Kate Muir
Pick up your copy of Joy Division: Closer at WHSmith today
Listen to a podcast with Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge. The nearest we get to this now is celebrating the thrill of Germaine Greer walking out of Celebrity Big Brother.
The marginalisation of academia is partly self-created by its pomp and obfuscatory language. Dawkins broke out of the ghetto long ago thanks not just to an extraordinary mind, but to a gift for elegant communication and controversy: the English-language version of his recent paean to atheism, The God Delusion, has sold 1.5million copies (it has been translated into 31 other languages). He is big in airport bookshops. In 1976, when his first book, The Selfish Gene, was published, The New York Times explained the mind-expanding pleasure of his science-lit as “the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius”.
In these barren, thoughtless times, Dawkins gives people something substantial to chew on. His audience is surprisingly grateful, and also relieved to see someone slapping creationists about and tossing them into the primordial soup, as well as explaining atheism positively. Before I went to interview him about his new three-part television series, Dawkins on Darwin, various over-excited friends offered to accompany me and texted questions for me to ask him; signed copies were requested of The God Delusion, which one Iranian exile said he had recently found himself reading as his plane landed – everyone else was clutching the Koran.
The Darwin-Dawkins combo was of some fascination too; one acquaintance lent me her much-loved copy of On the Origin of Species. “The language is beautiful. I read it for a Victorian literature course, not science,” she said. And that, perhaps, is one of the reasons for the strong connection between Dawkins and Darwin. “Every line of Darwin, you know he really wanted to be understood,” says Dawkins. “There was no pretentious showing off about him.”
When Dawkins set out long ago to bring science to the masses, he says he was not consciously imitating Darwin, but had the same aims as him: “To be understood, to inspire.” His post at Oxford – the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science – is appropriate. The ethologist-philosopher has been appearing on television since Horizon in the Seventies; his last series for Channel 4 was The Enemies of Reason, an attack on the bandwagons of astrology, the tarot, psychics and homoeopathy.
He has also embraced new media: his website gets huge traffic and is linked to Facebook and MySpace: “67 – Male – Oxford – London”. There are 40 Dawkins-related videos on YouTube, some of which have been viewed more than one million times. It’s not the usual medium of communication for a man of his generation.
For final proof that Dawkins, rather than God, is everywhere, you need only to have seen the most recent series of Doctor Who, in which Dawkins played a cameo as himself. Russell T. Davies, the executive producer of the series, is a fan. “He has brought atheism proudly out of the closet,” Davies says.
Dawkins has a real-life connection with Doctor Who: he is married to Lalla Ward, who was previously the wife of Tom Baker, having played the role of his assistant, Romana, in the series in the Seventies. Dawkins met her at a birthday party in 1992 for the late Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Lalla floats in and out of Dawkins’s vast living room and kitchen in Oxford, smiling and bearing espressos in terracotta mugs.
The Dawkins on Darwin programme – note who gets the first namecheck – was commissioned to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the presentation to the Linnean Society in London of Darwin’s paper on his theory of evolution, and the bicentennial of his birth next year. Dawkins says that natural selection is “the most important idea to occur to the human mind”, the slow change of species over millions of ideas disproving the religious theory of intelligent design by God.
That we are still trying to sell evolution to a large part of the public bothers him. “It is weird in many ways that natural selection is still debated,” he says. “But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.” Indeed, Dawkins refuses to share a stage with creationists. “I don’t like giving them the oxygen of respectability, the feeling that if they’re up on a platform debating with a scientist, there must be real disagreement. One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
In the programme, he worries that evolution takes up little more than two hours of a child’s science education in school, against potentially a lifetime of religious indoctrination at home. He tries to persuade a class of secondary school children about evolution. He frowns, exasperated. “It is such a tragedy that children are being deprived of this extraordinary exciting knowledge, which is theirs for the taking. What a privilege that they live in the 21st century, when that knowledge is available, but how tragic that they’re being educated as though it were two centuries earlier.”
This man is so full of himself...he thinks he is God. There are many scientist that have studied all that he has and more and still come to the conclusion of intelligent design. He really needs to get out more. Has he ever heard of people like Albert Schweitzer. He pobably thinks he is greater. LOL!
Rob, New York, USA
Allan Porchetta - if you are to base your knowledge on youtube no wonder you are so confused as to what evolution is. Even youtube has repudiations of the Dawkins Stumped video. The 'gibberish' he 'spouted' at the end of that video actually responds to your question.
Chris Wood, Hittisleigh, England
why is everyone calling atheists ignorant? to presume that everything was created in 6 days and not even consider evolution is surely more ignorant than simply disbleif in something that can never, ever, be proven?!
luke, bangor, wales
Dawkins is just a Christian basher - he never properly explains
evolution - such as the impossibility of how one kind of animal
gives birth to another kind - this has never happened - not one transitional species has been found -look at the gibberish he spouted in "Dawkins Stumped" on you tube .
Allan Porchetta, Glasgow, Scotland
Dawkins should read Darwin before opening his Mouth - Darwin belived in God - Darwin asked a chaplain to administer the Lord's Supper to them before they ventured into the wilds of Tierra del Fuege.
Dawkins is not a champion of Scientific thinking the only cause he promotes is his BANK BALANCE
Seamus O Neill, DERRY, N. Ireland
'Science demonstrates only that which exists, it has as yet failed to create or explain the origin of the natural laws'
Science aims to demonstrate everything - but we cannot absolve ourselves from the pursuit of that which Science hasn't yet revealed by crediting it all to god - to do is cowardly
Jo, London,
'Look around and see the precision of natural order and only a fool would dispute the existence of god. Einstein is correct!'
More theological nonsense - in many ways the natural order is cruel, imperfect and chaotic. And for the record, Einstein described belief in god as a childish fallacy.
Jo, London,
Darwin had atheory, Dawkins has atheory, I had a theory when I got married that once my wife'swardrobe was full she would stop buying clothes, so much for theories Ill stick to eye witness accounts tthanks adam and eve.
Bill Keightley, Melton Mowbray leics, England
Eileen quoting:"" will destroy the wisdoms of the wise and being to nothing the understandings ofthe prudent.'" ... Some loving Father."
It is in context of trusting to flawed human wisdom instead of trusting to God's perfect wisdom. Ie. a bit like sophistocated (bad) and the child (good).
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Eileen:"Catholic Church, that coined the phrase,' invincibly ignorant' for us non-believers. You can't get much more arrogant than that. "
Actually that phrase is for those who are ignorant through no fault of their own: ie, certain agnostics, but not atheists who are ignorant by presumption.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Athiest? Why?
Does anyone call themselves by a special name because they don't believe in Apollo, the Sun God?
EO
Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain
According to a number of people who posted, we who don't accept this god are arrogant.
It was the Catholic Church, that coined the phrase,' invincibly ignorant' for us non-believers. You can't get much more arrogant than that.
