The Root of All Evil
The Sunday Herald reports that Oxford’s “ambassador of rationality”, Richard Dawkins, is expecting a load of complaints “by the sort of people who tried to close down Jerry Springer: The Opera”. The first part of his two-part anti-religion polemic, The Root of All Evil?, is due to broadcast on Channel 4 tomorrow (Monday) at 8pm.
Dawkins:
…you’re simply not allowed to attack someone’s religion. You can attack their politics or their football team, but not their faith. I think it’s very important that this should be seen as complete nonsense. Why shouldn’t people be required to defend their religion?
Monday’s episode is entitled “The God Delusion”. Next week’s is “The Virus of Faith”.
Although the polemic is directed at religion in general, Ofcom will probably receive complaints from those belonging to the particular religions featured. Section 4.2 of the Broadcasting Code:
The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.
They may also try to argue that atheism (or even evolution) is a religion and that Dawkins is trying to “seek recruits”, thus contravening section 4.5. Can of worms, that one.
Looking forward to the show, and the backlash.
From the comments that had gone before I was under the impression that this thread was analysing the “Root Of All Evil?†programme and that any decent analysis must examine the strengths and weaknesses. If you actually exist only to make fun of people then I guess I should wish you well and leave you to it.
Tony, what is “good” and “evil” is generally decided by social consensus. That’s the way it has always been, as far as I can figure.
And I don’t see why arbitrariness is more of a problem for atheists than it is for religious people. The religious have to come to a social consensus regarding a) which holy scriptures represent the unchanging word of god, and b) which interpetation of that chosen holy scripture is the correct one.
For sure you are right to point out the problem of discerning good from evil for those approaching the problem from a faith position.
The key difference though is that from a faith position the problem is epistemological (i.e. how do we go about discerning the absolute definition of good and evil that exists “out there”) but for the atheist it is ontological (the absolute has no objective reality)
The knock on effect is that from an atheist position we can only appeal to society as a whole to develop moral codes that are self-preserving. so, if an isolated island race decides it wants to sacrifice its children we have to face the grim reality that this is their choice and we have no grounds on which to intervene or judge their behaviour.
As I said before though, we can’t judge the validity of the atheist position just because the outcome is unpalatable.
if an isolated island race decides it wants to sacrifice its children we have to face the grim reality that this is their choice and we have no grounds on which to intervene or judge their behaviour
And the theist has grounds to intervene… how? Because he imagines he is privy to an absolute moral code that exists out there? Do you think you can make your moral code absolute simply by positing a divine provenance for it?
If an island race decides it needs to sacrifice its children, it would almost certainly be because they imagine their god(s) demanded it – and they would also imagine that their moral code, coming from their god(s), was absolute and existing out there.
So your argument with the islanders would go something like this:
YOU: Our god says you mustn’t do that.
ISLANDERS: Our god says we must.
Now that, to me, seems puerile.
The problem that you pose by framing the ‘island’ example in a religious context is essentially about two parties, each with a partial understanding of an ontological reality (ie the existence of a moral code written into the fabric of the universe in a similar way to mathematics). in this context moral truth becomes something to be discovered. The fact that religious communities have demonstrated a singular lack of compassion in their search for this truth is not an argument for its non-existence.
if we now frame an atheist parallel question. our island community (secular) has decided to create a servant under-class with all people with an IQ less than 90. The atheist looking into this situation can’t appeal to moral truth (for there is none) and must walk away because this society has adopted a different, but vad moral framework. I’m not too happy about walking away from that situation.
sorry for the typos, I’m working on my PDA. vad should read valid
Tony, rather than answering the questions I posed in my reply you appear to have decided to contradict something I never said. I was not making an argument for the non-existence of “a moral code written into the fabric of the universe in a similar way to mathematics”. That’s not my job. On the contrary, as you are making the claim that such a thing exists, it is up to you to prove it – or at least show some evidence that points to its existence.
As to your second paragraph – if the islanders are secularists in the positive sense, ie whose moral values are based on rational dialogue and consensus, then an atheist-interventionist could try to talk them round to more acceptable practices via a “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you or your children” rule. This is a reasonable stance to take.
