The God Delusion

[Charles Flynn]

Saddam was a secular ruler reponsible perhaps for the deaths of 200 or 400 thousand people. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hitler killed hundreds of millions collectively not because of religion but because they were evil.

 

Of course people have died due to religion but much more have died as a result of rulers who did not believe in anything except their own ability to control others.

[Albert Tatlock]

Saddam was a secular ruler reponsible perhaps for the deaths of 200 or 400 thousand people. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hitler killed hundreds of millions collectively not because of religion but because they were evil.

 

Of course people have died due to religion but much more have died as a result of rulers who did not believe in anything except their own ability to control others.

That doesn't answer the question...."did Sadam Hussein die yesterday ultimately because of Religeon?"

 

 

_

[Charles Flynn]

I don't believe so. He was a dictator in a fragmented country who kept control by terror. Religions are for peace. None of the main Christian leaders asked for his death. He met his fate as he infringed the laws of Iraq.

 

He was so feared that this was the way he got his law degreee before coming to power:

 

Saddam returned to Iraq after the overthrow of Qasim in a military-Baathist coup in February 1963, and was immediately engaged in plots against the Baathists’ partners in the new regime. He also enrolled at Baghdad university’s law faculty and turned up for final examinations in military uniform and carrying a pistol. He was promptly granted a degree.

(Times 1.1.07)

[Miss Take]

I've just started reading The God Delusion. So far (I'm on chapter 2) I'm finding it to be an exhilirating read but then I am already in the choir that he is preaching to. I am finding though that with some of the phrases he uses are over emotional and could be considered too strident to those not already fully convinced by his logic. But I also understand that he is passionate about this subject, out of necessity as much as for any other reason. If atheists are never ot get passionate about their disbelief, then I do not see the current era where belief seems to preside over all else ever coming to an end.

 

 

What I would like to do, though, is get a perspective from the opposite side. Dawkins constantly mentions Alistair McGrath - has anyone read his books - are they worth the time and trouble? Or is there someone else out there - a Dawkins who writes on behalf of the theologians whose work I should take the time to read?

[Chinahand]

Link to a video of Dawkins reading the new preface to the paperback addition.

 

For Miss Take it does talk about some apologists - usually critically - but he does admit to the sophistication of some apologists - telling us they are by far the minority compared to the zealots and fundamentalists. Listen hard and google/amazon and you'll find their works!

[Chinahand]

Just to say their is a strong Manx connection in the video I linked above discussing the funeral of the son of a surgeon that took place on the Island - Dawkins uses it to build to the climax of the discussion and to talk about the triumph of our existence against the odds - who says you need religon to talk about spirit!

[Tugger]

I'm agnostic and do find the whole religion thing vaguely ridiculous, but Dawkins is too shrill for my taste

[Miss Take]

I'm agnostic and do find the whole religion thing vaguely ridiculous, but Dawkins is too shrill for my taste

 

I tend to think that agnosticism is a position that should be qualified with 'currently', i.e. I'm currently an agnostic as I haven't yet been persuaded by the argument for either side.

 

Either that or it's for people who don't tend to believe in god, but don't want to 'come out' as atheists in case they get struck down by lightning or something?

[whoracle]

i've found that most people i've met who claim to be agnostics dont actually know what it means and they should be calling themselves atheists. not saying that's the case here, just my experience with others.

[Mr Jarry]

Agnosticism is probably the only common sense approach because no-one has absolute evidence that theism or atheism are valid theories. People believe there is a god, or people believe that a deity and/or religion are man-made conventions for enforcing social order and morality – gone horribly wrong and in most cases wildly misinterpreted – or some sort of justification for why exactly we are all here. I happen to add more weight to theory that god is a man-made creation and therefore consider myself an atheist.

 

I find the whole radical atheism thing a bit depressing and guilty of the same crimes it appears to attribute to radical religions. Having said that, I haven’t actually read Dawkins’ book or the latest radical atheist book, ‘God is Not Great’ … I prefer Eddie Izzard’s lightweight approach to the whole subject, e.g. re-writing the ‘Bibley’ “And then there were dinosaurs, but they were crap so f**k ‘em!”

 

Probably end up in a scenario similar to that Rowan Atkinson sketch where he’s playing the Devil at Hell’s Gates welcoming the sinners, “Atheists! You must be feeling a right bunch of nitwits!”

[Tugger]

Mr Jarry explains my position exactly: I am unconvinced, and am pretty convinced that I could never be convinced one way or the other

[VinnieK]

My trouble with the "religion is the cause of all war" argument is that it seems to make such emotions as pride, envy, avarice, clannishness, distrust of strangers, revenge etc religious emotions.

