Ethical and philosophical issues related to FS published authors

This thread has been started as a derivation from the discussion and posts in the Summer Sale 2010

Updated

I don't think it's bad believing in the Playboy bunny :o)

By free thinking I meant those people whose thoughts are not constrained by any belief in a God or a religion. That is they are free to think outside artificial religious barriers and so act outside of them.

The term morality is not helpful here as morality is a social and cultural construction highly, if not wholly, built upon religious connotations.

Dawkins touches the raw nerve that still exists in our society that in some ways religion should be respected.

But why should it be respected?

If he was to disassemble the illusion around the Greek and Roman gods, no one would care less. These gods are no different from the three monotheistic popular gods that are worshipped today by those people who follow these cults without any reason (as in the non evidential meaning of the word) whatsoever.

I'm sorry, I could,not help heating the debate and bringing previous thread off topic. But I have changed my mind and I'm leaving the ring. just don't feel having any argument about politics, religion . Just want to read about beautiful books and beautiful illustrations. Feel free to claim victory in the match regarding this contender. .All members theists, atheists or agnostic have my consideration.

PS Send me the all the feathers through pm please

Les Mes I know what you meant by free thinking, my point is that it is rarely known to be practiced here in the states.

> 5

I hear you.

In the UK you will find Darwin on the bank notes.

In the US you will find.....In God we Trust

As George Bush Snr said...You can't trust an atheist and they are not citizens (paraphrased)

In Australia you will find Darwin full of drunken fishermen and tourists!

Don't you mean... In Australia you will find Darwin full of sweaty drunken fishermen and tourists.... :-)
At the top end... things are different.

It's Darwin, sweaty goes without saying!

> 9

A big bit warmer than Vic! A wee bit warmer than QLD.

I'm off to Stanthorpe tomorrow in search of the cold! (being a Scot and all)

To think that I almost made to Australia as an emigrant! Oops, wrong thread!

> 11

Relevant: Dawkins> Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins > Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins >Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins >Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins >Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins >Darwin> Australia > Victoria > Queensland > Stanthorpe > Cold > Space > Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > Adams > Atheist > Dawkins > ad nauseam :-)

> 12

Ha,ha,ha :-)

> Dawkins, etc.

As an agnostic with a Catholic father and a Jewish mother I have an open mind towards religion and faith. However, generally I find Dawkins one of the most unpleasent people ever to appear on my television screen. His arguments on religion are immature and unoriginal and he's not a patch on more distinguished and intelligent commentators on religion (pro and con) such as Bertrand Russell, Carl Jung or William James. Perhaps Dawkins academic work on biology is better but his work on religion is cheap trash to make a quick buck and that taints the rest of his work for me. If you want to have a serious debate on religious belief, its history, compulsions and why it persists and is needed as well as it pros and cons, then read some of the serious writers I have referred to and give Dawkins a wide berth - the man is arrogant and shallow.

> 3

Les Mis but your comment that people follow religion "without reason" is besides the point. Obviously, they have a reason or feel a psychological compulsion. Religious people are not idiots- they count amongst their ranks some very intelligent, enlightened and distinguished people as well as some obvious idiots and bigots. Start the conversation from this point and we may get somewhere.

>14 Quicksilver66:

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I do not mean that they do not have a reason.
What I mean is that they do not use reason in the sense of the word which means to determine or conclude by logical thinking. Instead they have faith.
For the record, I have read Russell and as I have written lately on here, I recommend Why I am not a Christian without reserve.
On your last sentence QS66, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. the religious and non-religious always come to the impasse where the believer falls back on faith or on it says so in the book. aka - I am beyond salvation as I was brainwashed as a child at a time when my neural synapses were most vulnerable to indoctrination from my parent's religious beliefs. Only the truly fortified escape from this chasm. Thus for me arguing about it per se has become a fruitless task: oleum et operam perdidi. But I will make the effort to defend Dawkins as someone who is refreshingly frank about the dangers of religion.

Regarding some previous comments with which I'm nearly all in agreement, I think it should be pointed that everything human is social and culturally constructed. No exceptions. Thus, the question is whether we should examine those constructions from a rational (based on science and observation as they advance) viewpoint or as the result of supernatural forces ultimately beyond human understanding. I think that Russell is saying that if no such human understanding is posssible or available, then there is no point in seriously considering that venue. At one time or another in the history of civilization men have claimed as firm truths what now are seen as the most incredible or far-fetched conceptions.

> 14, 16

I agree that there does come a point when the rationalist materialist and the supernaturalist can argue no further. By it's very defintion religion is an intangible based on faith - dialogue breaks down and the result is usually heat and friction. But I do think religion serves a basic human need and that Dawkin's arguments are grossly simplistic. I also agree with Jung that to totally block the religious impulse is potentially unhealthy for the mind. That's why agnosticism works for me - I am open to any religious experiences or feelings I may have (I admit they are very rare). Atheism, particularly the Dawkins variety, is so cold and narrow.

QuickSilver66... would you mind giving an example of a couple of Dawkin's arguments which you consider to be grossly simplistic? I also admit that I haven't read Jung but I cannot imagine why blocking the "religious impulse" would be unhealthy for the mind. Is it possible to have a very brief explanation or must I read Jung?

>16 drasvola:

"I think that Russell is saying that if no such human understanding is posssible or available, then there is no point in seriously considering that venue."

That would be consistent with his positivism, only the position is stronger - not that there is no point, but that there is no possibility within a propositional framework.

From what I recall, "Why I am not a Christian" is more political than ontological a tract. Russell was a great thinker, with an wonderfully clear and winning prose style - however his compulsive popular publications (excluding the History, of course) are thin, flippant trifles to his real work. His autobiography is definitely worth reading, though perhaps not quite as forthright as it seems (according to subsequent biographers).

He lived in the constant dread of inherited madness, and I think the judicious lucidity of his personable prose can be misleading. A word of caution when it comes to his social and political writings - the same famed CND and anti-war protester at one point recommended nuking Russia pre-emptively. I rate him very highly indeed, and Dawkins' popular rants are not to be compared, but (as always) read critically!

My issue with Dawkins is stylistic not substantial.

Also, on another note, but keeping to the thread, so-called rational enlightened thinking is on its own terms suspicious (see Freud) and historically has been arguably similarly (or even less) productive than faith-based inspiration (Bach leaps to mind). Some of the Devotees' arguments have been too black-and-white for my taste.

I also think we need to distinguish between faith and religion, as some "religions" are less faith-based than others, and there is much to be said for custom and community. Modern Judaism vs Christianity, for example, or Classical polytheism vs modern religions.

Finally, I see no contradiciton in the lottery of birth - while it is true that believers on the whole believe via the religion they were born to, that doesn't rule out the possibility that these are all different conduits for the same holy feelings. It does however underline the community aspect of religions, where with food, culture, language, and other customs, the born-to religion tighter knits a proximate people together.

