Todd! Hundreds of years from now people would still be raping and murdering fellow humans. There would still be pedophiles getting away from law. And there would be terrorism in the name of nationalism, religion, language and race wiping out huge numbers of innocent civilians. Just because these concepts survive for long they don't have to be accepted with a bowed head.

As for Dawkins dieing a miserable failure, at the end of the day, he cant be a bigger failure than millions of others who also die praying to any one of hundreds of Gods all around the world.

Instead of trying to shut up the voice of rationalism with such silly threats, you are welcome to turn your face away if you dont like what Dawkins says. We athiests have as much rights as you believers to say and do what we want.

Siva, Chennai, India

Hundreds of years from now, millions and millions of people will still be worshipping Jesus Christ as the Son of God. If Richard Dawkins is on a crusade to "destroy" Christianity, he is going to die a miserable failure.

Todd, Stockton, USA

In response to Pieter Hounslow. Dawkins does have the same rights as anyone to express his opinions. However he does not have the right meanly to insult his fellow scientists who dare question his ramblings. Yes the word pontificating is ironic - but accurate.

Do not read The God Delusion with an open mind: read it with a critical mind and draw your own conclusions without fear of being ridiculed by someone who is uncomfortably outside their sphere of knowledge and expertise.

Oooh yes, a long bibliography. That must make it true then...unless the bibliography consists largely of discredited sources.

Cain made claims about the shrinking number of believers and referred to a God Gene. Does he have any scientific support for either, or is he merely expressing untutored (uneducated) dogma?

Clive Hoare, Carmarthen, Wales

Philosophy these days generally starts off from a pre defined position, and then triumphantly announces it's conclusion.

If you don't believe in God, then you can easily make up a conclusion that suits your beliefs.

David, Sunderland, UK

There are many people around the globe who use their positions to promote their beliefs or lack of them. To accuse Dawkins of pontificating (note the correct word which ironically has it's origins in the RC church!) is a bit rich. Why should a secularist/humanist/atheist not be accorded the same rights as the religious person? Scientists of his calibre (and he himself repeatedly reminds us of this) use the available evidence for their standpoints. Read the God Delusion with an open mind and then go through the bibliography at the end. Can you claim to have read and researched to that extent?

Pieter Hounslow, Södertälje, Sweden

To believe in God is understandable, it is to hope for a better future and an eternity in peace. To not believe in God is frightening, to accept there is nothing, after this existence, you die, the end.
Unfortunately I believe the latter to be true. I was bought up to believe in God and the teachings of Christ, as a small boy I was indoctrinated into this belief, but as an adult I questioned, and the more I asked the more I realized the power of Religion and its hold on the weak , the poor and the uneducated.
Religion is an industry turning over billions of £,$ etc, of course the people running it will insult you for holding an alternative opinion, as would any CEO of an organization who felt threatened.
Time is the key, evolution and Darwin’s theory will prevail. There are more non believers around today than at any time in the past and the number is growing. The brain and the power of thought are expanding, one day that little cell that causes the ‘God delusion’ will just not be there, we will look back at history’s superstitions and wonder.

Robert Cain, Leicester, UK

What amuses me about Dawkins is his belief that he is making a historic revelation for the first time in academic history, whereas Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer were beating the same drum a generation ago. The fact that Dawkins now considers it necessary to start all over again shows what little impact Russell and Ayer had.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

As a genius Dawkins is great .As an spiritual man he is an empty shell going from Iluminado to Iluminado explaining to them why not to believe in God .The best thing for him is keep talking about Science,that is what he knows.Pontifying about God is his weak point,I mean like an F

Martha, CT, USA

"How can we take Dawkins seriously ... when he appears on Channel 4 and talks utter drivel about Homeopathy, Dowsing and even Astrology. He could at least have researched his subject."

Clearly Dawkins has even more work to do to educate the ignorant than he thinks.

Chris, London,

The trouble about Professor Dawkins 'extrapolating' his findings ( Christopher Munro above), is that religion is not to be extrapolated in this way. It is no good examining the 'tests' of religion because such tests are essentially misconceived, as is the attempt to test the tests. If religion could be tested like a scientific equation or a cookery recipe, it would be science or cookery, not what it essentially is - faith.

Margaret d'Armenia, Crouch End , England

How can we take Dawkins seriously,brilliant though he undoubtably is on his own subject,when he appears on Channel 4 and talks utter drivel about Homeopathy,Dowsing and even Astrology.He could at least have researched his subject.

