“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ … the example of his life, the purpose of his death and the hope that comes from his resurrection brings that special dimension to leadership and to life itself.” Isn’t it reassuring to know that the commander in chief of the British Army is more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt?
For those were the reported comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, who managed to take time off from fighting two wars, in order to address a recent conference for evangelical Christians in Swanwick, Derbyshire. To my ears, it would have been scarcely less bizarre had he been extolling the virtues of the goddess Aphrodite, discussing his private conversations with Elvis, or perhaps suggesting that every soldier be equipped with a voodoo doll of Osama bin Laden as a key weapon in the war against terror. And yet, with one notable exception, the General’s remarks produced barely a murmur in the press; while our politicians, fearful as ever of losing the God vote, maintained a strict radio silence – such is the absurd degree of respect we routinely afford those who would order their lives (and indeed everyone else’s given half a chance) around the delusions of one or other of the ancient mythologies.
But what makes this latest public display of deranged thinking at once astonishing and deeply disturbing, is Sir Richard’s explicit invocation of a metaphysics of life after death. Failing to explain to our brave soldiers that this life is but a trivial prelude to the eternal life to come, would in his words amount to a “betrayal.” Has he forgotten so soon the apocalyptic events (if you pardon the expression) which brought on our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East? When the 9/11 hijackers ploughed into the World Trade Center in 2001, they did so with a huge grin on their faces. For they believed with chilling certainty that they were merely seconds away from entering a paradise flowing with milk and honey, scented wine and delicious fruits, and never forgetting of course the seventy-two dark-eyed rechargeable virgins (or whatever it is that devout Muslims actually believe). So it was that 16 acres of Lower Manhattan were duly demolished in the name of the “religion of peace.”
Yet now we learn that Sir Richard himself holds beliefs which, though arising from Christian culture, are qualitatively no different to those held by the 19 gentlemen who managed six years ago to upend our world in such spectacular fashion. So, whilst it seems most unlikely that the General will soon be perpetrating a terrorist atrocity of his own, do we really think that he is a fit person to be commanding the British Army?
I submit that no-one with a talent for such monumental self-deception should be allowed anywhere near our levers of power, whether they be political, military, educational, medical, or judicial. For the “afterlife,” it must now be stated plainly, is nothing but a vain and ignorant superstition born out of a natural fear of death – a fear that religions have been exploiting for millennia in the furtherance of their respective kingdoms, which appear to be very much of this world, not of the next.
Of course when it comes to public manifestations of religious stupidity, we’ve got a little way to go before catching up with our friends from the United States of America. Yes, welcome to the “land of the free” – so free in fact that only 28% believe in evolution, while 68% believe in Satan, and around 44% think that Jesus will in all likelihood return sometime within the next fifty years. Hilarious, isn’t it? So naturally you might expect the US military to contain a few fruitcakes of its own. You wouldn’t be disappointed. Here’s a great quote from top Pentagon official Lieutenant General William Boykin in 2003: “Why is this man [Bush] in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him.” (so far, so good) “He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.” Shortly after making these remarks, Boykin got the promotion he was angling for when he was put in charge of “stress and duress” techniques at Abu Ghraib – just the job for a nice Christian gentleman.
You’d think that with God on our side, the military interventions of the last few years might have proved to be a great success. In fact, virtually none of our foreign policy objectives have been achieved. In Afghanistan, bin Laden was allowed to skip over the hills, leaving us to fight a protracted battle against the Taliban which Lord Ashdown now considers to be a doomed enterprise. Meanwhile, Iraq is fast mutating into the most ghastly theocracy imaginable, and the world is without question a far more dangerous place than before, (when it should have been perfectly obvious that an Iraq invasion would end in tears: “If you fight against the Babylonians, you will not succeed.” – Jeremiah 32:5). The correct lesson to be drawn from all of this, is that if the problem is radical Islam, then the solution is emphatically not a Christian President Bush and his crazy sidekicks, taking orders from God to wage a “Crusade” against the Muslim world. It just doesn’t sound good.
The trouble with religion is that it promotes a fundamental double standard in our thinking and behaviour – between the domains of faith and reason, between the natural and the supernatural, between evidence-based knowledge and divine revelation – and we are now paying a terrible price for this duplicity, as we find ourselves inhabiting a world fractured along sectarian lines and balkanised into separate moral communities. The religious violence we witness around the globe today, invariably attributed to “extremists,” is nothing less than the guaranteed consequence of a struggle between competing and unfalsifiable ideologies – one in which differences may be settled by one means and one means only: with a fight to the death. May I suggest that we dismiss General Dannatt, pull our troops out tomorrow, drop the “special relationship,” and then spend the rest of the century attempting to cure our own collective insanity before we ever presume to be capable of fixing anyone else’s?
* Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat member.
189 Comments
I thought that as Liberal Democrats we we were in favour of freedom of religion? And of at least trying to represent fairly other’s beliefs even where we do not share them.
This article is a disgrace. Richard Dannatt is highly capable, talented, brave and no doubt a decent man. he is not the same as a suicide bomber and to suggest that is appalling. So is suggesting that no-one religious should hold office, which is to say that no one who disagrees with your world view should hold office. That is fundementally illiberal. We live in a free society and people can hold whatever views they like, and no one can be a lib dem and disagree with that statement.
I would also remind you that many lib dems are Christians and other are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. several MP’s, including Simon Hughes and Steve Webb are Christians. Should they be banned from office? What about the 250+ members of the Lib Dem Christian Forum. Or the many hundreds more in the party, or the millions in the country?
You are an embarrassment.
A modern Test and Corporation Act?Anyone with a religious belief should be banned?
People should have freedom of religious belief.
The true question is the separation of church and state.
The Church of England should be disestablished.
Richard Dannatt is highly capable, talented, brave and no doubt a decent man.
Maybe so. But in this article he displays nothing but vanity and self-delusion.
He is not the same as a suicide bomber and to suggest that is appalling.
Oh dear, I thought I had made that quite clear. Let me try again. Sir Richard holds beliefs which are QUALITATIVELY no different to those held by . . .
So is suggesting that no-one religious should hold office, which is to say that no one who disagrees with your world view should hold office.
That’s not really what I’m saying. Rather I am questioning whether someone with really quite appalling judgement should hold high office.
That is fundamentally illiberal.
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
We live in a free society and people can hold whatever views they like, and no one can be a Lib Dem and disagree with that statement.
That is the best self-destructing sentence I have seen for a while.
I would also remind you that many Lib Dems are Christians and other are Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.
In other words, a large number of Lib Dems hold views which are completely contradictory and incompatible with the views held by other sections of Lib Dems. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Several MP’s, including Simon Hughes and Steve Webb are Christians. What about the 250+ members of the Lib Dem Christian Forum? Or the many hundreds more in the party, or the millions in the country?
Please don’t use that argument. A hundred years ago, everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic. Would it have been “illiberal” to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of the day? A million people can be wrong. Indeed they very often are.
You are an embarrassment.
Thanks “mindstar.” I’m mortified.
Laurence,
Well done for standing up to the moral relativists who have posted here.
Leaving to one side the issue of soldiers fighting in the middle east who apparently take their guidance from Jesus, to say that it is liberal not to challenge a spurious belief is just wrong. By the same token we’d never challenge honour killings, or accept racism, or any number of issues that a progressive ought to challenge.
Religion is and has been used time and again to take people to war, to kill, discriminate and persecute. Surely most Christians can recognise that sad fact.
Not believing in life after death makes me value my life and other people’s all the more. This life is the only one that they, and I have.
What angers me about General Dannatt is that he thinks he can use his position to sell his religion. He says:
“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”
What if he had said ‘inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with the prophet Mohammed’? Imagine the links that people would then have made to 09/11.
Or what is he had said ‘inspiration best comes from believing that this life is the only one we’ve got’. Imagine the outrage of some Christian posters here.
Our party has a strong and humanist and secularist tradition. There is an active Lib Dem Humanist & Secularist group http://hsld.wordpress.com.
Members of HSLD in our parliamentary party include Evan Harris, Martin Horwood and Paul Holmes. Party members are welcome to attend our one day conference in London on Saturday 8th December. Guest speaker is Lord Dick Taverne on ‘Dignity in Dying’.
Some Christians are warmongers. Some Christians are pacifists. Some Christians are conservatives. Some Christians are Liberals.
The Liberal party itself was invented by Christians. A lot of Liberal beliefs are rooted in Christian morality. The fable of the Good Samaritan supports our belief in anti-racism. “It is as difficult for a rich man to go to heaven as a camel to go through an eye of a needle” supports our committment to redistributing wealth. “Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone” supports Liberal opposition to the death penalty. “Turn the other cheek” in contrast to “An eye for an eye” which Jesus refutes despite coming from the Old Testament provides the pacifist tradition in the Liberal Democrats.