>16 drasvola:
Since everything is socially constructed, not the least important the words we use in language, there is nothing that we can use to examine those social constructions that are not social constructions themselves. As much as religious thought has been abused to conceal hidden agenda's (and I will refrain myself of giving political examples as not to heat up the debate) the same also applies to so called scientific thinking. Neither one of them has a monopoly on the truth, but both may increase our understanding of the world. Both require rational analytical thinking, whereas irrational thinking can in both cases lead to inferior conclusions.

> 18

Wow - that's a tall order.

As I am sure you know Jung was a psychologist and he built on foundations laid down by Freud and, in particular, William James on the psychology of religion. Central to Jung's theories was the idea of the Collective Unonscious. This is the unconscious repository of inherited ancestral thinking - it consists of pyschological archtypes - the feminine anima, the King, the Father, the Trickster, the Shaddow, etc. Jung said that all mythological and religious thinking essentialy springs from the Collective Unconscious. Our most potent and archtypal dreams come from here as well. Pre-rational man was particularly adept at tapping into and obeying the urges of the Collective Unconscious. However, and particularly in the 20th Century, man become increasingly rationalistic and dismissive of the Collective Unconscious. We don't listen to what this important and probably dominant area of our minds prompts us to do - instead we give sole credence to that top layer of our psyche which is rationalistic, conscious, thinking. Jung believed that this was dangerous. The more you ignored the Collective Unconscious the more prone you would become to dangerous and irrational eruptions from the Collective Unconscious. Jung believed that for a person to realise their true potential they should go through a process of "individuation", which is Jungian psychoanalysis, to understand and tap into the resources of the Collective Unconscious, thereby more fully realising their personality and potential.

Jung believed that the best access to the Collective Unconscious was provided through traditional religious beliefs - in particular catholicism with its air of mystery, it's sacramental life, veneration of Mary and confession (Jung was a Protestant). Jung said that nearly all the cases of psychological hysteria he had to deal with had as their root cause a lack of religious faith or mythological narrative on the part of the subject. He urged those that had religious beliefs to keep to them as he saw them as the sign of a healthy and mature attitude to life as opposed to a stunted and narrow rationalism.

All Dawkins has to say on the subject is that to believe in god is an abberation in the face of the lack of any evidence. How profound is this? He fails to address the deep seated question of why so many humans apparently need religion and what it may do for us. All human societies have religious belief in common - that's an amazing fact that says something about humans. Dawkins misses the point completely and for the most part rants. There is no understanding on the part of Dawkins about spirituality or the spiritual dimension of man which seems fundemental to the human experience. To Dawkins it's an aberation - he is an android completely devoid of human understanding or empathy for the religious and obviously driven by some inner compulsion.

I used to be an Atheist but reading Jung gave me an open mind towards religion and spirituality. He is well worth reading if you wish to expand your philosophical horizons. He is fascinating on the archane tradition within Western thought, in particular alchemy. I recommend the Basic Writings of Carl Jung in the Modern Library and A Short Introduction to Jung published by Oxford University Press.

> 19

I don't think we are in disagreement. Just underlining slightly different facets.

I have not read Dawkins, so I can´t say anything in favor or against his way of presenting his ideas. I have read Russell years ago in my formative period and was very influenced by his clear reasoning, his excellent and witty prose and his brilliant presentation of ideas. I also respected him for his iconoclast and pacifist views. In my opinion his Tribunal was a good idea which was unfairly dealt with. I continue to side with him.

True, these posts tend to emphasize things in black and white, but I think that we can read between the lines. It is an unfortunate characteristic of the medium.

As an abstract concept, free of immanent overtones, religion could be seen as something that maybe plays a positive role for some people. But men have really botched the idea by the inclusion of all kinds of interpretations which in my view exist for the purpose of exerting control over minds. In that sense, it becomes another social construct which can be legitimatelly debunked.

> 23

Those are the two aspects of religion that William James refers to in the Varieties of Religious Experience. There are the genuine religious and spiritual experiences of people which should be treated with respect. Then there is doctrine and religious hierarchy which seeks to control and direct the legitimate religious impulse - sometimes to good ends, sometimes not. James had no time for the latter.

Thanks Quicksilver66... Dawkins may or may not be profound but still, profundity is not the same thing as truth. We can concoct all sorts of theories but for some, truth is more important even if it is unpleasant or boring. Regarding your previous comment that atheism is cold and narrow, perhaps it is but what if it turns out to be the view that matches reality? Would you reject truth in favour of profundity?

> 25

It's ironical that when you talk about truth you sound like a religious preacher trying to convert the heathen ! (Sorry Billblogs but I could not resist that !!!) Who is to say what the truth is? Why is atheism necesarily true? The mind is complex - Jung's researches were based on scientific investigations, tried and tested in the field by analysing countless subjects. He therefore saw his findings as being the truth, verified in the field and not an abstract philosophy.

> 20

There is a small difference with language. Language works because there is a culturally accepted agreement among its users as to meanings, structure and rules. And indeed meanings are subject to change, as are other conditions. You are right, of course, that no one has a monopoly over truth.

Edited for clarification.

>27 drasvola:

Or maybe everyone individually enjoys a monopoly on truth.

> 28

A truth as an individual entity of existence, yes. Probably very transitory.

I don't even want to get into the discussion except to say that there are plenty of free-thinking, rational people in the US. Give me a break. They're just not as loud as the Bible-thumpers.

Dixit ei Pilatus: "Quid est veritas?"

Yes, free-thinking is quite modern and progressive! I look forward to a world run by men who can ask such profound questions - finally injustice would be conquered!

Also, I would like to note that it is quite sophomoric to dismiss as 'without reason' all those who believe in God, ipso facto. While in fact, the defining characteristic of humanity is the ability to act rationally according to reason - that is, we are not confined to only react to our appetites.

As regards FS authors, I would say that a one page poem by a Christian like Chesterton is more filled with reason and rationality and truth than a 3-volume set of Dawkins' adolescent dialectics, which I see as more emotional arguments than rational.

>31 rarty:

Dawkins is hated by many religious followers because he goes straight for the jugular. He doesn't waste time pussy-footing around the issues due to any worries about offending religious sensibilities. These sensitivities are monopolised quite wholly be the religious, whilst scientists and philosophers are lambasted for any comments which 'hurt' the feelings of believers.

As regards Chesterton: I have read some of his stuff and would say that he was a talented craftsman with the pen both in poetry and prose. Nevertheless, since when did stylistic attributes point to the truth?
Dawkins is a polymath and is very learned in all manner of subjects although his speciality is evolutionary biology. He has confirmed Darwinian theory by building on the evidence and making the general population aware of these facts.
I certainly disagree that Dawkins is in some way comes across as adolescent, but whether he does or not is not the issue: what we are seeking is enlightenment. Whether it is barked or sung is irrelevant.

