Friday, February 22, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Over half of Britons claim no religion

by Times Online

Thanks to Nigel Sewell for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3412118.ece

Over half of Britons claim no religion
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent of The Times

Freedom from religion in Britain is becoming as important as freedom of religion, according to a United Nations investigation into religion in the UK.

In a 23-page report published this evening, a UN rapporteur claims the 2001 Census findings that nearly 72 per cent of the population is Christian can no longer be regarded as accurate. The report claims that two-thirds of British people now do not admit to any religious adherence.

The report also calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England. The role and privileges of the established Church are challenged because they do not reflect "the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations."

The report also warns that measures to combat terrorism in Britain could be undermined because of discrimination against Muslims.

According to the report into the freedom of religion and belief in the UK, there is an "overall respect for human rights and their value." But the report warns that Muslims in particular face screening, searches, interrogation and arrest.

Citing research that showed that 80 per cent of Muslims in Britain feel they have been discriminated against, the report singles out the Terrorism Act 200 for particular criticism.

Under the act, police in some areas can stop and search people without having to show reasonable suspicion.

The report says this affects ethnic and religious minorities more than other groups, especially since the July 7 bombings in 2005.

Figures for 2004 to 2006 "show that searches of people with Asian appearance under this provision increased by 84 per cent, compared to an increase of only 24 per cent for White people," the report says.

The report's author, Asma Jahangir, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, also criticises terms in the Terrorism Act 2006 for being "overly broad and vaguely worded." Phrases she focuses on include "indirectly encouraging" acts of terrorism, and "glorification", interpreted to mean "any form of praise or celebration." She also describes the policy of 28 days in detention without charge as unsatisfactory.

Ms Jahangir, 55, twice chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and who was herself only released from house arrest in Lahore during November, says in her conclusions "there exists no hierarchy of discrimination grounds."

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

However, she does acknowledge concern about "informal matrimonial courts operating within the Muslim community based on sharia law." Ms Jahangir, a mother of three children, says the argument by some religious leaders that their traditions should override the rights of women is "unacceptable".

The report was published the day after the Archbishop of Canterbury said some of the ways in which Sharia was practised were "appalling".

Dr Rowan Williams said the way the system was applied to women in countries such as Saudi Arabia was "grim". The Archbishop was speaking in Cambridge days after being criticised for raising the possibility that some aspects of Sharia might be introduced into the British legal system. "What I was trying to say the other day is that sharia law is a very, very wide-ranging scheme of legal understanding within historic Islam," the Archbishop said at a public lecture in Great St Mary's Church.

"It is rooted in the sense of doing God's will in the ordinary things of life." But he added: "In some of the ways it has been codified and practised across the world, it has been appalling."

To read the full report click here, click here and scroll to reference A/HRC/7/10/Add.3.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, February 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 148 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #131269 by SteveN on February 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

Although this is encouraging news indeed I would be interested to know (a) whether this apparent change reflects a growing willingness for non-believers to state their (non)belief when asked by the pollsters (maybe as a result of the efforts of Richard and Co.) and (b) how the questions were 'framed'. I can imagine that many 'on the fencers' would be happy to answer 'no' to the question 'do you adhere to a religion?' but not necessarily to 'do you believe in God?'

Of course, an even more welcome reason would be the recent de-conversion of over 22% of the population, but that's too much to hope for, I think.

Other Comments by SteveN

2. Comment #131274 by Szymanowski on February 22, 2008 at 6:56 am

Unfortunately the report isn't very clear, and the data is all incorporated into the prose. It's definitely about "religion" rather than "belief in God", but in other respects it's very vague.

