Saturday 24 August 2013

Guest Blog - Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist? - A response by Andrew Evans



By Andrew Evans,

Yesterday, the Barnet Eye posted a blog entitled "Richard Dawkins - Hardline religious fundamentalist?". I have asked for a right to reply.  I do not comment as some kind of Dawkins apologist. He has said some extremely unhelpful things at times, and outside of his field of Biology, cannot (and I think does not) claim any kind of authority.

Richard Dawkins is probably the best known advocate of athiesm in the UK. He believes that science has disproved the existence of God

He believe that no evidence has been presented to support a claim for God, he has gone so far as to say that God almost certainly does not exist but has never said that God has been disproved. This distinction is very important as it would be very unscientific to say something like that.

and that all followers of religion are deluded and misguided.

He almost certainly has said this and I might agree, but I would also question the wisdom of saying it.

Many people agree with this view. For the record, I don't but this doesn't really have any bearing on why I find Mr Dawkins to be advocating a very harsh, cruel and divisive brand of athiesm. I believe in live and let live and I respect the right of everyone to make up their own mind about the existence or not of God.

I think it does have a bearing on your opinion but more of that later.

Of course I agree that people can make up their own mind but that is different from saying every decision is as valid as the next. A belief based on no evidence is harder to defend particularly if one is claiming it gives you the authority to do something.


 I have no objection to athiests setting out their case and having reasoned debate about it. I have no objection to them spending their money on adverts on the side of buses, if thats what they want to do. I do find people who want to convert me to athiesm after six bottles of wine a tad irritating and boring at times, especially I would never try and impose my views on them. If people want to know why I hold my beliefs, they are welcome to ask. They are welcome to outline their own views, they are welcome to debate them.

I would be very interested in a debate. I would also find this annoying. I think it’s great that you don’t impose your views on other people.

I regularly discuss religion with all manner of people, I have the belief that anyone who seeks to do good things and not harm others is on the right track, regardless of their system of belief or lack of it. I believe that anyone who seeks to use religion or athiesm to harm other people, or compel them to do things they don't wish to do to be evil.

I am all for good people doing good thing, and against bad people doing bad things. I happen to think that religion often has the effect of making good people do bad things in its name

I believe we are all part of the same family

Evolution proves we are literally all part of one family tree and it is something that inspires me to treat others with dignity and to extend this, where possible, to animals to whom we are also all related

and we should treat each other with  respect and dignity.

People have used religion for many evil purposes throughout history, but I happen to believe that in countries where Athiesm was adopted, such as the USSR and China the same thing happened.

It’s simply inaccurate to say that those countries ‘adopted’ atheism. Atheism comes with no prescription for running a country and no rules to set out.

I personally see religious disputes in the same light as football violence. I believe it to be tribal hatred, practised by idiots who have rather missed the point of it all. I would not associate myself with any view which seeks to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion.

I agree that humans are tribal by nature and that religion is far from the only way we show this. I feel religion is a particularly potent form of tribalism. I refuse to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion but religion does not give them the right to discriminate either. To state that it is ‘against your faith’ is no reason to not allow a homosexual couple to stay at your B&B for example.

I have skipped the paragraph relating specifically to the tweet for obvious reasons. But I think it’s clear now that whatever Dawkins was suggesting, it was not a directive for families to disown each other on the grounds of faith or lack thereof, it was the opposite.

I happen to believe that the existence of God is and always be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove.

I agree. And a non-falsifiable hypothesis is meaningless one. We can look at the evidence before us and observe that the universe appears to work perfectly well without the need for God but as you go on to say, belief in God is not based on evidence ultimately, it is based on faith


 Belief is a matter of faith and for the individual to decide upon.

This doesn’t mean that every claim is as valid as the next


 As such I believe athiesm is simply another form of religion, albiet one with no deity.

Atheism is the rejection of the claims of Theism. That’s all it is. And Theism is the claim that God exists, created us, and continues to take an interest in our lives. You only need to reject this claim to be an a-theist, there are no other ways of thinking prescribed.

 It is a system of belief.

Atheism is not, in itself, a belief system.

Whilst most athiests I know would recoil at Mr Dawkins suggestion, it does trouble me that in his role of as the Archbishop of Canterbury for athiests, he is spreading a message of hate and division. I support free speech and the right of anyone to hold whatever view they choose.

I strongly support free speech too


I do however think that in light of his comment, I have formed the opinion that in some ways Mr Dawkins is a dangerous religious fundamentalist. In my book anyone who preaches division in families is someone who has gone too far.

As discussed he didn’t preach the division of families, he observed that religion had caused it. The benefit of someone telling him this, and then him tweeting it, is a separate issue. And atheism isn’t a religion or a belief system.