However as we can see from this video in which he absolutely demolishes McGrath http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626# it is notable that he is sensitive to McGrath and does not wish to grind him down like an ant underfoot. That tells us something about Dawkins. He is a gentleman.

>26 Quicksilver66: Sorry if I sound like a preacher. My training is in engineering, physics and maths. I am used to backing up theories with proofs which are demonstrated repeatedly - yes that plane actually flies, that building or that bridge didn't collapse so our theories appear to be correct, that sort of thing. You say that Jung conducted scientific experiments, tried and tested in the field? So how far has this "collective unconscious" theory been taken, how can it be demonstrated and how has it been used?

> 33

QS66 is making the point that the truth in some way is subjective I think. I disagree. Jung's experiments rely on too many unverifiable data components to even border on respectable in the arguments on verifying religious belief and its meaning.

Whether or not QS66 meant it or not, which knowing his prose I doubt, he qualifies quite well as an apologist for religion in the sense that these are exactly the things that the apologists come up with. Instead of arguing with facts they turn it around and build straw men:

1) Darwinian theory is just a theory like Intelligent Design.
2) You talk about preaching when you are preaching to us.
3) You have no proof that God doesn't exist therefore you are elying on faith.

et cetera

What of course they are doing is attacking themselves by attempting to discredit their adversaries.

Rational, evidence-based thought has its place, but it's a mistake and an obvious personal inconsistency (perhaps dishonesty) on the part of those among us who preach it as comprehensive.

There is no more evidence or conceivable evidence for ethics or aestethics than there is for religious faith, yet I'm hearing plenty of moralizing from the rationalists. It is no more decorous or apt to measure one's religious promptings with a ruler than to doubt love's value on the say-so of bio-chemists.

Causality, as Hume demonstrates, cannot itself be inferred or observed. We assume (take the leap of faith) that our contiguous, continuous impressions are so connected by this unobserved, undeducible connective force. Empiricism is entirely based on the concept of causality, that repeated observations of the past contain predictive power for the future. And there are many other assumed axioms (including within so pure a science as mathematics - this brings us back to Russell!) upon which the temple of scientific, enlightened thought is built.

But science seems to work, so we use it. This isn't rigorous at all, but it's all we've got to go on. Maybe for some religious faith just works.

So we all have faith, even the atheists.

I'm not responding to any post in particular, I just want to get away from the theories and talk about theology/atheism/whatever in real life terms, living experiences that represent all these thoughts, as Jethro Tull said,"...and your wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick."

I know people who achieve good-hearted, helpful behavior in their daily lives using their wits and their love. They care for their families and their communities and most but not all are serious about their belief in God, and while some learned of God in childhood others learned later, and the verification of their beliefs manifests itself in the regularly returned data, the daily experience of kindness being returned for love.

I know plenty of guys from several generations who have said the same thing," If it wasn't for my wife and her love I don't know what would have happened to me(even I'd be dead now), some of these guys are serious church-goers and others won't ever go, but they share a belief in love, in caring for their loved one and their families, as Van Morrison sang in 'Crazy Love',"...and it make righteous, and it make me whole, and it make me mellow down into my soul...."

>35 leonb:
On a fundamental level, I would agree that atheists have 'faith' in the sense described above. However, it is the most fundamental sort of faith which is justified by practicality. It has the least axioms (i.e., reason; as opposed to one example religious set of axioms reason+God), so it is less arbitrary than religion (the more arbitrary a set of beliefs is, the more likely it is to boil down to asserting something rather than providing an objective, agreed upon set of values for discourse), but it is a necessary starting point for an existence which seems to work and provide results that places ourselves in a position more amenable to our survival/pleasure. Of course, this position is evaluated with that starting point already accepted. However, if it doesn't work then there is no harm done from choosing, because no other worldview would necessarily provide a better starting point (in fact, we would not be able to even analyze whether or not some other worldview would be more beneficial, because, starting from scratch, we would have no set of values with which to compare them {the idea of comparison itself being meaningless}). But since, I would argue, we accept empiricism first (a baby will have accepted empiricism just by, say, understanding that he will likely get food or attention when he cries) that already accepted framework precludes the acceptance of the supernatural.

This, I think, is for me the most interesting place for theoretical discussion (as opposed to the social effects of religion, which is as interesting in another way) between the rationalist and logically religious. If someone could point me to a resource of this subject with depth (Russell, you say?) I'd much appreciate it!

>22 Quicksilver66:
I'm going to second BillBloggs, and question what profundity has to do with the objective set of values which we use to determine and agree as truth. The most beautiful of fiction may tell relate to us the deepest meanings of existence, it may move us to great tears and laughter and pull at the heart strings, it may rewire our neurons in ways that staring at a science textbook couldn't, but we still recognize it as being untrue, in the sense that its events didn't actually happen. If some reader of that fiction thought its characters were real, due to the profound nature of that book and how much it affected him, I wouldn't consider some other guy mentioning to the reader that the work is fiction to be 'missing the point'. He'd be pretty right.

It seems rather that this is a major point of miscommunication between the religious and the rationalists; one is telling his views on feeling and the profundity of that feeling, while the other is arguing from what he calls objectivity. The two groups often talk past each other that way, from my experience, and don't even realize it.

I'm open to the idea that religion fulfills a basic need, and I would be saddened if someone were converted to atheism only to slip into depression from the lack that the conversion would bring. Just because I'm completely cool with people practicing positive religion, and would even join them in communal activities (at my grandma's funeral a few weeks back, we performed Buddhist rites with much incense and kneeling and bowing), it doesn't mean that I would let up on what I call truth if the subject were brought up. I prioritize human happiness over arguing what I call truth, as long as it's benign. But I would just like to go on the record as saying that if I had the chance to redesign the world in my ideal form, I would strongly consider taking out religion; but the damage necessary to change this present world to what my ideal world would be is too great, at least to bring it about all at once in such a straightforward manner.

>36 olepuppy:
I can dig that ;)

I appreciate it, sir.

It seems we've reached the stage when words such as sophomoric, adolescent (and doubtless, pretty soon, naïve) crop up. What a shame. Maybe it's time to withdraw to a quiet corner.

> 40

I feel shattered as well. This is a debate with no end. But it's been fun.

> 41

You've been very pleasant, patient and accommodating with some requests. Thanks a lot. I have enjoyed reading your comments.

Peace Pipe Pass.

> 42

You're welcome. I have also enjoyed reading your posts drasvola.

