Britain's new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not.

[bossykate]

fascinating article in today's guardian.

here

I am agnostic about Thor, Aloha. I'm not agnostic about God though - I think there might be something going on out there, but I have no idea what it's called or what colour it's socks are. I meant that agnosticism (sp) is a better stance to take for those who don't believe in anything, because atheism isn't compatible with the current state of our knowledge.

Why are we talking about 'Native American society' as if there's just one? I thought there were lots of tribes who had different customs and presumably changed through time (but that's about the limit of my knowledge in this area unfortunately).

You are right Kathy, they were are all diffrent.

Yes, there was considerable diversity in native american cultures. But they behaved pretty much as we expect primitive cultures to behave, badly by our standard.
They posessed no "ancient wisdom", they avoiuded the fate of the Australian native peoples because their environment was usually harder to break. Where it was more fragile they trashed it.
There is on "ancient wisdom", there are things that primitive peoples got away with through luck.
To be fair, the Earth just ain't that friendly to humans. Most plants are toxic, before we killed them, predators liked monkey meat, and climate varies outside the narrow band we prosper in in frequently even without us dumping megatonnes of junk into it.

DC we are descended from primitive societies. Human co-operative behaviour is selected for in such societies, which is how, eventually, the west and 'civilization' evolved. I don't know what you mean 'by our standards'.

Thats just not true. Native Americans were the first to be into sustainable farming and crop rotation.

(Haven't read all of this and completely ignoring the Native American argument)

As a liberal non-believer with very strong moral standards, I for one am very pleased that people like Dawkins exist. I have had to listen to fundamentalist doctrine spouted from every corner for years - I am only talking about the fundamentalists here, not about normal people - it's nice to get a bit of balance.

Dawkins is brave enough to challenge the very foundations of religious belief. I cannot, however, see him strapping a bomb to his torso and killing innovent civilians in the name of atheism. Comparing him to suicide bombers etc. is ridiculous, he has started a fascinating dialogue and asked those with faith to rationalise their beliefs.

I have never influenced anyone with faith not to believe, and yet I have had numerous attempts upon my lack of faith. I don't understand why having 'no faith' means you have no right to your beliefs. I believe in tolerance and acceptance.

I think what worries me most is that Bush hears God talking to him. In any secular society he would be committed! But because of a belief in God... I think it can be a way to bypass common sense sometimes

(Did anyone see Dawkins interviewing a Headmaster of a Christian Faith School not so long ago? He believed that without the threat of hell we would all murder, rape and abuse children! WTF! Would hate to have that man looking after my kids if that's the only reason he isn't a monster!)

Droile Quote: "His latest stance SOUNDS fundamentalist in the way that it totally dismisses any other belief system as bunkum. There is no respect or agreeing to differ. I understand why he's doing it in a way, but joining the fundamentalists isn't a really the way to beat them, funny as it is. For many years I've viewed this type of atheism and religious fundamentalism as two sides of the same coin."

Hmm... So atheists cannot be vociferous about their beliefs without being accused of fundamentalism. Doesn't this idea lend support to what Dawkins says about religion always being given a special reverence over other types of movements?

I agree birdie!

"Hmm... So atheists cannot be vociferous about their beliefs without being accused of fundamentalism. Doesn't this idea lend support to what Dawkins says about religion always being given a special reverence over other types of movements? "

You would brand a christian or a muslim as a fundamentalist when they are vociferous , so why not an atheist?

Bloss - (from way back) - yes, but I believe that comes from within my instinct as a human being, not from god or other 'external' source, so i see it as a connection to the survival of my species, and 'instinct' - which i can't explain but I understand that it is 'bred' into me and into my DNA - like Chomsky's explanation of our capacity for language ...and for me not based on a faith in a god or other being. And it doesn't tie me to other doctrinal beliefs which do not feel instinctive in my way of living. I suspect that the antipathy to homosexuality expressed so virulently in some Anglican churches is because it is deeply rooted in the culture - and the religious allegiance has 'piggybacked' that and echoed it. Here any former cultural antipathy is being overtaken by a new cultural understanding and acceptance.

Fundemental doesn't mean vociferous. Totally different things, which may or may not co-incide.

It's not so much being vociferous that makes people fundamentalist, so much as what they say when they are doing it.

A "fundamentalist" Christian for me would be one who believes literally in the Bible, believes in Creationism, accepts it all unquestioningly, etc. I realise this is not the sense in which some people see the word. A "fundamentalist" Muslim - well, I think we have been conditioned by the media into thinking this means suicide bombers and the like, but it can be someone who is extreme in thought and word but not in deed.

