1. Comment #45840 by maton100 on May 29, 2007 at 11:36 am

What makes people "tick" Martin? Insanity?

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #45841 by doodinthemood on May 29, 2007 at 11:36 am

I wouldn't say Dawkins doesn't understand the weak-faith majority so much as he just ignores them. It seems pretty obvious why an ultimate father figure would be comforting, but in a threat to society, all these people really pose is that they are the majority that constantly feeds faith and thus allows it to produce fundamentalists.

Apart from that, there seems little to say about them.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

3. Comment #45843 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 11:42 am

I read this yesterday on the Grauniad website and, as expected, it got a pasting there.

[Dawkins] just doesn't get what makes people tick.

Oh yes he does, Martin, and a lot of it's delusional.

Other Comments by Flagellant

4. Comment #45844 by PacificWind on May 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

So, Martin Kettle, you say Richard Dawkins doesn't understand the "wishy-washy middle ground?" Please do enlighten us with your superior insight on this enigmatic demographic...

I'm waiting...

still waiting...

Oh is the article over already?

Other Comments by PacificWind

5. Comment #45845 by Setto on May 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

I don't see what kind of satisfaction that the "millions who just feel better with some sort of confused belief than with nothing at all" could possibly have achieved

Other Comments by Setto

6. Comment #45847 by Mr. Mark on May 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

Martin has point, of course, people don't want to give up their fantasy world.

However, he understates the importance of Dawkins to the future of faith. Too many commentators have taken the idiotic position of, "Dawkins' book has been out for months, and yet people still believe in god."

Don't they understand that change will be gradual, not instantaneous?

The move away from religion will evolve. It will take decades for the majority of people to leave their fantasy worlds, but if modern-day Europe is any example, it can and will happen.

I'm convinced that the books by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others will eventually be seen as the line that was drawn in the sand, even if takes decaeds for most people to cross that line into enlightenment.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

7. Comment #45850 by eoinc on May 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

How many books, articles, interviews and essays must there be all with this same title?

Other Comments by eoinc

8. Comment #45851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

I'm convinced that the books by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others will eventually be seen as the line that was drawn in the sand, even if takes decaeds for most people to cross that line into enlightenment.

Here's hoping:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

9. Comment #45854 by CJ on May 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

But he hasn't a clue about what David Brooks, in a recent New York Times column, calls the "quasi-religious" people who make up perhaps the majority of societies like this. He just doesn't get what makes people tick.


Richard if you're reading this I'm sure we would all like to hear a direct response if you have the time to spare.

Other Comments by CJ

10. Comment #45855 by Steven Mading on May 29, 2007 at 11:58 am

Uhm - Dawkins understands the wishy-washy middle-ground believers quite well. He just doesn't agree with them, or consider their thinking to be valid.

It's highly frustrating when people mislabel those who disagree as being people who don't understand. It is entirely possible to understand perfectly well what's going on in the thoughts of a person you completely disagree with. Disagreement is not evidence of lack of understanding.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

11. Comment #45858 by Hip_Priest on May 29, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Fundamentalists on both sides love him.

Kettle seems to be suggesting, like many others who have commented on TGD and the 'new athiests' that (regardless of the truth-value of his claims) Dawkin's tone forces religious people into a fundamentalist position. Dawkins creates a wall between the religious and secular, he alienates moderates from the joys of science and reason, he makes those of faith feel patronized or even persecuted. A similar point is being made in James Randerson's article (also in the Guardian).

Its a very tempting way to frame the discussion but it doesn't seem to hold any truth. What these books ultimately promote is a political/intellectual/conversational climate in which evidence is paramount if you want to be taken seriously. In Sam Harris' words "Its a matter of discourse" and the only type of 'faith' that can survive and be taken seriously in the public sphere given these rules of conversation is an incredibly personal and moderate or 'wishy-washy'kind.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

12. Comment #45859 by Rtambree on May 29, 2007 at 12:18 pm

We know that people who live in countries with high standard of livings and security believe less (even in the wishy-washing middle ground stuff) than people who live in countries with low standard of livings and security.