EO
Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain
J Brun
'I will destroy the wisdoms of the wise and being to nothing the understandings ofthe prudent.'
Some loving Father.
EO
Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain
Pete Tonks
'Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all athiests.'
And the founders of the Inquistion were all believers. And don't tell me that that all happened long ago. The last execution for heresy occurred in the 1800's. Father Coughin, the famous Caholic anti-semite, praised Hitler
EO
.
Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain
As USUAL God gets no credit but all the blame
Ever hear of the Trinity?
One part of that is the Holy Spirit
Any human that has been touched the Holy Spirit KNOWS that God is Very Real indeed
Everyone on this board who slams God has never even given Him a chance, thats what sad.
Jay Kash, Fremont, Ca, USA
it is wrong of dawkins to suggest that the public still have problems with natural selection. we dont. we have a problem with how, beyond advances in health, can natural selection shine a light on what it means to be human and how we might live the best lives possible.
simon, Woodford Green,
David:"Oh for goodness'sake, stop being such a pharisee."
eh?
David:"I'm happy with the idea of direct 'knowledge', it's just the source we disagree about."
Well, for goodnesssake you're the one querying it?
So what's wrong with the Christian God, anyway? Suffering Children? Bible death?
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Yes, 'creationism' is ludicrous, but Dawkins, like Darwin, comes from a wealthy background, hence his belief in 'Darwinism', places himself as one of the survivors of the fittest, justified by 'science' as the ruling class.
As Kurt Vonnegut said, 'natural selection' is random.
Paul, Coventry,
I'm an inverted Darwinst ! Now ! That's a theory that makes since !
Richard Hellstrom, Lexington , Kentucky , USA
Science demonstrates only that which exists, it has as yet failed to create or explain the origin of the natural laws and the scientific fact we so take for granted. Look around and see the precision of natural order and only a fool would dispute the existence of god. Einstein is correct!
Zak Rahman, London, UK
It is rather primitve shorthand to define the beginning of all things as "God". I suppose we have to call HIM, HER or IT something for sake of discussion. But before we get into any details, I would like to know from the experts which God you are talking about and why you select one and not another.
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
David:"Oh for goodness'sake, stop being such a pharisee."
eh?
David:"I'm happy with the idea of direct 'knowledge', it's just the source we disagree about."
Well, for goodnesssake you're the one querying it?
So what's wrong with the Christian God, anyway? Suffering Children? Bible death?
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg: ""Do not cast your pearls before swine". Time to clam up"
Oh for goodness'sake, stop being such a pharisee. I'm happy with the idea of direct 'knowledge', it's just the source we disagree about. Everyone has it but most of us call it things like intuition and conscience.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Genetic selection by natural or artificial means results in a rearrangement or reduction in pre-existing genetic information.
Evolution from primordial soup requires the spontaneous appearance of genetic information producing new and useful structures.
Evolutionists have yet to explain how.
Martin, Skye,
Fascinating.
Greg Lorriman is at it again, trying to turn his credo into a mystery religion.
I am bemused by the lack of clarity in the thought and expression of the religious respondents, please leave the Bronze Age.
I am glad that a number of clearer thinking people have also contributed.
Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK
Richard Dawkins, the "scourge of creationists," is he? I think not. His arguments are rejected by creationists because they are based upon his anti-religious position. He does creationism a huge favour, as everytime he speaks he provides more anti-evolutionary ammunition.
Pete Hodge, Skelmersdale,
"The odds against this *purely symbolic* "Eye of God" occurring by random chance "coincidence" are astronomically high. Do the math. Intelligent Design *is* a plausible explanation here."
If the odds are astronomically high, how come there are so many eclipses? - Do the math!
Glenn, Brecon, Wales
Richard Dawkins is one of our finest scientists and it is a marvelous thing that he has lent his weight to the cause of combating religion and superstition. Long may he continue
David Bennington, Ruislip, UK
J Roberts" You see he needs EVIDENCE"
The religious man claims God has revealed himself, leads a life of self-denying integrity (yes, some do), and therefore encourages the other to seek God and FIND OUT FOR HIMSELF. God gives real proof to those for whom mere evidence is not enough.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"...not a whole book by someone who probably hasn't a clue. Unless you stop presuming you'll never know" - Lorriman
So Greg, (let me get this straight)....you want David to stop presuming things - but it's ok for you to make presumptions about the author of a book you have never read? Hypocrisy!
Richard, Jersey, CI,
Presumably for 1CE Christians, the notion of the trinity and sacraments like holy communion were dangerous in a strictly montheistic society. However, hiding behind a 'pearls before swine' injunction now to create a woo factor when the details are published by the church anyway is mere flamboyance.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The Times, 10 May 2007:
Einstein acknowledged that behind everything there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly.
Dawkins admits: If thats what you call religion then Im religious.
Sounds like any enlightened believer to me.
Gareth Morgan, London,
"But it only takes a few words and is very simple" Baptism. Merging with the holy spirit. Mechanism available following the pentecost. Holy spirit often symbolised by a dove in Catholic churches. It's common knowledge. I've already talked of a god module installed. So why are you so coy about it?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
From an evolutionary point of view it doesn't matter who's right, creationist or evolutionist, only important is who gets the upperhand/the edge. Truth seems to me not to be an evolutionary concept, only again as an edge tot get the upperhand. Believing or not, evolution doesn't care that you care.
Harrie Meeuwis, Hoogstraten, Belgium
What a fantastic debate this story has stimulated. I, for one, agree with many of Dawkins' views and would like to thank him for his contributions, those at The Times for airing his viewpoint, and everyone who has contributed to it on this page.
Brilliant!!!
Andy Cooper, Teesside, UK
G blezard - yes, because religion has never caused any wars or prejudice...! The most intolerant people I've met have all been religious. I don't believe, but it's not up to me to tell others what to think. This is often what religions do, and I'm sad to say Richard Dawkins is running the same risk.
K, dundee,
Greg - God proving....own existence directly( without need.. senses), ..solves your problem: there is no presumpton..faith
All your posts make presumptions about evidence, faith, science, intelligence and proof. So, tell us how God revealed himself to you, instead of posting circular arguments!
Sam, Aylesbury, UK
@ G blezard, London, uk
All men are NOT created equal. Some are naturally fitter, faster or stronger than others, some are more intelligent, a lucky few are all those things. If you are trying to use that as an argument for god's existence you failed.
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
David"Merging with the holy spirit...god module installed. "
I appreciate the effort, but no. I can't say more without inappropriately giving positive clues to something you don't deserve to know, and I am not permitted to tell you:Matt7:6"Do not cast your pearls before swine". Time to clam up.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Es: you denied Gray linked Nazism to atheism and then you say, well, he's not a scientist! Why would I need a scientist if I want to examine the roots of Nazi ideology? I would need a philosopher and historian.
Most atheists were not Nazis, but most Nazis were atheists. See the difference?
