251. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70213 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 am

29. Comment #70212 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 11:05 am

"Religion isn't about facts." Right through your own goal posts fellas. Much obliged!

I'm not sure about this, Dr Benway. I thought Darwin's Angel was an utterly despicable book, but that was because of its tortured logic, mangled language, and not even barely concealed malice. I actually think that, as a reflection of why believers believe, and how they view their belief, it was pretty close to the truth, and that could be why it has been welcomed so warmly by pro-religious reviewers.

I really do think that, for many believers, religion is something floaty and ethereal and literally "otherworldly" rather than an attempt at anything approaching rationality.

And if that's true, it's important for us to be aware of it, because our whole approach to arguing with them may need to change in order to take account of it.

That said, I do think Darwin's Angel is extremely Anglocentric. I recognise the ethereal nature of the belief system it describes in a way that someone brought up in a world of tele-evangelists quite possibly wouldn't!

252. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70207 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:46 am

I've already made my views of Darwin's Angel clear on the Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity thread, so I won't repeat them again here ...

... but I will just add that the jibe about the shortness of the reading list for TGD is exceedingly rich, given that Darwin's Angel doesn't contain a reading list at all! Just a single paragraph of Acknowledgements that refer to 1) a handful of individuals who were helpful in putting it together, 2) two journal articles that helped shaped his argument and 3) the recommendation to read 4 further books.

Still, since Cornwell's whole message can be pretty well summed up in the phrase "That Richard Dawkins gets right up my nose", and that comes through loud and clear on every page, maybe other references weren't required.

As I read Darwin's Angel, I was struck by how outraged Cornwell was by any attempt to pin religion down, to describe it, to define it, let alone to challenge it.

In his determination to place his religion well beyond the reach of anything tangible (and therefore to keep it safe from science and the demand for evidence), he virtually strips it of anything that might actually be called a belief at all.

He goes much, much further, for instance, than your average liberal Christian who is perfectly at ease with evolution and other non-literal interpretations of the Bible (in fact, Cornwell would have us believe that it is only an insignificant proportion of religious believers who take a literal view of anything in the Bible at all).

Rather astonishingly, at various points in the book, he claims that God isn't even supernatural; and that Christians don't actually believe in life after death (they may "hope" for it, he says, but that's as far as it goes).

So when we've stripped away the long list of things that Cornwell wants us to believe that religion is NOT about, what are we left with? I'll let him tell you in his own words:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
That is the God-question.

That's it. Nothing else. Religion, according to Cornwell, isn't about the supernatural or the Bible or revelation or resurrection or life after death. It's not about liturgy or the struggle to be moral. It's all about the basic question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and he seems to think that the answer can best be found by letting our imaginations run free, by trusting our intuitions, and by feeling rather than thinking.

You could say that science, too, is eager to find out "Why there is something rather than nothing". But this is where, having read Darwin's Angel and now Peter Stanford's review of it, the real incompatibility of science and religion becomes strikingly obvious: for where science seeks to UNRAVEL the mysteries of the universe, religion has a vested interest in keeping them mysterious.

Science and religion may both ask the questions - but science very annoyingly insists on providing the answers too. The unspoken plea in Darwin's Angel is to stop looking for answers, because it's eroding the space left for mystery. And heaven forfend that religion should ever be completely redundant.

253. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70106 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:56 am

I am amazed you ploughed all the way through this book, however mercifully short it is.

Mmmm. Who would have thought that 164 pages, broken into 21 chapters, could be so hard to get through? When it arrived, I thought I'd be able to skip through it in an evening, but of course at that point I had no idea quite how sickening it was going to be.

I hope you don't mind if I pinch some of the ideas from your review.

Be my guest! I'd hate all that pain to have been for nothing ;-)

254. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70101 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:37 am

Northern Bright, a very well written piece, I enjoyed it immensely, its always a great relief to read a review from someone who has actually read the book they are reviewing! I will have words with Quetz to send you good Tea!

Well, thanks, Philip, but I think it's going to take something a bit stronger than tea to settle my stomach again after all that nauseating nonsense! What god does a girl have to worship to get a decent glass of Remy Martin round here?

255. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70097 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:30 am

someone needs to write a parody 'refutation of Dawkins' to see if any of the Fleas can spot the nonsense (I doubt it).

Hang on a minute, maybe that's what Cornwell has done? It would explain a hell of a lot.

I realise I've brought you to the very brink of screaming, trembling, mouth-foaming, abject surrender, but bear with me whilst I just quote one more passage, which could just be proof that you've hit on something here.

It's referring to the fact that TGD highlights the Amish community as being an example of our tendency to defend an indefensible way of life on the basis of cultural diversity, regardless of the negative consequences of that way of life for those actually trapped in it:

But perhaps the Amish, who make you "feel very queasy indeed", were not the best example to hold up to ridicule in the scathing way you do:

"... you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture."

There may come a time, sooner rather than later, when these "quaint little people" will be a living testimony to the advantages of frugality and simplicity of life, especially in a country which is devouring hugely more than its share of the planet's unrenewable resources, poisoning the environments, and squandering into the bargain the future capital and well-being of countless future generations. Is not the scandal of our time the plundering of the planet's capital of natural resources?

I mean, it really is VERY hard to believe he could have written this with a straight face, isn't it? Is he really suggesting that knee-length britches are essential if we are to save the planet? If you happened to have been following the Salley Vickers thread a couple of weeks ago, you may understand why I scribbled "Welsh rarebit" in the margin at this point.

256. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70095 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:14 am

Many thanks, Northern Bright for the implicit suggestion that I should incorporate your unused critical remarks in my review.

No, that wasn't the motivation behind my posting at all: just trying to protect you from yourself! It sounded, after all, from your post as if you were actually planning to read the blessed book and it only seemed fair to point out that it was likely to prove a traumatic experience. How could I guess you were serious about reviewing it without reading it - stooping to Christian ethics, whatever next? ;-)

257. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70092 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:02 am

Oh dear, Northern Bright. I feel the pain. This alone would be enough for me to bin the book.