 

My problem with it is that it's bollocks:

 

100 Years War, War of American Independence, War of Spanish Succession, 1812 War, The Napoleonic Wars, The Franco-Prussian War, The Boer War, The first and second World Wars, the Korean War, the Indochinese Wars (including that between Cambodia and Vietnam) are just a few of the wars that didn't have religion as a basis. Going back to ancient times it's hard to find a religious motive in any of the annals of Rome, given that the Romans were so keen to incorporate the worship of the Gods of their enemies into their own belief system.

 

Also Albert's statement that religion can be found as a cause in the notion that countries arose from:

 

"dismemberment and destruction of a variety of large empires and civilisations which previously spread their own doctrines and religeons across tribal regions (e.g. Germany was subdivided into many non-cooperating tribal areas until the Romans invaded), with the invaders often enslaving those of different religeons or race in the process. Don't forget that the Romans and Vikings etc. were backed by their gods"

 

is also faulty to the point where it actually contradicts history. The most obvious problem with this statement is:

 

Rome never conquered Germany. In fact, Rome's invasions of Germany rarely extended further than the southernmost area and tended to come into the form of punitive expeditions than wars of conquest. Secondly, as pointed out before, the Romans incorporated foreign "enemy" Gods into their own belief systems quite happily, so it's difficult to see how their wars were provoked by religious antagonism (with the possible exception of the campaigns against the Jews). Thirdly, what we know as Germany remained a fragmented collection of independent states and principalities right up until the 19th century when they finally undertook political union to become a nation - despite the divide between protestantism and catholicism within the area we know as Germany.

 

The idea that Religion is the cause or primary cause of most wars, even when you try to go to the first principles of the origin of nations and then claim, somewhat awkwardly, that religion is a cause by proxy is bubblegum history.

 

My beef with religion is its emphasis on reveled truth - I simply do not believe a word of it. Truth has to be struggled with interpreted, reanalysed as circumstances change - the idea that it can be fixed in a book written many hundreds of years ago is just so much simplicity.

 

I actually have the same problem with a lot of atheists. A significant portion of atheists turn Atheism into a revealed truth, cobbling together a rough scripture out of science (despite science being wholly indifferent to the concept of God) and use it to browbeat and elevate themselves above the religious masses by demonstrating their supposed higher insights into the metaphysical basis for life, in addition to characterising the religious as blind, barely civilized individuals who in belief are complicit (no matter how distantly) in the worlds major conflicts and shedding of blood.

 

fundamentalism is definitely on the rise - this is a world wide phenomenon: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity are all displaying this dangerous and divisive behaviour. All right thinking people should oppose it - its simplicities will generate conflict on a massive scale.

 

I would say that fundamentalism is a characteristic of human thought, not one that is limited to religion. Take away those people's religion and they'll find something else to justify conflict with, be is perceived cultural, racial, or ideological differences within the blink of an eye. The examples set by the Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, and the internicine struggles for power within individual nations that plagues the history of mankind should at least teach us that much. Cultural differences, such as religion, are less a reason for war than they are an excuse, and it should be mentioned that such excuses abound, which ultimately finds its causes with the attraction of power and dominance and the means to continue it.

 

My own personal view on religion and faith, including atheism, is that I don't know, I'll probably never know, and I don't much care what is or isn't out there.

[VinnieK]

A major objective of forming the EU was to integrate Europe so that war would be less likely between European nations. Simply put, the more countries we have, the more chance there is of war and of more individuals using a variety of factors to get populations to back them.

 

It's off topic (hence being dealt with in a separate post), but this is a muddled and simplified view of the philosophy behind the European Union. It's true that the European Union was formed with a view to preventing European nations warring with each other, but not through political union and homogenization. Famously, the theory goes that nations that rely on one another rarely go to war with one another - an entirely economic, rather than political, philosophy. As such the EU was founded primarily as an economic union that increased the inter-reliance between European nations for resources and capital.

 

The political union and homogenization of Europe was a slightly later idea and one that was dreampt up by certain old imperial powers as a way for Europe to maintain its former status as a world power in the face of rising superpowers such as the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. - this justification for greater European political integration is still in fact used by those who support it, although now they use terms like "counterbalance".

 

No religion + no countries = no war? All we need is no money and we've got a very boring song in there somewhere

[Albert Tatlock]

Agnosticism is probably the only common sense approach because no-one has absolute evidence that theism or atheism are valid theories.

I agree - Agnostic is the way to be. I think Richard Dawkins bases his atheism on probability, and an infintesimal chance of there being a god.

