Print
In the know
by Mark Vernon, Guardian
Thanks to Dan 'Diplo' for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_vernon/2007/06/in_the_know.html
Certainty sells. But whether it is religious or atheistic, it will always sell you short.
Recently, there was a programme on the radio that explored what had happened to the individuals who gave their lives to Jesus at the Billy Graham rallies 50 years ago. Some were converted. They went on to become bishops and to hold positions in public life. Others, though, looked back at the moment they responded to the call with puzzlement, embarrassment and regret.
It is a familiar story. When I worked as an Anglican priest near the university city of Durham, my colleagues and I often encountered young students who had felt the power and passion of the simple faith of the Christian Union. Only to find that when the complexities of life pressed in again, or they simply grew up, they came to feel that they had been led up the garden path. We felt our task was to see whether anything of their faith could be rescued by encouraging them to see the subtleties of theology and the nuances of the spiritual life as a friend, not the enemy.
I suspect that a similar process of conversion followed by disillusion is underway again today. Though this time it is not as a result of evangelical Christianity, but evangelical atheism. As AC Grayling has recently pointed out, there is no denying that the books of atheists like Richard Dawkins are being bought in their hundreds of thousands, much as individuals responded to Billy Graham in their hundreds of thousands. A simple message is on offer. This is the way life is. Live thus and be free.
For certainty certainly sells in the modern world. It doesn't matter whether it is religious or atheistic. These books fly off the shelves for the same reason that people flock to American mega-churches. They are being told what to believe. What is also the case, though, is that certainty sells you short. As the poet George Meredith wrote, "What a dusty answer gets the soul when hot for certainties in this our life."
For many, perhaps most people, the rhetoric of the militant atheists is as bizarre and irrelevant as the evangelical call to confess. They perceive that the row about whether God exists goes round and round in circles. Would that it were only a benign matter. But like Billy Graham's call - that was dangerous because it was manipulative - the militant atheists aim to force individuals to take sides. They too want to push people to fundamentalist extremes - this time following scientific rather than religious dogma. In the name of humanism and tolerance they are actually contributing to a less humanistic, less tolerant world.
What is lost to their converts is the capacity to deal with something that lies at the heart of the human condition: uncertainty. The refusal of uncertainty, and the corresponding lust for certainty, is what evangelicals of both the religious and scientific sort trade on. Many studies have shown that religious fundamentalism is on the rise as a direct response to what people perceive as social or moral threats: one way of dealing with these threats is to put certainty at the centre of your religion. Similarly, the militant atheists make much of the supposed threats of religion to all that is good and progressive. To combat those threats they assert the supposed certainties of science. One of the new militants, Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, is so triumphant that he contemplates the possibility of nuking Muslims: although it would kill millions of innocent people, he argues it might be the only option "we" have, in the face of the threat "they" and their faith represent. If this sounds like the rhetoric of Jerry Falwall in perverse reverse it's because that is exactly what it is.
The atheists will not have it that many of their heroes actually called themselves agnostic. In his book, Richard Dawkins conveniently forgets that this is how Charles Darwin described himself, focussing instead on the rhetorically more promising - because probably false - rumours of Darwin's deathbed conversion. Similarly, Albert Einstein, another agnostic, is forcibly recruited to Dawkins' cause; as is Bertrand Russell, who called himself an "atheistically inclined" agnostic; and Thomas Henry Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog" and the man who invented the word agnostic. He did not mean his neologism to express a state of indecision. He meant it as a deliberate rebuke to those who present their beliefs - scientific or religious - as facts.
In truth, a far more subtle spirit lies at the heart of all good philosophy, religion and science. Take philosophy and Socrates. He is the father of western thought because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know. That is why he irritated so many powerful people in ancient Athens; his philosophy burst the bubble of their misplaced confidence.
Similarly, there is the thought in religion of Saint Augustine, that to be human is to be "between beasts and angels". He means, I think, that we are not pig ignorant like the beasts. But we are also far from wise like the angels. Faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing, and conversely, not about fleeing from it in the shallow certainties that religion can deliver.
In science, it seems to me that the best sort is that which answers questions by opening up more questions, and in particular questions that are beyond science itself to answer. This is the spirit that you see at work in cosmology. On one level, cosmologists understand an extraordinary amount about the universe. But simultaneously, this only deepens the sense of the universe's tremendousness. The science keeps pointing to the big, unanswerable question of why we here at all.
