1. Comment #84255 by Mr DArcy on November 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Was it Woody Allen who said something like, "I'm the living proof of immortality"?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

2. Comment #84256 by Eamonn Shute on November 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Woody Allen said "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve immortality through not dying".

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

3. Comment #84257 by ksskidude on November 1, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Pish posh! This what I got out of this article. Again another tired attempt to make erroneous claims that Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are being mean spirited, and are not being fair to all people of religion.

They are being very fair, they all equally find a belief in god irrational, to the point of absurdity. Like it or not, it is what Athiest think of most believers.

Other Comments by ksskidude

4. Comment #84261 by bruce on November 1, 2007 at 3:14 pm

God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end.

Yeah, because nobody ever dies.

Other Comments by bruce

5. Comment #84270 by Blue Lithium on November 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm

"we continue to long for a transcendent purpose immanent in existence itself, independent of our own wills."

Don't presume to tell me what I think. I actually DON'T think that at all.

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

6. Comment #84273 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Few of us, especially as we grow older, are entirely comfortable with the idea that life is full of sound and fury but signi-fies nothing. However much philosophers tell us that it is illogical to fear death, and that at worst it is only the process of dying that we should fear, people still fear death as much as ever.

Because being told you might be tortured for eternity due to the transgression of some Byzantine rule in The 2nd book of Pious Musings, chapter 72 verse 113, is so much more comforting than non-existence ...

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

7. Comment #84276 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Brian raises an interesting point. I wonder how many "everyday", wishy washy religious folks think that they may go to hell. It would be fascinating to see a poll on this. I think most of them would imagine themselves going to heaven and hell is reserved for the truly evil, even though this conviction is not borne out by the Scriptures.

Since wishful thinking is probably the most profound reason underlying their religiosity there is no reason why they can't turn their wishful thinking on religion as well.

Other Comments by Bonzai

8. Comment #84277 by Damien White on November 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm

"...and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end..."

So what? Wasn't the challenge to strike him dead IN 60 SECONDS?

If this drivel is to be believed, I can prove i'm a god right now by pointing at someone and saying: "You will die at an unspecified time in the future."

Other Comments by Damien White

9. Comment #84283 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Now the argument is "since we all die, therefore God exists". The apologetics are getting ever more bizzare.

Other Comments by Bonzai

10. Comment #84287 by ChrisMcL on November 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Dalrymple misread Breaking the Spell. He should re-read it. Dalrymple also assumes a great deal about how the universe works. He is an atheist who wants for a purpose outside himself.

It is true that many of my favorite atheist writers of late make some outrageous statements. But even if they are mistaken in a few of their statements, we are better off for having considered what they have to say.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

11. Comment #84291 by TranshumanAtheist on November 1, 2007 at 4:15 pm

we continue to long for a transcendent purpose immanent in existence itself, independent of our own wills.

A god doesn't necessarily solve that problem. What if it turns out that god's existence has no purpose?

Better yet, what if we discover that god came into existence through "random chance"?

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

12. Comment #84293 by PrimeNumbers on November 1, 2007 at 4:23 pm

A creator god might give meaning to us, but it's not likely to give meaning to that god, as if we need something external to ourselves to give us meaning, god too must need something external to itself to give it meaning. Yet again, "godditit" answers everything, yet actually answers nothing. It adds no information content, just sets the question back another level.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

13. Comment #84305 by hopeful on November 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"To tell us that we should not feel this longing is a bit like telling someone in the first flush of love that the object of his affections is not worthy of them."

I don't think atheists tell people they should not long for transcendant purpose.

Atheists tell people they should not be duped into thinking the answers lie in ancient man-made god myths.

