1. Atheists come in last

Comment #22903 by solas on February 24, 2007 at 3:40 am

Wouldn't it be true to say that the constitution of the United States and the founding fathers who framed it were inspired by Graeco-Roman ideals rather than the Judaeo-Christian tradition?

2. A deadly certitude

Comment #17936 by solas on January 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm

An excellent article, as one would expect from Steven Weinberg. He explains very well the intellectual paralysis which has gripped the muslim world for hundreds of years, purely for religious reasons. I must demur with his analyis on two points however:

1. He says: "Yet religious toleration is rampant in America. No one who publicly expressed disrespect for any particular religion could be elected to a major office."

Yes there is great tolerance for various religious beliefs but there seems to be very little tolerance for those who do not go along with any religious belief. He could truthfully say: "No one who publicly expressed disrespect for all religions could be elected to a major office."

2. Weinberg: "Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers in the Islamic world, and in the harm it does. Richard Dawkins's even-handedness is well-intentioned, but it is misplaced. I share his lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally."

It is probably true to say that Islam, in general, is a bigger threat to civilisation than Christianity, in general, in the world today. It is equally true to say that fundamentalist Christianity is a bigger threat to civilisation in the USA than Islam is. The people who run the US at the moment - the most powerful of whom are christian fundamentalists - have the capacity to do far greater damage to the world than all islamic regimes combined. What is worse is that there is every appearance that the Bush regime does intend to do even greater damage than they have done in Iraq (by attacking Iran for instance).

I think that Dawkins makes it clear in his book that he focusses on attacking Christianity rather than Islam (or other religions) simply because he knows more about the former and the arguments against Christianity are equally valid against similar belief systems.

But if you ask the average citizen in any country outside the US or Israel: "what is the most dangerous regime in the world today"?, I suspect that the answer would be that of George W. Bush.

3. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13430 by solas on December 17, 2006 at 4:39 pm

Like many other posters, I have great admiration for Tony Benn and I was hugely disappointed by his performance on this programme. Unlike other posters I don't think the problem is that Benn is getting old or soft. I think that the political left has a big problem with Richard Dawkins, one which they cannot admit to.

Firstly, most people on the left do not read his books yet feel free to brand him as a genetic determinist. Secondly they are terrified that science is undermining many of their precious theories. In this they are correct: the marxist left regards humankind as either a 'noble savage' or a 'blank slate', to use Stephen Pinker's terms (a very false view as Pinker ponted out in his book 'The Blank Slate').

Human nature, as is being revealed by science, is making much of the marxist agenda redundant (it is already redundant in practice; but science is undermining its theories and therefore its future). This is what Benn was flailing against. A vain effort.

4. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #10647 by Solas on November 28, 2006 at 5:57 pm

Mary said: "Please check the link below just to find out the scientific realities mentioned in the Quran."

The Quran is a 7th century document at the earliest (9th century at the latest) and reflects the abysmal level of knowledge our ancestors had about science at that time. How can you take seriously a document which gives men advice about when it is appropriate to beat their wives?

5. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7762 by Solas on November 19, 2006 at 10:05 am

Maryhelena wrote: "Religion is about having spiritual values. The content of these spiritual values, for us individually, may include many notions of 'god'. I don't subscribe to the idea that the term 'god' can be narrowly defined - as Dawkins would like to do. The history of 'god' tells a different story. Gods come in all shapes and sizes, no one size fits all! I don't think this makes the idea, the concept, of 'god', meaningless. Quiet the contrary. 'God' is whatever. Whatever people find to be the supreme value in their lives, or values…"

If religion means anything we choose it to mean (including, in your view, atheism), then it means nothing at all. If that were the case, this website would be redundant and we would be better off discussing Alice in Wonderland.

Maryhelena: "But science steps on sacred ground when it seeks to deny individuals the right to hold and to express spiritual values, when it seeks to deny religion a place at the table."

Now come on, maryhelena, be serious. You know perfectly well that no scientist or atheist, much less science as a whole, seeks to "deny individuals the right to hold and to express spiritual values". And what is sacred about this ground of religious/spiritual belief anyway? So sacred that it cannot even be stepped upon? Don't you see the contradiction when you state later on: "Let science knock theology on it's head by all means - let science leave no rock for theology to hide under." Why does that statement not equally apply to religious belief of all kinds?

As for denying religion a 'place at the table', that depends on the table in question. Religion has no place in the science classroom or in politics or in publily funed education. Religion does have a place around this particular round table and believers are free to come on here and argue their case. Dawkins is one of the few scientists who has done religionists the courtesy of taking their views seriously. He has challenged them to stand over those views. You can't be criticising him for that, or are you?


Maryhelena: ".. Religion [involves] 'a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels' - that's a great definition of religion!"

That definition more aptly describes poetry or music. You are defining religion out of existence.

6. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7509 by Solas on November 18, 2006 at 4:41 pm

Maryhelena,

Sorry, that 'anonymous' post was me.

regards.


Solas.

7. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7431 by Solas on November 18, 2006 at 2:16 pm

Maryhelena said:

"Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life."

Well it depends on the timescale to some extent, doesn't it, Maryhelena. There are lots of things which were facts of life to our ancestors. The idea that the earth was flat was a 'fact of life'. The idea that men could do whatever they liked with their wives was an unchangeable 'fact of life' until very recently and is still a 'fact of life' in some cultures. 'Facts of life'change as science advances and societies change. Outside the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, there are really no timeless certainties.

Maryhelena: "There is not the slightest evidence available upon which one could base the possibility that religion will disappear."

Religion has already disappeared as a significant factor in the lives of most people in quite a number of European societies and in Japan, among others. A recent post on this site (I think based on a Daily Telegraph poll but I can't recall the details) shows a long term decline in religious belief and practice in Britain.

Maryhelena "It is within these theological structures that lies the potential for good or evil. The evil potential is realized when theology seeks to operate as something other than theology - when it seeks to operate either as morality or as political ideology."

This makes no sense at all. The human conceptualisation of 'good'and 'evil' arose long before theology was ever thought of; they are abstract categories which our ancestors invented to distinguish behaviours which benefitted survival and social bonding from behaviours which were inimical to same.

Maryhelena: "On the other hand, I do have respect for religion, respect for its insistence that spiritual value, as opposed to purely material values, are what enable us to reach the heights of our humanity."

I think religion gets in the way of such a spiritual sense. I am aware that I am made of stardust, one of the astonishingly tiny number of organised groups of molecules in the universe which is self-conscious and is aware of its own existence. I can therefore 'commune' with the entire universe and feel a part of it. That to me is what 'spiritual' means: "you are a part of the universe, you have a right to be here" as Desiderata puts it.

Religion actually contaminates that real spiritual sense by infantilising it; by reducing it to the notion that some magical being created all of this, thus choking off our need to explore, to wonder without fantasising; to understand without fear.