suspect, for fear of losing whatever part of their "faith" that they cherish as core.
To say of atheists "They are no more capable of understanding this most profound mystery than a small child making his first awe-inspiring discoveries" is pathetic stereotyping. But then he does say he makes no apology for his oversimplified trite remarks.
mathew, broome,
Giles Fraser is quoted as saying "The so-called proofs of God’s existence are all rubbish." "Atheists have the best arguments, which makes belief such a precarious thing", and when asked if the resurrection of Jesus Christ really happened says: "Umm . . . dunno . . . can’t prove it." Frazer apparently says faith is not a belief that certain propositions about the world are true, and is not grounded in rational argument, and neither is there any good line of reasoning that can persuade one to believe.
So why decide to believe what you have an inkling is rubbish? Why not meditate and strive for moral purity, without the absurd dogmas?
mathew, broome,
Let me say it another way. Matter in itself is forever without ultimate explanation because consisting of parts. The thorough explanation is only in non matter which is spiritual. That should be clear. Problem is with the imagination getting in the way and the tendency always to want to materialise.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I lost my childhood faith in my 20s, I lived in fear of the Bomb, and involved in CND. Gradually I began attending church, but didnt believe the words . But something drew me back. I read all I could on different faiths, what made Christianity the "real one" or not, etc, searching for a basis for faith. what I was looking for was signs that there were supernatural events there. I read all I could to find evidence to believe.
What finally convinced me, was at Pentecost, that the disciples, in fear for their lives, were suddenly filled with confidence, and power, and rushed out healing and preaching. I saw that this was not within their power, so I said "yes I believe", and then was filled with the Holy Spirit too, so that I experienced the presence of God. One has to take that step of faith first, and believe, before one is given the confidence and assurance that it is true. Life was transformed. Now 20 years later I am an ordained C of E minister.
Rosemary Green, Bradfield, Reading,
The Catholic document The Gift of Scripture states: "We should not expect to find in the scriptures full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". "Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide".
The Old Testament is a fallible document outlining a people's attempt to understand their world and God. It is an evolving narrative, made up of mythical legends, metaphorical stories, moral lessons, poetry, wisdom sayings, and both factual and constructed glorified history. Many "prophesies" were written after the event, to stress a point. It wasn't written until after 800BC, and maybe not until closer to 600BC. An ancient people described their God with human properties, for they only understood the concept of an anthropomorphic God. They put "their words into His mouth", as they evolved morally over the ages. There are lessons to be gleaned from the bible, but it is not even close to being a historical record.
michelle james, sydney, aust,
I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic, yet I don't categorise myself as an ardent devout follower of God or a firm believer, a blind faither.I sense and feel the presence of God, through rationality,logical thinking and common sense approach and sane attitude. I'm reminded of two contrasting and legendary works, "Conversation with God" by Donald Walsch and one of the most controversial write-ups in the history of mankind,"God is dead" by Neitzsche . When I was young with unconditioned mind I read Neitzsche's works which left indelible marks on my mind set. I turned into an atheist, a firm believer of "myself" as the only procreator of my deeds, my acts.Down with age, during my mellowed down years, I read Walsch's works and Bhagwat Geeta, and saw a different percept.Either way,God the mighty remains the most unsolved and enigmatic riddle of our life.My rational mind now reasons out, the metaphysical existence is due to cause and effect factor of our "karmic" deeds.God alone knows???
sandy, New Delhi, India
My last comment was aimed at people like Mel Gibson who believes that his own wife and the mother of his children is destined to spend eternity in Hell because she declined to become a Catholic like himself. Such narrow-minded stupidity cannot go unchallenged. Besides, if Gibson is right and only Catholics can enter Heaven then this must mean that Heaven is full of Mafiosi, IRA terrorists and Columbian drug barons. Would you wish to join them? No, neither would I. I respectfully rest my case.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
If a friend of John Humphries told tim that there were fairies at the bottom of his (the friend's ) garden, JH might be startled. If the friend went on to say that he had never personally seen the fairies nor was there any evidence of their existence, JH might well think his friend was barmy.
Would this be arrogance?
Or perhaps JH would say to himsellf: there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of these fairies. So in this matter I am 'agnostic'.
Chris Bett, Shurlock Row, Berks
Bill, I've been going to church for a long time now and I have never heard the Priest say any of those things. Crazed fanatics are in a minority, and in our society at the very least, nobody is brutalised or destoyed by God. The reason they appear to be such a problem is that it is always the one with the most controversial view that is noticed, is it not?
Chris, Epsom,
I haven't written anything about particles. Please those interested in them direct their inquiry to someone else.
Terry put my name in the middle of his letter after addressing someone else about particles, when referring to me about the bible, that he believes is literal, which I certainly do not.
michelle james, sydney, aust,
A big issue for me is not even touched on here. If God does exist what is the nature of God? Religion’s for the most part assume a God with our best interests at heart. But what if that was not the case and you are dealing with a being that is the equivalent of a moody teenager?
So not only worry about if God exists, but what kind of God!
Stepen Morris, London, United Kingdom
Chris, many professional Christians and other religious clerics or vocal believers spend much of their time spreading the bad news with of threats and fear of a judgmental, punishing deity, and prejudice against people who hold different sexual values or hold a different world view, religion or non-belief. Some do this much less, and concentrate on inner spiritual growth, which is much easier to appreciate as potentially useful for those who feel they need a crutch.
"The good news of God" isn't/wasn't good for those who are/have been reportedly brutalised, repressed or destroyed by a punishing, malicious God, or have been punished by crazed fanatics using his name.
bill, towoomba,
Someone has said elsewhere in this debate that asking for proof of God is like asking a fish to prove the existence of the ocean it lives in. We seem to think the science and mathematics solve everything, both of which are man-made and therefore fallible.
Alan - "professional christians" make a living by telling people of the Good News of God. Dawkins earns his money by writing books about something he does not believe exists. Athiesm shouldn't be a job, whereas telling people of the Good News, and assisting them spiritually on their life journey should be, and is.
Chris, Epsom,
Chris, nobody really denies Jesus existed, but he was only a man. Where is your evidence for god? Please show me if you can. And you can't really prove a negative - can you prove there are no fairies? What we can do is assess the evidence and consider the likelihood. Doing so shows a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) god to be highly unlikely.
Where is your 'definite proof'?
Ben, York,
Chris - typical believer-logic:- You resent Dawkins because you think he's a "professional atheist". Well, for goodness sake, what about the hundreds of thousands of "professional Christians" (like Father Bryan, for example)? -- If you resent ONE professional atheist, how do you think atheists feel about the multitude of professional believers? -- I think you have unwittingly made the atheist position perfectly clear.
alan, cologne,
The Bible (and all scripture) can be thought of as either inerrant, metaphorical or something in between, granted?
It is clearly not inerrant. (Science, contradicting itself etc.)
If some is metaphorical, how can you pick and choose which bits? There is no good answer to this.
This leaves it being purely metaphorical up to and including god.
God is a metaphor for good, power, and the physics, biology and chemistry that caused the universe as we know it. And THAT is truly fantastic.
Ben, York,
Chris,
Belief in God certainly isn't necessarily irrational. Emotional, psychological and spiritual personal development may be a consequence of a person's belief.
However, many fundamentalist beliefs are irrational. Some people are less moral, or emotionally crippled or psychologically hindered, because of their belief.
It is irrational and wrong for a believer to state that non-belief is irrational or amoral/immoral, for such a statement is unfounded.
That a person called Jesus likely existed isn't the issue. The controversy is the historical accuracy of the embellished accounts of his supposed public life.
bill, towoomba,
I reject the "original sin" basis of Christianity but where else in the modern world outside of the religious communites are charity, community and respect for life articulated? Despite antipathies about our own Christian upbringings, my husband and I brought our sons up in the local Episcopal church. They were baptized.Their godparents were Jewish. We considered ourselves agnostic but nonetheless, with great misgivings, felt culturally/socially drawn to a formal, articulated spiritual community When I talked with another "elder' of the parish about my doubts and concerns, she smiled and said, 'join the pew'. That was the moment that had to confront my own arrogance and ego. She followed up by saying, " I don't know if I believe in God, but I do believe that He/She/It believes in me." Still haven't got to grips with that. The community we joined all those years ago continues to support and nourish young and old, poor and affluent, with love and despite doubt and human frailty
Skyeleap, Amherst., MA, USA
Maybe human beings need a God to believe in because we're afraid that we are all that we have to depend on - and given our history, we keep messing it all up and will continue to do so. Atheists and religious people alike are all fervent about their beliefs. As eloquently stated in your article, belief simply is just that and for the individual there is nothing wrong with that, if it is that which nourishes and strengthens the spirit. Science and rational thinking is much the same, it simply just is. A true utopia only exists when human beings truly accept each other, who they are and their beliefs. Part of being human isn't whether you believe or not, but whether you can accept another human being despite those beliefs and whether they agree with your own. Much like loving someone despite their flaws of character. It simply is part of who they are. Who are we to decide what makes up a whole other person and where that sits on our scale of acceptance...?!
Nim, Cheshire,
One of the things I resent about Dawkins is that he seems to have become a 'professional atheist', making a living by writing books saying that God doesn't exist. Where would atheism by without him I wonder?
Until atheists can produced a definitive proof that God does not exist then there is at the very least the possibility that he does. No-one knows that there is no God, and the evidence that he does exist is there. Atheists can't see that. My question is: why would people just after Jesus' time have believed in his story if they new he did not exist?
Ben - this article is not awful. It is a balanced view which only atheists seem to be taking offence by. They seem so sure about God's non-existence, but how do they know?
Chris, Epsom,
Is Christianity a hair shirt or a comfort blanket? In my experience, the 'devout Catholic' is the most incurious creature on God's earth. A second's independent thought would seriously undermine the Catholic church but as Oscar Wilde observed: a second is a very long time and thought is an extremely painful process.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
Dave, Ben and Bill. When we get beyond the particle, we find non materiality which is the spiritual. The only way human conversion can take place is by acceptance of God whether or not at first we're quite convinced. It's only by the acceptance of God in our lives that the radical change we all look for can begin. Nothing else is as dynamic enough to transform and change us except in an exterior and superficial sort of way. It's the way to real peace, joy and love with the decline of depressions.That is the essence of the magnificent teaching of Jesus. It's the testimony of thousands of His followers, more than glimpsed at by others.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
People have a lot of trouble admitting that they just don't know all the answers! The universe is extremely complicated - we can't possibly work them all out. So people naturally tend to believe whatever makes sense to them in their own circumstances, influenced by those around them.
Fine. The problem is that some believers think we will all be judged in the afterlife depending on whether we come up with the "right" belief. In such a complex universe that does not logically fit with the idea of a "just God".
Phil, Reading,
Dear Laurence
Many thanks for your kind comments. I can't remember the last time anybody (apart from my wife) paid me such a compliment. The next time I'm in Bristol, I'll buy you a beer!
David
I was making the simple point that if we know next to nothing about God (as seems to be the case) then that must surely include suppositions about whether God is essentially male, female, both or neither. A suitable subject for Gender Studies perhaps!
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
Not just subjective experience, Kevin Miller of Tonbridge UK. The emotions actually turn around from self interest to gravitating more around others only through the magnetic concept of God. St. Bernard of Clairvaux is one of many who testify in writing. See also Aldous Huxley's outstanding worldwide study in the Perennial Philosophy. St. John of the Cross translated into everyday life brilliantly, currently by Slawomir Biela is worth a read too.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I think Ben may not be thinking of E=MC2.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
I find it amazing that anyone can profess a belief that evolution theory is some sort of evil to be rejected, when such a large body of scientific work spanning over 100 years supports it. And why is it threatening to them? Because they prefer to put their faith in a fable created in about 600BC by an unknown author who knew no history or science, but had a fertile imagination. How do they cling to a belief that our universe was created in about 4,000BC? By ignoring every bit of evidence from science that suggests that reasonable estimates are that the universe is about 14 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion years old, and that humanoids began evolving from an ancestor a couple of million years ago, until finally homo sapiens emerged.
Yes, all this is theory, but there is a lot of supporting evidence . Creationism is merely based upon a work of fiction. No-one even knows who wrote it! Why cling to belief in a nursery rhyme, just because you get a warm, fuzzy feeling from the tune?
mathew, broome,
To all the atheists who think the world would be a better place without beliefs should migrate to N.Korea, China & the former USSR. There wont be the problems religions caused but there will be far worst problems unimaginable!!
Mia, Brisbane, Australia
Michelle,
Energy has no particles because it is not a thing in it self. It is an abstraction created by man to explain reality. Matter is one of the manifestations of energy, therefore a particle IS energy. A photon is energy, as is a football, as are you. Not quite sure what the relevance of particle and energy is to the existence of god though?
Would it have anything to do with Father Storey’s posts? I’ve scrolled down to read them and I can safely say that he has a very unusual grasp of physics. For example he said:
“Matter can only be radically explained by immaterial, in fact the Invisible, Immaterial Necessary One. QED. E=MC2 and God=infinite contingency's explanation. (contribution of a very finite, somewhat evolved 'intelligence')â€.
Most intelligent people would recognise this as gibberish.
