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

What do you mean by won't engage with them on their own terms, exactly? What about my point that nobody harangues him to study the theology of the Norse people or the Ancient Greeks?
Universities struggle (if they do at all) because people prefer easy things to hard ones.

I sort of respect Julian of Norwich for being the first woman to write a book in English, and she is an interesting character with an interesting life, but her extremely limited knowledge and life are clear in her writings, which are just her internal thoughts about God. If you don't believe in gods at all, then her thoughts about whether her imaginary friend is male or female how what they might think and feel is irrelevant. perhaps charmingly and elegantly written, but ultimately meaningless.

I retract that last statement about universities. Rush of blood to the head...

It's just that there are different knowledge systems at play here. A lot of biochemistry is built upon assumptions upon evidence built upon assumption. Ultimately, the evidence adduced for the existence of something is derived, albeit by experimentation. Philosophers and theologians will argue for existence or non-existence on derived assumption from premises. That's really all I'm arguing.
For the record, I loved Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale and Selfish Gene.
Must get on with some work now....

Yes, but theology has no evidence...
Been reading some ancient Egyption theology or spells as they are called. Very interesting and beautifully written, and some of it sounds very old testament (lots of stuff about sins being purged and souls weighed on the day of reckoning). Find it fascinating and rather lovely...but don't belive it, so don't think it should play a part in running schools/governments etc.
We obviously owe Julian of Norwich a debt for the lovely phrase, 'in a nutshell' which I used only yesterday. I'm less convinced by the 'all shall be well' stuff.

Ruty, thank you for that article, really, thank you - I hadn't seen it before.
DrDaddy, I'm with you & Ruty too. He doesn't engage with theology or philosophy. I did a third philosophy at Uni, with my combined science, and any first year could argue Dawkins into a cocked hat. I'm more interested in the logic, or lack of it, and the unscientific way he goes about constructing his arguments than on this fatuous debate about whether or not God exists. And as for Dennett, he doesn't know whether he's coming or going on this issue either.

Aloha, I know little about Thor other than what I've read for pleasure, so as far as Norse and any other mythology goes, it would be stupid of me to call myself atheist because I haven't studied the subject enough to know what I'm rambling on about. So yes, I have to be agnostic about Thor. It's all I can be given the current state of my knowledge.

Droile, I don't believe that there is even a tiny bit of you that actually believes in a sky giant whose wife's hair was made by dwarves and who is responsible for thunder because he bangs his massive hammer. I hardly think it is 'stupid' not to believe in this.

I think that discussing the non-existence of God is hardly fatuous, when those who claim he does exist also claim this gives them the right (god-given?) to play an important role is educating children and making our laws.

By the way, I'm not against Dawkins for entering this debate - not at all, I think good on him and I love most of his work. I just wish he'd reached the end (or even the beginning) of his reading list before he'd bothered starting. And there are plenty in the phil and sci communities who wish that too.

So to believe in the Christian God should you not, by extension of your logic, have read every word there is about every other God in the world that ever was beleived in, just to make sure you are believing in the right one?

Not all those who believe in God want to use him to make our laws etc, Aloha. And it is fatuous when you have to 'debate' with people who haven't read around the subject at all and think pink jellyfish are relevant in any way. As for Thor making it thunder - I'm sure mankind got Thor all wrong, but that doesn't mean something like Thor might not exist somewhere. How the hell should I know? Hence the agnosticism.

No, but the leaders of all religions do claim that right.
What do you mean by 'something like Thor'? A similar sort of sky-dwelling giant whose wife's hair was made by, let's say, pixies? Who makes thunder by stamping on the sky in his hob-nailed boots?
Thor was made up to explain the world and how thunder was made. I think I can safely say they were wrong

The thing about gods is that the only 'evidence' for them is....um....non-existent. Just like giant pink jellyfish. In fact Scientology seems to be thriving with martian walruses as part of its theology. Which is more ridiculous?

I don't know - should you? What should an agnostic have read? I suppose that's my point. To make a claim as strong as atheism, you ought to have read widely, because it's kind of tied in with the definition of atheism that you can almost prove it. An agnostic thinks there probably isn't a God, so doesn't have to have studied much, as it isn't a claim as such, it's just an idea. I don't know enough about christianity to know what they should or shouldn't read, as I'm not really religious, but perhaps it would be sensible for them to have explored other options first before reaching their conclusion. Dawkins describes himself as agnostic in the book but atheist in other articles, which waters down his credibility.

People often use the evidence of answered prayers. This has happened to me. And as you so kindly point out, I'm intelligent and logical enough to know that other explanations didn't explain it. Of course, it may not be God who answered my prayer - it may be some awful beastie - I don't know, and never claimed to know for sure. It's just a feeling. And before you ask, I don't know why he doesn't answer the world peace or famine prayer. But what he doesn't do doesn't cancel out what he does do, iyswim.

Will get sack.
Continue later

I described lower down to what point he is an 'agnostic'. He talks about probability. Actually I totally disagree that you should have to prove your atheism. That suggests we should believe in everything - no matter how bizarre or unlikely - as a point of principle. I think it is up to those who have a belief that they wish to impose on others (ie via religious schools/bishops in the house of Lords/Sharia Law etc etc) to prove it has some validity. Otherwise if I say, you know, I think there is a big pink jellyfish circling the earth who says we should all stand on our heads on Thursday, the 'sensible' thing would be to believe me. Dawkins scientific work, his understanding of the universe, plus the total absence of any evidence for gods, seems a pretty good basis for atheism to me.
Why aren't you bashing bishops/mullahs etc for their lousy understanding of science?
Answered prayers seem remarkable unconvincing to me. If you put prayer to any kind of remotely objective test (ie have patients in hospital, some prayed for and some not) the answer is always that it does NOT work at all. I am also rather mystified by a God who decides who to be nice in this manner. So the baby who is prayed for doesn't get brain damage, but the baby who isn't, does?