It seems that the whole situation is a little more complex than I originally assumed. What I hadn't realised was perhaps how accurate my description of Mr Dawkins as the Archbishop of Canterbury of Athiesm actually was. I find it truly bizarre that someone would tweet him about a family row. Whilst I can understand his initial response, does it really help? It strikes me that the mother and daughter are both similar characters, who have issues backing down. If I had a row with my daughter, I most certainly wouldn't email the Pope.

He has not ever claimed to be the Pope or Archbishop of atheism. Some people may see him that way and that is their failing.

Mr Dawkins response is extremely hard line. As none of us know the background and what caused the fallout, as it is unlikely to be a single issue, it is a bit difficult to draw too many conclusions, but Mr Dawkins clearly does not feel at all constrained.

He based his conclusions of the first hand account of one of the people involved. And from this account it was not a mutual falling out. One person was rejected based on their lack of faith. There could be more to the story.

In his comments, he mentions things that families don't fall out over. I know families who have fallen out over all of the things he mentions. Politics, food and sport have caused all manner of issues. Even music, I know loads of families where musical difference have caused punch ups. Look at the Davies brothers in the Kinks.

As I’ve already said. Religion is not the only form of tribalism but often the most potent.

Aaron Shaw is right that I misinterpreted Mr Dawkins tweet, but I am not sure that his response is any less fundamentalist. Surely he has merely given reinforcement to a family feud over religion.

No, he has highlighted that the division has no basis in reason.

If it was between a Catholic Mum and a Protestant daughter,  he would surely have reacted different. As one of the protagonists belonged to his faith, he took sides, without any knowledge of the full background. I'd say that is a fairly fundamentalist world view.

As I’ve already said, he could have had the exact same objection to a Catholic/Protestant dispute. He, again, has no faith but I’d imagine he would be more sympathetic to the person who has rejected a claim for God based on lack of evidence.

My view. Girls, get over yourselves and start thinking about the daughter/grand daughter rather than this silly grandstanding.

Hmmm…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor Note : Andrew read the blog posted yesterday and asked for the opportunity to post a full response. At the Barnet Eye we welcome informed, open and honest debate and guest contributions.


Andrew is a 31 year old musician, producer and video editor born and living in Barnet with his wife (and cat).More info at www.andrewevansmusic.com

28 comments:

Jim said...

Quite agree with 99% of this. Very well done.

Two minor quibles:

"And Theism is the claim that God exists, created us, and continues to take an interest in our lives. You only need to reject this claim to be an a-theist, there are no other ways of thinking prescribed."

I'd argue that deists are a type of theist, so the part about taking an interest in our lives can be removed.

"Atheism is not, in itself, a belief system."

I'd say it is, but containing only the rejection of the statement "god(s) exist". It certainly isn't any kind of fully-formed belief system that gives guidance on any other questions.

Jim said...

Actually, you could remove the "created us" bit as well. A person might believe in god(s) without thinking they did any creation. I can't think of any religions without a creation story but one would still meet a reasonable criteria for a religion.

I suppose at a push you could argue that some strains of Christianity don't have a creation story since most modern christians think it is nothing more than a metaphor.

AndrewEvansMusic said...

Thanks Jim. And thank you obviously to Rog for giving me this platform.

I disagree with your deism/theism split. I'd say the 'takes an interest' part is what crucially distinguishes a theist from a deist. I possibly could have phrased is better though but the key point is that for a theist God(s) is/are still present and governing. And this what an atheist rejects.

An atheist could still technically be a deist, believing in a 'prime-mover' (that we can choose to label God) but one that has no further say in the matter. They'd only have to reject that additional claim.

Rog T said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rog T said...

Many thanks to Andrew for his thoughtful response. Apologies for not having time to transfer the formatting to blogger better, I've had a busy day. There are many positive things in what Andrew has to say, not least the fact that a religion and belief, in the context of Athiesm can be discussed in a rational and sane manner.

From a rationalist perspective my main disagreement with Richard Dawkins is that I think that if his view is correct, it should be extremely easy to empirically prove. Of course many will disagree. The purpose of this blog isn't to hold theological debates, but to fight injustice and intolerance. The best way to do this is by being sensible, rational and giving the other side space to air their views.

If like Andrew you disagree with something we say, you are welcome to respond as he has done. We don't change or edit (apart from the odd bit of formatting) the blogs.

AndrewEvansMusic said...

You're welcome. Thanks again for posting it and especially for wrestling with formatting!

With regards to religion, Dawkins is not making a claim - he is rejecting a claim. The burden of proof falls with the person/people making the claim and atheist don't feel that burden has been met. So it's not clear what you mean by being able to prove his view, particularly if you're taking a rationalist approach.

