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

But doing an experiment in a lab is not the only way to find out if something is true. Richard Dawkins says he is convinced by evolution, but if something came along that appeared to disprove it ('bones in the wrong place') he would reconsider. That is the fundamental difference between religion and science, and why the religious calling Dawkins arrogant is really such a cheek!
I don't think he feel remotely 'threatened' - he feels angry.

that's a good point Aloha, and one I should have made.

He's always said he'd be prepared to chnage his view if any evidence came along which contradicted it. So far, none has. That's what I meant about getting off the fence and making an informed, adult decision.

You are both right; I've heard him make the same statements elsewhere. Sometimes, it's the fact that he gets so angry that possibly offends people.
Ultimately, he's talking about a different kind of knowledge. Someone who has faith does not need to prove with evidence whether something exists or not. So it's the contention with faith as a method for understanding (back to Anselm again!) that he's railing against.

(I'm as rational as the next atheist by the way.... )

"But doing an experiment in a lab is not the only way to find out if something is true."
Although, I wonder whether there isn't something deeper here too. Academic scientists can be terribly snooty and elitist about their disciplines. I wonder whether it's protectionism around seemingly softcore, observational biology compared to physics or biochemistry for example..
(Although this is pure speculation, not based on any evidence )

Nah, from what I've witnessed at Darwin@LSE they are fiercely competitive; to the point where it starts getting a bit tiresome.

No, he's railing against the frankly terrifying forces of unreason which are on the rise, pushing women back into purdah, getting their hands on our schools to push their nonsense like creationism , dominating US foreign policy (hopefully slightly on the wane) and inspiring people to blow babies to smithereens on the tube. Makes me pretty angry too. But in an anger competition, I think the tube bombers and the new crusaders of the Bush administration win hands down.

And his other point is, it's no good saying, belief is beyond proof, if you keep insisting your god can tinker with the science of the universe. "How exactly does he do that then?" is a totally reasonable question. He also speculates that science will one day be able to rule out the existence of any gods once and for all. This is not something that religious people will admit as a possibility.

Don't understand why creationists have such a hard time understanding evolution, tbh, can't they just decide that God made evolution happen?

I think many believers face the problem that their books say something different and incompatible from evolution, edam. So they are faced with the choices of going wishy washy and placing their spiritual books in a cultural context or denying evolution or denying God or somehow feeling comfortable with believing two incompatible things.

Or they could decide that God speaks in parables... after all, the Bible was written by fallible human beings interpreting the word of God.

Not sure that would work for the Koran or any other holy book, though, am not a Muslim so don't know if K is regarded as literal word of Allah.

It is a massive problem for muslims. The Quoran is considered the literal word of God, as I understand it. The prophet is merely the mouthpiece.

And why would those books not mention evolution, I wonder

Well, devout people seem to be able to get their heads round some very odd concepts so I don't see why they can't come up with a way to reconcile evolution with their belief system.

It is a valid point about Creationists not "understanding" evolution.

A God who can create a sophisticated universe which supports a progression from simple molecules to sophisticated penguins is a more impressive thing than the God deswcribed in the Bible/Torah/Koran who does little more than use a very powerful remote control and get violently angry when he doesn't get his own way.
Creationism is dumb, and from a Christian perspective quite heretical. Intelligent design is bumbling process by someone who can't see ahead, and certainly can't think ahead. Maybe that is the nature of God, but it ain't the Christian view.

But a dimwitted bumbler with more power than sense does rather tell us a lot about those who worship him that way.

Creationism is also dishonest. The universe looks very much like it is far too old for this to work. There are lots of things that can only be explained by evolution.
Actually that's not true. An all powerful God can alter the universe into fooling us that it is very old, and introduce factors into living things that make them look evovled.

Again that may be true, but now we have a God who is lying to us. Catholics tried to raise me as one of them, and the term they would use for a cosmically powerful "great deceiver" is of course the Devil.

Thus Creationists want to worship a God whose behaviour varies between evil and stupid.
Possibly true, but devil worship ?

saw aloha's name

then dc's

now have clicked on this and see you started the thread bk...

off to read filled with trepidation...

Wow, I agree with DC. Well, the bit about a God who can spark off evolution being much more impressive than one who just says: 'Zap! Giraffes! Kerpow! Single-celled organisms!'

Who created the evolution sparking God though?

Or did She evolve too?

i believe in god, the other, the unspeakable that connects us all.

I revel in the beauty of the mystic traditions of all the major world faiths.

I feel affinity with wiccan ideas of connection to nature and sex magick.

