Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, November 18, 2006 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | email a friend Email

Document I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

by Richard Dawkins

Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.

I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience.

1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!


I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers.

2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need?


I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example.

3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture.


At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God."

Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . .

" . . . to marvel at the spiritual commitment of the Inca priests and to share with the girl on her last journey her pride and excitement at having been selected for the signal honour of being sacrificed. The message of the television programme was in effect that the practice of human sacrifice was in its own way a glorious cultural invention – another jewel in the crown of multiculturalism . . ."


I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: -

"Yet, how dare anyone even suggest this? How dare they invite us – in our sitting rooms, watching television – to feel uplifted by contemplating an act of ritual murder: the murder of a dependent child by a group of stupid, puffed up, superstitious, ignorant old men? How dare they invite us to find good for ourselves in contemplating an immoral action against someone else?"


It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs.

4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point?


There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh.

A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded.

There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents.

That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is.

5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language.


Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject.

Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."

Comments 1 - 50 of 705

1. Comment #7268 by Colin K on November 18, 2006 at 2:14 am

I'm an atheist, but nothing. What else is there to say. We are accused of all kind of evils by the religious but its worse when our "own side" does it too.

2. Comment #7269 by Benjamin Tuite on November 18, 2006 at 2:26 am

Fascinating essay. I was led to Richard's work via Bill Bryson's "The Meaning of Everything", which references "The Blind Watchmaker". More appealing still was the testimonial on the "...Watchmaker" cover written by Martin Amis. The "thrilling godlessness" contained within "The Blind Watchmaker" led me to Richard's other works, "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The God Delusion". This title alone was enough to excite my anticipation of many hours of enjoyment.
I read it in about six hours, smiling broadly all the while. To those of us allegedly outside the illusory illumination and warm-hug-from-Granny-type feelings engendered by religion, this is real, affirming, and confidence-inspiring "laughter in the dark" (to borrow from Amis again). More, please, and soon.

3. Comment #7271 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 2:31 am

I'm an atheist but ... I want to have my cake and eat it too.

4. Comment #7272 by Dom on November 18, 2006 at 2:43 am

"Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion."

It may be patronising and condescending, but that may not stop it from being true.

Is it also patronising and condescending to suggest that 15m+ people in the UK will be glued to their tv sets to watch Big Brother, or that 10m+ people choose to read tabloid newspapers. With the notable exception of David Attenborough, science documentaries on tv are watched by a niche and increasingly smaller audience. Maybe the pessimistic view is the correct one - that people don't care much about science anymore, they can buy and use their next iPod without ever once stopping to consider the principles on which it works.

I think it is a fair, realistic (and difficult) question to ask what do we replace religion with. Not everyone (I'd even say the majority of the public) and not wowed by the mysteries and the wonders of science. If we're to change that (and we need to consider if thats something that we should change) we have to change the mindset of the pubic at large from the most basic levels and reinvigorate the image of science to schoolchildren, which is a Herculean task. This will also take many years, possibly even decades.

In the meantime, the question about how we replace God with awe of nature is a valid one, in my opinion and although we should and have made a start to addressing this, its something that we're going to have to keep returning to in the short and medium term

5. Comment #7273 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 2:52 am

I'm an aetheist but .... I find this website and RD's books very therapeutic. I also really enjoy being in the choir.

Funny though, I cannot yet bring myself to admit out loud to anyone that I am an aetheist. I even wince when I write it as it sounds so absolutist and it goes against my natural tendency not to pidgeon-hole anyone - particularly myself.

Given few more years in the choir I might even be able to sing in tune.

6. Comment #7275 by robzrob on November 18, 2006 at 2:59 am

I don't understand this 'what are we going to replace religion with' thing. Millions of us in Europe are not religious and we're getting on perfectly well without it already.

7. Comment #7276 by Aussie on November 18, 2006 at 3:29 am

"Not everyone (I'd even say the majority of the public) are wowed by the mysteries and the wonders of science. If we're to change that (and we need to consider if that's something that we should change) we have to change the mindset of the pubic at large from the most basic levels and reinvigorate the image of science to schoolchildren, which is a Herculean task. This will also take many years, possibly even decades."

I think that there is a lot of truth in this statement. I was brought up on a diet of Stephen Jay Gould. Many years ago my wife bought me my first Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker". She also more recently bought me "The Ancestor's Tale" and then "The God Delusion". I bought all the others. So far so good.