Mary Cunningham, London, UK
Hmmm religion is completly against evolution, we find undeniable proof evolution is fact and religion does a u-turn.
I am a full supporter of people believing what ever they like, however when people start saying followers of science should be prepared to be judged that is when i lose all patience.
Jonathan, Stockton,
Kevin Straw
What Dawkins does is suggest ways in which religions can be challenged. If a believer is incapable or unwilling to at least acknowledge the validity of these questions then he does not have confidence in his faith.
Shirley, London,
Greg: "not a whole book by someone who probably hasn't a clue." Actually, I'd say the author explained the essence of the theory very well in the story. Moreover, it was put over in such a way that I almost wish it was true. It's a pity you seem to have skipped Mt 5:14-16, unlike the author.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The history of science proves one thing... theories come and go as our knowledge increases. What makes people like Dawkins believe that the theory of evolution is any different to the many other theories that have now been discarded?
Andrew Brown, derby, uk
Mary
Hostility to traditional religions and enthusiasm for Science is not atheism
Vulgarised Darwinism - you mean incorrect interpretation of it? Exactly! Stalin and Hitler didn't understand Darwin' theories.
"Secular" is not the same as "Atheist"
John Gray is a philosopher, not a scientist
Esther, London,
Richard"The voices in your head can be cured Greg"
Thanks for that. A God proving his own existence directly (without need of senses), giving objective knowledge of Himself solves your problem: there is no presumpton where there is genuine faith. Sense experience gives evidence not proof.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Dawkins is wrong to espouse atheism. Religious belief is no more than another theory with a claim to verification, just as scientific theory is. Science is the winner because it can come up with its verifications in the here and now.
Kevin Straw, Leicester,
"But it only takes a few words and is very simple" Baptism. Merging with the holy spirit. Mechanism available following the pentecost. Holy spirit often symbolised by a dove in Catholic churches. It's common knowledge. I've already talked of a god module installed. So why are you so coy about it?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Greg, presumption is as much (or more so) the domain of the faithful as the faithless.
You accuse athiests of presuming too much - as if believers in a thing which can't be physically touched/seen/smelled/heard/tasted are not so presuming its existence.
The voices in your head can be cured Greg
Richard, Jersey, CI,
If a scientist claims to have discovered a new atom that explains all the mysteries of the universe, but when asked for proof of this wonderous thing he exclaims that, "It has only revealed itself to me!", how far do you think he would get in the scientific community? You see he needs EVIDENCE.
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
Re: Nazism, Darwinism, Scientism
Twenty minutes into Gray's podcast he describes atheist political ideologies of the 20th c:Communism and Nazism.
Nazi's char:1)tremendous hostililty to traditional religions, esp. Judaism but also Xianity2) vulgarized Darwinism, 3)enthusiasm for science.
Mary Cunningham, London,
Greg: "What is it then?[mechanism of faith]"
David:"Check out a beautiful little book..."
You said you knew: "Oh I know the theory". But it only takes a few words and is very simple, not a whole book by someone who probably hasn't a clue.
Unless you stop presuming you'll never know.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
g blezard - you miss the point of evolution - survival of the fittest means finding your niche, the thing that differentiates you from the rest, that gives you an advantage in gaining food, maintaining territory and then reproduction...we are not all the same, we all have different advantages...
simon, richmond, uk
It is a self evident truth that under God all men are created equal.If you want to get rid of racism then dont teach evolution.Its the truth that sets men free ,not a big bang.Of course if you want an explosion of racial violence carry on.
G blezard, London, uk
Greg: "What is it then?"
Check out a beautiful little book: "Mister God, This Is Anna" by Fynn. It contains a good description as I recall and in much more of a 'godly' tone than you seem able to manage.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Will there be pop-corn at 'the end'? I hope so.
Mickey, Shanghai,
Mary C: "It is not 'mental contortions' to see the difference."
When you're outside the belief system, as I am, they appear contrived. Greg's argument about atheism is clearly contrived to push back at atheists but the Catholic argument has the look of justification rather than explanation.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Morag"weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology,"
Slippery language. 1stly you appear to acknowledge that there is evidence, 2ndly the effort to invent multi-universe theories is due to the scientific evidence demonstrating there must be either a God or inifinite universes. So 50/50, infact.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Dawkins and I see evolution as counter to theism and say so rather than coat the former as consistnet with the latter as the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology, which contradicts natural selection, its own boss,not needing the contradictin of divine teleology.
Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth, Blythe, USA
Mary Cunningham - Mr Lorriman's arguments are circular, illogical and convoluted - they will convince nobody.
Btw - Social Darwinism and Charles Darwin's theories are two completely different things. Please reference the quotes you mention from the podcast - it's obviously not the one I heard!
Shirley, London,
Conners:"merely expose..[tortuous]..hoops [one]..jumps through to [convince] themselves of..faith"
How is "a God proves his own existence with objective knowledge" tortuous? It's simple. I've left out the mechanism of God's objective knowledge (even simpler) due to Matt7:6.
I know why I know.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Pawel, Dynow:"this motivation is based on fear and..is far from being admirable"
True enough. But when love of God does not move a man to do good then fear is a last resort.
In anycase it is legitimate to threaten with the truth (assuming it is true, of course, but that's another issue).
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Lorriman has faith in God and Conners does not. Some choose to accept the Revelation and others do not. It is not 'mental contortions' to see the difference.
Mary Cunningham, London, UK
G Lorriman: With respect, and having read all your posts, I find your arguments convoluted and unconvincing. You are obviously sincere and fair, but you merely expose the kind of tortured intellectual hoops an intelligent person has to jump through to continue convincing themselves of their faith.
Conners, London, UK
@David Burke: concise and to the point. You'll never get anywhere with such shades of grey though mate ;o)
Ian, Québec, Canada
David:"we don't believe in a god or gods."
...which is not the definiton of an atheist; it is a form of agnostic. Go and join your chums at dawkin's website, where they will confirm that you have made a mistake on the definition of 'atheist'. And stop reading wikipedia.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Dawkins can believe what he wants now, but the time will come when wishes he didn't believe in what he believes now..the end is near...
ika, Darwin, Australia
David:"Oh I know the theory[mechanism of faith]"
What is it then?
"However, the many..schisms..tell a..different story"
I claimed God proves His own existence, not that He gives all knowledge to each. Extra knowledge He gives as He wills, respecting history, and we are free to twist it.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
David:"Even allowing for free will, why not transmit the details directly anyway?"
It seems God prefers to work with nature rather than despite it. Hierarchy of authority, tradition (strictly: to pass on [knowledge], ie. parenting). The Holy Spirit confirms the truth as it is given, if we pray.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Dawkins and Co. seem to find it neccessary to tell religious believers what it is they believe, so that their pre-prepared diatribes work. I just don't see why acceptance of evolution has anything to do with the existence of God. If you believe the two are mutually exclusive you understand neither
David Burke, Manchester, UK
Well, Esther,Lndn, John Grey, probably today's most learned philosopher/historian, in a lecture podcast here, defined Nazism as "one half Social Darwinism, one half Nietzsche". This seems right to me. He also maintained the Nazis were atheists.