However, other surveys and opinion polls, which measure "belief" or "practice", rather than "religious affiliation", produce significantly lower figures for the Christian denominations. In 2007, approximately two-thirds of the British either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service, compared with 26 per cent in 1964. Amongst those who do actually claim to belong to a religion, the proportion who attends a Christian service regularly has been falling. Another 2007 research report on churchgoing in the United Kingdom indicated that 15.5 per cent attend a service at least once a month whereas 28 per cent were former churchgoers unlikely to return and 32 per cent have never been to church and are unlikely to do so. In comparison to Great Britain, there are significantly more regular churchgoers than average in Northern Ireland, i.e. 45 per cent attending a religious service at least once a month. Surveys have also revealed that religious belief is strongly related to age and generations, with young people far less religious than their elders. Furthermore, the total number of people affiliated to non-Christian religions has increased in recent years and for most of them their religion seems to be a more important factor than it is for Christians.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

3. Comment #131278 by Ygern on February 22, 2008 at 7:10 am

The other thing in this article that is

overly broad and vaguely worded

is the phrase 'discrimination against Muslims'.

It is unfortunate that Acts like this are even in existance. Unfortunately, in Britain statistically fanatical Muslims are less likely to be from the White population group. It is unlikely that any government, anywhere is going to start performing 'screening, searches, interrogation and arrest' on a quota basis for the sake of appearing to be politically correct.

There is also an inherent and irreconcilable contradiction here:

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

However, she does acknowledge concern about "informal matrimonial courts operating within the Muslim community based on sharia law."

C'mon: either religious rights or human rights get to win. You can't have it both ways. It sounds more politically correct, I'll grant you that. But in practice, you have to get off that fence and commit to a side.

Other Comments by Ygern

4. Comment #131283 by Synchronium on February 22, 2008 at 7:17 am

Encouraging news!

Other Comments by Synchronium

5. Comment #131285 by Double Bass Atheist on February 22, 2008 at 7:19 am

Now if we could only get this here in America.
It's always impressed me that the Brits have an official Church of England, but have maintained a very rational and secular culture. Yet here in the US, we have a separation of church and state but can't seem to even pass science standards!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

6. Comment #131304 by Steinsky on February 22, 2008 at 8:08 am

Steve N: I can actually imagine things being the other way around -- people answering "no" to the God question (whether agnostic or atheist) but stating that they are "Christian" because they grew up in a Christian family and went to a CofE school, vaguely remember the parables and nativity, and just don't relate to islam, hinduism, and all the rest of them.

Other Comments by Steinsky

7. Comment #131305 by HourglassMemory on February 22, 2008 at 8:09 am

I'm honestly not impressed.
Religion just isn't what it used to be.
And with the newest generations, who are far less religious, it could be that these new generations are the ones who are going to turn the whole religion thing the other way around, that "no religion" gets more than 50%.
I'm curious what would be the result in other european countries.

I honestly think that if people, in my country, which is Portugal, had their own Richard Dawkins' and Co. , a lot of people would gladly say that they did not practice any religion, and many would drop the catholic definition that they had been using since childhood out of tradition.
If people realised that they could have NO definition, many would casually drop it.

But let's not forget that if you asked those with no religion, many would answer that they were into something New Age.
How many of them are rationalist folk like the majority on this site?

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

8. Comment #131310 by german-atheist on February 22, 2008 at 8:15 am

i find it amazing that only 80 per cent of the british muslims feel discriminated.
i expected numbers like 110 per cent because your head of state her majesty
refuses to ware a burkha.

Other Comments by german-atheist

9. Comment #131313 by Cartomancer on February 22, 2008 at 8:22 am

Was I the only one who noticed the significant non sequitur here. The article starts off talking about the accuracy of census data and then suddenly, after a few lines, turns into an ill composed collection of thoughts about the problem of Islam in modern Britain. Then about two thirds of the way through there is another switch from terrorism and police powers to the Rowan Williams and sharia law fiasco. I can see why this ended up in some forgotten corner of the Times website rather than in the newspaper itself.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #131331 by SteveN on February 22, 2008 at 9:05 am

Steinsky wrote:

Steve N: I can actually imagine things being the other way around -- people answering "no" to the God question (whether agnostic or atheist) but stating that they are "Christian" because they grew up in a Christian family and went to a CofE school, vaguely remember the parables and nativity, and just don't relate to islam, hinduism, and all the rest of them.

Hmmm. I hadn't though of that. However, if a significant proportion of the 'Christians' are actually atheists, then things are even better than the report implies!

