Who's this 'we' the narrator keeps talking about? Most of the 7 billion humans currently alive are theists.

It's amazing how much Ultra Orthodox Judaism has in common with Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia.

The first law of any cult is to limit or strictly control engagement with the outside world. It doesn't matter if it's Scientology or North Korea.

My conversations go more like this:

Unbeliever: You don't even know the Bible, nor do you go to Church. How do you know you'll go to Heaven?

Believer: God is merciful and loving.

Unbeliever: But have the read the fine-print? Surely this is really important... either you're going to live forever in paradise or you'll be tortured forever. Isn't it important to get it right? What if God finds out you worked on a Sunday, thereby breaking one of the 10 Commandments. And you swore the other day. This COULD be enough to get you disqualified.

Believer: I don't think God, in all his mercy, would send a good person to Hell, even if he did a few minor things wrong.

Unbeliever: But how do you KNOW that for sure? Aren't you just assuming? Did He actually tell you which rules are flexible?

And so on. In other words, the believer wants to do whatever he likes, and still assumes God will be give him the thumbs up. Pretending to know things they can't know.

I'm always amazed how relaxed most Christians are about it. If it were true, and so much depended on it, you'd think it'd be rational behaviour to go through the rules with a fine tooth-comb and obey each one obsessively.

The light that shines twice as bright shines half as long -Tyrell

You can fool 80% of people 100% of the time

Comment 12 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 6 by Rtambree

It's a curious position from a scientist. But there are other scientists who distance themselves from reductive materialism, while remaining atheists. Sam Harris' flirting with Buddhism has been endlessly discussed on this site. Paul Davies flirted with some sort of deistic knob-twiddler (intelligently designed laws of physics). Robert Winston is another in this category eager to say 'science can't explain everything, therefore....' and so the door is left open. Melvyn Bragg also comes to mind - an unbeliever, yes, but can't accept the implications of disbelief.

What Tallis and some of the others you mention have in common is an objection to the sort of 'nothing but....' science that sees reductionism in quite literal terms of having to 'reduce' everything to 'only' this or that. Those sort of 'only' judgements ( for example 'consciousness is only a small part of brain activity' ) are not proper science......but are instead a form of negative anthropomorphism that a lot of scientists seem to feel they have to convey to appear as good reductionists.

I'm all for scientists who question the 'only' paradigm. The word 'only' is a subjective human judgement and does not belong in science.

The 'only' in a negative sense, is just a value judgement. It's analogous to the half-empty glass. One can say that we 'only' live 80 years but they can be filled with wonder, excitement, learning, love, mystery, etc. The brain is only 1.5kg of C,H,O, N, K, etc but it's capable of so much creativity and introspection.

Tallis speaks like a dualist, but claims he isn't. Rather than suggesting an alternative line of enquiry, he's happy to pre-emptively dismiss 'reductive' neurology as fruitless in uncovering insights into the nature of consciousness. Tallis attacks the extreme position of 'scientism' - that we've found or are near to finding all the answers to everything. This is a position that no one holds. He seems motivated by 'human exceptionalism' - that we're not 'just' animals, that we do have free will, rather than being automata. He claims there is a fundamental difference between humans and chimps, rather than the two just lying on a continuum. While this sounds suspiciously like a religious motivation, he does insist he's a secular humanist/atheist signed up to Darwin, etc. Tallis' a priori assertions are sustained only by the re-defining of concepts, in other words an exercise in semantics.

It's a curious position from a scientist. But there are other scientists who distance themselves from reductive materialism, while remaining atheists. Sam Harris' flirting with Buddhism has been endlessly discussed on this site. Paul Davies flirted with some sort of deistic knob-twiddler (intelligently designed laws of physics). Robert Winston is another in this category eager to say 'science can't explain everything, therefore....' and so the door is left open. Melvyn Bragg also comes to mind - an unbeliever, yes, but can't accept the implications of disbelief.

Comment 26 by SonofHades :

@Macropus

The chaplains policy is blatantly wrong for a number of reasons and I'm unhappy about the fact that Gillard's government is continuing it, but perhaps you are being a tad harsh on the PM over this issue.

