Atheism as extremism

JohnBUK

As an atheist I have some sympathy with Jacobson's comments. In the end extremists are extremists. BUT I'm not entirely sure his take on Dawkin's stance is correct. Yes, he (Dawkins) can appear unforgiving and unwilling to compromise but the context is surely a background of centuries of subjugation by religions for their own ends. Populations have been held back and in some cases terrorised by all religions and with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism the Christian right have started to "demand" greater accommodation blaming "secularism" etc.
There is no reason for our politics and way of life to be determined by any religious group or dogma and it is essential we (non-believers) make that view known as often as possible but allowing believers to continue their belief unmolested.

Yam Yam

The difference between ordinary Christians and Dawkinesque atheists is that the former believe that their particular 'truth' is rooted and accepted in faith whilst the latter believe theirs is based upon unassailable (and therefore non-negotiable)scientific reasoning.

However, as the hoo-har surroundiong Man-made Global Warming has proved, scientists are as prone as the rest of us to pride, presumption, prejudice and political correctness, all of which often tempt them to squash the facts around some pre-accepted theory.

Bob Powell

" Partly because it assumes that men were stupid until science rescued them. Partly because its ignorance sees no reason not to remain ignorant of what belief is like for those who do believe."

That was actually the part where I did turn over. Personally I find evangelicalism, albeit in the form of Deism or Atheism, extremely distasteful and close-minded and find Dawkins more than a little arrogant, but the view here does not represent Dawkins' POV, First he describes himself as not being 100% certain of the non-existence of God, so he'd be calling himself as stupid in much the same manner Jacobson decries, and secondly, at no point in The God Delusion does he call pre-science civilisations 'stupid', ignorant yes, but ignorance is not stupid it is merely not having facts. No, for me Jacobson's agnostic apologist bias, whereby the undeniable poetry of the OT stood up to and was equal to all the verifiable contradictory evidence simply because it was beautiful and compelling was beyond misguided, it was actually pitiful and I just couldn't watch any more for fear of loaughing out loud and waking the baby.

Robert Powell

@Yam Yam said: "Dawkinesque atheists (snip) believe theirs is based upon unassailable (and therefore non-negotiable)scientific reasoning."

Scientific reasoning is assailable, that is what peer review is for and is exactly how and why the amazing errors in the IPCC report were found out and shot down. All of which is unrelated to the Science that negates the literal Biblical Creation accounts; the concepts of Evolution, the Age of the World etc, that deny the literal truth of the OT stand up to every attempt to discredit them. The Creationist myths do not.

"However, as the hoo-har surroundiong Man-made Global Warming has proved, scientists are as prone as the rest of us to pride, presumption, prejudice and political correctness, all of which often tempt them to squash the facts around some pre-accepted theory."

Congratulations on turning a debate on how Religion and Atheism relate to each other in extremism in to another boring and ill-thoughout attack on Climate Change. Strange, though, how despite all this "pride, presumption, prejudice and political correctness" not one real refutation of Climate Change stands up to peer review, much like as the IPCC has found out to it's cost. Ironically, the fact that you claim Climate Change Science as being unassailable, while assailing it, and missing the whole point and value of peer review that has made the IPCC look like eejits, I think escapes you, and like Jacobson, I find your conclusions brilliantly funny! Thanks, I needed the laugh at the start of the week.

Science and Religion differ in one major thing. Science claims no 100% certainties, merely offer proofs and testable facts, whereas Religion offers nothing but 100% certainty and offers nothing but doctrine and faith.

Christopher Chessum

I watched with interest, Howard Jacobson programme on Channel 4’s “Bible: A history.” Although it contained some stimulating material, I thought Jacobson’s programme was a little confused and lacked intellectual clarity in parts.

Jacobson was born into a Jewish tradition but he admitted that he has no belief in religion himself. Focusing on the story of creation in the Bible it was clear that Jacobson was no six day creationist. Yet it seemed to me that for purely nostalgic reasons he was perfectly happy for others within the Jewish and Christian faith to perpetuate the myth of a literal six day creation just so long as they didn’t try to “…distort the science.”

The Genesis account of creation is indeed a beautiful story, but it is a myth. It is not something to be mocked and scorned. The creation story in the Bible is an attempt by early man to try and make sense of the world and of his place within it. We therefore need to have a mature understanding of the story in context of the mythology.

The problem is that so many religious people today do not have a mature understanding of the scriptures. I come across a substantial number of religious people who do believe in a literal six day creation. Go to a typical comprehensive school in London and take a poll of how many pupils agree with Darwin’s theory of evolution as opposed to what their “…holy book” teaches. You will be staggered to find that something like 50% of a class will reject the scientific basis for evolution because they have been taught by their parents and clergy that they must accept the scientific inerrancy of their holy book. Surely in the context of 21st Century Britian, this is worrying. Richard Dawkins is trying to redress the balance by challenging religious people to dare to look at the evidence for something rather than just follow a belief system.

Yes, extreme atheism like extreme faith is unhealthy. So is extreme agnosticism which sits on the fence and either tries to be all things to all people or enjoys taking pot shots at anyone from the security of their own noncommittal stance. Lets face it, agnostics have an unmissable target.

Like it or not, there is a distinction to be made between faith and science. To blur the distinction between the two is fatuous. This is where Jacobson’s criticism of Dawkins was misplaced. I was also disappointed that Jacobson never interviewed Dawkins given that he had so much to say about him. Who knows, perhaps Dawkins wasn’t available for interview at the time. I’ll give Jacobson the benefit of the doubt by remaining agnostic on that one.

John Lea

It was a fantastic documentary. I was only disappointed that Howard Jacobson did not confront Dawkins. Whenever I see Dawkins arguing his case on television, he is invariably up against some terribly polite, simple-minded Christian straw man. It would have been refreshing to see him up against a worthy intellectual opponent - one who is as tenacious and aggressive as he is.

Michael

"Religion offers nothing but certainty"...

It all depends; some do, some don't. Atheism, by contrast, is a philosophy and not a way of life. Beyond all the doubting, and self-questioning there must be an ethical and practical system for living day to day, and some hope for posterity. Religion offers certainty in the next life for believers; atheism offers down to earth certainty in this life, and a modest chance of leaving this world a better place in the next life.

Yam Yam

Robert Powell - My point was not to attack global warming enthusiasts per se (even though I think they are wrong). Merely to point out that scientists are fallible human beings who are as capable of barking up wrong trees as the rest of humanity. They're just better at making an intellectual case for it.

Alex creel

To lend from the great Bill Hicks - you're christians so I'm sure you forgive Dawkins...I've read many a diatribe from religious leaders slating his opinions - never seen one try to save his soul though?

Simon Gardner

Look at these strange religious people.

Dave Rattigan

Atheists, including Dawkins, often erect straw men to demolish religion. But Jacobson's comments are just another straw man in return.

I've never known Richard Dawkins to claim that he has all the answers, and yet I find this accusation to be the most common response to his claim among believers (and sympathizers such as Jacobson).

THX1138

The Imaginary friend botherers hate Dawkins because deep down they know he's right.

Jason Mead

I suppose that it is entirely natural that a writer of fiction should be asked to present a programme that defends the Bronze Age fiction of irrational, superstitious goat-herders. So it's no surprise that Howard Jacobsen deliberately and wilfully misrepresents Atheists and perpetuates the fiction that they believe themselves to be “certain” and “absolute”.

I’m an atheist and I can tell Howard that I don’t believe in that either. However, I do believe that there is no necessity to believe in anything unless there is very strong, reliable evidence (that can be tested) to do so otherwise such speculation can easily be dismissed as no more than baseless assertion.

This is the principle behind the scientific method, the legal system and good, quality journalism and has served us all incredibly well. As Christopher Hitchen's points out: "That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."

Proof and evidence are simply absent here. Anyone expecting a defence of the biblical account of creation will be disappointed as Howard concedes that it is not true (of course) and not supposed to be taken as true (although he had a very hard time getting his own relations and a Christian Priest to accept this) so the programme lapses into an extended "Genesis as a literary metaphor" defence before making a half-hearted "argument from design" at the very end (the only actual argument that is ever put forward).

There is, however, plenty of empty rhetoric and anger as when Howard dismisses: “those who dismiss [Genesis] as childish nonsense.”

Now that really is unfair to children. Even they are sensible enough to ask the question “then who created god?” No, self induced infantilism is far more accurate if the certainty-filled responses of Howard’s relatives are anything to go by.

Is there any point in asking why there are out-of-context clips of Richard talking about the morality of the bible in the “Root of All Evil?” when Howard's programme was supposed to be talking about the Creation Myths?

If Richard’s book filled him with “fury” (his words) then why not directly talk to Richard about what he has written and said?

Is it because to do so is simply far too dangerous?

Then we have the so-called philosopher, Mary Midgley (who has never understood that the Selfish Gene is itself a metaphor and has admitted never readfing the books she has “reviewed”) utter such mindless inanities as "you don't come out of King Lear asking if Lear really existed." Well duh! However, if anyone did really believe that King Lear was literally true then the immediate and obvious answer would be simply to say "No - it's not.”

John Polkinghorne is ushered out only to confirm that he really is unaware of the Anthropic principle or, if he is aware of it, then has singularly failed to understand its import and significance. He may also want to brush up on Quantum Indeterminacy that makes a complete nonsense of any argument by design and he would also benefit from watching the very fine BBC4 documentary "The Secret Life of Chaos" before daring to unscientifically state the "Cosmos is a fine-tuned machine that has been designed for our benefit" canard.

The Cosmological Constants that he refers to can have a multitude of different explanations other than the unimaginative non-explanation "Goddidit".

Overall, the whole programme was, itself, no more than a feeble-minded, evidence-free exercise in deeply muddled mawkishness that, in the end, didn’t seem to have the faintest idea of what it was trying to say.

No surprise there then.

Paul Henry

I very much look forward to the next balanced tv programme from Channel 4 that avoids the two extremes of absolute belief and absolute disbelief in Santa Claus.

Channel 4 can then get some ill-informed windbag of a presenter utter cliche after cliche about those who do not fall into a moderate, middle-road view about whether Santa Claus really does exist or not are somehow extreme, arrogant and just don't understand the magical mystery of Santa Claus.

They can even interview the very tiny handful of crackpot philosphers and scientists about how about how one does not have to believe in a literal Santa Clause that actually exists to reject the absolutist extreme that there is no evidence to believe that there really is a Santa Clause as well as how everybody is missing something who doesn't believe that Santa brings the presents.