> 43

Amen !!!

lxanderl, I understand the temptation to rank systems according to the number of axioms/assumptions relied on, but I think this is flawed. Any "weak link" invalidates an argument, and five weak links do not do so more or less than one does. You simply cannot numerate or meaningfully quantify the unknown in this way (best guesses work only in defined and limited contexts). Also, your assessment that babies "learn" causality before God is neither verifiable nor necessarily important. And the argument that causality just "works" is the argument I was suggesting in defense of theists.

Where perhaps everyone in this debate might agree (though I could be wrong!) is that Creationists are in difficult territory, because their justifications are not faith-based as they should be but pseudo-scientific.

For an examination of the faiths integral to rational thought the debate begins in earnest with Hume, I think. Then the early 20th Century Cambridge and Vienna sets thrash it out more closely, in the context of language and logic. The broad heading is logical positivism, the protagonists include Russell, Wittgenstein, and A.J. Ayer, but there's a host of them. The artistic concept behind Wittgenstein's Tractatus is fascinating, even if the work itself, its obscurity, is not to the curious layman! He demonstrates by logic how propositions of ethics and aesthetics are fundamentally non-sensical, then "reveals" that the logic on which he's built the argument is itself "nonsense" - thus the argument becomes mystical, an indirect way of showing the verbally impossible, a religious revelation arrived at through symbolic toil.

I find Freud the richest resource on the subject of religion, because the messiest - oblique and profoundly associative. But this approach is quite different from the purer thought process of the mathematical philosophers, and answers different questions.

If you talk to most academic theologians or philosophers, most think that Dawkins is a pop-writer who is intelligent, but who does not grasp the subtelties of the arguments he purports to refute. For me, I trust a biologist no more to talk definitively about religion and philosophy than I trust a linguist to talk about geopolitical politics. Terry Eagleton is one who has written quite a lot about Dawkins and Hitchens, and I would recommend his Terry Lecture to anyone interested in this.

>46 chase.donaldson:

In which book is Eagleton's Terry Lecture published, Chase ?

I saw it on itunes...its free from Yale's school site. Easy to access.
Otherwise
http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Revolution-Reflections-Lectures/dp/030016453X...

> 46

Interesting and I'll take your word for it but I disagree on two points.

1) Dawkins argues about creation simply from an evolutionary biologist's corner and not from say a Philosophers, where I would be inclined to argue from. He is a sage in that area.

2) Dawkins is extremely astute and aware. He is a polymath. He shows expertise in areas such as maths, physics and other areas outside biology.

He writes pop, because he wants to reach hoi polloi.

"Dawkins is extremely astute and aware. He is a polymath. He shows expertise in areas such as maths, physics and other areas outside biology."

So is a certain linquist (Chomsky) who talks about geopolitical politics.

> 50 .

....amongst other things! But I miss your point: excuse this poor dunce.
Dogs have four legs....as do cats.
Enlighten me.

> 51

The point is about experts in one field assuming the right to pronounce on everything under the sun including the specialisms of others.

Dawkins is also a trained scientist. As such he would be expected to have knowledge of maths and physics. He is hardly a polymath - he is astonishingly ignorant when it comes to questions of human spirituality and his theological knowledge could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.

Dawkins modus operandi is to grossly characterise religious faith so that it can easily be knocked around. In the meantime his band of followers have become increasingly shrill and obnoxious. Dawkins is now almost a caricature of himself, advocating summer camps for atheist children. His atheism is beginning to sound more and more like a Cult of Dawkins or even another religious creed.

He also maintains that the religious are taught to accept belief without question. This is nonsense - anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of great religious literature and the lives of the religious from all denominations will understand that persistent doubt is a large part of religious belief.

I'm sure it's not that obvious.

I was awaiting some pearl of wisdom.

But you are of course off the mark with your comments here QS> Please don't take this as a personal attack but I think you have the ghost of religion hanging from you like a shadow. You have been indoctrinated and have perhaps thought objectively about belief but have been defeated by the evil of religion: the threats, the damnation, the what-ifs, the guilt.

Dawkins is a polymath. That is not up for debate. You do however suggest that Dawkins is out of his league in philosophical debate. You are mistaken though about his modus operandi. As mentioned above he deals with the problem through evolution, not through philosophy.

I have studied religion for many years and I would certainly be respectful to the likes of Ninian Smart who would strongly disagree with you that religious followers are not taught to accept blind faith.

They are.

Cheers.

Heavens! I'm supposed to be in my quiet corner licking my wounds but will stick my nose out and mutter feebly that having faith or believing something and then suffering persistent doubts would appear extremely unhealthy.

To delete duplicate exclamative elsewhere ;-)

> 53

Firstly, there is nothing evil about religion but humans are capable of evil and can sometimes use things like religion, communism, fascism or some other ism to justify the evil that they do.

Secondly, my mother is a Jewish atheist and my father a non-practicing Catholic. With such an unorthodox background I am hardly to have been the subject of religious indoctrination.

Thirdly, I have spent many years thinking about religion and have come to the conclusion that I am an agnostic who does not know the truth but sincerely respects the great religious traditions of east and west and respects those individuals who are the best examples of the beneficial effects of those teachings.

I think my approach is sane and well balanced. Why is it that so many atheists seem driven by some "inner demon" to despise the religious with so much vehmence and hatred?

>55 Quicksilver66:

Thanks for the comments QS. Firstly, there is nothing evil about religion but humans are capable of evil and can sometimes use things like religion, communism, fascism or some other ism to justify the evil that they do.

What do you say to

Religion is not evil it is the people (as above)

The gun is not evil it is the people

In theoretical terms this is an argument around semantics.

In practical terms it means the same.

Religion is a social construction that causes untold pain and misery, guilt, war, hatred, sectarianism.

Or is the people?

> 55

Religion is also a vehicle used by people to promote charity, love, respect, education and many other good things.

> 55

Having been a Catholic (you know, it is possible to formally apostate and have your christening annulled), I feel no hatred for religious people. And there is a difference between believing there is a God and religion. Religion is a man made product. Really, I am not attacking your views at all.

> 58

I agree.

I detest religion: not those hoodwinked by it.

I used to trot off to mass myself, rattle the rosary and pray to a special saint or three.

All nonsensical gibberish.

Colin McGinn really wrote what I was thinking in The Making of a Philosopher

A lovely read.

"Everyone needs something to believe in, so I believe I'll have another beer"

Evil has many names. Around here it's called NEW YORK YANKEES!

> 60

Bravo !! At last - someone who can lighten up!

>53 LesMiserables:
Writing off anyone with a religious or cultural upbringing either in or around the Christian faith is a severe error, just as if I were to write your opinions off as being indoctrinated by some statist secular humanist ideology. In addition, attempting to psychonanalyze someone on a message board in order to dismiss their points as a result of some sort of perceived indoctrination (which also failed given 55's background) is truly foolish and insulting. You might be wise to examine your own biases and come at these issues with a little more of an open mind.

ooh, lots has happened since I last posted.

re 51: Les Mes I was just "piggy-backing" your point to Chase who made the following comment re 46:

"For me, I trust a biologist no more to talk definitively about religion and philosophy than I trust a linguist to talk about geopolitical politics"

> 62

What is so important about Christianity, over say Islam or Judaism?

