Print
His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel
by David Baddiel
Reposted from:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1971115.ece
I FIND, AS I GROW OLDER, THAT I AM perhaps not as up to speed with the Zeitgeist as I used to be. The rock subculture emo may, I think, have come and gone, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is/was. Web 2.0 is a phrase that I've noticed passing by in newspaper articles as if we all know what it means, but clearly I missed the explanatory one when it first arrived. I have yet – as a full-blooded modern male, I'm ashamed to admit this – to watch a single episode of 24 (although, as is the modern way, I do have the first series waiting for me in a box set, pining for that two-day-solid watching window), but I know that it is already passé, long jumped its shark, and that I should by now have moved on to Entourage. And, worst of all, I have only just started reading The God Delusion.
The pace of cultural debate being what it is these days, it feels, only a year after publication, very late to be reading this and even later to be writing about it, (although not as late as publishing another version of it, as Christopher Hitchens seems to have – although obviously, with my backlog, I haven't read God Is Not Great, and accept that this comment may be unfair).
In my defence, I was waiting until the paperback came out, because my shelves groan with unread hardbacks, left there out of a combination of comfort-concern – one's man-bag is so much less painful on the shoulder with a paperback – and a realisation that easyJet now charges £10 for every 20kg.
Anyway, it's interesting to read a book that you've read a lot about. I'm not just talking about reviews, but a book that caused a big old chattering-classes stir, with responses in The Sunday Times written in the name of God. A book that broke out of the Books pages on to the opinion pages, even on to the news pages. Thus my responses to it are not neutral, but waver upon a median line of expectation.
It is, for example, much funnier than I had expected. Sometimes I'm not sure that this is intended – Dawkins's recommendation in the preface (after a thank-you to his wife, the former Doctor Who companion Lalla Ward, for doing so) that all authors should employ an actor to read their manuscripts back to them before submission ("it must be a professional actor, with voice and ear sensitively tuned to the music of language") made me laugh out loud, bringing to mind how much Nigel Planer's brilliant comedy character Nicholas Craig would salivate at the work prospects that taking up this idea might create. However, I laughed with the author at – but was also surprised by – his use of sixth-form sarcasm. I just wasn't expecting the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science of New College, Oxford, to quote long tracts by theologians and then begin his argument against them by saying: "Yeah, right." I wonder if Lalla got exactly the right Nick Hancock-style intonation.
I also have begun to understand why The God Delusion caused such ire. Logically religion is, of course, nonsense. Attacking it with logic, especially if you are as bright as Dawkins, causes its arguments to disintegrate so quickly that it can seem like bullying, like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Except that this isn't a butterfly – it's a vast and powerful superstructure. You have to keep on reminding yourself of this when you read the book, because, within its confines, Dawkins seems (and is, intellectually) the high status one.
Nor was I expecting it to give up attacking the idea of God's existence so early (page 189 in the paperback), and turn into an ultra-Darwinian analysis of why religion exists at all. This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly governed by our selfish genes, and what drives us are not the basic positives any more but the basic negatives: anxiety, fear, incomprehension, the desperate need to think that we know, to be "right"all the time, and, above all, to be parented – and there you have him, God.
Anyway, I'm off to listen to My Chemical Romance's lastest album. I have a lot to get through.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1971115.ece
I FIND, AS I GROW OLDER, THAT I AM perhaps not as up to speed with the Zeitgeist as I used to be. The rock subculture emo may, I think, have come and gone, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is/was. Web 2.0 is a phrase that I've noticed passing by in newspaper articles as if we all know what it means, but clearly I missed the explanatory one when it first arrived. I have yet – as a full-blooded modern male, I'm ashamed to admit this – to watch a single episode of 24 (although, as is the modern way, I do have the first series waiting for me in a box set, pining for that two-day-solid watching window), but I know that it is already passé, long jumped its shark, and that I should by now have moved on to Entourage. And, worst of all, I have only just started reading The God Delusion.
The pace of cultural debate being what it is these days, it feels, only a year after publication, very late to be reading this and even later to be writing about it, (although not as late as publishing another version of it, as Christopher Hitchens seems to have – although obviously, with my backlog, I haven't read God Is Not Great, and accept that this comment may be unfair).
In my defence, I was waiting until the paperback came out, because my shelves groan with unread hardbacks, left there out of a combination of comfort-concern – one's man-bag is so much less painful on the shoulder with a paperback – and a realisation that easyJet now charges £10 for every 20kg.
Anyway, it's interesting to read a book that you've read a lot about. I'm not just talking about reviews, but a book that caused a big old chattering-classes stir, with responses in The Sunday Times written in the name of God. A book that broke out of the Books pages on to the opinion pages, even on to the news pages. Thus my responses to it are not neutral, but waver upon a median line of expectation.
It is, for example, much funnier than I had expected. Sometimes I'm not sure that this is intended – Dawkins's recommendation in the preface (after a thank-you to his wife, the former Doctor Who companion Lalla Ward, for doing so) that all authors should employ an actor to read their manuscripts back to them before submission ("it must be a professional actor, with voice and ear sensitively tuned to the music of language") made me laugh out loud, bringing to mind how much Nigel Planer's brilliant comedy character Nicholas Craig would salivate at the work prospects that taking up this idea might create. However, I laughed with the author at – but was also surprised by – his use of sixth-form sarcasm. I just wasn't expecting the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science of New College, Oxford, to quote long tracts by theologians and then begin his argument against them by saying: "Yeah, right." I wonder if Lalla got exactly the right Nick Hancock-style intonation.
I also have begun to understand why The God Delusion caused such ire. Logically religion is, of course, nonsense. Attacking it with logic, especially if you are as bright as Dawkins, causes its arguments to disintegrate so quickly that it can seem like bullying, like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Except that this isn't a butterfly – it's a vast and powerful superstructure. You have to keep on reminding yourself of this when you read the book, because, within its confines, Dawkins seems (and is, intellectually) the high status one.