There's a difference between "supporting the status quo to appease the right wing of her party and powerful (and wealthy) religious interests" and reluctantly abiding by the majority view of the party, and I'm not sure that Gillard falls into the former category rather than the latter. Taking the disagreement outside the party room and into the public arena could well be disastrous. When there are so many important things at stake in how the country is governed, upsetting the apple cart over school chaplains would be daft.

We want atheists and firm secularists in positions of power. If they're in the minority they may not be able to have much of an effect when it comes to a vote, but one less theism advocate is a good thing. The atheists/secularists can operate within the limits of what the majority is willing to tolerate to reduce religious influence, or they can stick their necks out and have their heads chopped off.

We know Gillard is an atheist and is therefore likely to resent this policy. The members of parliament who are the real supporters of this nonsense deserve our ire to a much greater extent.

Sorry, but if Gillard/ALP's policies = Liberal Party policies, then they deserve the same condemnation. Stop trying to rationalise it as an apologist. If anything the ALP deserves MORE condemnation because that's not the direction they should be moving in, whereas we expect that from the Liberal Party.

Some of the arguments against Krauss' original (less accommodationalist) position sound eerily similar to the arguments theists use e.g. science can't explain everything, therefore that's where religion/philosophy step in. Or science can't guide moral principles, therefore that's where religion/philosophy steps in.

Comment 17 by Stafford Gordon :

Incidentally, it was none other than Che Guevara who persuaded Khrushchev to install missiles on Cuba; a manoeuvre that did indeed bring the world to the brink of thermo-nuclear war.

I wonder how many of his T shirt wearing fans know that?

Well I've seen the documentary "X-Men - First Class" too, and didn't prior US deployment of nuclear missiles in Italy/Turkey have something to do with it?

Orwell's Rules of Writing:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Bonus Rule: Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard the argument:

Animals can't write music Humans can compose symphonies Therefore we're different from animals Therefore... God exists

Comment 14 by Perfect Tommy :

Hmm, I didn't know that the PM of Australia was an atheist. Now that's pretty good news :)

Is it? If you actually judge by POLICY, then it doesn't seem to make any difference. She doesn't believe in gay marriage and she continues to support faith schools and state-funded religious school chaplains. I can't see any area of policy where the atheism expresses itself.

There is no prominent anti-Freud crusader in any country, like there is with homoeopathy or religion or spoon-bending or other woo.

For some reason, Freud gets a blind-eye from the skeptic movement.

You'll find the odd sentence or two dismissing Freudian interpretations in Pinker or Ramachandran , but there's no sustained polemic by any current public intellectual denouncing the entire psychoanalysis industry. The amount of academic time & energy that has been wasted on Freud throughout the 20th century is staggering.

Freud needs its 'strident' Dawkins.

Surprising to hear the (atheist) Chinese censoring the brief nude scene in Titanic 3D.

Comment 17 by Bipedal Primate :

Comment 10 by Mr DArcy :

Rtambree:

Science = Reality

If I could amend that a bit:

Science is the best current understanding of reality.

How about: Science provides the best means to understand reality.

Not the best, but the only.

Judging by the comments here, half the regulars on this site could have had Pell for breakfast with snappy retorts to his incoherent ramblings. The Catholic Church has got such a big soft underbelly due to its history of slavery, corruption, complicity with fascism, misogyny, anti-science, paedophile scandals, etc, etc. It shouldn't have been too hard to 'own' Pell like Fry & Hitchens owned Anne Widdecombe in a debate in London a few years ago.

God's powers are weakening. He used to be able to flood the world and part the Red Sea. Now He's struggling to make statues leak water. Must have lost his Spell Book.

The Mayans were right!

A little knowledge about the Catholic Church's complicity with the Nazi Party would have been a fine retort to 'Hitler was an atheist'

These debates never move on. It's always the same questions & answers that were around 6-7 years ago. It's like were stuck in some ground-hog day.

