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.

I am agnostic Stuck. Uncertain about scientific qualities of divine.

I was saying his teachings could lead to a social revolution, v different to 'be nice to each other'. Obviously though the church has reduced and watered down the more revolutionary aspects of his teachings as they are more interested in oppression and repression.

sorry that was meant to be a joke about the scientific qualities of the divine.

plenty of interpretations Coalition. Just that the others are wrong.

No really, they are. And usually lacking in any historical or cultural or linguistic understanding.

Pofacedagain - But they will say the same about your interpretation. And as yours and theirs are equally irrational, as they are based on unverifiable axioms, there is no reason to prefer one to the other, apart from which set of conclusions you like best.

What about the Greeks and Romans, po? the many non-Christian cultures that thrive? There is a fair amount of anthropological study showing altruism amongst animal communities, too.

Ach, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with the way you're being held accountable for 2000 years of Christianity, but I think you overstate your case.

I generally agree with what that nice Jesus of Nazareth man said, until he got delusional about his parentage.

I don't think I feel that i am superior in any way to those who are religious. People can think what they like. It is when it impacts on my life in a direct way is when I feel I am perfectly within my rights to protest.

I do not believe in religions. To me it is nonsense. Why should I have my daughter educated in (imo) a nonsensical manner?

I am sure that people who follow established religions would ne equally pissed off if their child was educated in what they would consider a ludicrous belief (such as the cargo cults of the Pacific islanders, who believe in a god called John Frum, or who genuinely believe that Prince Phillip is a deity).

Have to go out will answer later.

Remember when asked Christ said I am the Son of Man.

absolutely nothing irrational about social justice, forgiveness and compassion. And that is what Christ actually talked about. Sorry about that.

lol at the northern irish thing not being about religion!! The WHOLE of Northern Irish society is based on what religion you have been brought up in. My family's religion dictated the school I went to, the area I lived in, the shops I went to, the type of job I could get, the house I lived in, the politics I believed in. Although I've been out of NI for 18 years I'm honest enough to admit that I'm still stuck with many of the prejudices I was taught there.

In the last general election Fermanagh and South Tyrone protestant parties put forward a joint candidate - specifically to ensure that a Catholic MP didn't win (didn't work though)

It rings a bell: it's a long time since I compared gospels.

Pofacedagain - The axiom is was referring to was the existence of God. Unless you accept that the bible is just a bunch of stuff some people wrote down which can be judged by the same standards as all the other stuff some people wrote down. It has no special status.

tiktok, re 'more modern interpretations', you mean like the Church of England?

Oh bugger my connection has gone haywire

Po - you say up thread that you have gone through the thread with a fine tooth comb and cannot see any reference to catholic child etc.

I don;t think what RD was on about were references on this thread - I think he was talking about those references in general. There is a large portion if a chapter in God Delusion devoted to teh subject.

Like I said earlier it is used a lot on the news, and by people in general, even me embarassingly, even though I abhor the term.

Anyway even though I am a complete saddo to admit as much, i am utterly thrilled to have 'spoken' to Professor Dawkins, whose books and stance I admire so much.

I do love mumsnet. Where else can you have a chat about Jilly Cooper's novels and actually speak to a renowned scientist in the same place.

SomeGuy - mainstream Anglicanism still supports the doctrine that true forgiveness can only be achieved through belief, and that the crucifixion was 'for' Humanity's sins:

Look at the Creed:

'....For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven
.....

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
....
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.'

The 'substitionary atonement' doctrine is still alive and kicking: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28substitutionary_view%29

A quick google also reveals some pretty mainstream Christian thinking that makes true forgiveness contingent on belief, and it's certainly in the Bible.

I have a very soft spot for the CofE. I am aware it is certainly possible to have non-mainstream beliefs and be a fully-paid up member. I was an agnostic (now an atheist) for years and was still an irregular communicant and never felt I was an outsider

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Wikipedia. Senior figures in the CofE have pronounced consistently on this subject, and not just in the last few years either. Giles Fraser writes an article each Easter for the Guardian saying as much, the Doctrine Commission in 1938 and quoted in 1995's 'The Mystery of Salvation, states 'the notion of propitiation as the placating by man of an angry God is definitely unchristian', that Christ is the 'embodiment of God's solidarity with human suffering', even though 'these insights have hardly penetrated the official liturgies of the churches' with its 'traditional patriarchal images of God as king, lord, judge, warrior, etc.'