Are you suggesting it should be extremely easy to prove the non-existence of God? I don't want to resort to cliched examples but it's extremely hard to conclusively disprove the existence of anything (although you can speak to its likelihood based on the evidence). Or are you saying that discovering a non-God explanation for the life, the universe and everything should be extremely easy?!

As you say, this is not a theological message board so you are very welcome to take these questions as rhetorical and get back to business but I would be very interested in a debate (make that conversation) in the future as I'm thinking of starting podcasting again and want to get lots of different opinions on lots of different things!

Rog T said...

Andrew,

Possibly you misinterpreted what I was saying. Maybe if I can clarify, that may help. Richard Dawkins is primarily a biologist. His starting point, as best I understand it, is that existence of every form of life is down to a process called evolution. Clearly the process of evolution is scientifically accepted and only the most "fundamentalist" people disagree. There are however many questions which we have yet to find answers for, not least how did life or the universe come into being and why.

I am not saying we won't but there are significant areas which we still don't understand. Questions such as what existed before the big bang and why did the big bang occur, along with what is outside of the universe intrigue me.

I read people like Richard Dawkins for an insight into these questions. Generally everything you read takes you a little further on your journey towards understanding this.

I've yet to find anything like a satisfactory answer for many of these.

As to faith, I see that as a different issue. I see that as part of the journey to try and be a better person. I accept that many people don't become better or nicer through religion, but on a personal level time for calm reflection and involvement in the community as helper for disabled people and as a volunteer at a homeless shelter give me some evidence of positive benefit. In both cases, I work with charities that have open doors for anyone. I would not work with an exclusive charity.

I really hate people who bang on about being Holy Joe's so I hope I don't sound like that. I am not any where near as decent a person as I'd like to be, but it is a work in progess. Many of the people I work with on the ground are Athiests and they complain that there is a lack of organisation for like minded people, which is often why they end up volunteering for church lead initiatives. In the end, like me their motivation is to help other members of the human family. That is what really matters.

One other observation is that it is generally the Holy Joes who are the ones who cause problems. I personally respect anyone who helps and respect anyone who needs it.

Jim said...

Rog: On the question of disproving gods, I would say that a theist asking for disproof actually weakens their position because if a god must be disproven it gives them the additional burden of disproving all gods but their own.

Understand that to me the idea of disproof is probably similar to if somebody asked you to disprove Zeus. I'd assume you feel quite happy to dismiss Zeus because of lack of evidence but without any actual proof of his non-existence. This is essentially the same position as mine towards the Christian god.

It might be said that the atheist position and the Christian position are very similar. The Christian disbelieves in 99% of all gods for sake of lack of evidence. The atheist, 100%. Regarding the 99% of human theology they are in perfect agreement.

Jim said...

Andrew: I take your point about deism being a subset of atheism rather than theism. Essentially this is just a question of definitions. I'd lump deism with theism because some (admittedly fringe) Christians are quite similar to deists with regards to the question why god isn't as involved in the world as he used to be.

A lot of things can be tested experimentally. For example we can test if praying for an ill person helps them get well sooner. It doesn't. Although you could explain that result by god not wanting to be tested, it is a petty god though that lets people suffer rather than allow himself to be revealed.

AndrewEvansMusic said...

I was asking what it was that you felt should be easily proved by imperial evidence?

The questions you mentioned are those that intrigue an enquiring mind, and it may even be that ultimately we aren't able to answer them, the human mind may not be capable of computing the complexities.

If your faith inspires you on a journey to be a better person, to do good things; then that's great but I'd say this speaks more highly of you personally than of your faith because, as you said, people of faith also do bad things. And people of no faith are inspired to do the same good things.

Rog T said...

Andrew
I agree that there is no monopoly on good things, which is specifically why I mentioned the people I work with. All I can honestly say is that faith helps me on my personal journey.

Jim,
With regards to your comments about Christians disbelieving in 99% of all gods, this is probably at the heart of the misunderstanding many athiests have of the view of sensible people with a belief system. I've studied many such systems and what you find is that this is not necessarily the whole picture. For instance in the Jewish faith Noah laid out seven rules that people needed to live by. Being Jewish wasn't one of them. Another person worthy of study is the Islamic poet and mystic Rumi, who's philosophy of universalism is perhaps the most advanced and sane/sensible single development of anyone I've studied. It is also worth noting that the Vatican II Council removed the notion of a Roman Catholic monopoly on heaven, acknowledging that no one could claim to know the entry criteria and that the first requirement on anyone is to do the right things in life, above belonging to any religion.

The problem is that many priests/preachers/Imams etc actively "conveinently forget" such things.

So in short, my philosophy is to learn as much as I can and to try and do the right thing. I believe I should be as honest and open as possible. I will read the likes of Dawkins so that I understand the arguments and accept/ reject these hypothesis only on the basis of whether I think they are right, rather than on the basis of dogma.