Other Comments by hopeful

14. Comment #84306 by BaronOchs on November 1, 2007 at 5:25 pm

"Upon the Sight of a Harlot Carted". . . one casts mire, another water, another rotten eggs, upon the miserable offender. Neither, indeed, is she worthy of less"

Matt 21:31- . . .Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

La da duh di dah

Other Comments by BaronOchs

15. Comment #84307 by Goldy on November 1, 2007 at 5:36 pm

The British parliament's first avowedly atheist member, Charles Bradlaugh, would stride into public meetings in the 1880s, take out his pocket watch, and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end

If you read past this, you got to be really bored....

Other Comments by Goldy

16. Comment #84308 by Quine on November 1, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I am happy to say that the transcendent purpose of the lives of the folks during the days of Homo erectus was so you could exist to read these words. If we do the right things, future generations will look back on the transcendent purpose of our lives the same way.

Other Comments by Quine

17. Comment #84313 by Cartomancer on November 1, 2007 at 5:56 pm

"To regret religion is to regret Western civilization"

Three prominent misunderstandings here.

(i) Funnily enough "Eastern" civilization has religion too. Well fancy that...

(ii) The implied equation of religion with civilization is facile and overly deterministic. It is probably not intended so strongly as that, but if not then it is just cheap provocation.

(iii) We as atheists do not 'regret' that religion ever existed. Most of us, it seems, view it as a perfectly explicable cultural phenomenon that has shaped our past and recognise that we cannot change what has already happened. We also recognise that it is no longer necessary or helpful, and we are trying our hardest to point this out to others in the hope that it will not shape our future.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

18. Comment #84320 by Theocrapcy on November 1, 2007 at 6:10 pm

An atheist thinks the religious are deluded.

A faith-head thinks atheists will burn in hell for eternity.

Gee, we're so mean to them.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

19. Comment #84331 by coretemprising on November 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Theocrapcy, I like it, but maybe you could have added a bit for emphasis--

An atheist thinks the religious are deluded, and that nobody will go to any hell no matter what they do.

A faith-head thinks atheists will burn in hell for eternity.

Gee, we're so mean to them.

Other Comments by coretemprising

20. Comment #84333 by communion wafer on November 1, 2007 at 6:42 pm

"To regret religion is to regret Western civilization"

Couldn't we say the same thing about slavery?

Other Comments by communion wafer

21. Comment #84335 by Shuggy on November 1, 2007 at 7:12 pm

"Religion spoils everything."

What? The Saint Matthew Passion?

Absolutely!

Pilate: I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it.

CHORUS: His blood be on us and on our children, be on us and on our children, be on us, be on us and on our chil - dren.

Other Comments by Shuggy

22. Comment #84342 by John Pritzlaff on November 1, 2007 at 8:50 pm

I do think there is, at times, a transcendent purpose independent of my own will (such as a social movement or the will of another), but I don't believe in any absolute purpose in the universe, and I don't think we have to have something absolute to have that kind of purpose (the transcendent and independent kind). Any purpose in the universe is either a longterm trend (such as evolution or entropy) or one or more agent's opinions (and while this does not necessarily degrade the purpose, it does mean that life is what you make it). I don't know if this means I agree or disagree with the "immanent in existence itself" clause; I think it could be said that I agree with it because even in a bare universe without any agents, order could be the "default" purpose, and a grander purpose could be the formation of complex, conscious life. So I do think purpose exists, but it is never absolute and always subjective (and subjectivity in this case is not a bad thing; it is a very good thing -- it's what makes us who we are... also, subjective purpose is not incompatible with purpose independent of our own wills, because there is still the wills of others and the unconscious trends of the universe).

Other Comments by John Pritzlaff

23. Comment #84351 by dloubet on November 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm

It's worse than that Theocrapcy, the faith heads agree with their god-character that atheists DESERVE to be tortured forever in a lake of fire.

It's not that they just think we will, it's that they consider such a thing Perfect Justice. Their worship paints them as complicit in such atrocity.

Shudder.

Other Comments by dloubet

24. Comment #84365 by JanChan on November 1, 2007 at 11:02 pm

This article is an out of control exercise in quote mining. Almost every single quote have been taken out of context.