Frank

As a child raised (without freedom of choice) in a Christian home, I felt trapped, unprotected from the world and certainly my family. I somehow had the ability to look at my situation almost as an omniscient being looking from the outside in ... and could see that this was all so very wrong for me. But yet, I was enslaved and forced to live a lie against myself and humanity. Do you know how that feels for a child, then adolescent, then young adult, then adult? It is horrific to not have control over your own life. I agree with Dawkins that it is paramount to child abuse to label a child with a religious affiliation. Children are impressionable and vulnerable ... religion should be an adult choice, not a birth heritage. As a child forced to participate I felt raped and battered with absolutely no place to go for help. I would never wish this upon any child, whether they have the faculties to understand and suffer as I did or not (being blindly indoctrinated without raising their own consciousness over the consequences at the time).

I applaud Dawkins for raising our public consciousness. If he comes across as too strong from time to time .... remember that his pain is genuine. He truly believes that no child should be a religious slave, regardless of which faith-based, supernatural religion .... there is harm in indoctrination and we all know it is true. I realize that it is painful for any human to take inventory and recognize that much of their life as been a lie ... but I would rather have 5 minutes of freedom from religion than a lifetime of ignorance and pain.

Ben

Calm down Frank.

Raytheist

It's disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst, to insist that atheist should only engage the most academic, abstruse, ethereal, ivory-tower versions of theistic belief and never the oh-so-mockable lowest common denominator beliefs that exist on the ground among the vast majority of believers. If everyone believed as the theologians do, the world would be a much different place and books like the God Delusion would not be necessary. Instead, the world is in fact ruled by lowest common denominator lunacy and the result is ignorance, backwardness, anti-intellectualism and tribal violence.

Peter Crawford

Fraser says that Howard Jacobson's views are unusual but they most certainly are not. John Humphrys took a similar line two or three years ago and Spectator regulars such as Charles Moore, Christopher Howse, and Quentin Letts cannot mention Dawkins's name without some waspish reference to his supposed extremism.

The rebuttal is always the same. Do atheist "extremists" destroy ancient statues ? No. Do they shoot doctors in abortion clinics ? No. Do they strap bombs to themselves (or to mentally handicapped stooges) and detonate them in crowded streets ? No. Do they make films of themselves sawing off peoples heads and post them on the internet ? No. Do they fly airliners into buildings ? No.

I can only conclude that those who accuse atheists of extremism haven't the first idea of what true extremism really is. Which is presumably why they are so spectacularly useless at combatting it.

Let Howard Jacobson vent his "fury". Some of us have got more valid things to get angry about.

Ben

..er..calm down Peter

Raytheist

Hey Ben, you didn't tell me to calm down... I feel left out.

Pluto Animus

Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children.
Period

Wendell

Wrong wrong wrong....I am sick and tired of the misinformation and outright lies that this article represent. Mr. Dawkins and I and every single Atheist I know would change our point of view in an instant if there was any evidence at all. There is nothing at all wrong with being certain of something WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT !!! Hundreds of years and thousands of efforts to show that the supernatural is anything but wishful thinking has resulted in nothing, nada, zilch.

If anyone out can show that God or anyother supernatural anything is anymore than it appears, please let me know. If not, spend your time complaining that sun sets everyday as the likelihood that it will not is only a little better than that any supernatural effect is real.

Mike

If Mr. Jacobson accepts that Genesis is just a literary metaphor (as I do also), then why don't we extend The Book with some alternatives. As a start I'd like to suggest:
The New Zealand Maori myth of Maui.
The Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime myths.
Indian.
Hawaiian.

If christians truly accept genesis as a myth, what problem would they have in a customised version for each culture ? A better marketing alternative. In fact, the early missionaries did a good job of squashing local myths to insert their own - now might be the time to make amends.

Frank

How can one trust someone who can justify their actions and inactions based on superstition and the supernatural? People who cherry pick between rational and irrational are somewhat schizophrenic and unreliable as they can make reason out of nonsense. My experience is that these people do not isolate that schizophrenia to only their religious beliefs, it carries over into other values and behaviors when interacting with society at large. Why would a sane, balanced, intelligent person welcome someone into their life like this? Why is it such a mystery or wonder at why humanists, scientists, atheists, freethinkers, non-theists reject people that guide their lives through the lens of mythology and religious control? If the Bible and other religious documents weren't so terribly heinous, perhaps we would come around. But they are heinous!

Danny

Theist: God loves you and wants you to obey his commandments.
Atheist: I don't believe in any god.
Theist: What is it with you militant atheists and your immoral philosophy and extremist beliefs? Why can't you find a middle ground instead of pretending you know all the answers which you try to foist on us in a shrill tone due to your fundamentalist belief in scientism?

Sigh.

Oh, and by the way, agnosticism is not "fence sitting", its asserting something is unknowable in principle, so you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

Miguel (alopiasmag)

The God Delusion does not imply that "men were stupid until science rescued them".

The term "Science" means everything around us. It is using logic to explain what was once unexplainable and is now understandable. It is the process of trial, error, observation and testing.

There are extremists everywhere, but overall, the "Atheist extremists" do not compare to religious extremists.

Also, the reason many more of us are "out" is because we are tired of this world being defined through religious doctrines and churches having immense political power when it actually should be your personal business. No More, No Less.

Patrick B

So you were ready to turn off the documentary program out of expectation of the "usual cliched" portrayal of Christan which is undoubtedly narrow and insulting to you, but at the same time are willing to except and even repeated similarly narrow and insulting cliches about atheists because of one academics feelings about another academic.?

Ben

Blimey..there's hundreds of them..Raytheist, calm down.

Alexander rose

Ben: Your posts are very to the point, very, how should I say … intellectual.

Thøger Kari Jensen

I truly don't believe Jacobson have even read The God Delusion. I think he's just repeating what he has heard from other people. In TGD Dawkins never states nor insinuates that people were stupid before "science rescued them", on the contrary he clearly points out that there were little good reason not to believe in a creator god until the theory of evolution came along.
He also never claims to have all the answers, that's just rubbish! On the contrary, he's again extremely clear on the fact that science do not yet have all the answers, it's just that so far it has given us the demonstrably hugely best answers, and due to its nature will continue to do so.
I don't believe the guy has ever been near The God Delusion.
Weak, weak, weak and intellectually dishonest journalism!

Christopher Chessum

Danny, where do you stand in relation to the existence of the tooth fairy?

THX1138

Fraser this thread didn't go they way you were expecting did it? As I remember your evidence for god was Fjords .. 1- nill to the atheists.

Catesby

TK Jensen

I have not read the God Delusion, but I have read the Dawkins website from time to time and even heard the professor of Atheism on the radio accusing Christians of 'blind faith' as if Augustine, Aquinas and Cardinal Newman had never existed.

These atheists make use of insulting references to sky fairies and spaghetti monsters and so on. I see one is visiting today.

I have read, however, Dennis Sewell's The Political Gene, which makes a rather persuasive comparison between Richard Dawkins and Anjem Choudhury and between scientism and Islamism as forms of political extremism.

What I found most striking in the Jacobson programme was his visit to a pair of Manchester Orthodox Rabbis who were describing a ritual celebrating Man's joint part with God in creation (through creativity etc). An interesting metaphor.

Then when Jacobson challenged the Rabbi on the literal truth of the Creation story, he was told (here I paraphrase) that literalism belongs in the realm of the rational, but neither literalism or reason are appropriate for a full consideration the ineffable. Orthodox Judaism went up two notches in my estimation.

A similar point was made by the philosopher Mary Midgley (who pointed out that myths are jolly useful things that are not supposed to be taken literally) and a scientist called Polkinghorne who pointed out that there were plenty of truths in King Lear, but one's first reaction to reading the play should not be to ask whether there really was a King Lear living at such and such a time with two daughters...etc.

Polkinghorne was right, I think, to criticize Dawkins for being a plonking literalist for wrongly believing that believers are mostly plonking literalists.

Altogether a good programme.

Fergus Pickering

Dawkins is a berk. What's more he's a SILLY berk. have you heard the wishy-washy pretty-pretty sub-liberal hogwash he puts out as his beliefs? Somewhere and long ago he did a bit of science. And of course he's a Professor. so he's the nearest thing to God Almighty an atheist can conceive. If I were wanting some moral sense of direction I can tell you exactly where I wouldn't go. A kick up the backside from a muscular Christian is what Dawkins requires. On air if possible.

Thøger Kari Jensen

Catesby:
I'm sorry that you feel the comparison to fairies and spaghetti monsters are insulting, but really, the point is that we have just as much evidence for fairies and spaghetti monsters as we do for Yahweh and Allah, yet people kill each other and impose harmful and hateful politics based on these things. Those comparisons are not even funny to many of us atheists, they represent a quite scary fact to us.
And if fairies are insulting, then really; what on earth should we use for comparison? I bet unicorns, Cthulhu and leprechauns would be equally "insulting". I'm having a hard time imagining what would not be insulting to the religious mindset.
So I'm sorry, but I believe your inclination to be insulted is due to the fact that you are not used to faith-based beliefs being compared with other - just as probable - faith based beliefs.

And I'd say that Dawkins usually go out of his way to specify which type of religious people (e.g. evangelicals) he is referring to when commenting a subject. And given the Christian's representatives incredibly outspread use of harsh and derogatory generalizations toward atheists as a whole, I see very little reason to be offended. And I dare say there's quite a bit of hypocrisy on the Christian side, from whom I hear no outbursts when the "immoral, sinful and deceiving atheists" are mentioned.
E.g. the newspapers are ATM raging with despicable articles from respected theologians, saying how atheists should stop flaunting their charity in the wake of Haiti, 'cause that's just a disgusting way to improve our image. Before, the word was that atheists didn't give to charity because they are immoral and don't care about other people but themselves. Now when we are becoming more open about our charities because we're sick of hearing that we're immoral and don't care - surprise! - the theologians retort that it's inappropriate to flaunt ones charities (as if they don't constantly do that!!) and that we only give aid it to further our own goals.
I'm sorry, but comparing God to a Flying Spaghetti Monster that has equal evidential basis and calling creationists "blind" (what on earth would you call it???) in the face of the overwhelming evidence of evolution, falls extremely short of that kind of baseless accusations on peoples morality.