Oh, there's much, much more where that came from, Steve99! How about this:

Symbols might be said to be strong or weak, rather than true or false, in so far as they participate in that which they attempt to make intelligible. If I say, for example, that bread is the staff of life, I doubt whether you would claim that this is "a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." And yet you are likely to bring this claim against the ritual of Eucharistic bread, which involves a similar dynamic symbolism of real presence.

Powerful stuff, eh?

I have just found another example of exquisite bitchiness, too:

You write, for example, that fundamentalists "know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief." Well, I trust that nobody would think they were right merely on the basis of reading your book, although I have noted on the dust-jacket the following encomium [Cornwell loves this word and applies it every time he quotes someone saying something nice about TGF] by the novelist Philip Pullman: "It should have a place in every school library - especially in the library of every 'faith' school." I suppose it's possible to write a book that replaces the Bible without a simple transference of fundamentalist leanings."

Truly, if anyone is still under the misguided impression that Christianity has an improving effect on the character, reading this book should very swiftly disabuse them!

258. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70087 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 3:16 am

Perhaps that means that I shall have to make further efforts to 'acquire' (sic) Cornwell's offering. (Flagellant)

Well, to judge from your name, you're clearly into inflicting pain on yourself, so maybe reading Darwin's Angel isn't such a crazy idea as it first sounds. But believe me, you're in for a lot of pain. Here are some little gems from the book to give you a flavour of what's in store for you:

Even a guardian angel cannot enter into the soul of a protégé's conscience.

(A conscience has a soul?)

Faith and revelation you dismiss out of hand, as you would, but you are also disturbed by the dimension of imagination, aren't you? It's so close to art, music, poetry - stuff that's made up rather than facts that can be reducible to physics, chemistry, and biology.

Wouldn't you think RD's guardian angel might have read some of his books, in which case how could he possibly have arrived at this conclusion? But this is a guardian angel who really can't disguise his dislike for his ward:

I am now guardian of the brilliant popular expositor of zoology, Richard Dawkins, whom I strive to take as seriously as he takes himself

and

Your book is as innocent of heavy scholarship as it is free of false modesty. I note that the author most often cited [...] is yourself - your own works, your own sayings, thought experiments, speculations, conversations with experts, and favourable opinions of your works by others. I was glad that you could quote the magnificent encomium of the late Douglas Adams (of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fame) for your outspoken courage, which, you relate, you "never tire of sharing" with others. In the same way I loved your admission that Mrs Dawkins consented to read out loud for you The God Delusion in its 400-page entirety; not once but twice. How many professors could boast publicly of such uxorious devotion.

Cornwell's angel seems strangely irritated by the length of TGD and refers to it over and over again, always with a hint of snideness. And, by the way, if you think it may not have been absolutely necessary to explain who Douglas Adams was, you'll just love the bit where Cornwell refers to Aristotle and, just in case any of his readers aren't in the know, helpfully tells us that he was "the great philosopher of ancient Greece."

If only he had been as intent on clarity in other places. I mean, any clues as to what this is trying to say? -

… for human beings find it hard to conceive of mind or thought in the absence of a biological brain. Yet granting, as these reasonable scientists do, the evidence of at least analogies with "mind" and "thought" as the basic conditions of the universe, and granting further that these conditions are not the product of a biological brain (however large), at least gives a hint as to what God's mind and thoughts, for want of better words, might not be. There is also a hint here of the nature of his simplicity.

I'm so glad he cleared that up. Whatever it was.

Actually, Cornwell is quite amusing in a number of places, though always unintentionally. I mean, when a man who is pretending to be an angel writes a line like "Compared with scientists, theologians in your view are mere fantasists", who wouldn't laugh?

But be prepared for this angel to be really quite excessively un-likeable. I remember being quite moved in TGD by the section about the ritual sacrifice of a young Inca girl, and RD's appalled horror at the way it had been portrayed in a TV programme almost as if it had been a glorious example of a culturally valid act. But this angel is clearly made of sterner stuff. His response is:

Well, if you live such a protected life that the only scandals you encounter occur on TV programmes, then you're in for an occasional somersault.

He then goes on to say "Remember, all along, that this supposed incident occurred a full half-millennium in the past" - as if that makes it all alright . Are we to deduce from this, then, that theologians will be finding the Holocaust acceptable by the year 2440?

For a while I took to scribbling "miaow" in the margin wherever this angel indulged in a gratuitously malicious comment or aside, but had to stop because it was upsetting my dog. Here are a few examples:

You must admit that such a view might as well have been advanced late into the evening over several pints by any of the denizens of the Mitre pub in Bridge Street, Cambridge.

You quote yourself (who else?) from your book A Devil's Chaplain

I have an impression of the grown-ups in your life gathering around you as if attending a shrine.

You should not be carried away by the effect of your own charisma and eloquence. A Dublin audience will clap enthusiastically in an effort to bring the most delightful evening to an end so as to make it to the bar before closing time.

I think I'm beginning to see why Lady Macbeth referred to the milk of human kindness, as opposed to its angelic equivalent.

There's more to worry about in this angel than his spiteful streak, however: I'm no expert, but much of what he says smacks of incipient paranoia. This, for instance:

If religious memes can behave like harmful viruses, then the obvious solution is quarantining with a view to the protection of society and the ultimate control and elimination of the disease.

Er ... it would take a very particular mindset to read TGD and find that in it, don't you think?

Flagellant, I appreciate that you have an acute sense of your own sinfulness and the need to suffer in order to show sufficient repentance - but truly, ask yourself, have you really done anything remotely bad enough to make reading this book a necessary penance? Personally, having not only read it but annotated it and reviewed it, I feel I have amassed enough credit on my penance account to allow me to go out on a wild spree of riot, theft, orgy, and quite possibly mass murder. (Watch out for interesting headlines from Inverness over the next few days ...)

259. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70067 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 1:12 am

39. Comment #69868 by Dan d'Lyon on September 13, 2007 at 3:19 am

An aside: Northern Bright - "...the debate over the reality or otherwise of the existence of a god, [and] that's the central issue for atheists.."
Why? Refuting something that doesn't exist seems a pretty pointless pastime. Lets take it as read and move on to something constructive.