Liberals should be comfortable that they are a coalition of many faiths and of none. Those who have faith have a liberal interpretation of that faith.
Religious fanaticism can cause war, but the same applies to secular fanatics such as Stalin.
Lawrence provides no evidence that General Sir Richard Dannatt is “more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt”. We can and should judge Dannatt by his ability as a military leader.
Dannatt has the absolute right as a human being to tell of his belief in an afterlife, and as a Christian he (and I) have a responsibility to do so. And equally, his troops, and those who come across his writings have an absolute right to ignore him, just as many ignored Christ himself.
Lawrence is also wrong to say that Dannatt’s views are qualitatively no different to those of suicide bombers and those who commanded them. Dannatt believes in an afterlife, but does not – to the best of my knowledge – believe that killing people or dying increases your chance of going to heaven. The example of Christ’s life and death, cited by Dannatt, was not violence and destruction, but peace and healing. How much more different can Dannatt’s teaching be to that of those who brainwash young men to blow up aeroplanes?
Manfarang @ 3 has it right. For a leading military figure to publicly invoke one particular religion as his inspiration in doing what is basically a political job is unacceptable – as unacceptable to British Muslims as to British secularists. Freedom of one’s own personal religion is not the issue here.
Yes, this is an evangelical atheist rant. It should not be considered more morally shocking than any other kind of rant, and I cannot help feeling (correct me if I am wrong) that Mindstar is a little bit morally shocked.
The only knotty point is on people with “such bad judgement” being allowed to hold office. This is where I make some common cause with relativists. Who is to say what religious view is bad judgement? That’s not moral relativism as such, it’s more to do with neurological conditioning. No-one thinks their own view is bad judgement. I would prefer it if the bad judgement Laurence refers to consists in actually speaking out on this view rather than holding it.
But of course the reality is you are all missing the point, because we will never be Truly Enlightened until we have Embraced the Pastafarian Way and been Touched by his Noodly Appendage:
http://www.venganza.org/
There have of course been hugely dangerous Christian fundamentalists who have overthrown accepted values through subversive activities
If only we had done something to stop Elizabeth Fry and William Wilberforce in their tracks.
Of course religious fundamentalism carries dangers – and suggested British soldiers are wondering around the middle east as fulfilment of their personal relationship with Jesus is among the more stupid suggestions ever made.
But so does any fundamentalism, be it political (Stalin, Mao), or scientific (the guy who put lead into petrol)
Liberalism and religion are perfectly compatible – no-one has ever seriously questioned Roger Roberts liberal commitment for example.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Oh dear, I thought I had made that quite clear. Let me try again. Sir Richard holds beliefs which are QUALITATIVELY no different to those held by . . .”
The beliefs held by Laurence Boyce are qualitatively no different to those held by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Comrade Enver Hoxha (and Ian Brady). All were militant atheists and all believed in the materialist theory of mind.
Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.
The materialist theory of mind, by contrast, is conceptually incoherent and evidentially false.
If it were true, there would be no free will, no consciousness, no mental events of any kind. There would be no point in anyone trying to persuade anyone of anything on Lib Dem Voice.
I note that Laurence and his fellow materialist cult fetishists share an intense dislike of homeopathy. Clearly, they are quite happy for people to die rather than acknowledge the reality of the paranormal. Such is their pathological vanity.
At least Laurence is honest enough to admit he has personal issues with religion. Others in his camp (eg, Dawkins) are less candid. They sanctimoniously and spuriously pose as “rationalists”.
I have no idea if God exists, so I am not in the business of defending any particular religious creed. What I do defend is peoples’ right to believe whatever they like and not be subjected to persecution and exclusion by rabid sectarians like Laurence.
In 1821, my great geat great grandfather had to obtain a licence from the state before he could hold a Quaker meeting in the farmhouse he owned. Do we want a return to those days?
“Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.”
I’ll buy. Go for it.
I don’t think this article is a “disgrace”. It is part of the process of free speech and Laurence has rapidly become a “party treasure” with similar punchy contributions.