Let us hope that those who are on the way to atheistic disillusionment, having bought the certainty and been sold short, remember something of this more nuanced way of things before - like the children of Billy Graham - they too are hurt.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_vernon/2007/06/in_the_know.html
Certainty sells. But whether it is religious or atheistic, it will always sell you short.Recently, there was a programme on the radio that explored what had happened to the individuals who gave their lives to Jesus at the Billy Graham rallies 50 years ago. Some were converted. They went on to become bishops and to hold positions in public life. Others, though, looked back at the moment they responded to the call with puzzlement, embarrassment and regret.
It is a familiar story. When I worked as an Anglican priest near the university city of Durham, my colleagues and I often encountered young students who had felt the power and passion of the simple faith of the Christian Union. Only to find that when the complexities of life pressed in again, or they simply grew up, they came to feel that they had been led up the garden path. We felt our task was to see whether anything of their faith could be rescued by encouraging them to see the subtleties of theology and the nuances of the spiritual life as a friend, not the enemy.
I suspect that a similar process of conversion followed by disillusion is underway again today. Though this time it is not as a result of evangelical Christianity, but evangelical atheism. As AC Grayling has recently pointed out, there is no denying that the books of atheists like Richard Dawkins are being bought in their hundreds of thousands, much as individuals responded to Billy Graham in their hundreds of thousands. A simple message is on offer. This is the way life is. Live thus and be free.
For certainty certainly sells in the modern world. It doesn't matter whether it is religious or atheistic. These books fly off the shelves for the same reason that people flock to American mega-churches. They are being told what to believe. What is also the case, though, is that certainty sells you short. As the poet George Meredith wrote, "What a dusty answer gets the soul when hot for certainties in this our life."
For many, perhaps most people, the rhetoric of the militant atheists is as bizarre and irrelevant as the evangelical call to confess. They perceive that the row about whether God exists goes round and round in circles. Would that it were only a benign matter. But like Billy Graham's call - that was dangerous because it was manipulative - the militant atheists aim to force individuals to take sides. They too want to push people to fundamentalist extremes - this time following scientific rather than religious dogma. In the name of humanism and tolerance they are actually contributing to a less humanistic, less tolerant world.
What is lost to their converts is the capacity to deal with something that lies at the heart of the human condition: uncertainty. The refusal of uncertainty, and the corresponding lust for certainty, is what evangelicals of both the religious and scientific sort trade on. Many studies have shown that religious fundamentalism is on the rise as a direct response to what people perceive as social or moral threats: one way of dealing with these threats is to put certainty at the centre of your religion. Similarly, the militant atheists make much of the supposed threats of religion to all that is good and progressive. To combat those threats they assert the supposed certainties of science. One of the new militants, Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, is so triumphant that he contemplates the possibility of nuking Muslims: although it would kill millions of innocent people, he argues it might be the only option "we" have, in the face of the threat "they" and their faith represent. If this sounds like the rhetoric of Jerry Falwall in perverse reverse it's because that is exactly what it is.
The atheists will not have it that many of their heroes actually called themselves agnostic. In his book, Richard Dawkins conveniently forgets that this is how Charles Darwin described himself, focussing instead on the rhetorically more promising - because probably false - rumours of Darwin's deathbed conversion. Similarly, Albert Einstein, another agnostic, is forcibly recruited to Dawkins' cause; as is Bertrand Russell, who called himself an "atheistically inclined" agnostic; and Thomas Henry Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog" and the man who invented the word agnostic. He did not mean his neologism to express a state of indecision. He meant it as a deliberate rebuke to those who present their beliefs - scientific or religious - as facts.
In truth, a far more subtle spirit lies at the heart of all good philosophy, religion and science. Take philosophy and Socrates. He is the father of western thought because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know. That is why he irritated so many powerful people in ancient Athens; his philosophy burst the bubble of their misplaced confidence.
Similarly, there is the thought in religion of Saint Augustine, that to be human is to be "between beasts and angels". He means, I think, that we are not pig ignorant like the beasts. But we are also far from wise like the angels. Faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing, and conversely, not about fleeing from it in the shallow certainties that religion can deliver.
In science, it seems to me that the best sort is that which answers questions by opening up more questions, and in particular questions that are beyond science itself to answer. This is the spirit that you see at work in cosmology. On one level, cosmologists understand an extraordinary amount about the universe. But simultaneously, this only deepens the sense of the universe's tremendousness. The science keeps pointing to the big, unanswerable question of why we here at all.