“Matter is only explained by immaterial�?? Eh? What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
Ben Littlewood, London, UK
Dear Laurence Many thanks for your kind comments. I can't remember the last time anybody (apart from my wife) paid me such a compliment. The next time I'm in Bristol, I'll buy you a beer! David I was making the simple point that if we know next to nothing about God (as seems to be the case) then that surely must include suppositions about whether God is essentially male, female, both or neither.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
Dear Laurence
Many thaks for your kind comments. I can't remember the last time anybody (apart from my wife) paid me such a compliment. The next time I'm in Bristol, I'll buy you a beer.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
If I were forced, at gunpoint, to define God, I would describe Him as a supreme being, a superior force, a controlling cosmic intelligence and an eternal presence. Much further than this, I fear, we cannot go. Amen.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
If I were forced, at gunpoint, to define God, I would describe him as a supreme being, a superior force, a controlling cosmic intelligence and an eternal presence. Much further than this, I fear, we cannot go.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
I have a problem. The last thing I want to do is sound arrogant or patronizing. But what alternative do I have when "believers" write such undiluted drivel?
alan, cologne,
Let's see who will go a step further and write "The Myth of Morality". Let's see exactly how rational and scientific we can get. If evolution on its own is really the only reasonable explanation for all that is around us, how can we possibly condemn the likes of Hitler and Stalin. They were merely organisms doing what came naturally, surely. If you want to leave God out of it, then get really rational and leave all vestiges of Him out of it,including concepts of good and bad.Then come to your reasonable and rational conclusions.
Paul Mac Manus, Barcelona,
Nice essay, even though rather long. What everyone agrees on, be that an atheist, agnostic or devout believer is that GOD IS NOT AN ORGANISATION, and that is what RELIGION is, an ORGANISATION, that is why atheists want it banned diminished gone forever, then and only then may we all have a frank discussion, philosophise and search for the answer to those BIG QUESTIONS without the interference of a Political Organisation which presents a SOLID and RIGID God, as if he is defined by the laws he himself created.
Andy, Liverpool,
John, my friend, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist! Indeed, the five most consequential questions in life are these:
1. Origin: Where did we come from?
2. Identity: Who are we?
3. Meaning: Why are we here?
4. Ethics: How should we live?
5. Destiny: Where are we going?
Given our current knowledge of factual truths concerning Astrophysics, Geology, Archeology, Paleontology, Botany, Ornithology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Neuroscience, Mathematics, and recorded Biblical History. You would do well to continue your quest for answers to life's eternal questions beginning with an understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Good luck!
P Adams, Falls Church, VA
Get a grip Mr Humphrys. The maniacs who kill and maim in the name of God are no more connected with God or his churches than football hooligans are connected with Football. They are merely opportunists using whatever means they can in order to gain power and influence over their fellow man. I am surprised that after all these years you have been unable to work that out for yourself. Without the influence of the real churches on this planet we would be living in a world of utter savages. Evil will always don the robes of the Good. That is life. Understand it and move on. At the moment according to the Gospel of St Humphrys all Journalists and Television companies are fraudsters and liars. They are not though are they John ?. Just some of them are mascarading as Journalists. Get what I mean ?.
J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom
Michelle,
Energy has no particles because it is an abstraction created by man to explain reality. Matter is one of the manifestations of energy, therefore a particle IS energy. A photon is energy, as is a football, as are you. Not quite sure what the relevance of particles and energy is to the existence of god though?
Would it have anything to do with Father Storey’s posts? I’ve scrolled down to read them and I can safely say that he has a very unusual grasp of physics. For example he said:
“Matter can only be radically explained by immaterial, in fact the Invisible, Immaterial Necessary One. QED. E=MC2 and God=infinite contingency's explanation. (contribution of a very finite, somewhat evolved 'intelligence')â€.
Most intelligent people would recognise this as gibberish.
“Matter is only explained by immaterial�?? Eh? What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
Ben Littlewood, London, Uk
Chie from Tokyo.. you clearly haven't read Dawkins book.
Fred, London,
You make it sound like at least most atheists have nothing better to do than look down on the religious. In my experience, and knowing others', we all have soapbox moments, but we atheists don't stand on pedestals any higher than the rest. As I'm sure you can name 10 arrogant atheists, and I can just as easily name another 10 arrogant believers. We can have a contest if you like! Please don't try to "dumb down" the attitudes of atheists unless you would appreciate my doing the same to yours and those you love.
Erin Risch, New Jersey, US
Terry L W, you highlight one of the major stumbling blocks for non-believers or moderate, modern, enlightened believers, in that you have this rigid view that ALL of the bible is LITERALLY true, or none of it is. Why can't you and other fundamentalists grow up, and accept that the bible is a historical document, written by fallible humans, trying their best to understand their world, within their limited knowledge and social framework. It is NOT historical fact. That they got a lot of things WRONG, misinterpreting signs or events or portents in understandable. Not to realise and accept that nowadays in ABSURD! Take whatever useful meaning you can from it as a story outlining man's early attempt to understand his world and God, but don't be so limited as to refuse to see its limitations.
michelle james, sydney, aust,
John
You say that you do not believe in the resurrection or the virgin birth. If these things did not happen then the message of Christianity is totally meaningless as St Paul says in his letter to the corinthian church 'If the ressurrection did not take place then we are the most pittied of men'.
The message of Christianity is quite simple, man was disobedient in the Garden of even so he fell from his perfected state and death came into the World. The bible refers to Jesus as the second Adam who had to be perfect (therefore born of God) , tempted just has we were, but was found without sin. The first Adam brought death, Jesus brought life(spiritual life, because sin makes us spiritually dead towards God), but not only that died for mankind so that we could receive forgiveness of sin. This is important, by his resurection Jesus conquered the curse of death (Gen 3). Though we die physically our souls will life forever.
Anthony Price, Cardiff, Wales
Father Storey - thanks for clarifying your earlier post - looks like it was a freudian slip! You now say "I meant that it's only by relating to God that our fears, worries and anxieties can be converted into peace, joy and love." My question is- how? It is nice that you have a way of reassuring yourself but the fact that it gives you and many others solace does not make it true. All religions claim to offer something similar, regardless of which god they promote. It's a panacea. We all have fears and doubts. You deal with what you can change and what you can't you live with. Belief in god is just an irrational comfort blanket. This craving for 'meaning' and 'life after death' etc is a wholly self indulgent response. I am lucky enough to have children. The meaning of my life has been to bring them into being, raise them, give them some values and, if I am lucky, know that some of my genes and my memory will live on in them and any children they have. Why expect or need more?
Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,
Bryan, I simply couldn't disagree with you more. You say "The material has no meaning without the spiritual". This is patently untrue. A hammer is material, it exists to knock in a nail. Neither hammer nor nail have a spirit, and I need no spiritual beliefs for either hammer or nail to carry out their function. The hammer exists to hammer, I exist, as a living being, to live. So often I hear the rallying cry of "what is the meaning of life without god?". Well I don't think my life needs a meaning, life is life and all of us fortunate enough to experience it for however long should be glad just of that. I would hate to get to my death bed and have to think back on a life spent trying to fit in around some religion and realise that I hadn't actually lived a life of my own at all!!
dave, worthing, uk
Wrong again Bryan. Athiests can be happy and fulfilled - Buddhism and Taoism teach how to reach fulfillment, and neither invokes god.
Religion may well help inner harmony. But that doesn't make it TRUE, merely desirable.
But that aside, on what evidence must god exist? I have never seen a conclusive proof, and as it would be trumpeted to the heavens (I'm aware of the irony) by religion if it were found, I can only assume there is none.
Ben, York,
EB of KuT, your train of thought escapes me. I presume you believe in intelligent design, which as a theory has more holes (pasted with magic putty) than standard scientific theory. Read Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett.
CC of C, given the potential number of light years between galaxies, of which there may be over 200 billion, it so no surprise we haven't heard much yet. As for creating life or explaining consciousness, well both challenges may merely need longer than you or I have left, but the answers may well be there for others to behold in the future.......
bill, towoomba,
Many of the comments here are asking why Dawkins and others who share his views are described as being militant.
The answer to this is quite clear - the Dawkins view holds that the world can only be truly understood scientifically, and any non-scientific understanding is false and without worth ,and therefore must be defeated for the greater good of humanity.
In my view that attitude can be described as militant.
Laurence, Bristol, UK
Ben--York--No particles in energy? Perhaps you are right. Where do photons fit in, though?
Nuclear energy--what is it? Well, it can be released by Radioactive Decay, defined one place as being where a nucleus decays by emitting a particle. But, I assume I can safel leave this field to you. So, if you say there are no particles in energy--o.k. by me.
Michelle James, Sydney, Australia
I am not in a position to state what the Roman Catholic Church accepts or doesn't accept in that I am not Catholic. I am however, a Christian, and one who accepts totally the literal interpretation of the Bible. For those who don't--why bother with the Bible? If you cannot believe one part is true, it follows that you cannot believe any of it is true. If you say the Bible as the basis of your faith, but do not want to believe it is all true, then your faith is baseless.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA
Dave of Worthing. It's my opponents who go round and round and so I keep on and on. The material has no meaning without the spiritual. Matter can only be radically explained by immaterial, in fact the Invisible, Immaterial Necessary One. QED. E=MC2 and God=infinite contingency's explanation. (contribution of a very finite, somewhat evolved 'intelligence')
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
The seven statements were far too simplified, and yes were a bit
patronizing.
But, the conclusion at the end is really a profound argument. How can atheists blame God for inspiring wars when they themselves believe he doesn't exist ! It is the fault of the MEN and WOMEN who wrongly interpreted or even made up what they believe God wants.
My Question would be, can men as a whole, be trusted, or even handle something as powerful as faith without miss interpeneting it or exploiting it.
TommyBrowne, Kildare, Ireland
"And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took...................there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us." (Deuteronomy 2, 33-36).
This "righteous and upright" God seems a frightfully smashing chap. So long as he doesn't decide to smite you and your innocent family and children.
Is Deuteronomy really the "word of God", and did God really act as a murderer and willing accomplice to murder? If not, then the biblical description of God's contribution to mass murder is fiction and a figment of primitive men's imaginations. Which is is? I ask any Christian, Jew, Muslim or other theist to enlighten us on this. Was God a murderer or was the interpretation fiction?
bill, towoomba,
Militant atheist am I?
If religion was a private affair, then I would feel no need to state my lack of belief and my scorn for those who do have such delusional beliefs. In fact, I would much rather not waste my time on such nonsense - I really wish I didn't live in a world where I even had to take a stance on the existence or not of a god who loves us all (except when he's torturing and killing us). But, we have bishops in the House of Lords, state funded "faith" schools indoctrinating the nation's children and, yes, even such irritants as "Thought for the Day" (take note, Mr Humphrys as I dive for the Radio 4 off button every day when the smug gits start wittering on).
While the number of "militant" faith heads remains so prominent, miltant atheists are needed to restore some balance. We didn't start it!
Simon Robinson, London, UK
Why do some people make the idiotic, unfounded assertion that non-belief in a magical deity means belief in nihilism, nothingness, immorality and irrationality. It's unmitigated rubbish, and narrow-minded dogmatism to make such an absurd leap. Love of life and mankind, and belief in morality, have nothing to do with religious fantasy. But then, believers I guess are used to absurd leaps of faith and bizarre, irrational beliefs already.
mark taylor, brisbane,
Looking at life solely through the lens of religion can lead to one thinking he knows everything while really knowing nothing, and not realising the value lost.
Paul, Aukland,
Does God exist?
John, you read and argued a lot. I think if you really are seeking answers for your questions, trying to know whether God exists or not, the thing you can do now is to ask God to reveal himself to you, and I believe that He will if you are serious and honest about finding the truth.
I'll pray for you.
I trust in God.
Christine, East Sussex, UK
Does God exist?
John, you read and argued a lot. I think if you really are seeking answers for your questions, trying to know whether God exists or not, the thing you can do now is to ask God to reveal himself to you, and I believe that He will if you are serious and honest about finding the truth.
I'll pray for you.
I trust in God.
Christine, Brighton, UK
Does God exist?
John, you read and argued a lot. I think if you really are seeking answers for your questions, trying to finf out whether God exists or not, the thing you can do now is to ask God to reveal himself to you, and I believe that He will if you are serious and honest about finding the truth.
I'll pray for you, God bless you.
I tust in God.
Christine, East Sussex, UK
People have so many preconceptions. You think we believe because it’s easy, yet you find belief so hard. You think we need it for moral guidance but where do your morals come from? If believing feels good then why don’t you believe, if feelings determine your beliefs? You believe faith is blind but you don’t actually know what we believe about faith. You draw on what you think rather than what is true to criticise a belief you don’t understand. You say this is what we believe but you don’t even know what you believe. You say the religious cause so much trouble but how much good do you do? You say we are the product of the laws of nature but how can they be nature's law when the law's must be present for nature to exist. You say the truth is that there is no god. So you become the author of your truth for without God there is no absolute truth – and your truth is relative to other truths - so your belief that there is no god is also relative - so sometimes he must exist.