Here is what I'm going to do, I'm going to 'return' the favour. Did you know that the article wrote:

"Dawkins's claim that religious education constitutes child abuse look sane and moderate"

Other Comments by JanChan

25. Comment #84367 by JD Cherry on November 1, 2007 at 11:06 pm

What really got me was when he suggested that thinking a butterfly's purpose is gathering nectar rather than looking pretty is a dehumanizing notion. The Douglas Adams quote at the start of The God Delusion comes to mind.

Daniel Dennett is an avowed Cathedral-phile. Dawkins has said many times that the music of religion is a treasure, and that one cannot understand European history without Christianity. Harris said that the Bible should be shelved respectfully next to Dante and Shakespeare. Hitch... well I'll get back to you. Anyways, these men do not regret western civilization. The fact is that it's time to grow up.

I really wonder what goes on in the mind of a man who claims to have sworn off God at age 9, and writes religious apologetics. He must really think that the universe is thoroughly dreadful, and that only people like him who have the consolation of philosophy can make a godless life bearable.

Finally, I wonder if it irks faith-heads to have the godless providing their arguments for them. I would think that it would be insulting to have all these philosophers shrugging off your God's existence then claiming that you have no innate ability to make life worth living without your ancient fairy tales. We at least give them the respect of thinking they can handle the truth, should they accept it.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

26. Comment #84369 by fatcitymax on November 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

You didn't exist for the nearly all the past 13.6 billion years or so, and soon you won't exist for the rest of eternity. There is no transcendent meaning to it.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

27. Comment #84370 by windweaver on November 1, 2007 at 11:22 pm

"After all, they are not highly educated, so they have no culture; there is no religion, there is no belief that the country is involved in a transcendental purpose, so there is very little left for them; they live in their own soap opera, actually."
-Theodore Dalrymple talking about people "at the lower end of the social scale" in Britain.

Not only is this man an intellectual snob, he's obviously got it in for any working class person who doesn't worship a sky fairy.

Other Comments by windweaver

28. Comment #84377 by mmurray on November 2, 2007 at 12:03 am

What really got me was when he suggested that thinking a butterfly's purpose is gathering nectar rather than looking pretty is a dehumanizing notion.

I didn't read that far but he really knows nothing about evolution. The pretty colouring will have a purpose like camouflage or attracting a mate just as much as the gather nectar does.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

29. Comment #84404 by infidel_michael on November 2, 2007 at 2:26 am

What the Theists Don't See: Western civilization is built on science. Religion is only a decoration.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

30. Comment #84417 by Kris Verburgh on November 2, 2007 at 3:00 am

"and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds". Aha, that's a good one. Point made I think ;-).

Other Comments by Kris Verburgh

31. Comment #84424 by Mr. Sink on November 2, 2007 at 3:17 am

@ windweaver

The man is no intellectual snob. He'd have to be an intellectual for that.

One of his core theses - if there is such a thing in his worryingly unstructured and implausible writing - seems to be that there is no beauty in nature without a god (or religion? I forget which). Well, that's a new one... yawn. Granted, 'Unweaving the Rainbow' might be a bit harder to understand than 'Of Peolpe and Pandas' but it could help him to shed some light for spring-cleaning his cerebral wardrobe.

The other ridiculous notion is the ill-conceived argument that there would be no civilisation without religion. History seems to indicate that our civiisation might well be even more advanced had it not been for religious fanatics burning people with different ideas at the stake.

But then again, after reading another one of Theodore Dalrymple's musings called 'Islam, the Marxism of Our Time' leaves no doubt as to the intellectual frame of mind he's in. Not only doesn't he know a lot, he can't even be bothered to research his pompous presumptions. I've read school essays with a lot more intelectual drive.

Other Comments by Mr. Sink

32. Comment #84432 by Duff on November 2, 2007 at 3:30 am

Aside from some nice buildings and some great music (something non-theists have also produced) name one positive thing religion has brought to western civilization.

