1. Comment #126906 by maton100 on February 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Bravo Richard!

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #126911 by Kinobe on February 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"But what *is* belief?"

"What about emotional truth?"

Cringeworthy, but nice to see a moderate's obfuscation brought out so clearly.

Other Comments by Kinobe

3. Comment #126913 by maton100 on February 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm

I wish they would concede that the stories are bullshit, then we could evalute the practical and social function of the text (which isn't much).

Other Comments by maton100

4. Comment #126917 by observer on February 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

well done Mr Dawkins
Ms Bunting is defending the indefensible arguments. Every one opposed to scientific scrutiny of religion has only one argument, "How do you define truth?".

Planes designed by scientific truth really fly but anything made of these spiritual truths is utterly useless if it exists.
homeopathy, tarot cards, astrology are all spiritual "truths" .

Other Comments by observer

5. Comment #126918 by kram50 on February 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I'm way past the point of lauphing at religion...now I feel frustration and an increased level of vexation that makes me want to shake the delusion out of credulous fools.
I'll get over it...maybe!

Other Comments by kram50

6. Comment #126919 by Milton on February 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I think when arguing about labeling children it's more convincing to compare religion to political movements.
"You don't say a democratic child or a republican child" Marxist works nice too!

Furthermore I'd like to add that a child should have the right to label itself anything. It maybe goes without saying, though.

Other Comments by Milton

7. Comment #126920 by Mango on February 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Wonderful tactic -- one doesn't have to answer what one believes by asserting that the word "belief" doesn't apply to what one believes!

Other Comments by Mango

8. Comment #126922 by jimbob on February 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

As I listened to the debate unfold I couldn't help but think that Ms. Bunting is aptly named --- the image of bits of rag blowing in the wind being all too metaphorically obvious.

That aside, if it comes to labels, "postmodernist" would seem to be a good fit?

Other Comments by jimbob

9. Comment #126925 by jakelovatto on February 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

It was hard to keep my food down listening to Madeline Bunting's piffle.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

10. Comment #126928 by Dad on February 14, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I think Ms Bunting's obfuscation spell was broken. Her clammer for the right words simply highlighted her confusion and lack of clarity. I could almost taste her moderate stance being broken down further as she questioned who the hell she was.

Other Comments by Dad

11. Comment #126929 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I am willing to believe that Madeline Bunting is a well-educated, cultivated, intelligent person. This means, then, that in the absence of any verifiable evidence (during this debate), I am a Buntingist.
Like many of you, I positively cringed with embarrassment for her when she came out with things like "there is some truth here which is not about "evidence", not about "fact" ".
One last thing, at last we can be clear about what Richard is referring to when he uses the expression "child abuse" : it is both the labelling of children as Christian or Hindu AND teaching them about hell fire.
EDIT : Richard admits that he is "not trying to be a good politician". What do you guys think about that?
Does it matter?
Do "we" need good politicians?
If so, are there any volunteers here?
(Diancanu and I would most certainly not be in the running!!!!)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

12. Comment #126930 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

God,Madeline is so stupid (at least when it comes to religion-although she may well be just plain stupid).

Other Comments by Jiten

13. Comment #126933 by Matt7895 on February 14, 2008 at 2:16 pm

12. Comment #126930 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

God,Madeline is so stupid (at least when it comes to religion-although she may well be just plain stupid).

I vehemently disagree. She sounds like a very intelligent and reasonable person. She is just slightly deluded when it comes to 'truth'. She accepts evolution as truth, but couldn't come to the same or opposite conclusion about the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, her religion is clouding her judgement on this matter. That doesn't make her stupid, at all. Just deluded.

Other Comments by Matt7895

14. Comment #126935 by Sally Luxmoore on February 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm

So, does she believe in the virgin birth or not? She NEVER answered the question.
She may call herself a catholic, but the Carbolic Church would not recognise her weird wishy washy views as theirs.

Irritating the way she interrupted all the time.