The key is in the words “without giving them a chance to understand”. The Army has been giving soldiers the “chance to understand” the after-life since it was established. That doesn’t change the fact that most squaddies according to the site linked below, don’t give a monkeys about religion.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/military/religion.html#Religion
Army Chaplains as of 2006 Jul 01:
Church of England 84
Roman Catholic 22
Church of Scotland 20
Methodist 12
United Board 9
Other (see below) 4
Total: 151
Source: DASA, 2006
Tri-Service appointees (from 2004): 1 Moslem, 1 Hindu, 1 Buddhist, 1 Sikh and a tri-service Jewish Rabbi act as advisors to the Forces, and are known collectively as the Ministry of Defence Religious Advisory Panel.
Laurence, we do not want the state to judge whether anybody’s beliefs are acceptably undeluded before they are permitted to stand for public office. You are an embarrassment to the secularist cause.
The truth will out, not by the enforcement of correct doctrine on anyone, but by the free exchange of ideas.
To say that it is liberal not to challenge a spurious belief is just wrong. By the same token we’d never challenge honour killings, or accept racism, or any number of issues that a progressive ought to challenge.
Thanks “Liberal Hammer.” Well said.
Our party has a strong and humanist and secularist tradition. There is an active Lib Dem Humanist & Secularist group. Members of HSLD in our parliamentary party include Evan Harris, Martin Horwood and Paul Holmes. Party members are welcome to attend our one day conference in London on Saturday 8th December.
Hey, thanks Richard. Bit unfortunate you being called “Church” what? I shall definitely try to make the conference. But in the meantime, we need to establish a Facebook group. Please join Facebook and give me a poke. In fact I’ll send out invites to all the committee.
Some Christians are conservatives. Some Christians are liberals.
In fact Christians tend to be more conservative than liberal. Indeed what could be more conservative than sticking with stuff that is thousands of years out of date?
I don’t think this article is a “disgrace.”
Thanks Paul. A true liberal!
There’s a vitriol in the article which I think fits uneasily with liberalism.
I don’t think that it’s acceptable to ridicule people’s beliefs, but equally some of the public statements being cited here are probably inappropriate given the roles concerned.
As a passionate liberal (agnostic) I think that we should make efforts to attract people of all religious persuation, rather than to box ourselves in a corner with somewhat unnecessary attacks.
Live and let live, rejoice in our differences, respect other people’s opinions, etc. We do ourselves a great disservice as a party by spending too much time snarling at things that we don’t like but which we should be tolerant of and letting into our tent. If only we were so snarling and condescending towards illiberalism maybe we’d be getting somewhere.
Hywel,
If only we had done something to stop Elizabeth Fry and William Wilberforce in their tracks.
If only the Bible had condemned slavery in unequivocal terms, instead of actually endorsing it.
Suggesting British soldiers are wondering around the Middle East as fulfilment of their personal relationship with Jesus is among the more stupid suggestions ever made.
Well to say that is just to gloss over what is actually going on in the minds of the inhabitants of the White House and the Pentagon. These guys really are motivated by biblical prophecy, and the consequences could prove catastrophic. Of course individual soldiers will most likely not be so crazy.
Angus,
Life after death is a fact based on evidence.
Then why do you need “faith”?
If [materialism] were true, there would be no free will.
Well there is no free will. That is one of the major blind spots in religion.
There would be no point in anyone trying to persuade anyone of anything on Lib Dem Voice.
Which would be to commit the fallacy of fatalism.
I note that Laurence and his fellow materialist cult fetishists share an intense dislike of homeopathy.
Yes, I dislike any con or rip off.
Laurence asks: “Then why do you need “faith”?”
I don’t need faith and I don’t have it.
Laurence goes on to say: “Well there is no free will.”
Right. So shut up, go home and get drunk.
And: “Yes, I dislike any con or rip off.”
Right. So shut up, go home and get drunk.
By the way, a psychic healer cured the problem I had in my arm and my neck, and he didn’t charge me (or anyone else) a penny.
Tim Leunig,
Laurence provides no evidence that General Sir Richard Dannatt is “more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt.”
Yes I did. see the “monumental self-deception” link.
Dannatt has the absolute right as a human being to tell of his belief in an afterlife, and as a Christian he (and I) have a responsibility to do so.
Oh dear.
And equally, his troops, and those who come across his writings have an absolute right to ignore him, just as many ignored Christ himself.
We hardly know the first thing about this “Christ” of which you speak.
Dannatt believes in an afterlife, but does not – to the best of my knowledge – believe that killing people or dying increases your chance of going to heaven.
How many Christian churches in Britain do you think are named after “Saint XXX, martyr”?
The example of Christ’s life and death, cited by Dannatt, was not violence and destruction, but peace and healing.