Dawkins is being disengenuous attacking religion.
Mary Cunningham, London,
Doesn't it seem odd that one must rely on the traditions of the church for the detail even when one has had the holy spirit module fitted? Even allowing for free will, why not transmit the details direclty anyway? Why would anyone ever dare choose differently if one knows for sure god exists?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Doesn't it seem odd that one must rely on the traditions of the church for the detail even when one has had the holy spirit module fitted? Even allowing for free will, why not transmit the details directly anyway? Why would anyone ever dare choose differently if one knows for sure god exists?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
David:"[God] willing to 'prove his own existence'..but not .. knowledge of [everything else] such that..all follow the same.."
Even if He did free-will means that likely 30% at least would refuse to accept all or part of the truths: effectively the same situation.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"Reductionists reject the most compelling of evidence that sth more than physicality exists" Consciousness appears to be sited in the brain. Non-human animals also have consciousness. We don't (yet) know how it arises but why choose a godly instead of physical explanation? God in the gaps?
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Simon in Birmingham - it's futile to speculate what Charles Darwin was thinking on his death-bed.
Reducing Darwin's theories to the "survival of the fittest" and linking them to Nazism/Stalinism shows little or no understanding of the theories and of the dynamics of history.
Esther, London,
Ok, can we once and for all can the "evolution = nazis" argument please. Nietzsche was anti-Darwinism, and Mein Kampf contains more references to Christianity than evolution (which it NEVER references). Christianity definitely needs to get its own house in order first.
Martin, St Andrews, Scotland
Rachel, London
So what would you lose if there was God and you wouldnt believe in him? Would you be punished, for example, by not being allowed to go to heaven? If it is your motivation, this motivation is based on fear and therefore it is far from being admirable.
Pawel, Dynow, Poland
Rachel, London
Second, even if such arrogant God existed (i.e. a god who rewards fearful and punishes unbelievers) existed, I would not respect him at all.
Pawel, Dynow, Poland
Margot"..[an]other..religion [has]..got it right? Where [does that] leave one then?"
Only protestants and fanatics are true exclusivists. Faiths recognise that God is moving among the others, and agree on basics. God expects us to be faithful to as much we are given to know: Christ said it.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
some people believe in god, some don't. live and let live. neither side should foist their agendas on the other. those who wish to 'save' others should look to themselves first.
jenny, edinburgh,
M Thomas, Wallasey
I rather think Darwin wanted to atone because he realised what impact his theory had on humanity - I believe he foresaw social darwinism, the nazi/stalinist purges justified by survival of the fittest - and all at once became a very scared old man.
Simon , Birmingham,
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
True freedom requires the existance of choice. A choice cannot truly exist if one is forced to believe. Maybe that, partly, is why there is a debate. Reductionists reject the most compelling of evidence that sth more than physicality exists - their own consciouness.
Simon, Birmingham,
Darwin probably wanted a bible to atone as he knew the impact his findings had on religion. And beauty in our surroundings only shows we find aesthetic splendour in the things that keep us alive. It does not show a supreme being, it shows that we exist due to nature and find beauty in it.
M Thomas, Wallasey,
Margot - If I'm wrong about God, then I won't know anything about it anyway, according to atheists, as there is nothing after death. Leading my life religiously makes me happy - my life has purpose and hope. Even if I'm wrong, I won't have lost anything. But if I'm not......
Rachel, London,
Perhaps one or more of the Christians here can explain why the Lord Of All Creation is willing to 'prove his own existence' inside your head as Greg claims but not impart unambiguous knowledge of natural law or morals or religious details such that you all follow the same thing without any debate.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
I wonder if Christians etc ever contemplate the fact that, not only may atheists end up being correct, but whether any of the other incompatible major religions have perhaps got it right? Where has a religiously-led life leave one then?
Margot, Fife,
Greg: "I can categorically state that the sharing in that divinely-given, objective knowledge is in its nature."
Oh I know the theory. However, the many-fold schisms, intrafaith wars, interfaith wars, differences in interpretation, and even fallouts in a single church tell a very different story.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
what did darwin do on his deathbed ? He asked for a bible - why ? Why does physical evolution matter ? It ends in death - its funny that the scientists can't see why people can be religious and non materialists - why would the "selfish" gene be worth pursuing....why does dawkins hate big brother ?
pete, au,
If there is a god of comedy, PG Wodehouse is it.
Theodore Shulman, NYC, USA
David"It's ironic that something in a public, shared reality is questionable to you...your god-link: no-one can share any sense of it"
You have no idea how it works, yet you presume, again. I can categorically state that the sharing in that divinely-given, objective knowledge is in its nature.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
David:"Catholic encyclopedia and its explanation of faith..nonsense on stilts"
You can only say that by presuming God's non-existence, which is unprovable, which you admit: you are bananas. That a God were to prove his own existence obviously makes faith reasonable. Nonsense on stilts: the irony!
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Andy:"Religion, however, relies upon 'blind' belief". Take a look at the Catholic encyclopedia and its explanation of faith, revelation, and 'divine' truth. It's essentially nonsense on stilts: self-validating intuition, coralled in content by the authority of the church, and turned into a habit.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Andy:"Religion, however, relies upon 'blind' belief". Take a look at the Catholic encyclopedia and its explanation of faith, revelation, and 'divine' truth. It's essentially nonsense on stilts: self-validating intuition, coralled in content by the authority of the church, and turned into a habit.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
David"public,shared reality is questionable to you"
Problem of madness/psychosis makes 'sharedness' irrelevant. Obviously.
"your god-link..[has]..the same problem"
'god-link' is your subjectivising idea: an almighty God could give objective knowledge. Real truth-seekers learn how, but Mt7:6
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
To those that argue that it is Richard Dawkins that converts people into atheism:
If you are a biologist and you understand biology well, you dont need Dawkins to become an atheist. The logic of evolutionary biology is clearly contradictory with all forms of religion. In biology the conflict between God and science is inevitable: and the logic/evidence is on the science side. No wonder that most biologists are atheists. Dawkins has the gift to popularise the views about religion that occur to many biologists.
Pawel, Dynow, Poland
If heaven is such a great place then how come the religious aren't all rushing to get in????
Andy Cooper, Teesside, UK
Science is not only evidence-based, but additionally that the evidence must be reproducible. Religion, however, relies upon 'blind' belief encouraged by writings passed down over many generations with little or no reproducible evidence. I leave it to the reader to decide which is the more reliable.
Andy Cooper, Teesside, UK
The ultimate irony is that the evolutionary "winner" of the debate is the group that has the most successful and numerous children. Evolutionists should get busy breeding and indoctrinating their children. Thats exactly what the creationists are doing, and that is the ultimate irony.
