Steve Jones webchat 15 May 1-2pm

j08

I would like to know why you feel the need to write such books? What are you atheists (and you quite obviously are one) afraid of? Why do you feel the need to challenge the idea of faith so much?

What can be wrong with John Adams assertion that if, "a nation....should take the Bible for their only law book... etc"? Why are you so bound up with the Old Testament anyway? Do you really not know that the Christian religion is based on the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, whose only two commandments were, Love God and Love they neighbour as thyself? What can be wrong with that?

I do not agree with you that science and religion cannot co-exist. The spirit of mankind does exist and it is something animals do not have. And why would you think that a child brought up in the Christian religion cannot take on board and understand the theory behind global warming. Of course they can. And do. It is possible to be a Christian and a forward thinking scientist.

Do you ever think you are wasting your time with all this meaningless theory?

I write because I enjoy it and get paid for it (and I started writing two decades ago when the research money ran out, as it is doing today). I am not challenging the ideas of faith, or at least not to anything like the extent to which many religious ideas challenge the ideas of science (evolution comes to mind). The last and longest chapter int he book is about the NT, which, as I say, marks the beginning of the modern world.

Grannyknot

I looked at the title and wondered what we would want to ask a Welsh TV presenter ... but now I see. This looks very interesting, I'll be tuning in, may even post a question! But not this morning. Too early in the day.

Grannyknot

I looked at the title and wondered what we would want to ask a Welsh TV presenter ... but now I see. This looks very interesting, I'll be tuning in, may even post a question! But not this morning. Too early in the day.

I am Welsh, and I have quite often been on TV - surely there cannot be another Steve Jones who can make that claim?

Moonwind

Not seen the book. A very liberal christian, fan of David Jenkins (ex Bishop of Durham) and very interested in the topic.
I would ask we all do a little homework on metaphor, myth and symbolism in ancient texts before wasting time and energy scientifically lambasting those biblical parts that were more likely intended as poetry / myth eg: virgin birth, 7 day creation, miracle, heaven 'up there'; possibly physical resurrection...

I make every effort to do just that; I do not talk about resurrection, heaven, God, miracles and the like as they are spiritual rather than physical ideas and science can say nothing about them. However, it can, for example, say interesting stuff about how virgin birth could not work, and about the origin of sex, and I try to do that and more.

grannyactivist

Minor point. You say, Julian of Norwich is refreshingly frank, although I do not quite follow his logic.
Are you not aware that Julian of Norwich was an Anchoress, i.e. a woman?

Ignorance, Madam, pure Ignorance

topshot

What made you want to write this book?

And how has it been received by believers?

And is the Bible really the right starting point for what you're writing about - which seems, from what I've seen of it, to be about rather more than that?

Well I say more about what made me want to write it in other posts. It has generally been well received, but the Sunday Times review said the book was "“a re-cranking of the Darwinian barrel organ – accompanied by the monkey of New Atheism, of course, as it screeches petulantly at religion”. I wonder if the reviewer is a believer?

ticktock

I attend an atheist church every day; it is called University College London

I was referring to atheists congregating in actual churches.. Would you oppose atheist schools?

I would oppose atheist schools; religion is part of society and needs to be talked about - but so is atheism. France, the US and many other places have many non-religious schools (which is not the same as atheist schools), and we should go down that route

downwithcupcakes

Welcome Steve!

What do you make of people, like creationists or other fundamentalists, who reject the claims of science as just another belief system?

How best to argue against them?

It's depressing but true that I have more or less stopped arguing with them; if someone is basically determined not to change their minds it's a waste of breath talking to them

marionh

I am a believer - yet I am finding it hard to square the biblical version of events with evolution. Subject of many a fascinating discussion of late with teenage GS but would love to hear your thoughts

It is impossible to square the LITERAL biblical account of our origin with evolution; it simply does not fit. However, many believers argue that, at some time during the evolution of our primate ancestors, a soul was inserted by divine means.I can't disprove that with science so the question is of no interest to scientists and they are happy to accept that some people believe that idea. My own feeling is that the "soul" is in fact the ability to speak, to have a true language; and that almost certainly as a genetic - and evolutionary - basis

Sunhat

Is there a scientific explanation for the Book of Revelations?

Schizophrenia comes to mind.

icabodisitchy

Has your work made you optimistic about human nature? As we understand more about the genetic basis for our strengths and weaknesses, do you think we will be able to use the knowledge wisely?

The history of politics' relationship with genetic science has not been great so far...

I am always optimistic about human nature, although I sometimes wonder why. You are right; the interaction of genetics with politics has been disastrous (think Racial Hygiene). My favourite quote from Darwin is that "Ignorance more often breeds confidence than does knowledge", and genetics shows that better than almost anything else

Tiddler

What's your view in linking genetics with introversion/extroversion?

Well, there are claims of a genetic tie, but they are pretty feeble - which does not mean that they will not, some day, turn out to be true

fritnit

What do you make of the hold of religion on the modern world? (I am thinking of America and the fact that it would be inconceivable to admit to being an atheist if you wanted to be president).

How do you explain it, when science is so persuasive and powerful and testable? (I am not suggesting you can't be a scientist and religious, but it's odd that so many people in modern society reach for explanations which are not testable, rational, or on the face of it, relevant)?

I agree with you; it baffles me - but I am not religious. In any case those people seem to me to do much more harm to faith than to science

Iwasframed

What is your relationship with "the blessed Dawkins" (your words)?

Are his polarities helpful? Surely - and this is back to grannyactivist's point about metaphor - by rubbishing the metaphor in religion as well as everything else he ignores a vital aspect of human nature: the attempt to explain and grapple with and give meaning to death?

I am an atheist too - but I find him really unhelpful and annoying and reductive.

I know Richard Dawkins professionally and he has written some outstanding popular science books (and he still does so, although I believe that he is now writing his autobiography). I too find The God Delusion a bit shrill, but the other side of the argument is, I observe, even shriller.

crostini

Your fascinating response to batgran about us being sixth cousins reminded me of a fascinating television programme a while back in which various people (I think Eddie Izzard was one) traced their ancestors back by using genetic research.

If I were able to get my genes sequenced, would I be able to find out for example when my ancestors arrived in Britain?

Well, to a degree, yes; but rest assured that you have relatives (and ancestors) in - say - Indonesia who have never seen these rainy islands; indeed the last common ancestor for everyone on Earth probably lived no longer than around 3500 years ago, well into old testament times

flopsybunny

Hi Steve, great to have you here.

Recently, there has been an argument in popular science that we possess genes for cooperation as much as for competitiveness.

Do you think the idea of the selfish gene is misleading?

yes we do have genes for cooperation, otherwise i would have strangled the taxi-driver who brought me here; but the interesting question is whether different people have different versions of the gene, and as far as I know there is no evidence of that