Other Comments by Duff

33. Comment #84439 by ridelo on November 2, 2007 at 3:45 am

The British parliament's first avowedly atheist member, Charles Bradlaugh, would stride into public meetings in the 1880s, take out his pocket watch, and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end.

Even if Bradlaugh had died in those 60 seconds, it still could be by natural causes...

Other Comments by ridelo

34. Comment #84445 by BaronOchs on November 2, 2007 at 4:02 am

windweaver Most of Theodore Dalrymple's articles document the social problems facing modern society. Drug abuse, violence, theft, mistreatment of children etc, and his main thesis is these are enabled to grow by social policy that is inspired by erroneous liberal ideas.

I'm not endorsing him necessarily, just saying it's worth reading some of his more typical output to see where he is coming from. i.e. He isn't attacking good working class non-sky fairy worshipping people. It is criminals and people who ignore their social responsibilites that worry him, and the liberals who he argues make excuses for these things.

Hence perhaps his attitude towards Dawkins et al here. From his point of view Dawkins is probably a complacent liberal who thinks things can only get better without religion when religion is not a factor in many social problems of modern day society.

From a better article he wrote on religion:

So I think I know what Marx meant when he wrote that religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the heart of a heartless world, the opium of the people. Of course, he misidentified the oppressor: in present-day England it is not the bloated plutocrat; it is your drug-dealing, rock-music-playing, baseball-bat-wielding neighbor. And inside this Pentecostal church the pastor addresses a large congregation that knows only too well what it is to live in the shadow of lawlessness, where psychopathy rules. He quotes the case of a seven-year-old girl, placed on a table in a pub by her mother and sold to the highest bidder to abuse as he liked for the night—a story I should be inclined to dismiss as apocryphal were I not to hear equivalently dreadful tales every day in my hospital.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

35. Comment #84449 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 4:08 am

"What the Theists Don't See: Western civilization is built on science. Religion is only a decoration."

What ATHEISTS don't seem to see (tho' Dawkins did concede the point in his debate with John Lennox) is that Western science is actually based on a Judeo-Christian world view. Copernicus, Galileo (who remained a Christian even after his clash with the Vatican), Kepler, Locke, Newton etc. etc. Need I go on? Galileo's clash was not with a Biblical world view but will an Aristotelean cosmological model which can be traced back to Ptolomy. Although the Vatican had espoused the geo-centric model it certainly did not originate within Catholicism, and many of the exponents of this model were actually secular Renaissance humanists who had a vested interest in seeing the earth and especially Man at the centre of the cosmos. Galileo's views were not only resisted by the Vatican, but also by secular humanists.

It was in fact mainly protestant scientists, deeply committed to a Biblical paradigm, who rescued science from the clutches of Aristoleleanism. Without their foundational insights and exploration of the cosmos in accordance with what they saw to be their God-given mandate, science would still be in the "Dark Ages".

Other Comments by ADH

36. Comment #84465 by infidel_michael on November 2, 2007 at 5:14 am

ADH: Western science is actually based on a Judeo-Christian world view. Copernicus, Galileo (who remained a Christian even after his clash with the Vatican), Kepler, Locke, Newton etc. etc. Need I go on?

No, it's enough. It is enough to see that you confuse 2 things:

1. science based on a judeo-christian world-view
2. science performed by people with judeo-christian world-view

There is nothing in scientific method that requires judeo-christian beliefs. Many scientists were Christian, and what? Their hypotheses were independent of their religion. Science is based on the observable, religion on the unobservable. Maybe their interpretations of their findings were religious, but the content of their scientific work definitely wasn't based on biblical beliefs.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

37. Comment #84480 by Ian on November 2, 2007 at 6:20 am

I have to admire those of you who continued reading.

Reading this on the tail end of a night shift, I was under the impression that this was a fatuous little snipe when it appears to be a fatuous big one.