One of the points I agree with Dawkins on is that some people use faith as an excuse to have a closed mind and to ignore facts. Creationists in the US are one such example. I studied biology, physics & Maths to A Level, so I would like to think I have an enquiring and open mind. I think it is scandalous that people are denied that by fundamentalist thinkers.

I also have a deep interest in genetics, not least because I suffer from cancer and cancer is caused by cell mutation. Understanding the mathematics of the process and the evolution of cancer will ultimately lead to a cure.

One other thing I suppose I should mention is that praying for the sick is something I believe is rather misunderstood. I believe this is beneficial, not in terms of curing people but in terms of coping. If someone has a terminal illness and there is nothing at all that can be done, prayer at least gives us a mechanism for expressing our feelings. Most people of faith pray for people to be able to bear their burden rather than be cured of it. It is an act of solidarity. Of course lots of people in desperation pray for cures and are disappointed when they don't happen, feeling let down by God. This is generally because they have snake oil salesmen preachers who give false expectations.

I can guarantee that anyone who claims they can perform miracles is lying. That just isn't the way the world works. I can also speak from experience and say that prayer has helped me cope with the loss of dear friends. It gives me time to work through the issues etc. Again that is not to say anyone else would get the same benefit or that there are not a thousand other ways of dealing with things, but it does work for me personally.

Rog T said...

I suppose one thing I can add to illustrate this is the experience of my brother, who trained to be a Roman Catholic priest, but lost his faith and is now an athiest. One of his friends, who was an elederly widow had a cat that died. She was bereft and had a visit from her vicar. She said that the only solace she had was that she'd see the cat in heaven. The vicar replied that she was stupid and that cats don't have souls. This devastated her. My brother visited her shortly afterwards and when she told him this he was horrified. He used all his years of theological training to convince her that the Vicar was wrong and that she would indeed see her cat when she arrived in heaven.

He told me this and I was surprised. He replied that to say anything else would be cruel. He said that for all he knew there may be a heaven, he just didn't believe in it personally. As she did, it was clear to him that it wouldn't be much of a heaven without her cat. He said that his first priority was to be kind. He felt the vicar had failed miserably, given that his job was to comfort her.

Jim said...

Reg:

You might be surprised but I agree with everything you have written since my last comment.

Meditatively visualising healing is a good technique for sick people. I used it when I broke 2 bones a few years ago, I'd spend the nights imagining the bones fusing back together. I can see prayer as something similar to that, so that in some cases it would be beneficial.

Praying for somebody else who doesn't know you are praying (experimentally) has no effect. But it might make the person doing the praying feel better about their loved one being ill. Maybe make them feel less ineffective in their ability to help. Some experiments have shown a slight worsening of recovery if the person knows they are being prayed for but it is far from settled.

Of course, none of this actually requires any god to explain what is going on. As usual, god is unnecessary. But if people find god an effective visualisation tool to help them heal, sure, why not?

I've some experience of the liberal (non-Roman) Catholic stance in which it is generally taken that most religions are the expression of the same divine factor. I'd still maintain that Christians disbelieve in 99% of gods. How many gods do you think we invented in the last 150,000 years? (that's just since we left Africa) Religions tend to have a shelf life of up to about 5,000 years a piece. There must have been many thousands of religions that we know nothing at all about.

I'm not happy with a lot of the bible. For example, the idea that rape victims should be punished, the glorification of Samson's murder-suicide, or the rules that condone the keeping of slaves. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that any child should be given such an immoral book. Having said that, very many of Christians are perfectly moral people.

Regarding cats, there is as much scientific evidence for cat souls as human souls. It seems to me unlikely that any souls exist but given common ancestry I'd be happy to say that if humans have them cats almost certainly do too. Did the priest imagine there's some arbitrary cut-off point where God decided we were "human enough" enough to have souls. Did homo erectus have souls? For me, if humans have souls, human ancestors have to have them too, all the way back to the fish.

Another good argument might be that if heaven is a place of perfect happiness and she needs her cat to be happy then the cat must be there. Otherwise it wouldn't be heaven.

I realise this isn't supposed to be a theological forum. Let me know if you want to continue over a pint.

Rog T said...

Jim,
To me, much of the bible is a chronicle of the times, rather than a mystical document. I guess to many Christians this is heresy, but I don't think a rational and sane person can think otherwise. Much of it was the the best stab people at the time could make at explaining their world. It is also an attempt to rationalise many things beyond the limits of knowledge of the time. Also many things such as the Jewish food customs were simply a way of ensuring health and hygiene.

This is why I have issues with many fundamentalist statements about its contents.