"it is fatuous when you have to 'debate' with people who haven't read around the subject at all and think pink jellyfish are relevant in any way"

It is fatuous when you have to debate with people who don't relise what the point of the pink jellyfish ANALOGY is.

Atheism isn't necessarily a "strong claim". Is it a strong claim to say you don't believe in something because the evidence for its existing does not stand up to scrutiny? Some people don't even assert their atheism unless challenged - in marked contrast to evangelical Christians.

I am bashing bishops/mullahs etc for their lousy understanding of science.

Dawkins needs to have read what's been said about it before by the best brains, so that he can refute it intelligently. The babies left unprayed for - I agree Aloha, which is why I have problems with the whole thing. But just because I have problems - 'cos I haven't all the information - doesn't mean that the whole thing didn't happen.

Well, firstly he is only dealing with the evidence for God's existence, while most of the stuff people think he should read assumes God's existence (and I tend to talk about gods personally but we seem to be talking about the Christian God which for some reason Dawkins is supposed to take more seriously than any other god) but quibbles about his/her nature. And his book looks at the philosophical/theological 'proofs' for God's existence and finds them very wanting indeed.

There isn't that much theology about God's existence tbh. Nearly everything has the starting point that he/she exists, which rather renders it irrelevant to the argument. If Dawkins' book was 'Is God Evil?' then he would be assuming there is such a thing as God so arguments from theology as to the nature of God would be relevant. But he isn't.
I have nothing against people believing in anything that they like, especially if it gives them comfort, but there is a hell of a lot of religious stuff about (have you seen what comes on on Amazon??) in the UK alone, religious telly, thought for the blooming day, church schools, compulsory worship in our schools, bishops making laws, 'faith groups' regularly consulted by our Prime Minister. A born-again prime minister consorting with a religious maniac US President, all banging away about how real and wonderful religion is, and yet one measly little book saying 'ahem, this is all made up you know' attracts so much venom. That's interesting, I think.

Message withdrawn

Well, he has a laugh on the way, but I still think it's a bit more polite than, 'Ha ha! We are saved and you infidels are going to hell if we don't kill you first', which is the attitude of some religious folk (and many religious texts).

no that's not true Aloha there is plenty of theology that investigates in depth the role of Doubt in Faith, and most of it is not saying you only have the doubt to get out to the other side of blind faith again. I will have to consult my dad if you want names and references. RE the Egyptians and other myths of creation, as i said before about the OT, I think it is a possibility that as we have evolved socially we have progressively discovered the 'true' face of God. I accept that there is another possibility, that we have just changed God to suit ourselves - but actually, I think most of the Christian institutions [and many of the other religons' too] are still sticking to a vengeful rather unpleasant kind of God, and conveniently ignoring the nitty gritty of what Christ had to say, so I would suggest that there is a true face of God that most of the world, including the Western superpowers, do not want to acknowledge.

I too have massive problems with the way some prayers seemingly get answered and some do not. But I guess when you look at human free will, and human causes for many of terrible things that happen, you have to look at how much a 'God' can intervene and we can still truly have free will. Doesn't justify things that happen, and never will. It sucks. And is one of the reasons I struggle with having a Faith.

So there is no evidence that there is life on other planets in other universes. Does that mean you categorically do not believe there is life out there? Or is there a pointed possibility that there is? the difficulty with God is that Faith often comes from strong personal experiences, which cannot be documented empirically or proven in a lab. Some people can understand music better than others. Some people have perfect pitch. Maybe a religious experience is like that. It doesn't mean that God exists. it doesn't mean that she/he/it doesn't. Human experiences are much more subtle and complex than that. The only true take on it, I think, is to leave the anger behind and keep one's mind open. Obviously you are free to disagree.

oh yes and Aloha you have repeatedly said here that if you believe in God you automatically think that athiests are going to burn in hell. [glad you amended that to 'some' religious people in your last post!] I don't actually think being a Christian or not has the slightest bit of difference in whether you go to Hell [if there is such a place] or not. Don't think God is quite that fatuous.

With respect, because I do like you, I think you will take this the wrong way, and I don't mean to be insulting but re beleiving things even with no evidence, I like the quip about how you shouldn't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out. I've noticed a weird tendency on this thread for people to say they are prepared to believe anything and everything. Thor!
I think life on another planet is entirely possible because a/we know other planets exist - a lot of them, with other suns, and b/we know life is possible on planets. Both of those things are facts. From the evidence I agree that there may be life or there may not. Indeed it seems likely that there is. I don't believe in intergalactic walruses because there aren't any! I believe people have always sought to explain what were seen as the insoluble mysteries of the universe - why the sun vanishes and appears again, what thunder is, how winter kills everything and spring revives it - in terms of powerful, baffling external forces. I can understand that. But now we know so much about how and why those things really occur, I don't see the need for a supernatural explanation any more. And there I am right there with Dawkins. What is real and tangible is so amazing, why do we need anything else?
I don't think people who believe in God are stupid. I certainly don't think the ancient Greeks, Romans or Egyptions were all stupid. Of course they weren't. But they were utterly mistaken in their beliefs.
(oh and I have looked up the theological 'proofs' of God, and of the ones I could find, Dawkins addresses them all in the book)