Mr Dalrmyple, the quote at the start of your essay is not by Satre, but Samual Beckett. If you want some of my time, you are going to have to check your facts first. We may not all be university graduates, but we can still read.

As for transcendental purpose, you may have an innate longing for it, but that is irrelevent to whether there actually is one and it's arrogance beyond expression to assume a 14.7 billion year old universe exists with you as its focus.

Bradlaugh by the way, died of a urinary infection, a fate shared with many of the pious.

Other Comments by Ian

38. Comment #84481 by wilk1978 on November 2, 2007 at 6:27 am

Wow...where to begin. One of Dalrymple's main points seems to be that the 'new atheists' are extremely condescending in their arguments, yet he writes in the most arrogant, condescending prose available. Compare these two sentences that he wrote:

"Dennett's Breaking the Spell is the least bad-tempered of the new atheist books, but it is deeply condescending to all religious people."

"Yet with the possible exception of Dennett's, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14"

So, let me get this straight. He is accusing the 'new atheists' of speaking down to believers, but yet he concedes that religious beliefs are so ridiculous and simplistic that he saw right through them when he was 14.

He later accuses the new atheists of not saying anything that hasn't already been said before, yet he himself trots out the tired old arguments Stalin and Hitler, the absence of morality without religion, the slander that atheists have not capacity to appreciate the 'non-empirical' aspects of life, etc.

Other Comments by wilk1978

39. Comment #84494 by Erik on November 2, 2007 at 7:07 am

Along the lines of slavery, to regret the wholesale slaughter of native Americans is to regret Western civilization. To me, the whole point seems to be that Western ideas have flourished in large part because they are open to criticism. Religious thought may be criticized by believers, but must also be open to criticism from unbelievers, on the grounds that faith itself is an unreliable process for coming to understand anything. The idea that critics of religion would toss out the life work of Isaac Newton because he was in some respects a religious nutcase is a straw man.

I also don't see what the fuss is about with the supposed significance of life. In fact, I have some difficulty understanding what it is that people actually mean when they say this, although I suspect that many of them mean to say "I have a hard time accepting the idea that when I die, that's it."

Frankly, I find this to be a most liberating notion. I think it is rather easy to slip from the idea that there is some significance to life to the idea that perhaps the things you do and say in this life will affect you after you die. In the religious context, therefore, there are thought crimes, one of the most heinous aspects of it all. Lose this unsupported notion and your mind is one step closer to free.

If Dalrymple means to say that religious thinkers came up with paradigms about nature that could over time be tested against the facts, that is all well and good. (Although one point must be made -- exactly what room was there in, say, 16th century Europe for a prominent scientist to be explicitly atheist?) What is plain as the nose on your face is that religious concepts simply have no useful place any more, if they ever did.

Other Comments by Erik

40. Comment #84498 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 2, 2007 at 7:23 am

It is a distraction to ask how did "Western Civilization" get where it is. It's here and it's evolving. Yes, evolution is everywhere. Reason should take over from faith in that evolutionary process, now that life has been explained (there's no meaning of life - sorry).
However, let's also not be distracted by the term "Western Civilization" - there's an implied attack on "Eastern Civilization", and on island Earth we're all in it together.
Where Global Civilization is going is not predetermined but it has to be more "truthful" with itself, and reason and understanding of science are the way to that truth.
First, humanity must shake off the religion virus, which is surprisingly resilient. We do have a cure - innoculate the children of the world with daily doses of reason, and if possible quarantine them from the virus.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

41. Comment #84502 by Vinelectric on November 2, 2007 at 7:32 am

(Michel Onfray) says on its second page that religion prevents mankind from facing up to "reality in all its naked cruelty." But how can reality have any moral quality without having an immanent or transcendent purpose?