I don't think I could psychoanalyse anything never mind spell it.

I do examine my own beliefs and far from being brought up in some statistical secular humanist ideology, my background is practising Roman Catholic from a divided cultural environment.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Thanks. Lets all bear in mind the concept of ad hominum

:-)

> 63

Ah, I see!

>64 LesMiserables:
Nothing in particular. Your choice of guilt and damnation tend to be items of more Christian emphasis than the others.
Not sure how you can argue that you weren't psychoanalyzing above. You basically told 52 that his or her opinion was only due to some deep seated "ghost," as you put it, of religion in his or her upbringing. Not much different than if I were to accuse an atheist of having some deep seated fear and hate of authority, most likely due to some particularly severe parent or teacher. This sort of discussion is interesting, but I'll leave it to the likes of Fromm, Jung, and Adler to delve into this area on a societal level instead of on a personal one.
And agreed, ad hominum would best be left out here in our discussions.

> 66

My comment had more to do with my observations of individuals in religious societies having baggage. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not sure why anyone though would wish to accuse an atheist of having a fear of authority: perhaps an accusation of fear of wasting one's life on mumbo jumbo, supernaturalism or faith might be closer to the mark.

>52 Quicksilver66:
Dawkins is now almost a caricature of himself, advocating summer camps for atheist children. His atheism is beginning to sound more and more like a Cult of Dawkins or even another religious creed.
Dawkins advocates atheism as a replacement for deism. Given that there are plenty of, for instance, Christian summer camps, he is simply suggesting that alternatives could be made available. If summer camps are simply part of a caricature......
As for the use of a phrase like "Cult of Dawkins" - I really thought your previous posts showed a far greater understanding of the issues.

He also maintains that the religious are taught to accept belief without question. This is nonsense - anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of great religious literature and the lives of the religious from all denominations will understand that persistent doubt is a large part of religious belief.
Well having personally experienced religious education* in this country, seen how children are brought up (and we're not talking just Christianity here), and seen the way schools are set up in this country, I would have to challenge this. I agree, doubt does appear in both, as you say. But the vast, vast bulk of religious teaching is based on accepting without question. Indeed, that was the core tenet of the word 'faith' in my upbringing - to believe even when there's no evidence, or indeed evidence against. One of the reasons I started to reject religious beliefs was because of this inherent blindness in that education, and I've seen nothing in schools or amongst religious families I work with to alter that view.

* I am not talking the subject RE/RS - indeed, ironically, the teachers of this subject are often the best at providing a balance. I'm talking about it in a broader context.

> 68

Well said. The ringing of 'Doubting Thomas' still reverberate through my ears as a distant echo of Catholicism and my upbringing in a RC school.

Blind faith is exactly that which keeps religion going. If they had to rely on evidence, goodness gracious, then they would be in grave trouble.

***

As I said earlier, I think eventually that such arguments run out of steam and we eventually all meet at the Cafe Impasse. The theists hang on to their faith and the atheists continue to ask for evidence.

As an interested observer and participant in 21st Century life in a supposedly advancing society, what I would like to see is people taking responsibility for their own views and not impinging on others.

So for example, I want to see NO funding for faith or private schools in Australia from the public purse.

I want to see a completely secular society and religion being a private act and not being forced on society.

I want to see companies heavily fined for not allowing atheist advertisements whilst they splatter god stuff without comment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/41597...

I think it's time to waken up and blow the cobwebs away from a hideous past of torture, conflict, guilt, persecution and the like.

Well I guess I'm more pro-religious because my Catholic education was a positive experience. No problem with the nuns in elementary school, I was taught by women who loved children who encouraged my love of reading and learning. Sure they were fearsome at times, but that was the exception and not the rule, no different than my folks. The motto of my high school was 'To Think With Christ", and my first year Theology teacher, a layman who later entered the priesthood, told me to never stop questioning-anything, everything, that level of encouragement was the norm.

Just a story, I remember in 8th grade(we were 13-14) our teacher was Sister Joseph Marie, ancient(75-80), stooped, very wrinkled(we called her Prune), high, sometimes quavering voice, usually very nice(didn't like gum-chewing in class, tho, if caught had to go outside and bury it). One day Bob raised his hand, stood, and asked,"Sister, what about evolution?" Well, this holy crone crossed the room at the speed of light and corrected Bob, and tho we all hated to see the ruler hit the knuckles we also, in awe, thought she could play halfback on the football team when she was motivated.

I fondly remember my Dad at Mass. He didn't believe in formal religion but deferred to Mom on our religious upbringing. He would go to Mass Christmas and Easter only when we were young, as we got older he was able to stay home and 'get the turkey ready'. Dad was cool because tho he would stand he wouldn't kneel, Mom would glare at him, then when she wasn't looking he'd make funny faces at my brother and me, Mom would catch us trying not to laugh and look at him and he'd have some saintly expression on his face. Best was when he moved his lips in time with the priest with his eyes crossed, we always had to wait as he only pulled that trick once a Mass("do that too much your eyes will get stuck there" he warned us). God he was funny, funny and tough and fair and I miss him.

That's what I know, guess I should read some Dawkins in the spirit of this thread, but after I finish No Man is an Island by Thomas Merton, a tough read so far.

> 70

Nice story (except for the corporal punishment part)

I have a similar experience of catholicism and my upbringing: stifled knowledge but no abuse. I found priests kind and Novenas, Stations of the Cross, Mass boring.

It was much later that I suddenly rejected it all: in adult life.

I remember that I had a moment after reading Russell, that I understood I had been kidding myself.

I then took a defining moment in my life and decide to go to Uni (I was mid 30s with 5 kids by then) whilst continuing to work full time and do a Philosophy degree to give me more tools for intellectual enquiry.
I will ever be grateful to the Open University in the UK.
My degree led to a visa for Australia, a postgraduate in Teaching, onto a career in teaching and now as many of you know a Masters in Latin and Greek.

Sorry I'm rambling: but it's interesting to trace one's deviations from where they think they took a fork in the road :-)

Anyway, I have had some lonely cold moments understanding that life is just life. We germinate and flourish, sow our seed into the next generation if we are lucky and the die into nothingness. Our evolved frontal lobe has given us the great but bitter sweet tool for enjoying and reflecting on life. As time has passed I have come to accept the futility of anguishing about losing these experiences, but I will do so, like all of you here. I understand that when I am gone I am gone. There is no afterlife. Sobering. But I think I now enjoy life much better now and don't take things for granted. I see humans as cousins to other species and shoulder that responsibility by trying my best to avoid harming them and rejecting the biblical 'god's dominion over the other animals'.