However, the interesting thing is that she has never read any one of them. I attribute this to a lack of any innate interest in the wonders of science. She will probably never read them.

However, not all is lost. My elder brother, an academic theologian, mystic and himself the author of 28 books, has recently ordered a number of Dawkin's books and has begun reading. Where this will end I do not know but he became intrigued by my enthusiam and wondered what all the fuss was about.

8. Comment #7278 by Diplo on November 18, 2006 at 3:31 am

" I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you!"

This is, sadly, an argument you hear often and one that is unduly pessimistic in it's outlook. I'm sure many people would have said the same thing about dictatorial Communism, going back as little as 20 years ago (Soviet-style Communism, by the way, is a political ideology that shares many traits with that of organised religion). If people hadn't believed it was possible to find another way then how much of Eastern Europe would still be living in a dictatorship?

The world can change, and can do so in a non-violent way, simply through the dissemination of ideas that have the weight of truth behind them. Communism may have seemed solid and dominant across half the globe, but it was contrary to what many people deep down knew they wanted. Likewise, religion is ingrained but many people are uncertain and have doubts. People like Richard articulate these doubts and, just as importantly, provide a rational alternative that is just as moral (I'd say even more so) and even more wonderful (a spiral galaxy or the workings of DNA are far more awe inspiring than any religious dogma). Raising consciousness is the first step toward change and I applaud the actions of men and women like Richard for helping to do so.

9. Comment #7279 by Noodly on November 18, 2006 at 3:57 am

Richard, if I was you I'd be more worried if you didn't encounter any I'm-an-atheist-buttery. Had they yet read The God Delusion, let alone have time for the ideas to sink in or carry out further research?

I agree with you that there is no room for 'but...' when it comes to religion. The choir may be large, but don't forget that, as well as professionals, it will contain many enthusiastic amateurs who need more practice.

10. Comment #7282 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 4:26 am

Richard Dawkins wrote:

" 1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!

I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. "

Well, I certainly think that religion is here to stay. I say this with no gleeful tone or even with a self-satisfied smirk. Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life. There is not the slightest evidence available upon which one could base the possibility that religion will disappear.

Where there is possibility for change is within theology. Theology does change as time moves on, as history clearly testifies. Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static. Religion is the foundation, theology the superstructure. The change, the mutations, occur in man's theological/intellectual structures. It is within these theological structures that lies the potential for good or evil. The evil potential is realized when theology seeks to operate as something other than theology - when it seeks to operate either as morality or as political ideology.

So yes indeed, I have great concern for any society that allows theological ideas to dangerously infiltrate the fabric of the social/political environment. On the other hand, I do have respect for religion, respect for it's insistence that spiritual value, as opposed to purely material values, are what enable us to reach the heights of our humanity.

Knock theological ideas by all means - in whatever language suits. Theological ideas are fair game, they come and they go, in fashion out of fashion - kick one to the sidelines, another will pop up. That's the nature of theology, never a one size fits all. Religion, from it's history back to whenever, is indeed a one size fits all. All known people having some sort of religious expression/experience. Hence, knocking religion is a waste of time - it's inbuilt immune system is able to ward off any attack.

Attack theology, get specific - specific not about some invisible skygod or another - but about the real reality of theology seeking political expression in the here and now….

11. Comment #7283 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 4:36 am

@ Benjamin Tuite

A phrase you used in your post hints that you've seen Derren Brown's delicious subversion of the faith-heads' credulity in "Messiah".
Reminds me, I must dig that out for a second look.

I'd be fascinated to see Derren and Richard share thoughts on the whole subject of faith and superstition's origins and mechanisms in the mind.

12. Comment #7284 by Mark P. on November 18, 2006 at 4:53 am

I'm an atheist, but I need a peanut butter and jelly sandwich right about now.

13. Comment #7286 by Donald E. Flood on November 18, 2006 at 5:02 am

I am an atheist, BUT...

1) I am not happy about having to "wake-up someday and then die, pass into nothingness, nonexistence, etc..."

2) I am not happy about little children dying, especially, needless deaths that could have been prevented. What do I, as an atheist, say to a sobbing mother at the funeral of her dead infant? All I could ever say is, "I'm very, very sorry..."