I agree, out of context, my comment does sound a bit narrow! It was offered in the context of Fides et Ratio's suggestion that evidence of believers being more charitable than non-believers would make it hard to retain "faith" (sic) in atheism. I was just trying to point out that the two are quite separate: to be an atheist you only have to believe that there is no god. It would be perfectly possible to hold the view that there's no god (and therefore to be an atheist) whilst thinking that, nevertheless, religious belief had had a generally beneficial effect on society.

260. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70065 by Northern Bright on September 14, 2007 at 12:54 am

Northern Bright,

So I take it you didn't actually LIKE the book?

Bother! And I tried so hard to conceal it, as well.

;-)

261. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #69975 by Northern Bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm

What a lovely review! (I have gone to amazon and marked it 'helpful')

Thanks Corylus! I wouldn't mind betting there'll be plenty of people out there who'll disagree with you though! :-) (Do Christians issue fatwas?)

262. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #69971 by Northern Bright on September 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm

When I get my copy of Cornwell's book, I'm planning to go through it line by line and cross-reference it to what's really written in TGD. Two columns: "What Dawkins wrote" and "What Cornwell claims Dawkins wrote", and post it on this forum for reference.

I started doing this ... but reading Darwin's Angel with that much attention to detail just proved too painful to bear. It is a seriously bad book.

I have had some fun, however, creating this review, which I have just submitted to Amazon.co.uk:

With angels like these, who needs demons?
A Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Riposte to "The God Delusion", by John Cornwell

It would be hard to find a better illustration of the old proverb that one shouldn't judge a book by its cover than this latest offering from John Cornwell; for the cover of Darwin's Angel is really rather beautiful and worth looking at. Sadly, any hope that its contents may be equally rewarding is destroyed from the very first sentence, which confidently informs the reader that "One of the most beautiful conceits of mortal wit is the idea of the angel; for angels exemplify, symbolise, and render intelligible the dynamic mental capacity known as imagination." (They do WHAT?)

Assuming that you are able either to untangle that particular piece of mangled logic or to put it aside as unimportant and press on regardless, the rest of the book continues in much the same vein.

Cornwell pounces on every instance in The God Delusion where Dawkins has dared to pronounce on the nature of religion, and gleefully proclaims it to be not what the religious believe at all. He does this, however, with more predictability than clarity, for having ploughed through the entire book I am left none the wiser as to what he thinks the religious really do believe. It would appear that they believe whatever they are able to imagine (which of course varies from believer to believer), and that we should respect their imagination by acknowledging that it's just possible that it may have hit on something resembling the truth. On this basis, I see little option but to conclude that there are roughly 6 billion deities alive and active in today's world and that there's precious little point in thinking about any of them, since any conclusions we reach will be wrong in 5,999,999,999 out of 6,000,000,000 cases.

The angel in Cornwell's book, it must be said, displays a surprisingly spiteful streak and I felt that Richard Dawkins had been rather unfortunate in having this particular seraph assigned to him as his guardian. Would you feel your reputation and wellbeing were in safe hands when entrusted to someone who regularly went considerably out of his way to show you in the worst possible light? Who consistently twisted and distorted your words, actions and motives? Who felt no compunction in resorting to frequently repeated personal jibe and insult? And who patently hadn't read your book (or at the very least, not with any intention of understanding it) before attempting to demolish it publicly? (And, moreover, who was so inept, that he failed, even then?)

No, this angel is mean-spirited, snide, ungenerous, sneaky and, one suspects, downright dishonest. His outbursts of barely comprehensible evasion, self-justification and defamation might almost be comical (but for their signal lack of warmth, humanity or truth), but they hardly form a coherent or credible response to a well reasoned, logically impeccable argument, such as can be found in The God Delusion.

This angel is also strikingly insular. Despite his ability to "ring the earth in a trice", it would appear that he prefers to remain in the polite confines of the theology reading room at Jesus College, Cambridge. Certainly he has not ventured to the USA recently, for he regularly asserts that the fundamentalist religion decried by Dawkins only exists in a small minority of believers, and that the majority of religionists accept evolution and a non-literal interpretation of the Bible without demur. This is one angel who really should get out more.

Cornwell is an ex-seminarian, and it is impossible to escape the impression that he has spent so much of his life contemplating his navel that all his thoughts now get caught up in the swirling vortex of it, landing dizzy, confused and incompletely digested in his gut, where they mingle with bile and re-emerge later in the only biologically possible form via the only biologically possible route.

Darwin's Angel is a perversion of language, intellect, integrity, decency and, in all likelihood, religion too. Nevertheless I have given it 2 stars: one because the cover really IS rather lovely, and the other because, as an atheist, I take my consolations where I realistically can and it is, at least, mercifully short.

263. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69851 by Northern Bright on September 13, 2007 at 2:08 am

'I'm sick of hearing comments that religious people give more time, money and blood to charity.'

If I was you I'd be sick of it too. That sort of thing must really shake the faith of even the most ardent atheist.

Why, Fides et Ratio?

Suppose for a moment the claim is true, and that religious people do indeed give more time, money and blood to charity. (And let's be generous for a moment, and assume that these surveys aren't including donations and tithes to churches as part of this fabulous charitable outpouring.)

Why should that in any way be evidence for the existence of a god?

At best, surely, it could be seen as an argument that religious belief is beneficial to society. (Though even so, it would have to be placed alongside, and viewed in the context of, all the evidence pointing the other way too.)

But it has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the debate over the reality or otherwise of the existence of a god, and that's the central issue for atheists: anything else is just a sideshow.

264. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69750 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Answer #2. Was addressed to our boy Bizarro Dawkins!!

Good heavens. It's a small world! :-)

265. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69742 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I watched a recent You Tube video of RD talking at Randolph-Macon Women's College, Lynchburg VA, close to Liberty University, that august institution founded by the thoroughly charming Jerry Falwell (RIS). Here's the link to the questions bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&mode=related&search=.

Thanks for the link, Flagellant - there were some real gems in here that made me laugh out loud:

1. To a Liberty University student who had asked what the Darwinian explanation might be for the evolution of critical thought: "Critical thinking isn't something that is universally a feature of the human mind."

