Matthew Parris
How is it, asks Richard Dawkins,
that despite science having exposed old religious myths, militant faith
is back on the march? The mechanism for perpetuating beliefs that
Dawkins describes as leading to murderous intolerance, is by imposing
religion on children who are too inexperienced to judge it for
themselves.
I
agree.
Religion
should
not
be
imposed,
good
behaviour
and
morals
should
be
taught.
However
most
parents
and
schools
would
seek
an
authority
to
back them up. They are likely to turn to inspirational texts from the
generations that built the society that has brought their family into
existence. What is needed is to have texts that are consistent with
current knowledge. There are plenty available and as I have shown
already, the Bible and Book of Commion Prayer are full of them if
properly understood. No doubt the Koran is also. What has gone wrong is
these sources are being imposed by mentally deficient, or deluded, or
ignorant people.
We wouldn't categorise children
according to their parents' political stance, says Dawkins, since they
are too young to make up their minds about such matters. But we
segregate them in sectarian religious schools, where they are taught
superstitions drawn from ancient scriptures of dubious origin, which
promote a 'contradictory and poisonous system of morals'.
I
agree.
The
religious
texts
that
are
used
need
to
be
explained
by
people
who
understand
them.
This
is
not
happening.
Dawkins compares this to a
virus, which infects the young and is passed down the generations.
Visiting an ultra-orthodox Jewish school, he describes the British-born
headteacher Rabbi Gluck's Yiddish accent as testament to the isolation
of his community. Gluck says that it's important for members of
minorities to have the space to express their own beliefs and
traditions. He describes science as one tradition, and Judaism as
another. His students are taught about evolution and if only a minority
end up believing in it, he says, this is not out of ignorance.
Gluck's
position
is
ridiculous,
of
course.
The
understanding
and
perspective
of
previous
generations
can
be
respected
and
admired
without
pretending
that
it
does
not
have to be expanded and interpreted in the light of
later evidence. If half his students believe one thing and half
another, with no possible rational co-existence, we have basic
societal incoherence, not healthy variety in
studies.
The number of faith schools is
increasing. More than half the Government's proposed City Academies
will be run by religious organisations and there's a growing number of
private evangelical Christian schools. ACE – Accelerated Christian
Education – has developed a curriculum which includes a mention of God
or Jesus on every page of its science text book. The head of a school
which uses this material argues that if there were no lawgiver, there
would be no reason to see rape and murder as wrong.
I
went
to
boarding
schools
where
we
went
to
a
Christian
service
frequently.
We
sang
great
hymns,
intoned
great
prayers,
and
never
for
a
moment doubted that the way our religion was understood by each
individual was a personal affair. As a born scientist who studied
evolution and physics as soon as I could read and assumed the 'Big
Bang' theory was a correct visualisation of the devlopment of
space-time, I never had the slightest problem with respecting the
Biblical texts and understanding how they related to current
cosmological and biological perceptions. I never imagined anyone else
did either. It is only now that I find myself having to live in a world
where morons are taken seriously and allowed access to powerful means
of public expression that I realise that unless we straighten this mess
out immediately we could be in for some painful times.
Transmitting such a 'warped
reality' to young people, says Dawkins, amounts to indoctrination.
Children are uniquely vulnerable and if they fail to question and shake
off such superstition, they remain in a state of perpetual infancy. He
talks to a woman brought up in a strict Christian sect who describes
the terror of eternal damnation, which dominated her childhood, as a
form of abuse.
Here
I
have
to
agree
100%
with
Dawkins.
But
hell-fire
and
damnation
arrives
regularly
on
this
planet
when
we
muck
up.
People
of
limited education
need to ascribe this to an authority greater than their local or
national government so 'God' gets lumbered with it. Insurance companies
use the same tactic so don't be too dismissive of this cop-out.
Hellhouse movies are a new
growth industry in the USA today. Graphically filmed, they demonise
abortion and homosexuality with the explicit aim of scaring the
viewers. Pastor Keenan Roberts explains that the aim is 'to leave an
indelible impression on their lives that sin destroys … and Jesus
saves'. The result, says Dawkins, is a mindset which can justify the
murder of a doctor who carries out abortions on the grounds that he is
destroying a being created in God's image!