This list could go on and on. As an atheist, I believe that an objective reality exists, independent of what we believe (or do not believe) about it. When faced with Reality, we can have but two choices: 1) Accept it and deal with it the best you can, 2) Have it impose itself upon you. As an atheist, I choose the former.

14. Comment #7288 by writerdd on November 18, 2006 at 5:22 am

I'm an atheist. Period.

15. Comment #7290 by Roy on November 18, 2006 at 5:30 am

Dom "With the notable exception of David Attenborough, science documentaries on tv are watched by a niche and increasingly smaller audience"
One of the finest yet most neglected science documentary series on the BBC has recently been released on DVD. "Earth Story" with Aubrey Manning.Welcome thrice welcome! It is easy for a 'Non- scientist' to follow without been condescending, if you know what I mean.If anyone watches that and they still think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, well,there is no hope for them.

http://www.bbcshop.com/invt/bbcdvd1988&bklist=%3Cvenda_bklist1%3E

16. Comment #7292 by Jonathan McKenzie on November 18, 2006 at 5:52 am

For some people, it's hard to disbelieve a lie that's been laid on thick for years and years and years. Especially in American culture, where groupthink is ever present. Popular conceptions of beauty, intelligence, sophistication, music, literature, and other forms of media are largely the result of wanting to fit in. As you so rightly point out, atheists don't fit in. The quote of Julia Sweeney's mother you use in your book is pretty apropos, here, too. Set aside not believing in god, that's one thing. But atheism is an inferior caste; being atheist means being untouchable. I think America's obsession with popularity is what stifles the de facto atheism of a lot of people. The melting pot is more like oil in water. Not to be trite, but you're really shaking things up. And perhaps, like a vinaigrette, we do have to be shaken up from time to time. Religion, after all, is the lazy alternative. It's atheism that's hard. Atheists are willing converts, if only there were evidence. The same can't be said about most religious folk, unfortunately.

17. Comment #7293 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 5:59 am

And then there is this ongoing tragedy that is protected and sanctified by world governments that offering mobsters diplomatic immunity:

"Sex crimes and the Vatican - Vatican City
A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama.

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

I'm an Atheist writting letters to the Prime Minister demanding that religion be removed from public life.

18. Comment #7296 by Jim Dean on November 18, 2006 at 6:21 am

Stick to what you know, tough guy, or maybe you don't understand the scientific method?

19. Comment #7297 by J on November 18, 2006 at 6:26 am

You are an athiest AND an anti-religious proselytizer. Fine, but these are two separate things. The question of the existence of god and of the whether organized religion or belief has had a net positive affect in human affairs are two separate questions, as of course you know.

You seem to be suggesting here that those of us who are athiests BUT have no desire to proselytize are somehow not quite genuine. Sorry to dissapoint, but it's hard enough, when surrounded by religious people, to stand up to ones parents and in-laws to keep one's kids out of church; or to stand up to a fundamentalist's grilling and calmly explain ones atheism.

It's been hard enough for me to come out of the Atheist closet and teach my kids to make up their own minds about things.

You telling religious people that they are ignorant, delusional fools has NOT helped around here, but fed into their fears of atheists.

20. Comment #7298 by Torbjörn Larsson on November 18, 2006 at 6:29 am

Thinking with your but doesn't get you very far.

The closet choir may be larger than one thinks. Even in secular places in Europe, atheism may be too confrontational to comfortably air. And that religion has a privileged status was something I felt but couldn't express until the arrival of the web and sites such as this.

"I'm an atheist, but ... you can't prove or disprove gods."

Religions makes diverse claims on nature. There is nothing that precludes us from packaging it into a comprehensive concept and reason to best ability on available facts. In short, discuss the supernatural dualism as an uninformed though unexceptional question about nature instead of a philosophical conundrum that is assumed to be irreducible to manageable parts.

Ordinary methods like bayesian arguments on naturally explained observations takes us with ease to the falsifiable conclusion that the supernatural is improbable. (As without a detailed model supernatural interactions with nature can't be deferred, and we see the absence of any such unexplainable deus ex machina.) So while science doesn't directly address the question the success of methodological naturalism points to the naturalness of the parsimonious model.

Dualisms has been debunked so many times that one can base a bayesian argument purely on that. Early science debunked vitalism, astrological forces, psychic magnetism, astral planes, and others. Biology debunked teleology a century ago, neuroscience promises to debunk soulism, and cosmology has promising models that can debunk the cosmological argument in one way or other.