2. Summing up another question put to him by an LU student: "Do I acknowledge a distinction betwen blind faith and reasonable faith?... No."

3. To yet another such student: "I understand the words of your question."

Great stuff. Very dry. :-)

266. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69689 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 8:02 am

There's nothing wrong with art or theater. It's the confusion over where pretend-play ends and reality begins that's the problem.

Perceptive post as ever, Dr Benway. As I think I've mentioned, I'm currently reading Darwin's Angel, the new John Cornwell book, and its central argument (well, other than "Dawkins is a dangerous idiot") so far as I can make it out seems to be that God is whatever we imagine him to be, and that the fact we imagine whatever it is that we imagine is somehow compelling evidence for the reality of those imaginings.

I say "so far as I can make out" on the basis that great swathes of it LITERALLY make no sense whatsoever: I've tried reading them backwards, holding them in front of a mirror, everything, but all to no avail. I don't think I've read anything so nauseatingly infuriating since Philip Pullman's Northern Lights (which, much to my surprise and uniquely among all the books I have ever read, I found myself hurling across the room with great force several times before finally finishing.)

267. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69677 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 6:58 am

In the context of this discussion, it's interesting that a lot of atheists are happy to call that which existed in the Eastern Bloc communism when even the people who lived there didn't and all the evidence points to it being capitalism run by the state.

Perhaps I should point out that most of the people I knew there called it by names much ruder than either communism or socialism! (Though only in private ...)

I don't actually agree about it having been capitalism run by the State, for all kinds of reasons, but I really don't want to lead the conversation further off-track.

So, here's another thought - could there be another point of contact between socialism and religion? In East Germany the State took care of your every need and there was no incentive to be self-reliant. In return, however, you had to sacrifice freedom - both of movement and of thought. For instance, the State would put you through university and/or an apprenticeship - but would then also place you in a job - without involving you greatly in the decision-making process (I knew people who were placed in jobs at the opposite end of the country, with no right of appeal; one of my students was even sent out to Ethiopia totally against his will). People were not encouraged (actively discouraged, even) to stand on their own two feet, to think independently, to challenge the prevailing ideology in any way at all. The answer was already provided ("Socialism") and if it didn't seem like a very good answer, you were required to adjust the question until it did. It does seem to me that there are parallels with religion, certainly in some of its forms.

268. Bible Belter

Comment #69667 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 5:28 am

Northern Bright, was it this one?

Thanks for looking, Lord Asriel, but no, it was far worse than this one!!

There was a split screen, Hitch on the left, another guy on the right, and then the anchorman - who was dark haired but younger than this guy. (I didn't know the names of anyone but Hitch, which is probably why I can't be more specific.)

It descended into a complete and utter free for all, with everyone just shouting over everyone else. It was so chaotic I can't even remember what they were trying to discuss - all I can remember is the descent into madness, and the fact that for the last minute-plus of the clip the studio just killed Hitch's and the other guy's microphones, and the anchorman sounded off at the camera about how stupid it was to go on TV and behave like that - words to the effect that "Wouldn't you think that, if you had a good case to make, you'd want to just make it, and let the other guy be heard and then put your own argument against his? What's the point of behaving like that?" and then he went on to apologise to the audience for "what you've just seen" and promised them that he'd never allow that kind of incident on his show again.

Dramatic stuff! :-)

269. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69657 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 4:09 am

The next time anyone on this site wants to post anything about 'communism', I would simply ask them to first of all consider whether they would be just as keen to call the old East Germany the German Democratic Republic on the grounds that since it called itself that, and was called that in the West, it must have been 'democratic'. The analogy with so-called 'communism' works quite well, I think.

I really wasn't planning to get sucked into this part of the discussion, but since it's now got specifically onto East Germany, and I lived and worked there from 1985-87, I can feel my resistance weakening ..

The first thing to say is that East Germany NEVER referred to itself as Communist. Communism was the ultimate goal, but they openly declared that they weren't there yet and that the intermediate stage they had arrived at was Socialism. Even the ruling party called itself the "Socialist Unity Party", not "Communist Unity Party" (though, rather revealingly, just referring to it as "The Party" was enough to avoid confusion!) The same holds true of the other countries in the former Eastern bloc – the USSR was not the USCR, for instance.

The other is that the word "democratic" is problematic because it bore a completely different meaning in the Soviet bloc. This wasn't sleight of hand, by the way, but simply a reflection of ideology. In the West, "democratic" is generally used to describe the processes by which governments are elected, and tends to conjure up images of free elections between multiple political parties (even, in the good old days, with different political agendas!), secret ballots and "one person, one vote"; it also carries a sense of accountability to the voters, and the ability of the voters to kick the government out if they want to. In East Germany (and elsewhere in the Eastern bloc), it was used to describe the values of the government: its motivation, its goals and, equally, the "ordinary" status of the individuals comprising it. The East German government saw itself as democratic, not because of its superb record of free elections, but because its motto was "Everything for the good of the people" – i.e. its policies were based on creating a social system in which the people's wellbeing and interests were paramount, so it was as good as the workers themselves being in power. Besides, every individual person in the government saw themselves as working class and one of the people.

Well, that was the theory anyway - we could argue as to how democratic East Germany was, even by its own definition of the term – but it is important to be clear that the term was used and understood there quite differently. (Similarly, I remember being taken aback at being told by a "Party" official that in UK schools we brainwashed children about politics. When I queried this on the basis that party politics hadn't featured prominently in any school I'd attended, she pounced and said, "Exactly! You weren't taught about Socialism!")

Finally, and as a nod in the direction of getting the discussion back on topic, is anyone else struck by the resemblance to the difficulty between atheists and theists over the use of the term "evidence"? ;-)

270. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69618 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 12:24 am

23. Comment #69603 by Happy Hominid on September 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Thanks for that, Happy Hominid, and thanks, too, for taking the initiative on this project - I'm sure it's a very worthwhile and useful thing to do.