What, therefore, is a "fundamentalist" atheist, if such a thing can exist? It's certainly not one who holds unwaveringly to their conviction that there is no God - that's a position arrived at through rational, considered, adult decision following weighing of evidence. And it's not one who goes round shouting about it or trying to convert - most atheists don't even talk about it unless challenged.

Dawkins, in writing a book about the God Delusion, is only trying to put together a refutation of religious views and presumptions which all-too-often go unchallenged - and to ask people of faith to submit their beliefs to as the same peer-reviewed, evidence-based scrutiny he willingly submits his own scientific theories to.

"and to ask people of faith to submit their beliefs to as the same peer-reviewed, evidence-based scrutiny he willingly submits his own scientific theories to."

Unfortunately, this is precisely where he misses the point - faith seeking to understand and reason seeing to understand are, in the final analysis, diametrically opposed. They are two entirely different systems of thought and do not operate on the same sets of premises. Dawkins should spend some time reading philosophy and he might appreciate this difference a bit more.

seeking

I'm sure he's read plenty of philosophy! I don't see it as unreasonable that, if yuo are claiming something exists, you offer some form of evidence for it - and that the onus should be on you to do so.

I'm genuinely interested in what a religious person's definition of a "fundamentalist atheist" is.

But DrDaddy, the intelligent design supporters are stepping right into the arena of rational argument by claiming ID is a scientific theory. That's why Dawkins wrote the book.

Yes. And he's quite right to do so. Look, I'm essentially on his side, but I feel he lets himself down somewhat by not appreciating the complexities inherent in approaches to understanding.

Unquietdad I thought that was beautifully phrased. I believe Dawkins is simply asking a lot of very awkward questions to the religious community. Sadly most of the answers he seems to receive are along the lines of, "Because we know it is, that's why!". Dawkins is penalised for being brave enough to stand up for what he believes in, or doesn't as the case may be.

I would argue that someone was fundamentalist if they put their religion above their fellow man.

I have been thinking a little about the view that prior to the industrial revoluation all in the garden was wonderful.

My dh's uncle works in the field of tropical medicine. They had discovered a tribal group of people deep in the jungle, so deep that the only contact this group has had is with a family of missionaries who live with them. There is no road acces to this group and no rivers close enough or large enough for transport use, So this group of people is isolated.

They exist by being basically hunter gatherers. Now I will be the first to admit that they are far better at this lifestyle than I would be, however their lives are exceptionally hard and often very short. They have leprosy and TB, both are totaly untreated by the 'herbal remedies' of ancient wisdom (neither of thses were brought in by the missionary family btw, but existed before the family srrived). One in 8 pregnancies ends in the death of the mother and with her often the baby and the next sibling who relies on the mother for breast milk. Childhood deaths in the children up to the age of 2 (not counting the deaths during birth) run at over 20%.

This is not living in a rural idyl, healthy and happy, this is a spartan, often brutal exsistance.

Children die of dehydration due to D & V since they have no idea of basic sanitation. Adults die of TB and and disabled by leprosy. The difficulty of their lives is not driven by a reduction in their living area....since this has not been afected by logging etc. They do not have thses diseases because of western contact, at least not within living memory of the people living in the group.

This is how our ancestors lived. personally I'll take the NHS and big pharma!

Dawkin's best mate on this is Dan Dennett. If he needs any lessons in philosphy, I imagine Dan's on hand to give them.

I don't think people dislike Dawkins because of what he says, at least I don't, but how he says it. I am more at home with soemone like Paul Davies who can explain his reasons for not believing in a god without being patronisng.

Rhian I would suggest that by your definiation that Dawkins is a fundamentalist. If he put his fellow man before his atheism he would not be so intolerant of people with faith being that the majority of his fellow man believe in a god or gods of some sort.

I disagree, Dawkins does not hurt his fellow man by disagreeing with them and questioning their beliefs. He does not put his belief in not believing ahead of the welfare of others, if you see what I mean. This is why I think that describing someone as a fundamentalist is a very harsh criticism and one I would only use to describe a tiny percentage of people. But then that is just my belief

I doubt everyone would agree with my interpretation, but that is their right.

With respect (honestly) I really don't get thios thing about being patroniosed. It's not Dawkins' job to dumb down what he's saying. even though he does a lot anyway, but to dumb it down any more would be to do exactly what the ID and creationists are doing - making a mockery of science.

Monkeytrousers, I'm with you on that one (too). I have never felt patronised by DAwkins.

Oh please. He thinks anyone who believes in a god is a moron. Thats patronising.