“I come not to bring peace but a sword.”
How much more different can Dannatt’s teaching be to that of those who brainwash young men to blow up aeroplanes?
Qualitatively, they are no different. The difference is that Dannatt has had the benefit of a decent education, and this makes him in a sense more culpable than many an unfortunate jihadist.
I do not think there are more conservative Christains than liberal ones.
The archbishop of Cantabury is clearly a liberal. Many Christians are a mixture of conservative and liberal. Just like the electorate as a whole.
I do not think there are more conservative Christians than liberal ones.
Yes there are. Go to the Facebook UK Politics application and click on Statistics/Religion. It’s quite funny really. And Lib Dems do really well among pagans!
Laurence Boyce wrote: “The difference is that Dannatt has had the benefit of a decent education, and this makes him in a sense more culpable than many an unfortunate jihadist.”
Mohammad Atta had a masters degree in town planning.
It is not true to say that religious fanatics are necessarily stupid and poorly educated. Many are extremely bright and highly educated. Indeed, religious groups are notoriously keen to recruit the intellectually gifted. Which is why they target university campuses.
By the way, what does Laurence think of his fellow militant atheists in the SWP (socialism is inevitable, so no free will) buddying up with Islamists, and the practicing Roman Catholic, George Galloway?
Odd that Laurence should behave as if he does have free will, even if he thinks he doesn’t.
Oh, I forgot. Lawrence says he doesn’t mind hypocrisy.
And he can’t think either. That’s a mentalistic concept.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “And Lib Dems do really well among pagans!”
Great! That’s what I like to hear!
I prefer most Pagans to most Christians and virtually all atheists.
Mohammad Atta had a masters degree in town planning.
In fact all the 9/11 hijackers were highly educated which is very scary. I was thinking more of the street suicide bombings which are now a daily occurrence.
What does Laurence think of his fellow militant atheists . . . ?
You can no more be a militant atheist than you can be a militant non-believer in Father Christmas.
Odd that Laurence should behave as if he does have free will, even if he thinks he doesn’t.
That’s because determinism does not imply fatalism. No, the future is fixed. In fact, according to relativity theory, it’s already happened!
Hitler/Stalin/Mao etc are often used in an ‘atheists can create war and suffering as well’ argument. For me the fundamental problem is unquestioning adherence to any ideology (that includes Liberalism). In that respect Stalinism/Maoism/Nazism are at one with religion in that they seek to indoctrinate the young with a single ‘true’ usually messianic and ‘final’ ideology, suppress free thought and encourage unquestioning ‘faith’ in the leadership and apparatus of control. They also employ complete sanction against apostasy – i.e. if you leave you are as good as dead.
In these respects as well as the cult of leadership, strong use of symbolism, a credo and rigid rules of behaviour I see Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism as 20th century religions as discredited as their bronze age equivalents.
Having said Lawrence’s views do not IMO reflect those of the large majority of atheists, humanists and agnostics in the party in one important respect – we respect the views of, and welcome the membership in the party of all Liberals whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Angus !
“Life after death is a fact based on evidence. And if Laurence wants me to show him some of that evidence (I’m sure he doesn’t) then I will happily do so.”
Angus, if you’ve got evidence for it, then I think you should be sharing it with the world’s scientists, who’d no doubt be interested. That’s assuming it’s evidence in the form of observable phenomena, rather than just ‘this book I’ve got says it’s true.’
And I wonder what the reaction would have been if Dannatt had been an Iranian or Pakistani general saying similar things about Islam?
Laurence,
From your distinctly real-echelon position I am sure religion and soldiering may not seem to go together. I used to hang out in military circles quite a lot and was frequently reminded that the regimental chaplain might seem like a bit of an indulgence in peacetime, but when the bullets start flying his stature suddenly rises considerably.
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
Nick Barlow wrote: “Angus, if you’ve got evidence for it, then I think you should be sharing it with the world’s scientists, who’d no doubt be interested.”
Many of the world’s scientists have produced it, including several Nobel laureates.
The fact that Nick Barlow is unaware of any of it is testimony to the effectiveness of Dawkins and his gang in suppressing it.
Take a look at the following links:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/
http://www.near-death.com/
oops. rear-echelon. but very real.
Passing Tory: “If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for”
I think most soldiers are asking Blair, Brown or Bush that question, not an army chaplain.
In these respects as well as the cult of leadership, strong use of symbolism, a credo and rigid rules of behaviour I see Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism as 20th century religions as discredited as their bronze age equivalents.