Glad you like the idea of trying to draw out the additional information from your interviewees too. To me it seems important because many Christians I know seem less concerned about the truth of their Christian belief, than about whether they'd feel able to get through life without the hope that it was true. In other words, they are afraid that life would be meaningless without God, or they find the thought of just dying at the end of it too horrendous to contemplate, or they don't trust their ability to get through life's ups and downs without the strength that they feel to derive from their faith.

I have been thinking recently that atheism might well seem a far less drastic and therefore scary option if we could find a way of showing that life CAN be meaningful and enjoyable and fulfulled without a belief in God (and eternal life, too, of course), and that you DON'T have to be some kind of superhero (or cold, uncaring robot) to make it through without God to hold your hand.

271. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69617 by Northern Bright on September 12, 2007 at 12:13 am

I hope that makes sense.

Hi FVThinker, yes, it makes perfect sense! I've heard or read (can't remember which) RD saying "technically, it can be said that I am agnostic in regard to God" too, but he made it clear that it was only in the sense that a number of people (yourself included, now!)have emphasised here: absolute 100% certainty is not possible, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to decide which side of the fence it makes more sense to jump down onto.

To me there's a parallel with the Scottish court system. the jury has 3 options for its verdict: guilty, not guilty and not proven. If they opted for "not proven" every time they weren't physically present when the alleged crime took place and therefore couldn't be 100% certain of what happened, there wouldn't be much point prosecuting suspected criminals in the first place.

Even in a case carrying a life sentence, the jury only has to find the defendant guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Certainty is a suspect commodity, it seems to me, but being aware of that and being willing to hold a retrial if more evidence becomes available later doesn't mean we can't make a reasoned judgment now, based on the evidence already to hand.

Welcome to a life of free thought, by the way - I've found that everything's a lot more interesting and exciting when you start with the questions and grope towards the answers, rather than starting with the answer and then desperately trying to work out how to phrase the question so as to be compatible with it!

272. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69486 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 12:57 pm

187. Comment #69479 by scottishgeologist on September 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

'One of the stronger irritants involved in being a Christian over the last couple of years has been putting up with Richard "how can God exist when the world revolves around me" Dawkins ...'

You've got to laugh at comments like this. Atheists believe that humans just happen to be the most recent species to have emerged along one of the various branches of evolution that have occurred over billions of years. We believe that we have no special place of significance in the universe. We believe that when we die, we die (just like ants and earthworms and ticks). Christians believe that God created the entire universe because he wanted a relationship with us. That we are the only species to be able to have a relationship with him. That we have dominion over all the plants and other animals on earth. That, alone of all of "creation", we have eternal life. That God takes a personal interest in our concerns and cares and, provided we ask him with enough faith, will intervene to grant our requests. That he monitors our every thought and word and that not a hair falls from our heads without his knowing about it. Yet, according to them, we're the self-important ones.

"Alister was also interviewed for Dawkins much maligned TV series, "The Root of all Evil (sic, no ?)" but presumably ddint fit the ravening extremist profile of religion Dawkins was trying to present, so his contribution ended up on the cutting room floor...

Hmm, someone used virtually these exact words on a Christian Beliefs forum a few weeks ago, which always makes me suspicious: it conjures up pictures of Christians standing around after morning worship, practising their anti-Dawkins catchphrases.

See if you can get a hold of the article - it isnt available online unfortunately.

Ugh, SG, I'm currently doing battle with the John Cornwell book, Darwin's Angel, and there's only so much pain I can take.

McGrath is quoted as saying "I have written 2 books on Dawkins ..."

Why, I wonder? Anyone would think the world revolved around him ;-)

273. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69475 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 11:54 am

I liked this very much:

Just as bald is not a hair color, atheism simply means that gods don't factor into the person's worldview.

but thought he'd mistaken RD's position here:

Even Dawkins acknowledges that he is agnostic on the existence of God.

Dawkins certainly acknowledges that certainty on the question of the existence of a god is impossible, but goes on to say that this DOESN'T mean he's agnostic: the balance of probabilities is such that there is "almost certainly no God".

I agree, though: it's a worthwhile project. Though I'd like to see it developed a little further, to explore what differences their loss of faith has made to the ex-believers: whether they miss anything about their former faith, how they now deal with things they would previously have prayed about, how their loss of faith has affected their view of the meaning of their life, their peace of mind, their decision-making processes etc.

274. Bible Belter

Comment #69467 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 11:06 am

I've never seen Hitch behave that badly

... and may not ever now, since I can't find the clip I was referring to! It's been removed from BuildUpThatWall.com (probably to make space for the new videos there) and I couldn't find it on YouTube, despite searching for about an hour an Saturday. It exists somewhere though and if I ever stumble across it, I'll post it here. (Or maybe someone will beat me to it?)

275. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69443 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 9:12 am

That could actually be even funnier, and more bitingly satirical than the article itself.

Of course, the person who wrote this was probably just a good, old-fashioned idiot.

Yes, Macque, I did a double-take on this one too, but the person who wrote it has a track record of being most definitely NOT stupid, so I think it's safe to give him the benefit of the doubt! :-)

276. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69438 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 8:53 am

164. Comment #69335 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Hi flying goose - I've sent you a PM in reply to this.

277. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69431 by Northern Bright on September 11, 2007 at 8:33 am

168. Comment #69425 by matt_shute-07 on September 11, 2007 at 8:04 am

Has Christopher Hitchens picked up any fleas yet?

I can imagine a possible "imaginitive" titles.

"Yes, Mr. Hitchens, God IS Great, you silly Atheist."

Maybe that's a bit long, though...

Years ago I went to a Peter Ustinov one-man show in London, and he told a story (that he swore was true) of a conversation between 2 middle aged women that he'd overheard on the bus.
"'E was at it again last night, 'e was, shoutin' an' swearin' at me. 'E sez to me, "You're a bloody old bitch, you are". But this time I was ready for 'im. Oh yes. I'd got my answer planned and I drew myself right up an' I told him straight: "Ooooh no I'm not!"

Remind you of anything? ;-)

278. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69298 by Northern Bright on September 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

155. Comment #69205 by flying goose on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 am
I like this post, flying goose. I get a real sense that you are thinking, pondering, weighing up - and that is great, even if you and I would reach different conclusions.

Whilst you're in a contemplative frame of mind, may I ask you something?