Let us hope that those who are on the way to atheistic disillusionment, having bought the certainty and been sold short, remember something of this more nuanced way of things before - like the children of Billy Graham - they too are hurt.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 48 of 48 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #50182 by Dax on June 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Okay, I have the feeling this flake has not truly read TGD... if he did he would've noticed that in Dawkins' vision (and for most atheists this is true, too) this thing called atheism is de facto atheism; the probability of the existence of a deity is so small that it would be stupid to call oneself agnostic.This is exactly what Russell was saying himself. No proof for a god and no proof against one... just tons of proof that our concept of god is false. Why believe in something you don't have proof for either way? Does Mark Vernon believe in blurfs?. Can he proof a blurf does not exist? No? He must be agnostic towards blurfs! He cannot be an ablurfist! No matter that I just pulled this word, blurf, out of the orifice between my un-intelligently designed muscular seating-pillows, and that I do not have a concept of what a blurf is, just like we humans don't have a single concept of what a god truly is.
Other Comments by Dax
3. Comment #50183 by Snyds on June 15, 2007 at 2:59 pm
What exactly are we (atheists) so certain of? I would say nothing really, but I would agree with the author that certainty will sell you short. Problem is, he seems fairly certian that god exists. I guess he is selling himself short...Other Comments by Snyds
4. Comment #50184 by Bonzai on June 15, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I never understand why so many people find the belief in God so natural and irresistable, especially the specific Gods of specific religions. They all sound all so made up and stupid.Atheism has been my default mode even before I started thinking about these things. Now I think about it more it appears to be even more natural. I never understand why, even for many atheists, a great deal of effort is required to break loose from religion. I am not bragging or anything. I am genuinely baffled. Maybe somehow I am missing a religious gene.
Other Comments by Bonzai
5. Comment #50187 by alovrin on June 15, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I think, that we are not pig ignorant like the beasts.
Hey Mark leave the beasts alone, when did they do anything against you.
I bet you like a bit of bacon or pork occasionally eh Marky, come on admit it, ya do dontcha.
Other Comments by alovrin
6. Comment #50189 by MIND_REBEL on June 15, 2007 at 3:25 pm
His futive gestures are as useless as child trying to fix a dam after it sprong a leak, except the leak is rationality and it will soon wash away the bloodtrenched legacy of religion and irrationality. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
7. Comment #50190 by mmurray on June 15, 2007 at 3:28 pm
This gets a good panning over on the Guardian site. Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
8. Comment #50192 by heathen2 on June 15, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Dax, you said:I just pulled this word, blurf, out of the orifice between my un-intelligently designed muscular seating-pillows
That is so funny!!I love it.
Other Comments by heathen2
9. Comment #50194 by Devolution on June 15, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Well at least he has rugged good looks to supplement his vacuous intellect. Other Comments by Devolution
10. Comment #50195 by heathen2 on June 15, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I agree with what's been said so far, this idiot could not have been actually reading or listening to what the "militant" atheists have been saying over and over again. Therefore he is not fit to comment.But since I did bother to read his piece, let me just say that atheists are comfortable with a level of "uncertainty", about how we came to exist, about the universe, etc. There is no "certainty" on the part of atheist the mentality (for most, I suspect)about the nonexistence of god, just that there is not a shred of proof.
I also hate how he referred to "beasts and angels". Typical christian arrogance, looking down on non human animals. Again, what an idiot.
Other Comments by heathen2
11. Comment #50197 by heathen2 on June 15, 2007 at 3:55 pm
...sorry, did not proofread Other Comments by heathen2
12. Comment #50205 by PacificWind on June 15, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I agree with the comments above. In TGD I think Dawkins does a good job of tearing down the false certainties of religion without erecting others in their place. He states quite clearly his definition of atheist, and it is clearly not what Vernon assumes in his article.I also took exception to this passage:
"They too want to push people to fundamentalist extremes - this time following scientific rather than religious dogma. In the name of humanism and tolerance they are actually contributing to a less humanistic, less tolerant world."
While it is true that the world Dawkins envisions is less tolerant of religion (but likely more tolerant in many other areas as a consequence), how is it less humanistic? Isn't a world without God the most humanistic world possible?
Also I'd like to know what he considers "scientific dogma" - this sounds like an oxymoron to me. Vernon claims that "faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing" - but as a scientist I can attest that science serves exactly the same purpose. The difference is that science emerges with some verifiable answers, while faith will only produce mirages.
Other Comments by PacificWind
13. Comment #50207 by EEguy on June 15, 2007 at 5:24 pm
First Post:"These books fly off the shelves for the same reason that people flock to American mega-churches. They are being told what to believe."
I never got the impression that RD's and SH's readers are told what to believe, but rather "consider these facts in opposition to common beliefs and religious arguments". The intent is to get you to think for yourself about the makeup of the universe by examining the evidence.