Nor was I expecting it to give up attacking the idea of God's existence so early (page 189 in the paperback), and turn into an ultra-Darwinian analysis of why religion exists at all. This is the bit that I'm at, and I don't like it as much.
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose) but surely the key thing about religion is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly governed by our selfish genes, and what drives us are not the basic positives any more but the basic negatives: anxiety, fear, incomprehension, the desperate need to think that we know, to be "right"all the time, and, above all, to be parented – and there you have him, God.
Anyway, I'm off to listen to My Chemical Romance's lastest album. I have a lot to get through.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 91 of 91 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #51680 by scottishgeologist on June 24, 2007 at 4:10 am
Billy, you wont get a straight answer from DR here. I know why you brought up homosexuality and the Pope - the thread touched on logicallity - both these subjects (anti christ pope and homophobia ARE illogical) Trouble is David is a member of a church whose subordiante statement of faith states unequivocally (and backs it up eoth "scripture proof" from 2 Thess) that the Pope is the Antichrist. And the homophobia among the FC masses is palpable. Dont try to deny it DR, I've been there, Ive sat in the pews, I've had "fellowship" where the subject has been raised.What is quite funny is that DR is reading a book by the Pope! Maybe he'll finish it when Ehud Olmert finishes reading "Mein Kampf"
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
53. Comment #51681 by Downunder on June 24, 2007 at 4:21 am
Re post49,#51657reggiedixon: not so baffling, you understood nicely that religion is not important to me because history has it, as Dawkins noted, that religion has caused more trouble than it solves. I "believe", amongst other things, that respect for each other, whatever colour or creed will make a better world. The forces of nature, of the Universe are sufficient to remind us of our mortality, we do not need wars, murderers, etc. to remind us. Our mortality requires reflection on the reasons for our existence. What is life, why are we here? Scientific research has provided many answers but countless more questions remain while researchers plod on. Meantime what path must we decide to take? My answer: I open my eyes, ears and mind and decide for myself. It is my life, my responsibility. Other Comments by Downunder
54. Comment #51683 by BillySands on June 24, 2007 at 4:28 am
Hi SG,You're not wrong there. I would like David to see the errors of his ways and make him question his bigoted views. Failing that, I'll just keep sticking that thorn in his side and he can thank god for the gifts of blindness and bigotry.
Having said that, it does underline why we should not get our moral codes from christian fundies (mind you, the gay friendly ones are disobeying their god - lose-lose situation really)
Other Comments by BillySands
55. Comment #51689 by pewkatchoo on June 24, 2007 at 5:33 am
I am in the Netherlands at the moment and my company appartment looks out over the town square. They are having some sort of colourful religious ceremony in the centre now but you can count the number of people watching in a quick scan. Maybe 50 people involved in the procession and about 20-30 people watching. And some of them are probably there by accident. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
56. Comment #51691 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 5:41 am
Downunder : Naturally your philosophy is important to you, in your original message you seemed to imply that people you described as atheists need to change in some way.Have you considered that some people (myself incuded) have a philosophy that specifically rejects looking for subjective meanings and subjective attributions ?
I have on numerous occasions upset people who say they are "Not religious but are spiritual" by asking them to define how "spiritual" differs from any other system of belief in imaginary entities.
Other Comments by reggiedixon
57. Comment #51695 by newatheist on June 24, 2007 at 6:48 am
Well I liked this article, but then I'm low brow. And for my money, he hit the nail on the head (light hearted or not), in the last paragraph."…the key thing about religion (with regards to ultradarwinism) is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly (emphasis mine) governed by our selfish genes…"Bugger you lot. That says it all for me.
36. Comment #51593 by IQHQ
IQHQ, I think you were too quick to dismiss almax, and you have to admit the dangers of religion is what drives the current debate.
Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to (such) people losing faithI completely disagree. Please read "convert's corner" on this site. Release from religion is just that. It's liberating and life affirming. Please return with anything you have found written anywhere by people who have turned away from religion and found otherwise.
Your "let the babies have their bottle" argument is drivel. There's no need to be patronising to the "dummies who just won't get it." Please listen to Prof Dawkins thoughts contained in an interview here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,240,Penn-Jillette-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,Penn-Radio-Richard-Dawkins
(Sorry - my linking skills are still evolving. Please cut and paste if you want to check it out)
You say
If…humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?We haven't, and I don't, but,
Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?No. Let's help people and reduce the harm wherever we can.
Your views are condescending and elitist. As a liberated, under-educated ex-xtian, I say "screw you".
Other Comments by newatheist
58. Comment #51696 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 6:48 am
I would like David to see the errors of his ways and make him question his bigoted views.
I would like to see him realise how silly and inconsistent it is to base your views on an old book, parts of which you choose to ignore, and also to make vows based on a set of doctrines, parts of which he has the arrogance to decide to ignore (even though they have been a largely unchanged part of his church for centuries).
Other Comments by steve99
59. Comment #51728 by Charlou on June 24, 2007 at 11:14 am
Quoted from the article:"The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose)"
This author is misunderstanding the concept here. Religion, itself, is not claimed to serve a positive survival-enhancing purpose, but is thought to be a likely by-product of the evolutionary development of heeding ones elders in order to survive. Adult humans developed superstitious belief (religion) for other reasons and passed the idea of it (transferal of memes) on to ensuing generations, and it's our naturally evolved propensity to heed our elders that has perpetuated the myth of religion. My understanding is that the transfer of memes, and evolutionary advantage are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
Other Comments by Charlou
60. Comment #51729 by Dr Benway on June 24, 2007 at 11:21 am
Yeah, Charlou, that's what I said. But then Dawkins came in here and gave us all a spanking. He explained that the author was being light-hearted and we should cut him slack.These Brits have become a subtle lot it seems. What happened to Benny Hill? Or the Parrot sketch?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
61. Comment #51743 by Eric Blair on June 24, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Charlou and Dr. Benway:Regarding Dawkins' thoughts on religion, "memes" and the notion of evolutionary "by-products," you would seem to be right.