Of course, if the islanders could make a decent case for their system, demonstrating that the overall sum of human happiness was increased with a corresponding decrease in the sum of human suffering, then the interventionist-atheist might be persuaded that their way is superior and seek to change his society to reflect that of the islanders.
Neither of these ideal outcomes (one or the other society changing for the better) would be possible if the either the islanders or the interventionist imagined that a) there existed an unchageable “moral code which is written into the fabric of the universe”, and that b) they were privy to it by means of a collection of “holy scriptures” and tradition.
Because there’s no reasoning with people like that.
Of course we can neither prove or disprove that morality is woven into the fabric of the universe. We can’t even do this for mathematics.
The utilitarian appeal to “rational dialogue”, maximising human happiness and the golden rule don’t get you off the hook. I would agree that they are all good principles but there is no guarantee that the secular islanders would. They may not give a stuff about the well-being of their slaves and there is no reason we could apply to demonstrate that their action is wrong.
Why should morality be structured around human happiness anyway? Surely we could construct a compelling morality for the well-being of the Earth based on the complete extinction of the human race.
Also, why do you automatically assume that “there’s no reaoning with people like that” when referring to people coming from a faith perspective. I know countless Christians who engage gently, respectfully and sacrificially with a wide range of people who don’t agree with them. it seems you have come across a vociferous minority who tend to condemn others and you have assumed that this represents all people from a faith perspective .
Tony,
There is, ultimately, no reasoning with those who profess faith because of the nature of faith. You are, as Prof. D pointed out rather straightforwardly, prepared to suspend your rational faculties in order to believe without proof. You have every right not to agree with that, but I would suggest that you are flying in the face of millenia of evidence. In the end, theists always make the inevitable appeal to supernatural authority. Unfalsifiable and absolute. Hence inadmissable in a rational system.
Anyway, as to the hypothetical islanders, you are absolutely right, they might not care about our arguments. But then why should that force a non-theist to “walk away”. That’s defeatist, short-termism. And why should a non-theist be forced to “prove” some form of “moral” superiority. I would prefer to offer long-term proof of irrationality. Demonstrating that IQ scores are highly unreliable, and also are evidence of very little would be a good start. (Many in apartheid-era South Africa thought its system could be defended logically, and you should see what they had to say about IQ scores. Pseudo-scientific claptrap.) That an economy could benefit from greater consumer participation if all were full citizens. Perhaps a warning from history, which would tend to show that underclasses, even those with minimal resources, will eventually revolt/riot/etc, and that even if ineffective this will cause personal & economic suffering for the majority that could be avoided. Slave societies tend to become technologically moribund. These are just a few quickies off the top of my head. Plenty more if I didn’t have a 3-year old to look after!
And why assume that all the “master” islanders have an absolutely consistent adherence to their social system? We can choose not to trade with them, now can’t we? Or we can choose to engage positively with those who seem most amenable to change. The list of rational, non-violent means goes on and on.
Or we could call upon our supernatural justification and invade/bomb them into submission, now couldn’t we?
(sorry, just couldn’t resist that)
The utilitarian appeal to “rational dialogueâ€, maximising human happiness and the golden rule don’t get you off the hook.
Hook? What is this “hook” of which you speak? You claimed the atheist couldn’t intervene in the islander dispute because he did not believe in an absolute morality woven into the fabric of the universe – a pretty obvious non-sequitur, which I think I showed. Now you have shifted your argument to say that the intervention wouldn’t necessarily be successful – an entirely different question. Why do you think an interventionist who imagines he is privy to fabric-of-the-universe morality would be any more successful? (And you still didn’t answer my question about why imagining your morals are absolute gives you more grounds for intervention than not).
Of course you could construct a moral framework based on the wellbeing of the earth. Nobody was arguing that the “sum of human happiness” structure was the only one.