I totally agree. The Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument is so tired and irrelevant. It’s not as if those tyrants still have millions of followers to worry about, is it?
Laurence’s views do not IMO reflect those of the large majority of atheists, humanists and agnostics in the party in one important respect – we respect the views of, and welcome the membership in the party of all Liberals whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or Angus!
Oh I welcome them. In fact I brought a Christian into the party only the other day. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to give them a really hard time over their beliefs. Neither am I going to “respect” beliefs deserving only of contempt.
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
No it can’t because the claims of religion are false. But of course troops need moral support, so it’s just another example of where religion is acting as an obstacle to a more enlightened approach.
I think most soldiers are asking Blair, Brown or Bush that question, not an army chaplain.
Good one!
Peter Bancroft,
There’s a vitriol in the article which I think fits uneasily with liberalism.
I really don’t see how vitriol directed against the illiberal notions of religions can be incompatible with liberalism. Of course it may be bad tactics, but that is another question.
I don’t think that it’s acceptable to ridicule people’s beliefs.
Not only is it acceptable, it is imperative in my view that we attack and expose deluded thinking of dangerous consequence.
Live and let live, rejoice in our differences, respect other people’s opinions.
I’m sure the occupants of the World Trade Center on September 11 were thinking exactly that.
Ahh, how do I love the pure comedic entertainment to be had from listening to repeats of all the set positions on this old subject again?
At the limit of their knowledge and experience, when the situation is no longer in your comfort zone, everyone has to start believing something.
Admittedly, not everyone gets there (even Laurence gets side-tracked by this juvenile preoccupation of his), as circumstances usually never get so extreme – at least, not until you get confronted with the reality of your own existence, like in a war, for example (or through the media, but that’s an argument for a different time).
I have a belief in imperfection, which forces me to recognise that there are things I don’t see and must accept regardless (like other people). The consequence of not, or of not being able to agree to disagree, is worse than bears thinking about.
Religions are problematic for some, but they offer reassurance for many to help them do what they need to do. Yet that’s true of any belief system, all of which, at the bottom of it, are based on some contestable foundation. Even political ones.
The attack on religions is similar to recent attacks on our party (cf what are they for?).
For those that perennially predict and encourage the demise of the Liberal cause it must be disheartening to see that we continue, that even after a lifetime out of government, even after leadership-ousting scandals, and even after the retreat of Ming, that there is life everlasting in this party.
There is a point that parallel cases always help because they set an example and a reference guide by which evaluation becomes possible.
See: “For the common populace it [religion] is true, for the wise it is wrong, and for rulers it is useful.”
Like experience, like history. Like footsteps in the snow.
Religions are problematic for some, but they offer reassurance for many.
Has it ever occurred to you that the former are in some sense paying for the latter?
Richard,
They might indeed want to ask Blair and Brown (and indeed I would love to see Blair embedded in the front line for a week or two) but operationally chaplains are rather more accessible.
Although joking aside (and closer to the point that the general was trying to make) is that politicians are not in general the best people to be discussing matters of life and death with. Chaplains are usually rather good, however.
Laurence, I have and I agree they are.
I also think the reverse is to some extent true. Have you considered this?
No. How is the reverse true?
The latter are praying for the former…
If you are going to send soldiers out to die then some of them are going to ask why, and what for, and religion can provide an invaluable framework for addressing these questions.
No it can’t because the claims of religion are false. But of course troops need moral support, so it’s just another example of where religion is acting as an obstacle to a more enlightened approach.
Laurence, that simply isn’t true. Whatever you think about the existence of God(s), over the ages many extremely wise people have used religious frameworks to ponder the meaning of life and death. The fact that they expressed their thoughts in the philosophical orthodoxy of the day does not make them without value. It is arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise.
In short, I think you are missing the distinction between believing in religion, and looking at (and maybe accepting) what religious thought can teach us.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you were in a position where every day you had a significant chance of returning from work in a bodybag that some doubt in your position might suddenly creep in.
The latter are praying for the former.
Bridget, prayer doesn’t work, as numerous studies have shown. That’s why when you’re ill, you go to a doctor, not a priest. Moreover in today’s hospitals, you will find daily “miracles” occurring which make the tricks of “Jesus” look silly by comparison.
not that this adds anything else to the argument, but I’d rather be led by a general who is a competant atheist/humanist than an incompetant Christian and vice versa.