Other Comments by Rtambree

13. Comment #45860 by jesus_christ_himself on May 29, 2007 at 12:18 pm

The Dawkins Delusion

I am tired of that pun.

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

14. Comment #45865 by doodinthemood on May 29, 2007 at 12:28 pm

"I am tired of that pun"

It's not even very good.

They could surely do better:

Dawkins and Devil - The odd collusion
Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on God - the squad's confusion
Dawkins on theologians - Roughshod seclusion

But no, it's always "the dawkins delusion"

Other Comments by doodinthemood

15. Comment #45866 by PaulJ on May 29, 2007 at 12:31 pm

But he cannot engage with the millions who just feel better with some sort of confused belief than with nothing at all.

Well who can? Ask them what they believe and they can't tell you. And this is what they base their lives on?

"I've made up my mind (at least I think I have). Don't confuse me with facts."

Pathetic.

Other Comments by PaulJ

16. Comment #45869 by GBile on May 29, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I recently equaled "quasi-religious" to "engaging in spiritual masturbation". Masturbation, treating yourself to a nice feeling, is perfectly acceptable.
Would it be a good thing to to separate these quasi-religious people from their hobby? Would the 'houses of worship' become as sparsely populated as a desert when they discover that genuine 'nice feelings' do not require imaginary friends or mirages of 'eternal places', but that the world around them offers all they need?
My answer would be Yes and Yes.

Other Comments by GBile

17. Comment #45870 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 12:34 pm

So Christians have used the pun so much that Jesus Christ Himself is tired of it?

I'm sorry for you, JCH. They must be such a trial for you on so many levels.

Other Comments by jonecc

18. Comment #45872 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm

There is a real political point, which is that most people just don't listen to intellectual arguments.

There's a body of evidence growing which suggests that societies become less religious if they have a decent standard of living, political freedoms, a decent education system, a Welfare State and socialised health care.

Now there's a program we can all get behind.

Other Comments by jonecc

19. Comment #45873 by PrimeNumbers on May 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Faith is believing in something without evidence. When it's religion, it's called faith, when it's anything else it's called stupidity and guilibility.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

20. Comment #45874 by Zaphod on May 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Another article with the title "The Dawkins Delusion". The world is drenched in unoriginal pseudo-literary bastards.

Other Comments by Zaphod

21. Comment #45875 by jesus_christ_himself on May 29, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Dawkins and Devil - The odd collusion
Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on God - the squad's confusion
Dawkins on theologians - Roughshod seclusion

Well done. All those in ten minutes?

Another one that annoys is The Atheist Delusion. Silly. Just-Plain-Silly.

I listened to one of Alistair McGrath's lectures where he revealed this title to a room full of creationistas and they just lapped it up.

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

22. Comment #45878 by Bonzai on May 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

It seems pretty obvious why an ultimate father figure would be comforting, but in a threat to society, all these people really pose is that they are the majority that constantly feeds faith and thus allows it to produce fundamentalists.

No, it is not obvious at all that having a faith in an imaginary God necessarily leads to fundamentalism.

This depends on the kind of God one believes.

Scriptures can be interpreted in many ways and there are infinitely many possibilities to spin the texts to fit one's vision of God. I disagree strongly with the statement often made in this site that only the fundamentalists are "honest" in their beliefs. This is a completely unconvincing straw man argument. All interpretations are valid,--or equally invalid,-- as the "holy books" are typically cryptic and full of contradictions. A lot of cherry picking and interpretive massaging would almost be necessary to make any sense out of them. Even if it is possible, there is still no reason why one has to read these books like technical manuals or scientific textbooks which admit only one level of "plain meaning". These books can just as legitimately be read as allegories, poetry or fables, depending on one's inclination.