Other Comments by SteveN

11. Comment #131332 by sidfaiwu on February 22, 2008 at 9:06 am

I noticed that as well, Cartomancer. The article was very poorly written.

Now if we could only get this here in America.
It's always impressed me that the Brits have an official Church of England, but have maintained a very rational and secular culture. Yet here in the US, we have a separation of church and state but can't seem to even pass science standards!

That may not be a coincidence. Having no established religion enables all kinds of beliefs to spawn, thrive, and then subside. Usually, the most zealous religions are the new ones (or the new ~~flavors~~ denominations). Having an old, established one makes it dull and uninteresting.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

12. Comment #131333 by notsobad on February 22, 2008 at 9:06 am

According to a Eurobarometer poll from 2005, only 38% said they believed in god so this is not surprising.

Other Comments by notsobad

13. Comment #131337 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 9:20 am

notsobad,

yes, but by far the most believe in a "higher order" or "guiding force" of some kind... ain't it sad?

As for America - as I have stated on another thread, I think the religiosity there has a causal relationship with the church-state separation and the free market ideology.

Once religion is free enterprise, it will get advertised accordingly - fervently, with psychological advertising tricks, even obtrusively.

Other Comments by MPhil

14. Comment #131343 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 9:30 am

Just for interest: I'm English, my MP is a Liberal Democrat, and his party leader stated that he didn't believe in god.

So I wrote to both of them, stating what I wanted. What I said is at the following, and it may be useful to some other people:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

And in response to #131278 by Ygern, I have published a commentary on Islamic attempts at Human Rights declarations at:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

ps: I am developing a set of relevant pages indexed from:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/index.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

15. Comment #131345 by al-rawandi on February 22, 2008 at 9:33 am

Barry Pearson,

Those "Islamic" declarations of human rights are ridiculous.

In an Islamic state, Christians and Jews recieve abridged rights. While polytheists and atheists receive no rights, and aren't even considered for treatment in the state, which makes it obvious that they are to be transported or killed.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

16. Comment #131350 by 82abhilash on February 22, 2008 at 9:53 am

Asma Jahangir has been a highly respected woman's rights activist in Pakistan for a long time now and has been instrumental in making abuse against women, part of a public debate in Pakistani society. But even she would never admit that the root of abuse against women in Islam is the doctrines of Islam itself. And that is why we hear ambiguous statements like this one from her.

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

However, she does acknowledge concern about "informal matrimonial courts operating within the Muslim community based on sharia law." Ms Jahangir, a mother of three children, says the argument by some religious leaders that their traditions should override the rights of women is "unacceptable".

Hence her inability to appreciate the fact that freedom of religion must never infringe on the fundamental right of a citizen to be free. Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to force your religion on others, through violence at that.

Sam Harris is right the people who suffer most under Islam are Muslims themselves.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

17. Comment #131351 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 10:00 am

In response to #131345 by al-rawandi:

Yes, of course they are ridiculous! (I hope my pages couldn't be interpreted as saying otherwise).

My approach to any topic like this is to gather information and subject it to systematic analysis. I may have prior views that certain views are ridiculous, but my views themselves need to be supported by evidence and analysis. I typically document, perhaps publish, that analysis. Without that, I have no grounds for claiming to have a "better" opinion.

I have published (a simplistic version of) my method for discussing complicated issues at:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/index.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

18. Comment #131368 by jonjermey on February 22, 2008 at 10:55 am

It will be interesting to see as new census figures appear whether there has been an increase in the rate of 'conversions' to atheism (for want of a better word) since the publication of the books by Dawkins and the other three Horsemen. They should be very proud authors indeed if their books have made a genuine difference.

Other Comments by jonjermey

19. Comment #131378 by d4m14n on February 22, 2008 at 11:16 am

I'm one of those "cultural Christians" who skewed the 2001 census. I honestly didn't realise the implications at the time.

Other Comments by d4m14n

20. Comment #131379 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

The report says this affects ethnic and religious minorities more than other groups, especially since the July 7 bombings in 2005.