Yet again, I admire Richard's patience at putting up with someone who treats her own illogicality as liberal intelligence.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

15. Comment #126936 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Richard admits that he is "not trying to be a good politician".
What do you guys think about that?
Does it matter?
Do "we" need good politicians?
If so, are there any volunteers here?
(Diancanu and I would most certainly not be in the running!!!!)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

16. Comment #126937 by eXcommunicate on February 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I wouldn't for a moment say Madeline was/is stupid. For me it seems she is still on her spiritual journey and is a bit confused. Good interview with Richard though! I agree somewhat with Bunting's assertion that fundamentalism is rooted in a kind of insecurity. Fundamentalist organizations offer structure and security to vast portions of the population that feel they need it. We Atheists like to proclaim our undying individualism, but we have that "luxury" of individualism here in the fat and happy West. Many rural communities here in the U.S. heartland are rotting economically at the core. Times are extremely insecure for many many Americans. Its no accident, IMHO, that Christian fundamentalism thrives in those states in the Union that a.) the rejection of worldly authority (far away evil Washington DC), b.) have fewer social safety nets, making Churches the providers of social security instead of secular providers, and c.) are more rural/conservative in nature, and ultimately isolating. This kind of environment just breeds tribalism, out-group hate, and fundamentalism.

If Hamas or the local Church of Christ is the one providing for your family's social, emotional, and/or financial security, then who are Atheists and/or the big bad secular West? The ones that will take that security away. It's a simple, but deep psychological equation that occurs in every one of us, not just "fundamentalists". It's the root of tribalism.

So what do we do to replace that security net and loosen the grip of fundamentalism and ultimately religion altogether? All I hear from fellow Atheists is that they want to rip the blanket off people and expose them to cold hard truth and reality. No solutions at all, but to throw cold water onto a freezing man. Sure, rip that blanket of false security and false truth off of a person, but a person still needs warmth. What we need instead is a different kind of blanket, not just cold water, or else religious fundamentalism will never wane.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

17. Comment #126938 by Tosser on February 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm

The more I here from religious people in such debates, the more that Daniel Dennett's idea of "belief in belief" makes sense. The religious person here talks about metaphors, emotional truths, and so on, falling into a haze in which she can't even address straightforward questions like, "Was Jesus born of a virgin."

Other Comments by Tosser

18. Comment #126939 by HourglassMemory on February 14, 2008 at 2:28 pm

This conversation was very calm.
I really liked it.
And I loved hearing Richard saying "Let me finish! Let me finish!" almost like a kid. (and I don't mean this in any indirect insulting way. It just reminded me of a child whose lolipop had been taken)
It was great.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

19. Comment #126940 by jakelovatto on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

From the sickly religious moderates to the blunt bible-believing christians.

http://library.digiguide.com/lib/uk-tv-highlight/Wonderland:The End of the World Bus Tour-2611/Documentary/

"Most package-holiday tourists are seeking sun, sex or adventure, but the customers in Sharon Stolebarger's charge are looking for something rather different. Sharon is the tour rep on a special ten-day holiday for people who believe the Apocalypse is only a few years away. Her customers are off to Israel to take a last-chance look at the "valley of Armageddon" - before it's awash with the blood of unbelievers - and to be baptised in the very waters that Jesus once walked on. They even get the chance to spend a day helping out at an Israeli military base - the highlight of the holiday for many of the tourists."

For those who have access to BBC iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b008yykd.shtml?q=wonderland&start=1&scope=iplayersearch&go=Find Programmes&version_pid=b008yyhx

Other Comments by jakelovatto

20. Comment #126941 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

OK.I accept the rebuke.Madeline may not be stupid just deluded.It's just that listening to such drivel from her makes me froth in the mouth.

Other Comments by Jiten

21. Comment #126942 by nlewkowitz on February 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

If Bunting is concerned with 'how people get on', when does she say that people need religion in order to be good to each other? I think it has been shown by Dawkins, Harris, etc that we do not need religion to function as moral and ethical beings. Besides being misguided, her only other point refers to how Richard delivers his message. Richard's blunt style deals with religion no different than any other myth...we can't take anybody seriously who believes in Thor - the same goes with any other religion. Continue laughing Richard.