I go to a liberal and explicitly inclusive anglican church whose vicar is intelligent, and emphasises social justice and love.

I argue vociferously against bigotry wherever I find it and hate the evangelical right wing christians currently wasting the time and resources of the anglican church in focussing on their hatred of and wish to exclude gays from worship and adoption and everything else.

I hate catholicism's focus on sin, guilt, satan and hell but enjoy it's emphasis on ritual and the female.

I cannot abide dawkins and do consider him bigoted, fundamentalist and hatefilled. In this way aloha and edam he is indeed comparable to terrorists. I also speculate on the pathology behind his stance.

Doubt is such a basic requirement for intelligent, thoughtful debate and is the foundation of faith.

I don't know where that puts me on this thread except depressed.

On the subject of creationists not understanding Evolution, I never fail to be amazed by how there are always so many references to how hard it would be for complex life to evolve 'by chance'. It's NOT 'by chance', that's the whole point.
(IMO this is why Dawkins is so wound up - he's been yelling it till he's blue in the face for the last 30 years and they're still not listening )

nor are creationists really worth engaging with in argument...their faculties of tolerance and logic left the building a long time ago didn't they kathy?

'Young earther' creationists also have to ditch most of cosmology and physics along with biology as well.

If the world is only 4000 odd years old, the light from the stars wouldn't have reached us yet. Or if it has , the stars would have to be so much close to us than they actually are.

What irritates me is that creationists disparage evoltion as 'just a theory' as if this in some way means that it must be some mickey mouse idea. Gravity is 'just a theory' as well, but I don't see them lining up to ignore it.

So did yours, sophable, if you think Dawkins is comparable to a terrorist. Stating your position strongly is not akin to terrorism. If it were you, me and many other mumsnetters would be very dangerous people indeed.

sophable - thanks for your statement of belief. I'm going to see how I compare.

"i believe in god, the other, the unspeakable that connects us all."
I know I don't believe in God - not quite sure what the rest of it is all about.

"I revel in the beauty of the mystic traditions of all the major world faiths."
I admire the beauty of their buildings, costumes, myths, ceremonies etc, without believing that a single word of it is true.

"I feel affinity with wiccan ideas of connection to nature and sex magick."
I don't really know what these are. If you can show me some "magick" maybe I'll like it.

"I go to a liberal and explicitly inclusive anglican church whose vicar is intelligent, and emphasises social justice and love."
I'm glad you like it.
I used to go to a reasonably inclusive anglican church whose vicar was a nice bloke, before i decided it wasn't really fair to keep coming any more because I didn't believe a word of it.

"I argue vociferously against bigotry wherever I find it and hate the evangelical right wing christians currently wasting the time and resources of the anglican church in focussing on their hatred of and wish to exclude gays from worship and adoption and everything else."
We agree! Hooray.

"I hate catholicism's focus on sin, guilt, satan and hell but enjoy it's emphasis on ritual and the female."
I've never liked catholicism much.

"I cannot abide dawkins and do consider him bigoted, fundamentalist and hatefilled. In this way aloha and edam he is indeed comparable to terrorists. I also speculate on the pathology behind his stance."
Isn't this as fundamentalist and hatefilled a response as you accuse him of having?

There is one HUGE difference between Richard Dawkins and a fundie theist. Dawkins has stated - again and again - that it is his job to keep asking QUESTIONS rather than just accepting everything at face value. He didn't reach his current viewpoint through any form of "faith". He has stated on numerous occasions that he would change it if offered convincing, compelling evidence to do so.

"Doubt is such a basic requirement for intelligent, thoughtful debate and is the foundation of faith."
And, indeed, he deals with this in "The God Delusion." You can never prove the "non-existence" of anything, from god to fairies to the invisible pink unicorn. What you do is look at the evidence and make a rational, adult, informed decision. I decided long ago that fairies didn't exist. I may doubt, but there's no point going through life worrying that they MIGHT, and that I'm doing the little winged darlings a gross injustice.

"I don't know where that puts me on this thread except depressed."
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure going to church will cheer you up. (I don't say that in a mean/sarky way, either.)

Oh what nonsense re Dawkins Sophable. I am staggered that anyone would seriously compare someone who hurts nobody but thinks that bigotry and superstition are harming the world with people who would happily rip the legs off young women going to work and tear babies in their prams to pieces. I find it utterly depressing that any sensible person would consider thinking a belief system is an irrational and bad thing is the same as wanting to kill people. I despair. I could question the pathology of someone who thinks like this, but I won't, because I honestly think it is patronising.