However, both memes and by-products are in their infancy as developed hypotheses and controversial in evolutionary circles.
The idea that religion might serve an evolutionary survival-sustaining purpose is not unreasonable, though its precise biological markers are unclear within Darwinian theory.
TW
Other Comments by Eric Blair
62. Comment #51747 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Dr Benway : Oscar Wilde although Irish probably has more influence on British humour than Benny Hill although he was good in "The Italian Job" - naturally I mean the ironic 1969 version, not the one best not mentioned - another example of evolution in reverse.Other Comments by reggiedixon
63. Comment #51781 by Downunder on June 24, 2007 at 11:11 pm
reggiedixon, in reply to#51691, I consider atheists as "seekers", not much different to most of us, even those like myself who have gradually stopped going to church. The empty seats at the long established churches are evidence to me that dogmatic stanced religions have passed the use-by-date for the masses. However, old habits die hard, indoctrinations will linger. I would interpret someone's answer of "being spiritual but not religious" as wanting to remain a "good" person but not, or no longer, going to church; probably still believing in some supernatural code of behaviour but no longer interested in sermons from the pulpit. If you feel that there is a significant difference between religious and spiritual in this context, have a look in the Richard Dawkins-Alister McGrath site at the endless discussions by Dianelos.You could ask him about the difference, and see if it takes you any closer to what you are looking for. I do not like splitting hairs. I foster discussion with the objective of action. Discussion for its own sake may serve as a mental exercise if one has nothing more productive to do. Other Comments by Downunder
64. Comment #51787 by Charlou on June 25, 2007 at 12:12 am
Dr. Benway: reading back over the comments now, and apologies for the double up there.Eric Blair: yes, I find food for much thought there, thankyou.
Originally posted by IQHQ:
"Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good."
I trust your failure to include women among the 'relatively intelligent' was an unfortunate oversight in your eagerness to point out the slippery slope to anarchic nihilism for the faithless, uneducated and unwashed masses ;). Most of us here would agree that a good education, a sense of community and purpose in life does not necessitate a component of faithful deistic appeasement. Total debasement of the human ego is not the result of a lack of religious inspiration, but a symptom of the prevailing attitude which undermines our natural propensity toward goodness.
Back on topic, and I must say, I'm another who appreciated the sharp wit and humour to be found throughout The God Delusion. :)
Other Comments by Charlou
65. Comment #51795 by Corylus on June 25, 2007 at 2:07 am
Newatheist I did enjoy that last line of your post #57 above.
I'm an overeducated type myself, but I know pretentious wank when I read it, and I don't like it either.
Other Comments by Corylus
66. Comment #51804 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 4:46 am
Charlou, lol - no, no oversight. In most of my post, I was addressing Richard Dawkins. When I referred to "you and I", I was referring to him and I, both "relatively intelligent men".
Even if I was referring to humanity by the generic "men", I hardly think i'd need to apologise for it. I seem to remember RD himself agrue why this is so in the preface to "The Selfish Gene".
Downunder,
thank you for the compliment. Undeserved, I am sure.
p.s:~ Bach is the best :)
Other Comments by IQHQ
67. Comment #51807 by The Wee Flea on June 25, 2007 at 4:58 am
Billy,Obviously you're having difficulty with the English language. As I explicitly stated in my previous post I believe that homophobia is a sin and contrary to the Bible's teaching. I also think that to call the Pope the antichrist is a nonsense. How much clearer do you want me to be than that? And once again I have to ask, what is your obsession with these subjects and why do you bring them up on this thread?
As regards the head of our church, we don't have one! I would object to anyone whether homosexual or heterosexual placing themselves in the position of head!
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
68. Comment #51812 by Thor the Mariner on June 25, 2007 at 5:26 am
I have to say that the article is quite enjoyable and im surprised that it has generated so much criticism. It is a light hearted piece and the fact that the first half consists of (humourous) examples of him being behind the times is a bit of as clue that this isn't fiercely centred around serious religious debate.However, i know Baddiel is an intelligent guy and to be honest he hits the nail square on the head with religion enabling people "to pretend we never die".
The desire to survive has obvious survival qualities. Religion gives people the belief that they will survive forever. The fact that people cling to something with that promise should not be a surprise. An obvious point perhaps but one that seems to be overlooked.
Furthermore his butterfly analogy is bang on. He is saying that the arguments for religion are so weak that arguing against them is almost too easy, yet the "superstructure" of religion seems almost indestructable as there are billions of people who just will not listen to reason and facts.
Other Comments by Thor the Mariner
69. Comment #51816 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 5:49 am
Thor:I have to say that the article is quite enjoyable and im surprised that it has generated so much criticism.I admit my negative over-reaction, and put it down to two things:
1. Another recent article annoyed me and so primed my mood.
2. The title seemed to say that people who criticize religion are meanies. I'm not a meanie, and death to those who say otherwise!
I now repent of my reaction, but reserve the right to make snarky asides. The piece is no Parrot sketch, after all.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
70. Comment #51818 by Thor the Mariner on June 25, 2007 at 6:04 am
Fair enough Doc.To be honest i think i might be going a little easy on Baddiel as I still have fond memories of Mary Whitehouse Experience and Fantasy Football.
I think people are annoyed that he is getting paid for writing a few thoughts down without giving it the same kind of attention that the militant atheists on this site do (i include myself in that).