Figures for 2004 to 2006 "show that searches of people with Asian appearance under this provision increased by 84 per cent, compared to an increase of only 24 per cent for White people," the report says.

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, this isn't a surprise, is it? If police are concerned about the threat from Islamic Terrorists, who else are they going to search?

During the Troubles, you were far more likely to be searched in London and other major cities if you were Irish. Fair? Maybe not. But it's called playing the odds.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #131382 by Barry Pearson on February 22, 2008 at 11:33 am

In response to #131368 by jonjermey:

I believe what is also important is "age of conversion".

I left school in 1965 perhaps as a sort-of Christian, but probably not an agnostic. I left university in 1968 as an agnostic. It wasn't until my 30s, during the 1980s, that I did the investigation and analysis to realise that I was an atheist.

Looking at YouTube, etc, young people are making their decisions at an earlier age. They have access to the concepts, are able to see that alternate positions are respectable, and have access to the material to help them come to their conclusions reasonably quickly. Many young people are atheists when they leave school, or at least when they leave college.

Their children will then be brought up in atheist households. I wouldn't call his "indoctrination", (I'm not sure how you could indoctrinate children to be atheists), but at least they won't be indoctrinated in a religion.

This will be a challenge to religions that need "bums on seats". I suspect this will be harder for each generation. But this may be measured in generations.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

22. Comment #131384 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 11:44 am

(I'm not sure how you could indoctrinate children to be atheists)

Same way you indoctrinate anyone in anything. What does the word mean, after all?

but at least they won't be indoctrinated in a religion.

No, they will tend to grow up with the belief and lifestyle choices of their parents and peers until they meet a crisis.

It would make an interesting study to find out just what young people's values are going to become in the next 20 - 50 years.

I expect some futurologist may already have done so.

Other Comments by krisking

23. Comment #131388 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 11:50 am

Oh come on krisking, you're being a little evasive here; or at the least disingenuous.

'to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.'

The main point here is that of instruction. The only way you could conceive of an atheist doctrine being instructed is through a meaning-mangling idea that teaching sceptical, rational enquiry is an ideology. You may try to make yourself believe that but most would accept that it is not an ideology.

Other Comments by AllanW

24. Comment #131389 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 11:53 am

The main point here is that of instruction

Indeed. As soon as your child asks you, "where do we come from?" "Who made the world?" "Why does Jimmy at school believe in God?" etc, you will either start teaching your child, or avoid the question.

Or you may ask question back of the "what do you think?" sort.

Other Comments by krisking

25. Comment #131394 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:01 pm

You could do those things, yes. But how does that support your posted view that atheists would be indoctrinating their children with their ideology?

Other Comments by AllanW

26. Comment #131396 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I left school in 1965 perhaps as a sort-of Christian, but probably not an agnostic. I left university in 1968 as an agnostic. It wasn't until my 30s, during the 1980s, that I did the investigation and analysis to realise that I was an atheist.

I should think your experience is pretty typical of the majority of people in this country. Anyone, at my school (in the 1970's) who dared to stand up and claim to be a Christian was very quickly the target for ridicule (at the least).

Other Comments by krisking

27. Comment #131397 by Deepthought on February 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

young people are making their decisions at an earlier age. They have access to the concepts, are able to see that alternate positions are respectable, and have access to the material to help them come to their conclusions reasonably quickly. Many young people are atheists when they leave school, or at least when they leave college.

I am proud to say I'm one of them. I was agnostic by seventh grade and an atheist by eigth grade. I never actually bought into Christianity so I just created a pseudo-religion based on an interesting series of books I had read. It was something like all religions are just humans misinterpreting what a group of gods came down to tell them when they were still primitive cavemen and each religion picked up different bits of truth. My basis was that I compared cavemen to young children and realized that anything said to a child usually only comes out again with small bits of truth and a lot of mistakes. Or at least, that was my rational at the time.

