That man Dawkins

There might have been something that needed defusing too.

It's a minefield, isn't it?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Joan -snap!

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.

We are getting closer to inderstanding how life on this planet started though. Science is finding out bit by bit. Wonderful!

Joan, I'm not sure why you are 'gratified' that there are more 'rational thinkers' (and that begs a question in itself) than Christians. It may be that vociferous atheists simply post more frequently. It doesn't matter either way. This should be a forum for debate, not number counting.

It's sad that once again a straw man is set up. There are certainly some extremely bigoted Christians and Muslims who have been unable to accept gay rights, but there are millions more who totally disagree with them and fully support total equality. Just as there are many bigots who have no religious belief, and are deeply predudiced about gay people.

Having a religious belief does not equate with being opposed to 'science'. It's a category error to assert this. Have you read Bultmann?

I think joan simply sees the value of rational thought over the irrational thought processes of some people of faith.

Yes, there are millions of christians and muslims and so on who do not have the prejudices of the minority, but it is the minority that we in the majority (whether religious or not) hear about, and it is the minority who cause problems for all of us whether religious or not. It tends to be atheists who are most vociferous about this problem that affects all of us, whether religious or not. Certainly I would have more respect for the silent majority of christians and muslims (it does seem to be mainly those two) if they were a bit more vociferous too and also did vociferous battle with the nutters.

Has anyone on this thread said that having a religious faith necessarily makes one opposed to science, or has it simply been pointed out that in some cases that is most certainly the case. History cannot be denied either. Religions, and particularly christianity in our culture, has and still does oppose advancements in scientific knowledge to the detriment of many people. For example, look at the problems that have been caused by the catholic church opposing the use of condoms in areas where there is a high incidence of HIV infection. It is a religious belief here that is getting in the way of a humanitarian approach to a human problem. Why don't the silent majority complain about this? Why is it left to people like Dawkins, who are then abused for their efforts to improve life for other people?

Way to go, Grannyactivist. Atheism is not the only logical end of the questioning and thinking journey that a lot of us go through.

I'm sure grannyactivist won't mind me saying that I doubt if there's very much real difference in attitude to life between her and me. We just have different labels. Looking forward to meeting you next month, ga

I like you sentiments re. labels, B

I've been following this thread, and have wanted to say my bit, but I have guests staying and haven't been able to afford the time to formulate my thoughts succinctly enough. Anyway, I happened to be having a quick read in bed this morning, about Marilynne Robinson's writing, which frequently addresses and questions about theology and her faith, and one of her comments jumped out at me.

"I think the autonomy of human experience is sacred and however people negotiate these questions is not for me to judge."

....still thinking about that, and the use of the word 'sacred'.

I'm not fence sitting regarding the issue of faith, but am always interested in how others see it.

Butternut Perhaps sacrosanct might have been a better word than sacred, in this context?

She is entitled to her view, but many people, including me, don't think anything is sacred, nor sacrosanct. Everything, to my way of thinking, is open to question and discussion. I think that is the fundamental difference between people who think within a religious framework and people who don't.

I don't think that's the case, Bags. I'm sure there are many people who self-identify as atheists who are still not 100% sure just as I know there are many (most?) people of faith who are still questioning. That 's one reason why Dawkins' absolute, unwavering stance is worrying. He did the analysing and thinking and now he doesn't need to any more because he's reached the final point? He knows, absolutely what the truth is.

Bags is right about this:"I think joan simply sees the value of rational thought over the irrational thought processes of some people of faith."

I have found there is little point in arguing religion v atheism, but sometimes I just can't help myself! Mea culpa

Dawkins is NOT absolutely sure - no scientist ever is. He says that the probability of a god's existence is there, but it's vanishingly small. "No, I do not unequivocally KNOW there is not a God, it's just that the evidence doesn't demand the hypothesis (thank you Messr. LaPlace) and the probability, given other simpler explanations for natural phenomena (thank you Mr. Occam), make it extremely improbable."

HL Mencken? "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

Exactly, feetlebaum. Dawkins is not absolutely sure. Anyone who suggests he is, or that he has said he is, is wrong. In fact, there is a whole chapter in the God Delusion called "Why there is almost certainly no God". What don't people understand about the word "almost"?

I forget if it's in that book or another one where he expresses his position on a scale. He is not right at the end that says with certainty that there is no god.

I don't actually know anyone who professes to be an atheist who says with certainty that there is no god. That's not what atheism means. Being an atheist means you haven't yet come across a god that you believe in/believe exists. That's all.

Once again, to those who persist in putting words he has never said into Dawkins' mouth, I can only suggest you actually read or listen to (and digest) what he actually says. Until then you are just shooting yourselves in the foot over and over again.

To put it another way, atheism means that there have been and are not known to you any gods you believe in.

It does not mean that there are no gods.

The fact that most atheists don't actually care, or think it matters whether there is a god or gods is a completely separate issue.

And another way. If you're a christian or a muslim you believe in one god. You don,t believe in any of the others that people have beleieved in over human history. Atheists are exactly the same as you except that they add the god you do believe in to the list of those they don't believe in. So simple. So easy to understand.

So why do people persist in misunderstanding?

I found the scale thing. It is in The God Delusion but in a different chapter. p50-51 in my hardback copy.

The scale is 1 to 7. Dawkins puts himself at number six and calls that the De facto atheist, by which he means this: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

They're all aspects of the same 'god'. I don't think that all Christians, Muslims etc. believe that the 'god' of other religions doesn't exist. They may not agree with the practices of other religions, but those are man-made.