That man Dawkins

Which brings me back to wondering what "I am a Christian" means. It's not about morality because the basic tenets of morality exist outside of religion and always did, before religion was invented. By extension, it's not about knowing the difference between right and wrong, which, in any case, is not always crystal clear. Religions do tend to claim that they have a monopoly on morality but they don't.

So what does "I am a Christian" mean? I am not one, but I was brought up in a christian household in a christian culture and sent to christian schools. The only difference between me and someone from that environment who does have religious faith that I can see is that I am prepared to say "I don't know" about the origin of the universe and the existence of life as we know it. I also don't expect to know because I happen to think that is beyond human understanding at the moment, and may always be.

As I understand it, a christian also says "I don't know", but they (and other people of religious faith) ascribe the invention of the universe to a thing or an idea that they call god or gods. On the strength of that other tenets of faith have been built up, such as belief in an after-life, and differences of interpretation of the human moral code that applies to us all.

As I see it, from reports in the media, and some books I have read, and what people say, there is a tendency among people of what might be called extreme faith to interpret the human moral code in ways that I and other non-religious people find abhorrent (and even immoral, e.g. the targetting in Pakistan recently of a child for the 'sin' of blasphemy that harms no-one (not that she was blaspheming anyway, but that's another issue)). I'm sure some religious people feel exactly the same way as I do about the abuse of the human moral code.

I think it is over the interpretation of the human moral code that disagreements arise. With or without religion, they always will.

Since we are talking about Richard Dawkins on this thread, I suggest that that's what he's talking about. He does seem to be saying as well that the way people are taught to think (or not think) about moral issues within the rules of organised religious bodies, does seem to exert a kind of limit on them. I'm going to make a generalisation based on my experience: the more a person depends on their religious faith to, as it were, guide them, the less open-minded they appear to be, and the less willing to change their view about something they think is wrong but which other people do not think is wrong. This is where problems arise on issues such as whether a person 'should' be stigmatised and told they are in the wrong for being gay. This is where issues such as whether religious people should have privileges protected by law that non-religious people don't have. These things, and more, are what people like Dawkins talk about with passion, but with complete rationality and logicality of thought.

Good for him, and anyone else so engaged in advancing human understanding of the Human moral code.

Joan -snap!

Then you logically and rationally decided to accept belief, grannyactivist. I was not able to do that, though I tried. I could not reconcile rational thought with a belief in things that seemed impossible.

I studied philosophy as one of my core subjects at university and received 98% in my final grade for logic and reasoning. I'm a Christian.

I just read this thread - a lot more rational thinkers on here than religious believers, which is gratifying.

The important thing is not to forcibly impose your beliefs or non-beliefs on others, especially children. Teach children about science and about major world religions and let them decide for themselves.

Scientific thought took me away from religion and into agnosticism then atheism. I remember it clearly - I attended Sunday school as most kids did in our youth. In my case it was at the nearest one - the local Baptist Chapel. At 14 they said I had to demonstrate absolute faith and be baptised. I decided that absolute faith was impossible - we were being taught in science that nothing was absolute, there were always other possibilities. So I started to think about other possibilities and slowly walked away from that church and eventually, after trying to get back some belief in various ways, from all belief.

My parents were quiet, low-key atheists, but they sent us to Sunday School. It gave them a break from us , and was a way of not imposing their own non-belief on us. We all became atheists in the end though.

I love Richard Dawkin's work. He can sometimes be a bit harsh on religious belief, but I think it is just frustration against irrationality. I've also seen him being very polite and nice to believers and religious leaders.

I also feel his frustration. Gay rights are an example of the harm religion does. Science has shown us that being gay is not a choice, it is a fact of one's physical being, no more a 'choice' than it is my 'choice' to be a short brown-eyed woman. But religious institutions, well most of them, have difficulty in accepting this scientific, evidence based fact. They use religion as an excuse to marginalise them to a greater or lesser degree.

Unforgivable.

No-one expects you to be converted, lily; the only problem was misquoting him. Glad you're finding plenty of meat in the book though

I'm reading 'The God Delusion' and so far, not converted. Not enough room here to deal with all the points I take issue with. I refer you to Petallus' comment of Sept 4th.

It's a minefield, isn't it?

There might have been something that needed defusing too.

But, of course, there might well have been.

I didn't think there was anything that needed diffusing...

Greatnan I agree
I just didn't want you to think that your use of 'that phrase' had gone unnoticed

?

Just a touch of humour, Jane - it can sometimes diffuse a situation.

Greatnan your phrase 'what's not to like' definitely belongs in that recent thread about phrases we dislike
But I know what you mean about Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins - clever and handsome - what's not to like?

I'm sure we will. Thanks

Brilliant, witty book jeni! Hope you and maniac have a wonderful holiday

I've just downloaded the selfish gene, for a little light holiday reading

jings, I would recommend you read it for similar reasons. Sam Harris is even better at the philosophical side, so I recommend him too.

No, lily. Quite so. Agreed. But science can prove what is false and what is true of the world as we know it and many of the things it has proved false are still believed by religious people (not you, necessarily) and some of the things that have been proved true by science are still not believed by religious people, because their religion tells them otherwise. I really would recommend that you read The God Delusion, not because I think you would agree with what Dawkins says, but because you'd understand better what he's saying. At the moment, you don't seem to understand what he's saying and you read into what he says things that he most certainly has not said. That's all.

I quite agree granjura and I think it is utterly unreasonable for people to condemn Richard Dawkins without having read his books. This is serious thoughtful stuff, not soundbites.

I read his book 'the God delusion' from cover to cover in a couple of days. he expressed so well so many things I'd been feeling for a long time, with excellent quotes and facts. Time to read it again, more slowly and taking notes.

I cannot believe that this Government has actually given a licence and funding for a creationist school in the North East. I always respect the beliefs of religious friends - but not when this goes beyond the private, and includes endoctrination and so-called missionary work. Our institutions are still led by religious dogma, and this is not acceptable any longer.

JO4 there are people who try ..the paranormal studies fans etc have hunted ghosts for years!

But you are right it is not possible to do a scientific study on something that does not exist. You can study the human belief that deities exist though.

Must have posted before I was finished. sorry.

Three cheers for anyone who is struggling to make sense of anything, material or immaterial. What is infuriating is the attitude of those who think the answers to everything were set in stone millenia ago.