201. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72816 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:27 am

Well if anybody is considering writing to their MP about this, you'd best be aware of the government's recent response to just such concerns ... they couldn't give a shit!

Changing attitudes, changing cultures, takes time. It's no good expecting these things to change overnight. The government takes that line because the government thinks that line will be generally approved of by the voters. Who is going to convince them otherwise, if we ourselves don't take the first step?

202. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72814 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:20 am

Richard Morgan:

Oh, and somewhere else you related an amusing anecdote , introducing it with an apology for being "off-topic". Well, you weren't "off-topic' at all, since your recipe for beef stew is an irrefutable argument against Intelligent Design!

Yes, I saw your reply the first time you posted it. I was just ignoring it.

203. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72811 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Well ... we could write to him and express our support.

We could write to our MPs to draw this matter to their attention and let them know that, at least so far as the electorate is concerned, it certainly WOULDN'T be politically impossible.

We could write to the press and make the point that way too.

And, when doing these last 2 things, we could link it to the whole question of having an Established church at all - if freeing children from the obligation to submit to a daily act of worship is only politically impossible because there are bishops in the House of Lords, then it really is time that there WEREN'T bishops in the House of Lords.

Now then, where's my pen?

204. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72809 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 2:51 am

People point out that what he says is illogical and not supported by evidence and he responds by throwing bible quotes at them, obviously in the firm belief that this constitutes a proper and persuasive argument. I am utterly at a loss as to what makes such people tick.

I share your frustration, Captain Underpants, but you've actually answered your own question here: they really do hold the "firm belief that this constitutes a proper and persuasive argument".

You also need to understand that they share our frustration and bewilderment, albeit in the opposite direction: they are equally baffled and angry that we can't see the obviousness of what they're trying to tell us. I think it is this that leads to (or at least fuels) their conviction that we simply don't WANT to believe and are just REJECTING God.

To them there simply is no better argument than the bible. If God thinks the bible is a good enough explanation, then they're hardly going to be able to improve on it, are they? Since God speaks through the bible, all they can do is keep quoting it at us and trust that, in the end, some of the less hard-hearted amongst us will be moved by "his spirit".

On a more practical level, they will have learned from experience that, whenever they DO venture into real life to defend their views, they get eaten alive - their arguments just don't stand up. Whereas, with the bible, there's always another verse they can quote. So the bible is a refuge for them, a shield behind which it is possible for them to fight on a bit longer.

It's very hard to explain to someone who's never experienced it just how watertight the whole Christian argument is, provided you're what I describe as "inside the bubble". By which I mean that the whole story hangs together incredibly well and with a strong internal logic provided you buy into its fundamental premises - i.e. that there's a God, that he loses sleep at night over mankind's sinfulness, that he rewards the good and punishes the bad, and that the bible is his most reliable way of communicating with us.

You might think it odd that I talk of "internal logic" when there are so many inconsistencies in the bible and as many differences in interpretations between Christians as there are Christians - but they've simply built that into the equation.

So the bible isn't self-contradictory, it's just that the bits that APPEAR contradictory are revealing different aspects of God. And the differences between Christians' interpretations of God can be dealt with too, albeit via two different methods, depending on how tolerant you think God wants you to be: the first is to say that the others are just plain WRONG. The second is to say that the differences are a result of the way God reveals himself to us and there will be truth in all of them, just that no one individual Christian has the full truth - the full truth will be an amalgam of all the different versions.

This approach, incidentally, has the added benefit of reinforcing the "mystery" of God, and underlining the need to go on studying him. This argument can be used by the liberals to deal with the problem of other religions too: God is God is God is God but different cultures have different ways of relating to him, so the different religions are simply exporations of different sides of his character and/or different routes to him.

Christianity is like a big woollen pullover - it keeps you warm; the colder it gets outside, the more grateful you are for it; it's flexible enough to stretch with you in all directions and to accommodate all kinds of strange positions; and all the stitches work together to provide a remarkably strong and hard-wearing material.

In my experience, though, it can also unravel like a woollen pullover if just one stitch gets broken. If you can somehow get one of these believers to acknowledge real doubt about one of their fundamental premises, the knock-on effect can be very dramatic. The difficulty is getting them to see the "bubble" from the outside rather than from within - and that's made all the more difficult because everything about religion is designed to prevent that happening.

It's not impossible, though - and the very fact that Christians can now see atheists standing up and openly challenging their beliefs does highlight the fact that there is another way of looking at them. Which can only be good.

205. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72794 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 1:57 am

It seems that the only thing this study proves is they like grapes more than cucumbers.

Well, that certainly seems to be true, but I think it suggests a bit more than that. The fact that the monkeys engaged in what we would think of as sulky behaviour, in effect "going on strike", and refusing even otherwise acceptable rewards does suggest to me that, if they could speak, they'd be saying "That's not fair!" You could imagine repeating this experiment with 4-year old humans and getting much the same result - though maybe not using cucumber and grapes ...

As for Richard Morgan, you forgot to mention that the rationalist monkey who wrote "God is not Grape" would soon have more fleas than the others.

206. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72734 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Capt Underpants -

You're saying that these people think they're collecting points for the Day of Judgement - do they really think like that?

I don't think it's quite as blatant as that in most cases, to be fair. The argument I've heard used is to ask you to imagine that you really loved someone. Wouldn't you want to please them and do what they liked you doing? Not because you're afraid of the negative consequences of NOT doing these things, but simply because you wanted to show them how much you loved them, and you wanted to make them happy?