Nathan, Cambridge, UK
Oh Bryan you do get around don't you. Unfortunately however this god denier does not follow your supposed logic. You maintain that particles cannot explain particles, well ok, I'm no physiciest, I really don't know if that is true or not, but for now I shall accept it. However you cannot say, "That which cannot explain itself in its existence has to be explained by the Necessary One". This is the fundamental (perhaps not a good choice of word) argument of the atheist. The fact that just because we do not currently know does not mean we cannot know and certainly does not mean we should attribute the unknown to a god or gods. Once upon a time man would attribute thunder to god shouting in anger, rain drops were his tears. We now know all this to be untrue, we can explain it. The more we challenge the more we learn and the more we can explain. If mankind simply gives up and attributes all the many wonders of the universe to a "Necessary One" then we will cease to grow.
dave, worthing, uk
It’s unfortunate that that supposed intellectual superiority of atheists is given solely to the refutation of God’s existence and not to an examination of His nature (i.e. Who God is, what his relationship with man is, what his purpose is etc). An understanding would, at the very least, clarify the difference between God’s will and our own ambitions, thereby disproving the silly argument that a God cannot exist because of the wars that are invoked in His name by humans). If, after studying the nature of God, you still believe that He doesn’t exist – and assuming that, upon your death, you are proven to be correct – then you’ll have forfeited nothing more from your study than the opportunity to express your contempt for those who do believe. If you’re wrong however, the implications of your choice are eternal.
PS: Simon Gladdish – How odd that after “having studied philosophy at Oxford and theology at Cambridgeâ€, your learning has taken you no further than questioning God’s gender.
David Andrews, London, UK
For the vast majority the only perspective of a greater being or a creator is something or someone external to themselves and their environment. A "God" that creates a world and life in it and sits back in "his" armchair watching it all unfold.
Being raised a Catholic I used to believe this until I began asking myself serious questions about the church and its proclamations.
I read numerous books on God and spirituality (including the Seth Material) and the idea that resonated with me most was that we were INSIDE the creative consciousness (aka god) and vice versa.
The idea that it was a part of everything, a constant stream of consciousness dividing itself and becoming greater through the creative actions of the sum of its parts sold me.
I never considered the atheist point of view because I couldn't come to terms with the fact that conciousness was an accidental chemical consequence. For me conciousness is in everything and therefore underpins all existence.
Paul Davis, Hounslow,
I can only be amazed by your persistence in praying for 50 years without belief. Old habits can be hard to break. It shows the Jesuits are right, and that early indoctrination worked in one sense!
No-one seriously believes all believers are stupid, or pathetic, or all brainwashed, but in annoyance may come out with that in response to fundamentalist religious bigotry, or that civilization will end next week unless belief is wiped out. You haven’t simplified atheists views, you’ve ignored them!
matt, adelaide,
John Humphry has clearly done a good deal of research here. However I must take exception at his statement that people who admit to the killing of "other entirely innocent human beings, other children" are "ordinary people like you and me". While I cannot speak for anyone else, I can say with absolute certainty that they are not like me nor, I suspect, the vast majority of good thinking people, including atheists. More likely is the argument attributed to Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction". Finally who are these "militant atheists" repeated referred to in the arcticle and on what basis are they so labelled? I personally cannot recall seeing any atheists partaking in such direct militant action, non-violent or otherwise. Sadly the same cannot be said for many with strong religious convictions, witness the above "ordinary people" solders.
John Shanks, Banchory, UK
Eugene, I agreed completely... until reading your last sentence! Completely the wrong way around.
Bryan, what are you on about? There are no particles in energy. Try putting forward an irrefutable defence of god. I am sure you will fail as better minds than yours have. There may be no infinity. As Dawkins beautifully puts it, science will push back the boundaries of knowledge, or we may discover there are no boundaries. Just because you don't know everything doesn't mean god exists.
Awful, unjustified article with no evidence.
Ben, York,
perhaps Humphrys might learn something from all this talking to various people and ask those who do display some firm convictions - those evangelicals that Fraser despises so much. They might be able to provide him the solid answers that he so obviously seeks.
David Ould, Sydney, Australia
So strange, when l told an atheist that God has given us all a free will , she agreed with me.
Mia, Brisbane, Australia
Amen ;-) Joseph of Bath and Tony of Ripley
Seriously, the 7 'quotes' are massively over-simplified and patronising.
Mainstream religion has oppressed those it percieves as different or a threat for thousands of years. Even in the so-called peaceful forms it breeds xenophobia and have spread through war, conquest and indoctrination.
As to intelligence, why believe that a scientist would lie, when Dawkins clearly describes his love of truth?
Ben, York,
Meg: "in a couple of centuries much of our modern day science will be out of date and considered foolish, whereas the chances are that faith will live on greatly unchanged"
Do not be absurd. Faith chages rapidly as we evolve and grow. People used to worship the sun as a god, now we know what it is so we don't. The Greek and Roman gods were similarly dismissed as were many religious concepts such as the earth being the centre of the universe and creationism. Faith morphs as the gaps in knowledge in which it can live are reduced.
Conversely much of the mathematics and science from ancient times still holds in exactly the same way as then. For example 1000s of years on schoolchildren still learn the theorems of Pythagoras; the same can not be said of the acts of the war god Thor or of mighty Zeus.
The words you are looking for are "in a couple of centuryies science will have progressed whereas religious beliefs will still persist wallowing in the ignorance that breeds them"
Barry, Newbury, Berks
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.
Given that, belief becomes a tool used for living. If you live a better life using it, you may feel it is a justified tool. Not everyone is better for it (eg: the Crusades, Inquisition, Islamic bombers etc). Once you realise it is created within your own head, and not based on an external reality, it becomes an unnecessary tool, and counterproductive to true knowledge, growth and maturity.
frank, sydney,
A very honest, decent article that appears already to be drawing some rather unfriendly and indeed angry fire from professed atheists; no surprise there.
Atheists have been best referred to as those who have yet to experience the love of God. My guess is that some are maybe so bitter that their hearts are solidifying and ears bunged up; for those who do still have a grain of desire, we are told - ask and you will receive. Try it?
michael, harrogate, uk
The fact we can debate, discuss, and not only argue about belief,but even in extreme situations go to war over beliefs, in anyway detract from belief:
In fact, rather it proves that belief is Truth.
Richard Dawkins is in fact a Belief Meister He Believes in Non-belief. John Humpry is Still Seeking He Believes in Seeking.
I Believe in God.
The only problem occurs if any of us try to force our beliefs upon the other two. I recently read somewhere that Charles Darwin is indirectly responsible for The Horror of The Nazi Gas Chamber and The Second World War. I found this Idea Abhorrent yet then no sooner had this thought registered,when I remembered The French Revolution was a product of Militant Aitheism. Yet There Again , our "Glorious Revolution" The English Civil War was Based upon The Opposite Belief incidentally it Was The Scottish Covenanters who having handed King Charles The First over to The Parliamentary Army were so Horrified at The English Action, The Crowned Charles
2nd
William J., oban, Argyll Scotland UK
GOD IS GOOD BUT RELIGION IS BAD, Dont blame God for men's stupidity, pride and wicked ways. That is because they are the children of the Devil. Unless you come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, you will not have any clue of who God is. So you will remain clueless, confused, depressed for the rest of your sad life. I dont even believe the pope knows God in a personal way. Catholism is just another religion fueled by greed, corruption, power, lust, politics and are basically idol worshippers so are all other religions. Jesus was much against religion and came to set us free from all the bondage, rituals, etc. Looking around, Jesus is right about the road to hell is broad and wide and the road to eternal life with God is narrow and few find it. Jesus is always right. M Roberts of HK, wake up from your wonderland and hope that your neighbour is not an atheist otherwise he may kill you for your possessions. No God, no answer, no worries. DREAM ON.
Virginia, Brisbane, Australia
Sorry, Kevin Miller of Tonbridge. Something went wrong with my typing. I meant that it's only by relating to God that our fears, worries and anxieties can be converted into peace, joy and love. It's really true. It keeps many trying it though there are plenty of illusions on the way. Yet there's no delusion to beat the one produced by not relating to God who is deeply there in Conscience. Excitedly some proclaim 'God's a delusion! 'The anti religious lobby has nothing to offer except a life of more and more of delusions. Yet they keep saying 'we're all right. it's those religious ones who are bonkers.' As a fellow once said to me we're all a bit insane. Only God can improve the situation. That's why religion goes on and on and will continue.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ himself said, 'If you can't believe simply on the basis of what I say, believe on the basis of the miracles I do.' If Jesus, with his powerful rhetoric, had trouble persuading some doubters without the evidence of miracles what chance have we?
There will always be those who are able to believe without evidence, and there will always be those who wouldn't believe whatever the evidence, but I suggest that for many of those who find belief in God difficult all that is required to persuade them is a miracle (i.e. a supernatural event, something for which God is the only reasonable explanation).
Over to you, Christian believers ...
Dr Peter J Hickman, Castle Douglas, Scotland
It is entirely possible that God has abandoned the earth as a failed experiment and is active elsewhere in the universe. I find the dogmatic certainties of Muslims, Catholics and other fundamentalists who claim intimate acquaintance with the mind of God, absolutely risible. For all we know, God could easily be dead or a supercomputer. To paraphrase the Arctic Monkeys: Whatever we think God is, that is almost certainly what He is not. All we can do is to lead moral lives and, when the time comes, pray that we have done enough to scrape into heaven - if it exists!
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
Mr Humphrys suggests that there is much that's unknowable, but doesn't provide any source for this insight. However, this is not an original idea; Kant was there before him. Kant held that all of our knowledge of the world we live in is based on no more than our observations, and as such must be treated as contingent. For a concise but rigorous account of Kant's views readers could do worse than to read The Essence of Human Freedom by Martin Heidegger (Continuum, London, 2005). Much of this discussion takes it for granted that all of our world is knowable, but western thought has long rejected this claim as little more than hubris.
Religious belief claims that our lives can be invested with both meaning and richness, and that this can be achieved by thinking beyond ourselves and our immediate needs. Surely an idea worth exploring further?
John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand
The problem with having a belief is that it isn't necessarily YOUR belief. More often than not beliefs are adopted by adults (leaving children out of this for obvious reasons) because they suit the individual at that time in their life... There then usually comes the time when the individual is confronted with the need to know if the belief is true, usually during a crisis. Whether we believe in a god or not, confusion and doubt come simply because we don't always take time to find and embrace absolute truth. Having a belief is a different reality to knowing truth... And no amount of intellectual debating will change the truth that God either exists or He doesn't... and the fact that the believer and the unbeliever cannot both be right in this matter. It is about finding the truth I'm afraid.
Elizabeth Young, London, United Kingdom.
Looking at life soley through the lens of science can lead to one knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Paul, Barcelona,
It is true that faith cannot be fully explained through rational arguments, but in his book "Mere Christianity," C.S. Lewis gives the best assessment I've heard regarding belief or non-belief in God and Christianity. For many years, he was a highly intelligent atheist until he became an even more highly intelligent defender of the faith.
Of course, one could also just try reading the Bible with a view to understanding it, but let it not be said that I would want to hit anyone over the head with it. Forget about what some have done in organized religious movements; God is not in the habit of forcing people to believe in Him. We all have choices.
Carol Lazarus, New York, USA
God-deniers? We'll soon be faced with Fairies-at the-Bottom-of- the-Garden-deniers. Bring them on - we'll easily sort out these arrogant swine. I haven't found a shred of evidence that proves the existence of these fairies one way or another, so how could I possibly know? That's what makes me an agnostic (pronounced "imbecile").
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
Man is obviously capable of handling paradoxical concepts well if intelligent, well educated people can work within the fields of science and medicine, and ignore the wealth of evidence overwhelmingly in favour of evolution being true, so as to cling to narrow-minded creationist dogmatism and ignorance.
I fail to understand why creationists can't evolve a more enlightened, mature faith. Perhaps deep down they have an inkling that, if some parts of scripture shouldn't to be taken literally, then their belief, like a house of cards, will fall over completely if one piece is faulty.
Even the Catholic Church accepts Darwin was right, and that a literal interpretation of the bible is inappropriate.
Michelle James, Sydney, Aust,
Mr Humphrys suggests that there is much that's unknowable, but doesn't provide any source for this insight. However, this is not an original idea; Kant was there before him. Kant held that all of our knowledge of the world we live in is based on no more than our observations, and as such must be treated as contingent. For a concise but rigorous account of Kant's views readers could do worse than to read The Essence of Human Freedom by Martin Heidegger (Continuum, London, 2005). Much of this discussion takes it for granted that all of our world is knowable, but western thought has long rejected this claim as little more than hubris.
Augustine, following Plato, identified God with "the Good", and to me that's still a very useful way of thinking about this subject. Religious belief claims that our lives can be invested with both meaning and richness, and that this can be achieved by thinking beyond ourselves and our immediate needs. Worth a try, I would suggest.
John Reid, Wellington, New Zealand
John has rightly come to the conclusion that all the world's religions are wrong and there is no personal god. Once you get to this stage then the differences between Deist, Agnostic and Atheist are in practice pretty minor. We can all agree that the churches, mosques and temples teach a bunch of lies. What I can't understand is why John objects to believers being called deluded. Surely the definition of deluded is believing in something that is not true. Would we call an adult that fervently believed in Father Christmas deluded ? Certainly. Why then is a belief in the literal truth of Adam and Eve, original sin, angels, virgin birth and all the rest any different ?