As a side note, my views on orthodox Judaism did not change one bit by a rabbi saying that to understand the ineffable (=what you cannot understand), you can neither use reason nor literalism... ;-) Then exactly what can you use, and how do you know this, especially since the thing you want to understand is ineffable? I'm sorry to say that unless you already believe, that's just pure nonsense. Once again I'm not quite able to find another fitting word that wouldn't come off as "insulting". If I need to elaborate on why I think it's nonsense I'll be happy to - that may clear it up a bit - but this post is already quite long. :-)

PAUL GILBOY

I read that piece in one of the Sunday newspapers by Jacobson and, I was moved by its clarity and perception. If Richard Dawkin were not such an ignoramus he would know that philosophy and theology intertwined have informed the human condition for millennia. People of faith have discussed everything he knows and, understands long before his banal utterances assaulted the ears of a person of intellect, the paradoxes and contradictions of faith.

Richard Dawkins mind works in a logic and literalist way confined in a four-dimential universe. Asking a monkey to envisage a nine-dimentail universe would probably elicit the same arguments that Richard Dawkins passes for an intellectual position.

XN-1

I thought this contribution to Faith-Based rather better than usual!! Then I saw who wrote it.... What a relief; thank you Fraser!

Ben you're doing a great job on the commentariat!! Keep it going.

They're an impassioned lot, those who've never regarded study as a Searth for Truth: neither Scripture nor Science ("knowledge"). Those who are blind to every miracle on this (as far as we can tell) unique planet; those who blindly accept that this unique biosphere resulted from a series of unique accidents!! Such faith in happenstance is a wonder in itself.

And they can't prove that God doesn't exist. Lord - they're incapable even of introspection, or they'd be a bit more modest!! They might even come face to face with what is traditionally recognised as a Soul ... a Spirit ("Breath").

So let's see: they proceed from inadequate research and reject half the previous scholarship out of hand. They also reject the so-called scientific evidence, because most of them haven't read Darwin or studied, for example, genetics. Therefore they cannot identify even what evidence they need to analyse.

Having selected one or two general items for cursory inspection (e.g. Genesis and Evolution), they then take the items out of context and proceed to a crude interpretion of, which they follow by a rough-hewn synthesis. It's a negative statement, though: No Creator exists. The I Am is not.

Well, why pay further attention to them? Their interpretations are based in ignorance and denial of their own subjective status. They cannot see; therefore they cannot credit the vision of people who can. But they can create an argument that they think is invincible....
Here on this unique planet, amidst this unique biosphere, where they are the finest examples of the most advanced product of evolution. They Are.

XN-2

On further reflection, I must observe a couple of the effects -- when the Impassioned Ones stop short at their incompetent, incomplete, 'literalism.'

In turning their so-called analysis towards denial of the existence of God ("Good"): the Creator, or the I AM; and in dismissing the Wisdom of Ages as "Myth" they ignore some interesting aspects of the juxtaposition of Scripture and Scientia - the latter being one of the instruments Judaeo-Christianity nurtured in the Search for Truth.

So, they militant ones lead us to believe:
Never mind that the ancient Hebrews somehow arrived at the conclusion that God's final creation was mankind: which is compatible with the idea of mankind as the final product of evolution.

Never mind that this final product - the most advanced biological species in the known universe - is also the one that is most evil: which is compatible with the process by which the species best adapted to exploit the environment will survive most successfully.

Never mind that since we turned into homo so-called sapiens we haven't evolved one jot beyond the predations that got us here.

So, I infer that thoughts like that are too subtle, and too inconvenient.

Evolution stops here; we shouldn't move towards questions of what this perfect final product of evolution might do to survive the predations of its own kind. we are.

we are. It's a fact: we know that because of all the nasty things we make and do: they affect our senses and make us suffer. Suffering (passio).

we are.

we are.

we are.

Jason Mead

@Catesby

"A similar point was made by the philosopher Mary Midgley (who pointed out that myths are jolly useful things that are not supposed to be taken literally) and a scientist called Polkinghorne who pointed out that there were plenty of truths in King Lear,"

Actually it was Mary Midgley who made that unbelievably fatuous point about King Lear.

It is a simple abuse of langauge to say that there are "truths" in King Lear. Your use of the word "truths" in this context simply means the reader's subjective interpretation of the poetic or literary messages of the text.

It is not the same as "truth" as understood by Philosphers in the academic discipline of Epistemology. If someone was to insist that "King Lear" is a historic record of true events that occured in space/time then they would be crossing this line and it would be entirely fair to subject the claim to critical scrutiny.

The vast majority of Theist do insist that their particular Holy book is an absolute accurate record of epistemolgical truth so that's why we need Dawkins, Hitchens, Graylin and co to argue that the evidence does not support this and even (escpecially in the case of Genesis) contradicts it.

But at least you, Jacobson and Midgley have accepted that it is a myth. In otherwords, it is fantasy, fiction, not true and, according to you and them, not supposed to true but just literary invention and no more real than Lord of the Rings or Gandalf are real.

That is far more than the vast majority of the believers of the barbaric, Bronze age fairy stories of pig-ignorant desert tribes and superstitious goat-herders are prepared to do.

Mark Palmer

@Paul Gilboy

"Richard Dawkins mind works in a logic and literalist way confined in a four-dimential universe."

Implying that your mind works in an illogical, illiterate way that somehow operates "outside" the dimensions of the material universe?

Do have any empirical evidence that has been thoroughly tested to support youir very contentious claim?

Thought not.

Andrew Ryan

Fergus: "A kick up the backside from a muscular Christian is what Dawkins requires"

You're right, physical violence is the only way you're going to see a theist beat Dawkins. They're certainly not going to manage it through reasoned debate.

It's a shame Howard Jacobson couldn't find anything Dawkins had actually SAID to argue with, and instead had to rely on simply making things up.

Bruce Gorton

Maybe Jacobsen should look up libel and slander laws before claiming people said things in books he has never read.

Bruce Gorton

Just out of curiousity did anybody run this past the legal department?

I know, I know, atheists aren't particularly into suing but one of these days you are going to get sued, you will lose and you will be forced to pay damages.

And given the generally precarious financial situation most newspapers find themselves in frankly I wonder how you think you can afford to leave yourselves open to this sort of thing.

BTW: Jacobson pretty clearly lied in that quote. Repeating the lie makes you liable for it too.

gerry

Why an evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins minds so much what a transient speaking Great age thinks is beyond me.

Alex

I do believe that Dawkins (as have many atheists) made the point that a religious person is not necessarily unintelligent, just ignorant of something.

I respect that there can be nasty people in all walks of life but Dawkins is a poor example. His books do of course involve a reasoned attack of religion but there is no unprovoked (or unecessary) viciousness. I am uninclined to upset someone of moderate and personal religion. However nothing in the world, religion included, can ever be above criticism. The article talks about atheists being unable to understand the concept of such strong belief. Possibly true, yet I often find that the religious are unable to understand the bemusement we feel when people start talking and doing things for entities who aren't even there.

Jason Mead

Hello Bruce,

The only thing that Atheists actually have in common is that they lack a belief in a deity and that's it.

Just like a non-stamp collector doesn't collect stamps, a non golf-player doesn't play golf, an atheist just doesn't do god.

This is exactly the same use of language that is used when someone is described as "atypical" or "ammoral" - ie lacking a typical / moral sense or typical / moral belief.

Professor Richard Dawkins is just one of very many atheists and he is actually a very mild-mannered, softly spoken liberal who demonstrates the lie that he is "arrogant", "shrill" and "intolerant" everytime he is interviewed.

He also has an excellent understanding of free speech so he is highly unlikely to sue anybody.

This means that the gross distortions, and downright lies about what he has actually said and written is just part of the territory, although it is very interesting to see his opponents label him rather deal with any of the many arguments that he has put actually forward. I guess that "faith" for you.

Howard Jacobson is merely the latest in a very long line of critics who have obviously found Dawkin's arguments so utterly devastating (hence the "fury") that all he is left with is insults, smears, straw men and putting word in Professor Dawkin's mouth.

I doubt if he would be the last and I am sure there will be many more just like him but but he is very easily dismissed as his programme was completely all-over-the-place in terms of finding any coherence in whatever it was he was trying to say (not at all clear).

THX1138

Fergus P: "A kick up the backside from a muscular Christian" Does Ann Widdecombe count as a "muscular Christian" ?

You can watch her debate Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry at a recent IQ2 event.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

Be warned it's not a pretty site, for your side that is

Ben

I don't think that this blog, wonderful though it is, will really settle the existence of God issue. It seems to have become an existence of Dawkins issue by default.

So, for Frank (..If he comes across as too strong from time to time .... remember that his pain is genuine..); Miguel (.."Atheist extremists" do not compare to religious extremists..); Thoger Kari Jensen (..Dawkins never states nor insinuates that people were stupid before "science rescued them"..); Andrew Ryan (..physical violence is the only way you're going to see a theist beat Dawkins. They're certainly not going to manage it through reasoned debate..); Alex (..I do believe that Dawkins (as have many atheists) made the point that a religious person is not necessarily unintelligent, just ignorant of something…); Jason Mead (…he is actually a very mild-mannered, softly spoken liberal who demonstrates the lie that he is "arrogant", "shrill" and "intolerant" everytime he is interviewed…a very long line of critics who have obviously found Dawkin's arguments so utterly devastating..)….here’s your hero/god in the Guardian, verbatim (25/10/08):

“Dawkins once described the British Airways employee dismissed for wearing a gold cross to work as having "the stupidest face". Did he regret saying it? A slightly naughty smile flickers over his face.
"Well ... well ... yes, I do really. Yes. That was an unguarded moment. Although I think I said stupid-looking. Did you see the photograph of her? I think if you look up the story, and they've got the photograph ... " He checks himself, and stops. "But this is unkind."

Lovely man.

Beefeater

-"‘The God Delusion’... moves me – to be frank – to fury...Partly because its ignorance sees not reason not to remain ignorant of what belief is like for those who do believe."

So, Dawkins fails in empathy? 'What is belief like for those who do believe?' might be answered by a novelist one way, and a scientist another. Dawkins himself in his Delusion book give one evolutionary answer (among others): it is like being in love.

-"...Partly because of its certainty. What is the point of attacking religion for thinking it has all the answers, when you think you have all the answers yourself?"

This is poor stuff. What happened to novelist empathy? Obviously, if you think you have the right answers - not all the answers - then you wish to point them out to those that think they have the ultimate answer. It is a human thing.