Laurence, we do not want the state to judge whether anybody’s beliefs are acceptably undeluded before they are permitted to stand for public office.
Did I say that Joe? Whenever I use the strong language which I like to deploy, I’m invariably met with an accusation that I am anti free speech or in favour of draconian state intervention. But on this occasion, I’m pleased to see that at least some commenters have noted that I am in fact promoting a debate, not shutting one down. The truth is that I want as little legislation as possible, though I do want to see the abolition of faith schools which are as ridiculous as having Marxist schools, say, would be.
And therein lies the problem. We tolerate such a colossal double standard when it comes to religion, and it is absolutely vital that we should now endeavour to break its stranglehold. Lib Dem Voice, as you might expect, contains may articles attacking Conservative and Labour in strong terms. These writers are not accused of being “illiberal.” It is a regular occurrence for a politician to claim that someone is unfit for office and call for a resignation. But when I call for General Dannatt’s resignation (a call which is most unlikely to be heeded), then I’m off on one of my Stalinist purges again.
Ridicule is deployed, often to devastating effect, every week at Prime Minister’s questions. But apparently I am not allowed to ridicule religious belief. And here’s the thing: there is actually some rational basis to the political views of our opponents, where there is precisely none for religion. Religion rests instead upon the cheap con-trick of “faith.” It’s the equivalent of Tony Blair saying, “trust me, I’m a reasonable guy.” Religious views, insofar as they are not grounded in reason and evidence, are not deserving of respect – only mockery.
Many of you seem to think that General Dannatt has every right to his private beliefs. But I put it to you that if he had made a speech in which he had said that he was reading the tea-leaves to determine his next move, he would already be gone by now. But Dannatt would never believe in anything so stupid as reading tea-leaves. No, he just believes that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, and then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky. A man of sound judgement, if ever there was one.
Well I’m sorry if you don’t like the way I say it, but nobody else seems to be saying anything at all. I’m not aware of any Lib Dem blog which has touched this story, though I will happily stand corrected. My tone may be offensive to some, but on this issue, the tone of Lib Dems in general is quite inaudible. Look at the noise we make about climate change; we go on and on about it. But what do we hear of the threat posed to the world by religious ideology? Not a sausage. It’s double standards all the way down the line.
From a philosophical perspective, belief in God is no different in character from belief in the tooth fairy. This cannot be stressed enough. It is a grave fallacy to suggest that we should be respecting such beliefs, just because in one case they happen to be held by millions of people. On that basis, if I can find a million racists (which wouldn’t be too difficult), then we have to respect racism too. Liberalism in no way implies that we should embrace the absurdities and contradictions of cultural or moral relativism.
We can no longer ignore the elephant in the room. We’ve tried being nice and respectful; the result was 9/11. It’s time now to step the conversation up a gear. It would be so wonderful to see Liberal Democrats leading the way on this, but I can see that we’re just going to keep banging on about climate change, even though pretty much everyone gets it now. How fitting that we should gloss over the baleful and destructive influence of religion on world affairs, in favour of discussing the weather!
Blimey, I didn’t know Basil Fawlty was a real character!!
Staying-on-the-Sofa Tory, if religion is a force for good and a thought framework for pondering deep questions, why not just use exactly the same basic Judaeo-Christian concepts, modified and evolved for modern society and shorn of the stuff that conflicts with observable phenomena? That would make sense, and in practice it’s what a lot of post-enlightenment thinking is about.
Your last para is the most revealing thing I have read in a long time on the subject of individual inclination to religiosity. Your statement is so unaffected, I really believe that you believe that people in mortal danger are inclined to get religion.
Obviously your argument is open to the charge of religion as humanity’s invented comfort blanket. But more damagingly to your assertion, I just wouldn’t respond like that. Lots of people wouldn’t. There’s nothing anyone trying to spread any divine word can do about that.
Blimey, I didn’t know Basil Fawlty was a real character!
Yes, Basil is risen! Alleluia, Alleluia!
I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you were in a position where every day you had a significant chance of returning from work in a body bag that some doubt in your position might suddenly creep in.
Well yes that’s true. I only have an average chance of returning home in a body bag on account of the outspoken attacks I have made, and will continue to make, on the vile religion of Islam.
“Many of you seem to think that General Dannatt has every right to his private beliefs. But I put it to you that if he had made a speech in which he had said that he was reading the tea-leaves to determine his next move, he would already be gone by now.”
