Sky High

Win Sky+HD for a year and a trip to Barcelona

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Sunday Times

September 2, 2007

In God we doubt

He went looking for God and ended up an angry agnostic – unable to believe but enraged by the arrogance of militant atheists. It’s hard to see the purpose of the world, he says, but don’t blame its evils on religion

John Humphrys

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: â€œIn 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, theyâ€™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,

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 â€œBlessing from Godâ€ 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 Godâ€™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 . . . canâ€™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? Religionâ€™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 Storeyâ€™s posts? Iâ€™ve scrolled down to read them and I can safely say that he has a very unusual grasp of physics. For example he said:

â€œMatter 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.

â€œMatter is only explained by immaterialâ€??? 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

Sky High

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

The downfall of the masters of the universes makes way for the masters of realism

In God we doubt

He went looking for God and ended up an angry agnostic – unable to believe but enraged by the arrogance of militant atheists. It’s hard to see the purpose of the world, he says, but don’t blame its evils on religion

Related Links