As for the philosophy: Dawkins' error in The God Delusion, was to assume, arguendo, that religion's assertion that God exists was a scientific assertion and amenable to scientific investigation. It allowed him to rehearse his convincing description of evolutionary change from simple to complex, but his argument that an intelligent Creator god would have had to have gone through an evolution himself, is argument by analogy and unconvincing.

'Is there a God?' is not a serious scientific question. Religion, therefore, has all the answers to it. One is left, in the end, with a NOMA, and the impossibility of debate.

Andrew Ryan

"'Is there a God?' is not a serious scientific question."

If your God manifests in reality in any way, then that manifestation should be detectable, and perhaps also testable. It is therefore a scientific question.

If your God does not manifest in reality in any detectable way, then how does your God differ in any way from something that does NOT exist at all?

Kittler

XN-1
'this unique planet'
The estimated number of stars in the Universe is a mind boggling 70 sextillion (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), so plenty room out there for a few more wee worlds.
And God must be very fond of stars.

Beefeater

"If your God manifests in reality in any way, then that manifestation should be detectable, and perhaps also testable. It is therefore a scientific question."

No, it begs the scientific question. Reality manifests itself. What could a manifestation of God in reality be? A special kind of reality? (A miracle ?)

"If your God does not manifest in reality in any detectable way, then how does your God differ in any way from something that does NOT exist at all?"

Quite. It does not.

Peter

"Of course, most Christians..regard (the bible) as a mixture of eternal truths and some time-bound elements that we can ignore."

So how do we know which bits are which? Many of these "time-bound elements" were "eternal truths" rather recently, like slavery and the subjugation of women. Even today, they are "eternal" in one place and "time-bound" in another; how do we make sense of all of this?
The answer, as Dr Dawkins points out, is to rely on our own innate morality combined with the best tools we have for discerning fact from fiction.

I am amused by Jacobson's effort to believe and not believe at the same time.

I remember once, when I was suffering from a terrible bout of gastoenteritis, I struggled mightily to believe and not believe so as to avoid disturbing the fine balance between the spiritual and the physical.

I got through a lot of underwear.

Peter

Andrew Ryan

"Quite. It does not."

Your God does not differ in any way from something that doesn't exist at all? Then in what sense does your God actually exist? I think Dawkins' point stands.

XN-3

Kittler - that's why I used the modifier 'as far as we can tell.' God did rather limit our perceptions - or was it we who did that by presuming to the knowledge of good and evil?

Any old hoo - the star numbers are fascinating. I wonder how they (or the numbers of solar systems) compare with the number of atoms in a human body?

I'm also interested in the way stars die. It's a while since I had time to read Hawking, but the processes of the Black Hole - and what happens after it forms - are also instructive!!

Chris

Howard Jacobson probably hates Richard Dawkins because his books sell better than his own! His representation of Richard's views is either ignorant or deceitful because Dawkins has repeatedly stated in books and interviews that he cannot be certain about the (non) existence of god.

Kittler

XN-3
Thanks for pointing out the existence of Black Holes.
I wonder why a God would create all those Stars and also Black Holes which gobble up and destroy by the billion?

hadrian

I am as ever amused by the sheer lack of depth of thought and the sheer ignorance of historical fact that these 'cultured despisers' of religion betray when they offer their specious critique- 'religion=bad; atheism=good'.
Where have they been when 'Egalite, Fraternite, etc' and umpteen Socialist 'class'cleansing was taking place? Fanaticism is NOT the exclusive property of the religious man but endemic in fallen human nature and its own self-righteousness which drives it.
The apparent superiority of those who disdain 'absolutism' is simply disingenuous or the ultimate self deception, deriving as it does from an absolute conviction that all absolutes must be wrong! No, they are not! As Christians we believe in man's innately fallen , depraved nature. By nature, man cannot please God, always falls short. Salvation must be by grace which is mediated to us by divine GRACE alone.Every movement that fails to comprehend this basic condition of man is fated to fall into the fanatic's trap, either positively or by default and being compromised in its understanding of man's being, in a very serious sense, his own worst enemy.
There is nothing as self righteous as the atheist who ultimately believes in nothing and certainly- and ironically- sees no ultimate purpose or value in human existence. When it comes down to it they are asserting we are pointlessly the way we are. Believe that if you want- but at least be radically consistent in it and about it!

Beefeater

Andrew Ryan:

-"Your God does not differ in any way from something that doesn't exist at all? Then in what sense does your God actually exist? I think Dawkins' point stands."

I have no God, personal or in common with others. God does not actually exist in any sense at all.

Dawkins point that God must have been evolved to create the universe, stands as an absurd argument against Deism, which, by its own terms, can hold evolution itself as God's plan. Gods can stack up as well as turtles and far better than infinite regressions of evolutions.

Dawkins argument is as futile against Deists as the argument that God would need a physical presence to move matter. God no more "must have had" an evolved brain than opposable thumbs.

God is the answer to all questions about him, including "scientific" ones which assume his existence to investigate it.

Keeping an open mind for evidence of God is analagous to setting a place for Elijah. The expectation of the unreal is all that is necessary and sufficient to guarantee it will remain so.

hadrian

What's happened to Theo H., then? Or was he Fraser in a false beard and wig all along?!

daifromwales

I'd like to see a bit more pragmatism. What purpose does religion serve in evolutionary terms? It is undoubtedly the case that Belief in some kind of other-world presence and power over Mankind is a universal feature of the society of homo sapiens. I would suggest that such belief therefore provides significant benefit towards our survival. The unbelievers will not inherit the Earth. Those who wish for 'eternal life' will have their wish granted provided that they successfully produce children. As I get older I am increasingly aware that they are my future.

And to assure future success they (we) need a stable society: bound together in a larger family unity. Thus far, religion provides this but atheism does not.

Therefore I would suggest that (as Jesus himself said, although few listen), stop concerning yourselves with the letter of religious Law, and try to behave towards other people (whoever they are) in the manner in which you would wish them to behave towards you. "Do as you would be done by".

I suggest that you can choose any religion which provides that as its guiding principle and, if you wish to succeed for yourself and your children, you should take no notice of the rest.

But don't argue about Creation!

And (as Jesus also urged) do NOT rip those whom you believe to be weeds out of society - Justice is the Lord's, and does NOT come from those who murder in the name of Christianity.

JohnBUK

XN-2 "Never mind that this final product - the most advanced biological species in the known universe - is also the one that is most evil: which is compatible with the process by which the species best adapted to exploit the environment will survive most successfully."
Couldn't disagree more, being the most complicated and slow to reproduce gives us little room for manoeuvre when the environment changes. The most simple organisms will survive ultimately and humans (deists and atheists will be gone).

"Evolution stops here....." for whom? Evolution is happening as we speak, in our lifetime certain animals have changed, new diseases formed/adapted to the changing environment (caused sometimes by our antibiotics etc). We are irrelevant in terms of the future, believing in a god won't save us nor probably will science. But at least the latter might give us a few more years!
We can sit back and trust to luck/god if you wish but then which god would that be, there's so many to choose from?

JohnBUK

Hadrian, why am I being "self-righteous" because I believe humans "have no purpose etc". "Purpose" implies a plan of some kind. I do not believe there is a "plan" or anything/anyone who devised such a "plan". I do not think we are any different to any other organism on this planet. We are here today and will be gone tomorrow. Our short existence will certainly have changed the environment and the world will continue with different players long after we have gone. So what? We are just one of billions of different players - why are we so important? Could it be god's plan has us at the top of the league now but relegated in a few thousand year's time with some piddling little bacteria taking over the reins for a while?
Perhaps we should ask them what they currently believe in.

JohnBUK

Daifromwales, "what purpose does religion serve in evolutionary terms"?
I suspect it provided hope in times when people felt very much at the mercy of the elements etc. Anything inexplicable and unassailable, to them, such as the sun, moon, fire etc would have been fair game to ask favours of. And ultimately perhaps it was that hope that enabled them to survive just that bit longer.
But then again lots of other creatures have survived and as far as we know didn't require the same succour.
"The unbelievers will not inherit the earth". I don't fully understand your point here. I have children the same as you and I had them not because I wanted to inherit the earth but because somewhere was an instinctive biological urge to reproduce.

"...and to ensure success they need a stable society..."
Not really, no matter what the "society" or conditions something or someone will survive and reproduce, just as in the past when there wasn't a stable society. Even then what makes you think only believers can form a stable society? A stable society is purely a pragmatic method of getting along based purely on self-survival. Do unto others etc. People lived like that long before the 10 commandments appeared.
"I suggest you take any religion...." Yes I'm a pragmatist and I certainly try to live along the lines of "do unto others" etc. But I don't have to take the rest of the product as well, no matter which religion.

Andrew Ryan

Hadrian: "we believe in man's innately fallen , depraved nature"

It's ironic that Christians believe this, then have a go at science for showing that we share common ancestors with apes. How is 'tell a man he is an animal and he will behave like one' so different from ' tell a man his is innately fallen and depraved, and that is how he'll act?

"By nature, man cannot please God, always falls short"

Then your God has unreasonable expectations. What is reasonable about expecting a standard from a species that you know it cannot achieve? That would be like me saying my dog could only please me by playing the piano!

"The atheist ... who sees no ultimate purpose or value in human existence."

My life is valued by myself and by my family. Therefore, by definition, it has value. The purpose is the purpose I determine for myself. How does this differ from an 'ultimate' purpose or value?

Yam Yam

Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." - Matthew 11:25-26.

Dogs and cats and other small creatures often flee from buildings ahead of an earthquake whilst the species that is the supposed to be the apogee of evolution scratches it head and scoffs "Why's that stupid mutt sat shivering outside in the pouring rain?"

Jason

You make a point that "Of Course" Jews and Christians do not think the Holy Book is a fax from God. (Apparently you think Muslims do believe it). But don't you agree that the Scriptures used to be considered by most believers as the literal Word of God? Of course they were. And if you acknowledge that; ask yourself what has made it unfashionable now, in the 21st century, to continue believing the Word as the Word, and not as the Metaphor of God or the Fancifully Poetic Human Interpretation of God?
Two things did; the nagging awareness that all religions can't be right at the same time; and the growing number of explanations offered to us by the scientific method.

Andrew Ryan

Yam Yam: "whilst the species that is the supposed to be the apogee of evolution scratches it head and scoffs "Why's that stupid mutt sat shivering outside in the pouring rain?""