The analogy doesn't quite work, in my view, firstly because the New Testament spells out that "witnessing" is a requirement for believers, and of course we all know that the Bible as a whole is true and has to be taken seriously. So, in other words, believers are commanded by God to make these supposedly spontaneous gestures of affection. And secondly, because the Bible also makes it very clear that God reserves the right to cast people into lakes of everlasting fire if they don't make the grade.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help feeling that I'd feel more pleased to be on the receiving end of a bunch of my favourite flowers if I hadn't ordered you to get them for me, and if I hadn't threatened you with unspeakable tortures if you didn't live up to my expectations. But hey, I'm old-fashioned like that.

... there are people who are absolutely intent on partying like it's 1399.

Wonderful! Have I ever mentioned how much I like this website?! :-)

I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely.

I'm familiar with this line of argument, but I'm not sure.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that we should leave religious beliefs in general unchallenged. I'm all for trying to change attitudes at large. It's the Dianeloses and Devolveds and Revcorts and others who I'm tempted to just ignore. What's the point of doing otherwise? They are absolutely fixed in their views and nothing but nothing we write will make the slightest difference to them. They hijack complete threads and get everyone dancing around answering them. Every time we respond to them, we just encourage them.

As I write that, though, I catch myself wondering whether I'm wrong. Nothing we write will make any difference to the evangelists, but on reflection the threads will be read by lots of people who don't actively join in but who maybe haven't made their minds up on these issues and may genuinely find it helpful to see that the arguments of the evangelists can be rebutted.

Hmmm - will have to think about that one!

207. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72722 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Let's not forget they delude themselves into thinking we dont want to believe in god

I do agree that this is what they believe - but, this being the case, do you really think they believe that their posts on a site like this will make any difference to us?

I suspect not. Which suggests to me that the purpose of their posts here is not our "benefit", but their own.

[EDIT: .. which, having re-read your post, Billy, is pretty much what you were saying yourself!]

208. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72713 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

It is impossible to be wrong, one is merely misunderstood.

Beautifully put, Corylus! That really is at the heart of all the flea books and the reviews of them to date.

I had to laugh to see that you and I had put the question of motivation in the same terms, but on opposite sides of the divide! It's the irresistibility of that scab that forces us to respond, just as it forces them to post in the first place.

209. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72710 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

The problem with putting "mind your own business" or some such thing is that people of no faith will be under-represented and we'll continue to be perceived as a puny, whiny, insufferable minority.

I agree ... and my other problem with it is that it perpetuates the idea that one's religious beliefs are a "special" area that other people have no right to intrude on.

I'm with those who have suggested "None" as the only sensible answer.

Mind you, I certainly agree that the notion of being asked your religious beliefs on an OUTPATIENT form is completely mad! I mean, what's that got to do with anything at all?! So on that basis, if I happened to be in a stroppy frame of mind (which happens quite often if the day has an "a" in its name) I might write "None - but not sure why this is relevant."

210. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72705 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 11:47 am

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here

It's called Witnessing, Captain Underpants, AKA Winning Brownie Points in Heaven. The idea is that, if they repeat their nonsense often enough and loudly enough, eventually the Holy Spirit will open our hearts and we'll see that what they're proffering is actually radiant, beautiful Truth and not a rotting heap of maggot-infested potato peelings after all.

Although in theory they'd like us to have our hearts opened as soon as possible, in practice they're not averse to the Holy Spirit taking his time over it. This is because having to face our arguments - or, even better, our howls of derision - is called "Being Persecuted for Your Faith."

This is A Good Thing because it is a sign that you've got the Devil really rattled now. It is also A Good Thing because Being Persecuted for Your Faith is looked on with particular favour in heaven. Just watch those brownie points mount up! It's a bit like getting double points on your Tesco clubcard.

This is possibly the only good reason I can think of to regret the lack of Tele-Evangelists in the UK. If only we had some Ted Haggard equivalents, people like devolved could buy their places in heaven by sending all their money to them. As it is they have little option but to come and plague us.

I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely. Easier said than done, of course, as anyone who has ever had an itch will know.

211. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72668 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 am

There are some wonderfully sane posts in here. Roger Stanyard and shaunfletcher, thank you for your robust defences of science and scientific method. If ever there was good cause to be passionate and forthright and to refuse to take prisoners, it is over this nonsensical and outrageous claim that creationism is scientific.

And icanus - I agree wholeheartedly with the implication of your post too: I don't think schools - even privately funded ones - should have the right to make individual judgements on whether to teach lies as truth or not.

By all means teach creationism alongside other mythological beliefs in RE lessons (though not with the suggestion that they may be true), but it has no place whatsoever in science lessons - or in any other lesson where it might be taught as fact, come to that.

Of course, my view on that will change the moment devolved comes up with that scientific evidence you've asked for, Roger. Anyone here expecting me to have to retract any time soon?

212. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72630 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 2:28 am

Neither belief system (in evolution or in special creation) is science; they're both beliefs about what happened in the past and scientists of both persuasions look at exactly the same evidence and same facts and draw different conclusions.

If you're going to call evolution a belief system rather than science, you may as well subscribe to the view that EVERYTHING is a belief system, ALL truth is simply what you'd like it to be, and that there is no such thing as true science at all.