Again
I
am
100%
with
Dawkins.
Abortion
is
something
to
be
avoided,
but
carried
out
if
pregnancy
is
unwanted
and
for
some
reason
not avoided.
Hellhouse movies are rubbish. Homosexuality has been a natural
development, it appears, maybe a form of population control. What
offends some people is not its existence but crass public sexual
behaviour which homosexuals, for some reason, seem to enjoy.
Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Dawkins agrees. It is more moral, he says, to do good for its own sake than out of fear. Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.
Is there no more than just this
life? asks Richard Dawkins. How much more do you want? We are lucky to
be here, he says, and we should make the most of our time on this world.
First
of
all,
let
us
get
rid
of
the.major
problem
with
Weinberg's
statement.
Religion
has
inspired
a
great
number
of
people
to
do
very good things,
which atheist or agnostics would not have bothered with. Being decent
to your friends or neutrals is easy for any well adjusted atheist. For
significant or advanced altruism, it takes religion. It has been the
very source of civilisation of that there is no doubt. It was once the
science of its time, evidence based. Well paid middle
class academics have little idea of the innate savagery that is to be
found in humans whose environment is dangerous and competitive.
Morality is NOT older than religion. Morality beyond that shown by
animals is almost the definition of religion, as it is based on the
concept of a natural law that is above the individual. Of course there
have been religious wars, the appalling Spanish Inquisition, the wars
to defend historical sites, the invokation of religion by leaders of
sectarian movements to gain dominance over land or positions of power.
But what is at issue now is not history but the future. There is
nothing but verity in the realisation that science is knowledge based
on evidence, and that science has revealed the majesty and complexity
of the universe. Any religion that denies the evidence is a religion
that has got into the wrong hands. It is also in the case of
Christianity a religion that has been totally misunderstood. Here is a
religion that was founded to clear away superstition. So if what
Weinberg wants to dump is the muddle in the heads of those who have a
religion that is based on superstition and denies science, then he is
to be supported.
Second
let
me
deal
with
Dawkins
final
sentence.
"Is
there
no
more
than
just
this
life?"
he
asks.
This
is
a
strange
question.
It is rather as if a
single brain cell group, if it could speak (and a single brain cell
group is complex) said to itself - "is there no more than just this
life?" To which the answer is yes, there certainly is. There is more in
every way. Yet Dawkins is also right when he says "How much more do you
want?".Life for a human is as much as he or she can cope with. However,
there is life after death. Every life is one after death. There is no
need to get into complex theories of reincarnation to work out that
nature achieves consciousness in living beings. We bring with us the
innate experince gained over all of time. There is only one universal
question which God or Nature had to answer, Shakespeare put it in the
mouth of Hamlet, but it is the question to which the asnwer to Life,
the Universe and Everything applies. It is this: To
Be,
or
Not
To
Be.
It
has
been
answered
in
the
affirmative,
and
therefore
the
truth
which
Dawkins
is
trying
to
express
is
also
the
answer
that
many, particularly
when they find themselves in
extremis,
come
up
with:
"We're
here
because
we're
here
because
we're
here,
because
we're
here".
This
is
a
much
more
profound
statement
that
you
may
realise.
And
the
plea
by
Weinberg
to
do
good
for
its
own
sake is entirely correct. What
neither he, nor Dawkins seem to understand is that their ideas of
Heaven and Hell are as hopelessly inadequate as the very religionists
they are trying to banish. If they were not, they would understand the
New Testament.
Saudi officials said the pilgrims were crushed at the eastern entrance of Mena's disaster-prone Jamarat Bridge as they jostled to perform the stoning between noon and sunset in Mena, a narrow valley near the holy city of Mecca.
"So far, the number of confirmed deaths is 345 and the number of injured in hospital is 289," Health Minister Hamad al-Manei told Saudi state television, adding that many had been discharged.
Some 2.5 million Muslims are performing the haj this year, and the death toll was the worst since 1,426 people were killed in a stampede in a tunnel in Mecca in 1990.