Other Comments by Thor the Mariner
71. Comment #51821 by Donald on June 25, 2007 at 6:17 am
Baddiel wrote, and attracted comments from Benway & Charlou:
The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose)
Well, if we view religion according to a theory of memes, religion has to increase "fitness". Usually "fitness" is equated with survival, because harsh environments are the norm. However, in benign environments, so benign that population explosions occur, "fitness" can mean reproductive success, rather than fitness to survive against the vicissitudes of the environment.
The most "successful" of the major religions (Roman Catholics and Islam) contain doctrines designed to maximise the production of indoctrinated offspring.
As regards the other reasons for the "reproductive success" of religions, it helps humans self-assemble into communities which have sufficient central control propagated downwards via a hierarchy of obedience to act coherently as a single "organism". This coherence improves the community's survival against harsh environments and competing communities. Religion is not the only possible meme-package that can achieve communal coherence and obedience, but it is the most successful in the evolutionary sense of the most widespread.
I think the Dawkins "by-product" argument is only scratching the surface of the phenomenon of religions as a meme package. Religions are not about to fade away because a tiny minority of intelligent people point out that "god" is a human invention and does not actually exist (at least not in the form of conventional religion). There have been people pointing that out for thousands of years, long before Darwin, Telescopes and DNA sequencing strengthened the argument.
I'm not convinced that awareness of death has a large part to play either. Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death. It may be handy to provide religions with a few death-bed conversions, and it may provide opportunities for religions to indoctrinate while the bereaved are sad and vulnerable, but it's only one element in a complex phenomenon.
Other Comments by Donald
72. Comment #51822 by BillySands on June 25, 2007 at 6:29 am
David, Just how simple do I have to make this for you?Fact 1 you have said homosexuality is wrong. You don't justify why.
Fact 2 The bible says kill homosexuals
Fact 3 You made an oath that the pope was the antichrist. You either lied then, or you are lying now - which is it?
Do uou disagree with any of these statements?
Please clarify. Would you extend equal rights to gays in everything? Or do you discriminate without any justification other than the fact a book of grossly immoral teachings says so.
I'll rephrase my other question, would you allow a homosexual to be a minister in your church? If not, why not?
I keep bringing this up, because on several other threads you said you would happily say what harm homosexuality does, but you keep evading and clearing off without answering the question. If you cant justify your own moral position, why should we take you seriously - afterall, I believe your belief in a moral law is one reason you believe in god - although, I think the real reason is mmetic - another question you regularly evade
Other Comments by BillySands
73. Comment #51826 by Thor the Mariner on June 25, 2007 at 6:39 am
"Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death"But I think religion plays a huge part in enabling some people to do this! I dont think living past death is at the forefront of every religious person's mind every day. However, i do think that the belief in an afterlife allows some people to not worry about the issue again. Once they buy in to religion then their fear of death disappears and they try not to let it come back.
I am in total agreement with you in the "group mentality" argument as well as the order & hierachy angle. I also think our desire to have explanations for everything means that the all encompassing answer of 'God did it' is very appealing to them, particularly if they struggle to grasp scientific concepts.
However, i dont think these are the things that are as relevant when people's faith is challenged. Giving up their faith is equivalent to giving up eternal life in their own minds.
Other Comments by Thor the Mariner
74. Comment #51829 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 7:20 am
Thor, In your penultimate paragragh, you acknowledge some of the reasons why religion is so appealing (and valuable) to some people and also recognize that this is particularly the case for those who would find it hard to "replace" religion in their lives. These are points which I centred on in posts 36 and 37 of this thread, and I beg you to explain what you mean when you say... "I don't think these things are as relevant when people's faith is challenged".
Other Comments by IQHQ
75. Comment #51831 by Thor the Mariner on June 25, 2007 at 7:46 am
I simply mean that the promise of eternal life is a more important factor than others such as belonging to a group.Other Comments by Thor the Mariner
76. Comment #51832 by IQHQ on June 25, 2007 at 7:51 am
I would argue that the need for eternal life is subsumed within the need for explanations - i.e. the doctrines of "eternal life" explains how our lives (and moral choices) are not insignificant, why we need not fear death, etc. Do you disagree? Other Comments by IQHQ
77. Comment #51834 by Thor the Mariner on June 25, 2007 at 8:01 am
Yes, I do disagree. The desire to survive is the factor i am really getting at. It's far more primal than our inclination towards philosphy.Other Comments by Thor the Mariner
78. Comment #51835 by Donald on June 25, 2007 at 8:33 am
Donald wrote:
I'm not convinced that awareness of death has a large part to play either. Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death. It may be handy to provide religions with a few death-bed conversions, and it may provide opportunities for religions to indoctrinate while the bereaved are sad and vulnerable, but it's only one element in a complex phenomenon.
Thor wrote:
"Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death"
But I think religion plays a huge part in enabling some people to do this! I dont think living past death is at the forefront of every religious person's mind every day. However, i do think that the belief in an afterlife allows some people to not worry about the issue again. Once they buy in to religion then their fear of death disappears and they try not to let it come back.
Well, religions before Xianity and Islam, mostly did not have any notion of afterlife. People assumed that when you died you returned to the state you were in before being born, i.e. not existing. That is my belief today. I don't find the thought of being dead at all worrying or frightening. (I dislike the process of ageing, and dislike the prospect of being crippled, in pain, or helpless just prior to death, but that's a somewhat different matter.) Afterlife has not been essential as an element of successful religions.
However, I agree that it has become an important element of the main religions today. I was a bit careless in expressing doubt that awareness of death "has a large part to play". I should perhaps have said it wasn't an essential part, being a relatively recent invention at the time of creating the Jesus myths, and not part of the OT.
I also differ slightly from your perspective above. You wrote that the belief in an afterlife allows (some) people not to worry about the issue again. Ok, but this rather implies that the natural state of people is to worry about death. I don't think that. I think the fear of death is deliberately implanted into people by Xianity and Islam, reinforced by terrible threats of hell and eternal hateful damnation by god, so that they can dangle the carrot of eternal bliss in heaven as an alternative, if only people obey the dictates of that particular brand of Xianity/Islam.