Other Comments by nlewkowitz

22. Comment #126944 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 2:38 pm

The poor don't need the religious to give them charity.They need social justice.The poor are robbed to make the rich rich.

Other Comments by Jiten

23. Comment #126945 by The author on February 14, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Oh my Zeus: Madeline Bunting doesn't have any idea of anything, yet she is earning her money as a journalist - someone who is expected to enlighten people.

Other Comments by The author

24. Comment #126946 by ericcolumba on February 14, 2008 at 2:41 pm

This lady speaks gobbledygook.
It really is like listening to the insane

Other Comments by ericcolumba

25. Comment #126947 by Skep on February 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Madine Bunting is wayyyyy too hung up on the idea that subjective opinions and feeling are "truths." We really should reserve the word "truth" for things that are factually true and not allow others to get away with declaring "alternate 'truths'"

Other Comments by Skep

26. Comment #126950 by FSMTeapot on February 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Madeline's tactics seemed very similar to me to numerous other people I've talked to. When challenged on a specific point, they cloud the issue with nothings and misty arguments, which you have to clear before you can get to the point, and this allows them to hide behind using a nebulous question (i.e. "emotional truth") and say "I don't know, and I assume you don't either, so this shows the issue to be far more complex then you think". No. They are making it far more complex than it needs to be.

I also detected just a hint of sarcasm whenever she couldn't actually answer something: trying to suggest it was too obvious to need it.

Other Comments by FSMTeapot

27. Comment #126951 by Verylee on February 14, 2008 at 2:47 pm

"Shrill"? "Ranting"? "Antagonistic"? "Elitist"?...and now it's "Splitting our sides with laughter"!...What's the next put down?..."Having too much desire for evidence based reasoning"? Faith...Belief without evidence that's all you need to get by in todays world.

Other Comments by Verylee

28. Comment #126952 by Stephen Maxwell on February 14, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Richard was fantastic here. When he presses Catholics on the question of belief in the Virgin Birth, much like Muslim clerics on the penalty for apostasy...I can't help but have a big smile on my face while hearing all the stuttering in the response.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

29. Comment #126953 by kram50 on February 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I would agree that Madeline is not stupid . If she was, then we would have to label all deluded individuals with a weak argument as stupid. We all know that there are many, smart people in this world who can't bring themselves to point of reason. Maybe "Critical Thinking" has something to do with it.

Other Comments by kram50

30. Comment #126954 by AllanW on February 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Interesting conversation.

The obvious flaws in Buntings performance were her tendency to butt in, her inability to listen to thoughts as a whole but just hear odd phrases, her lack of considered response (just an intuitive rather than judged comeback) and her breathy, excited delivery; staccato words tumbling over each other (which betrays a mind running straight through the tongue rather than the frontal cortex).

All of that is aside from her ill-considered position, of course. It was obvious that RD moved her position by argument from a combative adversary to a less confident, more agreeable and essentially docile end-point. She is by no means stupid (she has obviously read something at some time) but I think demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking; she exhibits the typical non-scientists positivist approach ('oooh! That sound good, I'll believe that is a fact until someone presents something more sexy.') rather than thorough or deeply questioning.

RD was impressive again. Part of that is his willingness to depart from the deferential, academic etiquette of hearing the other person until they have finished on the occasions when he is interrupted; bravo. It's not bad manners to point out when the other person is exhibiting bad manners (to paraphrase :)).

And it was plain which of the contestants had spent far more time thinking and preparing their position for the debate and its implications.

Is this part of a series of debates on different topics or just a one-off; anybody know?

Other Comments by AllanW

31. Comment #126955 by ericcolumba on February 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm

I wish Richard would stop using hitchens arguement that you cant appreciate literature if you don't understand the bible.