Other Comments by EEguy
14. Comment #50211 by PrimeNumbers on June 15, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Scientific dogma - that's the belief that science works? Right? Where would this idiot be without science - in the dark ages without his cellphone and internet and at most only a few people would ever know his lack of mental abilities. Because of scientific dogma, the whole internet can now find out.... Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
15. Comment #50214 by troyreynolds86 on June 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
For a person trying to write about Atheists, he seems not to understand what makes us tick. We are not the type of people that do very well when told what to believe, we do well when we are shown a good reason to believe. Prove god and we will believe. Doubtlessly, the largest message of TGD, and the other such writings, is not to reject religion outright, but question it with a sceptical eye and a rational mind. If this is what is fear that we will inherit then fear away because I had this before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins.Other Comments by troyreynolds86
16. Comment #50218 by Angie66 on June 15, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Devolution and PrimeNumbers...too funny!Just when you think there are no other ways for faith-heads to miss the point, along trots another. Gah. I could let this get to me, but I'm determined not to.
Other Comments by Angie66
17. Comment #50220 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 7:26 pm
quote (bonzai)Atheism has been my default mode even before I started thinking about these things. Now I think about it more it appears to be even more natural. I never understand why, even for many atheists, a great deal of effort is required to break loose from religion. I am not bragging or anything. I am genuinely baffled. Maybe somehow I am missing a religious gene.end quoteI hear you, I try to comprehend the religious position but its like in order to suddenly believe and follow a religion i would have to be a different person, its just not there, it never has been so i guess it never will be. Its probably genetic.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
18. Comment #50222 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 7:41 pm
certaintly and fundamentalism.When was the last time an atheist picked up 'the origin of species'and said 'look on page 33, read the fifth line (ive no idea what is on that line), its in the OOS and THATS why its true. Personally i dont give a flying damn about my certainty about god, its the ridiculous baggage that the religious carry around with them thats the most annoying, a person screaming hell and damnation to a gay man can have his god (i dont know there isnt a god for sure) but i do know for sure hes wrong for his chastisement of another person.
anyway Vernon is an certain ass, I BOUGHT the certainty!!!, i didnt buy anything, I looked at nature from my earliest years and simply NEVER saw god, it just wasnt an option. I sang hymns each and every morning at school 'god is love, god is truth, god is beauty praise him....' and i heard a nice tune and that was it, its genetic.
and as for the dogma of science, well if im unlucky enough to get a malignant tumour in my life i should feel quite confident if i ignore the physicians dogmatic suggestions of various treatments, no, instead i'll pray a bit, put a toad under my pillow and repeat the words 'unconditional love' all day long, yes that'll work, maybe.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
19. Comment #50223 by Bonzai on June 15, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Religious apologists typically have no idea about how science works. They are projecting their own religious mindset onto science and see it as a competiting faith. This explains the absurd accusation of "scientific fundamentalism" and the smug "gotcha" whenever they find some holes in scientific theories.Truth is, science never claims to know any "ultimate truth",--if that mean anything. Just as a pre-emptive strike I would even offer that all the science we know today will turn out to be wrong in the absolute sense. This is obvious if the history of science has taught us anything. However, in science the old theories don't just get discarded ,the "wrong" theories still retain their validity as approximations to "truer theories". The new theories have to explain not only the new data for which the old theories break down, but also why the old theories worked in the realm where they applied This requirement that the improved theories must in some sense account for and be approximated by the old theories puts enormous constriants on the new theories. Only then can we be sure that we are making progress. We "believe" in science not because it is "right", but because it has a robust way to update and improve our understanding of reality.
In contrast, religion is infinitely flabby and ad hoc, with hindsight you can read almost anything into scriptures. It may have a useful function as a kind of psycho therapy for some people, but it is absolutely bankrupt as tool to understand the world around us.
Other Comments by Bonzai
20. Comment #50224 by heathen2 on June 15, 2007 at 8:28 pm
phasmagigas: I understand what you mean, I'm puzzled by the religious mind and the blind acceptance of the so obviously irrational beliefs. Been trying to figure this out for years now and I especially don't understand how those with some training in the sciences can buy into the delusion. Although any rational human being ought logically reject the concept of one or more gods.It seems that belief in a god is such a need and such a comfort that any cognitive dissonance the person experiences is obliterated in favor of the belief. I've always suspected that believers actually know, maybe somewhere deep in their consciousness (or the unconscious?) that they are lying to themselves. They have to know at some level, don't they?
Other Comments by heathen2
21. Comment #50225 by Salvatore on June 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Wow.This wasn't actually in the Guardian per se, was it?