Other Comments by Donald
79. Comment #51854 by The Wee Flea on June 25, 2007 at 11:41 am
Billy,I do not want to be banned as a troll again and I think it is quite wrong to hijack a thread which is about David Baddiels article to use it to make accusations against a non-entity such as myself.
For the record I disagree with all three of your 'facts'. If you want to open a thread about sexuality then please feel free to send in a relevant article to Josh. I'm sure there must be an atheist viewpoint on why some forms of sexuality are immoral and others are moral. I look forward to hearing the basis for that discussion.
Meanwhile if you are really interested in my own position then can I suggest you read Thomas E. Schmidt's 'Straight and Narrow'. He basically espouses the position I would hold. Then I'm sure you will feel free to commment. Or is it the case that your mind is already made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts?!
Meanwhile I will not answer any more questions on this subject on this thread. Please try to stick to the subject being discussed, avoid bringing up your own obcessions and learn to listen and question as well as accuse.
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
80. Comment #51867 by BillySands on June 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
For the record I disagree with all three of your 'facts'.
David, for the record
Fact 1 You say homosexuality is wrong: http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page14#12797 "The Bible says that the practice of homosexuality is wrong."
AND ON THIS THREAD
Fact 2 read Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
"20:13. see also your comments above
Fact 3 you made the westminister confession of faith which states : "25:6 "There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ:anor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God"
Are you confused? Which ones do you actually disgree with? You seem to be contradicting yourself
perhaps you would like to get back on to the original thread that you did a runner from - the would we be bettor off without religion one, and not make excuses. I want your opinion, not some books. That suggests you want to evadeand cant think for yourself. I find your accusation of accusations telling considering you cant agree with yourself.
Many of us here dont want you banned, you are good for Atheism, and I'm sure if you answer questions, Josh wont ban you. It seems to take less for a banning threat on your site: apparently all you need to do is post on numerous threads and actually hang around on them to debate with folk - call me rational!
Other Comments by BillySands
81. Comment #51950 by reggiedixon on June 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Downunder : Thanks for your explanation, I however am not looking for things that I am confident are not there to be found, only invented by the imagination. As I have mentioned before I'm not interested in what fictitious ideas can be invented, only that which is real.Other Comments by reggiedixon
82. Comment #52074 by newatheist on June 26, 2007 at 5:16 am
Corylus (comment 65)Thanks Corylus. And I don't think you can be overeducated.
Anyway, IQHQ has ignored us.
78. Comment #51835 by Donald
Donald, I'm in Thor's (and Baddiel's & Larkin's) camp. I think religion is based on the fear of death, and is an extension of the survival instinct. I think that everything else in religion is largely secondary.
Thor the Mariner-
The desire to survive is…far more primal (emphasis mine) than our inclination towards philosphy.Very well put.
Now add childhood impressionability. Children find out about death at an early age, and, as children, are suitably terrified by it. This exact time is when religion is introduced by (believe it or not) well meaning, though obviously misguided, religious parents, who underwent the same process themselves as children (ah, the meme). This fear of death was my experience as a child, but the religion part didn't "take". However, it seems based on your outlook, you never had any such fear or doubt.
I'm intrigued by your point:
religions before Xianity and Islam, mostly did not have any notion of afterlife.I didn't know that. Most religions, or some? Sincerely, if you revisit this thread can you please list a few so I can check that out?
Those early religions aside, ancient burial evidence shows that "our ancestors [from Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, and through to the Neolithic age] assumed that an afterlife existed—that they actualized the concept of an afterlife thousands of years before the same notion was incorporated into the religions of early Egyptians and, later, into many of ours."*
Hmm. Primal indeed.
* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Religions_And_Their_Source/1._Religions%27_Origins/2._Ancient_Assumptions/2.1_Life_After_Death (references John B. Noss, "Man's Religions, 1974")
Other Comments by newatheist
83. Comment #52094 by newatheist on June 26, 2007 at 6:12 am
74. Comment #51829 by IQHQ(paraphrased) "…religion is so appealing (and valuable) to some people and…this is particularly the case for those who would find it hard to "replace" religion in their lives. These are points which I centred on in posts 36 and 37 of this thread…"Okay, people who can't give up religion (i.e. would find it hard to "replace"), simply don't give up religion.
But, nobody's renouncing god and then killing themselves the next day. The worst you'll get is a religious relapse. Again, people who truly give up religion are unanimously elated. Please read "convert's corner" if you haven't already. Do you think all the contributors to this site were always atheists?
Your posts 36 and 37 basically said "let's do nothing". It's a good thing Prof Dawkins disagrees. A lot of people would be up Shit Creek if they had to wait for you to help them escape religion. But at least you could say "well, that's what they deserve, dumb bastards", when creationism is being taught to unknowing American children who would deserve better.
Other Comments by newatheist
84. Comment #52291 by Donald on June 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I didn't know that. Most religions, or some? Sincerely, if you revisit this thread can you please list a few so I can check that out?
The big example is the jewish religion, as described in the OT(aka torah). It is all about things that happen in life, and how god wants humans to behave. There is no mention of afterlife, at least not until the Pharisees started a belief in resurrection, a little ahead of Xianity starting. In turn, this suggests that the numerous cultures and tribes that came and went in Mespotamia for a couple of thousand years prior to Xianity, probably did not have religions that were based on an afterlife.
The (contemporary) Egyptian culture did have a belief in afterlife, but, successful though it was, it was only one of many cultures of the time.