"It was like the road of death there," one pilgrim said, describing women fainting and people elbowing and pushing to get closer to the wall where pilgrims direct their stones.
Thursday's crush, which occurred after noon prayers, intensified after many pilgrims scrambled to pick up belongings lost in the heavy crowds, the Interior Ministry said. "Pilgrims fell over and crushed each other at the eastern entrance to the Jamarat," it said in a statement.
Many pilgrims insist on following Prophet Mohammad's example of stoning after noon prayers instead of staggering the ritual throughout the day as some clerics recommend.
Bodies covered in white shrouds littered the Jamarat area, as medics tended to the injured on stretchers. The bodies were driven away in ambulances and refrigerated trucks.
"The people who died were trying to get onto the bridge to do their stoning. But a wave of people came from the (other) direction trying to get off the bridge. That's when people died," said Egyptian Amr Gad.
"ACT OF GOD"
Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Sultan blamed the crush on pilgrims who insisted on carrying bulky baggage during the stoning ritual despite officials' warnings.
But he defended the kingdom's organisation of the haj, saying: "The state can't stop God's will, its impossible to think that any human can stop God's will."
The crush was the second disaster to hit this year's pilgrimage. Last week, 76 people were killed when a hostel in Mecca collapsed in a narrow street.
Saudi security forces set up a tight cordon around the Jamarat Bridge to control the crowds, as many pilgrims thronged to carry on stoning three walls in a symbolic casting out of the devil and rejection of temptation.
The haj is a duty for every able-bodied Muslim at least once in a lifetime. Many pilgrims transport their belongings from site to site, hampering the flow of pilgrims.
"There was crowding and pushing, of course. It's so sad to hear about the people who died," said Fawaz Zahrani, a Saudi.
The pilgrimage has been marred by stampedes in the past, and some of the worst have occurred in Mena. In 2004, some 250 pilgrims were crushed to death at Jamarat Bridge. A decade earlier, 270 were killed in a similar stampede.
Saudi Arabia has revamped the Jamarat area by expanding the stoning targets and provided unprecedented security including 60,000 security men to control the huge crowd and avert possible attacks by Islamist militants.
After this year's haj, the Jamarat Bridge will be replaced with a more elaborate bridge involving a four-level system of entrances and exits to the three walls, including a subway, and costing 4.2 billion riyals (645 million pounds).
Pilgrims, in white robes meant to eradicate differences in race and class between Muslims, perform a third day of stoning on Thursday and make a final visit to the Grand Mosque in Mecca, according to rules laid out by Prophet Mohammad 1,400 years ago.
(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Dubai and Andrew Hammond in Riyadh)
Images of the Prophet Mohamed have long been discouraged in Islam. The West has little understanding of why this should be so - nor of the intensity of the feelings aroused by non-believers' attitudes to the founder of Islam.
To historians, Mohamed was a prophet and religious reformer who united the scattered Arabian tribes in the 7th century, founding what went on to become one of the world's five great religions. To Muslims, he was the last in a line of figures which included Abraham, Moses and Jesus, but which found its supreme fulfilment in Mohamed.
They believe that he was visited by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to memorise and recite the verses sent by God which became the Koran - and that he completed and perfected the teaching of God throughout history.
Because Muslims believe that Mohamed was the messenger of Allah, they extrapolate that all his actions were willed by God. A singular love and veneration thus attaches to the person of Mohamed himself. When speaking or writing, his name is always preceded by the title "Prophet" and followed by the phrase: "Peace be upon him", often abbreviated in English as PBUH.
Attempts to depict him in illustration were therefore an attempt to depict the sublime - and so forbidden.
More than that, to reject and criticise Mohamed is to reject and criticise Allah himself. Criticism of the Prophet is therefore equated with blasphemy, which is punishable by death in some Muslim states. When Salman Rushdie, in his novel The Satanic Verses, depicted Mohamed as a cynical schemer and his wives as prostitutes, the outcome was - to those with any understanding of Islam - predictable.