There is no such thing as an 'apogee of evolution'. There's nothing in evolution science that says man, or any other species, is greater, or 'more evolved' than another. Ask any biologist and he or she will enthusiastically tell you all the ways other animals beat our various senses. I don't know any biologist who sees man at the top of some 'animal tree'. That's a religious idea, not a scientific one.

So your example is more a problem for theists who claim that man is the perfectly designed organism, made in the Lord's image, and God's greatest creation on earth.

XN-2

JohnB UK "Evolution stops here....." for whom?
I already specified ‘wise Man,' but I accept that my propensity for irony is irrelevant to literalists.

I am, though, totally awed by your capacity to use words for prophecy - that's amazing coming from any over-complicated biochemical aggregation! In accord with Revelation, etc. (which you clearly have not studied), Christians do agree with you that we will all eventually ‘be gone' - i.e. as you understand ‘being.' Personally, I can't wait to get out of your world anyway!

Just for the record: Judeao-Christians are neither ‘Deists' nor ‘Theists.' You insult us to say that we are, or to suggest that we accept the existence of more than one God.

But ... there's no point in continuing to bandy words: you preclude every possibility of communication by your refusal to consider the Word.

May light fill your days.

Andrew Ryan

XN-2, it's not that people haven't understood your posts, or that we're taking them too literally or missing your irony, it's that we don't agree with your assertions.

"Never mind that the ancient Hebrews somehow arrived at the conclusion that God's final creation was mankind: which is compatible with the idea of mankind as the final product of evolution."

Whose idea is it that mankind is the final product of evolution? In scientific terms that sentence doesn't make sense - evolution has no 'final product'.

That we are some kind of pinnacle of creation is a religious idea, not a scientific one. Therefore it is false to say that the 'ancient Hebrew' conclusion you quote has some kind of equivalent in science, ironic or otherwise.

XN-1

Andrew Ryan - 'I don't know any biologist etc." Then, since my day, biologists have evolved in their thinking. Not that I ever treated it as gospel. I remember disagreeing with the doctrine that my dog could not think or reason because dog brains hadn't evolved the right kinds of brain cells. I continued to deem the brain cells misunderstood, and to observe and test a capacity for thought in horses and cats as well. Furthermore, I now claim that such animals appreciate efforts to understand their thoughts and communications!!

Biologists also work with Botany, though - so I must wonder where the poor old plants stand in this Equality Agenda! Still, it's nice to know that scientists continue to adapt to the political environment: this time privileging their understanding that 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal in different ways.'

I wish, however, that neu self-styled Masters of logic would apprise themselves of the facts of theology and Biblical exegesis: at least if they will spout off about what their non-equals think. These intellectual toffee-noses proceed from incomplete and inaccurate facts to inadequate interpretations of the evidence, and therefore to invalid theses. To address your part in this: you are wrong to suggest Christians claim perfection in mankind -- the doctrine is, in fact, the opposite. So, without even counting the inaccuracy of your terminology, your claim of the 'theist' problem is invalid.

My religion nurtures individual responsibility for the Will and therefore freedom of thought. So I indulge in a personal notion that God made us 'last' so as to filter impurities from the process of Creation - because empirical evidence has taught me that the human race is the dregs of everything, except for Evil itself (i.e. pure evil). The difference between us and Evil is that we are redeemable: which is what Christianity is all about. So, in this view: evolution's a spiritual and moral thing - the physical side has it's uses in the process, but it's not the object of the exercise. It's a case, rather, of moving from Cupiditas to Caritas ... so I'm supporting an ancient concept and interpretation of the Scriptures.

Andrew Ryan

"To address your part in this: you are wrong to suggest Christians claim perfection in mankind -- the doctrine is, in fact, the opposite. So, without even counting the inaccuracy of your terminology, your claim of the 'theist' problem is invalid."

So there's nothing in Christian theology that says humans are in any way superior to other animals (which was the claim I was responding to about the evolutionary view)? If so, then since my day, Christians theology has evolved in ITS thinking too! I'm pretty sure there were passages where Man alone was made in God's image, and Adam was given dominion over all the animals. Perhaps I'm thinking of another holy book. If so, apologies.

By the way, how far back is 'your day'? I'm fairly sure we've known for centuries that animals can problem solve. The argument is whether any/which other animals have 'theory of mind'.

Kittler

XN-1 it's not the number of brain cells that matter, its survivability. Ants could be considered more successful than man as they have been around for hundreds of millions of years longer.
As for man being the 'apogee of evolution' or more absurdly Gods perfect design Andrew Ryan is correct.
At night when I undress for bed and glance in the mirror and see my design, I wonder, why no beautiful bird of paradise plumage, no fine luxurious fur or colourful scaling for the greatest creation or apogee, it looks a very grotty job to me.

EC

One day a zoo keeper noticed that his prize Chimpanzee was reading two books, the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both of those books?" "Well, said the Chimpanzee, I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

hadrian

JohnBUK -
You ask how adopting the worldview/faith of an atheist consistutes you 'self-righteous'. Quite simple- YOU then set YOUR OWN 'ethic' or personal demands on the universe around you. man becomes his own constructor of 'values'. To be precise individuals do and they are often competing values, aspirations, standards and appetites. It may be arbitrary, perverse, chaotic and anarchic- in fact a law of the jungle- but as human existence has no ultimate significance, it doesn't matter. Such is consistent atheism. Little wonder folks like Nietsche went a shade round the bend.
Andrew Ryan-
You recoil from the Christian bedrock notion of the Total Depravity and innate falleness of Man. Firstly, it would seem to me and countless other Christians that the Scripture's unyielding witness to this is amply testified to by the annals of history and in every single culture. Perfection is elusive, however nebulously we understand it and however much we yearn for it. This is not to reduce man to the level of an animal. Man is spiritually and morally responsible to His Maker in a way an animal cannot be. Acknowledgement of our corruption is simply a mature conclusion about the reality of the human condition. Furthermore, though we start in our experience with knowledge of our moral impotence, yet there is a balancing of this truth in the discernment of a positive- Man is FALLEN, which implies from a different, better condition. And positively, the Evangel is that there is a Purpose of Grace to restore. Those two contrasting but related pieces form the heart of the Christian Faith.
You maintain it is 'unreasonable' of God to expect from us and for us a standard we cannot attain. I see no logical connection in your argument there.
You insist 'purpose' can be imposed after a purposeless start. Well, at least you admit there is a need for some purpose. However, again your argument is skewed illogically. Either human life does have purpose it never did nor can have. Purpose is prior not post factum. As they say in Latin : 'Post factum nullum consillium.'!!
Ah, you protest, but I invest my life, family, etc with 'value'. No, there is no such quality in a rigidly consistent materialist's universe. And as pointed out above, such values cannot have any universal significance. What one 'values' another may despise and none ultimately matters.
Finally, the continual tacit assumption of 'evoluionary' processes to explain the current state of things only indicates that it is ultimatle as much a 'faith position' as creationism is. BY FAITH the Christian believes and comprehends existence by divine revelation in Scripture; BY FAITH, the rejector of God MUST believe in natural process and comprehend, as far as he can, his enviroment entirely by his own researches. But do NOT tell me both are not FAITH constructions of reality.

XN-1

Andrew Ryan: "I'm pretty sure there were passages where Man alone was made in God's image, and Adam was given dominion over all the animals."

I guess it all depends on what you think is so great about 'Dominion.' I mean - the euSSR believes in it like anything: but numbers of us think they are unutterably inferior!!! EC, love your approach, btw!!!

God also told Adam to name the animals: gave us the power of speech. However, only God is the Word - only God Created ex nihilo by, as we understand it, 'speaking.' We "speechbearers," you may have noticed, are a tad less creative with the words; but we think we're good at them.

So in God's image, yes; but only as a very dim (in every sense) reflection -- not to be as God. Mankind had to eat of the God-forbidden Tree even to get a moral sense, after all. So man's first and most obvious flaw is corruptibility: God is incorruptible. Other 'flaws' leading to this corruptibility include pride, ambition, and probably the rest of the 'deadlies': the serpent, as I read it, appealed to Eve through her senses of sight, sound, and taste - and suggested that by eating she and Adam would become "as Gods, knowing good from evil." (Gen 3.5, Douay Rheims)

Thereafter it's one long saga of one sin (imperfection, feud with God) after another.

Furthermore, Christianity everywhere teaches that only One Man ever was perfect. That one was God and the Son of God. Stupid mankind tried to kill this Eternal God: not realizing that in so doing we were redeeming our own chance of Eternal Life through the ultimate Human Sacrifice. That doesn't mean we don't have to work at our own Salvation, however; we have to accept the Grace and value it. We have to try: to be worthy, to participate in our own Redemption.

Never heard of 'Theory of Mind' if that's any help on the age. It was 'A' Level Zoology at grammar school, though.
Right, Kittler; it wasn't the number of cells, it was the type that supposedly hadn't evolved. I don't have time to check the whole thing out, but remember the suggestion that animals accomplish their survival routines by instinct and reflex rather than by ratiocination. I don't think that means that ordinary people haven't often imputed higher mental powers to animals, though! "Beware the Cat" is a riotously wonderful Tudor suggestion of their superiority....(though has its own symbolism).

Have to get stuff done, all. Thanks for the chat.

EC

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal

Too True too!

Andrew Ryan

"You maintain it is 'unreasonable' of God to expect from us and for us a standard we cannot attain. I see no logical connection in your argument there."

You can't see anything unreasonable in expecting from someone something that you know they cannot do? Then we have nothing to discuss.

daifromwales

Blaise Pascal lived in a world before Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, etc etc. It is true that many wars have been promoted by leaders whose propaganda machines declare their war to be "Holy" - but the real motives in all such cases have been for political power.

Leaders are seldom so loved that they can inspire wars without the help of romantic allusions to religion, race, patriotism etc. according to the fashion of the age. Religion is not to blame, any more than the actuality of our individiul skin colour or nationality.

EC

daifromwales,

The question is, did Blaise Pascal, and the rest of them, read Niccolo Machiavelli?

JohnBUK

Hadrian, I don't adopt any "world view/faith of atheism". It's certainly not a "faith". I simply find the "evolution" argument more believable and acceptable to my understanding than any other. I am willing to change my mind if and when a better scientifically contestable theory emerges.
I don't believe my "values" or "ethics" will be too different to yours and I don't think my demands will be either. Yes, I compete for resources with the rest of humanity but I do it within the social laws and my own conscience.
I do all this, not because I read it in a book or was told to do it by some self-appointed elder but because being a pragmatist I can see if most people did similar we can all rub along without too much hassle. As for the rest of your contentions, including moral certainty and man's superiority to animals, to an atheist that does come across as somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm sure you don't mean that but can you see the other side of the coin?

