Live webchat with Richard Dawkins, Wed 23 June, 10am-11am

[GeraldineMumsnet]

We're pleased to welcome Richard Dawkins for a webchat on Wednesday 23 June from 10am-11am. Richard is a celebrated evolutionary biologist and atheist, and author of the best-selling God Delusion.

He has presented programmes on Channel Four that range from enthusing about the Genius of Charles Darwin to arguing against religion in Root of All Evil?

His latest project is taking a long hard look at education and the role religion continues to play in it.

He wants to hear first-hand from Mumsnetters what faith and church schools are really like. How successful are they? Are they selection by another means? Are they divisive? And are they making hypocrites out of non-believing parents who go to church just to send their children to them?

If you can't make the discussion but want to contribute, please post your views here.

Thanks and hope you can join us.

SomeGuy - It rather depends on if 'Christian Child' means a child who follows the rituals of Christianity or a child who has made an informed decision that the Christian religion accurately describes the world.

Silimlarly, 'Vegetarian Child' could mean a child who does not eat meat as they are not allowed to, or a child who has made an informed decision that eating meat is wrong.

Would you consider a child who follow Christian rituals without having yet made an informed decision a Christian to the same extent as an adult who HAS made an informed decision?

Atheism is to religion, what baldness is to hair.

But atheists seem to get called out for their supposedly superior attitude merely for stating their belief that their is no evidence for god, so no reason to believe in one.

From my perspective religious people are just as arrogant, if not even more so, when they proclaim that there is a god. Despite the fact there is no reason whatsoever to believe in one, this is seen as somehow acceptable?

Religious beliefs are privileged in our culture, and I don't understand why. If someone had any other kind of ludicrous belief if would be accepted and expected for other people to try and put this right. Not so with religion. Religion is special.

Which is more arrogant?
Those who say I believe regardless of the evidence or lack of.
Or those who say I dont believe but show me the evidence and I will think about it?

TheCoalitionNeedsYou, ok, but just as children raised Christian are less likely to be atheist at say 40, so too children raised vegetarian are less likely to eat meat in later life. Yes it's cultural, but so is much of the fabric of our society - the things that make us feel comfortable are familiar things in many cases.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's certainly not necessary for us to pronounce judgement on whether a vegetarian 'ab initio' is better than one who 'converted' at 14.

Agree with cauliffe.

Once had memorable argument with a committed Christian colleague who derided my faith in low carb diets. He was very, very offended by my retort.

are we Dawkins-less now? Or has he gone to look for biscuits?

I support Dawkin's push for critical thinking in society. I also agree that religion in some instances is used to inhibit critical thinking, as well as patriotism and mania for sports teams. I think he loses the plot, however, with his assumption that if everyone was a true critical thinker then they'd all be atheists like himself.

With regards to the question of fundamentalism, I think he's off base there as well. Yes, there actually is a scientific fundamentalism which grants validity only to those experiences that are purportedly objective, and denies the validity of any experience that is subjective. There is plenty of subjective experience supporting aspects of 'religion,' all of which are dismissed as illusion by scientific fundamentalists. Just as some critical-thinking religious fundamentalists dismiss as short-sighted and limited the neuroscience arguments that deny the validity of religious experience.

This whole faith school attack of his is misguided, which is unfortunate because I think he could make some progress on the critical-thinking front.

He is selecting the best biscuits. The others will decline and eventually die out.

That's a more concise and probably less rude and arrogant way of putting it ronshar.

I have to say I'm suprised there weren't more religious nuts here to have a go at Dawkins.

I have to admit being a little bit swoony. I mean Richard Dawkins. And he replied to me! faints

zazizoma: sorry, I don't get it.

I simply cannot see how anyone who claims to be objective can believe in a religion. Whichever religion.

Formatting fail.

How is he making his selection? On appearances, evidence based experience or other invisible and unknown criteria

Right. Have now searched ENTIRE thread [and have neglected my dcs all morning in process> and found NOT ONE reference to Catholic or Protestant Child.

One reference to a child having no 'Christian Classmates' by Slug today, 09.34.57 am who is an atheist and a hater of religion.

A reference to Muslim and Christian students, older students.

One reference of 'Muslim Girls' by GetofMoiLand', another atheist.

So the only people who have used these labels on this thread are atheists. And not one reference such as the one Prof Dawkins claims has been uttered on this thread.

I think this is the way Prof Dawkins does his research. He thinks up something, totally unsubstantiated by actual fact, and then goes on to say how awful it is and is down to those stupid pesky christians.

Ah well.

Cauliffe, I know. He said my name and everything

By ingredients, I'm sure.

By the way I mean Prof Dawkins research on Religion. NOT his impeccable scientific research, obviously.

Yes that's a wrap guys - Richard and crew are still here, doing a bit of filming for a C4 documentary on this subject planned to go out around mid-August - we'll let you know when date is fixed. Thank you everyone for participating in a very lively debate. And thanks, of course, to Richard for coming on.

I don't think that is true, cauliffe. It's not the stating of belief that gets people's backs up, it's the evangelical attempt to persuade everyone of different beliefs that they are wrong. It's as true of people without faith as those with.

The whole atheism v faith debate is pretty barren. You will find a huge range of behaviours and tolerance levels amongst both people with faith and people with no faith. Better to look at specific behaviours and judge them according to the benefits/harms that result from them, without this wild extrapolation to conclusions like "atheists have no morality" or "all people of faith are irrational". It's nonsense.

Pofaced, sounds a bit like the bible if you ask me

ronshar: RD is not making the selection. The biscuits are selecting themselves, based on how biscuitly-effective they are. The most biscuitly-effective ones will subtly attract RD by way of extra chocolateyness, or extra crumbliness, or ability to survive dunking in tea.

'An (English) friend of mine was hit on the head by a paving slab being thrown by a protestant protester at a 'Catholic' schoolchild, while serving in NI in the army (I nearly wrote Protestant paving slab, which wouldn't have made much less sence), so there's a bit more to it than hatred of the English.'

How on earth does this prove that the motivation was religious? Are you not aware that generations of hatred due to occupation and murder can cause this kind of thing?

But that's the point, even atheists slip into that kind of thinking that's how common it is. Let's be honest there wasn't a whole lot of religious people around to be making that mistake too. People do refer to children as protestant, catholic or whatever, and you know it.

Cauliffe, that was my point exactly (pg 11). To me, believing in God is no less silly, bizarre or ridiculous as believing in fairies. And yet we have to respect this and if we so much as dare say that we don't share this belief, we are told me are being offensive and jumping down their throats! I've heard so many religious people (not just Christians) laughing about Scientology but they don't get that to Atheists, ALL religions are that silly and irrational.

The thing that truly winds me up is when people ask for your religious views and when you say you're an Atheist, they say you're offending them! That always makes me think that deep down they must realise that what they believe in is nonsense, otherwise why would they have such a shaky sense of certainty? If you truly believe something, other people not thinking the same shouldn't offend or upset you - if it does, it makes you either deeply immature and weak or means you know you're wrong, secretly.

Yes: ingredients and the way they perform in crucial dunking testing.

Some may dissolve into insubstantial sludge when faced with the objective truth of hot tea.