Why should supernaturalism be the dualism that must be excepted from debunking? If it hasn't a privileged status...

21. Comment #7300 by Randy Ping on November 18, 2006 at 6:47 am

I always get the whole "Well, I'm an atheist, but you don't have the right to tell other people that thier imaginary friend is imaginary because they hve a right to believe in...." kind of arguments.
I try to tell them that if it was a holocaust denyer, they would never make that argument.
They say "You can't tell people what top teach their children".
Richard, Do we not have the DUTY to our fellow humans to strip away false beliefs and the fairy tales?

22. Comment #7302 by hoju on November 18, 2006 at 6:49 am

I am not an athiest, but I have no use for religion as it is practiced by western society.

No use for catholics, protestants or any of the faiths of "the book".

No use for churches or all of that heaven and hell nonsense.

But especially no use of Richard Dawkins and his new brand of scientific dogma that so closely resembles the discourse of the religious pontificates that I find it indistinguishable.

And he has the same sort of mindless, non-thinking, non-questioning followers.

"Science" is not a religion, but it is being sold as one. There is no "Science". There is only the pursuit of knowledge via methods that have been formulated by thinking men and put into practice by a select few. These methods are intended to support the open mind - and it is clear Mr. Dawkins does not employ them. Mr. Dawkins clings to a belief system that discards any evidence that does not fit into its limited narrow minded, and largely antiquated model.

His pattern maps perfectly to that of religion.

His worthless hot air rivals that of a televangelist.

I am not an athiest, nor I am I prepared to acept any dogma at face value... nor do I suffer from amnesia, as I recall all to well how often in my short lifetime "science the noun" has been proven wrong, over, and over, and over.

Mr. Dawkins is the new pope of the church of the illiterate small mind.

Speciation due to mutation indeed. Study some mathematics Mr. Dawkins. The proper term for what you do is well known.

Junk Science.

23. Comment #7303 by Harald Hanche-Olsen on November 18, 2006 at 6:50 am

robzrob writes

I don't understand this 'what are we going to replace religion with' thing.


For many people, at least in countries with a state church like Norway, religion (or church, rather) has just one purpose: To provide a venue for some ritual around the great events in life.

The good news is that this really is easy to replace: You can have a coming-of-age ritual to replace confirmation, and you can have secular wedding ceremonies and funerals too. It would be a great mistake to allow the church a monopoly on these events.

Another point is that people who get fed up with organized religion tend to replace it with some new-age nonsense. There is no easy victory in sight for reason.

24. Comment #7304 by Loren Petrich on November 18, 2006 at 6:54 am

The emergence of "New Age" and "alternative" religions does make me wonder if some people have a craving for religion.

But if they do, then I think that the next question is what is the best way of letting such people satisfy their cravings, what is the least obnoxious sort of religion for such people to believe in.

This is related to the "Royal Lie" theory of religion, as Plato so honestly put it in his dialogue The Republic. Plato's Republic was to have an official religion that he called a "royal lie", a religion designed to make his Republic's citizens accept the authority of its rulers. Plato's society's religion, however, would be banned, because it contains such bad examples as heroes lamenting and gods laughing.

There are several other people in the pagan Greco-Roman world with similar opinions, like Polybius and Strabo; they thought that it was good to make up religions to teach to the lower classes to make them behave themselves.

Fast-forwarding 15 centuries to the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli believed in much the same thing; he admired the long-ago pagan Romans for pretending to believing in official divinations and punishing those who disrespected those divinations. Which included watching some sacred chickens; if they pecked the ground a lot, it was a good open, while if they didn't, it was a bad open.

But nowadays, advocates of similar theories are not nearly as barefacedly honest. :(

25. Comment #7305 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 6:55 am

MaryHelena wrote,

"Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static."

I agree, and therein is the seed of its demise. The fact that the tales of religion are static (and cannot be updated for obvious reasons) is a fatal weakness, which I think, will result in its natural death sometime in the future. That is why religion needs to indoctrinate children; the godites know that reality will tell a different tale and so they must inoculate kids against reason as soon as possible, the collusion of parents helps them greatly. However, as I've said before on this website, this is a dynamic evolving planet, upon which change is inevitable, that which is static and unable to change eventually dies.