They certainly do not make salvation contingent on belief, 'A much quoted verse is Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." But we must see this statement ... in the context of the healing miracle that has just happened... He is answering the question in interrogation, 'By what power or by what name did you do this'. It is a question of power in healing primarily, not of ultimate salvation in an inter-faith context'.

'Romans 1.18ff. would suggest that in principle not only knowledge of God but also appropriate response to God is possible outside the Jewish tradition. Romans 2.15 spoke of conscience as providing a guide for those who do not have the Law.'

'In Romans 8.18ff. it is the whole of creation that groans for release.'

See books.google.co.uk/books?id=XQZzcc90TIsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Contemporary+doctrine+classics:+the+ combined+reports&hl=en&ei=JgQiTND0NcKnsQaFzLjlBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes exactly tiktok. Ut is is the church doctrine. Christ himself was VERY outspoken about his God being for everyone - outsiders, the unclean, everyone. There are numerous references to it in the gospels.

I despair at the way the Church has hijacked Christ and taken him for their own agenda. I really do. It has become an instrument of the powerful, when Christ was setting it up as an instrument of the poor, the weak, those with humility and seeking justice. Thankfully there are many in the church still pursuing the orignal message of Christ - I guess they don't make the headlines like the affluent and totally corrupt fundamentalist church.

lal123 it is only about religion in as much as it is about Identity. They both believe in a Christian God and the same bible, so it is not so much to do with religion as with that religion being a way of setting them both apart.

Coalition do think philosophy is an inferior discipline to science then?

And sorry if I was a bit rude to Prof Dawkins at the end. I think it is great he has come on here. I just wonder if the tv programme will be even and fair, or just seek out those that justify his thoughts about CofE schools.

I don't think you were rude at all Po.

I think it has been a cracking debate. I am only slightly disappointed that (it seems) that the majority of people on here are RD supporters. I would have thought that going by the mix of opinion on a load of MN religion threads there would be far more christians/religious people on here.

It is an interesting debate to have, and a subject which really does engage me.

Thanks GetOrf! I agree, shame the debate wasn't that mixed up. But it has been v good.

Sorry just namechanged in honour of recent horrendous IKEA experience.

Pofacedagain - No i'd put them on an equal level. The distinction between them is relativly recent and not clear cut.

but surely you see philosophy as irrational?

Hello Scorpette,

"what science is - it is trying to understand things and proves facts: subjective views and experiences cannot play a part of that."

According to Dawkin's own definition, if you are not willing to accept the possibility that your perspective is wrong, then you are indeed fundamentalist.

Science is the constant human endeavour to understand the natural world. My definition is not as limited as yours.

I don't agree with your negating the value of subjective experience, and you are supporting my assertion that conventional science does just that, which is why it can't get close to exploring phenomena that are of a religious nature . . . science simply doesn't see them. Thanks for proving my point!

Interesting stuff, SomeGuy - it seems to me a truism that these 'insights' ( = less traditional interpretations) have indeed not penetrated liturgy and to a non-believer, it's a get-out clause Sort of 'oh, yes, the creed and the texts we use in church services and the prayers we echo say all that stuff about wickedness and dying for our sins and only true believers get the full forgiveness package....but you know, we've moved on from that. None of us actually believe that nonsense, 'cos it's all about love and inclusivity.'

And you can diss wikipaedia, but I tell ya, atonement is still a live doctrine. It may well be that the hairier bits of God's fulminating wrath have been shoved aside, but the idea that Humanity's wickedness ( let's be modern and call it 'turning away from God') and the crucifixon are linked is surely mainstream.

Po - you were not a bit rude!

I am sure St Richard (Ha!) has put up with some far spikier, nastier stuff

ALL ikea experiences are horrific.

The place is like the seventh circle of hell