But understanding of Islam is sorely lacking in the West. The culture gap has its roots in the fact that Christianity - like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism - is essentially an iconographic religion. In its early years, the Christian world took the statues of the old gods and goddesses of Greece and morphed them into images of the Virgin Mary and the saints, which were venerated in all the churches. Muslims, like Jews, take a polar opposite view. Islam and Judaism are religions of the word, not the image.
Islam has traditionally prohibited images of humans and animals altogether - which is why much Islamic art is made up of decorative calligraphy or abstract arabesque patterns.Throughout history Muslims have cast out, destroyed or denounced all images, whether carved or painted, as idolatry. Despite that prohibition, hundreds of images of Mohamed have been created over the centuries. Medieval Christian artists created paintings and illuminated manuscripts depicting Mohamed, usually with his face in full view. Muslim artists from the same era depicted Mohamed too, but usually left his face blank or veiled.
Sixteenth-century Persian and Ottoman art frequently represented the Prophet, albeit with his face either veiled, or emanating radiance. One 16th-century Turkish painting, in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, shows Mohamed in very long sleeves so as to avoid showing even his hands.
The ban is not absolute. Today, iconic pictures of Mohamed are sold openly on the street in Iran. The creation, sale or owning of such images is illegal, but the regime turns a blind eye (Muslims in Iran are Shia not Sunni).
Two things are different today. The cartoons published first in Denmark and now more widely across Europe set out not to depict but to ridicule the Prophet. And they do so in a climate in which Muslims across the globe feel alienated, threatened and routinely despised by the world's great powers.
The combination of this with
Islam's traditional unhappiness at depictions of any human form, let
alone of their most venerated one, was bound to be explosive. The
affair is an example of Western ignorance and arrogance combined. We
have lit a fire and the wind could take it a long way.
END OF ARTICLE.
FEBRUARY 5th 2006
Lets have a look at Taoism. To most people there seems to be little
conflict between the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament and Lao -
Tzu, the supposed author of Taoism, as far as the consequent
instructions for how to behave during life are concerned. There are
also parallels with Buddhism which equally obvious. If one takes a look
at the cosmogeny of Taoism, according to Yin
Hsi (a famous Taoist) "It is a kind of cosmogony which contains all the fundamental tenets of Esoteric
Cosmogenesis. Thus he says that in the beginning there was naught but
limitless and boundless Space. All that lives and is, was born in it,
from the 'Principle which exists by Itself, developing Itself from
Itself'". Scientifically this is not quite as good as St John, who does
not assume that space-time existed beforehand but emerged from a
singularity. But let us not quibble, there is absolutely no case for
Taoists and Christians and Bhuddists to disagree about how to behave,
providing we don't get bogged down in cultural minutiae developed by
fundamentalists and the various sects and denominations that developed
during the 2 millennia since Jesus lived. Here are some links for
Taoism.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/taoism.htm
http://www.thetao.info/tao/tao.htm
http://morrisinstitute.com/os/mihv_pc_morris_14.html
http://www.experiencefestival.com/tao_te_ching
http://www.dynamicbalancingtaichi.co.uk/Lao%20Tzu.htm
FEBRUARY 7th 2006
Today we have
Prof David Starkey's last programme in his "Who Killed Christianity"
series. He targets Karl Woytila (spelling to be corrected when I find
out what it is) Pope John Paul. He gives JP his due as a key player in
the winding up of the Cold War but rightly takes him to task for
turning the clock back to a sex-obsessed period and an Aristotelian
rather than a Christian interpretation of sexual morality. John Paul
was right to extol behavioural change as the key to improvements in
e.g. Africa. There is no doubt that the abuse of women and the male
dominance of the cultures has to be tackled if there is to be control
of AIDs. There is everything to be said for 'old fashioned' values in
marriage. But to get this confused with fundamental opinions on the use
of condoms in absurd.