Religion only needs replacing for those afflicted with it, one doesn't miss what one's never had. My father, by accident of birth, was nominally Catholic but atheistic in reality. When he judged my intellectual capacity to have reached the stage where I could understand, he took me aside and explained how he had had religion forced upon him and wanted to make sure that the same did not happen to me. He assured me that whatever religious or non-religious path I chose in life, would be fine with him. So, I've never had a god and never felt the need for one. If this situation was the case for all children, religion – far from being a fixture – would be gone in a few generations.

Mystics and religious fanatics held back human development for almost 1500 years, imagine where we might be now if the ancient tradition and reverence for knowledge had not been destroyed, perhaps many major causes of current human misery would have been eradicated long ago. Unfortunately, last time round the mystics won, they burned the written work and murdered the scientists; we can't let that happen again, and it's entirely possible that it could.

In a recent article AC Grayling remarked that educational standards in the UK have fallen, I agree with him; returning home after ten years in the USA, I noticed that worship of dumb-assed celebrities and various forms of so-called New Age nonsense had reached insane levels, crappy subjects like Media Studies and Theology are favourite educational pursuits of young people. The UK is becoming like the USA but we seem to take only bad Americanisms, not good ones. This pathetic situation must cause religite leaders to wring their hands in glee.

Of all the nutty religious sects around (including the major league), the Amish are the only group I have a teeny measure of respect for. They fail, but at least try to live "the old way" without benefit of modern technology; can you imagine Falwell or Robertson clip-clopping their way to the bank with the proceeds of another successful fleecing of their flock?

We need to do two things: prevent the religious indoctrination of children and raise public consciousness with regard to the virtues of science. Far too many people use the products of science but decry its method, these mega-hypocrites must be made aware that science, not religion, is the reason they're not living in caves and grubbing in the dirt for their next meal.

26. Comment #7306 by Melisande on November 18, 2006 at 6:56 am

I'm not an atheist but I play one on TV.....


No, wait, that's all wrong....

;^P

27. Comment #7307 by david baker on November 18, 2006 at 6:58 am

I would like to see a lot more of "brights" celebrating the joy of their lifestyle and outlook rather than wasting time heaping ridicule on believers.
As individuals we share convictions with others whose outlooks may be very diverse. As a libertarian I may make common cause with some christians who oppose excessive state control in our lives but on different grounds. I may agree with a socialist humanist to oppose faith schools although we disagree on politics. If you deny that some believers are impressive people and live exciting lives then you are not getting out enough.

28. Comment #7308 by stefanc on November 18, 2006 at 7:08 am

I'm definitely an athiest - AND I understand where some parts of religion come from:

- I think there is an innate urge toward the transcendent - whether or not the "transcendent" actually exists (personally, I think it's an extension of the brain's ability to make connections between ideas - sort of a meta-aha!. But I'm open to the idea that there's a transcendent aspect that's an artifact - not a controlling intelligence - of reality).

- Religion is deeply connected to tribalism and community, and its relationship to authority. Those are deep human needs whether or not there's a God involved. Of course there are other and often better ways to serve those needs, but religion serves as a useful built-in default.

I think religion act as a kind of catch-all system for several real human needs. Since it serves several functions - some useful - it becomes difficult to argue about; if you argue one aspect (e.g. cause of the Universe) then the rebuttals come from another aspect (e.g. morality).

- Religion seems to be related to immaturity. My daughter believes in God and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and fairies, and that's completely fine. As she gets older she hopefully will drop all those beliefs and exchange them for deeper understandings. God-belief is tougher since there's social pressure to conform, but I think that just adds to its complexity and requires more maturity and courage from her. I think many people newly confronted with the atheism concept simply aren't ready. In that sense I think of religion as a big pit with a sign nearby saying "real thinking coming soon!".

I've had a few "religious" experiences, which is why I'm open but not committed to the transcendence idea. I know this sounds contradictory, but one of those experiences consisted of "seeing God" and having God tell me "there's no God". Thus if there is no God then it was an interesting experience, and if there IS a God then who am I to argue?

S.

29. Comment #7309 by Chaley on November 18, 2006 at 7:28 am

"You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that."

What about elderly people who are highly religious? I know (and respect) a number of wonderful, sincere old folks who have as much chance of reconsidering their faith as they do of running a marathon. Their faith means everything to them as they approach the end of life.

I think it's respectful to cut these people some slack and show some human compassion. I will be honest with them about my own views I won't try to convince them their god is imaginary.