Other Comments by ericcolumba

32. Comment #126956 by JammyB on February 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I really enjoyed that and it was great to hear from an intelligent opponent for once. It surprises me that the vast majority of religious people in these debates refuse to define exactly what they believe, and if pressed simply revert to wishy-washy vague descriptions or a dishonest attempt to dodge the question and change the subject.

I was surprised that Madeline compared her beliefs to Einstein as well. I don't know if this is just ignorance (there are a lot of religiously founded myths floating around about him) or whether she cannot understand the difference between his semantic use of "god" and her own Christian belief. She is clearly intelligent so it's hard to understand, perhaps she just hasn't thought about it much. Then again, we have to wonder whether she's actually Christian considering she seems agnostic on so many key points.

Other Comments by JammyB

33. Comment #126958 by the great teapot on February 14, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Strange that she thinks only poverty stricken religion is being ridiculed, whereas her well- to-do religious conviction are perfectly rational or acceptable.
Belief in belief is a sad thing.
A catholic who doesn't believe in jesus as a literal figure and god as an interventionist?
She is right we are all in the same place, she can call it what she likes ,but I prefer to call it atheism just like the church and the dictionary do. If every person has there own different language conversation becomes very tiresome.

Other Comments by the great teapot

34. Comment #126959 by bmkern on February 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm

I think she makes some good points, when she talks about the impact of the arguments and the origins of fundamentalist theism. When she talks about the veracity of religion itself, well that's another story altogether.

I think it's very plausible that fundamentalism comes from populations which feel marginalized and powerless, as it's a shifting of their world perception that puts them in the top spot - morally superior, with the permission of God to strike out against those people they feel marginalized by.

With enough adversity people will adapt themselves to cope. Reinventing your reality around a made-up deity is a very powerful coping mechanism, and ironically makes Prof. Dawkins' term "Delusion" all the more justified.

Other Comments by bmkern

35. Comment #126961 by Steve Zara on February 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm

This was simply wonderful to listen to.

Richard (I am still getting used to the fact that the Professor has asked us to address him in this manner) triumphed. He was calm, polite, and perfectly mannered. And yet, he dissected Bunting's arguments with precision. Richard came across as the calm, rational, reasonable academic, while Bunting retreated into even more desperate defence of an appeasement of religion, her desire for strident reaction clearly limited by the context of the discussion.

I really think, as others have said, Bunting should respond to both her belief in the virgin birth, and her understanding of the word "belief". I suspect she has little problem with the belief that the sun will come up in the morning, or that the Guardian will continue to fund her associate editorship.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #126962 by Richard Dawkins on February 14, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I wish Richard would stop using hitchens arguement that you cant appreciate literature if you don't understand the bible.

Since I devoted pages 340 to 344 of The God Delusion to developing this very argument, it is mildly irritating to hear it attributed to Christopher Hitchens. Much as I admire his book, it was published after mine!
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

37. Comment #126963 by Steve Zara on February 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Richard: As someone who has been a Guardian reader for decades, and a somewhat less than enthusiastic follower of the writings of Bunting, I would like to complement you on your technique and restraint in this discussion. It was very effective.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #126964 by Sally Luxmoore on February 14, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Comment #126955 by ericcolumba on February 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm

I wish Richard would stop using hitchens arguement that you cant appreciate literature if you don't understand the bible.

It isn't just Hitchen's argument, it's that of anyone educated in English Literature. Try understanding any of the following without any knowledge of the Bible: Chaucer, Langland, Bunyan, Shakespeare, Milton, John Donne, Gerard Manley Hopkins, the metaphysical poets, the list goes on and on...

There are 30-ish pages in my (rather old) copy of 'The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations' that are devoted to the Bible.

It is virtually certain that you yourself have quoted the Bible in everyday speech whether you knew it or not, and the book titles on your shelves are very likely to include biblical quotations.

Like it or not, it is our history and part of our culture.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

39. Comment #126967 by the great teapot on February 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure Chritopher Hitchens existed long before the God delusion, we need more evidence Richard.
Sally, looking at that list I think I will leave the bible on my bookshelf.