Starkey comes to the
defence of the first page with which I opened this GOD STORY, prompted
as I was, not primarily by the madness of Muslim fundamentalist
fanaticism, or the emptiness of unimaginative atheism based on shallow
and partial science, but by the truly appalling failure of the fount of
Christianity to have the courage to show that its real roots, the life
and teaching of Jesus, is compatible in every way with the most modern
scientific knowledge. Jesus fulfilled the role of Jewish Messiah
because that was what was needed. But he was also the first
Humanist.The Virgin Birth was part of the legend - we do not need it
now. He did not heal the sick - he showed them how to heal themselves
through faith. We tend to forget that Christian Science was born in the
same time as bacteriology, and tests in the last 25 years of the
'placebo effect' have proved the mind can control not only the
experience of pain but the immune and other bodily systems. Jesus
taught the Kingdom of God is within us. That feeding
5,000 or 5 Billion is possible if we share. That death is not the end
because the spirit of life lives on and "We", "I", "You" will always be
here as the eyes, the hands of God. In the beginning was The Word, and
The Word Became Flesh, is the story of evolution. The parable of The
Sower is the teaching of Natural Selection. Seek and Ye Shall Find is a
key instruction. Love thy neighbour is another, and thy neighbour is
not defined by race, colour, or even creed. He also prepared us for
some very tough times ahead.
FEBRUARY 8th
This morning I have to listen to John Mortimer talking to Dominic
Lawson saying "How can you believe in God when you have The Holocaust".
Sometimes one wonders how someone with an intellect as inadequate as
that can make a living as a lawyer. Mind you, it could not have helped
when Cardinal Hume, in answer to his question, told him "God is the
Shakespeare of the universe - he has to have his villains..." No
wonder we are in a mess when the head of the Catholic Church in the UK
did not understand the meaning of the crucifixion or of the humanity of
Christ.
MARCH 21
Well done Archbishop of Canterbury! We could be on the road to
recovery. Dr Williams has clarified the Intelligent Design muddle and,
even though the coverage of his media interview in the Guardian almost
confused it again (headline writers are the bane of information
dispensers and editors next on the list), it looks like the C of E will
get it straight. Five separate links here to the Guardian. As I am sure
you will guess, at no time did he say "I am comic vicar to the nation."
(Archbishop:
stop
teaching
creationism,
March
21)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1736264,00.html
21.03.2006: 'I
am
comic
vicar
to
the
nation'
21.03.2006: Transcript:
Rowan
Williams
interview
21.03.2006: Audio
extracts:
Archbishop
of
Canterbury's
interview
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Most Indians perceive God as a macro-manager responsible for controlling things like the earth's rotation, rather than being in charge of the actions of humans on a day-to-day basis, a survey said on Saturday.
According to a poll conducted for the Times of India newspaper across 10 cities with 1,007 respondents -- which included people of Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Sikh faiths -- Indians were not convinced that God controlled our daily lives.
"(God) is seen as the Creator -- 91 percent feel God controls macro-affairs like the rotation of the earth or the cycle of life and death," the newspaper reported.
"A significant 46 percent said (God) was an observer, not a controller."
Predominately Hindu India is seen as being a deeply religious country where idol worship and superstitious beliefs are widely adhered to, but the poll found that only one third of Indians sensed the presence of God in idols.
While 80 percent of Indians questioned thought God had a human form, 23 percent felt God was male and 11 percent believed God was female. Forty-nine percent thought God took both a female and male form.
The poll, conducted by market research firm TNS for the daily newspaper, also found 54 percent of Indians believed God answered their prayers and 56 percent thought God was never unjust.
The newspaper said that while India is often perceived as a land of God-fearing people, God is seen by many as more a source of energy than someone to be feared.
We are in a period of intense debate about religion. It seems there are believers, secularists and atheists - in their manifold varieties - arguing over their various concerns. Veils. Intelligent design v evolution. Ordaining gays and women. Contraception and Aids.
But there is one voice that is squeezed out, partly because it can equivocate, partly because it tires of the tit-for-tat that the debate is so often reduced to. That is the agnostic.
|
AGNOSTICISM
Philosophical
view
that
truth
of
claims
like
the
existence
of
gods
is
unknown
or
unknowable
Word from
Greek a , meaning without, and gnosis , meaning
knowledge
Noted
agnostics include Francis Crick, Sir David Attenborough, Carl Sagan and
Warren Buffet
|
Now, many atheists and believers alike think agnosticism weak. Atheists would bundle us in with them; liberal believers likewise. But this does us a disservice. In fact, I have become really quite evangelical about the need for a passionate, committed agnosticism.