EDWARD SYNGE, TISBURY, UK

Hello Neil,

Interesting question:

"Can someone reading this please tell me one thing that "Theologians" have contributed to the sum of human knowledge?"

Yes, they have given students of the mind a great opportunity to study delusions. We now know lots of other ways in which to be confused, bamboozled, misled, lied to, manipulated and compelled, politicians use many of the tactics derived from religious thought and practise in order to speak in a manner that seems meaningful but is almost entirely devoid of content and the military make use of some of this knowledge to prepare people for combat, for example.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

But Dawkins extrapolates his findings from the known physical world, where 'truth' and 'absolutes' are ventured through science. He has never claimed an absolute theory or test for everything, unlike 'believers'. As for the 'miracles' of Lourdes, or Mother Teresa's 'visions', I would guess a decent psycho-analyst could explain these phenomena.

christopher munro, Liverpool,

Remember St. Thomas Aquinas´ verdict on unbelief; if all sin is a separtation from God and unbelief is the most radical separation, it follows that unbelief is the gravest of all sins.
I wonder what Dawkins and his friend Hitchens have to say about the miracles at Lourdes, all certified by doctors and scientists, many of whom were as unbelieving as Dawkins himself. It´s easy to pick at absurd beliefs like Mormonism and put Christianity in the same bag.
Then there´s the issue of character. How do you flipantly dismiss Mother Theresa´s visions of Christ, if it´s impossible to find any defect in her person or her intellect? Would a person as authentic as her lie to her confessor? The same goes for ever saint in history.
It´s really far more difficult to stay an atheist when you examine these issues. I actually admire atheists for their extraordinary faith in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence!!!

Christopher Fleming, Murcia, Spain

Dear Reni K of West Palm Beach, USA,

How can Dawkins speak the truth if there is no "The Truth"? He has no Absolute, Personal and Truthful foundation for the laws of logic and for any individual truths that he may be expressing. Are the laws of logic true? Then can Dawkins account for their truth without God?

Dawkins could not put one thought after another or speak or write one intelligible word without having a knowledge of the same God of Truth he denies, in the depths of his own soul.

As for practicalities, no Christian or Christian-influenced society is perfect, many far from so, but see what happened in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc, when atheism was embraced.

Richard Tallach, Perth, Scotland UK

Richard Dawkins should be applauded for having the courage to speak what many are afraid to say. He simply speaks the truth....not "the truth". Why is religion so afraid of scrutiny? We are in an age enlightenment and we have learned so much about ourselves over the past century... we can stop using the crutches that got us through our insecure evolutionary stage. Morality, truth, love, ethics,generosity, caring, marriage, families... all these will still be with us long after we leave religion behind us. Please stop the attacks on the people (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc..) that care enough about humanity to speak the truth.

Reni K, west palm beach, usa

DE from Chicago should see that God explains everything because He is the Necessary One who does not. unlike us contingent ones, need explanation. Within Him is the explanation for everything. We can see from this that life's delusions are many, especially through disbelief.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

William Garrett doesn't see the explanation is always, of necessity, there. From nothing, there is nothing. There has to be an eternal Explanation of explanations. Relate well to that and we find great ability to cope with life's ups and downs.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

"How can Professor Dawkins continue to hold out against the need for adequate and ultimate explanation?" -- Father Bryan Storey

'Adequate' is the keyword here. "God did it" may be a comforting mantra, but it is not an adequate explanation, for the simple reason that it does not actually explain anything.

DE, Chicago,

The Rev. David Robertson criticises Richard Dawkins attack on Alister McGrath and points out that McGrath has a PhD in Biology as well as theology Though Dawkins did not raise the issue I suspect that he finds it odd that someone who get a PhD in a scientific subject, biology, also has a PhD in theology. When studying for biology logic, reason and evidence would be used yet these if these tools were used in the theology course it would grind to a halt.

william garrett, harrow, middx.

Father Brian Storey asks how can Professor Dawkins hold out against the need for adequate and ultimate explanation? (comment). The aswer is that he is not holding out for anything but is calmly waiting as science attempts to solve the mystery of the origins of the universe.

As regards "'Explanation' from which peace, joy and love flow in abundance in the real---" I think Father Brian Storey does need some kind of an explanation since currently in 'the real' his God, presumably omnipotent, gives us pathogens and defects of the human body that causes suffering and early deaths to countless millions every year. Where does joy and love fit into all this?

william garrett, harrow, middx.