Not only is there a HUGE volume of evidence - and I use the word in its scientific sense - that points to the truth of evolution, but there is simply none that points to its being fundamentally wrong.

As for your final sentence, you are mistaken. There are indeed a small number of scientists who reject evolution and argue in favour of creationism instead. But they don't do this as a result of objectively assessing the evidence and simply reaching a different conclusion. They do it because, in their religiously blinkered minds, Bible teaching is the ultimate trump card. The evidence may point to evolution, but the Bible says God created everything and so that must be right. This is religion in action, not science.

213. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #72179 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 1:43 pm

UPDATE 9-20-07 - It looks like TGD has fallen off the NYT bestseller list after 51 straight weeks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/bestseller/0930besthardnonfiction.html

What a shame - we'd all have loved to see it make the 1 year mark. But hey - 51 weeks is no mean achievement! How many books stay at the top for anything like that long? And the paperback edition is still right up there on the bestseller shelf in Borders. Something tells me there's still PLENTY of life left in this one! So congratulations, Richard - 51 weeks at the top for a book about atheism: who would ever have predicted that?

214. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72133 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

90. Comment #72122 by RascoHeldall on September 20, 2007 at 11:47 am
Rasco, I think you've analysed that perfectly. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens all threaten the comfort zone that believers have been encouraged to take refuge in. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the squeals. Though I confess I am taken aback at the frequency, volume and sheer nastiness of them. And it's not JUST fear, I suspect - there's a lot of anger in there too, don't you think? I've never tried poking a stick into a wasps' nest, but I suspect the result wouldn't be dissimilar!

215. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72108 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 10:59 am

Hey RM, keep your comments to yourself. I am trying to get laid here.

I fear it may not be God's will, Pewkatchoo ... ;-)

216. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72078 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 9:29 am

Evidence, please.

Love it, Richard!!!

This is horribly off-topic, but you've brought back a fond memory. I think I've mentioned before that I used to be part of a "street team" for the homeless. My contribution (in addition to just being there) was to take along a home made beef stew to hand out. I confess that when I first started I was just ever so slightly dazzled by the brightness of my halo and, to judge from the following interaction, that fact hadn't gone unnoticed by our "clientele".

Paula (slightly over-eager): Would you like some stew, Dave? It's home made.
Dave (frowning suspiciously): What's in it?
Paula (slightly crestfallen): Well, there's beef, and onions, and potatoes, and carrots and tomatoes, and peas, and herbs.
Dave (after a slight pause): No thanks.

Trust me: you don't know what humility is until you've had your cooking rejected by a guy who lives in a car park! :-)

217. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72047 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 8:03 am

Strange, the difficulty that people have with words.

The word "selfish" in "selfish gene" doesn't indicate a predisposition to selfishness on RD's part, any more than the word "intelligent" in "intelligent design" indicates ... Ok, ok, I won't spell it out ;-)

218. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72030 by Northern Bright on September 20, 2007 at 7:15 am

Letter to The Independent:

Sir

Those of us with low irritation thresholds must hope that future contributions to "The God Delusion Debate" will at least show signs of familiarity with the argument to date and so spare us the regurgitation of points already made and rebutted.

I can assure Mary Midgley (Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer, 20 September) that, should she ever decide to take the plunge and read any of Dawkins' works for herself, she will find that she has grossly distorted his views on every count.

Nowhere does Dawkins betray a contempt for human co-operation, admiration for selfishness or a misty-eyed yearning for a society run on "Social Darwinist" principles. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Since it has become commonplace to attribute nefarious leanings to him, perhaps I should add that neither does he advocate engaging in people trafficking, sending children up chimneys, or drowning puppies.

219. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70929 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 9:18 am

When referring to what Atheists (don't) believe, it might help monotheists bypass their emotional reflex, and understand your point better, by saying that Atheists don't believe in gods. Saying "God" triggers an automatic response. Saying "gods" is both more accurate and less emotional.

Yes, that may well help, Ultraviolet G - nice idea. I have to say that, despite my reservations about the label "Bright", I do like the way they describe themselves: "Brights have a naturalistic worldview".

When the question of belief comes up in conversation with people who don't know me, I tend to say "I don't believe in anything supernatural." I find it works quite well, firstly because it doesn't sound as confrontational as "I'm an atheist" and secondly because quite a few theists don't seem to have made the connection between believing in God (which they think is a good thing) and believing in the supernatural (which they often think sounds rather dodgy); and you can often see them do the double-take as the thought registers.

220. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70925 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 8:58 am

"Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?"

Has anyone else been bugged all day by the ungrammatical clumsiness of the heading given to Richard's letter by The Independent?

221. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70916 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 8:36 am

Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide.

And do you know any atheists who make that claim, revcort?

222. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70912 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 8:33 am

Your point, I think, is that Cornwell's theology is garbage. I agree since it lacks reflection and self imposed critical analysis. It would methinks then just fall apart on the rock of reason.

That wasn't quite my point, brainsys: Cornwell's welcome to pursue any kind of theology he wants to, so far as I'm concerned, especially if it keeps him too busy to write any more books.

It's his criticism of RD for not having studied the minutiae of the extensive and heated debate on whether the leprochaun wears curly-toed or flat-toed shoes (to use CHeard's image!) that I object to.