Europe had numerous Celtic religions during that time. There seem to be no written records of the beliefs, but according to myths and folklore, they believed in spirits, and a spirit world, but one of fairies, gods and other supernatural beings, not dead humans. (To be fair, one historian does include a version of the greek hades, but he was a greek, writing about celts 500 years after Xianity, according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_World)
Perhaps I should have said, I was thinking of an afterlife belief where human consciousness continues, and thus the dead human in hell/heaven is aware of his fate and what caused it. I was not thinking of reincarnation beliefs where a spirit continues, but with a fresh start.
So I would class Buddhists, and most Hindus, as not having a belief in an afterlife (at least not in the sense of Xianity/Islam).
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/afterlife.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu
Also, it seems to me that most of the gods in most religions are primarily about influencing things in the here and now, such as gods of rain, sunshine, crops, fertility, travel, etc, etc. http://pantheon.org provides one online index.
YMMV of course. I don't claim any special expertise in ancient religions.
Despite what it says on the wikipedia page you quoted, I do not see religions as primarily driven by fear of death.
(1) For most of human evolution, life has been about getting enough food and avoiding disasters. Religion had first to support that. Life after death would be secondary. Rituals to charm the gods would be primary.
(2) Children do not have a well-developed sense of death. Children are instinctively concerned about being provided with food, care and avoiding punishment. A concept of death can be taught, but I disagree that it is primal.
(3) Yes, it is possible to introduce fear of death into children, although it has to be done by describing it as eternal punishment, rather than merely a statement that they will not exist for ever. The big religions have evolved to use this trick widely, I agree.
(4) It is well known that young people (say, people in the first half of their lives) mostly live their lives "as if they were going to live for ever". To me this means "without thinking about death because it's a distant prospect, irrelevant for now", not "with a belief in an afterlife".
(5) Religion is entwined with getting people to obey the dictates of a religious ruler. Punishment in the here and now, via peer pressure, cruelty by example, and rewards for submitting, expulsion for resisting, etc, are more effective than threats/promises about what happens after death.
The afterlife beliefs seem to me to have been a useful add-on, not primary. The add-on has gradually become more influential as life has become more secure, and people were able to spend less of their time on basic survival and more on socialising. Afterlife beliefs would appear disproportionately large in pre-history because tombs, etc have left physical traces, whereas rituals, oral traditions, and other religious practices, etc have not. However, this is all IMO. Again YMMV.
Other Comments by Donald
85. Comment #53121 by Viking on June 29, 2007 at 1:45 pm
The vast and powerful superstructure of religion? Well, religion (the memeplex) IS the product of an evolutionary process. It is as powerful and vast as a termite mound.Other Comments by Viking
86. Comment #53473 by almax on July 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Re comments 36, 37, 39 and 41In 36 IQHQ asked why we didn't just leave 'faith-heads' alone. I attempted to answer in 39 by making the, admittedly obvious, point that suicide bombers are 'faith-heads'. In 41 IQHQ described my comment as lame and predictable.
Irony of ironies. I happened to be at Glasgow airport yesterday when a couple of 'faith-heads', chanting the name of Allah, tried to check me and several thousand others out permanently.
Is this still 'lame and predictable'?
Other Comments by almax
87. Comment #54540 by matt_shute-07 on July 7, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Ultra-Darwinism? I'm not sure this part of Baddiel's critique warrants much of a rebuff, so I'll leave it there. Other Comments by matt_shute-07
88. Comment #59928 by IQHQ on July 31, 2007 at 6:29 am
NewAtheist & Almax & Corylus1) I called Almax's post "lame", and do not believe this was un-called-for, even if expressed rather harshly. The reason is this: if the genuine origins of Almax's proclaimed militance are that "THEY won't leave us alone" then the response of "not leaving them alone either" is to stoop to their level. The Golden Rule dictates that, if we believe this type of "in your face" preaching is in bad taste, then we should adopt a different approach ourselves. I guess that's why I called it lame, because it is self-defeating and "bringing yourself down to their obnoxious level".
In terms of "predictable", I guess this comment stemmed from the resort to the Harris-esque "suicide bomber" point. It is a telling sign when someone, during the course of debate, resorts to the most extreme manifestation of the other side's tempered point, in an exaggerated attempt to dismiss and ridicule that point of view. It suggests, at least to me, that they are unwilling to co-operate in the more nuanced centre-ground debate, where things are not so black and white. I grew up here in Belfast, with a constant fear of violence, and know all too well of the carnage and emotional turmoil caused by it. Modern-day Islamic terrorism is the same sort of thing. My brother works in London, and gets the tube every day. I, myself, have cause to visit the capital quite fequently. Therefore, my fear of these people and their actions (AND the reasons why they act in such ways) is as important to me as it is to any of you. And so, when listening to my points, you should not assume that they have not been thought out. Indeed, this was probably the main reason for my labelling your post as facile, because by making your point (about suicide bombers) you seemed to imply that I had not already considered this elementary argument. I had.
2) Corylus, I do not believe my post (i.e. post 36) to have been in any way "pretentious", and if you do then please point out to me how it is. Is there any dispute that there is a huge range of intellects in the world? . . . .
[By the way, NewAtheist, I am not talking about education, but rather innate ability to reason analytically and synthetically. There may be a correlation between the two, but necessarily so - as your example amply demonstrates]
. . . .Is there any dispute here? The difference between a Noam Chomsky and someone with severe learning difficulties is not just a matter of which school they went to. This is not pretentiousness, it is a matter of fact. There is a notable reluctance for those of an academic disposition to speak as openly and frankly about these issues as I have done, yet I won't be restrained by political correctness. Sorry! Take this analogy: A woman who is extraordinarily beautiful has within her gift a potential to mate with and marry a much greater percentage of the male polulation than does a less attractive woman (and visa versa). Moral cliches, such as "it's what's on the inside that counts" etc. attempt to alleviate, in the interests of society, the dark and gloomy reality that this truism creates. They are just there to placate this "dark side of evolution", so to speak. So it is with religion. It provides certainty and solace in an uncertain and unfair world, and for this reason will always have a certain popular appeal. That we may wish this was not so is irrelevant when considering political and pragmatic strategies.