Why is there no reasoning with people like that? Apart from the fact someone who imagines they are privy to a system of absolute divinely ordained moraliy is unlikely to be swayed by someone who doesn’t think any such thing exists (eg Stephen Green, who is convinced that his opinions are God’s opinions, therefore to oppose him is to oppose God). Well, I find that they continually duck questions, and constantly try to shift the parameters of the discussion to suit them. That’s the trouble when faith is more important to you that truth.
well done Mr Dawkins,why didn`t you give (them)a mobile phone and as them to call GOD on the phone
Regards R Duncan
We make rational judgements every minute of every day. If we didn’t we would soon descend into a world where we would have to accept anything on face value purely because some individual says something and truly believes in what they are saying. If you leave a saucer of milk outside overnight and by the morning it has disappeared , you do not seriously consider the possibility that it was drunk by invisible leprechauns or the like. If someone claimed this, you would not take the attidude that his views should be respected and and it is a definite possibility. Anyone would think that the individual was completely deluded. Why doesn’t religion hold up to such critisicm, just because it is supported by thousands of years of history. Not everything does go, and in our everyday lives people make judgements based on evidence and rational thought, apart from where religion is involved. Religion seems to demonstrate an immunity to critical thought. Even in the face of making some equally preposterous claims.We tend to reject claims made by religious fundamentalists such as islamic suicide bombers, but do we have a right to? After all, they truly believe and have faith in what they do. Shouldn’t we respect that. The fact is, we don’t and find that their behaviour results from vigourous indoctrination and is completely irrational.
Hi there.
how do we KNOW that it wasn’t the leprechauns? We only ASSUME, because we haven’t been able to detect them. What if there really were such things, but they were beyond our senses, sensors, and science? (unlikely, but possible)
I, too, would think it irrational that they took the milk, but on what do I base my ‘rationality’. Let’s face it, in the end we believe in nature, matter, and rationality–just like religious people think/believe there is a god.
We praise Prof D for dismanteling religion, but our belief system, too, is based on faith. Faith that there is nothing more than what we can measure, detect, or conceive in our mind.
If science has taught me one thing it’s: quesion everything, including science.
Indeed, we don’t know for sure it wasn’t the leprechauns, but we also don’t know for sure whether it wasn’t an infinite number of possible causes I could postulate e.g. aliens, a tiger, fairies etc. But that is no argument FOR the exitence of such possibilities. Rationality is based on what we can empirically test and measure. And from such findings, we can extrapolate and make predictions based on such observations. If we take such an attitude and question everything coming up with all ranges of possibilities and giving them equal weight because we cannot prove either way, there would surely be mass hysteria among the public. Indeed, what I am writing now may be a figment of my imagination…
Going back to point number 60 “That’s the trouble when faith is more important to you that truth”.
I find this comment fascinating as it reveals a level of closed-mindedness that I have rarely encountered in decades of mixing with Chritians.
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be wrong on the God issue. I don’t think I am but it has to remain a possibility. The comment above though shows that the writer has rejected any interface between faith and truth. For this person they are mutually exclusive and his/her mind is made up on the issue. I have rarely met such dogmatism!
As a Christian I find it rather patronising that it is assumed I have no interest in pursuing truth. Surely the pursuit of truth is one of the highest callings on all thinking people (of which I consider I am one before someone tries to pass off a snidey comment at my expense!)
My academic background is science (I am a Fellow of the Institute of Physics) and I find no disconnect between my interrogation of the natural and spiritual world, wrestling with both using exactly the same critical faculties. Don’t take for granted the certainty of the natural order of things – as I said before even mathematics itself cannot be proved to be internally consistent.
It is worth pointing also to Prof John Polkinghorne (one of the most influential British theoretical physicists of the 20th century and developer of the Standard Model of modern particle physics) who is also an ordained anglican minister. And what of Alistair McGrath (professor of microbiology and professor of theology and one of the greatest and most proloific evangelical theologians writers). Tell them they are not interested in pursuing truth.
The people subscribing to this website may well have come across Christians and Muslims and others who are narrow minded with hateful agenda; yes, they exist. But, having read through a few threads on this site I find a similar level of pent up anger, narrow mindedness and general unpleasantness. There are some very simplistic views on what people of faith are like which I simply don’t recognise as a real reflection on what it is like to be “me”. Now, if you want to rattle messages around that charicature people of faith, then you are free to do this and I defend that freedom.