Tony Gosling, London, UK
I was looking forward to this book having listened to his "in search of God " programmes on the radio, and respecting him as a broadcaster, but words fail me. If this extract is representative of the book, then I certainly shan't be wasting my money on it. I've never seen as many straw men, logical absurdities and ad hominem attacks in a single article (at least not since Alistair McGrath's "Dawkins Delusion").
Mark Allen, Nottingham,
Father Bryan in Tintagel - thank yo for your comment but I fear there must be a typo - you say that my post indicates that "it all points to the need for greater religious commitment. It's the only way deeply to revive fear, worry and anxiety at the core of our being"
Sorry but why do we want to revive fear, worry and anxiety? In fact i suspect that your comment is meant as written and merely proves what I have aways suspected - that all religions thrive on, and help to create, fears and anxiety for the very reason that it drives people through the doors. So, no thank you, I will not accept the superstitious twaddle that underlies much of religion. I do not think there is a god, there is no heaven or hell - only what we make of life on earth! And if death proves me wrong I am sure that whether you go to heaven or hell is based on what you have done in your life not which religious club you belonged to!
Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,
maybe people pray, whilst still having some doubts, and some beliefs to get anxieties off of their chest, its like individual councilling just to clear the air. i was brought up believing in god but just recently i thought to myself; this isn't realistic, if we have to believe in something, which we do not know its form, and dedicate our lives to it, it goes against our human reasoning, like in court we have to include substantial evidence for a case to be concluded, and that is even more difficult when we cannot see or even know what the evidence is. I felt much better when i decided not to believe in god, it was like a weight off of my shoulders and so that i didnt have to live my life asking the questions now and again: would a christian do that? what would god have me do? ever since then the feeling of freedom and reality is immense, we are all just beings in natures timeline that has been going before bc and will continue through ad.
Dom, Harlow,
To expand a little on a few of the 7 points mentioned.
1. How can one account then for the corrolation between the rise of modern science/the theory of evolution and the reduction in believers?
2/3 Some people try accepting the truth rather than ignoring it- Cf. Montaigne's chapter 'Que Philosopher, c'est apprendre a mourir'.
H, Cambridge,
Sherlock Holmes goes to an imaginary university and attends his first course of lectures on Atheism. He is told that our planetary system is an accident (even though it is the only system of its kind that has been scientifically observed among all the millions of heavenly bodies in the universe). The sun, he learns, just happened to throw off lumps of molten rock which happened to turn into planets. And among these nine major planets, one of them - the Earth - accidentally produced life, both vegetable and animal. And within animal life, one branch accidentally developed into intelligent life - so intelligent, indeed, that it can split the atom and travel to the moon. He is told that if he doesn't believe in this chapter of accidents, he will be reported to the chief of police as being a childish fool. Let's have a competition - no cash prizes, I'm afraid - for his train of thought that follows at this point.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
Nicely put Andrew from Sheffield, if you are using your faith as a comfort blanket, there's something wrong. Being Christian was highly uncomfortable for Christ. If we are to follow Him we have to be willing to take up our cross, not our blanket, daily.
Paul, Barcelona,
Having read Dawkins God Delusion out of interest, I am still not convinced about religion or atheism. There are strong arguments for atheism in the book, but there are also some weak arguments. Having a scientific background and a career in engineering, I like to see real evidence. Maths and statistics can be used to 'prove' anything academically. So what are the weak arguments for atheism:
1. There must be a planet of other beings out there STATISTICALLY. Ok, but then if those planets do exist then the laws of evolution would apply and we might expect that one of them might be more advanced than we are...so where are they?
2. Although we as humans have made fantastic progress is medicine, we are still only tinkering. Until we can CREATE life from the basic elements I remain unconvinced that we can ever do it.
3. The human state of consciousness, how a body gets life in it cannot be reproduced by humans 'artificially'.
I feel that if I say I am an atheist then I it would be naive
CC, Cardiff, Glamorgan
As soon as you say there is no god, you say that there is no such thing as life or as a person. You reduce everything down to its component parts. You say all our thoughts are self interested delusions, lacking any intrinsic value.
You forever steal the smile from the babies face, remove the beauty from the sunset and kill all that is noble in the world.
Those who believe in God beleive that our lives are real, that good and bad exists,, we feel the wrmth in each others hearts and we know that some things really are sacred.
The difference between the two views is that the first can never produce a happy and fulfilled life, only desolation, the second can overwhelm you with its beauty.
Jesus Christ said Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty. If a scientist says he can prove that God does not exist, then ask him also to prove that Beauty does not exist.
John W, Oldham,
It seems so stupidly obvious to say, but I will say it here in order to make a complet argument; that people's belief in gods lead them to supernatural religious beliefs about what their gods want, which leads to people's political beliefs which affect how others are allowed to live (or die) in our civilization.
Maybe you agree, as you seem to in your aticle, that religion is poisonous. But god-belief tends to lead to religious belief. Maybe it is unfair of me to resent god-belief. But if the vast majority of god-believers hold supernatural religious beliefs that adversely affect my family's well-being, then maybe I have good reason to resent the sole source of supernatural religious belief.
How dare you admonish me for being reasonable and rational! How dare you imply that I am ignorant because I do not understand or share your appreciation of god-belief!
Christopher McLaughlin, Flint, MI
How is any atheist forcing their belief on anyone? Writing a book? You don't have to read it. Answering journalists' questions? You don't need to listen, watch or read what they say or print. Beyond that, nothing, so where is the militancy?
On the other side is thousands of years of religious teaching and proseletysing, war, conquest, conflict, repression and indoctrination, massive religious enterprises and wealthy organizations, buildings, edifices and schools, a massive number of bizarre dogmas masquerading as "truths", and more books than are written on any other topic, full of unproven promises, or laced with threats or warnings of eternal misery if one doesn't believe.
If people had only ever quietly sought their own transcendental fulfillment, would we be having this debate? Many atheists meditate, and search for their own sense of self-fulfillment.
I think a bit of healthy cynicism here and there calling for reason shouldn't provoke so much indignation and outrage from Mr Humphrys.
mark, brisbane,
Christianity doesn’t require us to abandon reason in order to believe. Whether the resurrection occurred is the test. Secular and hostile sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Talmud testify of the crucifixion of Jesus and the empty tomb. The blood and water flowing from Jesus’ pierced side indicate heart failure and certain death. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead where is His body? The disciples started proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where the Priests could have produced the body if they knew where it was, ending Christianity. Why would the disciples steal Jesus’ body? How did they get past the Roman guard? Why did they die horrendous deaths for something they knew to be a lie? Paul writes (1 Cor15:6) that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at one time and says if you don’t believe me you can go ask them. He appeared to different kinds of people including the sceptical Thomas (Jn20:24-29) and Paul who was attempting to stamp out Christianity (Acts9).
Timothy Grant, Ross-on-Wye, UK
Reading this article seems to highlight exactly the reason why I am studying Theology,
The search to explain that feeling of the numinous, of why some people are compelled to believe one thing and others another, is something both topical, and relevant to society today and to ones own personal search of faith.
Having been told repeatedly that my choice of degree is pointless, as I too seem to believe in something, but am unsure as to exactly what. And that someone of my intellect (having gained 5As at A level) is wasting their time. It was refreshing to read an article which seemed to illustrate the very reasons I love, and am proud to study Theology.
Religion has an important place in the world, it has had and continues to have such an influence on so many of the population, one can never deny that.
Natalie Crisp, Durham,
It is not militancy to merely point out the foibles of religion. For all its good points, in a world with God people have believed it is moral to commit murder, rape and genocide, as outlined starkly throughout the OT. They have believed in magical happenings of all sorts, dead people rising, seas parting, bushes talking, loaves and fishes miraculously multiplying, walking on water, statues weeping or bleeding, the dead appearing in multiple forms, angel sightings and other bizarre visions, miraculous cosmic movements, miracles by prayer or touching statues or bathing in holy water. Various men over the ages have decided that God had spoken to them and given them a special divine insight, which they have pushed onto others by force of personality and persuasion, by coercion, or by physical force or blackmail, dictating what people should think, how to pray, where to pray, how to dress, how to eat, what to eat and when, whom to socialise with, whom to marry, how to have sex, and untold other codes for how to live and behave. These were man-made edicts. Humphrys seems to believe such madness should be left unexamined. Atheists merely ask for a reasoned analysis amidst this folly.
bill, towoomba,
I guess by his defination this must make Humphrys a "Miliant Agonostic". He doesn't mind what you believe, as long as you don't voice it, have too strong an opinon on the subject or more importantly disagree with him. If only they would replace Dawkins with Humphrys on the Today Programme we might have some better journalism as the former might well stick with the facts instead of prejudice when he interviews people in the morning.
Richard Morgan, London,
As an atheist, I have no problem with the article or with those who are religious, so long as they do not seek to impose their beliefs on me or take over the institutions of civil society (which Islam adamantly does seek to do, recognizing no separation of church and state.) Like Mr. Humphrys, I deplore our "low culture" of materialism, consumerism and celebutante-worship. But atheism does not require those things, and religion does not prevent them. Aside from the strident atheists like Dawkins and some others, those I know do not agree with Sartre, but regard our existence as having abundant purpose: to learn; to contribute to our families, communities, nations and the world; to experience all that we can in our brief lives; to seek to be fair and just in our dealings, and hope for the same for ourselves; to give love to people and causes that matter, and if fortunate, find it for ourselves. Simply put, we need no promise of heaven to have found life very agreeable indeed.
Roy, Santa Monica, United States
Kevin Miller og Tonbridge, Kent, UK , it all points to the need for greater religious commitment. It's the only way deeply to revive fear, worry and anxiety at the core of our being.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
Believers in a purely materialist, reductionist universe would be well advised to read Michael Polanyi's "Personal Knowledge" and "Knowing and Being". Polanyi, a Professor of Chemistry (he corresponded with Einstein and had a world reputation in physical chemistry) became dissatisfied with the prevailing reductionist, scientific view of the world. He asked how Man, a product of evolution, had a consciousness that could understand the world and the processes of evolution. He came to believe that all knowledge had a personal dimension. The structure of knowledge relates meaning & reality, transcendence & immanence, knower & known, subject & object.
'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'
Dave, Wrexham,
The Bible says that God is light.
Well, we do not worship light, do we?
The Bible's poetical turn of phrase will likely turn out to be the scientific truth if future discoveries continue along lines now established.
The traditional concepts of God are so clearly extensions of human social attitudes: the powerful father who must be honored.
For the most part, arguing this topic is pointless. Undoubtedly, aspects of our brains, highly varied between individuals, predispose some of us to the notion of God as traditionally understood. No argument will ever shake such predispositions.
It is important though to keep the God nonsense out of government and schools, which serve and shape us all, but achieving anything more than that is unlikely through argument and debate.
That issue can be argued through fairness and liberty rather than belief.
JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada
For many religion is a form of security blanket. Created in childhood when minds are malleable it is continually reinforced by the accepted norms of family and society. Belonging to a church, temple, synagogue or mosque provides a framework around which your social life may revolve. It provides an identity. It is a club where you have been accepted. To lose your religion can mean also losing your family, your friends and social support structure and, in extreme, cases your life. I can understand why so many are happy to remain within the framework that religion provides although I am surprised when highly intelligent people nevertheless claim to believe in a god. But then I am also surprised when priests turn out to be paedophiles and vicars commit adultery. All this shows is that no matter who we are we all have our weaknesses and needs. We all want to belong somewhere and formal religion provides one such refuge. As an atheist I will have to rely on family and friends.
Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,
It is interesting that there are so many brilliant people in this world that will believe Darwin's THEORY of evolution and completely dismiss the the Biblical account of creation. This can only be accounted for by the fact that those taking this position have not studied either the Bible or Darwin's life story including the fact that he dismissed his own theory of evolution prior to his death. And yet we continue to teach Darwin's Theory of evolution in our schools and Universities as though it is pure fact without any doubt attached to it.
It would take a lot more Faith for me to believe in some great cosmic accident followed by a mysterious and unprovable theory of evolution than it would to believe in an intelligent creator forming this world as we know it.
I will chose God in His Triune form every time. Jesus Christ was the greatest teacher that ever lived!
Warren Toles, Clearwater Bay, Canada
Excellent article.
I'm constantly amazed at the limited understanding of science as evidenced by many comments below.
Inductive science is logically indefensible. Furthermore is entirely descriptive rather than explanatory.
Those using science to scratch that itch are taking an awful lot on faith.
david, florence,
Disappointingly incoherent analysis.
Mr Humphrys has mis-defined atheist to mean overly certain non-belief and then complains about their excesses of certainty.
The poll defines atheist as someone who thinks "The whole notion of a supernatural God is nonsense". The definition used by most atheists is the much wider 'not holding a belief in any gods' since insufficient evidence has been presented to view any of the god propositions as reasonable. By this definition up to 40% of those polled could be termed atheistic.
Reactions against vocal atheists (there are no militant ones in the current debate) often look to nebulous believers in the ineffable to show that religion is benign. However, such theological abstraction is generally not the source of the complaints. When the religious impact the rest of us they should expect to be robustly challenged in terms familiar to politicians on the Today programme.
Wishing the religious were right is not enough to afford them a free pass.
nonplussed, London, UK
Simon R Gladdish-
Thanks for putting forward such an insightful and compelling argument.
You really are a tribute to the philosophy and theology courses at Oxford and Cambridge.