30. Comment #7310 by Jake Danger on November 18, 2006 at 7:30 am

I'm NOT an atheist, but...

if my understanding of God was based on what I've heard in the churches, I would be an atheist. I am a Christian who detests all forms of religion, including so-called 'Christianity'.

P.S. Real faith is not about ignoring evidence but about believing in what you can't see because the evidence supports it (kind of like believing in radio waves...). I know what Dawkins doesn't know because I've seen evidence he hasn't, that's all.

31. Comment #7311 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:31 am

Are you suggesting that old people who have lost the plot or never had it should be respected and or patronized? Surely if you look at them it is evident that they aided and abetted wretched family values such as saying it's ok to hate Italians or Catholics since they are dirty? Should adult children who feel harmed emotionally by the actions of their parents never have a chance to express themselves?

No I do not support respecting old people simply because they have survived.

32. Comment #7312 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 7:37 am

hoju:
"scientific dogma"
A contradiction - if it is science, it is subject to testing and review and can't be dogma. What Dawkins discuss is falsifiable - any observation that supports gods, say Vishnu appearing, is enough. (Discussing the strawman if it is a real Vishnu or a fake Vishnu falls on the improbability.)

To distort his views in this manner is pure projection.

"mindless, non-thinking, non-questioning followers"
Not likely. Dawkins and many with him has put a great deal of effort into judging these matters for themselves. It isn't like you go to a church to listen to a sermon on the dogma you should embrace. Did you know he wrote a book about it? :-)

"There is no "Science" ... antiquated model"

How can you be ignorant of an 400 year old and successful venture that has transformed our world? Science is the venture, the methods, the observed facts and the successful theories that has been amassed. The methods are, as all other things in science, constantly changed and improved. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant and clinging to an antiquated model of scholastics. Do you realize how much like a anti-scientific creationist you argue? :-)

"Speciation due to mutation indeed. Study some mathematics Mr. Dawkins."

Speciation is due to evolution, and evolution isn't mere mutation - if it was you wouldn't have any species at all, merely an amorphous mess. In a minimal model you must have variation and selection to replicate anything like what we observe. Population dynamics are important but it isn't mere mathematics - it is biology. And Dawkins is a biologist that has done lauded research. You can safely assume he knows science and biology.

33. Comment #7313 by Torbjörn Larsson on November 18, 2006 at 7:38 am

Ooops, I forgot the address fields.

34. Comment #7314 by felix on November 18, 2006 at 7:40 am

Religion is the origin of public entertainment. It's a way people have amused themselves or diverted their attention from the bejinning. It's happens generally from a stage of some kind. Whether you call yourself an aetheist or a stand-up comic you do the same thing the other orators do. You get up on a stage and perform. Either the audience likes your work and buys your books or they don't. It's an oratory process that leads to the same end no matter what form is used to practice it.

35. Comment #7315 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 7:46 am

hoju said:

"Science" is not a religion, but it is being sold as one. There is no "Science". There is only the pursuit of knowledge via methods that have been formulated by thinking men and put into practice by a select few."

You are confused. What your second sentence describes is the thing we call "science", it is NOT practiced by a select few, it is practiced by anyone who applies its method. As Feynman said:

"There are no authorities in science, at best, only experts, it doesn't matter who you are or what your name is, if your theory is not supported by observation, it is wrong"

That means ANYONE can be a scientist, if some mute inglorious Milton solved Fermat's Last Theorem, mathematical scientists would be forced to accept it.


Hoju said:

"Mr. Dawkins clings to a belief system that discards any evidence that does not fit into its limited narrow minded, and largely antiquated model."

What nonsense! I have yet to see any EVIDENCE Richard Dawkins has discarded. Before you make such ridiculous statements, provide some evidence yourself!

hoju said:

"I recall all to well how often in my short lifetime "science the noun" has been proven wrong, over, and over, and over."

Of course it has! That's what it's about! Unlike religion and other foolish doctrine, science constantly corrects its own errors, thereby advancing and adding to the body of knowledge that it is. Clearly, your lifetime has been short; a more mature person would not have made such an erroneous statement.


hoju said:

"But especially no use of Richard Dawkins and his new brand of scientific dogma that so closely resembles the discourse of the religious pontificates that I find it indistinguishable.

And he has the same sort of mindless, non-thinking, non-questioning followers."


