AC Grayling gets it bang on re faith group daftness.

[SolidGoldBangers]

There's a pint on the bar for him all right. Good effort.

Members of religious groups are accused of arrogance, but on this thread the arrogance and offensiveness has all been the other way.

Why not have a debate without emotive language, and showing some mutual respect and tolerance?

Slug: "why do you belong to an organisation that actively promotes it?" I don't. You're assuming that I do, but I don't.

Got to dash, will come back to this convo.

I'm not quite sure who is saying what to whom any more, I have brought nothing but inconvenient facts to this.

Unquietdad, using a list like that as a reason not to accommodate mainstream religious beliefs and practices is very much like producing a list of authors from James Joyce to Martine McCutcheon, and saying you can't dismiss McCutcheon as rubbish if you think Joyce is good because it's all literature and some people think McCutcheon is great so it's not fair to them, so really the only logical thing is to remove the study of literature from the school curriculum altogether.

It's not offensive, it's just nonsense.

It's not "very much like" any such thing. That whole analogy falls apart the moment you look at it.

Why?

"Members of religious groups are accused of arrogance, but on this thread the arrogance and offensiveness has all been the other way." - well said. As I have said on MN before, IME it is impossible to have an intelligent, open discussion on religion with people who are evangelical about their atheism. The only people I have ever been able to have such a discussion with are people of any faith at all (moderates, obviously) and agnostics. All the others are prejudiced extremists who aim to offend.

That's imply not true. Mrs MH. It's just that it all becomes so endlessly repetitive, until you reach the point where you just can't be arsed hedging it round any more. It's taken years, but I've now learnt that people have no desire to engage with the actual facts and evidence offered by atheists - they just want to call us rude, as a way of undermining the argument.

Z, the analogy falls apart because you simply can't compare literature and religion in that way. It's apples and oranges. Nobody is disputing the existence of those writers, for one thing - a separate debate on their relative quality aside.

How on earth do you know that, UQD? Have you been privy to the discussions I've had with more open-minded people? I think you need to indulge in a little self-reflection here. There are certain people on MN who I know from the start will flatly refuse to consider any perspective but their own on particular subjects (not just religion). I have had several discussions with one particular poster who I (and others) have refused to debate with because of this pig-headedness. I like many things about you, UQD, but I'm afraid that when it comes to religion you're one of those people as well. It's not about 'engaging' in conversation for you; it's about firing ammunition. That doesn't make for a thoughtful discussion.

MP: if 'any religion which is numerically significant and demands a voice' is entitled to a place at the trough I hope you are going to move up and make room for the Scientologists. There's lots of them.
And the point is, and remains, that when it is announced that 'Christians' (I am going to use Christianity as an example simply because, as a middle-aged Englishwoman brought up in England, it's the one I have the most familiarity with) are to be allowed a voice, does that extend to all Christians? While many people are not really going to mind nice friendly, woolly Anglicans and liberal-left Catholics where is the stopping point if (say) the Branch Davidians, who considered themselves Christians, wanted a slice of the pie? Or how about those independent (but still calling themselves Christians) churches who go in for exorcisms on a Friday night? Or the UK branch of that absolute nutjob whose followers picket the funerals of gay people with placards saying things like 'God Hates Fags'? When Christianity (or any other myth system) is given special status, the Christians endorsing or demanding it, however pleasant, sensible and ethical they might be themselves, are endorsing the nutjob fellow-travellers.
Hence the need to fight for the right to be critical and contemptuous of religion in public spaces such as debating forums.

UnquietDad, I do appreciate your logical approach to questions, but I've stated before that systems of logic do not necessarily apply to belief in the divine. If you want to state that spiritual belief is illogical, fine. But "actual facts and evidence offered by atheists" are completely meaningless in such a context. I think belief is a fundamentally personal thing, in my case based on direct experiences that defy logic. One either has such experiences or not.

SolidGoldBangers, the world is a messy and complicated place, and there is absolutely NO clear method of assigning people's ideas or beliefs into clean, undisputable categories. So if you're waiting for one of those to show up in order to distinguish who should be allowed to influence lawmakers, you'll be waiting a long time. Even the political affiliations of Labour and Conservative are hopelessly inadequate as far as representing the diversity in perspectives within their own constituent groups. If someone feels that it serves the public to involve leaders of groups they feel are representative in some way, then I think they are attempting to make some headway toward understanding the social complexity, and I applaud their efforts.

There are 'nutjobs' all over the place, and I'm sure some on my list are not on yours and vice versa. It's all profoundly relative, and we must do the best we can as a society to find solutions to social problems that meet some nebulous moral baseline. Excluding all persons of faith is not going to help.

But I am trying to engage with the actual debate.

It all depends where you start from.

Yes, what the pro-religious/superstitious say makes perfect sense if you start from the assumption that the religious/superstitious are automatically entitled to this voice in policy-making decisions on the basis of their being religious/superstitious.

However, the moment question the terms on which this assumption is made, and actually want to look at alternative evidence and actually have a debate about this initial assumption, it becomes far less "obvious" that this entitlement is there.

Another reason the literature analogy doesn't work, by the way, is that it's all about whether we should study literature in the curriculum based on the relative qualities of different writers. But I have never said we should not have religion in the curriculum. That's a separate issue totally - I'm very much in favour of systems of mythology being studied - as an insight into human thought, behaviour and culture (and, apart from anything else, the power of the human imagination to create such things).

Of course you aren't interested in hearing people's opinions, or you wouldn't go out of your way to offend them. This is like me saying "I really want to discuss Paki stuff with Pakis!" and bleating about why they won't come.