Knight: Then life is an outrageous horror. No one can live in the face of death knowing that all is nothingness.'

Do you really share the sentiment expressed in that quote?

Can you think of nothing in your life that would make life worth living in and of itself, even if it ended in nothingness? No husband/ wife/ lover/ children/ friends/ interests/ music/ art/ literature/ knowledge/ landscapes/ starscapes/ sunsets/ travels/ laughter/ tears/ pleasure/ pain that would make you feel that it had been a joy and a privilege to be part of the universe for your 70 or 80 years, even if that was it? Would it really be better not to have lived at all, than to live life to the full and then die?

And what is it about eternal life that would have inherent meaning, if this life has none?

I am genuinely interested in your reply and, although I suspect I'll disagree with it profoundly, I'm truly not asking with a view to pouncing on you!

(I have just glanced out of my window and seen the light of the setting sun catching the clouds; there is no wind and the sky is like an oil painting with gaudy daubs of blue and grey and white and yellow. How can a day in which that happens be a day of "outrageous horror", just because it will soon be over? And I haven't even touched on the Saint-Saen violin concerto playing in the background, or the laughter in the office today, or the pleasure of seeing a friend who is at last looking less haggard after the death of his son earlier this year, or my ridiculous dog, who has just dropped a disgustingly drooly toy in my lap and is looking hurt that I haven't greeted it with more enthusiasm. This is the stuff of life and it's a mixed bag - but it is worth having. Isn't it?)

279. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69290 by Northern Bright on September 10, 2007 at 10:39 am

I posted this "review" on another forum I take part in, and got the following reply:

Not sure I'm going to add this to my library, he's drifting too far away from his evolutionary, biologist base.

:-)

280. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69022 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Rubbishing Dawkins: Part of Your Retirement Portfolio?

Dr Benway, you do make me laugh! :-)

281. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69016 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Not even the junior Nazi Party secretary who first introduced me to Fascism believed that! ...

The funniest line in the funniest piece I have read for a long time!

What a brilliant parody! And very welcome after the stream of nonsense that's found its way into the press over the last week or so.

282. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68882 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 2:42 am

and here is the man himself:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2004/08/06/ftdav06.jpg

Didn't he use to sit in the balcony on The Muppet Show?

283. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68859 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 am

Crean hasn't explained why he has added the description 'uncreated'. In fact he has slipped it without a mention in the hope that it will not be noticed. It is clearly one of the changes that he has made and, therefore, is covered by his claim that for present purposes, nothing significant turns on these different ways of stating the question.

Well spotted, monkey2! An excellent illustration of the fact that, for the fleas, winning the argument is more important than winning the argument - if you see what I mean! :-)

284. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68858 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 12:47 am

I'm just repeating myself, but the religious moderates are not attuned to the rational frequency, they listen to the music without hearing the words.

601, yet again I am in total agreement with you. This very thought has been buzzing round my head like a particularly annoying bluebottle for several days now, and I think it has real implications for us if we want to get our message across clearly: after all, if the religious are not attuned to the rational frequency, it hardly seems likely that they'll be overwhelmed by the force of our rational arguments.

In which case, how rational is it to continue to depend solely on rational argument? Or, having recognised that believers aren't persuaded by rational argument, to expend our energy bemoaning that fact rather than applying ourselves to finding other methods of getting through to them that may be more effective?

What other ways might there be?

It's a genuine question and I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this: if rational argument doesn't work, and irrationality goes against everything we stand for, what other options are there?

285. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68856 by Northern Bright on September 9, 2007 at 12:28 am

The deist god has no hang-ups about human sincerity.

Love it, Dr Benway! :-)

286. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68788 by Northern Bright on September 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm

'Everytime a child says "I don't believe in fairies, a fairy falls dead somewhere"'

Peter Pan

Of course. Silly me. Thanks Bluebird.

287. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68784 by Northern Bright on September 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

I don't think I'd ever heard of the latter book, but the important point to note is that I had absolutely no desire to read it, and no intention of doing so. I was simply content to know that a book had been published that "dealt with it".

Excellent post, Jonathan: I think you've captured that perfectly.

For a Christian, maintaining faith is the most important thing there is. Not exploring it, not opening it up to challenge, not questioning it: just keeping it safe. It's not always easy: any Christian will tell you about the "empty" times, when God does not feel real, and most Christians will be honest enough to acknowledge perfectly straightforwardly that there are bits of the bible and bits of their theology that they simply don't understand or even that they find off-putting. How to fend off any loss of faith that might result? Easy: just don't go there. Just keep going as if it all still felt real, and wait for the doubt to pass.

Maintaining your faith is all you have to do to repay Jesus for dying for you. It's not easy, and there are all kinds of temptations that life throws at you along the way. WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU RISK READING THE GOD DELUSION (or any other atheist book) AND MAKING IT EVEN HARDER FOR YOURSELF? Your sole task as a Christian is to resist the temptation of unbelief. Reading TGD would just be asking for trouble.

As you so rightly say, Jonathan, it is much safer and much more comforting to entrust the task of defending your faith to someone else. Reading a book of authorised responses to TGD and the others gives you the ammunition you may need in the event that any dangerous atheist should challenge you - at no risk to your own fragile faith.

Keeping doubt at bay is a huge part of being a Christian. It's certainly a huge part of the role of the church. In the average church service, you are asked to a) listen passively to the words of the pastor/priest, b) sing words that someone else has created, c) echo prayers that someone else has spoken and d) repeat statements of faith that someone else has written down and authorised as fit for use. They clearly don't want to take any chances! If Christians could be depended on to stick rigidly to their faith without such regular refresher courses, churches could sell off their premises, go home, and just get their money in by direct debit.

I remember a church minister solemnly telling us that Christians were like burning coals. As long as they kept company with other burning coals, they'd keep burning. But if you took one away and put it on the hearth on its own, it eventually lost its fire. (I suspect that particular minister would have viewed reading TGD as attacking the coal with an industrial-strength fire extinguisher.)