Other Comments by the great teapot

40. Comment #126968 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I've never read the Bible and I'm not gonna and I don't understand Milton,Donne,Shakespere because I've not read them.But nevermind,at least I've got wonderful science books to read.At the moment I'm enjoying the Magnificient "The Ancestor's Tale".You can shove your Milton.

Other Comments by Jiten

41. Comment #126969 by Sally Luxmoore on February 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Dear Teapot,

Leaving the bible on your bookshelf won't protect you from 'contamination'. It will reach out and affect your life rather like the noodly tendrils of our own dear FSM.
You are probably already infected ....

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

42. Comment #126972 by Diacanu on February 14, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Steve Zara-

the Professor has asked us to address him in this manner)

He has??

...IIII dunno, that seems like something ya earn...

*To RD*

Can I just call ya Doc or prof or something?

Other Comments by Diacanu

43. Comment #126973 by Steve Zara on February 14, 2008 at 3:22 pm

You can shove your Milton.

Please don't. The capacity of the human mind to explore ideas and imagine different worlds is to be valued, even when those imagined worlds are purely imaginary. Rationalism should not be puritan. We should treasure the art of those who who are religious even thought we understand the context of delusion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #126974 by Sally Luxmoore on February 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Comment #126968 by Jiten --You can shove your Milton.

That's sad. There's room for both!

I've always been interested in science, but my first degree was in English and my second (bit of a perpetual student) is in law.

I've also read all Richard's books and am also interested in astronomy, geology, plate tectonics, paleontology and all sorts of other things.

There's no need to restrict yourself !

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

45. Comment #126975 by Diacanu on February 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Hey, without Milton, you can't understand Wrath Of Khan.

And where would us nerds be without Wrath, eh?

See, it all connects.

*Wink*

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #126976 by Gustaf Sjoblom on February 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I'm far from convinced about her hypothesis of where fundamentalism comes from. I think it is very likely that it CAN be a defense mechanism, but I think that there are many other possibilities. One of them is obviously complete unquestioned belief, and as long as people subscribe to the idea that faith in itself is sacred that will not be stopped.

If you actually believe that Allah wants you to kill the infidels. And if everyone tells you that if you belive it then that is your spiritual truth. Then what are you going to do?

What would pragmatic Bunting say about that?

I think that there is room for both tactics. Some go for the politics, others try to change the intellectual zeitgeist. We just haven't seen any bestseller that uses the political tactic yet (Or is there one that I've missed? If so I'd love to know).

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

47. Comment #126978 by Steve Zara on February 14, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Diacanu:

Comment #125156 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 3:12 am

Do we still say "Prof. Dawkins" or will it become "Professor Emeritus Dawkins"?

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #126980 by Diacanu on February 14, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Steve Zara-

Okay, dokey then...

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #126981 by Paula Kirby on February 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

HourglassMemory: And I loved hearing Richard saying "Let me finish! Let me finish!" almost like a kid. (and I don't mean this in any indirect insulting way. It just reminded me of a child whose lolipop had been taken)

I thought he was remarkably patient with her - I'd have snapped much sooner in the conversation. Did you hear how often she butted in, interrupted, wouldn't let him articulate his point, refused to hear him out before rushing to put her own views forward yet again? It's not just rude (though it IS rude - very): how can you have a sensible debate with someone if you're not prepared to listen properly to what they're saying?

As for her nonsense about there being truths that are not based in evidence or fact, I can't help wondering how she can possibly be sure that they are "truths" since she has just rejected out of hand the only means we have to assess the question.

If simply having a feeling about something is enough to constitute truth, then presumably she would have to accept as "true" every feeling ever held by anyone, ever, no matter how crazy, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how mutually contradictory. There can be no defence against ANY claim. I just don't understand how an intellect of even average capacity can fail to spot the ridiculousness of such a position.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

50. Comment #126982 by Jiten on February 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

The capacity of the human mind to explore idea and imagine different worlds is to be valued

Absolutely.I just prefer the ideas of today's thinkers,who are generally scientists.See edge.org.

Other Comments by Jiten