JohnBUK

XN2 I certainly didn't mean to insult you but, as you say, I certainly haven't spent time reading the scriptures so am not aware of the correct terminology to address you or your "tribe".
My dictionary does say a "theist" is someone who "believes in a god". If that's not good enough for you then I'm sorry. And of course my inability to spot irony is also out of order.
So, as you say, we cannot communicate "because I refuse to consider the Word". The fault is all mine therefore.
You do come across as a rather superior prig you know!

Fergus Pickering

Nope, numberplate. Ann Widecombe is a Catholic. That said, I cannot imagine she got the run around from popinjay Hitchens.

Casaubon

hadrian:
-"Man is FALLEN, which implies from a different, better condition."

Man fell from an amoral condition, to an immoral one. From ignorance of morality, to a state of sin and punishment by hard labour, with only a brief period of embarrassment between them. No state of goodness to return to, or aspire to.

Andrew Ryan

"I cannot imagine she got the run around from popinjay Hitchens"

You don't need to imagine it - you can watch the video and see it happening!

Casaubon

JohnBUK:

-"As for the rest of your contentions, including moral certainty and man's superiority to animals, to an atheist that does come across as somewhat arrogant and patronising."

As an atheist, albeit a somewhat arrogant one, I am intellectually certain that only mankind among animals is moral, or intellectual. This makes man superior to animals morally and intellectually, though to compete with animals in these spheres is stupid and possibly vain.

JohnBUK

Casaubon
"This makes man superior to animals morally and intellectually, though to compete with animals in these spheres is stupid and possibly vain".

I agree it is pointless to compare or compete in terms of these two issues.

hadrian

I think it pretty ironic that atheists can get hoity toity with the Christian doctrine of the fall and man's condition of Total Depravity, accusing it of instilling in youngsters the attitude that if we're told we're animals we'll act like them. Ironic because it is NOT the classic Biblical Christian that teaches we're barely dfferent from the dumb animals but the atheist evoluntionaries. And I can assure you as a former schoolmaster of many years that basic worldview, permeating so much of our education system, was the exact excuse so many misbehaving and delinquent children would throw back in your face if you attempted to inculcate something better or higher. 'Why bother? Why should we? It's all pointless anyway.' etc, etc.

As for the atheist airily assuring us he'll happily and with infinite reasonableness yield his evolutionary worldview 'if the evidence leads that way', you cannot seriously expect us to believe that of you. Evolution is a bulwark of atheism and cosmic impersonalism on which assumption it rests.

General Public AYS

I'd just like to say thank you very much for an interesting time everybody. I'm off to bed now for a good kip -after watching the recommended video.

Some of you are barking mad. Some of you I'd invite round for tea. You are all either allied to sense or undermining it. There is a very clear enemy at the door and it is not the one who does not collect stamps. It is the one who demands you do so.

Andrew Ryan

Hadrian: "you cannot seriously expect us to believe that of you"

Well why not try us - bring us the evidence Hadrian!

"I think it pretty ironic that atheists can get hoity toity with the Christian doctrine of the fall and man's condition of Total Depravity, accusing it of instilling in youngsters the attitude that if we're told we're animals we'll act like them"

Greater still is the irony that this upsets you, despite the fact that you level exactly the same accusation at atheists!

THX1138

Fergus Pickering You need to watch the debate, Hitchens & Fry destroyed Widecombe & some African Bishop. The Catholic Church is the biggest force for evil that human being have ever dreamed up.. Islam is but a rank amateur in human misery in comparison.

Bunnykins

Since atheism is the antithesis of faith, one wonders why this topic was chosen to be featured on the Faith Based blog. Few commenting here are people of 'faith'. Are there any people left in England who still believe in G0d and if not, is it any wonder that the country is circling so swiftly round the plug hole? I pity you all.

Are there any believers in Britain today?

hadrian

Bunnykins- Well, we belivers may seem to be nearly lone voices but as the Lord assures us, He shall have the ungodly taken in their foolishness that they so incoherently think is the height of modern wisdom.
Pascal has been dragooned here to support the emerging atheist narrative and assumption that most of mankind's woes can be put down to religious affiliation; however as again, just how shallow can you get? As one poster subsequently has pointed out, and I have in the past on here, there have been ferocious wars and political genocides driven by atheistic ideologies and man's refusal to accept his own impotence to create utopian 'perfection'. Moreover, as a mediaeval historian friend of mine once remarked, when you study the pre-Reform period you find as much relentless wars, strife, hatreds and variance as anything that folowed from the Early Modern period. What, he once reflected, was it all about? Well, as some atheist historians in other contexts like to point out, man is driven by pure materialistic ends- the baser urges for power, glory, honour, ambition, greed, and even just unvarnished pleasure in killing and pure destructiveness and savagery. He doesn't need religion at all as a pretext to indulge these traits. At root it is man's urge for the greatest power and authority- which belong to the Creator alone- that is responsible.

Finally it has been airily suggested that the morals of the Western atheist and the believing Christian aren't that far apart and so the case for theism is supposedly weakened thereby. Well, of course, that blithely disregards the fact Western civilisation has been moulded by centuries of the Biblical, Christian ethic. It also disregards the fact that in order just to continue in existence, men have, despite themselves, to guard against straying too far from the inbuilt code and Standards of our Maker. The technical term for this phenomenon is 'common grace'. Finally, it also disregards the fact that cultures vary wildly and widely in what is and is not seen as 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil'. It is an unasnwered dilemma for 'multiculturalism' and its sheer moral relativism that at its heart there are certain behaviours and world views it cannot tolerate without descending into facrical self destruct.

PAUL GILBOY

Mark Palmer

I was not going to bother replying as I sure my argument went right past you but for the benefit of others I’ll clarify what I have said. Although I would like to begin by stating- literalist is not the opposite of illiterate, illiterate is when you cannot spell properly.

Richard Dawkins is applying a line of logic that is scientific and has a wealth of empirical evidence to support it, however, to people of faith their premis and assumptions are located in the realms of philosophy and theology, once you have empirical evidence its no longer philosophy. That is where philosophy ends and science begins.

Does this invalidate their arguments? I say no it does not, because theoretical physics hypothesises that the universe has up to nine dimensions, possibly even more. Is this theoretical position invalidated because human being occupy a four dimensional universe, with all their understanding derived from it ? No it does not, it just needs a greater understanding of the physics involved.

What Richard Dawkins does is go out of his way to interview happy clappy Christians, or bible based evangelists, what he won’t do is debate with professor of theology or a Roman cardinal. Now as a professor of biology if he wants answers for theoretical physics he would ask a professor of physics, if he wants answers to theology asking a professor of theology might be a good start.

Fergus Pickering

Numberplate, if you nbelieve what you do aboit the Catholic church then of course you will presume Hitchens won the argument. If Ann Widdecombe is butler to the Antichrist then OF cOURSE she will be defeated. Hitchens started as a Marxist, went through a Liberal phase and now is somewhat to the right of Hermann Goering. I don't think the silly bastard popinjay can teach anyone anything interesting. I wouldn't trust him to shovel shit from one ship to another and neither should you.

Kittler

'Professor of Theology' Is there a justification for the existence of theology as an academic discipline. Why no Professors of Astrology?
Dept. of Religious Studies, yes ok. Theology, No.

daifromwales

Since the atheists in the arguments have a mechanistic as opposed to a spiritualistic approach to the world, perhaps they might mechanistically consider whether the existence and obvious reason for following a clear moral code is or is not of benefit to themselves and to their progeney. Atheism provides no such code, and no basis for any such. Survival of our family group requires altruistic behaviour from us, regardless of our religious persuasion. But, as far as I can make out, that fails dismally when we deal with other than near relatives, friends and, just possibly, neighbours.
I seem to remember that Pascal's Wager was that you might as well believe in God - it did no harm and, if He was really There, it was the safer course of action.
I am quite certain that a little bit more Belief would improve our society a very great deal. Plenty of clever intellectuals will deny belief - but more ordinary folk benefit from its profound stabilising function in society - one that has historically proved to be much more influential than its mis-use by politicians. The simlest examle is that it was entirely due to the Christian Church that books and reading survived after the fall of the Roman Empire. And of course the basis of modern socialism (a doctrine which so many atheists subscribe to) is founded in the Christian ideals of equality and love for your fellow man - whoever he might be. (At least - I think that's part of the theory...)

Andrew Ryan

"But, as far as I can make out, that fails dismally when we deal with other than near relatives, friends and, just possibly, neighbours."

What nonsense. Helping your neighbours provides no value whatsoever to the species as a whole? What species are you neighbours then Dai?

As for Pascal's Wager - which God are you supposed to 'choose to believe in'? What if you choose the wrong one?

What if it turns out that there IS a God, but he sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell? In that case it would be safest NOT to believe in him. You might consider such a God unlikely, but the wager makes no provision for calculating the probability of any particular deity.

Andrew Ryan

Paul Gilboy: "What Richard Dawkins won’t do is debate with professors of theology"

Utter nonsense. For a start he debated Alister McGrath (Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford), and Richard Harries (a retired bishop of the Church of England and Gresham Professor of Divinity).

He also debated Christian academic John Lennox, and many others. Just because you are not aware of these debates, doesn't mean that haven't actually happened.

Andrew Ryan

"men have, despite themselves, to guard against straying too far from the inbuilt code and Standards of our Maker. The technical term for this phenomenon is 'common grace'."

That doesn't sound like the technical term to me. That would be 'instinct'. For one, just because something is 'instinctive', that doesn't make it 'right', for a second, I don't follow why you believe this to be a problem for atheism or biology. You go on to admit yourself that this behaviour benefits the species, and so would be advisable with or without a deity:

Hadrian: "there are certain behaviours and world views it cannot tolerate without descending into facrical self destruct"

You are clearly saying here that such non-social behaviours would be selected against by evolution. We would EXPECT as to develop this 'common grace' over time, simply because those tribes that didn't would 'facrical self destruct', as you put it.