 

The more people that get into science and explore the wonders and possibilities of the universe, the more agnostics there will be - because people will begin to realise what little we do know and how much more there is to learn. In the meantime, most people don't even realise what they are looking at when they look up at the stars etc. (if they even bother to do so at all) and that practically every atom in their body (perhaps with the exception of hydrogen and helium) was formed inside a star several billion years ago - or that 'hell' awaits us all one day, probably in the form of a passing black hole. There is an equally fascinating world hidden inside the atoms that make us up. As humans we have a unique universe to explore, that extends from 10^15 to 10^-15, and we have only just began to explore it - yet through religious ignorance we pretend we have covered all the bases - because it is far easier. Ignorance is bliss.

[Chinahand]

My basic assumption is that I maintain a sceptical point of view - in issues of religion and the physics of creation there is no evidence and only speculation: in religion this speculation is called theology, in science I suppose I'd flippantly call it string theory and the cosmological debates critiquing it and alternative theories.

 

My scepticism makes me generally an agnostic. But there is then the issue of what working hypothoses I am willing to accept. I would say my working hypothesis is atheistic and not theistic. And I would use the Dawkins rationalization that a Universe on its own is probably easier to explain than a Universe and a God as a pair of things to explain.

 

I admit just because I can apply Occam's Razor to give me an atheistic world view it COULD be wrong. Occam's Razor is just a (very successful way) of telling scientists what to concentrate on, but sometimes it can cut you!

 

If I am incorrect in being atheistic I then have to consider what type of supernatural being exists - and given my upbringing my natural comparitor is the Christian God.

 

Here I have to basically reject an awful lot of Christianity. I'd be interested in having some input from people of faith in how much of the orthodox Christian dogma you can reject and still be considered a Christian.

 

Obviously the infallibility of the bible is unacceptable to me, 6 day creation etc etc. Talking Donkeys and snakes - not a chance. Staffs turning into snakes, no, the Red Sea parting - not in the literal way portrayed. I could go ticking off my way through the Old Testament - ie a person living inside a Fish - the bible definitely doesn't say Jonah was inside a whale, but anyway - but that would just be a slog, and I think I've already made my point.

 

But we then get into the New Testament and Christians get a bit more jumpy - some go ok we accept talking donkeys are a bit odd, but water into wine, and feeding the 10K - it happened. Erm No - I see no reason to accept these claims - anymore than claims Mohammed flew from Mecca to Jerusalem.

 

[Question to Christians: did Mohammed fly to 1000 Km in one night? Why do you reject this event while accepting similar claims in the bible - if its just because one is in the bible and one isn't, that really isn't a very good answer!]

 

Then their are really big issues like virgin births and physical resurrections - of course these concepts have been dismissed by major, but controversial, Church Theologians - I have had the great pleasure in meeting and listening to the former Bishop of Durham who dismissed these late interpolations.

 

If a person died on day one, then the physical processes that would have occurred by day three make it physically impossible for the brain, lungs, voice box etc to function - there is no quibbling here - either Jesus didn't die, and so didn't start rotting etc, or he did and a miracle occured to suck out mucus from his lungs to enable him to speak etc etc etc.

 

I see no reason whatsoever to accept this miracle - is Christianity possible without the physical resurrection of Christ? Some Christians would say so, but I admit they aren't mainstream!

 

Anyway - as you can see I'm rejecting an awful lot of Christianity and this type of scepticism produces a similar rejection of most mainstream religions. I have little truck with reincarnation for example - which puts me at great odds with Hinduism and Bhuddism. Immortal souls judged for their behaviour and either admitted to a heaven or a hell or given a new life in a "higher" or "lower" form just doesn't fit with my world view - who is doing the judging, how, what physically is occuring to connect the immortal and immaterial soul to the physical body.

 

For people of belief to say we cannot understand these issues and they are hidden from us seems odd - why are these issues hidden from us, while the supposed divinity of various supposedly historical figures was not - God saw no reason to hide the big stuff from us, so why is he so uppity with the small print!

 

Anyway I've rambled long enough, but I've read with great interest the various dedications to agnosticism provided above - thank you people.

 

But I find them unsatisfying - I too admit a basic agnosticism, but I think if you are engaged in these types of debates you have to go further - and hence this post.

 

How agnostic are you?

 

Do you really think you cannot pronounce an opinion on 6 days of creation, and a talking Donkey? Where do you start to go - ok I am genuinely agnostic about this?

 

For me it is the most esoteric non intervening deity - it might exist. But him upstairs with a beard and a son seated on a right hand throne, throwing lightening bolts with a set of Pearly Gates and a one way elevator to Hell fire ruled over by his servant Nick* - sorry but I'm not agnostic, its a story and little more. Opps

 

[*Another question to Christians - I love the book of Job - wow what power when him upstairs gets pissed off with Job's whinning - but the role of Satan in this particular book of the bible is in sharpe contrast to his New testament role - any thoughts?]