We can all agree that man creates God in his own image. But I would add that scriptures and texts are just the raw material for this creative process.

Religious people is a diverse group. Their characters and ideas are shaped by many factors. Believers even within the same religion can have diametrically opposite opinions on many issues despite a common theistic belief. It is a vast simplification, and a very unscientific one, to reduce people to their religious labels. Religious belief is not always,--and often it is not,--the single most important predictor on how people behave. Any student in the social sciences knows that.

It is also not obvious that moderates necessarily provide a cover for the extremists. I just don't see how a liberal theologian such as John Spong necessarily feels closer to Jerry Falwell than to Dawkins simply because they share a nominal religion. Indeed Spong praises Dawkins and TGD in particular on many occasions and is very critical of Falwell.

IMO Dawkins is very weak on these points and he should take a more nuanced look again.

Most religious people and in fact most people are wishy washy.

Consistently rational or consistently irrational people, even if they exist, are very rare. Theism is not the only irrational belief, irrationality comes in many forms. Most theists don't deny science and evidence based reasoning on practical situations. They compartmentalize their minds just like the rare religious scientists, perhaps even less conscious of it.

The mere belief in God actually tells us very little about the person, his actions and his views. We need more information. Unlike cerebral critics such as Dawkins and Harris, most people don't dwell too deeply into the metaphysical significance of their religious beliefs. Except for the theologians and some fundamentalists, the majority of religious followers,--the wishy washy, in between people,-- see their religion as a cultural and personal thing invested with subjective meanings, not as some kind of pseudo scientific hypothesis about the world. It is missing the point to demand "evidence".

Other Comments by Bonzai

23. Comment #45882 by MiloC on May 29, 2007 at 1:16 pm

"He just doesn't get what makes people tick." So what does make people tick? Kettle never does say, does he? Nor does he say why Dawkins' position is incorrect. This is neither good science or scholarship. If religion, which is a person's world view, which determines a person's values and choices is not what makes a person tick, then what the hell does? Dawkins has realized this. He has done nothing different than any Christian theologian who has made this fact the main stay of their apologetics. Yet it is he (Dawkins) who has misconstrued the facts of human experience. Hmmm, did I miss something?

Other Comments by MiloC

24. Comment #45883 by burn0gas on May 29, 2007 at 1:21 pm

This guy is wrong. I was a fundie, now turned atheist. It took me awhile to get over the my so-called faith comfort, but I feel better about life, and more excited about learning than ever before! Science and truth are wonderful, and God IS a delusion. I would like to point out that it just takes time for people like me to get over our security blankets and fears of all types, from friends and family to what God might do to us for questioning. The Internet resources and books like The God Delusion help us converts become less "wishy washy".

Keep up the great work Dr. Dawkins! There are more out there like me! And surely more to come!

Other Comments by burn0gas

25. Comment #45890 by Laurence Winch-Furness on May 29, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I reckon there probably are a few people who simply will not give up their beliefs. About 15% of the population of Sweden, the world's most secularised nation, are theists. About 15% of top level scientists are. Perhaps this represents those whose brains are wired up for ireconcilable faith? Still, achieving the elemination of faith in 85% of the world's population is a worthy enogh goal.

Other Comments by Laurence Winch-Furness

26. Comment #45892 by Orion on May 29, 2007 at 2:09 pm

'The Dawkins Delusion' doesn't even WORK in this context, never mind the title's lack of originality.

The article isn't about a delusion, it's about a (supposed) lack of understanding. At no point does Kettle even discuss any kind of delusion that Dawkins is supposed to suffer from.

Other Comments by Orion

27. Comment #45895 by AtheistAcolyte on May 29, 2007 at 2:20 pm

But he hasn't a clue about what David Brooks, in a recent New York Times column, calls the "quasi-religious" people who make up perhaps the majority of societies like this.

It takes a few religious nuts with a bomb ten seconds to undo the work a few million 'quasi-religious' people have done over ten decades.

Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte

28. Comment #45897 by D'Arcy on May 29, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Martin Kettle refers to Dawkins living in his

Darwinian comfort zone

Just where in the universe does this "comfort zone" exist? If Dawkins knows anything at all it is about the struggle of life to exist and to produce the next generation. Comfort zones are reserved for Guardian readers .... for the time being.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

29. Comment #45898 by scottishgeologist on May 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Bonzai, you make a lot of good points there. Re wishy washiness - certainly a lot of "liberal" or perhaps the word shoudl be "nominal" christians are very wishy washy. They really havent a clue why they "believe" what they believe. "Going to church" for the social bonding often seems to be the most important thing to them.

And even among evangies, I have heard a few interesting snippets. A close female relative of mine (a Christian) once pointed out, on the death of an aunt, "I suppose she is in heaven now" Note: "suppose" Hardly a ringing statement of absolute "truth" OK that's just an anecdote, but I suspect that that degree of wishy washiness is actually more common than we think among evangies.

Certainly a lot of people I know who are "evangelical" supposedly, seldom talk about their "faith" - almost as if they want to keep it private. And just for Wee Fleas benefit, a lot of these people I am talking about are Free Church of Scotland members!

Interesting you mention Spong - I often wonder about him. He must be the best example of a "christian" who is virtually an atheist but just cant take that final small step! It seems to me that Richard Holloway is very similar. Holloway is also a fan of RD! He endorses the DVD advertised on this site!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

30. Comment #45900 by dianaxf7 on May 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm

"Fundamentalists on both sides love him".

I think this is nonsense; I work for evangelical christians who are not exactly fundamentalists but they believe in "the inerrancy of Scripture" and they hate Professor Dawkins - his name is anathema and if I were seen with his books at work I would be subject to great suspicion. Judging from some of the hate-mail sent to this website there is little love from fundamentalists.

The latest 'New Humanist' (May/June 2007) has an article on the US Neocons pointing out that their intellectual leaders Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol were/are actually atheists who feel that religion is necessary to control the weak and ignorant masses (pp. 24-27). A quote from Kristol's 'Autobiography of an Idea':

"Let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let the handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded esoteric doctrine - for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish".

If American Christians could be made aware of this hidden agenda, maybe a genuine debate would follow?

Other Comments by dianaxf7

31. Comment #45902 by Steven Mading on May 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

These books can just as legitimately be read as allegories, poetry or fables, depending on one's inclination.

This is a naive view. They are not presented as fiction. These texts were written with the intent that they be believed, as opposed to, say, a fable or allegory like the race of the tortise and the hare, which may contain a message, but one is not expected to believe in talking rabbits and animals gathering to watch a race in order to get the moral of the story. On the other hand, much of the bible fails to work as any kind of allegory if you don't actually believe it. It's full of stories about Jesus claiming to be the son of god and how you must accept that to get saved. I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong - if one doesn't believe the bible is truth, and therefore does not believe Jesus really was god's son, then there is NO moral allegory left to salvage from that. Similarly, keeping the sabbath holy has no meaning if you don't believe the 7-day creation myth. And let's talk about Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son just because God said so, and how this is portrayed in the bible as a GOOD thing for him to have thought that way - remove the belief that god exists and there is NOTHING whatsoever that is the slightest bit ethcially uplifting about what's left in that tale - all that's left is a tale of blind obedience to an imaginary authority being more important than actual compassion for actual people.

The key problem with religion is that it provides this notion of faith, which is essentialy the idea that truth is a subjective matter of opinion. No. It is not. If two people disagree about a fact, the reason is that at least one of them is incorrect. The only things that are truly subjective are matters of preference, such as "I enjoy X but I don't enjoy Y".

Other Comments by Steven Mading

32. Comment #45903 by tgbarton on May 29, 2007 at 2:55 pm

He just doesn't get what makes people tick.