Going back to point number 60 “That’s the trouble when faith is more important to you that truthâ€.
[…]
The comment above though shows that the writer has rejected any interface between faith and truth…
It does not, logically, show any such thing.
And you are still avoiding the questions and – once again – shifting the parameters, thus demonstrating my original assertion that “there’s no reasoning with people like that”.
but your statement that x is more important than y bcomes meaningless if, at the same time you accept that one could be a subset of the other or that there is an undefiened intersection between the two. you phrased the point in such a way to set up a dichotomy; one could be interested in pursuing truth or faith but not have an equal passion for both. if that was not your intention then I misunderstood you
for clarity, what I mean is this. How can we decide the relative importance to me of concept x and concept y if there is an undefined intersection between the two. If my faith position fully embraces the truth (a point which even I couldn’t accept) then my wholehearted pursuit of one assumes an equal pursuit of the other.
‘What on Earth made you think that we’d even be interested in your ramblings?’ (A Nixon)
heated stuff….funny, how emotional responses to debates inevitably seem to undermine the argument
of the propagator… no need to get personal
Dear Tony W,
I genuinely congratulate you on your Fellowship in the Institute of Physics. I must ask then how, as a scientist, you can accept claims to knowledge and/or “truth” that are based on an unfalsifiable appeal to supernatural authority?
And on what basis do you choose when to follow a religious doctrine as opposed to a scientific principle regarding the natural world, evolution, cosmology, life-after-death, etc, etc?
Tony W, your ability to cherrypick certain truths from the bible shows that you are succeptible to social norms present in your circle (a scientific one) example: the world was created in 7 days. of course, the “beleifs” of science totally dismantle this theory. I assume (perhaps inccorectly) that you do not take the old testament literally, and that concepts such as adam and eve are symbolic rather than litery truths. You cannot on one hand have blind faith in one area of religion (that there is a God, for example) but utterly reject another area of your religion (such as creationism) without surely having proccessed each area through your belief system, which is of course succeptible to social norms. Each of these areas (creationism and the existnece of god) are equally immune to scientific investigation and are equally unlikely and unequivical, according to fundamental science at least.
I ask, how did you “decide” to beleive and one and not the other?
Dawkins statement is true, I can think of numerous examples where religion has manipulated “decent” people to doing evil things. however, his statement covers only religion in the conventional sense. I would define Nazism as a religion, not just because of the religiously motivated Jewish genocide but because of a united beleif system. Of course Atheism could also be seen as a religion (which sometimes surfaces where dawkins defends evolution without rational argument for example) and where animal researchers carry out what some would condsider evil actions on animals in the name of science.
but this is irrevlevent to the correctness of the statement. religion can potentially mutate inbuilt human morality causing those people to do evil things. Iraelites, palestinians and evangelicists are not all born with evil dispositions, but develop what the human morality universilly condemns as amoral beleif THROUGH RELIGION. I feel there no need to go into specific examples, it must surely be obvious to every human blessed with a brain. so the statement is correct, but incomplete (it should mention any other fundamentalist belief system which has occured in society.)
THEREFORE
Tom W’s argument is like saying:
The statement that humans eat chickens is wrong because foxes also eat chickens.
[…] A lot of hits for this site come from the Google search “dawkins vine” (without the quotes). Mediawatchwatch has an old article on this, with some interesting comments. […]
This debate has become just a lot of personal attacks. Like the program on TV, it all turns personal
and angry.
I have a few questions and would be grateful if someone could answer – please don’t attack me or my
questions, if you can’t answer maybe someoene will someday.
1- Are all evil people religious?
2- Can people belong to a religion and still commit sins? (ie: a cristian girl might have premarital
sex), a leader might go to war, a doctor might kill a pacient, a child might kill a cat)
4 – Do atheist also practice the same abominations practiced by religious people? And what do they
use as scape-goat? Society? Money? phsycholgy? the existence of Religion in the world?
3- Dawkins mentions that one can not attack other people’s religions, but it s ok to attack someone’s
politics.. – what about attacking people’s sexual orientation? Is that ok? The belief someone has in God
should be also a personal choice of no consequence.