Kittler

Of course Atheism does not provide a moral code, that is not what Atheism is about.
It is simply the absence of belief in a supernatural God or Gods.
Atheists, demonstrably and unquestionably, have moral codes but it is not Atheism that provides them.

hadrian

Mr Ryan,

In theology, the technical term is indeed 'common grace'. If there were no such restraining grace extended at all, man would destroy himself and indeed from the divine perspective have reached the stage of final judgement.
Whether man is naturally, instinctually inclined to always do 'the right, estimated by' by some survival code is something we could hotly dispute. However another aspect is that men often quite specifically reject altruism as the way to ensure survival of the favoured gene code. Murder and slaughter could be quite as cogently justified by this code. One sees it in the animal kingdom. If there is no higher reason than pointless survival then morality indeed has been reduced to a chimera. The odd thing is whilst there are indeed very cynical, uncaring, morally careless, resigned atheists there are also atheists who cannot bear the lack of idealism and hopelessness such a world-view breeds. They will join many 'moral crusades' ( even if their moral codes often seem fatuous or misplaced ) One could try to explain such behaviour by a reductionist, survivalist model, of course, but in the end it hits the brick wall objection- Ok, this 'benefits' the species, but who gives a damn? 'Benefit' is a value loaded word. If a personal mode of existence doesn't matter, is ultimately 'no better than' impersonal modes there is a very real void in justifying 'moral' behaviour. As the old philosophers say- you can't smuggle in 'ought' from 'is'.
Another

Andrew Ryan

"As the old philosophers say- you can't smuggle in 'ought' from 'is'."

And yet this is what theists do.
"God says we OUGHT to act like this, therefore it IS the right thing to do"

Or
1. "God tells us what is good" and
2. "God is the standard by which we judge goodness"
I'm assuming your morality doesn't boil down to 'I do this to avoid hell". So what is it then?
It's a circular argument - "we know God is good because he gave us the standard to assess his goodness".

JustMe

Interesting how Great Britain has become not so great at all since atheism became the belief of choice. Just a coincidence of course what?

Andrew Ryan

Nonsense, JustMe, the Empire has been declining now for over a century, starting at the height of the nation's church going. Meanwhile, we've seen the rise of China - hardly a God-fearing nation. And you'll find plenty of Catholic nations in South America struggling too, while Godless Scandinavian countries continue to thrive.

non atheist

Andrew Ryan -

i)in English the base (Old English) meaning of the word "God" is 'good.' You probably know that, so I'll leave you to play the circular reasoning game on your own.

ii) If you've developed a scale for measuring whatever you define as 'goodness' then you really should patent it and sell it to our marxist masters. Never mind playing around here in the belief that you're subverting Christianity!!

iii) 'Theists' are people who believe in any old tin pot fake god, but who do not necessarily believe in a special revelation. Your reduction of Christianity to the generality tells far more about your ignorance and bigotry than about those of your game.

Andrew Ryan

non atheist, I think you must be confusing my posts with someone else's. Despite putting my name at its head, the rest of your post doesn't relate in any way to anything I have posted. If you wish to respond to anything I have actually written, I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

non atheist

to Andrew Ryan 7.2 8:48:
Re:
From Andrew Ryan 3.2. 10:07 [my stress]

And yet this is what theists do.
"God says we OUGHT to act like this, therefore it IS the right thing to do"

Or
1. "God tells us what is good" and
2. "God is the standard by which we judge goodness"
I'm assuming your morality doesn't boil down to 'I do this to avoid hell". So what is it then?
It's a circular argument - "we know God is good because he gave us the standard to assess his goodness" .

Doubtless you think definition of terms irrelevant; especially if they show that you are ignorant of your topic. Which you are - that's why you don't... or won't ... understand my position. And since you have no intention of rectifying the situation, you render the whole conversation a waste of time.

Toodles.

Andrew Ryan

If you can't address what I actually wrote, non atheist, then it certainly is toodles. Come back when you think you have an answer.

beachlover

Amen.

Jordan

Atheism has really showed the world how things should be done, because communism worked so well...

Ferd Smith

Oh God. Surrounded by so many philosophical and historical illiterates. What a dark frightening age we live in. Thanks God for someone like David Bentley Hart. Look what he says in the current edition of First Things.
I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. This is not because I necessarily think the current “marketplace of ideas” particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment, and popular culture always tires of its diversions sooner or later and moves on to other, equally ephemeral toys.

Take, for instance, the recently published 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Simple probability, surely, would seem to dictate that a collection of essays by fifty fairly intelligent and zealous atheists would contain at least one logically compelling, deeply informed, morally profound, or conceptually arresting argument for not believing in God. Certainly that was my hope in picking it up. Instead, I came away from the whole drab assemblage of preachments and preenings feeling rather as if I had just left a large banquet at which I had been made to dine entirely on crushed ice and water vapor.

To be fair, the shallowness is not evenly distributed. Some of the writers exhibit a measure of wholesome tentativeness in making their cases, and as a rule the quality of the essays is inversely proportionate to the air of authority their authors affect. For this reason, the philosophers—who are no better than their fellow contributors at reasoning, but who have better training in giving even specious arguments some appearance of systematic form—tend to come off as the most insufferable contributors. Nicholas Everitt and Stephen Law recycle the old (and incorrigibly impressionistic) argument that claims of God’s omnipotence seem incompatible with claims of his goodness. Michael Tooley does not like the picture of Jesus that emerges from the gospels, at least as he reads them. Christine Overall notes that her prayers as a child were never answered; ergo, there is no God. A.C. Grayling flings a few of his favorite papier-mâché caricatures around. Laura Purdy mistakes hysterical fear of the religious right for a rational argument. Graham Oppy simply provides a précis of his personal creed, which I assume is supposed to be compelling because its paragraphs are numbered. J.J.C. Smart finds miracles scientifically implausible (gosh, who could have seen that coming?). And so on. Adèle Mercier comes closest to making an interesting argument—that believers do not really believe what they think they believe—but it soon collapses under the weight of its own baseless presuppositions.

The scientists fare almost as poorly. Among these, Victor Stenger is the most recklessly self-confident, but his inability to differentiate the physical distinction between something and nothing (in the sense of “not anything as such”) from the logical distinction between existence and nonexistence renders his argument empty. The contributors drawn from other fields offer nothing better. The Amazing Randi, being a magician, knows that there is quite a lot of credulity out there. The historian of science Michael Shermer notes that there are many, many different and even contradictory systems of belief. The journalist Emma Tom had a psychotic scripture teacher when she was a girl. Et, as they say, cetera. The whole project probably reaches its reductio ad absurdum when the science-fiction writer Sean Williams explains that he learned to reject supernaturalism in large part from having grown up watching Doctor Who.

So it goes. In the end the book as a whole adds up to absolutely nothing—as, frankly, do all the books in this new genre—and I have to say I find this all somewhat depressing. For one thing, it seems obvious to me that the peculiar vapidity of New Atheist literature is simply a reflection of the more general vapidity of all public religious discourse these days, believing and unbelieving alike. In part, of course, this is because the modern media encourage only fragmentary, sloganeering, and emotive debates, but it is also because centuries of the incremental secularization of society have left us with a shared grammar that is perhaps no longer adequate to the kinds of claims that either reflective faith or reflective faithlessness makes.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

I am not—honestly, I am not—simply being dismissive here. The utter inconsequentiality of contemporary atheism is a social and spiritual catastrophe. Something splendid and irreplaceable has taken leave of our culture—some great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic expressions of belief and unbelief alike. Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds
of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for another—say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe.

If that seems a harsh judgment, I can only say that I have arrived at it honestly. In the course of writing a book published just this last year, I dutifully acquainted myself not only with all the recent New Atheist bestsellers, but also with a whole constellation of other texts in the same line, and I did so, I believe, without prejudice. No matter how patiently I read, though, and no matter how Herculean the efforts I made at sympathy, I simply could not find many intellectually serious arguments in their pages, and I came finally to believe that their authors were not much concerned to make any.

What I did take away from the experience was a fairly good sense of the real scope and ambition of the New Atheist project. I came to realize that the whole enterprise, when purged of its hugely preponderant alloy of sanctimonious bombast, is reducible to only a handful of arguments, most of which consist in simple category mistakes or the kind of historical oversimplifications that are either demonstrably false or irrelevantly true. And arguments of that sort are easily dismissed, if one is hardy enough to go on pointing out the obvious with sufficient indefatigability.

The only points at which the New Atheists seem to invite any serious intellectual engagement are those at which they try to demonstrate that all the traditional metaphysical arguments for the reality of God fail. At least, this should be their most powerful line of critique, and no doubt would be if any of them could demonstrate a respectable understanding of those traditional metaphysical arguments, as well as an ability to refute them. Curiously enough, however, not even the trained philosophers among them seem able to do this. And this is, as far as I can tell, as much a result of indolence as of philosophical ineptitude. The insouciance with which, for instance, Daniel Dennett tends to approach such matters is so torpid as to verge on the reptilian. He scarcely bothers even to get the traditional “theistic” arguments right, and the few ripostes he ventures are often the ones most easily discredited.

As a rule, the New Atheists’ concept of God is simply that of some very immense and powerful being among other beings, who serves as the first cause of all other things only in the sense that he is prior to and larger than all other causes. That is, the New Atheists are concerned with the sort of God believed in by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Deists. Dawkins, for instance, even cites with approval the old village atheist’s cavil that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible because a God who infallibly foresaw the future would be impotent to change it—as though Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and so forth understood God simply as some temporal being of interminable duration who knows things as we do, as external objects of cognition, mediated to him under the conditions of space and time.

Thus, the New Atheists’ favorite argument turns out to be just a version of the old argument from infinite regress: If you try to explain the existence of the universe by asserting God created it, you have solved nothing because then you are obliged to say where God came from, and so on ad infinitum, one turtle after another, all the way down. This is a line of attack with a long pedigree, admittedly. John Stuart Mill learned it at his father’s knee. Bertrand Russell thought it more than sufficient to put paid to the whole God issue once and for all. Dennett thinks it as unanswerable today as when Hume first advanced it—although, as a professed admirer of Hume, he might have noticed that Hume quite explicitly treats it as a formidable objection only to the God of Deism, not to the God of “traditional metaphysics.” In truth, though, there could hardly be a weaker argument. To use a feeble analogy, it is rather like asserting that it is inadequate to say that light is the cause of illumination because one is then obliged to say what it is that illuminates the light, and so on ad infinitum.

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates.

It is immaterial whether one is wholly convinced by such reasoning. Even its most ardent proponents would have to acknowledge that it is an almost entirely negative deduction, obedient only to something like Sherlock Holmes’ maxim that “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It certainly says nearly nothing about who or what God is.