I would argue that it's the "quasi-religious" people who don't know what makes themselves tick. They walk into those impressive, warm buildings filled with friendly (at least on the surface) people, uplifting music, wishful promises, and tasty treats called churches and misinterpret the resulting release of social hormones in their brains as the presence of a supernatural being.

Until the non-religious masses band together to create similar venues in every neighborhood - substituting the wishful promises with science-based explanations of reality such that the lay person will find it sublime, of course - the war on faith will never be won.

There are only so many people in this world capable of and/or willing to engage in critical thinking; the rest will simply choose the prettiest packaging. Nature has written a script better than any provided by human mythology, all we need to do is do a better job presenting it...

Other Comments by tgbarton

33. Comment #45904 by Fedler on May 29, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Bonzai and scottishgeologist,

I agree with your posts. I would go far as to say the 'wishy-washyness' is something theists enjoy. I believe they take comfort in the fact that religion for them is something that can mean whatever they want it to mean. We would all enjoy a life system like that. How could we ever be wrong!

However, I also think that when theists are questioned about their beliefs, they become very dogmatic and strap on the old fundamentalist robe. This is just my experience, though. Generally, they can't describe their wishy-washy feelings, so they resort to the old biblical standards. But then they realize they can't reconcile the standards with common sense and what they themselves know about the world. The result is a very nebulous and discombobulated description of their beliefs.

That's just my pop psychology version of things.

Other Comments by Fedler

34. Comment #45912 by lt_zippy2 on May 29, 2007 at 3:34 pm

It's funny, I mean the article says fundamentalists on both sides love him, and I remember watching the Q&A vid from Lynchberg where the Liberty Uni student got up and stated that after listening to Dawkins stated it convinced him that there was a god. I'm still scratching my head about that.

Then recently I was speaking to a friend who is on the one hand a VERY devout Catholic, yet rejects the idea of creationism and fully accepts evolution, who then proceeded to refer to Prof. Dawkins as that "awful little man;" then praised his work in the field of Biology. I happened to mention the chapter in A Devil's Chaplain where he entered the discussion with SJ Gould about not even debating with creationist and why and he also agreed with that too.

Schizophrenic (sp?) or what?

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

35. Comment #45914 by clashpalace on May 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Its a fair criticism. But its too generalized. Its very true that some people no matter how blunt you show them the facts will always revert to their own beliefs. But I actually am A fan of it.

Too long have people been wishy-washy and worried about offending people and their beliefs. Sometimes you just need to grab a drunkard by the scruff of their neck and dunk their heads into a water filled horse troff of soberness to snap them out of it.

I speak from firsthand experience. Because it took the book to do that to me. And I'm sure its done the same for others.

I think my point is if The God Delusion was romantic and unoffensive. It would have not made such an impact on me.

Other Comments by clashpalace

36. Comment #45916 by alovrin on May 29, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Boy Oh Boy this is a nothing article.
Its only purpose seemed to be as a set up so M. Kettle could take a swipe at Richard Dawkins. Because apparently, according to Squire Martin Kettle, Prof Dawkins "just doesn't get what makes people tick."

Of course he is referring to some metaphysical aspect or something ...um... in the human psyche, if I catch his drift?

Tho' the inference, not very subtly put, is that Squire Kettle, being the egalitarian popularist and "atheist" that he is, does have such an understanding.

Well bully for him....

Other Comments by alovrin

37. Comment #45923 by Shuggy on May 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm

The liberal and decent archbishop of Canterbury

who last week invited 800 bishops to the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference, but not the one gay one (or, it must be said, one who's broken away because of the gay one).

Has RD ever said or indicated that he expected mass deconversions as a result of his book?