Other Comments by Salvatore
22. Comment #50226 by BAEOZ on June 15, 2007 at 9:51 pm
well if im unlucky enough to get a malignant tumour in my life i should feel quite confident if i ignore the physicians dogmatic suggestions of various treatments, no, instead i'll pray a bit, put a toad under my pillow and repeat the words 'unconditional love' all day long, yes that'll work, maybe.
I did that last week, and my gammy hip is still playing up. I must've used the wrong species of toad or prayed to the wrong god.....
Other Comments by BAEOZ
23. Comment #50230 by The Wee Flea on June 15, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Is Mark certain there is no certainty?Other Comments by The Wee Flea
24. Comment #50235 by PaulJ on June 16, 2007 at 12:38 am
... - the militant atheists aim to force individuals to take sides. They too want to push people to fundamentalist extremes - this time following scientific rather than religious dogma.Completely, utterly wrong. Atheists ('militant' or otherwise) are not touting dogma. They're not telling people what to think on the basis (from unquestionable authority) that certain principles are incontrovertibly true. They are saying, "Where's the evidence?"
One of the new militants, Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, is so triumphant that he contemplates the possibility of nuking Muslims: although it would kill millions of innocent people, he argues it might be the only option "we" have, in the face of the threat "they" and their faith represent.The operative words in this quote are 'contemplates' and 'might' -- Harris isn't saying that this is what should be done, he's simply exploring all possible implications.
Other Comments by PaulJ
25. Comment #50238 by Corylus on June 16, 2007 at 1:18 am
Take philosophy and Socrates. He is the father of western thought because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know.
Yes Mr Vernon, Socrates did famously note that the only thing about which he was truly sure was of his own ignorance. However, this can be read in two ways; either as the humble admission of a great mind faced with an infinity complex world or an arrogant assertion that those who would claim to know more than Socrates are "less than ignorant". (Personally, the more that I learn about Socrates, the more I lean towards the latter explanation).
I smell the same thinly veiled arrogance in the above piece. I could take all this twittering on about 'lack of certainty' and 'non knowing' from a proper card carrying agnostic. I might not be able to resist pointing out that there is no point having a mind if you can't make it up, but I could deal. This man is a different beast entirely, or he wouldn't be talking about his work as an Anglican priest. No fence sitting here!
I find this type of believer unbelievably irritating. They like agnostics, but loathe atheists. Agnostics are fine, because they understand how nothing is certain and also have the good manners not to question the certainty that the believers keep for themselves. Personally I prefer the believer that reckons both groups are going to fry in hell. That position is at least consistent and honest.
Other Comments by Corylus
26. Comment #50240 by BicycleRepairMan on June 16, 2007 at 1:28 am
"One of the new militants, Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, is so triumphant that he contemplates the possibility of nuking Muslims: although it would kill millions of innocent people, he argues it might be the only option "we" have, in the face of the threat "they" and their faith represent. If this sounds like the rhetoric of Jerry Falwall in perverse reverse it's because that is exactly what it is."This is a complete out-of-context distortion of what Harris actually writes, I'd say it borderlines a crime to throw a false accusation like this at him.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
27. Comment #50243 by hasty toweling on June 16, 2007 at 2:01 am
This guy represents a strange philosophical breed; his biggest concern seems to be with certainty as a concept. To wit -- we can't be certain of anything; anyone who believes that the earth is round is in the same category as someone convinced that Micheal Jackson is Elvis. His point of view is so sad and childish it makes me want to cry. Why are people so damn stupid?Other Comments by hasty toweling
28. Comment #50244 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 2:08 am
Vernon is encouraging vagueness and mystery. A vague attraction to mystery is the best defense against confrontation and challenge to faith-based beliefs, better than fundamentalism.Fundamentalism--in this closely connected world we all live in at present--can lead to deconversion because of the glaring conflict between modernity and fundamentalist beliefs. En bref, fundamentalism is giving moderate religion a bad name through association. Atheism, consistently and clearly stated, will also lead into coming out of the closet for atheists and pushing borderline theists over to the atheist side--as shown in the Converts Corner on the upper left of this site.
Goldilocks would have adored Vernon, keep the mush served just at the right temperature, so no one will upset the religious bowl of steaming nonsense. Vernon may sound like he is giving advice to atheists in the form of don't make the same mistake which religious fundamentalists have made. However, he is really saying, please do not focus on the naked emperor because we are running out of imaginary clothes with which we can adorn Him.