There are many things in the old testament description of God which are, shall we say, troublesome. Having said that, much of this needs to be taken within the context of the time.

There is a general theme which develops throughout the various documents which build upon the need to treat other people with fairness and consideration.

To me sprituality and meditation are extremely important. I agree that these are not necessarily associated with religion. I have gone through various phases, raised a staunch Catholic, agnostic, athiest, agnostic and back to being a very cynical, but practising Catholic. The issues I had with Athiesm was two fold. Firstly it left an empty void, which I couldn't rationally fill about the reason we are here and secondly, various experiences I have had lead me to conclude that there are things beyond our comprehension. I couldn't honestly accept the label Athiest, when I found I didn't really accept the philosophy. I found I was searching to justify something to myself and falling short. I am at a place where I actually feel comfortable. There is much of the philosophy of the Catholic church I disagree with, but for cultural reasons, it is where I feel most comfortable. I have also settled on a view of God where it is something outside my sphere of understanding and will always be so.

Let me try and explain where I feel I am at. In my Garden I have a natural pond with sticklebacks in. For arguments sake, imagine one suffered a mutation so that it became the most intelligent creature ever to live on planet Earth. It may have huge intellectual capacity, but as it only knew the paramaters of my pond, how could it ever know where it came from? How could it know that it is descended from a single cell amoeba like organism in an ocean a billion years ago? To us, I don't know if we are in a pond or in an ocean. When my stickleback sees me come to service the pond, maybe he concludes I am God? He has no other information other than what he sees/hears? He may see me introducing Goldfish or water lillies and as such it would not be a bad stab at an explanation? He may see me removing plants or predatory Larvae? He may conclude as the early writers of the Bible did that these had incurred my wrath by their actions? Of course he would be wrong, but he can only base his judgements on the best information he has. If I thens omehow recognised his superior intelligence and he was then taken out of the pond and taught to communicate with us, he would draw a different conclusion as the situation was explained. My guess is that he would still be curious as to his origins though. Would he become an athiest? He would certainly go through a phase of questioning everything because his view of his life in the pond had been shown to be so completely incorrect?

Over the course of my life, I've been influenced by many people and had many conversations which have altered my views. I would urge anyone, whether religious or not to always maintain an open mind. I would encourage fundamentalists to read Dawkins with an open mind, and Athiests to read the works of Rumi (Islamic poet) amongst others. Even Socrates had interesting views on religion. A friend of mine had a very interesting debate with Richard Dawkins on the Socratic view.

I'm always happy to have a pint and a discussion. Much of my life philosophy has been formed over a pint. I am of the opinion that I am not even sure any of us are out of the pond yet?

Rog T said...

Jim,

BTW must warn you in the pub I am far more likely to be sidetracked onto subjects such as Punk Rock, Ska, 60's psychedelic music, football, pubs and boozing than theology. I would make a lousy theologian

AndrewEvansMusic said...

Rog,

It seems as though your reason for believing is not that you are convinced (or even have faith) that the God of the Bible created us, that Jesus was his son and died for us, that God can literally answer prayers. NOT that the Bible is literally his word. But the thought of a world without a God left you with a void.

The consolatory power of religion is undeniable but that would obviously say nothing about its truth. I am personally deeply troubled by the notion that when I die it is almost certainly an oblivion. Whatever it was like before I was born, that is what it will be like again. But, for me, it would not be honest to assume it would be otherwise. And to know this life will probably not come again makes it much more precious to me.

And that there are things beyond our comprehension? I've already said, the Universe may be beyond our comprehension. But to draw a 'therefore God' conclusion is not a rational response. And why this God would bear any relation to the one spoken of in a the writings of men from 1000s of years ago? By your own admission, your stickleback's initial conclusions about the world around him would be completely wrong. And when he was the equivalent of our age of enlightenment, of course he would still be curious about his origins. But why would his new enquiries bear any relation to his original assumptions? Wouldn't he start again?

It seems that the lack of prescribed philosophy with atheism, encouraged you to establish a set of rules for yourself to live by and, as it was most familiar to you, you adopted Catholicism as the framework. But, as I said before, the fact that you are able to select the most moral aspects of a book and a faith which at face value can certainly be morally patchy (and at times simply evil) says much more about you as a good person with your own moral code, independent of religion. Your desire to do good and to help people transcends your faith and I suspect you would find the good in any philosophy in order to continue this work.

Like I said before, I would be interested in a future conversation for podcast if that's something you'd be interested in.

(You also again speak of there being a philosophy attached to atheism. Atheism is simply the rejection of there being a God with nothing else prescribed. A life without God to me is not a life without meaning, just one in which I get to choose the meaning.)

Rog T said...