If I hear "Hitler & Stalin were atheists" one more time...

It's frustrating how many mistakes, question-avoidance, or incoherent rambling Pell was allowed to get away with. The format of these shows is always to move onto the next topic rather than reconcile differences about each issue first before moving on.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says he practises succinct, media-friendly lines over and over, so that he's not caught off guard, or rambling, or exasperated, or cut off for time.

Dawkins has been asked these questions enough times to (1) know what to expect, and (2) rebuke them with snappy, succinct, answers. Surely he (and all the atheist community, etc) can come up with the best responses to the most common 10-20 questions and learn them by heart. For example, I don't think Dawkins handled the 'universe from nothing' issue as well as it could have been handled. And perhaps Dawkins needs to learn a bit more about the history of human rights progress (like AC Grayling has) and history of religion to counter the frequent claims about Christianity being responsible for the abolition of slavery, etc. It's all very well to be an expert on natural selection, but these debates typically cover history, law, human rights issues in other countries, comparative religion, quotes from scriptures, etc. Just some constructive advice.

Perhaps he was jet-lagged or bored, but many felt his performance wasn't putting atheism in its best light. This is more an issue of style. By the second half, Tony Jones was doing most of the cross-examining of Pell.

Not only are there 10-20 common questions asked of Dawkins each time, there are also common tactics by the faith-heads that should be anticipated: (1) obscurantism i.e. vague, poetic, metaphors (2) question-avoidance, (3) exaggerating religion's positive points.

Science = Reality

With a streamlined syllabus devoid of all these terms, kids can enter the workforce faster.

Another example of Christians ignoring the teachings of Christ.

Amazing how plastic the human mind is: doctrines can be inverted 180 degrees without breaking sweat.

Pinker collected the biggest $/word payment in that interview. He could have nipped out for lunch and checked his email, updated his twitter feed, and blow-dried his hair, and no one would have noticed.

Is it Dawkins' birthday today? Happy Birthday if it is. 71

By dismissing a religious person's beliefs, you're saying:

(1) They're childish, superstitious, weak and stupid for believing in the invisible & supernatural

(2) When they die, they'll remain dead and be eaten by worms

(3) All their dead loved ones are worm-food and they'll never be re-united

(4) Good people can suffer and bad people can lead long, happy, lives (i.e. no justice)

(5) All the time spent in church or praying is a waste of the one life they're ever going to have

What about mosques in Christian countries?

Bragg's "argument" seems to very similar to Robert Winston's i.e. it's more about Dawkins' style of argument than the evidence, even though both Bragg and Winston are not really believers themselves. Interesting that both are Lords and therefore part of the 'establishment' that revere tradition and authority.

The issue also seems to be about art v science. Artists like interesting things and the pluralism that fosters community, so therefore they liken science's intolerance for falsehood as 'totalitarian'.

As Dawkins says repeatedly, he cares about 'what's true'. That's the 'science-brain'. But to the 'art-brain', it's about what's interesting, diversity, finding common ground, regardless if it's true.

Also, Bragg gives WAY TOO MUCH credit to the King James Bible for democracy and abolition of slavery and chooses to ignore all the superstitious, misanthropic, misogynistic, racist, genocidal parts.

It seems Bragg is personally offended by Dawkins for dismissing his devout childhood as nonsense, even though Bragg himself concedes most of religion is based on falsehood. In short, it's one big dummy-spit: 'what about my feelings'. Just like Star Wars fans say Lucas destroyed their childhood with the shitty prequels, Bragg is saying Dawkins is ruining his childhood by dismissing all his happy meaningful times in Church.

And it's a complete non sequitir to say "Science doesn't know everything" so in the meantime we'll hold on to our bronze age superstitions like an infant sucking on a pacifier.

And lastly, it's profoundly misanthropic to declare that humanity needs falsehoods: false comforts, false beliefs, false consolations. The most secular countries on Earth are in Scandinavia and have the highest standard of livings. They do perfectly well without all the mumbo-jumbo.

Grow up Melvyn. We thought you were smarter than this.