I ramble. Apologies.

However, because of these things and how utterly important these decisions have been for me, I suppose I am really interested in why people hold onto religion in the face of the paucity of a decent argument or evidence. (I refer to those who think above the clone level- 95% of humanity)

Therefore, if someone says that they believe in god because they were indoctrinated into it but then explored the issues and have remained a believer because of say the Ontological or Teleological argument then I respect that and would engage in real debate to see not only if my position is strong but to understand if there are weaknesses also. I really though fail to grasp why those real thinkers hold onto nothing more than faith. My reasoning concludes that fear is the driving force: fear of getting it wrong ergo Pascal. When I first read Pascal's wager, I was struck by the sheer simplicity and comfort of it. I think that many many people engage in this wager unconsciously but perhaps many do so as a hedging mechanism.

> 71

"We germinate and flourish, sow our seed into the next generation if we are lucky and the die into nothingness."

Perfectly said. I totally agree. People are so afraid of death, of the notion that in essence we are nothing but a passing moment, that comfort requires some kind of supernatural explanation. But there is none.

Thanks for expressing your ideas which so much feeling.

> 71

Respect for the views of others is essential. I agree that such ideas are generally deemed more worthy of respect if they are acquired through deep thought and consideration. But, and remember I speak as an open minded agnostic with no religious faith of his own, I also maintain that deeply held faith not acquired through such a process is also worthy of respect. Many atheists (not all) seem unable to accept that something derived from a process which they see as irrational can have any merit at all. Like William James I prefer to judge from the effect that something has rather than where it comes from.

I want to quote from "Why We Lie" by the excellent psychologist Dorothy Rowe (Fourth Estate, London 2010). She puts so well what I have been trying to express myself. While discussing Dawkins she concludes (page 108) -

" A horse and a computer belong to different categories of things. They are not better or worse, just different. Science and religion belong to different categories of things. They are not better or worse, just different ways of thinking. Religion is about myths,fantasies and "oughts"; science is about what is. Religion requires faith in what seems improbable, science requires proof of what is provable. They are different ways of thinking about the world. All of us use both. When a person dies in mysterious circumstances, we use the ladle of science to help us determine whether the person died of natural causes or was murdered. We might then wonder why, in the whole scheme of things,this person died. To contemplate the possible answers to this question we use the ladle of myth, ethics and religion. Neither ladle can show us reality itself, but each gives us a different perspective on something we can glimpse only dimly but never bring clearly into view.

When scientists launch bitter attacks on the religious, and the religious are enraged by those who dare to criticise their beliefs, they have abandoned the ladles of science and religion, and both are using that large, extremely well worn ladle, "I am in danger: I must protect myself". All they do is demonstrate how little they understand themselves"

> 73

I am interested QS if what you say Many atheists (not all) seem unable to accept that something derived from a process which they see as irrational can have any merit at all. Like William James I prefer to judge from the effect that something has rather than where it comes from.

I will have to read James. Intuitively I am one of those above. I see reason as the only way forward. But it is interesting.

I'm not really sure that scientists do however launch attacks on religion in general. I think what they do is to counter-attack against infringements on their personal, social and intellectual freedom.

***

> 74

It's well worth reading James, Les Mis. I have enormous respect for him as a thinker and as a man. If you are interested go to this this Radio 4 broadcast. It's from Melvyn Braggs "In our Time" series which serves as a good introduction to James -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s9ftw

The Varieties of Religious Experience was also available as a Folio title but I am not sure if it is still available.

Hope the link is available to you in Oz. Sometimes these BBC links are only available in the UK.

>75 Quicksilver66:
I'm not sure I accept Dorothy Rowe's arguments - for me the science and the religion do overlap, but I can accept that our human development has left us as a species with the need for the irrational/faith/religion or whatever (and I don't mean to use any of those lables perjoratively). I am certainly prepared to respect other's thought through beliefs, even if I find them profoundly wrong.
Where I have a problem is just where I think you have a problem with atheists - effectively the evangelising. But in our society it's deeper seated than that. For instance, my school is required to hold a collective act of worship each day, and parents are required to positively withdraw their children if they are to avoid that. As far as I can find, there is no let out for me from doing the assembly (although I make mine as secular as possible).
Equally, there are parents who, if they are not religious believers, who are effectively forced to send their child to a faith school unless prepared to travel to take their children elsewhere. The norms in so many ways are that religion takes priority. Little wonder that some atheists fight so angrily.
Of course it cuts both ways, but to my mind religion has held the ascendancy for so long that any alternative view has to fight hard to be accepted. And it's little things, like the way that one or two hymns sung in my school basically encourage the nonsense of creationism, that really make me angry, just as much as allowing the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a euphemism if ever there was one) in faith schools.

> 76

I guess it is the evangelising that frustrates me Willoyd. There are a number of radical militant atheists, and Dawkins is at the forefront, who I just find intolerable. I am frustrated by their apparently closed minds and their refusal to respect the views of others. Of course I do not mean all atheists and I also accept that the religious can and often do behave in the same way, and that's just as bad. It has to be said that agnostics do not act in this way.

I accept what you say about the persistence of state religion in society. I believe that religion should be a personal matter, not enforced by the state or its agencies.

It's interesting what you say about faith schools. There are also parents apparently prepared to lie about their faith in order to get children into a faith school. Some faith schools are seen as offering a very high standard of education. But I think you are right - in an ideal world a parent should be able to chose to send their child to a good non faith school if that's what they wish.

>71 LesMiserables: No apologies necessary, LesMiserables, rambling works for me. I thank you for sharing some of your history, I was curious.

I emphasize that the next questions are not pointed, that I respect your pursuit of knowledge, and that I hope you don't mind my asking, do you test your beliefs in regular discussion with any local theologians or parish priests? If so, have you been fortunate to find an adversary whose devotion to truth you can respect, even an opponent with whom you can be friends?

Off topic, last March I opened a thread 'Artificial leather, artificial silk' which ran for a coupla heated weeks and which I plan to reopen soon. Would you be willing to read it and give me an opinion, especially concerning Paul Nash's statement? Please and thanks, the olepuppy.

>78 olepuppy: I feel completely out of my depth in this discussion, but your post reminded me of a neighbour I had back in the late 1980's - actually this is Folio-related as this neighbour had the most wonderful collection of FS books, I think everything published up to that point. But I digress: this gentleman who was rather elderly but whose mind was as sharp as a tack, was a retired clergyman, who had had a wonderfully interesting life - was a prisoner of the Japanese during WWII amongst other things -and in whose company myself and better half used to spend many hours. I remember joking with him on one occasion about the fact that he used to chain smoke and drink a bottle of gin a day, and his response was "I don't want to linger here any longer, I'm curious to find out if it is true".