Andrew,
There are a few things I suppose I should clarify. Firstly I don't believe in God because I cannot stand the thought of a void. It really wouldn't bother me if there was a void, but the idea of God seems to me to be more rational. I see the bible as a chronicle of mans efforts to build an understanding of the world and a relationship with God. I believe that prayers are answered, but nearly always not in the way which many people think they should be. If someone has cancer and we pray for them, we usually pray for them to get better. They usually don't. What I tend to pray for is knowledge, enlightenment, compassion and understanding. As I have documented in this blog, my best friend died last year aged 46 of cancer. He was an avowed athiest. Of course I prayed for him as his situation degenerated.

Whilst a miracle would have been fantastic, the main thing I wanted was strength to cope with supporting my friend. I think this prayer was answered. At his funeral, which I helped organise and spoke at (a humanist service), I was struck by the way all of Pauls friends pulled together and supported each other. A few long, deep seated rifts were fixed by the whole experience. Some very good things came out of a very bad situation. Now of course I wouldn't expect anyone to think that this was an expression of Gods will, but perhaps my ability to recognise this was, and was in some way an answer to my prayers.

On the subject of the power of prayer, I am extremely superstitious. This is partly as a result of my father. He was a wartime bomber pilot and he always claimed that his survival of 40 bombing missions to his prayer. He was shot down over Ploesti in Romania and survived. As his plane was being shot down, he had a very strange mystical experience. He told me that in it, God had told him that it wasn't his time and he should trust the bible when it said a man lives three score and ten years. Rather bizarrely he died very unexpectedly of a heart attack in his 70th year. He would always caution us to be very careful what we pray for because God does answer prayers, but in his own way. Sometimes what we think we want turns out to be quite the opposite. He would always advise us "to respect the Gods" (rather oddly for a Catholic). His view was the extraordinary good luck he enjoyed throught his life was purely down to this.

So is all of this purely superstition? I wouldn't argue that it isn't. What I do know is that the strange mish-mash of superstitions have served me well. A simple example of this was on Sunday. being a Man City fan, I broke a cardinal rule and went to the toilet during the game, when the ball wasn't in Joe Harts hands. Cardiff City immediately scored and my son has been blaming me ever since. We only go to the loo when the City Goalkeeper is holding the ball.

So yes, I am irrational in some ways. But then again, I do loath and detest the feeling I get when I break my superstitions and it all goes wrong. Maybe Cardiff would have scored anyway, but I wouldn't have felt personally responsible.

As to the podcast, I am always up for such things. I enjoy a good debate.

Jim said...

Reg, do you believe your god influences the world for example by making changes to the world because people here pray?

If you pray (I have no idea if you do or not) do you believe you are therapeutically talking to yourself in a way which is beneficial or do you believe there is actually somebody listening to your thoughts who will change the universe on your request?

If you believe god changes the world for you when you pray, why do you think experiments have shown that prayer has no impact beyond placebo? Do you think this god doesn't like being tested so he stops answering the prayers if he notices somebody tallying up the results?

If you believe that god has influence on the world then he can't be wholly outside our sphere of understanding. Anything that has a materialistic influence may be observed and therefore is testable.

Slight diversion: you can be an atheist and therapeutically pray/meditate, or feel a oneness with the universe or hold the opinion that there are some elements of the world we will never quite understand. Some people find it quite energising to speak in tongues without really thinking it has any special meaning.

Rog T said...

Andrew,
There are a few things I suppose I should clarify. Firstly I don't believe in God because I cannot stand the thought of a void. It really wouldn't bother me if there was a void, but the idea of God seems to me to be more rational. I see the bible as a chronicle of mans efforts to build an understanding of the world and a relationship with God. I believe that prayers are answered, but nearly always not in the way which many people think they should be. If someone has cancer and we pray for them, we usually pray for them to get better. They usually don't. What I tend to pray for is knowledge, enlightenment, compassion and understanding. As I have documented in this blog, my best friend died last year aged 46 of cancer. He was an avowed athiest. Of course I prayed for him as his situation degenerated.

Whilst a miracle would have been fantastic, the main thing I wanted was strength to cope with supporting my friend. I think this prayer was answered. At his funeral, which I helped organise and spoke at (a humanist service), I was struck by the way all of Pauls friends pulled together and supported each other. A few long, deep seated rifts were fixed by the whole experience. Some very good things came out of a very bad situation. Now of course I wouldn't expect anyone to think that this was an expression of Gods will, but perhaps my ability to recognise this was, and was in some way an answer to my prayers.