4 – Do Atheist think that when a natural disaster happens, it proves that there is no GOD? If not,
why then it s an argument used by so many learned science men, also in the papers, books and TV?
5 – when a mother murder her own child – does that means God DOESNT exist to an atheist?
6 – Atheists say that religion make people feel less pressure to make the best of this life since
they believe there will be another after life.. But isn’t more difficult to live under spiritual and moral code
then living as if we are just another tribe of monkeys?
7 – Pascal wrote a defence of Christianity – he was a mathematician, inventor (ie, a man of
science – but he does not get mentioned in the TV program. Is that because he does not fit in the
prototype of religious class that Mr Dawkins is making his point?
I am just mentioning Pascal because he had some stronger arguments pro-religion than the chap that
said: “it takes religion to make good people…ete etc”
oh i forgot to ask to everyone who has studied Hitler’s life:
question 8 –
Was Hittler a man that practiced his religion? Or was he secular?
Assuming that we all know that Christianity main dogma is ‘ to love your brother and do to other as you d have theyn do to you) So: Was Hittler an exemple of what Christianity is all about? What about Madre Teresa? Is she a bad example?
Could it be by any chance that Hittler (not only him, but all evil dictators..) was acting out of
his own greedy motives, or to benefit his country, to obtain power – and not because he wanted to revenge Jesus???
What CHINA does to Tibet, IS THAT ALSO in name of religion? Not that Budhism is considered a religion, but i just though i ask since attrocities are happening in that country and somehow RELIGION must be in the core of it,
according to Mr. Dawkins.. Isn t that so? And that the Americans did to the Red Indians, MAYAS, Incas, and what the French did in North Africa, and the English in Australia – all that in the name of GOD? But which GOD?
would be glad if someone could answer me.
Of course not. Stalin springs to mind.
Christianity would have it that every single person commits sins.
Atheists are just the same as theists. They do many of the same things, just for different reasons.
There’s a difference there. A persons sexuality is not a choice, their religion is. Most of us on this site to defend freedom of speech, and so see nothing wrong with people expressing their views on sexuality, however abhorrent we may find those views.
Not in most cases. Most atheists (in my experience) doubt the existence of god/gods due to the sheer implausibility of the concept.
When a mother murders her own child, it just means she’s a murderer. The question of god doesn’t come into that at all.
Atheists usually have some sort of moral code. Would you cease to have a moral code if it was proven 100% that god didn’t exist?
Even if we were living as a “tribe” of monkeys, that wouldn’t make a difference as far as morals go. Most primates have some sort of what we would call a moral code.
I assume you’re referring to Pascal’s Wager here. Dawkins probably ignored it due to the fact that this defence is incredibly flawed and is one of the most pathetic arguments in favour of Christianity ever.
By all accounts, Hitler practised his religion.
No, he is an example of a complete arsehole. Who just happens to be a Christian.
If you mean Mother Teresa, although she did some good work, she doesn’t have a completely clean record.
It’s a possibilty, of course.
China is officially an athiest country. Not secular, there is a big difference. What is going on in Tibet is a complicated situtation, with repression of religion one of a number of causes.
Many attrocities, including some of those you mention have been carried out in the name of some god or other.
“In the absence of religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil thingsâ€
This statement seems to imply that only religion can make inherently good people do evil things in which case Tony W’s argument is correct.
I feel like I have opened up one big can of worms here.
I agree with Laila (post 69) that it is a shame when debates get heated. I understand why it happens. People invest a lot of themselves into their worldview and they are often hurt by other people who ride roughshod over it.
On other hand there have been many thoughtful and graciously phrased questions (posts 70 and 71 for example) which are actually seeking answers rather than scoring points. I will have a crack at answering these even though a PhD thesis would barely scratch the surface.
“how, as a scientist, you can accept claims to knowledge and/or “truth†that are based on an unfalsifiable appeal to supernatural authority?â€
I just don’t think life unpacks into neat parcels that are falsifiable or unfalsifiable. In actual fact we are content to operate on the basis of faith in any number of areas. For example, I flew from Glasgow to Manchester this afternoon and was quite happy to take ‘on faith’ that the pilot was qualified to fly the plane, that he wasn’t drunk, that the plane had been properly serviced… Granted, these are all checkable in principle (the plane could have had a defect undetectable by any instrument of course) in a way that is not so easy to apply to the god debate. But my point is this; we do operate in a faith based way for much of our existence. Life would be intolerably tedious if we didn’t.