Other Comments by Logicel
29. Comment #50245 by bitbutter on June 16, 2007 at 2:15 am
I think the pertinent points have already been made very well. My first reaction was that Vernon's argument fails because the answers to the following questions are far from obvious, and he doesn't provide them:What is 'scientific dogma'?
In what sense does TGD offer certainty?--certainty about what?
Why is a world with more critical thinking and less superstitious belief necessarily a less humanistic world?
Other Comments by bitbutter
30. Comment #50246 by BicycleRepairMan on June 16, 2007 at 2:26 am
"Albert Einstein, another agnostic, is forcibly recruited to Dawkins' cause"Moron. Einstein was not an agnostic, nor was he an atheist, nor a personal god believer. He was rather a pretty firm believer in what _he_ called "God" and "The God Delusion" explores this concept excellently, at no point that I can remember is Einstein "accused" of supporting RD's views, he is rather treated as a believer, albeit a different kind of believer than the lot Dawkins attacks.
Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
31. Comment #50252 by Donald on June 16, 2007 at 3:39 am
Vernon's profile in the Guardian says he left the Church of England after becoming an atheist. Probably he figured out that religions peddle a load of fictions, claiming they are truth. Good.Now Vernon says he is an agnostic, which makes him sound a bit wimpish.
In fact the evidence that the god of the bible is a human invention and does not exist is overwhelming - about as strong as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun.
I think he should stop wallowing in uncertainty and keep it simple. The earth orbits the sun. God is a human invention and does not exist.
[It is fine to keep the uncertainty about how the universe came to exist - no one knows - but a personal god that cares about us, answers prayers, and scoops us up into an afterlife can be placed alongside a flat earth, astrology and alchemy.]
This is not militant, not undue certainty, just an honest assessment of the evidence. Once evidence becomes overwhelming, it is inappropriate to use the language of uncertainty.
Other Comments by Donald
32. Comment #50253 by BillySands on June 16, 2007 at 3:52 am
Since when was providing evidence (or lack of) reason and arguement telling people what to believe. Wee Flea could have written that bullshit - I see you have been misrepresenting atheists in the scottish parliment news letter again. You never did tell us, should a homosexual be allowed to be in charge of your church - naturally, I'm not talking about god here, but he often breaks his own rules, so in principle, he could be gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtDWru1po0 Other Comments by BillySands
33. Comment #50254 by GBile on June 16, 2007 at 4:06 am
Mr. Vernon may have been good in assisting his flock fondling their spiritual genitals every sunday, but he apparently doesn't have a clue what life is like when you consider that the possibility that a god or gods exist is negligible and therefore call yourself an atheist.He likes to impress us with statements like:
But we are also far from wise like the angels
This is of course only 'circular mythology' and meaningless.
Being free from religious delusion does not make you certain, far from it. It sets your focus in life on the real stuff. It makes you realize that wishful thinking is counterproductive, but that we can gradually, in tiny but important steps, obtain knowledge that can benefit us in our existence on our 'pale blue dot'.
Other Comments by GBile
34. Comment #50257 by rokort on June 16, 2007 at 4:19 am
Bonzai (Comment #50223 on June 15, 2007 at 8:07 pm),couldn't agree more. I think the biggest challenge is to make people aware how science works and somehow show the immense amount of knowledge we've gained about the world through the scientific discourse.
One of the things that gets you through life is dealing with reality. Are we at school properly/extensively/deeply enough taught how to interpret wat we experience i sometimes wonder - especially when i hear that science classes are degrading and at school it's considered "more important" that kids express themselves the way they like and learn about "necessary" things as how to use a computer to look up the latest on Britney Spears.....
Pardon me for generalizing here, but i think that if we don't learn how our natural world is built up and how we came to know, how can we expect people to understand and accept life? They'll turn to dogma's that substitute their insecurities for false comfort, instead of moving towards science, where dealing with how things are gives no immediate or obvious consolation. When you understand science at least a bit or have learned how to be rational it's all the more easy to see how empty and dangerous the world of religion is and to accept why things are the way they are.
I don't say you need science in school to understand how incongruous religion is, but critical thinking and getting to know nature - of which we are nothing but a part - sure helps build a world where ignorance is not considered normal.
Other Comments by rokort
35. Comment #50259 by newatheist on June 16, 2007 at 5:04 am
From the article – In science, it seems to me that the best sort is that which answers questions by opening up more questions, and in particular questions that are beyond science itself to answer.WTF? All the better to keep God at the front, dangling carrot style, I suppose. And this guy left the church?
Other Comments by newatheist
36. Comment #50261 by pewkatchoo on June 16, 2007 at 5:36 am
I am getting fed up of reading baseless shite like this from the religious numbnuts. My posted response is below.Ho hum, more ridiculously subjective faith based twaddle. Your piece is full of false assertions and downright bloody lies. I hope Sam Harris, for one, sues you for libel.