Soon after I started visiting this website, I posted something about how I came to stop being a Christian. Someone who is still a Christian challenged me and said I hadn't given God a fair chance because I hadn't asked him to remove my disbelief in him. That still strikes me as extraordinary! Why would I pray to a god I didn't believe in and ask for that unbelieved-in god's help to believe something I now believed to be untrue? But my stance is that of the person whose only concern is the truth of the beliefs held; my Christian challenger's only concern was the maintenance of belief regardless. It's a completely different mindset.

(Isn't there a Disney film or something where the good fairy will die if the child in the story doesn't truly believe in her? Every so often you see the fairy fading away, and the child has to try extra hard to believe in her again, to bring her back. Or have I just dreamt that?!)

288. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68703 by Northern Bright on September 8, 2007 at 7:53 am

Northern Bright: good response. I hope you sent it to the letters editor as well as posting it on the comments section.

Thank you. I didn't ... but will now you've suggested it :-)

289. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68697 by Northern Bright on September 8, 2007 at 7:27 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/08/do0809.xml

Hmmm, I think I feel a response coming on ... :-)

... and here it is:

The last week has witnessed a flurry of articles attacking Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion. Ostensibly they have all been reviewing John Cornwell's book, Darwin's Angel, but it would appear that this new work has signally failed to hold the attention even of those reviewers keen to endorse its message, for none of them has been able to get much further than writing its title before reverting to commenting on something apparently meatier and more interesting: The God Delusion.

I'm sorry, Mr Cornwell, but I'm afraid you probably have to reconcile yourself to the idea that the reviewers may not actually have read much further in your book than the contents page. It's a reality with which Professor Dawkins must, by now, be wearily familiar: reviewer after reviewer writes scathingly about the book s/he imagines him to have written, and attacks the dangerous ideas s/he is sure he advocates, and conjures up dire images of the terrible consequences s/he fears those ideas must surely have. On reflection, though, since your own book has clearly been written with precisely the same degree of disingenuousness, perhaps the sympathy I just expressed was misplaced.

I would like to congratulate Christopher Howse, however. In what has become a seriously overcrowded field, his final paragraph - the one suggesting that Dawkins' use of the word "virus" in connection with religion has sinister overtones that could lead to a repeat of Nazi atrocities - truly excels in terms of ignorance, paranoia and sheer, downright dishonesty.

Dawkins uses the word "virus" (though nowhere, so far as I am aware, preceded by the word "pernicious") ONLY as an analogy to refer to the way in which religious ideas spread from one person to another and NEVER to describe the religious ideas themselves. (Mr Howse, Mr Cornwell -you may like to read that last sentence again.)

Given that he first expressed this kind of idea in The Selfish Gene in 1976, some of us may find it rather surprising that writers who derive at least part of their income through commenting on Dawkins' works do not yet seem to have got their heads round the concept. In all fairness, though, we should maybe make allowances for the fact that, in the minds of the religious, it is longevity, rather than aptness or insight, that gives an idea value.

Professor Dawkins, I fear you may be living in the wrong era. If only you'd been writing your books in 70AD, I suspect even John Cornwell and Christopher Howse might by now be willing to spend a little time trying to understand them.

290. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68684 by Northern Bright on September 8, 2007 at 6:07 am

64. Comment #68673 by pewkatchoo on September 8, 2007 at 4:33 am

They are at it in the bloody Daily Telegraph now. That idiot Christopher Howse is blathering away there even more inanely than Bunting. Please go and post some rebukes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/08/do0809.xml

So they are, pewkatchoo - thanks for the heads-up on that.

I'm sure readers here will particularly appreciate Howse's concluding paragraph:

Professor Dawkins has a favourite metaphor: religious belief as a pernicious virus. It is too close for comfort to the "plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery" spread by the rats in the propaganda film Der ewige Jude. The bacteria and virus-spreading rats in that film "represent the rudiment of an insidious and underground destruction - just like the Jews among human beings." Such theories, I'm afraid, could be used by the kind of people who would like to do worse than disrupt the worship of Christians, or Jews.

Hmmm, I think I feel a response coming on ... :-)

291. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68536 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm

However, the strategy for the moderates must be different. I would propose to leverage their religious doubt with "relax, you are halfway to peace and freedom, it is safe to keep going in this direction." The key here is the emotional component, as they are likely immune to rational argument.

601, once again I agree with you 100%. Each of the groups you identify will require a different approach, and moderates are most likely to respond positively to moderation. Your emphasis on the need to reassure them that it is safe and decent to go down this path is extremely perceptive, I think.

292. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68523 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Hey guys I'm new to this forum. Is it ok for atheists to eat their children, I'm getting mighty hungry!

Darling, it's practically compulsory.

293. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68455 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 am

I've never posted to the Guardian before, but hey, life is nothing if not an adventure, so I have signed up and this is what I submitted:

A remarkable book in so many ways, The God Delusion may well also hold the distinction of being the most misrepresented book ever written.

The chasm between Dawkins' views as clearly expressed in his book and as distorted by his critics is so enormous (and so common) that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see it as accidental. It's rather as if The Wind in the Willows had been reviewed by someone determined to find Frankenstein's Monster.

In yesterday's all too brief discussion on the Today programme, Dawkins simply took the opportunity to put the Radio 4 audience straight on some of the more outrageous distortions that Cornwell had indulged in. Even the most talented military strategist would find it hard to retreat from a position he had never taken.

STOP PRESS! GOOD NEWS FOR BOOK REVIEWERS! As an added incentive to get you to actually READ The God Delusion before you write your next review of it, Dawkins has gone to considerable trouble to ensure that it is chock full of views that he really DOES hold, all expressed with admirable clarity. The great thing about this is that it eliminates the need for you to make it all up. So do try reading it - you'll love it.

294. Bible Belter

Comment #68418 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 6:08 am

If you refer to his appearance on Fox after Falewell's death, I think he should be excused. That is the only style appropriate to answer theirs, otherwise you can only lose.

I'm not sure that is the one I mean, Lord Asriel. I'll see if I can track down the one I'm thinking of over the weekend, and post the link here.

295. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #68385 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 3:52 am

According to Amazon, it hasn't been published yet, and the estimated delivery date for the copy I've pre-ordered is 3 November.