Taking another example, I believe that my wife loves me but I can’t prove it. The external evidence suggests that she does but she could be a supremely good actress biding her time to get her hands on some insurance payout should I peg it prematurely. I think that the things in life that are most important to us are also very hard to ‘prove’ in an objective sense.
I have already said twice now that mathematics, the cornerstone of science, simply cannot be proved to be internally consistent or ‘true’. This also holds for any axiomatic system incidentally.
So I think we have to accept we live in a world of blurred boundaries.
Now why I am a Christian in particular is a long story but in headline terms. I grew up in an atheist family, as an atheist and attended a secular school (I had one RE lesson in the whole of my secondary education). I remained in this state until after my first degree (Physics) and, only after starting out as a research scientist, did I begin to ask questions about faith. A sequence of events then occurred in a Christian context that I struggled to fit into my materialist worldview and I reached a point where the step of faith into theism was actually smaller than the leap back into atheism. There is so much I could say on the above but this isn’t the place to do it.
Onto ‘cherry-picking’ (post 71). I am a conservative evangelical/charismatic Christian (but I dislike George Bush’s attitude to foreign policy and the environment, I did not support an invasion of Iraq, I have never voted Tory and I have gay friends who I love dearly) and so I do have a reverence for the Bible. The Bible is full of all kinds of literature which include poetry (psalms, song of songs), fictional stories (parables) and it is important to recognise that these can communicate truth as well. When it comes to the early chapters of Genesis to properly interpret it I have to ask what purpose does it serve? Clearly God would have been able to record a complete scientific treatise on the general relativity and the singularity that was the Big Bang if he so wished. Even now we would not have been able to understand it because it would refer to principles which are way beyond our current understanding. Essentially it would have served no purpose to us, or any previous generations. My gut feel is that these first chapters are allegorical and actually teach some very foundational principles about the nature of God and the relationship between man and God. That they might be allegorical doesn’t diminish their importance; they are very precious chapters to me and I find myself meditating on them frequently. This is such a short and inadequate response to a very good question but it’s the best I can do right now.
Jamie, you are correct to point out that one cannot read scripture without also having ‘cultural spectacles’ on. This is why a literal translation of the ancient text is sometimes less useful than a translation that employs ‘functional equivalence’. This kind of translation seeks to culturally translate at the same time as linguistically translate, so that the modern hearers will have a similar response to the text as those to whom it was originally addressed.
When it comes down to it I just love sitting quietly in prayer in the presence of God. The relationship feels every bit as real and personal as any other friendship I have and the communication is as deep. I never feel so fully ‘known’ as I do when I spend time with God. I know you will all think that’s just a load of bunkum but there you are!
Tony,
thanks for your considered response. I don’t have much time (busy little boy running around) but a few points spring to mind:
>”Granted, these are all checkable in principle (the plane could have had a defect undetectable by any instrument of course) in a way that is not so easy to apply to the god debate”
Exactly, except that what you term taking things on “faith” I would argue is in fact a perfectly rational application of evidence-based probability, no deity required. In the case of an airline, we could research their safety record, that of the aircraft involved, the incidence of pilot drunkenness, etc. You are absolutely correct that an exact measurement of every detail is impossible. We can, however, use empirical evidence (which could then be open to challenge) to determine whether we find the risk acceptable. There is no such option with supernaturalism. In the example of your wife, then a long-term study by a properly-qualified behavioural scientist (my kind of area, I’m afraid) would produce a wealth of suitable evidence to support a rational conclusion one way or the other! 🙂
We could head down the old Popper/Feyerabend (sp?) route if we want to by absolutely logically pedantic (which is very enjoyable from time to time), but I am happy to have to live my daily life by an “Uncertainty Principle”, based on probability derived from empiricism.