On the subject of the power of prayer, I am extremely superstitious. This is partly as a result of my father. He was a wartime bomber pilot and he always claimed that his survival of 40 bombing missions to his prayer. He was shot down over Ploesti in Romania and survived. As his plane was being shot down, he had a very strange mystical experience. He told me that in it, God had told him that it wasn't his time and he should trust the bible when it said a man lives three score and ten years. Rather bizarrely he died very unexpectedly of a heart attack in his 70th year. He would always caution us to be very careful what we pray for because God does answer prayers, but in his own way. Sometimes what we think we want turns out to be quite the opposite. He would always advise us "to respect the Gods" (rather oddly for a Catholic). His view was the extraordinary good luck he enjoyed throught his life was purely down to this.

So is all of this purely superstition? I wouldn't argue that it isn't. What I do know is that the strange mish-mash of superstitions have served me well. A simple example of this was on Sunday. being a Man City fan, I broke a cardinal rule and went to the toilet during the game, when the ball wasn't in Joe Harts hands. Cardiff City immediately scored and my son has been blaming me ever since. We only go to the loo when the City Goalkeeper is holding the ball.

So yes, I am irrational in some ways. But then again, I do loath and detest the feeling I get when I break my superstitions and it all goes wrong. Maybe Cardiff would have scored anyway, but I wouldn't have felt personally responsible.

As to the podcast, I am always up for such things. I enjoy a good debate.

Rog T said...

Jim,
In response to your question, I don't see prayer as a sort of pseudo financial transaction. In my response to Andrew I gave some idea of why I pray. I really think "experiments" miss the point. I don't exclude the possibility that God may on occasion intervene, but I see prayer as a way of us drawing internal strength and energy. I believe that the external source of this is God.

As I mentioned before, I went through a phase where I considered myself an Athiest. I did not pray at all during this period. This really didn't work for me. I did various meditative exercises such as Yoga and I read prolifically.

It was a chance conversation with a Liberal Rabbi which changed my mind. I was discussing the issue of religion and prayer and he asked me if I prayed. I said no. He asked if I ever felt the need to pray and suppressed it. I said actually yes". He then suggested that this was similar to suppressing feelings of sexuality and that we can never be truly happy or whole if we deny a part of our make up. He suggested that even Athiests should pray if it helps them at times of distress. He said it is a necessary coping mechanism. As I was going through a personal crisis, I heeded his advice. I think that this was a key moment in me being able to move on. Having found that prayer was beneficial to my mental wellbeing, it then seemed to me to be completely illogical to deny the power and usefulness of it.

We are all very different. What works for me may not work for anyone else. But I can 100% testify that it worked for me. I am not and will never be a tub thumping bible basher. I can only explain my personal experience.

I suppose one other thing I can add is that as a result, I genuinely feel that God has given me far more than I've given him (or her). As such even though I have all manner of doubts about all manner of things, if nothing else it would seem to be extreme bad manners to deny Gods role in my life.

These things are personal. I would not feel comfortable saying "I got all this so you must do as I do". I think each individual should ask themselves these questions and follow the path they feel to be true. We should subscribe to faiths or lack of them because we genuinely feel they are right for us.

I think What Jim has to say about Athiests using meditation and prayer is a good and sensibly pragmatic approach. I really would urge anyone who is having any sort of crisis to use the full toolkit that the human race has developed to help us through times of crisis. But I would also passionately urge them to avoid snakeoil salesman preachers who make false claims and unfullfillable promises. All prayer is likely to do is to help you have the strength to face difficult times. Anyone who promises anything more, is in my mind, a charlatan and I would stand with Jim and Andrew in cautioning against them.

Sorry for these rather long and dull responses, but I find it extremely difficult to explain the balance I see between the positives and negatives of faith and religion. I believe Jim and Andrew are spot on in highlighting the negatives. My issue with them is that they may well be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because there are significant positives in having faith. I see the role of sensible, non right wing, fundamentalist head banging religionists to try and balance the nut cases who clearly and rightly set Andrew and Jim on the warpath.

Jim said...

Aha! Testable claims! Outside our sphere no longer.

Fighter pilots who live longer if they pray. Testable if some country will give you access to their pilots. Just look for a correlation between religious belief and survival rates. Correlation doesn't imply causation so this wouldn't prove a god but it would point to further investigation. It might just be that the religious ones are more motivated to stay alive and try harder. Or maybe they'd be less frightened to die and try less hard. Or maybe nothing at all.

Football teams concede goals when you're not looking. Not sure if this is completely serious but easy enough to test. If this were proven clubs could give fans with strong bladders cheaper admission to improve their chances of winning the game. "we're holding it in all the way to Wembly" makes a pretty good chant.

I know what you mean though. I get this even if I'm watching the highlights :-) - insanity manifest.

Regarding your friend who died, I'm very happy that prayer helped you but this is not good evidence that anything supernatural was involved. It is equally plausible that by talking things over with yourself in time of difficulty you found strength to help yourself. I'd say "well done you". I wouldn't say "praise the lord".