I think what's odd is that you come across as genuinely thinking that you are cleverer than anyone who has a belief in the divine. You give the impression that if only you could sit down with, say, Rowan Williams, you could say "Look, silly man! There's no one there? Where is He? See!" and Rowan would say "My goodness old chap! You are absolutely right! I hadn't thought of it that way!"

Is that REALLY how you think? That you are basically cleverer than any person who has religious belief? Because it seems so baffling that you can't accept that some people who might have two brain cells, and be rational individuals, might have a faith that means everything to them. That point of view seems utterly beyond your grasp. It that was something that you could accept, you simply wouldn't use offensive language.

MP, you are rational and measured and make very good points. Merry and answers, how you maintain good humour -- it's impressive!

It's become clear in thread after thread that the atheists on mn are so much more evangelist than any religious group here: and more, that they have a greater capability of being shamelessly offensive; and that they consider this to be justified because they are absolutely right. They are are so overcome by their self-righteousness they lose (or abandon) the power to understand that religious believers are capable of rational thought, of struggle, of tolerance, of understanding outside their faith.

apart from that

actually hand over the beatific smile emoticon.. I've been told how much it annoys the atheists

LOL Stuffit and bravo MP.
Time for me to call too now.

UQD the existence or not of the divine being in question is not the point of the analogy. The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to make judgements about the cultural relevance and value of a particular set of religious beliefs and practices, just as we do with literature or any other cultural artefact. And it is infinitely more productive to do this than to make a blanket "religion makes no sense to me therefore it has no place in my society" sort of statement.

Look, no one is arguing in favour of banning the superstitious from holding their beliefs, gathering together to indulge them, have the history of them studied and discussed, whatever. Nor is anyone arguing that having imaginary friends makes a person unfit for public office (well, not necessarily unfit for public office though there are a few exceptions like that wanker Anderton). What is being objected to is the idea that special treatment be given to 'faith groups/faith leaders' to peddle a pro-superstiton agenda and foster the idea that the right of a person to indulge his/her superstiton is more important than the right of another to wear whatever s/he likes, view or discuss whatever s/he likes and have sex with whoever s/he likes. EG groups which demand state funding (taxpayers' money) yet insist on having special rights to discriminate.
ANd yes, I do think all religious belief is utterly ludicrous. But I defend everyone's right to hold and express ludicrous beliefs, whatever they may be. I just don't think that having these beliefs mean you get more rights than other people.

Why shouldn't the majority (who have some sort of religious belief according to the census) be represented? It's democracy. Democracy also sometimes gives the likes of the BNP a voice, and it may also give a voice to some 'nutjobs', but that's the system we have and although imperfect, is better than most alternatives.

Mrs MH and MP make some great points btw, it is usually the atheists that come across as extreme on MN. They certainly aren't doing their cause any favours, and in RL I think I would rather hang out with more tolerant friends, of faith or none.

I also don't like the tone of some of the posts on here. Couching someone's faith that is dear to them in terms such as 'superstition' and 'mythology' are completely offensive. Anyway, I'm off now.

But the point is that the majority may have some sort of belief, but the 30% (according to the Life in Britain test) that don't have some sort of belief are not represented.

For example, currently the Muslim population of Britain is about 3% of the population (according to the 2001 census). Muslims are, rightly, included in faith councils and advisory groups. Yet the athiest or no religion population which is, according to the government statistics ten times the size of the Muslim population is excluded. There are twice as many athiests as Catholics, yet again, Catholics are invited to comment on moral dilemmas but athiests aren't. How is this fair or representative of the population of the UK?

Here is Denham's response to Grayling's article btw

morningpaper, you sound very angry and are making ridiculously emotive points, practically comparing me to a racist. It's utterly absurd. What terms have I used which are in any way comparable to the grossly offensive racist term you have cited? That kind of childish behaviour is a sure sign of someone losing the argument.

zephirine, again - are you not hearing me? I am not arguing against the "cultural relevance" of religion/superstition. As I said above, I am quite happy for myths and legends to be taught in schools, for the reasons I have given.

For the record I don't automatically or necessarily consider myself "more intelligent" than believers in religion/superstition. Saying that rather presumes I have never met any Christian university graduates, for example, which is an absurd suggestion.

It's fair, though, to say I do find an educated person's belief in religion/superstition hard to understand. I don't think this is an unfair comment. I find it in need of explanation the way I wouldn't find an uneducated person's belief in need of explanation. Knowing the way students in both arts and sciences are taught at advanced levels to question everything and mistrust sources (or at least they used to be) makes it difficult to see how anybody can bypass that process without some sort of intellectual short-circuit.

Unquietdad, it is you that is not hearing me. I was answering your post in which you seemed to be arguing that it was not fair to allow mainstream faith groups to have a voice in public life while ignoring all the other religious and pseudo religious groups from Thor worshippers to Jedis. It has nothing to do with teaching religion in schools. The literature example was an analogy to illustrate the fact that we are perfectly capable of making value judgments about cultural artefacts, and that religion is no exception.

I certainly don't think morningpaper has lost any arguments on this thread. She was making a point about your unwillingness to actually engage with the arguments being put to you, which is evident from the unchanging caricature of faith which you have repeatedly presented on here.

I can see I'm not going to get through to anyone with this, but i am actually trying to take a step back to before the argument - that's not avoiding engaging with it, that's trying to stop someone else defining the terms in which it should be argued.

Who decides what is "mainstream" or "pseudo-religious" anyway? Tell the 1800-odd Scientologists that they're not a proper religion. My point is that there is as much or as little need for any of them to have "a voice in public life."