Coming here to hurl insults as you do, is just about the most mindless behavior you could adopt. What do you hope to achieve? All you can expect is a sound (luckily only verbal) arse-kicking from your elders here.

I don't think you're an idiot hoju, but you do seem to be either mentally disturbed or a person who's allowed anger for an undisclosed reason, to overrule rationality.

36. Comment #7316 by Tolerance on November 18, 2006 at 7:48 am

I'm an atheist but I tolerate other's belief's because I expect the same in return.

37. Comment #7317 by Walter Yergen on November 18, 2006 at 7:51 am

I am Not an Athiest But!

I believe in "my God".

It seems abundantly obvious to me that Richard Dawkins knows what he is talking about when he talks about science. It seems abundantly obvious to me that Jerry Falwell does not. In my opinion, Jerry Falwell and his disciples are worthy only of ridicule when they talk about science. I suppose they believe that "God's Authority" grants them the right to speak out based on what they know of "Holy Scripture". I could be wrong, but the manifest arrogance of their presumption most deservedly earns my contempt.

Please understand that we are not arguing in a Court of Law. I do not have to answer questions with a "Yes" or "No". Alternative answers to questions of a philosophical nature may be perfectly legitimate. The answer "I don't know" is surely one of them. The answer "I believe so" is another. In any case I, for one, most certainly reserve the right to change my mind if I am wrong, and I expect no less of others.

As one who believes that evolution is unconditionally true, I can declare without reservation that I understand and endorse Dawkin's theories of "Selfish Genes" and "Selfish Memes". See

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/science/sciencespecial2/06dawk.html

That doesn't mean that I must agree with Dawkins about the existence or non-existence of "God". I see a hidden assumption in Dawkin's belief that all living things evolve. "God, the Creator" does not have to evolve. "God, the Creator" creates all things. Why cannot "God the Creator" create all things from nothing?

I believe that "God the Creator" is hiding in plain sight. I observe that we come from nothing and that we return to nothing. I suggest that "God the Creator" exists in the nothingness to which we all return.

"My God" is the "Balance of Nature" (or balance of nature if you prefer). Much has been written that describes in scientific terms exactly what I am talking about.


Peace!
- Walt

******
******
******

38. Comment #7318 by asdf on November 18, 2006 at 7:57 am

I entirely agree with you, it may be helpful to you to read this exceprt from The God Delusion though

"The Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg made the point as well as anybody, in Dreams of a Final Theory:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'.

Much unfortunate confusion is caused by failure to distinguish what can be called Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion."

39. Comment #7319 by Manfred on November 18, 2006 at 8:07 am

Walt
That is exactly why Richard Dawkins first defined the God he is against in the very first pages of The God Delusion.

You can give the name "God" to whatever you want, balance of nature is one of them. Einstein gave this name to the laws of nature.

The God Dawkins is talking about is a personal supernatural God who can hear us and influence our individual lives directly. And that is the God that a majority of people in the world believe in.

And exactly because of this, Richard Dawkins and many atheists find it misleading to label the laws of nature as God. At the very least such labeling can cause confusion and misunderstanding. Exactly the same way that it caused misunderstanding of Einstein.

I also notice that you have gone one step further and believe that "balance of nature" is God "the creator". Well, I don't know what you mean by that. Origins of life and universe are still mysteries to science and there are some theories out there about them. Just because we still don't know the answer, does not mean we can just call the beginning God and forget about it. That is not an explanation and does not really solve anything.

40. Comment #7320 by Jack on November 18, 2006 at 8:09 am

I'm an atheist, AND I'm proud!

41. Comment #7323 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:19 am

Comment #7310 by Jake Danger

Well Jake, are you ging to tell us what evidence you've seen that Dawkins hasn't?

42. Comment #7324 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 8:21 am

I have one more constructive "but" suggestion perhaps.

I'm an atheist, but I prefer to focus on what I do believe in, not what I don't. True I don't believe in some almighty anthropomorphic god and the supernatural and so forth. I tend to replace "god" with "nature". Instead of wondering at the supernatural, wonder at all the marvels of nature and science. We are part of nature, and should do what we can to preserve nature and ourselves.
But that's not to say I am simply replacing religion with science, or simply replacing "god" with "nature" in the bible and still believing that book. There is no institution or dogma involved.

43. Comment #7325 by js on November 18, 2006 at 8:24 am

"I don't think you're an idiot hoju"

Really? I think it's pretty damn obvious that's exactly what he is.