> 78

I don't. I find I don't move in those circles and would seem rather odd to seek them out. I do however have discussions with fellow teachers. There is even a few creationists who believes in the flood, Noah etc.

I often find though that they operate these ideologies at an intellectual level equivalent to a comfort blanket.

I am yet to find someone willing to engage in discussion I think for two reasons. Firstly, it's not something one advertises: WANTED - Religious Person willing to intellectually debate their position with atheist for mutual mental excitement :-)
Secondly my experience is that many feel either threatened, uncomfortable or offended should you question them on a point of contention. ie The problem of evil etc

Artificial leather, artificial silk Yes, of course.

>78 olepuppy:

On looking at the Artificial leather, artificial silk thread it's difficult to know what angle to come at it from.

I certainly won't attempt to look at it from a legal position, but just enough to note that transparency and honesty are key elements in any healthy relationship. Mr Nash seems quite frank and open on his points but I do wonder if he would have made these points as an employee or contracted worker of the FS? If so, why not note these points in the prologue to the book Folio 60? But that is not my concern.
I am interested in this discussion from a Philosophical angle: that of using the skins or parts of animals as a luxury covering for a book, at the expense of the life of that creature for nothing more to satisfy the non-survival want of a more intelligent being.

Let may state up front that although I am vegan I am not a perfect vegan. Although I do not eat or wear any animal products it is almost impossible to function in society without being party to a product that was manufactured or built at the expense of some other species. For example, If I jump in a taxi, 5 miles down the road I may note that the seats are leather (or are they faux leather). You get the picture. When I buy a Paperback what can I do when I don't know the history of the binding glue? You get the picture.

Now to the point of using animal products on books. I do think that it is unnecessary. There is no need to kill an animal to satisfy our needs in today's society. In fact I think there is something truly wrong with hunting out an animal to kill it for it's skin. Non human animals are our fellow inhabitants on our planet. Many operate intellectually in such a way that is akin to our own: feelings of happiness, despair, anxiety, survival. But above all they feel pain. As Bentham said The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

The suffering of animals at the hands of humans is largely unnecessary.
To kill another animal for survival is I think a different question.

To kill an animal to adorn a book in it's hide is I think indefensible.

For me the more Folio books that do not use animal hides or the like, the better.

I very much agree that there is no excuse for making an animal suffer for any reason whatsoever. But are they God's creatures and do they have a soul?

>79 HuxleyTheCat: No problems, Huxley, if your rather sad tale isn't really Folio related, loads of ideas to respond to on this thread and, of course, there is no strict Foliocracy on this forum:)
Yes, sad and disquieting, thankfully he had you and yours to cheer him.

>80 LesMiserables: I asked because I remembered a friend from way back in my young adulthood, we only agreed about a love of walking in the mountains and good beer and wine and we argued everything else, challenging each others beliefs as best we could, and I wondered if you had someone like that, that's all.

> 82

Tongue in cheek of course, Boldface.

However the point is not relevant of debate in this context. You would of course have to revisit the whole Is the Bible, Koran etc our ethical guide aka.... Is there a god?

It's a Straw man.

Cheers

>81 LesMiserables: I like your Vegan approach, I hadn't thought about it that way before. I do believe that if,e.g., a cow is killed to provide food, then the rest of the carcass should not be wasted, so bonemeal is made for fertilizer, the hides etc. I wonder if Nigerian goats are bred as a priority for their hides?

Thank you for your questions concerning Mr. Nash and for your overall response LesMiserables.

> 85

I guess the whole body of a cow is used otherwise the individual parts become so expensive that the demand diminishes. For the industry this is unacceptable. It would affect their profits.

I often hear people say to me things like But it's dead anyway, so why don't you eat it?. The answer of course is, it was killed to be eaten: that is, it's not roadkill. If I eat it then the supply continues.

Come to think of it, appaloosaman may have come across Gary Francione http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_L._Francione who is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law & Philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, who touches on may of these subjects.

>86 LesMiserables: Maybe it's the other way 'round, the industry sees more profit in processing completely large numbers of cattle daily. I would think a health factor might arise, too, if large amounts of organic waste had to sit and be disposed, better to make something from it, and quickly, and all in one place or close by. Should I even mention the thriving pet food industry?

Maybe we've learned from primitive cultures who kill a beast for meat, clothing, spear points,needles and thread, pouches, etc.

'But it's dead anyway...', people say the darndest things, one could wish a bit more logic was taught in school and at an earlier age(maybe it is and I don't know it).

Interesting about Francione, thanks for the link.

I don't remember the title of a novel by Paul Theroux, but his title character wouldn't eat anything that had a face or anything that had a mother, put that way made one think about it.

> 88

You have brought up a wonderful example.

I teach geography often to year 10 students and we look at ecosystems: specifically Lakota Indians on the Great Plains.

They were at one with the land. They used the Buffalo for everything. But they were not parasites. They never took more than they needed. They understood that all animals were cousins. They found animal farming unethical and against the spirit of life.

People I think need to find analogies especially with factory farming. The best visual example I have seen is the 'pods' of humans being farmed by the machines in The Matrix movie.

We find that hideous because we see the greed and abuse in it.

Then we switch on our cognitive dissonance and do the same all over again.

Les Mis

So I take it you would not like my copy of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, abridged by DM Low, and bound in full crushed morocco for Hatchards by Zaehnsdorf. Shame, I was about I was about to offer it to you, free of charge -



I sympathise with your views and I can see the sense in what you are saying. But it's a tough call for a bibliophile to resist leather bound books.

> 83 Do you consider it sad olepuppy? I've not thought of it as such. The gentleman concerned was very elderly, but physically and mentally sound; had had a life in which he had seen and experienced more things than the majority of us can contemplate; corresponded widely with the great and the good in the fields of science and arts; but had got to the stage where the single most important thing was satisfaction of his intellectual curiosity about (for him) the biggest question of all. I suppose that a person of faith would find it sad, this questioning where a clergyman should have absolute certainty, but I find it fascinating.

> 90 That's a low blow David! But hang on, did you say 'abridged'...?

> 91

Yes - I have the complete Decline and Fall, but this one is an abridgement. I generally don't go in for abridgements but they do serve a purpose as a secondary text. With Gibbon a good single volume abridgement has it's advantages and makes for a very handy "Best Of" Gibbon for browsing and dipping. The Low abridgement is, I think, the best single volume Gibbon because he does not neglect the Byzantine, Islamic and Crusade periods and also includes a generous selection of the footnotes. Some other abridgements stop with the fall of the Western Empire, don't include any footnotes and omit the controversial anti-Christianity chapters. The Dero Saunders abridgement is the chief offender in this respect.

>92 Quicksilver66: Abridged or no, it certainly looks impressive. I don't know about giving up leather bindings, it's bacon butties that are the deal-breaker for me.