I can picture a form of atheistic indoctrination. It would consist of a parent homeschooling their child to protect them from religion and teaching them all the arguments for atheism. I would say that the best way to bring up children would be to not teach them religion and don't bring it up except when directly questioned. I have seen many people on this site saying they raised their children this way and that they just one day said something along the lines of "religion is just magic. Why do these people believe in it?"

Other Comments by Deepthought

28. Comment #131398 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Teaching something is never an ideology. An ideology can be behind it, or the teaching can be done so as to indoctrinate someone into an ideology, in this case rationalism - But teaching itself is never an ideology per se.

Anyway, teaching children science provides rational answers for these questions, and that these are "..." while also teaching them that people believe this and that out of a certain motivation (easy, comprehensive answers with little to none evidence and a lot of contradictions in the case of myths) - I would call that benign, as long as you also teach ethical behaviour.

Other Comments by MPhil

29. Comment #131399 by al-rawandi on February 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Anyone, at my school (in the 1970's) who dared to stand up and claim to be a Christian was very quickly the target for ridicule (at the least).

I found the same to be true with kids who believed in Santa Claus. It was cruel, not wrong.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

30. Comment #131400 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm

indoctrinating their children with their ideology

Exactly that. I know that atheists have said that "Athesim" is not an ideology, but I am not convinced that it doesn't carries with it ideological implications.

(Besides, even Dawkins has said that you cannot be 100% certain that God does not exist)

We have not yet worked out the problem of where the universe came from with complete security.

Other Comments by krisking

31. Comment #131401 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I have to disagree deepthought; 'I can picture a form of atheistic indoctrination. It would consist of a parent homeschooling their child to protect them from religion and teaching them all the arguments for atheism. I would say that the best way to bring up children would be to not teach them religion and don't bring it up except when directly questioned.'

As anyone who has tried to bring up children would tell you, no matter what rules/principles/guidelines you try to enforce, any exposure to society will bring them into contact with opposing or diverse ideas. This process of itself will cause young minds to question and rebel and defeat the aims you set out.

I go back to my original point, despite krisking failing to convince that there is an atheist ideology to indoctrinate, not teaching about religion or attempting to remove them from any contact with it will only prove self-defeating.

Rational, sceptical enquiry and openness to all ideas will inevitably lead most people to a rejection of religion. You don't need to do anything else; certainly not coach or teach against it. The best way to get people to question belief is to expose them to the proponents of belief and inquire into the teachings. Most people here will tell you that is the process that made them into non-believers.

Other Comments by AllanW

32. Comment #131402 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Exactly that. I know that atheists have said that "Athesim" is not an ideology, but I am not convinced that it doesn't carries with it ideological implications.

What are the ideological implications of your non-belief in the Norse Gods?

We have not yet worked out the problem of where the universe came from with complete security.

That doesn't mean you can just go around making stuff up or believing any old story. It is presumptious to say the least to assume you know the answer when science has been making so much progress in this area.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #131404 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Krisking-

We have not yet worked out the problem of where the universe came from with complete security

Very few things have COMPLETE security.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

34. Comment #131405 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Anyway, teaching children science provides rational answers for these questions

I am completely in agreement with this. In spite of a lack of proper scientific education at school (misguided subject choices in a grammar school!), I have found my daughter very interested in science and I am doing my best to encourage her.

I would call that benign, as long as you also teach ethical behaviour

I would whole-heartedly agree with this too, as long as that includes respect for people who hold benign alternative views (without necessarily agreeing with those views)

Other Comments by krisking

35. Comment #131406 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I would whole-heartedly agree with this too, as long as that includes respect for people who hold benign alternative views (without necessarily agreeing with those views)

And here we come to the core of things. Faith is not a benign approach to understanding things.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #131407 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Come on again, krisking. Outline for us all the ideological implications of atheism, please.

You'll notice that I use no swear words or ad hominem attacks.

But you consistently refuse to follow-up on your little statements leaving me of the view that you are merely here to disrupt. Make statements that we can debate; air your views; don't hide behind little non-sequiters or bomblets and then move on to another point.

See if you can make any one point stick with us.

Other Comments by AllanW

37. Comment #131408 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I found the same to be true with kids who believed in Santa Claus. It was cruel, not wrong.