Other Comments by Shuggy

38. Comment #45926 by polishrequiem on May 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I guess that for the most part I am not very interested in pandering to the middle on this issue because of their ineffectuality and their permissiveness.
I haven't much truck with people with rather amorphous religious beliefs, who are uncertain but enjoy some level of ceremony and aren't interested in literalism. Interpersonally they are generally fine people whose ideas about most of the world are ok. They have some kind of "feeling" about the universe and their own relation to life and one another is filtered through their rather amorphous culturally-located traditions. Most of them don't want to legislate their beliefs because they don't have religious beliefs to legislate. But their lack of personal conviction and their incredible interpersonal permissiveness (which makes them so "nice") makes a huge space for the fundies to run amock. I hate to say it, but it can look sometimes (with guys like Aslan and Hedges as recent examples) as though decent and well-educated people end up like so many cattle standing around chewing their cud and rationalizing it with their frontal lobes.
That interpersonal pleasantry needs to end. As Harris says, we need the moderate to close the space that lets the fundies spew their filth everywhere. So we may are simply calling on the moderate to s*** or get off the pot. Actively help us end the nonsense.

Other Comments by polishrequiem

39. Comment #45930 by _J_ on May 29, 2007 at 4:37 pm

I hate the The Dawkins Delusion title too. It's terribly old, now.

But basically I think Martin Kettle has a good point.

Just look at it coldly. That test Dawkins underwent for - what was it? - temporal lobe epilepsy? If I remember rightly, his complete non-presentation of anything like a religious feeling put him in a minority of about 20%. By this criterion at least, Richard is in a very clear minority in terms of his natural ability to appreciate experiences that characterise religion for many.

I'm not saying Richard is wrong. I don't think he is. His books have had a huge impact on me. But I think it's fair to observe - and I think a lot of Richard's own comments indicate his own recognition of this - that there is an extent to which the very common experience of religious faith is something that he really does not 'get' (and what an elegant phrase that really is). It's something that eludes sheer logic. (And it is not quite the same as awe at the majesty of the universe. Really, it's not.)

Whether we like this or loathe it, it's ridiculous to stick our fingers in our eyes and comfortingly imagine that it ain't so. Many religious people aren't as daft and anti-rationalistic as we often suppose around here. Their ability to hold antithetical rational and faith-based attitudes simultaneously is, I think, endlessly fascinating, and really quite resistant to good, iron-clad, sense.

This doesn't mean that Richard's work is worthless or ineffective. Far from it. Personally, I value it enormously, and may not be an atheist myself without it. Let's just take the sort of approach that Dawkins has himself endlessly explained to us in his writings about evolution and be scientific here: admit that we don't fully understand this religious double-think and that we need to study it, rather than caricaturing it as straightforward reality-defying silliness.

I really don't like the flavour of this military metaphor, but: wars aren't won by underestimating the sophistication of the opponent. And, to achieve that estimation, you need a few generals who can genuinely think like the other side. Dawkins is not such a general. He has some of the biggest guns around and he can recruit to the cause like nobody's business and we'd be much worse off without him, but understanding the faithful isn't his strong suit. Evangelistic atheism as a whole would be foolish (and strategically irrational) to - in automically supporting everything Richard says and does - allow this foible to become an Achilles' heel of the movement/worldview/philosophical position as a whole.

That's my tuppence worth. Now, is this the wall and do I get a last cigarette...?

Other Comments by _J_

40. Comment #45931 by Bonzai on May 29, 2007 at 4:40 pm

As Harris says, we need the moderate to close the space that lets the fundies spew their filth everywhere. So we may are simply calling on the moderate to s*** or get off the pot.

This is silly. Why can't he simply attack the fundies?

I don't agree that moderate or liberal religious people lack convictions, I know christians who are active in many social justice movements. There are many kinds of conviction, believing in a definitive God and a detailed creation myth is not a prerequisite to commitments and convictions on important issues.

Other Comments by Bonzai

41. Comment #45937 by davyB on May 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm

He misses the mark too. The reason that people "believe" cannot be that it makes them feel better. Too many believers feel miserable to give that any credence. Here's the real reason: social norms.

