As someone who strives to hold only rational views, it is of course not possible to avoid possibly the greatest irrationality of our time, and perhaps all of human history: religion. I must confess that my views on this immense subject are equally substantial and are therefore too extensive for one post. Hopefully I can articulate my views piece by piece as they occur or reoccur to me.
This week has been a fantastic week for the interested atheist. Channel 4 has been running its 'Richard Dawkins Season', the Pope is to visit the UK next week, and to top it all off we no longer need god to create the universe, thanks to Stephen Hawking. As a result, the papers and 'blogosphere' (please note my intense dislike for the word, I shall not use it again) have been alive with debate and comment. This has presented a feast of information, consternation, laughter, and in some cases blind rage, to entertain me of late.
In particular, I have been struck not by comments from those employed directly by the belief industry, but by the ludicrous comments of religious supporters. Those employed by religious organisations, from priests and bishops, to rabbis and imams, often don't provide interesting fodder for observers like me. Their belief and craft is so strong that it is impossible to debate with. The Times this week covered some wonderful examples of this such as
"Physical laws . . . are about the regular relations between actual realities, I cannot see how they explain the bare fact that there is any reality at all" - Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
and
"the fact that we have an extraordinarily complex universe which continues to grow before our very eyes is the strongest possible evidence of the existence of a creator" - Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, Leicester imam.
I struggle to even comprehend Dr Rowan's point let alone counter it. Were I to actually attempt to debate the point with him, I'm sure that within the next few exchanges I would likely surrender and leave searching for a paracetamol.
Religious supporters, however, are a feast of wondrous and troubling comments and insights that both delight and enrage. One might ponder why there is a difference and I can only conclude that either religious employees are trained to be deliberately difficult to nail down, or that religious supporters, who do something else with the majority of their time, have not sniffed as much of the 'spiritual glue' that those who dedicate their lives to it clearly have. As a result their brains straddle the void between occupying the real and logical world around us, and yet also the world of ancient fantasies (which constitute modern day religions) to which they subscribe. This contradiction produces some incredible comments which could only arise from someone who is trying to reconcile the scientific knowledge of the tangible world with the supernatural tales of the religious.
Naturally some of the funniest statements are often made by ordinary people as responses to a particular article or blog post, and I will endeavour to compile a list from now on of the truly great ones. However, the most enraging are often the authors of articles themselves. Commissioned pieces of opinion writing, which seem to have an uncanny habit of appearing in The Daily Mail. This week I have two articles, one in response to Mr Hawking's less than surprising statement that 'god isn't necessary to create the universe', and one in regard to the forthcoming visit by the Pope.
Starting with Professor John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford no less, who claims right off the bat that 'Stephen Hawking is wrong', and goes on to make some incredible assertions.
One of my favourites has to be:
"It's a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public."
That god wasn't needed to create the universe is not a surprise or news to atheists (which I believe he has confused with secularists) In fact the only reason why this is 'news' at all is that Hawking can now prove his theories. Theories without which the religious would deride as, quite amazingly, lacking in evidence. Having dipped a toe into Hawking's world I can assure you that there is nothing 'simplistic' about his approach.
Prof. Lennox goes on to say:
"Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?"
This reminds me of an unapologetically blunt description by Richard Dawkins of such people as 'the yapping terrier's of ignorance' in much the same way that toddlers are known to follow their parents around continually asking why?, why?, why? to questions that don't have an answer. Asking questions is of course a quality to be commended but as Dawkins again states:
"you are again assuming that the 'why' question is a sensible or legitimate question. Not all questions are. You have no right to expect and answer to a silly question."
To me this is no different from asking why water is wet. The only answer to such a silly question is because it is!
The striking contradiction with this approach often favoured by the religious and the supporters, is that the same silly questions can be asked of their position, and invariably they will have no answer whatsoever. Why does god exist? Who made god? What is god's purpose?
Similarly Prof. Lennox continues with his hilarious contradictions, such as:
"If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth."
I am sure that if you asked Stephen Hawking if he thought the brain were the result of an 'unguided process' he would of course disagree believing as he does in evolution. But the assertion that only if a creator had designed the brain could you believe in its capacity to tell us the truth, is quite frankly complete nonsense. It suggests that this man would argue that if his brain tells him there is a god, and god made his brain, his brain must be telling the truth! I remind you at this point that, somewhat disturbingly, that this is a professor of Oxford. It makes you want to weep.
I encourage you to read the entire piece, and challenge you to not find yourself either scratching your head or laughing aloud at the other points he goes on to make.
Turning to Mr Stephen Glover, and I appreciate this post is turning into a bit of an epic, who thankfully is only a journalist, and his recent article regarding the Pope's planned visit. Stephen jumps in on one of my most cherished issues, in describing Dawkins as an atheist extremist. He says:
"the militant atheist and Christian-hater Richard Dawkins"
Militant? Really? This is a classic middle class Oxford professor who delivers, if forceful in argument, as polite a challenge to religion that I think you can make. Equally I sincerely doubt that Dawkins holds his distaste for religions in any form of preferential order.
He claims that the things being said about the Pope are:
"not merely discourteous. . . but reveal disturbing traits of intolerance among this country's supposedly liberal intelligentsia."
The things being said, include the Pope's insufficient response to child abuse and rape that has occurred across the continent in his organisation, and his refusal to condone condoms which has lead to the unnecessary deaths of thousands in Africa. That the 'liberal intelligensia', and I hope all good people, are intolerant of this is to me a wholly rational and commendable response.
He goes on, in talking up the Pope:
"he does not bend to fashionable secular trends, and holds fast to beliefs which are those of the traditional church, Isn't that admirable?"
Admirable? This is certainly beyond my belief.
"he is not a monster and child abuser to be vilified as though he deliberately committed acts of evil."
This is a parallel of a defence most often used by CEO's on trial for corporate crimes perpetrated by their staff, which fails by the way. Certainly if it works for the Pope someone should let Tony Hayward the outgoing CEO of BP and Fred Goodwyn the former MD of RBS know.
He returns to his attack on Dawkins with:
"there is a hard-core which embraces and promotes atheism with the blind fervour of religious zealots. Richard Dawkins is my prime exhibit".
Dawkins is currently, amongst other things, Professor of Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. Were he not to display fervour in promoting his views, he would not be discharging the duty that his position requires. As for zealotry, which I understand to mean committed even to the point of death, I am sure Dawkins like most rational people will believe in their understanding of the world up to the point someone points a gun at you, at which point you'll believe anything they want you to believe. Sad that Professor Lennox, of Oxford University no less, has reduced himself to the sort of sensationalist nonsense that pervades the pages of the Daily Mail.
He ends as I will with,
"We may not agree with everything he says, or even with his most fundamental beliefs. But his visit should be welcome because he is something rare in the modern world. A decent man of principle."
If only he was talking about Dawkins, and not the Pope, he'd be right on the money.
Full article for your amusement.
If you would like to comment on this post, please click 'comments' below.
No comments:
Post a Comment