FIRST prove the existence of the leprochaun. THEN argue about his taste in footwear.
[EDIT: Oops. THEN learn how to spell "leprechaun." ;-)]

The problem with studying religion from an atheist point of view is that life is short and surely it makes more sense to use our limited time to study things that are likely to lead to new knowledge, rather than things that aren't - doesn't it?

Why should the theists call the tune on this? All their "holy" texts skip over the only god-related question that's of any interest, which is: is there really a god at all? They all just take it for granted that there is, and go straight on to the debate about what that god is like and whether he prefers Bach, Beethoven or the Beatles.

Like others here, I have no problem with the study of religion as a natural phenomenon, a psychological phenomenon, an evolutionary phenomenon or a cultural phenomenon. But as for the study of the nature of God, I really can't see it's of any more relevance to anything at all than the debate as to whether it's Cheddar or Lancashire cheese that the moon is made of.

223. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70888 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 7:09 am

The statement "It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology" appears to be designed to deliberately irritate Stanford/Cornwell than to make Atheism look like an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life.

Richard has spelled out his view on theology very clearly before now - in fact, it's in the quotes section of this very website:

Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns.

The argument that's been thrown at him in the context of Darwin's Angel is that he hasn't dwelt on works of detailed theological analysis of the nature of God. In that context, theology ISN'T a serious subject, for the simple reason that you have to show that God exists AT ALL before it can be a serious undertaking to analyse whether or not he takes sugar in his coffee. Given that this accusation is being levelled again and again, it is worth pointing out the fatuousness of it, and doing so in a way that gets noticed.

All these reviews just keep on turning out the same, tired old nonsense - nonsense that has already been repudiated, both by TGD itself and in subsequent comments by Richard. The allegations made against him - loudly and repeatedly - are untrue and, to my mind, are becoming nastier.

Cornwell's book is a masterpiece of underhand, spiteful character assassination, yet it's being reviewed as though it were a delicate, light-footed, elegant, dainty work, some kind of modern day Anne of Green Gables. I don't think RD - or the rest of us - should stand by and just let that happen without challenge.

If a book makes allegations (allegations which are not then challenged by the reviewers of that book) that RD and by association other atheists believe that a) all religious people are fanatics and b) religion should be banned, and then goes on to suggest a link between these alleged views and the atrocities of Nazi Germany, then all of us have the right to stand up and say very loudly and very clearly indeed that we have been misrepresented.

I couldn't agree more that showing atheism to be an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life is going to be extremely important. But fleas and reviewers have got away with their lies for too long, and there comes a point where a cautionary roar becomes not just appropriate, but necessary.

224. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70868 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 5:36 am

23. Comment #70862 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 am
I just love your examples, _J_ - but the credit for the idea of the God Delusion review generator must go to Stevie B. .
Steve99 - "Dawkins does not realise that because science doesn't know everything, therefore God exists" - yes, that one HAS to be in there! :-)

225. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70850 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 4:24 am

In the vein of the postmodern essay generator, couldn't someone knock up a God Delusion review generator, to save all these hacks the trouble?

Are you sure they haven't already, Stevie B? It would explain a very great deal.

Here are some more phrases any such generator would have to contain:

What Dawkins forgets is that God believes in him.
Dawkins' certainty is unscientific.
Dawkins has no imagination.
Dawkins despises emotion and anything else that can't be demonstrated by scientific experiment.
Dawkins' disciples (What's the betting that someone's going to bring out a book soon with that as the title – Dawkins' Disciples: the New Atheists)
The God Delusion is the atheists' bible.
Dawkins is the atheists' god.
Worshipping at the altar of Dawkins.
Atheism inevitably leads to the gulags.
This talk of religious ideas spreading like viruses is too close to the kind of talk that led to Dachau.
Dawkins want to ban religion!
But that's not what we really believe!
That's not my God you're describing!
No one believes the bible literally these days!

Then there are the ones that aren't spelled out but whose meaning pervades each page like the aroma of rotting cabbage:
Dawkins is the new Hitler.
If Dawkins had his way, religious believers would be locked up! Disenfranchised! Sent into exile! Burnt at the stake!
No one likes a smart arse.

I'm sure other people can think of more ...

226. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70834 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 3:50 am

Following Northern Bright's lead, I acquired a copy of Darwin's Angel and posted the following, slightly edited, review on the UK Amazon site:

Excellent review, Flagellant - it gives a good flavour of the "willful mendacity" of the book, and you also write as if more in sorrow than in anger. Good stuff.

A quick look at the other 'flea' books shows a particularly high rating for David Robertson's The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths from very few (6), unanimously positive, reviews. It wouldn't take many dissenting opinions to alter that rating considerably. I don't think anyone could complain if people were to add a few more reviews. Mind you, this is only a passing thought and I don't have Northern Bright's brass neck to be able to make such an overt suggestion.

Sorry, can't help with this. I've done my bit with Darwin's Angel, and I've read enough of David Robertson on the threads on this forum (and have had far too many dealings with the Free Church of Scotland myself) to know where he's coming from without subjecting myself to his book too. His posts remind me too much of a nightmare I'm only too thankful to have woken up from.

Brass neck? Moi? Maybe a little ... but I really have to plead "not guilty" on this occasion. I truly was not suggesting that anyone should write any reviews without reading the books first! I've looked back at my posts and really am not sure where you've got that idea from. Trust me, if I'd thought reviewing books without reading them was a legitimate option, I would NEVER have inflicted the whole of Darwin's Angel on myself!