Dan, London,
Question for creationists; " was Adam cicumsised?"
If so who did it?
I am assuming Adam was a Jew as are all in the old testament except those who were slain by the Jews on orders from yaweh.
m wilson, bidache, france
"It sure isn't. How do you know you aren't mad and hallucinating" It's ironic that something in a public, shared reality is questionable to you on this basis yet you're sure of your god-link which suffers from the same 'problem', no-one can share any sense of it, *and* it is very prone to delusion.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Tom"Children's sincerity is absolute"
Really not true. Even at 2 they lie.
"most atheists believed with all their hearts for years & years"
And temptation to doubt doesn't exist? Most of my believing school friends rarely prayed and sinned: many lose the faith as a result.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Between man and God there is "a great gulf fixed."
[Luke 19-31]. This gulf cannot be crossed by reason, empircism, or logic--only by faith. By faith the Christian believes the Bible and all that is in it. Arguing with atheists is pointless. The Christian is only instructed to witness.
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA
Mr Darwin introduced the theory of evolution but also scientifically "proved" the intrinsic inferiority of Africans and other "dark" peoples as well as the superiority of the NW Europeans over other whites. Evolutionists cannot pick and choose what they like--have some intellectual integrity man!
Reto, Cape Town, South Africa
To Greg Lorriman: Children's sincerity is absolute,most atheists believed with all their hearts for years & years.The voice of "god" in your head is yours only, I can understand it would be embarrassing for you to do admit it. Your "magic" sentence obviously doesn't work.
Tom, London,
"The word Brights gets a lot of ridicule. A lot of Americans think its arrogant, that its saying non-religious people are cleverer than religious people. On average they probably are"
What increbible arrogance from Dawkins! Has he scientifically proven this or is it just a 'belief'?
K, Bristol,
Pete, London: "Where does Dawkins world view address the 20+ teenagers killed by knives in London?" I think you will find that socioeconomic change is the solution required. To propose that religion begets moral behaviour is to ignore the entire history of the Church and Islam, for a start.
James, Melbourne, Australia
How does this militant brand of atheism differ from religion? A group of people getting together+ discussing how their beliefs are right+ no-one elses should be taken into account. Does Dawkins want to take away 1 of our most basic rights- freedom of religion. No-one expected the Spanish inquistion
Mc, UK,
The infinite universe is a program.
The programmer is the Creator.
Humans are the Artificial Intelligence.
If we create life in a laboratory, or "seed" another planet with life - will we not then be "creators".
Evolution is a by-product of creation. There IS room for both arguments!
Darren Ward, Manchester, U.K.
Esther:"Most atheists..become so after..much thought, research and meditation"
The sign of the irreligious and non-seeker of truth (even if they do believe in a God) is that they do not go to the source(s). You should have sincerely/perseveringly asked "God, if you exist, please show me".
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Tom, London:"You have no understanding of the word "evidence". An amputee getting is limb back could be a proof of a God."
It sure isn't. How do you know you aren't mad and hallucinating, or worse?
Atheists are by definition presumptuous: divine revelation is highly unlikely in their case.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
David Hicks: 'Much better to believe in Jesus who created all men and women equal'. Unless you happen to be gay, huh?
If you want to believe in a 'god' then it is inside us all, and is the essence that gives otherwise inanimate carbon, hydrogen & oxygen molecules life. We are all God.
simon, richmond, uk
Greg:"Reason has to start with either a fact or an assumption. God provides facts: He proves Himself to sincere seekers of truth."
Irrespective of the religious prism through which you view the real world, the point remains that Dawkins was most certainly misrepresented by John there.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Sam: I suspect a Christian would argue that 'evidences' are irrelevant in regard to God, because God is precisely not a being of a type for which evidences can be accrued for or against. Your difficulty seems to arise from viewing God as a single being, rather than as the source of any Being at all.
Rupert, Oxford,
As someone wise once said "Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet, you can go further with both than just either one". I'm a Christian, my faith is based on the Bible and not any specific church. I'm also a scientist. They're not mutually exclusive. Only extremists insist otherwise.
John-Paul, Bristol,
Greg Lorriman - please give up! Most atheists/sceptics become so after much careful thought, research and meditation; it's actually a very difficult decision. We've usually heard and listened to all the arguments with an open mind(unlike many believers)and you won't convince anybody. Really.
Esther, London,
The religous do not understand the concept of 'evidence'. Everything they provide is either unprovable or subjective, a matter of feelings or 'faith'. The fact that they gleefully substitute 'faith' based example for 'evidence' means they can't be reasoned with. So, don't waste your time trying.
Sam, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
To Greg Lorriman: You have no understanding of the word "evidence". An amputee getting is limb back could be a proof of a God. A belief is an idea held with conviction,nothing else. God doesn't prove itself to "sincere seekers of truth" otherwise the majority of atheists wouldn't be former believers
Tom, London,
Religion is psychological comfort by forcing groups of people to think and act the same. Have your religions I dont mind them . . . . but at least stop hurting other people.
andy, London,
It's my personal opinion that as human beings, none of us have any more right to speak than another, regardless of intelligence or circumstance. For Dawkins to avoid sharing a stage with creationists is basically him sticking his fingers in his ears and going 'I'm right, la la la i can't hear you'.
Matt Harding, Comberton, England
If you are an intelligent, educated person, there's something very odd about belief in one or more supreme beings who made us / control our destinies. No argument about the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, but religious works need to be taken in context and treated warily.
Manl, London, UK
The religious can publically talk against gay people, athiests and those of other religions. But the moment someone believes in something other than creationism, they are fiercely attacked. The word hypocrites comes to mind.
Anne, Nottingham,
Religion is always guaranteed to get a great debate going.
Atheists can be divided into 2 schools of thought:
1) there is no evidence that god exists
2) there is enough evidence to prove that god does not exist
i personally prefer the later
Max, Auckland, New Zealand
The original title of Darwin"s book
was "Origin of the species and selection of superior races"
Darwin believed that women were less evolved that men and black people less evolved than white people.
Much better to believe in Jesus who created all men and women equal.
and from one blood Adam and Eve.
david hicks, london, england
Methinks the godly protest too much. Perhaps deep down they know the game is up .
iain rae, Tunbridge Wells, U.k.
Belief in God is more that an intellectual exercise - it's lifestyle changing event. Where does Dawkins world view address the 20+ teenagers killed by knives in London? Living true to your faith changes people and would give these kids an alternative hope in their lives. Dawkin's worldview doesn't.
Pete B, London, UK
I've got nothing against breaking with fairy stories. I do have something against arrogant fools pushing their own incoherent nihilist dogma onto others, in a much similar manner to religion when you think about it.
James, Newcastle,
I don't suppose Dawkins cared to mention that Darwin was not an atheist?
<br/>Modern atheist and agnostics seem to have little affection for honesty when hectoring us.