Laurence, Bristol, UK
Three minor comments:
- Why do people persist in using the term 'militant' for atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc who never remotely propose militant activity. While with the converse, it really does refer to suicide bombers, abortionist murderers, gay-bashers, etc. and not religionists who are just passionate about their intellectual position.
- The study that Dawkins was 'reduced' to referencing on religiosity and IQ/education is a meta-study of 43 previous published studies. A more recent study has continued to confirm that atheists have a higher intelligence than people with a strong religious faith (Nyborg, 2007). But true, the relevance is minor.
- To the extent that there is any contempt for believers, I would suggest has little to do with points 1-7 but rather that to base one's life on extremely feeble evidence is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible. Is it also contemptible and arrogant to highlight the feeble basis for crystal therapy, homeopathy, etc?
Paul, Florence, Italy
I remember a favorite pastor saying no problrm with my beliefs,but my unbeliefs. sums it up nicely I think.
ben barr, cornwall, pei/ca
That only the stupid are religious is stupid in itself. Pascal was the most awing intelligence of his time. The real problem are the idiots on both sides looking for absolutes. Here is what the great truth is. Study maths, philosophy, ancient languages, logic, chemistry, biology, physics and literature. Then take a good, long, hard look at the universe about you. Disown all emotion (That means the universal love of the religious and the corrosive frustration of atheists) and balance all the facts and their projections into theory. If you are truly intelligent, you will come to this coclusion. GOD IS MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT.
eugene, heidelberg, germany
Looking for God in all the wrong places? God exists outside religion, outside time and outside the universe. If Humphreys wants to know who God is and why we're here, have him contact me.
Roger Ffolkes, La Jara ("la-hara"), New Mexico USA
Instead of illumination we get a long and sadly predictable rigamarole from Mr Humphrys. His doubt could have been explained more coherently and respectably.
His doubt could haved been presented as clear doubt as to the answers to his Big Questions. Reasonable doubt. But in doubting God he repeatedly invokes him to answer his other nagging questions - a never ending circle. What is unworthy of analysis but telling are the sentimental anecodtes and unreconciled thoughts that casue him to reconsider his doubt of God and might be a basis of belief.
Knowledge,doubts, belief and faith are aspects of our nature and circumstances. We all have them. They clearly need not be dependent upon or related to religious belief. The importance of this is entirely overlooked. Rather Mr Humphrys seems to believe that they are concomitant with religious belief in God. It is not the case that if you have knowledge or doubts, beliefs and faith that you are invoking God.
Wigglesworth, Gachnang,
The real assent to God, as opposed to the notional,revolutionises one's life. John Humphrys, the God deniers never stop dodging the question raised by Aristotle and Aquinas( 3rd Way). Intelligence and design are mostly red herrings. No wonder the God deniers want us on this territory alone. Focus day and night on existence. That which cannot explain itself in its existence has to be explained by the Necessary One. Particles in energy or matter, alone or collectively, finite or infinite, are forever without explanation without the immaterial (spiritual). The imagination and tendency to materialise often impede recognising this vital truth.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk
Most atheists out there are perfectly happy to sit here silently whilst various religions battle it out with each other, in all senses of the word. One of Dawkins’ main aims as I understood it was to challenge the sacrosanct, the previously unchallengeable, and to encourage those who countenance religion to justify themselves. His arguments are based as far as possible on science – many would agree this is a logical means to debate the Big Question.
The problem with any form of belief (whether that is in a religion or a football team) is that it tends to bring out attrition between the parties involved. So far, atheists have kept out of the battle but now, it seems, we are being somewhat reluctantly drawn in to hostilities. To those who see how divisive religion can be in today’s society and who seek to bring debate to the forefront, it must actually be rather ironic to witness how they are becoming the new subject of attack.
Phil, London,
I think John's illustration that faith is like marriage is a good one. What you say about belief doesn't matter at all until you make a commitment. It's when you live it that it becomes real. I guess I am about John's age and I also was brought up in an era when being a Christian was just assumed. From the 1960s there has been a steady dismantling of received wisdom; a freedom for a million minds to make up their own reason to be. The natural arrogance of the young is to throw off their fathers' faith. I am a medical professor with many degrees, publications and honours in my field. Perhaps I am not as smart as Dawkins but for me there came a time when the only way to find out what the water was like was to jump in. Let me tell you that I have not regretted it. And yes I am an evangelical and a creationist. It has always been the case that men will shake their fist and scoff at God. One of His character traits is to be long-suffering. His offer of forgiveness remains.
Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK
Surely the only certainty is agnosticism - WE DO NOT KNOW. We cannot conceptualise 'God' and have created him/her/it in our own image, not the other way round. Religion, especially monotheistic religion has been a neat tool of social control through the ages. "Be a good chap or chappess and do as I say in this life, and you'll be rewarded in the next." Clearly we are a part of something bigger, but the doubt is whether we are significant enough ever to have that knowledge. Or are we no more or less important than the insect that splats agains the car windscreen? Maybe after this life we'll go on somewhere else, maybe we'll be re-cycled, or perhaps we'll simply be dead for eternity
Richard, Bexhill, East Sussex
Agnosticism is the only logical position a thoughtful human being can adopt. Once understood properly, it ends the futile and barren debate about whether God exists or not. Atheists (if by this is meant people who believe that there is no God) are in just as a rationally untenable position as believers. This is why it has to be said that Dawkins, although interesting on religion, shows his intellectual limitations. It's probably due to the influence of Western mind training, which tends to take a binary approach to everything. Try agnosticism, which simply says that there is no way of knowing and it is therefore not necessary to hold an opinion on the matter. Humphrys need not have wasted all that space agonising over the role of religion. People believe lots of things for no rational reason. So long as they don't impose their nutty and not-so-nutty ideas on others, I don't have a problem with them.
Chie, Tokyo, Japan
great article
chris, belfast,
Stick with the original questions you had as a boy.....and keep asking them and others like it. It may not offer up to you specific answers immediately, but may lead you to asking further questions, and it won't close you off from the beginnings of 'answers' should one or more decide to arrive! Question ongoingly...!
Tarni, London, UK
If faith is no more than a comfort blanket, why a comfort blanket that asks its followers to forgive and love their enemies, to serve the lowest of the low etc. Surely if man made this comfort blanket could have been made, well, more comfortable.
andrew, sheffield, uk
Which of the commandments contain the basic rules of morality?
Do not steal and do not murder, possibly. But then there are a few too many of them that are really all about having only one, true, christian god and having respect for certain people only because you are blood relations. Not much of a moral guideline there.
Per Edman, Stockholm, Sweden
"He may have many useful and persuasive things to say but there is something deeply mistaken about thinking love is simply reducible to the chemistry of the brain."
Oh really? And why is that? Because you wish to believe it?
Rick, Seattle,
Wow. As a doubting christian - it's good to be able to read someone else's opinions and realise that my own doubts are not sinful, as such - but human. I hope this article inspires others to be a little more open minded about others beliefs, and dis-beliefs - as it has done for me. Thankyou.
Jam Marie, Mount Gambier, SA, Australia
It really doesn't matter what you think about the devout atheists. They still have more of a rational basis for thinking as they do.
One shouldn't go about believing in things because they are convenient, or serve as some justification for things you want yourself or other people to do (such as act morally, or "have a purpose"). You believe in them because you have a damn good reason to think they are true.
I don't have such a reason for any god, much as I might like to believe in one, the things I would ALSO have to believe... to be consistent in my thinking... are uncountable. Maybe the believers are the only ones who get a God by virtue of living in a subtly different universe than I and only interact at the margins.
Sure, add that to the list of things I could also believe in for no reason.
Chris, Las Vegas, USA/NV
Sir
I feel obliged to respond to your septet with one of my own:
1. The clause subtended by "so what?" could be responded to with a resounding "So the scientific minded, whom we should trust on most matters, are disinclined to believe in God, and we should be at least curious as to why.
2. Neither booze nor imaginary friends are a good thing for a balanced individual to have. perhaps Bibles are similar.
3. Threatened with hell, a dying person might tend towards the safe option rather than sanity, in spite of evidence, through perfectly sensible cowardice.
4. Yes, but children escape indoctrinated religion to atheism or agnosticism, neither of which are indoctrinated.
5. Yes you can bully someone into believing – It's called brain-washing.
6. Mad mullahs aren't the only threat, I know someone who exorcised an epileptic, and Abortion clinics are constantly being blown up.
7. If the evidence said there was a god, the there would be no atheists. The truth is, it just doesn't.
Rohan Oliver Kandasmy, Bideford, Devon
The atheist are the stupid ones. They refused to believe that they will burn in hell for all eternity. There is really no point in trying to convince these people as they are the minority as God puts the belief in us when we were created. That is why there are very few geniune atheist if the truth were known. The physical body dies but the spirit lives forever. So everyone has eternal life, it is where you will spend it. Imagine a world full of atheist? There will be no accountability charity justice compassion purpose worth morals mercy regrets guilt sin compassion and hope. Who do think run orphanges, soup kitchens, red cross, Salvation army, life line, op shops, youth camps, and many other charitable organisations? The atheist? CERTAINLY NOT.!! The atheists think about no one except themselves and if the world is full of them, it would be like HELL. So dont be so proud to be one of them, we dont envy you, we feel sorry for you that your life is so worthless.
Virginia, Brisbane, Australia
Excellent article. While I could add quite a few quibbles with it, I am nonetheless very impressed with it overall. It is all too rare to find any article these days which can be said to be fair to the opposite camp in any argument. Civility, fairness, judiciousness, tolerance are too often reserved only for those in harmony with one's own beliefs. Contempt is heaped upon those who disagree.
As a person with a strong and passionate belief in God, I am very appreciative of the tone of this article. It offers me many good insights and is intellectually challenging. It also respects my intelligence as a believer and as a human being.
We could use many more writers like this. Mr Humphrey has my thanks.
Peggy Rapier , Dallas, TX, USA
With all due respect, none of the atheists/agnostics that I know reflect any of the 7 listed reasons. Rather, they speak of the 1) ludicrous strories in the Old testament (the Flood, Adam and Eve, etc); 2) the genocidal actions throughout the Old Testament (1st Samuel 15 for instance); 3) the punishment of innocents throughout the Bible (70,000 killed for David doing a census); etc. And there are many other reasons. Haven't heard about the 7 reasons listed here before tho'.
Bob, Rapid City, USA
Oh dear, only 1000 characters to comment on this ... If Giles Fraser had "faith" in Marx, he was never an atheist but a believer. (Don't get me wrong, Marx was a great thinker, but he got some things wrong.) Fraser then saw through his faith. So he had to find a new belief - e.g. religion. -- If the author prayed every night for 50 years, he was never an atheist either, so he is certainly not a failed athesit now. -- In short, the author is saying: Faith is not logical. But it's a big comfort. So what does it matter if it's irrational? Believe and you will be happy. -- He mentions "arrogant" atheists. No. Atheists simply have the best arguments. They criticise the false arguments of the believers, as well as their telling us we have no morals and are destined for hellfire. -- And why this obsession for an "explanation" of our existence? Why should there be an explanation? And even if there is an explanation, neither believers nor atheists know it. At least atheists admit it.
alan, cologne,
For the intellectually honest, atheism is also a matter of faith. It is difficult to prove a negative. There is no absolute proof of the non-existence of god(s), though the lack of proof for his/her/their existence is suggestive.
Atheism is therefore a belief, rather than a lack of it. Understand that, and it becomes clear that is has both the tolerant and the fanatics, like any other faith.
What needs to be opposed, is the abuse of faith as a tool of statecraft. Many, wrongly, believe that this abuse is restricted to religion. However, the twentieth century provided examples of the abuse of both religious and non-religious faith.
Condemn the fanatics by all means, but please do not reserve the even-handedness only to religion..
D Walsh, Skipton,
Having studied philosophy at Oxford and theology at Cambridge, I am absolutely convinced that there is indeed a God. However, I am equally convinced that human beings can know next to nothing about him, her or it. People who claim to know 'the will of God' are seriously deluding themselves and the rest of us. I can't help observing that atheists and agnostics tend to cause far less havoc in the world than religious fanatics of whatever persuasion.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, U.K.
So much time spent investigating, so little insight. Characteristic of the whining 'surely Minister' John Humphries we hear far too much about. How we miss his 'Today' predecessors. How poorly quantity substitutes for quality.
Rob, Reading,
It seems to me that John Humphrys' thinking is muddled. Clear your head by reading 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris (Bantam Press, London,2007)
BARRY O'BRIEN, Brentwood, Essex
I do wish someone could come up with some new arguments! This, and Dawkins, and the periodic anti-god bestsellers are simply repetitions of a scientific and philosophical stalemate. The remarkable thing is that people buy them: presumably the same people each time.
There is no satisfactory way of resolving the debate of science v. religion, partly because they are about different things, and partly because they are not in conflict with each other, as atheist propagandists would have us accept. There are no scientific "proofs" that any scientist would accept. So where do we go from here?
It ought to suffice to note that there are many people in this world who have faith in a divine being, called God by a high proportion of them, and that their number includes many distinguished scientists. Until some new understanding, new source of knowledge, new kind of debate emerges, neither side can "prove" anything to the satisfaction of the other.
Vincent Coles, Forfar,
What is the point of life without GOD ?