It wasn't a complaint; simply an illustration of how far away from theism society had already moved by the 70's

Other Comments by krisking

38. Comment #131409 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Hello Steve

Faith is not a benign approach to understanding things.

But then neither is atheism.

Other Comments by krisking

39. Comment #131410 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Hello Steve

Faith is not a benign approach to understanding things.

But then neither is atheism.

Yeh, I thought you wouldn't or couldn't stay on a point.

Sigh. Off on another jolly little comment merry-go-round, dodging anything substantive.

This is precisely why many non-believers have been forced to accept a view that believers are merely procrastinating their way around their own internal dissonance. You demonstrate it perfectly.

Other Comments by AllanW

40. Comment #131411 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

It is presumptious to say the least to assume you know the answer

I don't say that.

Other Comments by krisking

41. Comment #131412 by al-rawandi on February 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Krisking,

Atheism is not an approach to understanding. It is only the lack of belief in any Gods.

Science is an approach or logic is an approach.

Can you please provide me with a definition of atheism, so I can know where you are coming from?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

42. Comment #131413 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Re; comment #131411

Another example. Say what you mean then!

Other Comments by AllanW

43. Comment #131414 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Very few things have COMPLETE security

Indeed.

Other Comments by krisking

44. Comment #131415 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm

But then neither is atheism.

Atheism is not an approach to understanding things. Atheism is the opposite of theism.

Faith needs to be contrasted with rationalism.

Theism is usually a consequence of faith.
Atheism is usually a consequence of rationalism.

Faith suppresses critical facilities that are important for humanity in this century.

Faith is "thinking without a seat belt". Most people may be OK, but some crash and you end up with 9/11.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #131416 by krisking on February 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Yeh, I thought you wouldn't or couldn't stay on a point.

Yes, please bring us back to the point.

Other Comments by krisking

46. Comment #131417 by Steve Zara on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Yes, please bring us back to the point.

There is a term used for repeatedly supplying random and pointless information.

Spamming.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #131418 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I'm off to take my youngest son to his swimming training. I'm sure that when I return krisking will still have made no substantive point and that you other guys will be playing kiss-chase with his non-ideas.

Fruitless and unproductive.

Other Comments by AllanW

48. Comment #131419 by MPhil on February 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I completely agree with your last post, krisking.
And of course, teaching ethical behaviour should include that they have respect for people who hold benign views. Doesn't mean that they should respect the ideology or false beliefs per se. I think that it is a virtue to stand up and challange irrationality.

This doesn't mean that you have no respect for the person. However, when they chose to identify completely with their ideology, that is not the problem of the one criticizing the ideology.

As for Dawkins having stated that we cannot be 100% certain that there is no god - I agree.

In fact, I think we can only know two things with absolute certainty:
1)I exist (not however, that we have an immaterial mind, as Descartes assumed)
and
2)Logical necessity, consistency and inconsistency and things which are entirely a matter of logic.

This means, however, that while we cannot know with 100% absolute certainty that deities exist, we can know with absolute 100% certainty that deities the description/conception of which are logically contradictory cannot exist.

Having read the Bible, I know that it applies there, although until now, every theist I know has engaged in ex post facto ad hoc semantic reinterpretations to get around these contradictions - and in the course (I'm sorry, this may seem unkind, but sadly it's true) has made himself look ridiculous by proclaiming that the contradictory statements in the Bible mean something entirely different (and very obscure) from what the statements obviously say. And the fact that these reinterpretations are ex post facto and ad hoc makes has made it look pretty sad.

Other Comments by MPhil

49. Comment #131420 by Quetzalcoatl on February 22, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Krisking-

what would you define as the "ideological implications" of atheism?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

50. Comment #131421 by SharonMcT on February 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

another passive-aggressive "neener" from a person who cannot support their faith with any rationale, but refuses to give it up merely because it belongs to them.

AllanW:

I agree with you totally here. It's high time we recognise that krisking is not searching for anything other than the little thrill he gets everytime he thinks he has needled the atheists.

Other Comments by SharonMcT