Bacon butties are the deal breakers for lots of people - and not just vegans and veggies. I have an Iranian friend who enjoys bacon butties (and beer and wine). Same friend has the gravest suspicion of halal butchers which he considers to be thoroughly unhygienic establishments.. His wife is devout and insists on halal meat. He goes to Sainsbury's, buys their chicken and lamb, strips the supermarket packaging off and repacks in sugar paper and puts in a halal butcher's carrier bag to bring home. "What she doesn't know she won't grieve over" is his comment.

>91 HuxleyTheCat: Sorry, Huxley, I read into your post that your friend, with the interrment and a lifetime of experiencing the underbelly of human behavior, had despairingly succumbed to a final suicidal self-poisoning-me and my imagination, so glad I was wrong!

>94 appaloosaman:

Interesting. But seriously........ since this is the philosophical thread

There are many ways to live one's life.

Some try to live true to their values and not just as a public veneer.

But what is the truth. Outside of mathematics are there any?

Is it possible to have a value when morality itself is up for debate?

Is hedonism the only guide? This ties into Darwinism. Possibly.

Is there no meaning to life? We perhaps just can't stand the thought that like cultures on a lab slide we exist then do not. The end. Cheery thought. Is this though better than delusion?

I haven't read any Darwin, and I did get around to reading a book called The Moral Animal (written by a guy named Robert Wright), the subtitle for which is 'Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology.'

I don't know about Darwin then, and I do know that Wright is fairly insistent that moral value should not be defined in terms of pleasure (as it would be defined by a hedonist). Rather, he edeavours to define it as simple construct of the evolutionary process.

By way of 'proof', he points to the fact that, whilst individual lemmings might not have any concept of self-sacrifice or anything called 'the common good', older lemmings have been seen throwing themselves off cliffs in times of famine. Their doing so serves to reduce the total population in favour of those younger, fitter lemmings who might not only survive the famine but will be able to reproduce more lemmings after the famine is over.

Do lemmings sit around the fire on winter evenings fretting about whether there's any meaning to life? No. Instead, they get on with doing whatever it is that lemmings need to do in order that their genes might continue to survive long after they as individuals are dead.

Maybe human beings need to discus whether there's any meaning to life for precisely the same reason - i.e. in order that our genes might continue to survive in future generations long after we are dead?

>96 LesMiserables:

An analyst I once knew referred to belief in life after death as "a commonly held delusion." This view did not impress a colleague of mine, who complained to the head of the psychiatry department at Walter Reed and created a huge fuss.

The other day, BBC radio revisited Haiti, to see how people were coping, so many weeks after the disaster. They interviewed a young man. He was living, like thousands of others, in a tent. He has no job, no money, no prospects. His mother is living with him. She has breast cancer. The interviewer asked him how he could carry on under these conditions. Without hesistation, he answered, "My faith in Jesus Christ. Whenever my spirits are at rock bottom, I read my Bible and it gives me strength."

I couldn't help thinking how cruel it would be to take that from him as well.

> 99

With all due respect, what's really cruel is to keep alive that expectation and, for the most part, let human suffering go on instead of changing material conditions such as poverty, inequality, exploitation, exclusion and injustice.

It was respect I was thinking of.

> 101

Oh! We shouldn't mix politeness with passiveness.

My point in mentioning this was not to reignite an argument, but merely to say that I, an agnostic, was profoundly moved by both his plight and his response to it - a response that gave him a strength and a determination which I fear would be denied me were I to find myself in a similar position. I felt humbled. For some people a simple faith works. Removing poverty, inequality, exploitation, exclusion and injustice is an important goal, of course, but he is lucky to have something, whether we believe it is "true" or not, that for him means the difference between despair and the resolve to face another day in the face of superhuman catastrophe. Tell him he's delusional, if you like—but just not now.

That's all, and now I want to get back to the books.

Taking my own advice, and thinking about books, I was reminded of the blind faith of Gabriel Betteredge in Wilkie Collins's The Moonstone:

"I am not superstitious; I have read a heap of books in my time; I am a scholar in my own way. Though turned seventy, I possess an active memory, and legs to correspond. You are not to take it, if you please, as the saying of an ignorant man, when I express my opinion that such a book as ROBINSON CRUSOE never was written, and never will be written again. I have tried that book for years-- generally in combination with a pipe of tobacco--and I have found it my friend in need in all the necessities of this mortal life. When my spirits are bad--ROBINSON CRUSOE. When I want advice-- ROBINSON CRUSOE. In past times when my wife plagued me; in present times when I have had a drop too much--ROBINSON CRUSOE. I have worn out six stout ROBINSON CRUSOES with hard work in my service. On my lady's last birthday she gave me a seventh. I took a drop too much on the strength of it; and ROBINSON CRUSOE put me right again. Price four shillings and sixpence, bound in blue, with a picture into the bargain."

> 103

If I quote a book, may I add one more comment?

I would beg to go back to the Haitian who reads his Bible. On hearing his words, I'm sorry to say that I would not feel humbled. I would feel indignant at the shocking situation before me and the despair that human beings (myself included) are apparently unable to palliate. I would remember a book The Bible Unmasked by Joseph Lewis and would question what is it in the psychological makeup of men that calls for a need to fall back on vacuous explanations.

That's what made me react to the last part of your original post. I, too, do not want to reignite an argument or make you waste time away from your books. Please forgive me if I have in some way misinterpreted your feelings. I'm pretty sure that face to face the exchange of opinions would be more convergent.

Do have a good day!

I hope you don't mind me resurrecting this thread, but on the death of Hitch, I thought it might be relevant. I liked him. I hated his position on the Gulf Wars, but he had balls and he thought through his arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D-ZUXyGWvJY

That was very lovely and he shall definitely be missed.

The truth is never popular and it takes a mighty brave soul to defend it.

I came to him first via the Nation magazine (prior to his defection) and then a book he wrote entitled The Missionary Position which blew my then young mind.

I too did not always agree with him but always thought twice about issues to which he supported.

On the issue of faith we agree. On the issue of war (Gulf) we did not.

But to read his work or listen to him lecture was an absolute joy and my library is a testament to how much I adored him.

> 107

But to read his work or listen to him lecture was an absolute joy and my library is a testament to how much I adored him.

Yes he was a bit like marmite. He made a bit of a mess when he came to the party and you either hated him or loved him.

How could anyone not miss Hitchens?

Here's hoping he gets the Folio treatment one day.

> 109

He epitomised It's better to burn out than to fade away.

I'm afraid, even as a non-believer, I found almost every word that came out of his mouth offensive, rude, ignorant and dangerous.
However I absolutely respect his right to say them and I very much admired his ability to be frank and honest about his illness.
I think that is all that can be said on the matter.