Bernard Parke, GUILDFORD,
The argument of Dawkins et al is as much about interference in secular society as it is about proving or disproving the existence of a 'god' or creator. It is now an old argument, dating back to the Frech and American Revolutions, but the basic concept is that of separation of church and state. It was applicable in the days of a single religion (if Christianity, even then, could be described as such), but is even more relevant now, with competing faiths such as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Flying Spaghetti Monster(s).
I have no objection at all to religion, when practised in private between consenting adults, but do object to religious indoctrination in schools; religious representation in parliament; charitable status of any religion (just for being a 'religion'); and numerous other benefits enjoyed by the religious. Another of these benefits is a the polite protection from the normal challenges which we would otherwise expect of statements made or positions taken.
Martin Thomas, Stoke on Trent, UK
Oh how I agree with John Humphries' words in the article above. It clearly summarises my thoughts on where I stand as either an athiest or agnostic and I can now say ,with some certanty that I fall into the later camp.
Peter Fryett, Torquay, Devon
It seems to me, after experiencing the misery of my Mother's death, that religion is a candle in the dark. Death is so black and frightening that Man has created a belief to bring himself comfort.
I do not have that belief, so when my Mother left me, for a long time I questioned the point of her life, and mine. Now I have come to understand that we are simply a part of the animal kingdom. The point of my Mother's life was having a daughter, the point of mine was having a son. Lions, dolphins and ants get along without God, and so shall I.
Dorothy Land, Suffolk, UK
John Humphrey's continuing search for 'God' is slighly confusing/irritating. He seems to think that 'God' can be discovered 'out there' by doing the sort of 'research' used by academics. It seems to me that he confuses 'God' with 'organised religion' where 'one' of these religions just possibly may have the 'True God' as their leader.
I believe that you haven't yet discovered 'God' yet John, but wonder if you've ever really 'needed' 'Him'. You appear to want 'something' - but you won't find 'it' by searching 'outside of yourself'. So, John, while you say you want to find 'God' - perhaps in reality you don't 'need' 'Him' yet - when you do you can be sure that 'He' is and always has been available - and my experience is that you tend to find you're on your knees at that time - praying!
Angela, Hastings, East Sussex
Christianity can be tested by whether the Resurrection occurred or not (1 Cor15).
Secular and hostile sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Talmud and the Toledoth Jeshu testify of the crucifixion of Jesus and the empty tomb. That blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side indicates heart failure and we can be certain He was dead. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead where is His body? The disciples started proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where the Priests could have produced the body if they knew where it was, ending Christianity. Why would the disciples steal Jesus’ body? How did they get past the Roman guard? Why did they die horrendous deaths for something they knew to be a lie? Paul writes (1 Cor15:6) that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at one time and says if you don’t believe me you can go ask them. He appeared to different kinds of people including the sceptical Thomas (Jn20:24-29) and Paul who was attempting to stamp out Christianity (Acts9).
Timothy Grant, Ross-on-Wye,
Did Mr. Humphrys really just confuse materialism (i.e. dealing with the physical world without positing supernatural explanations) with materialism (i.e. love of possessions)? It really seems like he did. And if so, I'm not sure how an argument based on someones illiteracy should convince anyone.
Non-believers are not consumerists, nor do we advocate that children aspire to be Beckams. We are just people, people with all sorts of different values and opinions on things like that, like any group of people. The only thing we have in common is that we don't happen to agree that supernatural explanations explain anything for us.
Humphrys does not understand Dawkins' criticisms of religious arguments. As such, his comments on them are pointless.
Bad, Cleveland, US
As a Christian, it appears to me the author makes the point well that belief comes only from faith, and not from any sort of human proof or reasoning.
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans 10:17. That is, faith comes from a personal confrontation with the truths of God--one can accept those truths or not. Much rides on that decision. At the end of time, the Great White Throne judgment awaits the unbeliever. Revelation 20:10-15.
The basic tenets of the Christian faith are contained in three verses of the Bible: John 3:16, 17, and 18. The whole of the Christian faith is built around those three verses.
The angry atheists are part of a worldwide satanic attack on Chritianity (yes, I believe there is a real Satan). No matter what they may call me, it is not me they are attacking--it is Almighty God. And, they are going to lose. Christ built the church on Himself--"and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA
It was Anselm, not Augustine, who wrote of faith seeking understanding.
Paul Halsall, Manchester,
I think you've mistaken the "militant" attitude of prominent atheists as simply asking blunt questions of an institution that has received an unbalanced level of respect and non-questioning for centuries. I just didn't get the "ranting" vibe from The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) that people say it contains. It seemed pretty calm and level-headed. It seems as though you still have a great deal of empathy with the Christian church and have grown up in a 1950s society with it deeply entrenched, so hard questions (and many books all in a short space of time) probably seem like a personal attack in some way.
Joseph, Bath, UK
i beleive that we are being watched over,everyone must have faith,to keep us united as a family.i pray,it helps one beleive someone is showing us the way.
may, sittingbourne,
Speaking as an atheist I don't consider faith as a matter of intelligence; many intelligent people believe all sorts of weird things (astrology, homeopathy). I also don't begrudge people their faith. What irritates me and other atheists is that religion refuses to be a personal thing. It feels compelled to impose its beliefs on the rest of us.
I don't want my children to go to a 'faith-based' school. I think women should be free to decide whether to have an abortion or not. I think muslims should be free to leave their faith without fear of a death sentence. I think Iran should stop executing homosexuals.
From the above extract Humphreys makes religion seem both benign and tolerant, which sometimes it is, but is it really too much to ask that those of us who do not believe in any God be allowed to live our lives free of its excessive dogma?
Tony Youens, Ripley, Derbyshire
Being an intellectual (if he will accept that description) John Humphrys may find certain books a useful introduction to understanding Christianity. The following are offered with great trepidation - one man's meat is another's poison - but I suggest the following:-
The Roots of Christian Mysticism (Olivier Clement)
Christ the Eternal Tao (Hieromonk Damascene)
Books by Archbishop Anthony Bloom
Books by John Main OSB
Also, with even greater trepidation, a book of prayers, in the form of poems - 'My God, My Glory' by Eric Milner-White. Prayers are so personal that I suggest this reluctantly. They are in traditional language, but if read slowly, aloud, they will at least show what is at the heart of Christianity (as will the other books), whether you accept it or not.
I would guess that for most doubters, they are trying to conceptualise God. But God is not a concept of the human mind.
Dave, Wrexham,
"In the end, it comes down to whether the world would be a better place without religion;"
Maybe, if by 'it' you mean wishful thinking.
rodrigo, santiago,
I was reared Episcopalian, but found myself a doubting Thomas. I stayed in the church until it in America seemed to shut people out. I found myself a-theisttic having theism and the study of theology not relevant to living day-to-day. I am also agnostic, not sure of God's existence, but not inclined to think I made the universe myself. A book by V. Frankl seemed to have an answer to the meaning of life. Without debating the existence of God, Life itself demands a response, and our choices give meaning to our life. Do unto others, first do no harm are both valuable precepts. I agree that religion is a comfort, but so is curiosity. I lived with a brave man dying, and he stayed alive in pain for me until it was time. Then he said, "I'm on my journey, aren't I?" . I hope it was to find peace, to sleep. He was a good man. Whether the gates of larger life opened or he lay down to dream, I won't know for a while.
Kate Martin, Lago Vista, Texas
It is entirely possible that God has abandoned the earth as a failed experiment and is active elsewhere in the universe. I find the dogmatic certainties of Muslims, Catholics and other fundamentalists who claim intimate acquaintance with the mind of God, absolutely risible. For all we know, God could easily be dead or a supercomputer. To paraphrase the Arctic Monkeys; Whatever we think God is, that is almost certainly what He is not. All we can do is to lead moral lives and when the time comes, pray that we have done enough to scrape into heaven - if it exists!
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
This is a wonderfully well written and articulate piece. However, I do take exception to the dismissal of the concept of "religious delusion". How else can you properly describe the continued belief in something that is obvious fiction?
I also think you make a mistake equating materialism, and by inference atheism, with consumerism and "the greatest aspiration of too many children is to become a 'celebrity'". If you can make this leap, then why is it not valid to equally critique as delusional the aspiration of mythologists to become angels?
As many atheists have noted before, it would be nice to have something that replaced religion -- not a belief in the false, but a way to get the big questions and messages across in a simple fashion that people can easily intellectually digest and cling to when in need. Religion, in it's current form that relies on the supernatural and dogma, is not an answer. Raw atheism is neither. Humanism could be expanded to offer such a set of answers. Are there others?
Aaron Sakovich, Madison, Alabama, USA
I don't believe in god at all. But neither do believe in the atheist's belief in rationalism - taht's what it is is, a belief - a mechanism to cope with the uncertainties of the world. I found the article very balanced, and that is what we need. Dawkins likes to act as if he knows the so-called truth that doesn't exist anyway
steven, Birmingham,
I can put up with most of this thread as simply uninformed but "militant" atheists??
In what possible remote definition of the word "militant" does this apply to any atheist?
You should be fully ashamed of yourself.
Marc Hall, Sunderland, Tyne & Wear
Interesting article, but it conflates different things.
(1) Does "god" exist? (2) How do we feel about our lives (3) How should we live our lives?
Making sense of our lives without a belief in god is a bit like science - it requires a lot of knowledge, much discussion, and is a lot more complex than "obey god's commandments". John is right that some people want to believe. It is a shortcut to comfort, community, and rules to live by. But it is a delusion. Convenient for many individuals, sure, but it limits horizons, and is deeply damaging to modern humanity when it gets political power and enforces rules for everyone based on beliefs about "what god has ordered". I welcome prominent atheists standing up and saying "it's a delusion". I don't regard that as militant.
Don, London, UK
It pains me that even after reading this article, some people will still comment that 'it is about time that all intelligent people started speaking out' against faith. His point is that some intelligent people DO believe. It's impossible to explain why, and perhaps it sounds strange to one raised on science and taught it as fact. But the fact is that in a couple of centuries much of our modern day science will be out of date and considered foolish, whereas the chances are that faith will live on greatly unchanged.
Meg, Pembs,
Perhaps it's just me but I sometimes wonder whether there is really as little mileage in 'philosophical theology' and its arguments for the existence of God as seems to be assumed commonly. As someone still broadly convinced intellectually by things like the work of theistic philosophers such as Richard Swinburne or Béla Weissmahr, I sometimes miss intelligent discussion (even critical) of their work in debates such as this. Even in terms of science, I wonder why we never discuss Simon Conway-Morris when we discuss Dawkins? Perhaps I am just reading the wrong books...
Bernard Sixtus, Abergavenny, Wales
Dear RJ from the Channel Islands: Why are you so uncivil? What a pity that apparently civilised people who read newspapers and engage in discussions are routinely intolerant and insulting. It is a feature of our society and does not surprise us.
Mike MSN, Midsomer Norton, UK
Why do people believe in science and accept it when so much of it is man made theory. Is it because it is a convenient answer to the religious alternative of an all loving and wise creator/fabricator (God) which they cannot accept. It is obvious that if there is an entity called God he/it is evil, malicious and a grand deceiver. There is no sign at all of a loving, caring, all-powerful God. During the past 120 years, over 200 million people have been killed by the deliberate acts of violence of other people. The perventage chance of you dieing peacefully bed surrounded by loved ones is not good. The reality is fear of dying, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, thepainful infirmity, and all the indignities that come with old age. If there is an unseen hidden designer and fabricator of everything it is obvious, he/it is Satan using an alias. It is easier to believe in fairies than a all loving good God....
Robert Fletcher, Eastbourne, Sussex
All I know is this world would have been a much more peaceful place for the last 'god knows' how many centuries if there was no such thing as religion!
M Roberts, Kowloon, Hong Kong
At least John tries to understand the subject and get his head around it. Atheists have decided God is not there and indeed why should anyone believe he is there. This of course is missing the point. Why do you need not to have God in the picture, a decision based on false assumptions I fear. A literalist who cannot see the bigger picture. That picture never takes anything away from the majesty of nature or the universe.
Militant Athesits have for the best part done the thing a bigot does by holding on to false assumptions based on not understanding your subject.. They too believe things that cannot be proven e.g. religion is bad for your health. I could go on. The theist is not perfect true and yes there bad people who yes believe in God but their are bad people who do not. This I am afraid is the history of human esperience.
Steve, Buckhurdt Hill,
Used to believe(as a child)Then as I grew up I became an agnostic keeping mt opitions open-I wanted to believe but couldnt accept the logic.Finally I had an epiphany and became an athiest,I saw the light.Like the scales falling from my eyes,it was almost religious in its simplicity.
There is no God.
vince richardson, sunderand, tyne and wear
Having studied philosophy at Oxford and theology at Cambridge, I am absolutely convinced that there is indeed a God. However, I am equally convinced that human beings can know next to nothing about him, her or it. People who claim to know 'the will of God' are seriously deluding themselves and the rest of us. I can't help observing that atheists and agnostics tend to cause far less havoc in the world than religious fanatics of whatever persuasion.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, U.K.
"...militant atheists and their supercharged campaign ..."
I can't remember any occasion when any Pope has expressed any doubt about Christianity being anything other than an "absolute truth". This must mean all Popes are "militant theists with a supercharged campaign"?