Why? How else to deal with something that lies at the heart of the human condition: uncertainty. Thus, a corresponding "lust for certainty" characterises many of the debates currently doing the rounds. In religion, fundamentalism is the obvious case in point.
When it comes to the scientific worldview, a lust for certainty is manifest in different ways. Think of the way that some atheists go on at great length about the need to throw off superstitious belief and don the freedom and reason of the Enlightenment.
What they will not accept is what the inventor of the word "agnostic" sought to highlight. TH Huxley meant his neologism as a rebuke to all who peddle their opinions as facts - notably their opinion, scientific or religious, about God. For whether or not God exists is neither proven nor, he thought, provable. God just isn't that kind of concept.
Einstein, another agnostic, looked at the universe and saw the workings of a "spirit" beyond our understanding, an intuition the atheist would stumble over.
Fear of unknown
The lust for certainty spills over into other walks of modern life too. Take the so-called politics of fear - the constant reference to risks, from hoodies on the street corner to international terrorism.
Being agnostic can amount to little more than a shrug of the shoulders. But can it be a weighty way of life? It can, because it has great traditions to draw on - no lesser traditions than those of philosophy, religion and science. At their richest, all three are riven through and through with an agnostic spirit.
Take philosophy. Socrates was a genius because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know. That is why he irritated so many powerful people in ancient Athens; his philosophy burst the bubble of their misplaced confidence.
Similarly, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) said that to be human is to be "between beasts and angels". He meant that we are not ignorant like the animals. But we are also far from wise. Faith for Augustine was about deepening the capacity to enter this cloud of unknowing, rather than opting for the shallow certainties that religion can deliver.
|
Everyone who is seriously involved
in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a
spirit vastly superior to that of man Albert Einstein |
This is the spirit that you see in cosmology. On one level, cosmologists understand an extraordinary amount about the universe. But simultaneously, this only deepens the sense of the universe's tremendousness. The science keeps pointing to the big question of why we here at all.
The revival of a committed, passionate agnosticism in
philosophy, religion and science is vital for our age. Without it
religion will become more extreme; science will become more
triumphalist; and our politics increasingly based on fear.
Mark Vernon is the author of Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life, published by Palgrave Macmillan.
Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
Agnostic, atheist, Hindu, vegan, Man Utd supporter... seems mankind
is
genetically pre-disposed to want to be categorised as one thing or
another. Pigeon-holed into rigid belief systems when, in reality, our
views are probably more inconsistent and contradictory. From an atheist
with Sheikh leanings that enjoys the Morning Service on Radio 4.
LH Kirby, London, UK
As an atheist turned Christian, I'm convinced that we can't have
certainty about God or anything connected with him. What we may have is
faith - a very different matter. I believe in God because I've had
spiritual experiences that I interpret as being in touch with God; I
believe in the Christian Gospel because it helps to make sense of
humanity. I'll pray for Mark.
Robert, Reading, England
In my opinion we atheists are passionate and vocal about our (lack
of)
belief because we see the harm which centuries of allowing religion to
overrule thought has done. Religion would be a fine thing if we could
let each man or woman decide his or her own belief; however that would
mean no family pressure, no Sunday school, no faith schools, no baptism
and no teaching of any religion until of an age to understand.
Geoff Winkless, Leicestershire, UK
I empathise with the frustration over being considered a
fence-sitter.
At one point I started using the term "epistemological nihilist" (as I
have an inkling that humans are incapable of knowing everything), but
that term just sounds pompous to the people I'm likely to be debating
with. As for agnosticism in general, I find it bemusing that it's not
the preferred way of thinking. Data gets filtered through the senses
into the brain and then filtered out via human language - how can we be
sure we are ever on the same page enough to consider our ideas true
knowledge? Surely that realization should instil enough humility to
temper the extremes of fundamentalism, atheism, nihilism, etc. Ah well,
humans must need the strife on some level.