But such reasoning is also certainly not subject to the objection from infinite regress. It is not logically requisite for anyone, on observing that contingent reality must depend on absolute reality, to say then what the absolute depends on or, on asserting the participation of finite beings in infinite being, further to explain what it is that makes being to be. Other arguments are called for, as Hume knew. And only a complete failure to grasp the most basic philosophical terms of the conversation could prompt this strange inversion of logic, by which the argument from infinite regress—traditionally and correctly regarded as the most powerful objection to pure materialism—is now treated as an irrefutable argument against belief in God.

But something worse than mere misunderstanding lies at the base of Dawkins’ own special version of the argument from infinite regress—a version in which he takes a pride of almost maternal fierceness. Any “being,” he asserts, capable of exercising total control over the universe would have to be an extremely complex being, and because we know that complex beings must evolve from simpler beings and that the probability of a being as complex as that evolving is vanishingly minute, it is almost certain that no God exists. Q.E.D. But, of course, this scarcely rises to the level of nonsense. We can all happily concede that no complex, ubiquitous, omniscient, and omnipotent superbeing, inhabiting the physical cosmos and subject to the rules of evolution, exists. But who has ever suggested the contrary?

Numerous attempts have been made, by the way, to apprise Dawkins of what the traditional definition of divine simplicity implies, and of how it logically follows from the very idea of transcendence, and to explain to him what it means to speak of God as the transcendent fullness of actuality, and how this differs in kind from talk of quantitative degrees of composite complexity. But all the evidence suggests that Dawkins has never understood the point being made, and it is his unfortunate habit contemptuously to dismiss as meaningless concepts whose meanings elude him. Frankly, going solely on the record of his published work, it would be rash to assume that Dawkins has ever learned how to reason his way to the end of a simple syllogism.

To appreciate the true spirit of the New Atheism, however, and to take proper measure of its intellectual depth, one really has to turn to Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly, he is the most egregiously slapdash of the New Atheists, as well as (not coincidentally) the most entertaining, but I take this as proof that he is also the least self-deluding. His God Is Not Great shows no sign whatsoever that he ever intended anything other than a rollicking burlesque, without so much as a pretense of logical order or scholarly rigor. His sporadic forays into philosophical argument suggest not only that he has sailed into unfamiliar waters, but also that he is simply not very interested in any of it. His occasional observations on Hume and Kant make it obvious that he has not really read either very closely. He apparently believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of God, literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met his demise. The title of one of the chapters in God Is Not Great is “The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False,” but nowhere in that chapter does Hitchens actually say what those claims or their flaws are.

On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).

In the end, though, all of this might be tolerated if Hitchens’ book exhibited some rough semblance of a rational argument. After all, there really is a great deal to despise in the history of religion, even if Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong. To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot tell what Hitchens’ central argument is. It is not even clear what he understands religion to be. For instance, he denounces female circumcision, commendably enough, but what—pray tell—has that got to do with religion? Clitoridectomy is a widespread cultural tradition of sub-Saharan Africa, but it belongs to no particular creed. Even more oddly, he takes indignant note of the plight of young Indian brides brutalized and occasionally murdered on account of insufficient dowries. We all, no doubt, share his horror, but what the hell is his point?

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.

Conclusion: “Religion” is evil.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: There are many bad men who are Buddhists.

Conclusion: All religious claims are false.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Timothy Dwight opposed
smallpox vaccinations.

Conclusion: There is no God.

One could, I imagine, counter with a series of contrary enthymemes. Perhaps:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Early Christians built hospitals.

Conclusion: “Religion” is a good thing.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: Medieval scriptoria saved much of the literature of classical antiquity from total eclipse.

Conclusion: All religious claims are true.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]

Minor Premise: George Bernard Shaw opposed smallpox vaccinations.

Conclusion: There is a God.

But this appears to get us nowhere. And, in the end, I doubt it matters.

The only really effective antidote to the dreariness of reading the New Atheists, it seems to me, is rereading Nietzsche. How much more immediate and troubling the force of his protest against Christianity seems when compared to theirs, even more than a century after his death. Perhaps his intellectual courage—his willingness to confront the implications of his renunciation of the Christian story of truth and the transcendent good without evasions or retreats—is rather a lot to ask of any other thinker, but it does rather make the atheist chic of today look fairly craven by comparison.

Above all, Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

Because he understood the nature of what had happened when Christianity entered history with the annunciation of the death of God on the cross, and the elevation of a Jewish peasant above all gods, Nietzsche understood also that the passing of Christian faith permits no return to pagan naivete, and he knew that this monstrous inversion of values created within us a conscience that the older order could never have incubated. He understood also that the death of God beyond us is the death of the human as such within us. If we are, after all, nothing but the fortuitous effects of physical causes, then the will is bound to no rational measure but itself, and who can imagine what sort of world will spring up from so unprecedented and so vertiginously uncertain a vision of reality?

For Nietzsche, therefore, the future that lies before us must be decided, and decided between only two possible paths: a final nihilism, which aspires to nothing beyond the momentary consolations of material contentment, or some great feat of creative will, inspired by a new and truly worldly mythos powerful enough to replace the old and discredited mythos of the Christian revolution (for him, of course, this meant the myth of the Übermensch).

Perhaps; perhaps not. Where Nietzsche was almost certainly correct, however, was in recognizing that mere formal atheism was not yet the same thing as true unbelief. As he writes in The Gay Science, “Once the Buddha was dead, people displayed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave, an immense and dreadful shadow. God is dead: —but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millennia yet where people will display his shadow. And we—we have yet to overcome his shadow!” It may appear that Nietzsche is here referring to “persons of faith”—those poor souls who continue to make their placid, bovine trek to church every week to worship a God who passed away long ago—but that is not his meaning.

He is referring principally to those who think they have eluded God simply by ceasing to believe in his existence. For Nietzsche, “scientism”—the belief that the modern scientific method is the only avenue of truth, one capable of providing moral truth or moral meaning—is the worst dogmatism yet, and the most pathetic of all metaphysical nostalgias. And it is, in his view, precisely men like the New Atheists, clinging as they do to those tenuous vestiges of Christian morality that they have absurdly denominated “humanism,” who shelter themselves in caves and venerate shadows. As they do not understand the past, or the nature of the spiritual revolution that has come and now gone for Western humanity, so they cannot begin to understand the peril of the future.

If I were to choose from among the New Atheists a single figure who to my mind epitomizes the spiritual chasm that separates Nietzsche’s unbelief from theirs, I think it would be the philosopher and essayist A.C. Grayling. For a short time I entertained the misguided hope that he might produce an atheist manifesto somewhat richer than the others currently on offer. Unfortunately, all his efforts in that direction suffer from the same defects as those of his fellows: the historical errors, the sententious moralism, the glib sophistry. Their great virtue, however, is that they are mercifully short. One essay of his in particular, called “Religion and Reason,” can be read in a matter of minutes and provides an almost perfect distillation of the whole New Atheist project.

The essay is even, at least momentarily, interesting. Couched at one juncture among its various arguments (all of which are pretty poor), there is something resembling a cogent point. Among the defenses of Christianity an apologist might adduce, says Grayling, would be a purely aesthetic cultural argument: But for Christianity, there would be no Renaissance art—no Annunciations or Madonnas—and would we not all be much the poorer if that were so? But, in fact, no, counters Grayling; we might rather profit from a far greater number of canvasses devoted to the lovely mythical themes of classical antiquity, and only a macabre sensibility could fail to see that “an Aphrodite emerging from the Paphian foam is an infinitely more life-enhancing image than a Deposition from the Cross.” Here Grayling almost achieves a Nietzschean moment of moral clarity.

Ignoring that leaden and almost perfectly ductile phrase “life-enhancing,” I, too—red of blood and rude of health—would have to say I generally prefer the sight of nubile beauty to that of a murdered man’s shattered corpse. The question of whether Grayling might be accused of a certain deficiency of tragic sense can be deferred here. But perhaps he would have done well, in choosing this comparison, to have reflected on the sheer strangeness, and the significance, of the historical and cultural changes that made it possible in the first place for the death of a common man at the hands of a duly appointed legal authority to become the captivating center of an entire civilization’s moral and aesthetic contemplations—and for the deaths of all common men and women perhaps to be invested thereby with a gravity that the ancient order would never have accorded them.

Here, displayed with an altogether elegant incomprehensibility in Grayling’s casual juxtaposition of the sea-born goddess and the crucified God (who is a crucified man), one catches a glimpse of the enigma of the Christian event, which Nietzsche understood and Grayling does not: the lightning bolt that broke from the cloudless sky of pagan antiquity, the long revolution that overturned the hierarchies of heaven and earth alike. One does not have to believe any of it, of course—the Christian story, its moral claims, its metaphysical systems, and so forth. But anyone who chooses to lament that event should also be willing, first, to see this image of the God-man, broken at the foot of the cross, for what it is, in the full mystery of its historical contingency, spiritual pathos, and moral novelty: that tender agony of the soul that finds the glory of God in the most abject and defeated of human forms. Only if one has succeeded in doing this can it be of any significance if one still, then, elects to turn away.

David Hart’s most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.

Gilek Panka

If I were to persist in voicing the belief that fairies, pixes and UFOs were real, I would eventually be sectioned.

However, If I voice the belief that miracles, heaven and hell are real, I would not.

And if I voice the belief that it is all twaddle and anyone who believes in a divine power is suffering from a mental illness, I would be accused of intolerance.

Damned if you do, damed if you don't!

Vertias

The unexamined life is not worth living. The search is the point. Those who think they have the answer have intellectually given up.

Mick Watson

I'm sorry, but Howard Jacobson is not spouting any new and enlightening views, as you seem to think; proponents of intelligent design have pitched scientists as extremeists for some time now, claiming that faith in science is exactly the same as faith in God. Jacobson also clearly not read The God Delusion, as nowhere in there does Dawkins claim to have all the answers. As for men being stupid until science rescued them, well, would he have us sacrifice a few virgins to try and stop the Icelandic volcano? Should we have put animals to sacrifice after the asian tsunami? Perhaps we shouldn't explore the seas too far, for fear of falling off the edge of the (flat) earth? Dawkins point is that science enlightens and informs, whereas religion merely masks the truth in a cloak of religion that doesn't inspire people to look beyond.

Tania Winter

"Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children."
I protest, if it weren't for magical and invisible friends I wouldn't have any!