I've always thought that the reason why such language is used is to argue against the morality of whatever transcendent being there is. That being can not be the source of morality for, even if we assumed its presence (e.g Nature), then the fact that we find ourselves constantly struggling against the odds of death and destruction is a point to be taken against theism.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

42. Comment #84506 by cowalker on November 2, 2007 at 7:54 am

Shorter Dalrymple:
Some atheists who attack religious belief slip into expressions that imply ontological moral evaluation. That proves we have something metaphysical in our minds. Since no one can prove the non-existence of demons, they are quite as likely to exist as the sun, so it would be very rude to condescend to exorcists. Anyone who regrets the Black Plague regrets Western Civilization. An atheist wrote that one might have to consider executing someone who believes he will be rewarded in heaven for killing as many people as possible who don't share his faith. A clergyman who does nothing to change the practice of carting people through the streets to be pelted with sewage and rotten eggs for having unlicensed sex is much better than an atheist who speculates on how to prevent faith-based terrorist acts. I wish I lived back when people could really write, and when atheism was confined to the upper-classes. The lower classes just can't handle it.

Other Comments by cowalker

43. Comment #84516 by nancy2001 on November 2, 2007 at 8:25 am

I hereby nominate Theodore Dalrymple (ridiculous name) to be officially and permanently excommunincated from the atheist community.

Other Comments by nancy2001

44. Comment #84528 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 9:20 am

Quote: "I hereby nominate Theodore Dalrymple (ridiculous name) to be officially and permanently excommunincated from the atheist community."

Can you tell me when the Auto da Fe has been arranged for? I would like to come along.

Other Comments by ADH

45. Comment #84533 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 9:32 am

In my opinion Theodore Dalrymple is usually an excellent writer, both in style and in his thinking. He is, of course, on Sam Harris's recommended reading list (I have been wondering if Sam will strike him off it in a fit of pique. To do so would be childish, but not to do so would be like saying you adored someone who despised you; this is possible of course, though perhaps it's not a normal human reaction. Still, Sam's a Buddhist of sorts so I'm sure he'll have some trick up his sleeve, something along the lines of different definitions of the self e.g. the self that wrote The End of Faith was not the self who was insulted in the review etc.).

From the comments now raging on another thread I suspect that most members of this site would not be impressed by Dalrymple's analysis of where the current evils of British society come from. Though he puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of progressive left-wing intellectuals, he also sees the people at the bottom of society as being better able to direct their fate than they presently do. Once they are stripped of the fiction that they are simply helpless victims whose fate is as inevitable as the weather, they might start to see themselves as active agents and begin to gain some control over their lives. Of course, to do this they would need some help. But they would also have to want to help themselves.

Dalrymple is critical of the welfare state and sees this as having contributed to the breakdown of traditional social relations and creating a section of self-perceived passive victims in society. The fact that Sam has recommended Dalrymple's book, Life at the Bottom, suggests to me that he subscribes to many of Dalrymple's views. If not, why would he recommend the book? I can almost hear the comments on this site if that turns out to be really the case:

"Though Sam Harris is an astute commentator on religion I think it's time he got his act together on social issues. How can he be so callous as to not give a damn about the poor? I really don't think he can trusted on anything if he thinks in such a right-wing way" etc. etc.

I personally think 'Life at the Bottom' is a wonderful book and simply because Dalrymple writes for a right-wing journal shouldn't disqualify his views from serious consideration. For me this is obvious, but I've noticed here that labelling someone as right-wing is seen as both an insult and a winning argument rolled into one.

While on the topic of labels being a way of circumventing an argument, I think Sam was right in dividing his reasons for wanting to lose the badge of atheism into philosophical reasons and strategic reasons. I feel he was completely right on the former and partially right on the latter. However, in my view he wasn't right enough on the strategic part to warrant exchanging the strength we now feel in our new-found solidarity for a more refined way of infiltrating the defences of the faithful. I feel a sledge-hammer approach rather than the odourless knock-out gas approach is what's needed, at least at the moment.