<br/>
Geoffrey Keyte, Lavras do Sul, Brasil
For too long the religous zealots on the right have had a free hand in spreading their ignorant mysticism. As someone who has watched the decline of our public school system at the hands of these vile idealogues it gives me some hope when the scientific community shows signs of fighting back.
David Richardson, Centennial, USA
"The existence of 'beauty' in the universe is a frankly ridiculous argument against evolutionary theory."
It's 'evidence', not argument, for the existence of God. Creationism is one of Dawkin's strawmen: most Christians are not formal biblical literalists and can accept evolution, and its beauty.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Greg: "Since a God could prove His own existence religious do have an advantage."
Eh, think much? This is what is known as a circular argument Greg since God would have to first exist in order to prove his existance. This article seems to have rattled the cages of a few dim primates.
Ian, London,
David:"...main points Dawkins makes is for people..to rely on reason instead of superstition"
Reason has to start with either a fact or an assumption. God provides facts: He proves Himself to sincere seekers of truth.
Atheists start from the assumption that in the beginning there was nothing.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"the Athiest stance is that there is no evidence for god, nothing, not a jot"
Nonsense. Just 1 believer *is* evidence. My Uncle was a nuclear phycisist and said that he saw "the finger prints of God everywhere". Atheist multi-universe theories exist to avoid the otherwise inevitable conclusion.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
John: "The world is full of atheists who think their perception of reality is correct and, to quote Dawkins himself, anybody who questions it is deluded."
Oh come on. One of the main points Dawkins makes is for people to think critically and to rely on reason instead of superstition.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The headline writer meant "Evangelistic". "Evangelical" means "basing one's faith on the Bible." "Evangelistic" means "spreading the good news".
Frank Upton, Solihull,
"The existence of 'beauty' in the universe is a frankly ridiculous argument against evolutionary theory."
It's 'evidence', not argument, for the existence of God. Creationism is one of Dawkin's strawmen: most Christians are not formal biblical literalists and can accept evolution, and its beauty.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Isabel, Bournmouth - may I suggest you do some revision on the laws of thermodynamics as you are wrong on both the 1st and 2nd laws. Consequently your assertions about evolution and the existance of God are not supported by these laws.
Martin, Skye,
Religion at best is a myth; a fictional narrative that both describes and also shapes a concept of the mind; It went wrong when it posited an external God to account for the natural order. God is just us in projected form, everything we both fear and hope for.
Alan Smith, Glasgow, UK
Andrew you are being somewhat unfair. It may all be down to personal experience. Virginia is from Australia and I'm not sure humans have evolved very far over the last few millions of years in that part of the world.
Chris, London, UK
The world is full of atheists who think their perception of reality is correct and, to quote Dawkins himself, anybody who questions it is deluded.
I've actually met Richard Dawkins - he doesn't have that great a mind, I can assure you.
John, London, UK
If mr dawkins was a christian then he would realise his true potential ! Of Lord Kelvin, (british mathematician and physicist) it was said 'The bible he reverenced and studied it with great care. His faith lay at the root of his whole being and pervaded all his work lifting it to the highest levels'
j brun, ballymena, ireland
Greg Lorriman:-
"proof of God's existence is all around us; famine, disease, war,... greed"
Don't be a simplistic chump: that's the evidence of freewill, and the consequence of breaking faith with God.
Disease has free will? That's quite a statement to make.
rayamiles, Berne, Switzerland
"A question ..my understanding of the meaning of an atheist is that they believe that there is no God." No Mike, we don't believe in a god or gods. People propose particular gods as concepts and we then assess the evidence and reasoning. To date, none is even remotely plausible in our world.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
The 1st law of thermodynamics states matter & energy need no creator, they simply always existed. The second applies only to closed systems where we are gaining energy from nothing - in our universe we have the sun. Both are arguments FOR evolution, and AGAINST the existence of an intelligent god.
Isabel, Bournemouth, UK
Many athiests have had a christian spiritual birth, that is they have been ' born again' ( read John 3 v7 ). This in turn has transformed their lives and they have become stalwarts in their new found faith and for the first time experienced the wonderment of God through possession of eternal life.
j brun, ballymena, ireland
As an animal breeding specialist the argument that Hitler did to the Jews what farmers do when breeding to improve their animals is ludicruous. Hitler was a convinced Darwinist and was seeking to employ consistently evolutionary principles when elimininating the 'unfit' Jews, Poles and gypsies.
Robert Beckett, Belfast, Antrim
Virginia of Brisbane - what you have proven is that, like 99% of people who don't believe in evolution, you (either wilfully or through not attempting to) completely misunderstand it.
Andrew, London,
Zim of Wolverhampton, you have just proven that evolution is rubbish by admiting that this is a stupid age! If evolution is true, we would not evolve to be stupid and no one will have the concept of God. We will all just behave like robots and react predictably. The evidence is crystal clear.
virginia, Brisbane , Australia
This whole debate is hopelessly muddled. Firstly, the distinction between God and organised (by man) religion is deliberately blurred - secondly, the views of a minority ("creationists") are pilloried to discredit the majority. It's an intellectually dishonest way of pursuing any kind of debate.
Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk
Nige, Belfast: 'Atheists have never murdered.'
Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were all atheists.
Pete Tonks, Bridport,
"Surely..god's..power..could..publicly reveal [him]self..sea of jelly"
That's not proof, and why should God? More reasonable that God gives objective proof to the sincere seeker of truth, rather than the presumptive atheist who sits and says "I'll believe it when I see it", and wouldn't anyway.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"christian lady has it all to lose if she is batting for the wrong god. If there is a [merciful] god...being an atheist is a pretty safe bet"
If we are made in the image of God then that would be very hard. Most religions worship a God of Justice, Love and Mercy. But mercy cannot be presumed.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Amazing how religion is never something that can be talked about at work or socially. But there never fails to be huge amount of responses on Have Your Say.
There must be something about it!
Mike, Wiltshire, UK
"Dawkins slaps creationists into ... soup"
... NO!!!
All you people probably don't realise that the single cell evolution to man is still a theory - not proven! It's just easily accepted by the ignorant. So darwinism is also a faith, yes?
PS. Dawkins is the devils work, who also exists
Simon Chung, Edinburgh, UK
Mike, Cape Town
And how can one prove a negative? Surely with your gods limitless power it could very publicly reveal itself. Tune the world's TV into its own show and turn the sea into strawberry jelly for the day. The onus is one believers to prove a positive.
Richard, Jersey,
A lot of the pro-believer commentators here have never read "The God Delusion" as most of the points they raise are dealt with in the book. The most fascinating aspect of this book for many is how it challenges a reader to examine their own beliefs instead of passively accepting the status quo.
Esther, London,
j brun, ballymena.
Your dear christian lady has it all to lose if she is batting for the wrong god. If there is a god in the sense that the religo-maniacs suggest, being an athiest is a pretty safe bet. All the religions preach forgiveness don't they? It's a bad god who doesn't.