Now, let me explain the words you cannot currently use to describe atheism.
Militant, nope, no atheists bombing churches/mosques or even want to pull them down or anything like that.
Rabid, nope, not much in the way of mindless frothing at the mouth to be found there. Just calmly reasoned notions. The worst that they could be considered guilty of is extreme boredom with the intellectual paucity of the arguments of the devout.
Beliefs, nope, atheism is an absence of belief. We don't believe in anything. We do have hopes and aspirations, loves and desires. But no mindless beliefs.
Fundamentalist, nope, nope, nope. This is perhaps the most ridiculous charge laid at the door of the new atheist. There is no doctrine or dogma associated with atheism, so it is not a word that can even remotely be used to describe atheists. Anyone who uses it is a foolish ignoramus who really should buy a new dictionary.
Dogmatic, nope. If you bring me proof of god's existence, and I do mean proof, then I will be quite happy to accept it. I reserve the right to call god an idiot though.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
37. Comment #50262 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 5:37 am
how science works and somehow show the immense amount of knowledge we've gained about the world through the scientific discourse
Totally in agreement. I've had discussions with people who think that science is some sort of conspiracy or control method. When I've told them there are not scientific facts, they seem to have this huge AHA! moment, like they have just been handed the keys to the prison and now can lock up science as another relativist concept that only has validity if it makes them feel warm and cuddly. The media has a lot of culpability here. They report a medical study done on 2 lab rats as having the same empirical value as a 30 year study of people for example. Or the call the latest empirical support of a theory as fact. When it's revealed that science doesn't prove anything, only disproves, it seems to the ignorati that science is somehow weakened.
The scientific method is the only method that has practically advanced humanity. No amount of inventing of theological sophistication, with its certainty has emancipated anyone.
Now, I'll be cut down by upset faithful and philosophers who object to my perceived disrespect for their chosen thought experiment.....
Other Comments by BAEOZ
38. Comment #50275 by kindofblu on June 16, 2007 at 9:02 am
The following is Ann Druyan's response to a similar claim about uncertainty and science during Beyond Belief 06. I have this one saved to my desktop...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MVqtZvf8U
Other Comments by kindofblu
39. Comment #50291 by PrimeNumbers on June 16, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Funny that although we can't prove the non-existance of unicorns, zeus, thor etc. we don't tend to be agnostic towards unicorns, zeus, thor etc. It's only on the big G god that people become agnostic, which to me, increasingly sounds like a amount of moderation towards respecting religions belief - as in, "I'm not going to say you're wrong, only that we can't ever know". We don't go into such pussy-footing talk when it comes to unicorns, pink and invisible or otherwise, or with santa claus or anything else nobody generally believes in. Atheist and proud of it. It doesn't matter if gods can't be proved or disproved - we should treat their belief or lack of it like anything else we believe or not.Now for a creator god - they must by definition be the most important thing in the universe - their marks of creation must be everywhere. There's no way that something as important and fundemental could leave no evidence.
I'm saying that the more fundemental a property of something, the easier it should be to detect that property. That makes the lack of evidence for god, even in the small section of the universe we know perfect evidence for their being no god.
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
40. Comment #50308 by robzrob on June 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Haven't read all the comments, so maybe repeating:Straw man, straw man, straw man!
None of the current popular questioners of religion has ever stated that they are certain god doesn't exist. And what on earth is scientific dogma?
Other Comments by robzrob
41. Comment #50310 by The Schuermannator on June 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm
kindofblu:I was going to respond to this topic with Ann's retort to that whiney turd from Beyond Belief however you beat me to the punch. I can honestly say I think I had a tear fall listening to her speak about the scientific endeavour and how comfortable scientists are with having so few certainties.
Other Comments by The Schuermannator
42. Comment #50335 by Beachbum on June 16, 2007 at 11:41 pm
25. Comment #50238 by CorylusI think you are absolutely correct. Even my icon has trouble with the amount certainty of an apologist (backed by their "unquestionable authority") or maybe it is that the thinly veiled arrogance can even surpass his own, "don't know".
Throughout history, the certainty displayed by the devout is as unmistakable as the smoke from burning flesh, forgive me.
28. Comment #50244 by Logicel
I have always had the highest respect for your input on this site, and again you assail maybe the biggest problem I have with the apologists. That they keep their argument somewhere between an 'ambiguous greased pig' and an "Oh, but that's not what it means", referring to yet another misinterpretation of a mistranslated text that was "undoubtedly" misquoted. Is it ok if I leave my boots on, for what usually comes next?