Monotheism may have been invented by tyrants to control the populace, and it is frequently exploited by politicians today. But it perpetuates itself by social momentum. When non-believers are treated as sinful outcasts, it is hardly surprizing that people profess to be religious. And to keep a sense of integrity, they must "believe that they believe." Thus the cycle goes on through the generations.

Other Comments by davyB

42. Comment #45946 by sgr79 on May 29, 2007 at 6:07 pm

It seems to me that the reason the author says that the fundamentalists on both sides love him [Dawkins] is that Dawkins, by supposedly polarizing the issue in black and white terms, forces the middle quasi-religious to choose which side they stand on as individuals, and the religious fundamentalists still believe they win that battle...

Regarding the comments about the "wishy-washy" people in the middle, though Dawkins has a point that okaying some faith opens a door that can lead to fundamentalism, I'd like to describe a co-worker of mine.

She descibes herself as a "cafeteria Catholic": she picks and chooses what she wants to believe, and can freely state that sometimes she feels silly because she can't quite explain why she believes, but at least she has THOUGHT about it and recognizes her situation. However, she has complete respect for me being an atheist, and it would never occur to her to pray for me so that I "may accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal saviour," as at least two others have told me they have.

Compare this to my boyfriend, who is the son of a Southern Baptist preacher, who I just found out does not believe in evolution at ALL, and believes the Bible literally but yet has no appearance to have ever truly THOUGHT about it. (He's been willing to stay with me though I don't believe in God, so it's only fair for me try to see past his not believing in evolution -- at least he is not against it being taught in schools.) I try to ask him questions that will make him think, but unfortunately he rarely answers (which leads me to think that he must be thinking about it now, since at least he's not handing me a canned answer).

So, my point is that to me it seems more important that people actually THINK, and then if they decide to still believe, then so be it. As long as they don't let themselves be brainwashed or follow leaders like sheep without thinking!

On a different tangent, about religious gatherings and their social/anthropological value -- I wonder how many, if instead of it being a religious gathering it was a weekly gathering to make the place a better world, would still attend on a weekly basis?

Other Comments by sgr79

43. Comment #45951 by paterfam001 on May 29, 2007 at 6:45 pm

I think 'The Dawkins Delusion' is boring, too. What about something original, like, oh, 'The Devil's Chaplain'?

What's that? Someone used that one already? Oh, damn.

We thank thee, O Lord, for our dear brother Richard, who holds our feet to the fire, thus bringing us closer to the Holy Martyrs who perished in Thy Name.

Other Comments by paterfam001

44. Comment #45956 by LeeLeeOne on May 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Ahhh, evolution at its best! Does anyone realize that "evolving" from a fundie/xtian to an atheist requires a bit of anti-theism? We all know the phrase - build it, they will come. Well, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Meyers, etc. (we all know their names), are building (educating the masses) a foundation for rational thought that was started eons ago. The ignorant human race may one day be an educated human race. But as we all know, evolution takes ... time .... education may take more time than the human race has currently been on this planet. (baby steps, baby steps) We need to keep the evolution going, to fight the good fight, to understand those who wish to remain moderate but, if you are not one of them, if you are more of an anti-theist, do something! Actions speak louder than words; case in point for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Meyers, Penn & Teller, Christopher Hitchens, etc.... They've proven this and are educating the masses.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

45. Comment #45958 by ghostbuster on May 29, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Perhaps the need for religion, wishy or washy comes from the need to have hierarchy, a safe set-up even if in fantasy. Humans make gods out of just about anything or anyone (although not everyone does)and when our basics needs for survival are met, we tend to abandon hierarchal fantasy systems and substitute real ones, ie. State.We are social animals; we can never abandon some form of social set up. Ever wonder why religions do not like socialism? Yet, they like political systems that leave joe/jane-average to the dogs where joe/jane
average finds comfort and meaning to their unstable and/or bleak existence through fantasy systems where big daddy has his/her best interests at heart. Create a need, offer the solution.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

46. Comment #45959 by ghostbuster on May 29, 2007 at 7:56 pm

The Dubious Delusional Dendrites of Dawkins: Axon-ing the Important Question. Sound more interesting?