Richad, Jersey, Channel Islands,
A question ..my understanding of the meaning of an atheist is that they believe that there is no God. The only way to conclusively prove this, would, be, to, thus, prove that God does not exist, in any place and you would need to look in all places at the same time, in case He had moved ?
Mike, Cape Town, South Africa
Religion is a fantastic social construct which enables us to continue in hardship and our futile existence. Each is flawed with contradiction and only gathers those unwilling to ask the pertinent questions to fruition. Atheism is not a religion, it does not require faith, merely rationality.
sam, Amberley, United Kingdom
TO j brun, ballymena, ireland
Otherwise known as Pascal's Wager. Your speaker mustn't have been very 'esteemed' if he failed to recognise this question which is commonly posed by 'believers'.
If anything, how do you know that you're not worshipping the WRONG god and be sent to hell anyway?
Shaniqua, London,
What nonsense is talk of our inability to prove either argument! No-one will ever be able to 'prove' the 2nd Law of Thermo-dynamics but only a simpleton thinks it wrong. It is only necessary to prove or disprove a theory that has credible arguments in its favour and religion has none.
Mike Wilkes, Brisbane, Australia
I love to put a creationist in his/her place. How can you ignore the scientific work behind evolution and its evidences. But on the other hand, how did it all began? Evolution only shows what happened once a single cell got here but not how it got here. God made Earth billions of years ago.
Naleen Lal, Northern California,
An esteemed athiest was once giving a lecture on his views then questions were allowed. A dear old christian woman spoke saying that she had nothing to lose if there was no God for her after death but that the athiest speaker stood to lose all, and that for all eternity. The athiest did not reply.
j brun, ballymena, ireland
" please stop taking the moral high ground when neither side of the argument can successfully be proven."
A true atheist is irrational, and an agnostic who doesn't give the benefit of the doubt is likewise.
Since a God could prove His own existence religious do have an advantage.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I cannot believe the arrogance of "believers" commenting here. An atheist has just as much right to an opinion as a Christian; please stop taking the moral high ground when neither side of the argument can successfully be proven.
Margot, Fife,
"...people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens, made up by stoned hippies living in the desert a few thousand years ago. I want some of whatever it is that they're on!"
Alastair, you can find it on any given day day; the Holy Spirit
G P, Milton Keynes,
Science is nothing more than the exploration of the world around us - not political, not deceiving. Religion has NEVER been so truthful . Why was Gallileo imprisoned when he DARED to suggest that the universe entire may NOT revolve around the Earth? Atheism has never murdered, abused, executed...
Nige, Belfast,
If the universe is infinite, every possible event has happened, or will happen somewhere in the universe. The existence of God is a possible event, ergo God exists.
RW, Sta Eulalia, Spain
The Bible says that in the latter days good will be considered evil, and evil good. It mentions increased violence, lack of compassion, and extreme selfishness. It even gives quite an awful picture of the end result of this. And all of the time God is desperate for mankind to repent and seek him.
Chris, UK,
ZZZzzzzz. More Dawkins "attacks" on something most Christians don't believe! This sort of propaganda against christianity may make good TV, but might also be undermining respect for people who are Christians.
When does half-truth and misinformation become hate speech?
David, Oxford, UK
The existence of 'beauty' in the universe is a frankly ridiculous argument against evolutionary theory. Everybody sees beauty in different things and in different ways; it is entirely subjective, and in no way proves the existence of a divine creator.
RS, Cambridge, UK
good grief - look at yourselves. Everyone of us has the right to believe in whatever we want and no one has the right to mock or deride what anyone else believes. If you believe in God then live your life accordingly. If you don't then don't worry about it.
David, London, UK
'It's dishonest to ignore the story of Adam and Eve in order to push your prejudice.'
Wow, you wouldn't be hiding a certain prejudice against women there would you, come on now it would surely be dishonest to say no!
robin, gloucester, uk
"Science fact is only established by observable reproducable results through controlled experimentation."
Dr R Block, Manchester UK,
Ohhh but don't tell the geologists that.
They get very irrate when you ask them to perform an ice age in the lab.
Dean, Worthing, UK
"..what created God?"
God would be existence itself: your question is a nonsense. You are attempting to reason from nothingness, the perverted reasoning of the atheist, but it's not possible. There is no such thing as nothingness: the default is existence. The question is does it have personhood?
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
"proof of God's existence is all around us; famine, disease, war,... greed"
Don't be a simplistic chump: that's the evidence of freewill, and the consequence of breaking faith with God.
It's dishonest to ignore the story of Adam and Eve in order to push your prejudice.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Let's have a have a live TV debate between Dawkins and the Pope and get it sorted out.
Mikko Takala, Drumnadrochit, Scotland
Science fact is only established by observable reproducable results through controlled experimentation. Thus evolution outside simple organisms will forever be a theory as no one will be able to reproduce the evolution of major complex organisms. Or say for sure how life strarted bt random on earth.
Dr R Block, Manchester UK,
Who or what created God?
Fairies, the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot ... all more plausible, surely? Where did God come from and how did he get his 'image' (the one we were created in)?
I find the whole story quite amusing and can't understand how or why creationism is being debated in 2008!
Turbo, London,
Shame on you all. The proof of God's existence is all around us; famine, disease, war, intolerance, selfishness, greed...... God is great?
phil mann, newcastle upon tyne,
"Creationists never come up with any proof, evidence."
Evidence is not proof but facts to be interpreted which is why Dawkins does not have proof either.
To interpret evidence requires belief about what the evidence shows. Belief therefore affects the conclusion. Dawkins has faith in his beliefs.
Martin, Skye,
"are also immoral to delude children of the wonder of the natural world,"
It is immoral to teach your children what you don't yourself believe. As a catholic I'm no creationist, but forcing one's beliefs on another's children is an outrage, like rape. And atheism has no concrete morality anyway.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
J Brun from Ballymena, spouting dogmatic drivel isn't going to convert anyone. If u want to convince tell us something worth hearing.
Dan Craig, Belfast,
Many Christians are comfortable with Darwin. No atheists are comfortable with the Big Bang.
Kevin Dunn, Perth, Australia
Extraordinary that evolutionists are STILL arguing with things that Dawkins never said and Darwin never postulated. I guess that it is easier for them to posture like that without giving themselves the trouble to find out what natural selection REALY is about.
Ian, Berwick, UK
Creationists who claim our sun is 10,000 years old are not only incorrect, ignorant of science by choice, they are also immoral to delude children of the wonder of the natural world, and push religion through the back door. Thankyou Mr Dawkins for your work and courage.
iain rae, Tunbridge Wells, U.k.
just wanted to say 'thanks everyone!' I've had more fun reading these posts than you could shake a stick at. Don't the two camps take themselves so seriously?! Makes me think of Oscar W. 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable' or better still 'the evil of two lessers' Keep it up navel gazers!
jon, St.Maxime, France
If God exists and was truly supreme he would have devised evolution as a neat way for life to self-regulate and adapt without constant intervention or design. Only a stupid god would not do such a thing. Seems many religions think their god is stupid.