Other Comments by Beachbum
43. Comment #50359 by ignored_ethos2 on June 17, 2007 at 7:12 am
pewkatchoo:Can I have permission to use this:
"Now, let me explain the words you cannot currently use to describe atheism.
Militant, nope, no atheists bombing churches/mosques or even want to pull them down or anything like that.
Rabid, nope, not much in the way of mindless frothing at the mouth to be found there. Just calmly reasoned notions. The worst that they could be considered guilty of is extreme boredom with the intellectual paucity of the arguments of the devout.
Beliefs, nope, atheism is an absence of belief. We don't believe in anything. We do have hopes and aspirations, loves and desires. But no mindless beliefs.
Fundamentalist, nope, nope, nope. This is perhaps the most ridiculous charge laid at the door of the new atheist. There is no doctrine or dogma associated with atheism, so it is not a word that can even remotely be used to describe atheists. Anyone who uses it is a foolish ignoramus who really should buy a new dictionary.
Dogmatic, nope. If you bring me proof of god's existence, and I do mean proof, then I will be quite happy to accept it. I reserve the right to call god an idiot though."
I'd like to use it as part of a standard reply. It would save me some typing as I often get replies from creationist that have all of those words (and then some) in a single reply. I could just save it in a text file and copy/paste when appropriate.
Like you I get really tired or repeating myself so perhaps I'll save up these little gems of clarity and file them by offense. Using them when necessary and only editing them when appropriate for context.
thanks,
ie
Other Comments by ignored_ethos2
44. Comment #50672 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 10:57 am
ignoredbe my guest mate! No royalties need be paid!
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
45. Comment #50995 by Dace on June 21, 2007 at 1:08 am
It is a constant irritation to me to continually see agnosticism painted as some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism, though I can understand it because I used to think the same. Atheism and theism both refer to one's belief - whther or not there is any God.
In contrast, agnosticism (I suppose gnosticism would be it's antithesis, although I understand this also to be the name of a religious sect) refers to the question of whether we can know that a God exists, or whther such a fact is principally unknowable. Agnostics hold that we cannot know this.
So in fact you can be an agnostic theist, who personally believes that a God exists but we cannot know for sure, or you can be an agnostic atheist, who believes that there is no God, and that we nevertheless cannot know this for certain (how do we disprove something that does not exist, like Russell's teapot?).
Most of those who call themselves agnostic lack a belief in a God, and so are actually agnostic atheists. I am one of these. So was Einstein, Darwin and Russell (Russell's atheistically inclined agnosticism means precisely this)
There is in fact no middle ground. One either has a positive (though perhaps marginal) belief in a God, or one lacks such a belief.
Other Comments by Dace
46. Comment #51113 by D'Arcy on June 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The Guardian (British daily paper), has managed to drag out two missing links to the hominid fossil record, in the form of Theo Hobson and Mark Vernon. Apparently they have been classified as Homo Nocertaintyus. Vernon puts it succinctly in quoting St Augustine:
Faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing, and conversely, not about fleeing from it in the shallow certainties that religion can deliver.
I think Karl Marx called it the "mist enveloped land of religion", and that's good enough for me, for there is none so blind in a fog who will not use a compass or map. Vernon can willingly enter into his fantasy land, but please don't blame us if he gets lost.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
47. Comment #51504 by beautyscientist on June 23, 2007 at 7:00 am
I think the Guardian is enjoying the controversy about God that is quite topical at the moment, but is having trouble finding sane people to put the pro-God case.Though judging by this effot they are probably getting splinters in their fingers from so much barrel-bottom scraping.
If you are reading this Mr Vernon, my advice is try rubbing sticks together. Civilisation is advancing all the time, you have to try and keep up.
Still at least he isn't completely barmy.
Other Comments by beautyscientist
48. Comment #51514 by BillySands on June 23, 2007 at 7:50 am
Still at least he isn't completely barmy.
Nobody's perfect
Other Comments by BillySands
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one-- the pulpit. It yielded last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession-- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery texts in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all."
Mark Twain
"It is an article of passionate faith among "politically correct" biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway."
Richard Dawkins
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also"
Mark Twain
"Leon Lederman, the physicist and Nobel laureate, once half-jokingly remarked that the real goal of physics was to come up with an equation that could explain the universe but still be small enough to fit on a T-shirt. In that spirit, Dawkins offered up his own T-shirt slogan for the ongoing evolution revolution:
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #50181 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Other Comments by Dr Benway