Rog T said...

Jim,

Just one observation about your final paragraph. I've always talked things over with myself. I still do. I mull endlessly on things. Sometimes this resolves the issue, sometimes it doesn't. This is a completely different thing. I fully understand why you do not recognise this and why you feel that it is not in any way different. All I can say is that when I pray for wisdom, guidance and clarity I invariably see things for what they really are.

You describe this as supernatural, I just consider it to be completely natural, as I consider everything to be part of a greater picture. Just because we can't see beyond a particular horizon, doesn't mean nothing is there.

Jim said...

Humans are wise. Variably and not all the time, but wisdom is just something that humans do. Sometimes this wisdom helps us to cope with difficult and painful situations.

I understand that to you personally it is a significant thing. But a person being able to display wisdom at a difficult time isn't an unusual event. When you do something you were always capable of, but perhaps just needed the right frame of mind, that's not evidence anybody helped you to do it.

"everything [is] part of a greater picture" -- Sure, agree wholeheartedly. Here's a fantastic quote on this very subject: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf160463.html

"Just because we can't see beyond a particular horizon, doesn't mean nothing is there" -- Of course I agree. Not being able to see past the horizon shouldn't mean the conclusion "nothing is there". But it also shouldn't mean we say "thing X is there" when there is no evidence for X. In this situation the best thing we can say is "I don't know what is there" and maybe even "let's find out".

Rog T said...

Jim,

I am definately of the "there is something beyond the horizon" school of thought. I don't think that whatever it is can easily be understood by us at this stage in our development. I would be very surprised if God is as the bible imagines. I see God as something that is the sum of the parts and yet beyond it. I believe that mystics have the ability to glimpse beyong the normal horizon, but may actually be none the wiser than the rest of us. I believe that there is a font of knowledge to tap into.

An example of this is that as a songwriter I've often felt (and other songwriters have also made the comment) that we don't write the songs, we capture them.

So I don't think there is a big bloke with a white beard. But then again, I can't think of a better representation.

I think it is good to speculate and imagine. I guess that most scientific developments start with a bit of daydreaming somewhere.

I recently read a book called "The Emperor of all Maladies" about the development of cancer treatments. It is written by an oncologist and is pretty hard science. I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in the way life forms develop. It shows the benefits of free thinking and the dangers of being too dogmatic and dismissive of other peoples ideas. It sort of reaffirmed my approach to faith. Then again I am not a fundamenatlist and I am open to ideas and debate.

Jim said...

Consciousness ("you") is only one thing that your brain does. Recently there have been some fascinating experiments where by looking at the brain the experimenters were able to determine what decision a person has made before the person is even aware that they have made it. That is, most decisions are not made by the conscious mind and the conscious mind is merely informed of them after the fact.

As an engineer I have on many occasions gone away from a tricky problem, found something relaxing to do, come back and found the solution obvious. I think this is what you find with song writing.

From what I can tell there are parts of the brain that solve long-running problems in the background and all we have to do to activate these parts is not overload the brain too much with short-term worries.

The brain is staggeringly amazing. It is only more amazing because it requires no magic to explain.

Mystics have never, in thousands of years of trying, been able to demonstrate any testable special knowledge. I'm perfectly open to these ideas but after a million failures forgive me if I'm not holding up much hope for attempt number million-and-one.

Rog T said...

Jim

I think you may have rather missed the point regarding mystics. You should be aware that there is a principle in science that if the act of measuring something changes the result it is not a valid test.

If you read the works of respected mystics there is plenty of special knowledge and of huge interest to open minds. Doesn't mean they have a monopoly, but such dismissal is clearly, to me at least, rather misguided

Jim said...

I don't want to put words into your mouth but are you are saying that god only acts when we are not testing for him? So that the act of testing causes the prayer to be ineffective?

Changing the thing observed isn't a barrier to science at all, we know how to cope with that. On a very fundamental level it is impossible to measure anything without changing it, especially on the quantum scale. This doesn't mean science gives up and calls those things unknowable, these things can still be investigated.

Are there any examples of special knowledge which are not better explained via mystical than non-mystical means? I have looked extensively with a very open mind and I know of none.

Is your mind open enough to accept that there may be nothing behind this mysticism lark?

Jim said...

Actually, this quite gets to me, the idea that skeptics are not open minded. I don't believe you meant it as such but it is quite insulting.

I'm open minded enough that I believe anything that good evidence leads me to. If there could be demonstrated a single good example of mysticism doing something that could not be explained by any other means I would adjust my position on the spot.

Being prepared to believe literally ANYTHING that there is good evidence for IS THE MOST OPEN MINDED POSITION POSSIBLE!

Being closed to the possibility that the material world is all that there is - that's more close minded than being open to the possibility either way.