Other Comments by ghostbuster

47. Comment #45966 by leigh on May 29, 2007 at 9:11 pm

In a direct appeal to the quasi religious wishy washy 'masses' I would like to see Professor Dawkins make a sustained polemic of sorts on the moral case for athiesm in any upcoming forum such as the Hay festival. He's said it all before in bits and pieces and in detail in the God delusion but it seems all to easy for media commentators to overlook the points they wish (or as most often seems to be the case to simply not read the texts they are commenting on).

Then in future when such criticisms as: "But he cannot engage with the millions who just feel better with some sort of confused belief than with nothing at all." crop up he can respond with refer to my speech etc etc.

Such an appeal could include the "isn't it better to be moral for its own sake not for fear of punishment", "morals precede scripture", "wonder at nature", how vastly improbable and therefore lucky we are, no afterlife makes this one more important etc etc.

He's said it all before but having these type of arguments in one place may be helpful particularly for us for refering people such as sgr79's co-worker.

Contrary Martin Kettle's opinion the comments here so far seem to suggest we athiests (particularly the deconverted) do understand this wishy-washy superstition. sgr79's colleague is correct that it is better to have at least thought about it, perhaps with some more thinking they will see the light and no longer need their superstition.

If Dawkins and Harris et al do no more than to encourage these people in the middle ground to question their beliefs and superstitions, then it is still a worthy cause and not deserving of the sort of criticism the media is dishing out.

Other Comments by leigh

48. Comment #45973 by Richard Dawkins on May 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm

It's precisely because I DO 'get it' that I spend so much of my time and energy fighting to change it.

As for the dozy title, I doubt if Martin Kettle is to blame. I have discovered over years of writing for newspapers that there is an otherwise underemployed species called Sub-Editor. Sub-Editors jealously guard their ancient right to make up titles for articles, which they may or may not have read. By long tradition, the one person who is absolutely debarred from any input into the title is the author. Indeed, if an author is really concerned that a particular title should NOT be used, his best tactic is to suggest it.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

49. Comment #45979 by Rob3fm on May 30, 2007 at 12:06 am

I've read your book Mr. Dawkins (well, not just one), and I've seen many of your interviews, and I'm convinced you do get it. I think many people want you to preface every criticism you have with something nice--probably because what you have to say is unpopular. I think you've found a proper middle ground: you've never seemed mean or personal in your attacks, yet you come across harshly enough to make an impression and maybe get some people to think a little harder.

Other Comments by Rob3fm

50. Comment #45980 by relevo on May 30, 2007 at 12:08 am

Professor Dawkins,

it's not that you don't 'get it', but rather that others you are trying to reach who don't 'get it' think you don't 'get it', because they have psychological comfort groups from which within they consistently encourage themselves with the notion that you don't 'get it'. There's a reason atheists aren't majority rule, and that is a lack of comfortable answer to an anxious existence, an answer equal in analgesic effect to that of religious fantasy. With organized religions come religious edifices, evangelizing representatives, and other familial forms of customer service. These provide the illusion of respectability. Even in the intellectual arena, the illusion is carried on through departments of divinity. If you want to make society more ethically atheist, you have to out-compete these organizations by using the natural sociopsychological inclinations toward survival, and security people carry which leads them to choose religious delusion. You must use natural selection to your advantage, as religious organizations have learned to do, however, oblivious they may have been in the process of doing so.

I'm pretty sure Martin Kettle is saying that if you want to make a noticeable lasting effect on the religious, you must study their technique to find what is it that keeps them ticking so successfully, then improve on that technique in such form that achieves the ethical secular scientifically honest society we all desire.

Other Comments by relevo