Dismissing evolutionary biology as "junk science" is a clear indicator that all is not right in hoju's puzzler.

44. Comment #7326 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:24 am

Comment #7317 by Walter Yergen

We didn't come from nothing Walter, as Sagan said:

"We are made of starstuff"

So, we came from the stars and to the stars we shall return. Your atoms have at least in some sense, a kind of immortality.

45. Comment #7327 by G Bile on November 18, 2006 at 8:31 am

In a comment to Mr. Robertsons essay (elsewhere on this site) I stated that I am convinced that "Nobody is born as a sinner, and most will not become one in their lifetime". (This effectively discards the Christian faith). In his answer mr Robertson accused me of *living in a fantasy world* ! I suspect that many believers (I think that the from atheism 'converted' Prof. McGrath is one of them) indeed think that religion is necessary 'to tame the masses' (a little bluntly put). This is all insulting to mankind. Atheists know better. So I agree with Dawkins that we should never accept *I believe in people and people believe in God*.

46. Comment #7328 by Torbjörn Larsson on November 18, 2006 at 8:32 am

"That's what it's about! Unlike religion and other foolish doctrine, science constantly corrects its own errors, thereby advancing and adding to the body of knowledge that it is."

Exactly. It is such a powerful method that someone said words to the effect that 'science is not to prove but disprove theories', I think.

In fact, while many clings to the century old idea that science is induction ie extrapolating from known cases, it is probably more apt to describe it as hypothesis testing. (Induction is still powerful when suggesting hypotheses.) And hypothesis testing is putting a hypothesis and its negation to test, and disprove either by contradiction with evidence.

Further, the related concept of falsifiability is so powerful that Popper tried to define science by its use. Cue evolution - the cambrian rabbit fossil is a falsification by principle. (No one expects the Rabbit Inquisition, though... :-)

asdf:
I don't agree with Dawkins on the need to defer pantheism from any other supernatural claim. But if one does, one can still make the argument that the label may be scrubbed off nature by Occam's razor. That argument is however not so powerful as soon as one drops the idea of using observations. (Parsimonity is part and parcel of observationally based models.)

So I need to read Dawkins book. :-)

47. Comment #7329 by Some dude on November 18, 2006 at 8:37 am

I think that it's funny how scientists try to explain everything in the world. Such as all of the little biddy itty atoms or genes that make up life. It's completely endless and no one can explain how babies are born or what defines their genetics. But the biggest theory that's just an utter let down is the big bang theory of how everything just came to existence. So, how does complete nothingness just come into complete living ability?

48. Comment #7330 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:41 am

Comment #7308 by stefanc

You speak of seeing God and he told you there was no God. Amazingly, you called that a religious experience, it sounds much more like a mental aberration to me.

49. Comment #7331 by Seamus7 on November 18, 2006 at 8:42 am

I am an Atheist. The enormous evolving mystery of existence is more than enough for me. I don't need any silly inadequate man-made theosophies to dumb it down for me. Thank you Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins for coming so unwaveringly to the atheists' defense.

50. Comment #7332 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:50 am

Comment #7329 by Some dude

Use some of the "little biddy itty" atoms you're made of and buy a book on sexual reproduction, (avoid the stork edition), we have very, very good knowledge of how babies are born. While you're at it get a book on cosmology also; it won't answer all your questions but it will help you ask better ones.

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Adjust font size: small font large font
Search:
RDF@myspace RSS Subscribe

Update Log

Recommended Reading

"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."

-Penn (Penn & Teller)

Available Now!

The God Delusion

The God Delusion

by Richard Dawkins

amazon book sense borders barnes and noble powells

Read the 1st Chapter!

AudioBook: iTunes! (UK) | download (US) | on CD

#1 on Amazon.co.uk!

#1 on Amazon.ca!

#2 on Amazon.com!

Now on DVD!

Root of All Evil? DVD

Root of All Evil? DVD

Richard Dawkins

ancestor's tale

The Ancestor's Tale

by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene

The Selfish Gene

by Richard Dawkins

A Devil's Chaplain

A Devil's Chaplain

by Richard Dawkins

Unweaving the Rainbow

Unweaving the Rainbow

by Richard Dawkins

Climbing Mount Improbable

Climbing Mount Improbable

by Richard Dawkins


See More Books