However, perhaps I should temper my reticence by pointing out that the headline to one of the DL reviews proclaims: The Dawkins Letters now outselling The God Delusion.

Say what you like about Christians, they're good comedy value. What was the total print run of The Dawkins Letters again? How many copies has it sold in total? And how many copies has The God Delusion sold? Ah yes. Thought so.

227. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70809 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 1:24 am

Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them.

and

Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Ah, that's got my week off to a good start! :-)

228. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70802 by Northern Bright on September 17, 2007 at 12:35 am

If you want to convince me that the idea of jihadis routinely being motivated by afterlife nookie is more than just ill-informed conventional wisdom, show me the evidence

I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you of anything so silly as that young men who had been brought up to live in peace and harmony with the world around them would suddenly be transformed into foaming murderous maniacs by the promise of virgins in paradise.

The virgins for martyrs thing is part of a package of (religious) teachings that create an atmosphere of approval for acts that are unspeakably evil by any standard of normal human decency. It doesn't have to be the sole or even a direct motivator for it to have influenced the bevaviour.

Even if the promise of the virgins were only understood metaphorically (and what a great refuge that word is for the defenders of "holy" texts), it confers the greatest possible approval on those who create the greatest possible carnage amongst Islam's "enemies". (Though of course it is an immutable tenet of Islam that every single word of the Koran is inerrantly, literally true, so the metaphor thing doesn't wash.)

The actions of the Jihadis are informed by hatred of "the infidel", by absolute belief in Islam as the only way of life acceptable to Allah, and by belief that jihad is a good, noble, honourable thing that is worth sacrificing themselves for. As you rightly say - killing yourself for a cause is totally unnatural, counter-instinctive behaviour - so if you do it, you must believe you have an extraordinarily powerful reason.

What more powerful motivation than the conviction that such acts earn the highest possible approval from the deity whose approval you have been brought up to seek above all else? Where might you get this sense of Allah's approval from? From the Koran itself, which, in its literal, inerrant truth, makes it abundantly clear that acts of "martyrdom" are entirely in accordance with Allah's will and will meet with his highest degree of approval and reward.

I, too, wish the Koran said that the concept of "holy war" was an abomination, but it doesn't.

229. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70671 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 2:44 pm

JJ, if your point is that Christians tend not to live up to their supposedly high ideals in practice, you're pushing at an open door, chum - one or two of us have noticed that already.

If, however, you're trying to suggest that Islamic teachings have played no part in the creation of people prepared to carry out unspeakably evil acts in the name of Allah, then you're going to have a very much harder time persuading us.

I didn't write this heaven and martyrdom stuff, JJ - don't blame me if it doesn't sit comfortably with the benign, gentle, peaceable image of religion that you'd feel more comfortable with. Good grief, we'd all feel more comfortable if religion were like that. But we have seen what we have seen.

If the religious don't believe in the teachings of their "holy" books, then they shouldn't pretend that they do, they shouldn't insist that the rest of us treat those teachings with reverence, and more than anything, they shouldn't use them as justification for blowing themselves up in crowded places or flying planes into skyscrapers.

Just stop and look at the most abhorrent practices of Islam: the defining of non-Moslems as the "infidel" and therefore the enemy (and therefore fair game); the talk of "holy war"; the issuing of fatwas; the repression of women; the prohibition - on pain of death - of apostasy (and therefore freedom of thought and conscience); the mutilation of girls' genitals to prevent them experiencing the abomination of sexual pleasure in adulthood: they are all performed in accordance with "holy" texts and by people who believe absolutely in the literal truth of those "holy" texts and in the rewards on offer for obeying them and the punishments in store for disobeying them.

But somehow you want us to believe that the most extreme Moslems, the ones who are willing to kill themselves and countless others in an act of "martyrdom", are not remotely influenced by the promises of wonderful rewards in heaven contained in those same, "holy", "inerrant", "infallible" texts?

I think you may have accidentally wandered into the wrong forum, JJ - Happy Fantasists Anonymous is down the corridor, third on the left.

230. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70619 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 10:20 am

Your example isn't that good. Notice that the in the story of the wealthy man, the man did not give up his wealth. The promise of an afterlife wasn't enough for him.

The point I was making, JJ, is that in the Bible Jesus himself makes a link between charitable behaviour in this life, and a place in heaven in the afterlife. When the figure on which a whole religion is founded makes that connection, who can blame his followers for making it too?

Of course, that example may be legend,

Now there's a thought.

The afterlife is often not that much comfort. Why expect it to be that much of a motivator?

I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not the one who invented the stories promising rewards in heaven for people who are good little boys and girls on earth; or, for that matter, threatening lakes of unending fire for those who aren't. And I'm not the one who believes in them. Come to that, I'm not the one who's prepared to fly planes into tall buildings to make my point, either.

I'm sure the prospect of heaven and fear of hell motivate some people more than others. I have known Christians who have been extremely motivated by them. Without them, Pascal's Wager becomes meaningless (though if you counter that Pascal's Wager is meaningless in any case, I shall agree with you).

Personally I found the prospect of eternal life pretty irksome, even in my days as a believer - but of course, in the Christian form it just consisted of an unending episode of Songs of Praise, and you can kind of see why that wouldn't be hugely appealing. The version for Moslem martyrs sounds much more fun, though. Who knows what effect that wouldn't have on a suitably prepared mind?

231. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70588 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 7:20 am

I actually quite like the point about space and time being created by the big bang therefore whatever caused the big bang is outside of space and time...if only more theists argued like that- think of the interesting debates to be had!!

I agree - that is an interesting point and probably the best of all the pro-religion comments shown.

Science is not my area of expertise (she says, with extreme understatement), but since all our scientific understanding is based on a universe where space and time ARE factors, it's hard to see how we could ever unravel the laws that were in operation before space and time came into effect. Which isn't to say, of course, that Big Bang couldn't have been the result of perfectly natural forces ... just that it's hard to imagine that we'd ever be able to explain them.

I suppose the final comment given in the list above is right too - that, so long as we CAN'T explain what triggered Big Bang, there'll always be room for some people to believe it was a god.

To me the question looks completely different depending on where you start looking. When you put human existence in the centre of the picture and look outwards, I can see why questions seem to frame themselves along anthropocentric lines, and why such questions may make answers like "god made us specially" seem plausible to so many people.

But when you think of the sheer scale of the universe (which is a meaningless thing to write, by the way, because we CAN'T think of the sheer scale of the universe - it's utterly beyond our capacity to comprehend the size of it) and zoom in from the outer reaches of it until we finally, finally, finally reach Earth and humans and all the rest of it, to me the notion that anything on this unspeakably insignificant scale could have anything approaching cosmic meaning is just ludicrous.

If you have PowerPoint, THIS LINK may illustrate what I mean! (PS. With apologies for the smug "moral" on the final slide.)

232. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70575 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 6:14 am

Thing is, we aren't talking about a civilian job, we are talking about a role that is perceived to be that of a soldier, and historically, the motivators for that job are wanting to benefit one's own people and/or hatred of the enemy.

And causes are seen as worth fighting for for a variety of reasons - some of which may be voiced publicly because they sound honourable and noble (to minds suitably prepared to find honour and nobility in that way), and others which may be more self-serving.

This is akin to the discussion about whether beliefs about an afterlife motivate Christian acts of charity. I have yet to find a Christian who would be anything but offended at the suggestion that their acts of charity were somehow intended as a down-payment on a place in heaven. And I'm sure the reality is nothing so unsubtle in most cases. And yet, and yet ... when so much of Christianity revolves around concepts of unworthiness and salvation and sin and atonement and penance, and when Jesus himself is said to have told the wealthy man that in order to gain eternal life he must sell all he had and give to the poor - it would be hard to rule out thoughts of heavenly reward as a motivator (even an unspoken one).

In any case - if the prospect of an eternity of cavorting with virgins in heaven wasn't intended as an incentive to encourage young men to martyr themselves for Islam, why did Gabriel drop it into the conversation with Mohammed in the first place? Did he perhaps not realise that young men think about sex sometimes? Did he underestimate the hold this image would have on a susceptible young man's imagination? Did he expect the young men to respond, "Well, yeah, that's all very well as far as it goes, but can they cook?"

233. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70569 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 5:47 am

Christopher Hitchens at his superb best here - clear, measured, calm, perceptive, articulate and ruthlessly intelligent. If he could always be depended on to be like this, my feelings about him as a commentator would be a lot less mixed.

234. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70561 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 4:23 am

It's easy to look at Dawkins and think "He knows so much about science it scares me" or Harris and think "He knows so much about politics it scares me" or Hitchens and think "He scares me".

! ! !
I liked this very much, doodinthemood! :-)

235. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70560 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 4:18 am

This has turned into a really interesting thread - lots of fascinating issues being raised: the misunderstanding and consequent rejection of atheism, the understandability of the widespread sense of floundering where science is concerned, and the very different nature of Christianity on either side of the Atlantic.

I recognise steve99's portrayal of the Church of England immediately. It really is a very strange institution. For one thing, it is so accommodating in its theology that, at one end of the spectrum, there are CofE churches that are virtually indistinguishable from the highest Catholicism (complete with bells, smells, processions, bows, genuflections etc); whilst at the other, it could easily be mistaken for the simplest possible Methodist chapel service. There are CofE churches that have been converted to electric guitars and throbbing drum beats, and there are others that have embraced charismatic worship where if you don't fall down in a spirit-induced swoon you simply haven't been trying hard enough. Maybe this incredible, amorphous mix of itself says something about the CofE's lack of inner conviction. However, the majority of CofE churches are fairly nondescript (in their style of worship, I mean - their architecture is often stunning); middle of the road; unobjectionable; and just plain ordinary.

I think a lot of it is due to the Established nature of the church over here - the CofE isn't just there to represent God, it's there to represent England. And the English, as we all know - ahem - are polite, tolerant, moderate, reserved, decent, old-fashioned and easily embarrassed. Citizens of other nations may protest in the streets and run riot when upset: we write letters to The Times. Other nationalities may wail and keen and tear their hair out when faced with calamity: we make ourselves a nice cup of tea. Other nationalities may express their rage and passion in towering works of art and literature and music that ring down the ages: we say "Oh well, mustn't grumble".