Roger Thornhill, London, UK
J Roberts"..dismiss someone..with the..statement that 'God' proves his existence if you ask him"
But it's what Christians teach. If God does prove his own existence then obviously faith is rational. The bogus OED definition of faith "Belief without knowledge" applies to atheists not religions.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Creationists never come up with any proof, evidence. This is because they are deluded people who believe mere words. Religion was invented to give control to the few in order to control the masses.
ray, leominster, england
Dawkins has nothing to add to what Bertrand Russell said a generation ago on the topic of scientific atheism. So why all the fuss?
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
J.Pitts, have you ready any Dawkins? Biological evolution addresses how genetic mutations turned simple organisms into more complex organisms, and how since then genetic drift and natural selection have produced the variety of life we have now. He doesn't claim to know how the first cells appeared.
Conners, London, UK
Scourge? More someone who is flogging a horse that is deader than the proverbial. Next he'll declare that artists/poets can't possibly have a basis for their views of the world as science disproves their notions of beauty and aesthetic. His philosophy is bankrupt!
Drew, Los Angeles, USA
duncan"God is an interesting intellectual concept, which has no a priori basis"
Is that a fact? Like to prove it? This assumes the non-existence of God, which is unproven and unprovable. It a would be an a priori fact if we are indeed made in the image of God. And why so many believe.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
In his own way, Dawkins speaks the language of a religion he attacks for being un-scientific - take his notion of the neme that perpetuates itself down the generations. That is not the way culture replicates itself. Perhaps Dawkins is speaking in parables ? Milking a cash cow in the name of science
Arabella, Crouch End, UK
Chris Nel, Jesus is not saving lives. If he ever existed he was strung up along with some other frauds and cheats and is long dead. It is the concept of the person that is changing lives, not the person himself.
...and, I would add, not necessarily for the better.
RJ, Jersey, Channel Islands,
It's been scientifically proven that organisms control there own evolution. A hundred million years ago after several generations of fish staring up at the shore a fish grew legs. Other fish saw this and they grew legs to. Was God involved? that is the question to answer
Jeff Richmond, Vancouver, Canada
There are a lot of people here commenting on religion from a position of the most complete and utter ignorance. For starters, all those who indulge themselves in the (aesthetically pleasing?) belief that they are on some sort of moral crusade against the "evil intolerence" of religion.
michael walsh, Manchester,
So his book has sold 1,5 million copies and translated into 31 languages. The Bible has been around for over 3000 years, is translated in most languages of the world, continues to sell millions each year. It will be loved and read when Dawkins is long forgotten & Jesus will still be changing lives!
Chris Nel, Ripon, England
While fundamentalist religion is an easy target for Dawkins' criticism he apparently fails to see that his own belief in the creation of life from non-living chemicals by a random process (before Darwinian evolution was possible) is an act of faith with the odds almost impossibly stacked against it.
Jonathan Pitts Crick, Bristol, UK
People with deep cultural beliefs should be supported because so many belief systems have been lost to history.I don't think atheism needs any support. Atheism just is - it's not really interesting, or culturally important, it's just, well, accurate.
Religion should be documented and remembered.
Guy Smith, Bexley, UK
J Brun: Are those Biblical verses intended to stymie the human intellect as you seem to imply?
Or are they meant to emphasis the Otherness of God? The vast gulf between human and Divine perception?
They aren't a commentary on science
Sean, Manchester,
Science and God are not necessarily opposites to be pitted against one another. It is quite possible that God could have created science and evolution. The order of events in Genesis is exactly the same as in evolutionary theory, it is only the timescale which differs.
NM, Bristol, UK
My my: Arent we humans a confused, pathetic, self contradictory drop of sentience all wrapped up in pink smelly bodies.
No wonder aliens dont say hello. We suck.
Zen, London,
Somebody once said
'Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.'
'Religion is answers that may never be questioned.'
kratzenbourg, walsall,
'The fool has said in his heart no God' Psalm 14 v1
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness but unto us who are saved it is the power of God for it is written "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" 1 Cor v18,19.
j brun, ballymena, ireland
"Amazing in this day and age that some people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens"
That's because you've been fooled by Dawkins in to thinking that the concept of a supreme being/God is equivalent to fairies and unicorns. Silly you.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Is intellectualism being ignorant of someones beliefs as well, as dawkins is when he will not give oxygen space to creationists. Nothing, science or religion, an be totally proved. Why "attack" those with beliefs. Wouldn't leaving them be more "intellectual". Hypoctritical. And i am a scientist.
Dan, Mitcheldean,
Amazing in this day and age that some people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens, made up by stoned hippies living in the desert a few thousand years ago. I want some of whatever it is that they're on!
Alastair, Alicante, Spain
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
CS Lewis
Andrea B, Canterbury, UK
God is an interesting intellectual concept, which has no a priori basis. The "religions of the book" warn against the worship of false idols yet their followers ALL confuse the words and the message, slaves to the bible, should start thinking rather than inflicting it's chinese whispers on others.
duncan robson, cape town, south Africa
P, Chester:
EVERYTHING is a tool to control the masses, and you are deluding yourself in thinking that your disbelief is any less the product of circumstance than someone elses belief. Every aspect of a culture acts to shape people in a given way; the concept of god is one of the more noble ones
michael walsh, Manchester,
@ Greg Lorriman, how convenient that you can arrogantly dismiss someone's argument with the ludicrous statement that 'God' proves his existence if you ask him. What garbage. Fortunately real science requires real evidence and I am afraid your feeble argument doesn't provide any.
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
leon melbourne actually the universe is 13.73 billion years old, the wmap mission measured the background radiation http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html. want to make any other absurd claims?
Frank, Washington D.C.,
What a delight to see the christian detractors coming in and confirming every stereotype about ignorance breeding the delusion of god/s.
Alan Charman, Auckland, New Zealand
Christianity!The path to Salvation & the animal- like joys of eternal idleness in heaven? Your a lamb of God? Or an uncomprehending sheep,easily herded,easily fleeced,& easily stampeded?
Peter Birchinall, burton on trent,
Would Dawkins like to debate? Not with me ofcourse, i am not a scientist. I was thinking John McCkay. He is a scientist so we could have like for like.
Mr Boit, London, England
The religion "atheism" requires too much faith for most of us. We are asked to believe that all creation with its fundamental beauty, elegance and pleasure is some cosmic accident. It is much easier to believe that there is some creative mind behind it somewhere and evolution is simply how it did.
George Reeves, Raleigh, NC, USA
In old communist times, in Moscow a young party activist walks in into the old church. He spots an old women praying in a dark corner. "How can you believe in this nonsens?" he asks her. "Some people believe He exists, some people belie