Those people with a higher intelligence have within their gift the ability to comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others do. In this sense, i agree with Hitchens in "God is Not Great" when he says he believes religion to be "ineradicable". A great many peole on this site seem to labour under what I perceive as a well-intentioned, but misguided, idealism, in which they foresee a future universal secular and intellectual utopia. These same people argue strongly that the transcendentalism and the "wonder and awe" satiated by religion can be equally well satisfied by the physical and biological sciences, with classic literature and poetry, etc. Yet it ignores the anti-intellectual impulse of most of our species, namely that "truth" is not the be-all and end-all. Not that they would openly admit to deliberately holding erroneous beliefs, but when it comes down to it, at least sub-consciously they would not be prepared to sacrifice the comfort and solace of religion with some harsh truths about the world. So, I am all in favour of sites like this, and the publication and promulgation of ideas such as those espoused in "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great". I am all for facillitating, with support mechanisms, the easy transition from "dogmatic to rational" in our societies, and believe that this website is part of this worthy effort. Yet I do not think we should ram things down people's throats, any more than we would wish those same fundamentalists to do with us.
Other Comments by IQHQ
89. Comment #60534 by newatheist on August 2, 2007 at 6:48 am
IQHQ. Firstly with respect, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are New Atheists. I on the other hand am a new atheist (recently lapsed agnostic). The capitals don't apply to me, thanks. It's plain old newatheist.I'll start by acknowledging you apology on the "A shirt" thread. Thanks but don't sweat it on my account. I'm not at all worried about offence as long as I can throw a punch back.
"This is the internet, you plonker", and all that. ;-)
Now, Apologies to Almax and Corylus for my answering in their stead.
I'm disappointed by your post 88. I paragraph 1 you went straight from smart arsed to half arsed, trying to inflate your original retort with some thin kind of post-diction. Nothing's more of a giveaway than the phrases "I guess", and "this was probably my reason" (see below).
So, trying to mitigate religion's violent impact on the world is "stooping to their level"? Give me a break. Bombing them is stooping to their level. Weak, IQ. Weak.
Almax said –
So you recommend that we leave the 'faith-heads' in peace with their deluded but harmless views, while we luxuriate in our smug righteousness.
You said -
It is a telling sign when someone, during the course of debate, resorts to the most extreme manifestation of the other side's tempered point, in an exaggerated attempt to dismiss and ridicule that point of view. It suggests, at least to me, that they are unwilling to co-operate in the more nuanced centre-ground debate, where things are not so black and white.That's the whole problem with your original post. There was hardly any "nuance", was there? How was it "tempered"? And worse, you advocated complete inaction. That further renders your accounts of first hand experience with the fear of terrorism all the more impotent, and relegates them to post-diction status also. (engaging as they were.)
…when listening to my points, you should not assume that they have not been thought out. Indeed, this was probably the main reason for my labelling your post as facile, because by making your point (about suicide bombers) you seemed to imply that I had not already considered this elementary argument. I had.I don't understand. You "considered this elementary argument", "thought out your points", and post 36 was what you came up with?
EXHIBIT "A"
shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?***CLANG***. More on this later.
You said -
Corylus, I do not believe my post (i.e. post 36) to have been in any way "pretentious", and if you do then please point out to me how it is. Is there any dispute that there is a huge range of intellects in the world?For pretentious, please see EXHIBIT "A". "Mistranslated sarcasm", or something, I believe you called it on the "A" shirt thread.
*Umm… okay, sure.
(*see, sarcasm here, not hard.)
And now we come to me. I asked you to respond directly to my posts by number, and you haven't. All you've done is seize on the word "undereducated" and run with it, so I'll start with that. I have a tenth grade education. It's unlikely I could have gained entry to a university had I pursued further education. I worked for twenty years for an auto parts company. I'm an Australian, but I'm what Americans would call an "average Joe". (I don't have severe learning difficulties, but you're not Noam Chomsky, so your point is?)
Now, I've met a lot of people from all walks of life, and (political correctness aside) I consider myself smarter or dumber than many of them. I've met all sorts, from mechanics to farmers, bikies and clerks. Any one of them is as likely to say "praise God" as they are to say "it's all just a load of bullshit, isn't it?".
You say -
Those people with a higher intelligence have within their gift the ability to comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others do.Here's the thing about intelligence vs religion. You don't need to "comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others". Like I said, dimmer people than me can cut through the crap. And where would intelligence come into it if children were never told about god? Would they invent one for themselves, whether they were smart or dumb?
You're comments about nihilism and morality are also so far without evidence, but that's been covered elsewhere on this thread. You haven't responded to my points about the overwhelmingly positive effect of release from religion.
I'll turn now to Prof. Dawkins himself, who you addressed directly with your "you and I (relatively intelligent men)" line in post 36. It seems you didn't follow the link I suggested in post 57, so here's RD's answer to you from the interview.
There's something kind of patronising and condescending about suggesting "well of course WE don't need god because we're too intelligent, but the masses do, in order to be consoled and comforted, and in order to get through life. So, whether or not god exists doesn't really matter. What matters is the good effect that he can have on peoples' psychology or on society." I think there's something nauseatingly condescending and patronising about that.
And to close-
A great many peole on this site seem to labour under what I perceive as a well-intentioned, but misguided, idealism, in which they foresee a future universal secular and intellectual utopia.I haven't really gotten that impression. But as Donald so kindly said to me, "YMMV". I think everyone would concede religion is "ineradicable", but the current debate is about controlling its effects.
I am all for facillitating, with support mechanisms, the easy transition from "dogmatic to rational" in our societies, and believe that this website is part of this worthy effort. Yet I do not think we should ram things down people's throats, any more than we would wish those same fundamentalists to do with us.So you're saying this was the point you were making in post 36 all along? You sure made a balls-up of it.