All this is reflected in the Church of England, which, by its very nature, seeks NOT to rock the boat and NOT to do or say anything that would draw attention to itself. This is why, when the occasional high-ranking CofE figure DOES try to make his (I use the masculine form of the pronoun advisedly) mark and make the nation stop and think, it backfires so spectacularly. I'm thinking particularly of the recent very uncharacteristic pronouncements from a posse of senior CofE bishops to the effect that the serious flooding in England over the summer was God's judgement on our declining moral standards. There is a sense in which it's simply not polite to talk about such things in public, and I'm sure that many CofE members who would think of themselves as devout Christians would have found this attention-seeking behaviour rather distasteful. The role of the clergy, as any decent, upright Englishman or woman knows, is to baptise babies, visit elderly ladies, open fetes and judge the winner of the Best Victoria Sandwich contest. It really is very unfortunate when they get above themselves and start talking about religion. Especially when they do it in public.

No, the role of the CofE is to preserve the decencies, maintain Englishness and exude a vague benevolence to the world, though always from a position of unspoken superiority. (I clearly remember, towards the end of my time as a Christian, glancing round the congregation to see whether anyone else was desperately trying not to laugh after the priest leading the prayers of intercession had intoned, to my mind somewhat inadequately: "We pray for Africa." They weren't.)

To me this all sheds light on Dr Benway's point about the problems with the word "atheist". People's relationship to what they understand as God and religion in general is so inextricably bound up with their sense of identity that, when we reject the concept of god, it's hard for them not to feel as if we're rejecting much MORE than just that: they think we must also be rejecting a tried and trusted set of values, everything our country (whichever country that happens to be) stands for, and - most unsettling of all - they think we must be rejecting them. (Remember how often we've agreed that each individual believer makes God in his or her own image, and then worships it. No wonder it feels personal when we atheists reject religion.)

I have noticed on a number of occasions that the simple statement "I don't believe in God" is much MUCH easier for people to accept without feeling threatened than "I'm an atheist". The first is ok - somehow it seems possible for us not to believe in God without also rejecting all the good things that "God" stands for in the hearer's mind; but by saying "I'm an atheist" we might as well be saying "I'm a vampire. That's a very nice bit of neck you've got there, by the way."

It's an interesting question whether abandoning the word "atheist" would help. I certainly agree that the word itself carries more negativity than the concept it describes, but I'm not absolutely convinced that using a different word instead would make much difference in the long-run: it seems to me that the negative connotations of the original word just get transferred onto the new word after a while. (It'll be interesting to see what happens with the term "Bright" - I don't get the feeling it's been enthusiastically received so far, though it's early days still, of course.) The real challenge, it seems to me, is to address the underlying misunderstandings about what atheism means - not just as a word, but as an approach to life.

236. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70548 by Northern Bright on September 16, 2007 at 2:20 am

120. Comment #70480 by J. J. Ramsey on September 15, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Ah, it's good to see that my powers of clairvoyance haven't deserted me: I would have put good money on your response being along those lines, JJ!

Thing is, it's like this: If you went for a job interview and were asked why you wanted the job, you would likewise get the door slammed in your face if you said "Because it's offering a salary of £1,000,000 a year plus 90 days paid holiday, of course!"

So you wouldn't say that. You'd say something about how enthusiastic you are about what the role is aiming to achieve, how much value you could bring to it, why your whole career to date had been the perfect preparation for it, what a worthwhile challenge it would be, how closely aligned you were with the values of the organisation, blah blah blah.

And that may all be true to a greater or lesser extent. Nevertheless, to believe that the salary and holiday package hadn't been an influencing factor in your enthusiasm might possibly be slightly naive, don't you think?

237. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70459 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I want an apology and I want it now!

Have you tried prayer?

238. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70456 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 2:49 pm

High parody, that! Doc Mtusi must be a field correspondent for The Onion!

I'd like to think so ... but it was quoted as being genuine in The Week, though they could have got it wrong, of course. Poe's Law applies equally to religious fundamentalists and Zimbabwean politicians, it seems to me.

239. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70427 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Oh dear, we've still got a long way to go, haven't we?

So, to fortify ourselves for the ongoing campaign, let's just enjoy this comment one more time (my comments added in bold):

Evangelical, does not equal fundamentalist nor is it remotely equivalent to osama bin laden. Neither does it mean I cannot change my mind. [OK, so that's clear then - he CAN change his mind.] Evangelicals, as aposed [oh dear] to other christians, believe simply that the bible is true.[OK ... so he presumably can't change his mind about that?] What value is a religious book that is not true? [Great - that's made it even more clear - the Bible MUST be true because otherwise it would have no value as a religious book. I do like people who are clear about what they believe, even if I don't agree with them.] This does not mean that we all agree on every aspect of the bible, key doctrines yes, but all no (young earthism is not a required article of belief). [HANG ON A MINUTE! I thought we'd just established that the bible had to be true, otherwise it would have no value? Where does it say in the bible that young earthism is not a required article of belief? IT'S IN THE BIBLE, for goodness' sake (in the sense that it's wholly founded on information contained in the bible - so by his own definition it MUST be true! Who is he (or anyone else) to say that this bit of the bible isn't true after all? He's just changed his mind about something that, according to his own argument, he can't change his mind about. Aaarrggh.] This is not a fault with the bible, but with our own imperfect ability to understand and comprehend. [How does he know? It could be that we have very good ability to understand and comprehend, and that the bible actually contains nonsense. Oh no, that can't be right, because Paul writes that all scripture is the word of God ... but in that case the bit about God creating the universe in 6 days must be right, mustn't it? Doh - I do wish God hadn't given me such imperfect ability to understand and comprehend.] Furthermore faith is not blind belief in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, [I SOOOO want to insert a comma between "belief" and "in spite of clear evidence to the contrary"] this would be foolish [When has this ever stopped them before?] and of no merit morally [Much like the majority of the Old Testament then?]