Lanna, Kirkcaldy
How about other religions? If Christianity hasn't provided you with
the
answer, then how about Islam. As a Muslim, I found my religion to
honestly provide answers to the multitude and creator behind existence.
Yemeth Nabel, Dudley, West Midlands
Not knowing and admitting it takes courage, but it is a healthy
attitude in times of fanatic struggles around religion. Michel de
Monteigne did so when French Catholics and Protestants were killing
each other in order to prove that one or another variety of
Christianity was the true one. He answered the question "which is the
true religion?" by saying "que sais-je ?" I think this took about as
much courage as any of the other options. I think we have the right to
wonder, to ask questions, to talk about our doubts. Even if I am
religious (I am a Jew).
Eva Bucur, Arad, Romania
What is God? It seems to mean different things to different people.
I
think a lot of the debate is semantics. I don't believe in an
omnipresent being micromanaging our lives. So I'm atheist.
But what caused the universe to come into existence? What determined
the rules (of nature/physics etc) that took the universe on from the
big bang to what we now know and love? In order for something to have
the powers to do that, it must be so alien to our way of thinking that
we probably could never understand it; does this view make me an
agnostic? Personally I think what is relevant is whether we believe in
a heaven and hell, an afterlife, spirit, etc.
Joe Grey, Folkestone, Kent
Einstein was not referring to the Gods of the 3 main religions when
he
referred to a spirit beyond our understanding. He was referring to
"mother nature", a set of forces we may never completely understand,
but that need not be attributed to some higher conscious godlike power
just in the same way we would not attribute the mysteries of the
universe to a giant teapot orbiting in the sky.
Joel, London
If a Church of England vicar becomes an atheist before becoming an
agnostic hasn't he really ended up where he started?
Greg, Glasgow
I think the way he writes suggests he is using a scientific mindset
to
judge faith, which is like using the rules of cricket to run a football
match. Nevertheless he is right to say that the search for certainty is
unlikely to be successful. Faith is by definition something that must
include doubt. This is where Dawkins is more fundamentalist than his
religious opponents in that he seems to be certain that God does not
exist. Keep searching, Mark - you may find your way home soon.
Derek, Keighley, West Yorkshire
I believe if any English word can be used to describe the powers
that be, it's "nature".
Scott Tyrrell, Grimsby, UK
perhaps this individual should be looking into God's word the Bible
rather than the human traditions of the church
Gillian Laurie, Warrington, Cheshire
With regard to Gillian Laurie's statement regarding "God's word -
the
Bible", there is no proof that the Bible is actually the Word of God.
It was written by uncounted different people over the space of 1,000
years; it is based on peoples' opinions and views of many centuries
ago, and isn't really current to base one's life and beliefs on in this
day and age.
Peter, Birmingham
Francis Crick, Sir David Attenborough and Carl Sagan were/are not
agnostic. They were unsure of the origins of the universe itself, and
could not truly rule out the existence of some higher power. However
(and this is very, very important), when it comes to the nature of this
higher power they were certain it was not the Abrahamic God of the
major world religions. They were no more agnostic regarding this God
than they were agnostic that a flying spaghetti monster created the
world. Regarding Christianity, Judaism and Islam these men were/are
atheists. And you can add Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Douglas
Adams to the list.
Andrew, Belfast
I agree strongly on the merits of agnosticism, and am endlessly
frustrated by the flawed, sniping attempts to "prove" or "disprove" the
existence of God. I consider myself a monotheist agnostic; I think this
is a consistent position, and it reconciles my attitudes to science and
religion.
Chris, London, UK
You don't have to be agnostic to question some of the core
assumptions
of religion, or to question some of the biases of anti-religious
scientism. It seems he is trying to make a belief-system out of
something which, by definition, cannot be systemised in such a way.
SC, Deal, Kent
About damned time that someone wrote a clear and meaningful article
on
agnosticism. Those of us who identify as such have been consistently
written off as being fence-sitters. Glad to see there still exists some
common sense (and greater sense) in this "modern" world. It's been
terrifying to see the fear-mongers stirring everyone into greater
depths of hatred. Perhaps there is hope.
Shadow Morton, San Francisco