The same obviously goes for countless "militant" priests, rabbis, reverends, pastors, imams from every religion, who devote their whole lives pushing their beliefs onto others.
Unlike all of these "fanatics", humble atheists may merely spend just a few hours here and there on a book, article or blog (while spending most of their time doing other useful jobs and activities).
bill, towoomba,
I can sort of see where John's coming from with this article but to come down so hard on what he calls "the arrogance of militant atheists" seems a bit odd.
I'd accept there are a few atheists who try to force their non-belief onto others (Richard Dawkins is the only one who springs immediatelty to mind) but they are very few and far between. Most atheists are quietly bemused by the illogical nature of religions and those that follow them without making a big deal out of it.
More often than not it's religions who try to impose their beliefs on others since to "spread the word" and convert others is a key component of a lot of religions.
Personally I believe that mankind's ability to understand the world is limited but growing all the time. Thanks to a thing called science. Unlike religion, science evolves and can be revised as we understand more about the world. Unlike religion, Science is a beginning not an end, it doesn't pretend to have all the answers or that it ever will.
Martin, Bristol, UK
Isn't this the same John Humphrys that gives maniacal Islamists an easy ride on his English/Western/American hating BBC show? Thought so.
Dave B, Stoke, uk
I'm not sure creationism means you're stupid- i believe in creation, and i'm a biochemist/microbiologst, and by many standards (hopefully!) am therefore not stupid...
Matt, Newcastle Upon Tyne,
I too was brought up in a church-going environment, but I was never gripped by any interest in religion and I never really believed my father s apparent attachment. It was only much later that I found out how much of a contrived convenience it was. Religion has always been highly politicised, and it is as much so today as ever, I submit. Henry VIII and his cronies enormously increased their wealth by pillaging the Church on the excuse of Reformation. That is to say that I suspect the church property was as much their concern as the theory. These suicide bombers are somewhat continuing this tradition. They are political not religious fanatics. It is the associated politics, most obviously property-based in Israel, that is the problem, not the particular set of beliefs. We may always doubt the existence of God but there is no doubting the manner in which these divisions are exploited.
Henry Percy, London, UK
I enjoyed your article John. I say thank "god" for your muddle, as I am sure it is where the majority of people are, and indeed what makes us human. Having read through all the commments that have been sent in, I find it intresting that the emails with the most aggressive responses to your thoughts come from the devout sceptics, ironic since they blame all war on religion - but hell Hitler and Stalin were good Atheist boys without conviction who never did anyone harm.
One of my friends is a Minister. I don't feel the need to share his conviction, but neither do I feel the need to prove him wrong. And as far as I can tell, he does way more for the commmunity than I do. It seems non believers are becoming as guilty as those they accuse of trying to enforce their views on society as the believers they chastise. Which for want of a better phrase seems a terribly un-Christian attitude to adopt.
alan gambles, wirral,
Mr. Humphrys, your defense of subjectivity is unnecessary.
People differ. Some like country music; some prefer rock 'n roll. Only the most egocentric insist that everyone's taste must be the same.
Insofar as religion admits a subjective, personal basis, it's not a problem. But religion which goes beyond the subjective - religion which makes claims about our <i>shared</i> reality - is a serious problem in our increasingly global society.
If you've ever shared a flat, you know how personal space differs from common space. You can play any music you like in your room. But you've got to check with your flat mates before you crank up the radio in the kitchen.
Likewise, we must insist upon corroborative evidence when arguing for social policies that affect us all. Personal experiences which can't be corroborated can't be take seriously in the context of civil discourse. This doesn't mean that these experiences aren't real or important to the people who have them
Hugo Ball, Boston, MA
im homeless disabeld vet i have found the faith based and recovery probgram s neck in neck in meanness and discirmination against the disabeld.
in programs and services.
and yet they seem to get along well.
go figure.
macdoodle, bay area, usa/ca
You say, "you cannot reduce life to a set of provable realities". Personally I think you can, but even if I am wrong, exactly how does making up an invisible friend clarify anything?
Adrian, Fremont, CA
The atheists you name are vocal, not militant. There is nothing wrong with being vocal. It is not militancy. They do not fly planes into buildings or worship a being that sends ppl to hell the same way some theists do.
You call some theists fanatics, but some not. Where do you draw the line? Every "fanatic" believed he was carrying out God's Word and was making the world a better place. Every extremists and fundamentalists believed it is a virtue to be extreme for his God and follow the fundamentals of his religion. You are saying it is only okay to not criticize religion as long as it's cherry picked the way YOU like it, the "religion lite" version.
Alexander Lee, New York, NY,
I object to Mr Humphrys talking about 'militant' atheists', which somehow equates them with militant religous people.
To me militant religious people justify killing those with contrary beliefs as it is prescribed by their holy books.
People like Dawkins merely demand that before you impose your beliefs on him, you must first prove they are true.
I suppose after half a lifetime praying to a god it is hard for Mr Humphrys to let go.
Martin Henderson, York,
I find it odd that Richard Dawkins is being portrayed as a militant. Is this the new derogatory term for someone who firmly advocates a point of view and backs it up with reasoned argument? For that is all that Dawins does. His language is far more temperate and civil than that used towards him by his critics.
Dawkins's main mission in life is to protect science, especially his own discipline of evolutionary biology, from being hi-jacked by the religious lobbyists in the USA. In this, he performs a valuable service to future generations of students. As the debate over evolution has become more polarised, Dawkins has covered a wider range of questions about religion and other mystic beliefs. Again, this may be seen as a useful counter to the increasing prevalence in supposedly advanced societies of belief in ghosts, crystals, witches and so-called New Age cults.
He may be enjoying the notoriety that comes with being a standard bearer for atheism but that hardly makes him a militant.
Sohail, New York, USA
Absolute drivel.
"...the arrogance of militant atheists." I have never had an atheist knock on my door in an attempt to convert me.
"And here’s the interesting thing: it was only the atheists who seemed absolutely certain." If some supreme being popped up and showed, without doubt, that it existed, I doubt that a single atheist would maintain their position. Conversely, no matter how much proof was provided to a believer that god did not exist, very few would shift.
There are so many other statements in this piece which could be commented on as rubbish but, as I note Mr H mentions writing a book, the sceptic in me thinks that a reactionaly response is what he seeks. Not worth the time to react, and probably the same goes for his book.
RJ, Channel Islands,
Why does Humphreys (and many others) always insist on hanging the "militant" adjective onto "atheist"? Who amongst atheists is running around behaving in a "militant" fashion? It's complete unjustified rubbish.
The real reason is to try and make us into an undesirable, socially unacceptable "out-group". History has shown us you can do what you like with out-groups.
Use of the word militant is unecessary and weak Humphreys. To me it always seems to give arguments in favour of an extra cosmic space daddy a certain desperate quality.
Martin S, Blackburn, UK
Atheism is not a belief system. By definition it is a lack of belief or faith that any supernatural being(s) exist: it is not a positive assertion of the belief that God does not exist, but a negative claim of an individual's LACK OF BELIEF that God exists - there is a difference here. Atheism is the absence of belief rather than the belief that there exists no good. At least this is my understanding having recently taken A-Level Religious Studies.
Maire, London, UK
John Humphrys falls into the trap of calling atheists "militant" when all they are doing is pointing out the absurdity of the beliefs of the religious and their insistence that everyone else must believe as well. Comparing religious belief to love is one thing, and of course when someone falls in love, they don't draw up a table of pros and cons and make an entirely rational decision; but neither do they insist that other people fall in love with that same person. We also need to distinguish between "militant" atheism and secularism. What the religious want to do is continually interfere in public life, e.g. the persecution of homosexuals was maintained with religious backing. Why the recent attacks on a human phenomenon which for the most part is harmless? Why not just attack the extremists? To summarise I will refer you to Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith who points out that it is like taking care of the healthy blood supply that feeds the cancerous tumour.
Stewart Ware, London,
Mr. Humphrys, perhaps you are looking in the wrong place for your answers. Religion has lost it's way somwhat.over the centuries; may I suggest that you forget all that you have learned so far, study the Bible without pre-conceptions and see what it has to say. Good luck in your journey!
lynn, worcs,
Thank you for your article. When one of my daughters was three years old and her maternal grandfather died she saw that my wife was sad and to comfort her said ' Don't worry Mummy granpa sees you with God's eyes '. Augustine and Anselm were right; one must believe in order to understand. There's the rub; but in my case it been abundantly worth it. Now I believe that Christ did live, he was crucified for all of us, he did rise again on the third day , he did found the church catholic and apostolic and when we die we shall see him in glory and be judged by him.
Philip Panter, Mirano (Venezia), Italy
Ooh look, ten straw men in a row. You don't often see that. No, hang on, it's the internet, you see that all the time. I don't know why I expected better from John Humphrys but I did.
Bob, London, UK
I admit that this article resonates well with me, a regular church (C/E) goer - mainly for the village community who puts up with the ancient message as a penance for the contact with the community. However, amazed to see that I can purchase his book on Amazon at £8.98 plus postage! How do they do it?
Bob Smith, Clifton, Bedfordshire, UK
Love and religion what is the difference? Here is what Mr Davison would have said if he substituted ‘love’ for 'religion':
“It is fairly clear that there is no discernable truth in love and the inevitable question is why we still need it. The argument seems to rest with the moral framework it provides, a moral sense of worth for life in the 21st century. But if we allow our social conscience to be built around love we cannot prove then are we not building our morality on false foundations. The contradictions are evident. Thou shalt not kill and yet millions have died in the name of love and yet love allows us a way out of such dilemmas. The holes in an unprovable love are big enough to allow a considerable number of human weaknesses to slip through the net unchecked. The voices that question this moral framework that society has built over the centuries must be given a platform if we are to build a society based on sound moral principals.â€
While we are at it, lets do away with love?
A, Blackmore, UK
An excellent analysis & echo's my own feelings to a point.
I believe in the comfort blanket theory, & understand fully the physical & psychological returns of a 'family' found in the church.
Coming from a religious family, [ mother a Methodist lay preacher,] has made me question everything as I matured & had my own family.
I was free to choose & live my own way, what I find so sad , is the fear of reliquishing all ties with the church, Catholics & Mulims being the worst to 'get away' from.
Their belief in the afterlife creates a real problem for them to leave ,& of course in a Muslim country this is backed by law.
In my view it is a cruel , unloving thing to do to children, the indoctrination of a non optional dogma.
The panic I have seen of a Catholic girl delayed for her confession, was tragic to witness, same with other controlling ' faiths' who believe they will be punished in some way by their imaginary friend for not attending prayers.
I am free of it & love life without fear
Maggie Millington, Brittany , France
Faith can be rooted in intellect. Read "More than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell to start and then follow that up with as much Chesterton ("If you don't believe in God you have to believe in everything else") as you have time for . There is also the evidence of documented miracles and the simple fact that even "science" agrees that inanimate matter cannot create life out if itself.
20th century Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China have given us solid examples of the benefits of living without freedom to worship as we choose. Two bumper stickers summarize it all: "Are you following Jesus this closely" and "If you are living like there is no God, you'd better be right."
Going to Church Today, Simsbury, Connecticut, USA
So, in order for John Humphreys to keep his security blanket (his own analogy), he thinks “Militant Atheists†shouldn’t attack beliefs which, for instance, deny equal rights for gay people in the USA, which locked up “immoral†women in the Magdalene laundries of Ireland and which strive to prevent accurate scientific knowledge being used to fight AIDS in Africa this very second.
And we shouldn’t be dismissive of these cherished beliefs?
Rubbish.
If he needs security, I suggest Mr Humphreys tries sucking his thumb in the future and stops trying to defend the indefensible.
Evolution furnished him with a brain complex enough to experience love, he does no credit to his species when he is apparently too afraid to use its capacity for reason.
AJ Gibbs, London,
John your last sentence surprised me somewhat:You say:In the end, if we make a mess of things, we shall have ourselves to blame – not religion and not God. After all, he doesn’t exist. Does he?
Now wait a minute. I was born a Muslim and know that this behavior is taught to Muslims as children. You call it brain washing. Children are easily susceptible to it. Only yesterday, i was having a Donor kebab when two bearded men came over and started conversation. Out of politeness, when I told them that i am from a Muslim country, I said that I am a muslim. Now they wanted me to come with them to a mosque and pray with. When I refused they started telling me the importance of Namaz. Will you believe me I was lost for arguments. These people do not understand any arguments at all. So too much religion can be harmful. Or brainwashes you.
Sharlone, Nidderau, Germany
borrowed from elsewhere:
Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.
"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4, but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.
"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.
"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"
DerrickB, London,
One thing that really stands out for me in this whole debate is the implied concept that both Church and Belief are inseparable. Having just started on a intellectual journey of reading through the philosophy of religion something I was struck with is that there is a lot of talk of God and faith but none/little of the actual necessity of a church. What about religious Anarchism?
Having watched Richard Dawkins on TV, I know not the same as reading he's book, he admits himself that technically as a scientist he is an agnostic, but he feels that there is no god, he makes an assumption but what is that assumption actually based upon? I am sure that there are some good arguments to counter this and I'd be interested to read them, however there is something about the aggression that he attacks the Religious that smacks of hyprocacy to me. He accuses the religious of bigotry and intolerance when he himself refused to shake the hand of a man purely because of he's religious beliefs.