The RDF clearly hasn't been approved a moment too soon.

240. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70416 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 11:48 am

Hope that helps..

It does - thank you!

241. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70415 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 11:44 am

At the moment, there are in Britain more practising anglers than practising Anglicans

So THAT'S why I keep seeing all those SUVs with fish on the back of them ...

Seriously, though, isn't it just wonderful to read a sensible article about religion for a change? I was beginning to think all our newspapers had been taken over by religious zealots.

The more liberal the person or the institution, the more likely it is that they accommodate the illiberal – as long as it comes in religious guise.

Spot on.

BTW, the reference to Zimbabwe reminded me of a new and particularly despicable use of religious imagery in the cynical exercise of political control. This quote comes from Doc Mtusi, an official in Zimbabwe's Finance Ministry, interviewed in the Cape Times; and reproduced in the latest edition of "The Week":

The unpatriotic hoarding of food gives the impression that we have a problem, which clearly we haven't, except in the South African media's mind. We do not call it starving, we call it fasting. Fasting is actually good for you. Lots of famous people have fasted for the benefit of their people. Gandhi, for instance. In our case, the people themselves will be encouraged to fast, thereby strengthening themselves against the onslaught of colonial imperialism. We have no objection in principle to people eating. Those of us in government all eat, but only because persons in our important positions have to. What we must guard against is the belief that people have the right to break the law if they're hungry.

242. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #70408 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 11:16 am

Sorry, I think I must be having a slow brain day. What have YouTube done? To whom? And why? I did click on the "open letter" but I am allergic to rap, and not familiar with DMCA, CSEM etc so it didn't make much sense to me. Can someone translate for me please? :-(

243. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70401 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 10:41 am

In an ideal world, 'The God Delusion' should be taped to every copy sold of the Bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. as an essential corrective.

Kevin, what an inspired idea! Wouldn't that be great?

244. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70397 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 10:29 am

I've read about this movement of atheists like youself and Professor Dawkins standing up for clear-thinking. I just want to say thanks and keep up the good work!

Ah, the spirit of Henry Root lives on, I see, Dr Benway - and a very good thing too :-)

245. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70329 by Northern Bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:06 am

All leaders of jihadi groups that I have interviewed tell me that if anyone ever came to them seeking martyrdom to gain virgins in paradise, then the door would be slammed in their face.

That seems plausible to me: after all, it's hard to imagine such a decent, upstanding group of citizens being prepared to tell a lie, isn't it. No, Atran's convinced me: the jihadists only want martyrs who are so overwhelmed by their sense of Allah's love for the world that flying planes into tall buildings is the only sufficiently joyful way to express it.

This is yet another area where the religious have access to a richer, fuller life than atheists. After all, when I'm ecstatically happy about something, I'm pretty much limited to singing in the shower.

246. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70261 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Fantastic news - congratulations!

Looking forward to finding out more about how we can support it (in addition to the obvious financial way, of course!)

247. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70244 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I haven't read Cornwell's book (have no intention of doing so) but from this review, this sounds like Einstein's version of god - so what is all the fuss about?

Yes, I think you're probably right, seals. Turns out that Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell BOTH think that God's all in the imagination. Who would've thought it? ;-)

248. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #70241 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 1:33 pm

http://tgiaa.blogspot.com/2007/09/dawkins-versus-haggard-python-edition.html

Couldn't think of a better place to post this!

With thanks to aw6334, on whose blogsite I found it.

Enjoy :-)

249. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70237 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Thank you for reading Darwin's Angel so I don't have to.

LOL! That almost has religious overtones, Lana. Consider it my act of substitution, atonement and redemption on your behalf. (And it's Friday too - how spooky is that?)

I must devise some ritual for you to carry out on a weekly basis to remember my sacrifice by. Three is the magic number so how about this: first bang your head against the wall three times; then tear out three of your hairs; and then finally, roll around the floor laughing for three minutes. Yes, I think that would give you a flavour of the original experience! :-)

250. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70234 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 12:47 pm

what where they thinking? what's next? monkeys reviewing bananas?

I don't actually have a problem with The Independent using a writer on religion to review a book about religion, and I think Peter Stanford's review is 100 times better than either Salley Vickers' or Christopher Howse's. At least he hasn't been tempted down the path of writing more about his mistaken interpretation of TGD than about the book he's actually meant to be reviewing. Imagine - a whole review of Darwin's Angel that doesn't end up claiming that Dawkins is a closet Nazi! :-)

When he writes that religion isn't about facts and that "It is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible", he is actually accurately representing Cornwell's position; his own too, no doubt, but I think many, many believers would recognise and relate to that stance.

And if that's the case, then I think it's actually quite helpful to have it out in the open so we all know exactly what we're dealing with.

After all, if a believer's reason for believing has more to do with how they FEEL than with how they THINK, we may need to adjust our arguments accordingly.

(Having said all that, wouldn't it be fun to see a review of Darwin's Angel written by Richard Dawkins!)