Back to Dalrymple. He reviewed The God Delusion about a year ago and BaronOchs is absolutely right in his analysis of what is on Dalrymple's mind when he attacks the New Atheists: he sees the fabric of society unravelling and anything that might keep it together, as he believes moderate religion can do and has done, is worth preserving. He adheres to Dan Dennett's car bumper sticker advice regarding how to achieve happiness, namely, to dedicate your life to something bigger and more important than yourself. Religion is obviously one way of doing this with the added bonus of keeping unbribled selfishness and nihilism from the door.

I think Dalrymple feels that although the intellectually inclined can have larger-than-self interests like reading the classics or developing an appreciation of art, for the rest of humanity religion offers a useful door onto something outside their own petty, seemingly pointless lives.

I have to say that when I look at the problems that English society has right now, I actually don't believe that getting rid of the C of E is our main priority, at least in the short term, though getting rid of Islam possibly is. Once again I think Sam is right to point out that we are being dishonest when we try to be even-handed in our criticisms of religion. Moderate Christianity isn't really a danger any more and to tar it with the same brush as Islam is facile. I think it is the former kind of religion that Dalrymple is trying to defend - from us.

Having said all that, I found his review of The God Delusion really lame and this latest review is even worse. I couldn't believe that someone who could write with such insight about other subjects could write so sloppily and tendentiously about the so-called New Atheists. Just the fact that he wants to corner the market in transcendental moments for the faithful is a big fat cheek. Though I must confess to never having had a proper one myself (this is tantamount to confessing to being a 30-year-old male virgin at the rugby club), others here appear to have them on a regular basis, assuming that 'awe' counts as something transcendental. However, I did, one night several years ago, suddenly feel strangely at home in the universe as I sat on a hard wooden bench, gazing up at the night sky while my friend went off to get us both another 'Krug' from the beer tent at the Oktoberfest in Munich.

Other Comments by keith

46. Comment #84540 by Allan on November 2, 2007 at 10:21 am

What a strange chap! Mr Dalrymple claims that the "authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave". I can't remember Dawkins, Hitch or Harris claiming that they are being brave in writing these books or even that what they are doing is new. I'd say that the all that the authors are doing is reacting to current popular feelings simply because most people are fed up with religion encroaching into every aspect of society and politics.

Other Comments by Allan

47. Comment #84585 by will young on November 2, 2007 at 3:37 pm

keith says, "I think Dalrymple feels that although the intellectually inclined can have larger-than-self interests like reading the classics or developing an appreciation of art, for the rest of humanity religion offers a useful door onto something outside their own petty, seemingly pointless lives."

So he is functionally illiterate concerning what it is like to be part of the "rest of humanity"…now that does make sense.

Other Comments by will young

48. Comment #84590 by 35bluejacket on November 2, 2007 at 4:38 pm

What the hell is Dalrymple talking about? Braving tons of philosophers, in my opinion, the true nature and purpose of man is "to seek meaning". This is our evolution. Grab a telescope, microscope, emerse ones self in the math of Newton, Godel or any of the greats. Stand in awe of the cosmos, atomic world, biology, etc. Swim in the fountain of knowledge that will flow through every door we open and will never cease to quench the desire of our hearts and its longing. No human imagination can hold a candle to the glorious mysteries of the universe. And through our efforts we will drag, as always, reluctant civilizatin with us.

Does this sound too religious?

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

49. Comment #84600 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Will Young,

Sorry Will, but I didn't understand this sentence:

So he is functionally illiterate concerning what it is like to be part of the "rest of humanity"

Does 'funcionally illiterate' mean he doesn't understand the rest of humanity? If so, why doesn't he?

Other Comments by keith

50. Comment #84601 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Damien White,

"...and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end..."

So what? Wasn't the challenge to strike him dead IN 60 SECONDS?

If this drivel is to be believed, I can prove i'm a god right now by pointing at someone and saying: "You will die at an unspecified time in the future."

This, I think, was a joke. The man's an atheist. Atheists don't believe that there is a god to strike people down.

Other Comments by keith