Stephen, Maidstone, UK
Could I suggest you look at 'A Course in Miracles'. I'm a lapsed Catholic and this has totally changed my life. It takes a pretty radical view of 'the world' but for me it seems to answer many of the questions you ask - questions that led me to rejecting 'religion' as well as athiesm.
Angela, Hastings, East Sussex
A very good article - better than most hack pieces written at the moment on this sort of subject. I particularly applaud the fact that the author understands that for a believer faith comes before reason and therefore faith cannot be reasonably explained - however frustrating that may be to the believer and unbeliever alike.
Benjamin , gloucester,
My father is suffering from cancer. A cure to his cancer could have been found already if there were fewer restrictions to stem cell research. He will likely get worse and fall into a state of extreme agony. And when he gets to the point where he is broken by pain and suffering he cannot receive the help of a doctor to end his own life. There are restrictions on stem cell research and doctor assisted suicide precisely because of the religious beliefs of god-believers.
Mr. Humphrys, I have only a minor distaste for strict deism. In my anecdotal experience, I find that there are few if any strict deists. Nearly everyone who believes in a god also belives that their god(s) have something to say about the universe.
Christopher McLaughlin, Flint, MI
Maybe there is no single perfect way to answer the "Big Questions". But just as Democracy is not the perfect system of government, it is better than the alternatives; Rationality, which tends to lead one to athiesm, is better than the alternatives. To believe otherwise is harmful. Just ask my dad.
Christopher McLaughlin, Flint, MI
It's amazing how little doubt a lot of atheists have about their beliefs given that they have to believe that life, love and everything is the result of directionless chance. God is not obvious, he can only be percieved if the will allows. God does not impose He proposes. I admire John's sincerity in trying to make his way out of this "muddle" because he's swimming rather than sinking, and although he will never prove to himself or to any one else God's existance he will eventually arrive at the shore and then he will see the "point of all this speculation"
Paul Mac Manus, Barcelona,
I am not a militant atheist. I am, however a atheist who becomes militant when I am made,by law, to do (or not do )things because a GOD has said so.
Until Aberfan, Dunblane and millions of other such murders are apologised for by this "all loving or seeing all merciful" GOD, I will never ever accept such a monster.
I have an vision of a heaven,it is where all people are loved.liked, not loved and not liked because of what they are not what God they actually listen to and obey.
If God wants to tell me something let him tell me not pass that responsibilty to another.
Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK
Is JH the reincarnation of Brian Redhead? Or do radio 4 presenters just enjoy fatuous wittering?
John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England
There is a way round this problem.
The basic rules of morality are embodied in the ten commandments, one more should be added -'Learn the ten commandments and live by them, be content and find heaven on earth'.
Because people adopt the 'Bully Syndrome', doing what they can get away with,they tend to break the commandments if it suits their convenience. By following my eleventh one, would encourage some to keep the others.
As in your article, with most things, for everyone in favour of a proposal, there is someone against it ! The T-POTT criteria explains this.
These are three of the items in a document entitled THE WORLD MUST COME DOWN TO EARTH, which in view, if adopted would bring this about.
arthur marson, huddersfield, west yorks
John, if our justice system operated on the concept of belief without evidence (i.e. faith), then there would be no justice in the world, and people would be sent to prison on unsubstantiated belief. To trust in the concept of faith is literally stupid. Faith allows you to believe whatever you want to believe (including any fantasy or any delusion which you might find attractive). Evidence-based belief (i.e. science), on the other hand, is a mental discipline which prevents you from believing in all kinds of fiction and fantasy. Faith is the only known psychological force which can cause human beings to live their lives according to the teachings of a paedophile, rapist, terrorist, mass murderer, criminal gangster godfather, warlord and ethnic cleanser. Please, you are an intelligent man and it is about time that all intelligent people started speaking out against the organised ignorance and mass delusion which has infected our society and may one day lead to a civil war.
Amina Hassan, manchester, uk
As a former adherent of the evangelical brand of Christianity and now an atheist I find it puzzling that John Humphrys still finds it necessary to cling to the "something other". There is no "ghost in the machine".
Evolutionary biology/neuroscience offers perfectly sufficient explanations of the subjective experiences that he perceives as evidences of "faith". This is entirely analogous to the scientific view of terrestrial nature and the cosmos that I presume he accepts and that underlies his rejection of the various religious myths.
As he very well knows, atheists react strongly against the assertions of the religious that only they have a legitimate claim to the basis of morality and have special privileges including immunity from criticism and riducule (e.g. "blasphemy"). Such attitudes have very real social and political consequences and therefore demand assertive rebuttal as instanced by the works of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens among many others.
Ian Norris, Chester, UK
Humphrys refers to studies of the relationship between intelligence and belief but instead of offering evidence to counter Dawkin’s claims, he dismisses them with “so clearly untrue it’s barely worth bothering with†and goes on with a a personal anecdote to prove his point. Not very scientific. He goes on to ask us to count the number of atheists in foxholes and cancer wards - has he done the research? We have survived 4000 years of monotheism but in the past mad mullahs were not armed with nuclear weapons. Humphrys focuses mainly on how religion makes people feel better and doesn’t think that the question of whether any of it is true should be important. He thinks religion is just a security blanket but that it’s bad form to convince anyone that they would be better off without it. At least an honest believer would stand up for their beliefs because they believed them to be true.
Tim Stephenson, Hull,
If all that theism and religious belief has to offer is a belief that optimism and love are worthwhile, then why not just concentrate on making those things important in one's life, and ditch the religious dogmas? Why try to have faith in something that you half-believe may be, or deep down believe is fantasy, just because it feels good to believe? That is not rational, sensible or necessary. It's pathetic.
Atheism does not imply nihilism. If it does to you, then you've got it wrong. There is too much beauty, wonder and love to be optimistic about. Life is too positive a thing to waste it pining for false gods.
frank, sydney,
I must admit that I find validity in the Judeo-Christian concept of the fall of man. Before the fall of man there was harmony amongst people and the animal kingdom. There was no killing and mankind was vegetarian. After the fall, bloodshed, strife, animal slaughter, murders. wars and other atrocities transpired and they still do. Today's human race is hard to bear , one can hopefully find some solace via concluding that we are in a fallen state.
Brien Comerford, Glenview, United States
It is fairly clear that there is no discernable truth in religion and the inevitable question is why we still need it. The argument seems to rest with the moral framework it provides, a moral sense of worth for life in the 21st century. But if we allow our social concsience to be built around a faith we cannot prove then are we not building our morality on flase foundations. The contradictions are evident. Thou shalt not kill and yet millions have died in the name of one god or another and yet religion allows us a way out of such dilemmas. The holes in an unprovable faith are big enough to allow a considerable number of human weaknesses to slip through the net unchecked. The voices that question this moral framework that society has built over the centuries must be given a platform if we are to build a society based on sound moral principals. A World without religion should not be equated to a bleak, meaningless existence - art, literature science etc have proved that time after time.
Anthony Davison, Widdington, Essex
What a load of confused and incoherent twaddle. Anyone who has prayed for half a century isn't going to take the risk of publicly accepting the reality that 'god' is merely a human creation - you're still seven John. As for the 'mystical' elements of religious belief - the 'where does it all come from' question - read 'Darwin's Cathedral' by David Sloan Wilson. It comes from group selection. If this is the best that 'failed atheism' can deliver then god help us all.
Brian Thomas, Cardiff, Wales
Let us assume that there is a God.
If there is a God then He/She must surely have a job description. Who would have drawn that up ? God Himself/Herself ? What are God's major responsibilities for results ? What are God's prime objectives ? Does God achieve His/Her objectives and meet His/Her major responsibilities ? Or, is He/She consistently failing ?
Most christians seem to claim that God's major responsibility, almost the sole reason for 'being', is to watch over and care for us. Where was God when those many devout people were crushed to death in His church in Peru during the recent earthquake ? Where is God when children need protecting from harm, even death by cruel murder ?
Oh, dear, God is failing to meet His/Her objectives and has done so for centuries. In the real world - i.e., not the make-belief World of Christians - God would have been sacked many years ago.
If God is 'out there' why no answer to your prayers ? I think the answer is that God has long gone ex-directory.
Jimmy, West Bridgford, Nottingham, England
I read Johns article and have to admit to my confusion. Does he believe that children are brainwashed into religion or not, and if he believes that they are, is it acceptable? Does he believe that religion is a threat to world peace or not? He mentions extreme islamism and "mad mullahs", yet claims there are bigger threats to world peace. Surely he can't mean George W Bush, the worlds most powerful man who hears voices in his head telling him what to do, claiming it's god talking to him. This article has all the hallmarks of a fence straddler. At least Christians have peace of mind believing they're off to a better place when they die. Whilst atheists can have a lie in on a sunday morning and not feel guilty about it. And the fence straddlers? All they get are sore balls.
david graham, lisburn, united kingdom
The churches could be brimming over with people on Sundays, all it needs is to tell the truth,not fairystories. Vicars should be trained psychologists and paid very highly to guide people to understand the enormous power of the brain in each and everyone of us,to inform us of the stupidity of harming others,to teach this to very young children then they would not be careless and lose their extremely valuable self respect. There is at the moment a very uncompassionate cold and psychotic thread running through society which is spoiling music,debate, films and theatre we have all seen it you only have to look at an old film of the 20s or 40s and you will be filled with proper emotions or hear old classical recordings. We may be afraid to lose religion as we have nothing to fill the void and fear that these psychotic ways may make for a worse world. Unfortunately we have little choice in this wmd century. I may have the key to it.
Keith, Chichester, Sussex
Having studied philosophy at Oxford and theology at Cambridge, I am absolutely convinced that there is indeed a God. However, I am equally convinced that human beings can know next to nothing about him, her or it. People who claim to know 'the will of God' are seriously deluding themselves and the rest of us. I can't help observing that atheists and agnostics tend to cause far less havoc in the world than religious fanatics of whatever persuasion.
Simon R. Gladdish, Swansea, Wales
I cannot agree with you more. Those that say there is no god are missing the point. The benefit of a model/construct (like god) is not in the infalibility of the model or in its perfect prediction of reality. The benefit of any model is in the insight it provides for a specific need/situation.
We can prove that god does not exist, but how does that help one live a better life? If it helps atheists spend less time worrying about the BIG questions and more time watching television, great.
Why does love, god, art, music, poetry move us? who knows, but I love listening to Bocceli. Just because there is no proof that it should make me feel good does not mean my enjoyment is false or not real.
Spiros, London,
A very moving and balanced argument, unlike those of Professors Dawkins and Grayling. Both the latter were factually inaccurate in their biblical critiques. In the case of Dawkins, very few biblical scholars now believe - as claimed in The God Delusion - that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. In Grayling's case no biblical scholar dates Paul's epistles in and around 150 AD. Get your facts right professors! As for the rational proofs of God's existence, modern philosophers mostly follow Wittgenstein in seeing their role as the invalidation of philosophical problems per se. The terminus of any philosophical argument about God's existence must be merely its possibility or impossibility. Dawkins' argument for probability is a serious category mistake both statistically and logically since faith (in God) is the paradigm case, as Fraser quite rightly pointed out. If Dawkins knew his Hebrews as well as his Darwin he would not have made this fallacious reductio ad absurdum.
Dr David Green, Athens, Greece
Faith does not mean unquestioning belief, it has more to do with trust. We don't trust just anybody, we judge, often subconciously, who is trustworthy and who is not. The more we know or love somebody the better able we are to ascertain their trustworthiness. Many people develop this relationship with God in much the same way they do with people around them. If belief or love were to base themselves on intellectual criteria only, neither would prosper very much. The list of pros and cons in both cases would often cancel each other out. The heart, not in the sentimental sense, iswhat makes the difference. This doesn't mean mushy feelings, but love which is the powerful vital force that can tear us in two.
I think it is a mistake to confuse the role of the heart in the search for God with some idea of a comfort blanket. The great defining feature that distinguishe man fom everything else in existance is his ability and tendency towards love, you have to explain love first.
Paul Mac Manus, Barcelona,
John.I agree with everything you say.(I was brought up by devout Methodists and went to church regularly till I left home.)Yes,Sartre is too bleak.If you follow the Christian ethic(but don't believe in the spiritual aspect,)it is ,as my late father told me when I professed my scepticism,a good place to start.I think it is a kindly faith not a judgemental one and I feel quite happy (and not at all guilty as I used to)about being a "devout sceptic"(Bel Mooney's phrase?)
H.D, W.s.M,
I am not sure that any of this takes us much further. There is too much of 'on the one hand this, but on the other hand that'. Since Mr Humphrys states right at the beginning that no one can arrive at any conclusion what is the point of all this speculation. I am sure that a dog or an eagle can get by quite happily without all this nonsense. A true atheist amongst whom I number myself believes that the so-called BIG QUESTION is worth about 10 seconds thought a year - no, make that a decade. I have just used up my ration for the foreseeable future.
Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England
Who is this god, John? There are millions of them. Selecting just one god to be doubtful about, begs millions of questions. Are you referring to Yahweh, the tribal god of the ancient Israelites. Are you referring the three-headed hybrid of Christian theology? Please make yourself clear. No wonder you're confused. If you start out in a muddle, you'll just sink deeper into it.
Hugh Caldwell, Diegem,