The Rev. David Robertson criticises Richard Dawkins attack on Alister McGrath and points out that McGrath has a PhD in Biology as well as theology Though Dawkins did not raise the issue I suspect that he finds it odd that someone who get a PhD in a scientific subject, biology, also has a PhD in theology. When studying for biology, logic, reason and evidence would be used yet if these tools were used in the theology course it would grind to a halt.

william garrett, harrow, middx.

It's interesting how the word 'fundamentalist' is thrown around so loosely these days, as if the word itself has a negative connotation. It depends on what one is being fundamental about. If one is sticking closely to the tenets of whichever set of holy scriptures one has chosen to adhere to, and that causes you to act in such a way as to bring harm upon others, then there's little question that such fundamentalism is undesirable.

However if the set of fundamentals in question consists of a wholly different set of values – that of free enquiry; seeking the acquisition of knowledge through examination of evidence; checking your conclusions carefully to ensure you've not been fooled by your own prejudices; welcoming peer review and accepting fair criticism gratefully – in short, what one would call the scientific method – then suddenly, the causally foisted criticism of 'fundamentalism' loses much of its sting.

Tony Gillett, London, UK

If Dawkins has harmed his cause its a pity but he still makes a compelling case for the "God Delusion". Religion within the "thinking" community is observably in retreat in the face of science's steady piecing together of the 'jigsaw puzzle' of life. I suggest the Rev. Robertson needs to focus on a convincing counter argument if he is stop the rot rather than sniping from the sidelines.

Phil Davis, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

It is becoming ever more tiresome for atheists (of whom I am one) to lower their arguments to the level of playground insults when arguing with believers. There is simply nothing clever or witty in attacking sincerely held beliefs by describing them in terms of "Sky Pixies" or other such childish epithets.

Geoff H, Milnthorpe,

David Robertson's logic is as sophomoric as that of Prof. McGrath. All the second paragraph contains is an appeal to authority, while the last is an out and out ad hominem attack.

Nowhere does Mr. Robertson answer any of Prof. Dawkins points. Nowhere does he provide any evidence of the existence of his particular god, or the non-existence of Vishnu or Thor.

Perhaps both he and Prof. McGrath need to consult a former Oxford theologian, William of Ockham, on how to frame an argument.

Colin Walls, Wilmslow, UK

How can Professor Dawkins continue to hold out against the need for adequate and ultimate explanation? It is so unscientific to continue in this way especially as delusions grow if we are not open to proper explanations. Moreover, our very being cries out for union with Explanation from which peace, joy and love flow in abundance in the real as opposed to the merely theoretical acknowlegement.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel., UK

I have always found it rather odd that "brilliant" theologians have studied a subject (or should I say object) for which there is no evidence that it actually exists. Indeed, rational thought and sound logic would indicate that the various gods are merely the products of ignorant human brains. With the same justification the theologians could graduate in studies of Father Christmas, Jack Frost or the Fairy Population at the bottom of the garden. That's to say, they could if they continued ignoring critical rational thought.

alan barley, cologne,

What is theology? The study of God i.e. study of something that might or might not exist in some form that no-one agrees on, whose whereabouts is completely unknown, and whose existence has no evidence other than a book written by some bronze-age tribesmen.

Can someone reading this please tell me one thing that "Theologians" have contributed to the sum of human knowledge?

Neil Butcher, Brighton, UK

As an exercise in logic this is as sophomoric as some of Prof. McGrath's articles.

In his second paragraph David Robertson indulges himself in an argument from authority, while the last is an out and out ad hominem attack.

Nowhere does he give evidence of where Prof. Dawkins is wrong. Nowhere does he answer any of the points that were raised in his letter.

Perhaps both Prof. McGrath and David Robertson might argue better if they studied the Oxford theologian William of Ockham.

Colin Walls, Wilmslow, UK

The two words 'Dawkins' and 'Delusion' will be for ever joined in my mind. The tone of yesterday's attack on Alister McGrath shows the depth of the delusion of his own innate correctness that the poor man suffers from.

Rod, Bristol, England

The oldest material in the Old Testament was revealed about 4500 years ago. The Earth has existed for about 4500 million years.

One has to ask why, if there is a God, why did he wait for 99.9999% of the life of the Earth to pass before revealing his existence.

Paul , Northwich, england

I'm really amazed that one who delves so much seems blind to the need for adequate and ultimate explanation of existence whatever evolutionary forces are involved.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel., UK