Update: I'm now being told it will be delivered next week, so I'm assuming it will be available in the shops within the next few days after all.

296. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68368 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:30 am

For example: In response to the "child abuse" canard, you could say the most frightening fact is that of those who have experienced both kinds of abuse, some claim the indoctrination was worse

601, I think that would be a very clever approach. What's easier for a hostile listener to dismiss - a bald assertion of a controversial view, or an expression of concern on behalf of people who've suffered?

In connection with my work, someone sent me a YouTube video yesterday. They sent it because they thought I'd be interested to find out about the "pecha kucha" style of PowerPoint presentations demonstrated in the clip (I organise a number of business events & conferences and have banned PowerPoint presentations because they're nearly always so dire!) The clip demonstrates the pecha kucha approach by using it in a presentation on how to increase people's willingness to comply with signs in public places. The way, according to this presentation, is to engage their emotions, not just their brains. As an example, the video contrasts the effectiveness of a sign just saying "Pick up after your dog" and one saying "Children play here. Pick up after your dog." The first is a bald instruction. The second engages their sense of responsibility.

Neither pecha kucha nor public signage is remotely relevant to our discussions here - but the issue of engaging people with our message is, it seems to me, so here is the link in case anyone would like to take a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZOt6BkhUg

297. Bible Belter

Comment #68349 by Northern Bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:25 am

52. Comment #68336 by prettygoodformonkeys on September 6, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I should perhaps clarify what I meant. I like and admire Hitchens' pugnacious style in debate - to see him in full flow is awesome, and I'm not for one moment suggesting that he should tone down his arguments. Yes, absolutely, there is room for a variety of approaches and styles, and the campaign would soon become unbearably bland without a bit of passion and spark.

My criticism is aimed solely at his occasional outbreaks of behaviour that would be unacceptable in any context and that, if deployed by someone defending the theist cause, would be ripped to shreds by all of us on this forum.

For instance, (and I'm irritated at my inability to be more specific here - sorry) when he was invited onto a TV programme with an opponent, not for a full-scale debate but for an interview led by the anchorman. Hitchens refused to shut up, refused to let the other side be heard, refused to stop even when specifically requested to do by the anchorman, basically heckled everything the other guy was trying to say and, because he was talking over both his opponent and the anchorman for extended periods of time, made it absolutely impossible for anyone to make out what was actually being said by anyone. When the anchorman asked him to stop, Hitchens replied "You can't invite me to be interviewed and then expect me not to talk." He may have had a point if the interview had been unbalanced or if he hadn't been able to get a word in edgeways, but that was not the case. His opponent had been invited on to be interviewed too, but didn't get a chance to be heard at all because of Hitch's heckling.

I found it embarrassing and spent much of the video just cringing. Thanks to his rudeness, his opponent's arguments couldn't be heard and his OWN arguments couldn't be heard. If it had been his opponent shouting Hitch down, I doubt we'd have taken the view that it was reasonable behaviour or that it was ok because it added a bit of humour to the debate. Thanks to Hitch, there WAS no debate, just what amounted to a pub brawl.

298. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68343 by Northern Bright on September 6, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I don't see any need for a rematch - it seems to me that Richard won the radio debate very clearly, despite the dangers of such debates. The tone was just right - he was courteous, while also demonstrating how Cornwell had simplified and distorted his views to the extent that they were nothing like his actual expressed views in The God Delusion.

I agree, Russell, and was pleased to hear RD rebut Cornwell's claims so categorically. Asking for a rematch might be seen as a bit ungracious, considering he won!

I agree with Johnny O as well - I, too, got the impression that Edward Stourton hadn't read either of the books, and would have been able to facilitate the discussion a lot better if he had.

Whenever RD is invited onto the Today programme, it always seems to be just before they're due to go off air, so it's always rushed and always has to stop just when it's getting going properly.

One of the things I have enjoyed about the videos of Christopher Hitchens in action is that these long, serious debates have taken place in the US at all and have been made available to a wider audience. I can't remember seeing an equivalent here in the UK. (Actually, maybe now that the full interviews for The Root of All Evil? have been made available, that might be about to change. Hope so.)

299. Bible Belter

Comment #68261 by Northern Bright on September 6, 2007 at 2:38 pm

The combination of CH's reason and humour is devastating

Agreed - no quibble with that at all. It's not his debating technique but his occasional tantrums that I'm questioning - they're neither reasonable nor humorous.

no one has to be perfect, surely.

It may be unreasonable, but I think when you're putting yourself forward as one of a very small number of public faces for a campaign as important and controversial as this one, you do have to come pretty close. Anyway, not losing your temper and behaving like a hormonal teenager in public doesn't exactly take perfection. Even I can manage it! ;-)

300. Bible Belter

Comment #68257 by Northern Bright on September 6, 2007 at 2:27 pm

33. Comment #68242 by Richard Morgan on September 6, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I don't disagree with anything you write here, Richard. Just saying that, for my money, Christopher Hitchens is a mixed blessing. I'm absolutely sure you're right when you suggest that he's cultivated his persona deliberately - I think it's partly the transparency of that fact that grates on me and makes me feel I'm being manipulated.

I can see that his style would be effective in attracting those who already agree with us; and that's not unimportant. But somehow we also need to find a better way of putting the message across to our ultimate audience - the potential waverers in the religious communities.

If a religious person fears (as many of them do) that atheism must lead to chaos and lower moral standards, then watching Hitchens throwing the toys out of his pram isn't likely to persuade them that there's nothing to fear on this score.

As for "Truth mattering more than anything else", I'd certainly agree that it's essential. But truth + an ability to win people over is even more powerful than truth alone.

In my Christian days I had a friend who was a real evangelical and used to fret about how few people she'd managed to convert. Personally I was just grateful if I hadn't put anyone off. :-)

And maybe that's all we can realistically aim for: that we put the facts and the evidence out there, but then try not to do anything that is clearly likely to alienate our target audience and give them an excuse not to consider what we're saying.

A friend of mine used the expression "attraction, not conversion" the other day - and it struck me as a helpful one. How do we attract people to atheism? Maybe actively trying not to repel them would be a good place to start!