Other Comments by newatheist
90. Comment #60544 by IQHQ on August 2, 2007 at 7:26 am
newatheistI clearly did. thanks for your post, it's given me much food for thought, especially your pointed and relevant quotation from the Professor.
When posting, I assumed that you'd take it for granted that I wanted to control the bad effects of religion. As a secualr atheist myself, how could it be otherwise? Yet, I feel that many of the mooted suggestions on this site (relating to how best to do this) may prove counter-productive (some are outright disgusting, and virtually no criticism attaches to these suggestions, as they immediately would if the shoe was on the other foot).
Yet, my approach to Atheism is still evolving, and (due to your direction) I take enormous comfort from the "Converts' Corner" section of this website. Perhaps my gloomy apocalyptic vision of a post-religious world were grossly over-stated, and (due to your post and many others I have read in recent weeks) I have started to adopt a more uncompromising approach to such matters. Like someone said, we will always have the deterrent effects of the Criminal Law to deal with those who do react adversely to the "Death of God". This, coupled with our innate moral instinct (and fleeting understanding of such moral principles as Universalism, the "Golden Rule" and the "Social Contract") should suffice in the future.
I am happy that you concede that religion is "ineradicable", and would hope that during the course of our efforts as part of this new movement, we take one lesson from the Christian theological canon, that is... "separate the sin from the sinner" - be mindful of how an attack on religious dogma and creed can easily be perceived as a veiled personal attack, and therefore take an approach that pays due respect to the PERSON who holds such fantastic beliefs. I see far too little of this on these threads, and whilst it is unrealistic to expect every single atheist to conduct themselves with the utmost in circumspection, nevertheless this (i feel) is what we should be aiming for.
(However, I happily admit and concede that some of my previous posts on this site have been far TOO apologetic (read: sitting on the fence). Now that my ass is starting to hurt, and am forced to jump off, i think you can guess which side I will be leaping for. And trust me newatheist, it won't be a "leap of faith" ;-)
Other Comments by IQHQ
91. Comment #60606 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 12:02 pm
IQHQApologies for not responding earlier (a certain distracting Flea... sigh). N.B. I admire your coming back to play on this thread. Gutsy.
I am afraid I am not going to be able to make as long and detailed response to you as I would like (and your post deserves) because:
1) New Atheist has made some of my points for me (particularly the quote from RD) and
2) I have been thoroughly told off recently for spending too long 'addicted' to this site. I fear a 'tough love' intervention soon...NO!! Don't take away my Modem...PLEASE - sobs, I can give up whenever I like ... whimpers.. ;-)
I would like to make a couple of points though:
Firstly, I would say is that I think that your labouring under a false assumption to wit:
Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.I really think that this whole 'God makes people moral' is one of those oft-quoted lies that get believed merely because people say it often enough. My evidence for this? Look at that episode of the Colbert report where an American politican lauding the importance of the 10 commandments is totally stumped after being asked to name them. In fact, ask a religious person of your choice to name the first 5 books of the bible, in order. Buggers can't do it!
What they do is use God as a justification for their actions (whatever action it is that they want to take) this is not the same thing as a reason. There is a huge difference between an excuse and an explantion.
Secondly, you seem to take on Hitchen's view that religion will never die as self-evident. Well, to be honest I simply don't know the question to that one. Same as I don't know the question to whether science will ever answer the ultimate questions. I don't have a crystal ball. What I would say though, is that is makes good methological sense to assume that there are no limits - if there are limits to human development and understanding then we will find them soon enough - let's not go assuming they are there before we do.
Thirdly, you seem to feel that there is a alot of misplaced social idealism going around here. ( E.g. people assuming that if you just educate people enough then everyone will be well adjusted happy secularists).Well maybe and maybe not. I do not think that universal education will cure all of the ills of society. However, you also have to remember that knowledge is cumulative. Dennett makes the point that the education of Muslim women is key. These are the ones that teach their young sons, these are the one who can change things from within. They won't all turn into Hirsi Ali, but they might just stop their boys from being total idiots and blowing themselves up. Five generations later you might get some observable progress. This is a long term business.
Also, religion isn't the only thing to consider, what about education for it's own sake? Social initiatives for their own sake? This is the best way (through example) of showing that atheists aren't immoral slugs. Asking people to give up religion before seeking to help them is not better than making a hungry person say a prayer before giving them a bowl of soup (I know you will get this reference).
Oh bugger, I appear to have whittered on longer than I intended to! Five more minutes with the modem... Please!
Last point: bit of friendly advice. I am a verbose type myself, I love words: I think you are the same. Trouble is that is very easy to sound pompous without meaning to. I have done this myself. I find it helps to throw in the odd emoticon now and then. Yes, I know it looks naff, but they can make the difference between people enjoying eloquence and calling you a *&^$%$.
Best
C.
P.S :)
Other Comments by Corylus
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
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"My religion is to do good."
Thomas Paine
Other Recommended Reading
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
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
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #51677 by BillySands on June 24, 2007 at 3:54 am
The only thing that is missing is you accepting that you promote homophobia soley on the bible's say so. I can find your original quote if you want. Also, like homophobia, you did make an oath saying the pope is the antichrist. A(n other) debate you ran from on this thread http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page5#comments The reason I brought it up again is because there is no point starting something new with you untill you clarify this. I also asked you if you would vote for a homosexual to head your church - no answer yet - I think we know the bigot's answer. You never said why homosexuality is wrong. If it was wrong and you want us to think that you have something worth saying, you should be able to justify your position. I also count at least 3 fallacies in your obsessed comment - i see you have learned nothing here about reason (awaits generalised fallacy about atheist fundamentallists and other ad hominem - but no justification)
Other Comments by BillySands