It could also be argued that ‘measurement’ is actually the cornerstone of science, which doesn’t require so many of those tricky abstract mathematical principles for it to work, perhaps? I confess I am relying on articles in New Scientist, & obtuse discussions I’ve had with mathematicians regarding the abstract/applied ‘divide’ here, and make no claims to understanding the more esoteric stuff. I tried to a long time ago, but my brain didn’t want to co-operate. “Not a high-flyer, just a medium-flyer supported by the occasional gust of wind”, I suppose 🙂 (smugness prize to anyone recognising the quote source)
I don’t think you can really wriggle off the “cherry-picking” hook, to be honest. How does one decide what’s allegorical, what is a finely-turned piece of art (well, at least the Song of Solomon,etc are in the King James version. While modern versions may have more translational accuracy, they have little sense of style or linguistic aesthetics), and what is one side’s account of a historical event? Thus we end up in the realm of evidence, and where science contradicts the book, well, that’s where the fun starts, isn’t it? Then the big issues arise over religion in education, claims of moral authority, censorship, the right to decide public policy/law, etc,etc. That is where the battle-lines are drawn on this web-site, in my experience.
I make no claim to be an “atheist”. I much prefer the term I’ve seen Prof. Dawkins use, “non-theist”. Not truly “agnostic”, because I won’t give ALL claims a chance, rather “not a subscriber”. What exactly happens after death? No idea. PROBABLY nothing, MAYBE..??? Cosmologists are engaged in very heated debates over the Big Bang – we simply don’t have the evidence. Yet. But with scientific rationalism, we at least have a framework to progress. The rising influence of fundamental supernaturalism seeks actively to prevent this, something which many of us have experienced first-hand (e.g. I have direct family ties to the heart of the American creationist movement), and which is growing in this country. I am glad that you had the CHOICE to form your beliefs as an adult, rather than having pseudo-science, moral absolutism, and discouragement from critical thinking surrounding you as a child. I won’t get started on the “hellfire & damnation: fear as social control” aspects right now, because then I’ll start to become irrationally intemperate! 🙂
All the best, and may your reflections bear fruit for you.
Cheers,
Andy
Andy,
Thanks for your thoughts.
You are, of course, correct when you say that the stats on air travel safety allow someone to make a reasoned risk-assessment. The track record of British Airways might give me comfort but it can’t give me certainty and the only point I was making is that we routinely deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in our daily lives. That we have to place our trust in things we can’t prove is just part of living a normal life.
The ‘cherry picking’ issue is not easy I agree and it will not surprise you that there is significant debate about how to interpret certain passages even amongst Christians of from a similar background. In my experience this sort of discussion amongst Christians is handled with maturity and respect and has never been a source of conflict (although I know others might have different experiences).
I am interested in the issue that you raise about the choice to make up my mind as a child. I agree that for a child to grow up in a loving environment it must include the right to explore and embrace views other than those of the parents. There is no room for coercion of any kind in a loving relationship. I have witnessed faith based homes and atheist homes where there has been a suppression of freedom with disapproval being expressed at honest exploration.
The whole indoctrination debate is interesting and I think it is a much broader concept than a religious one. The prevailing culture in this country is currently secular and so it is easy for people to fall into the trap that this is somehow the ‘neutral’ position. If we allow a child to grow up into secularism we are not indoctrinating that child. I just don’t buy that. A child growing up today in the UK in a media rich environment will be indoctrinated into capitalism/consumerism/materialism and these are not ideologically neutral positions. The value system that a child picks up from such exposure has far-reaching implications and may well infringe their freedom to make informed choices about their future. Ultimately we can’t help but be brainwashed by the sensory inputs we receive I don’t think.
I am going to sign-off this discussion page now partly because I should be spending more time with my wife in the evening and less time thinking about these things when I should be working during the day. If anyone wants to carry on any discussion please do so by contacting me at tony.p.wilson@gmail.com
Thanks for having me
Root of all Evil? repeated 2.50 am on Sunday morning Channel 4
[…] fun of ITV. Richard Dawkins (a smashing chap in my opinion) lets go at religion in a 2-part series, The Root of All Evil?. And after all, it’s about time some rational views got aired in this debate. The government […]