Quite. The two are not incompatible. Please read again my post @ 10. I am agreeing with you.
You do the cause of secularism no favours @ 44 by taking such an obvious pride in your ability to wind people up. By avowing yourself as a truculent commentator you run the risk of making your arguments dismissable. If you truly want secularism to get anywhere in the party, you’re going to have to abandon the egotism and learn the gentle arts of (a) persuasion and (b) reading people’s posts properly.
Dare I say it, blaming 9/11 on “organised religion” exposes more than a casual disconnection from the real world and a worrying gap in judgement.
Alix,
I am amused you find my last paragraph revealing, although if you had pondered it a little longer you might even have reached the correct conclusion.
But first things first. Yes, of course you can take the moral framework from religion and apply it in a secular society, and of course that is what the vast majority of people do. Why you instinctively choose Judeo-Christian values rather than any other religion is interesting, of course.
The thing is, that while I am very comfortable as an atheist, I am also very aware that squaddies under fire are a far more devout bunch than you might expect if you were to meet them in the bar in the UK, and there are very good reasons for this. To lampoon the General for what he said demonstrates a singlar lack of awareness of what soldiers go through.
And here, I am afraid I cannot resist a political dig. Laurence is extremely keen to impose his moral framework on everyone else. A typical Cambridge Lib Dem, and one of the prime reasons I remain a Tory.
Alix,
If religion is a force for good and a thought framework for pondering deep questions, why not just use exactly the same basic Judaeo-Christian concepts, modified and evolved for modern society and shorn of the stuff that conflicts with observable phenomena?
Well said. This is the “religions do lots of useful charity work” argument. Well why not just do the charity work anyway?! The good actions of a religious believer can be separated into two components: the humanistic component, and the theistic component. The humanistic component is the bit they would do anyway, because they are good people. The theistic component is the bit specifically predicated upon them believing in things which are not true. It’s this latter part, that I don’t think works out at all well in the long run. And all of that is before we consider all the ghastly stuff that religion is responsible for: the misogyny, the homophobia, etc.
You do the cause of secularism no favours by taking such an obvious pride in your ability to wind people up.
Hey, just think if I were a religionist of old, I might be winding people up on a rack!
By avowing yourself as a truculent commentator you run the risk of making your arguments dismissible. If you truly want secularism to get anywhere in the party, you’re going to have to abandon the egotism and learn the gentle arts of (a) persuasion and (b) reading people’s posts properly.
Well I think this may be the first time I have specifically responded to you. But listen mate. When we’ve got creationism being taught in our City Academies 150 years after Darwin, no-one but no-one is going to tell me that I’m not “doing it right.” This one example, and there are many others, prove that in fact we weren’t “doing it right” before. The creationism thing amounts to a shocking betrayal of our children’s education, and I’m not aware that any Lib Dem MP has made an impact on this issue since Jenny Tonge challenged Tony Blair at PMQ’s, oh years ago now. By all means show me the way to do it. Nothing would please me more if your methods proved to a great success. But please don’t talk as if the Liberal Democrats have any secular policies at present worth boasting of, because we haven’t.
“Yes there are. Go to the Facebook UK Politics application and click on Statistics/Religion. It’s quite funny really.”
Oh well, that’s a fact then. Done and sorted.
Facebook? Cross section of the community?
It’s funny how those nautical rowlocks crop up in most discussions isn’t it?
I haven’t got a clue whether “most Christians” are liberal or conservative. Political views aren’t on the census so how the heck would anyone know unless there has been a specific survey on this subject.
Dare I say it, blaming 9/11 on “organised religion” exposes more than a casual disconnection from the real world and a worrying gap in judgement.
Ah, you must be one of those people who even after watching the video of suicide bombers carefully explaining and justifying their actions with reference to Koranic verses, then sticks their fingers in their ears and cries, “no, no, no, it’s got nothing to do with religion, it’s all down to socio-economic factors!” Well yes, of course there are other factors at work. But it’s religion – and specifically this doctrine of the afterlife – which takes the sting out of death, and turns it into one of the deadliest weapons know to man. It’s why we will never beat the Taliban if we were to stay there for 100 years.
No religion; no 9/11. It’s as simple as that.
It isn’t simple at all. That’s a meaningless causal relationship.
Religion is part and parcel of the human condition for some people, and always will be, cf Pascal Boyer. That doesn’t make the events related in the Bible historically true and it doesn’t mean we’re not on a cooling rock whirling pointlessly through an unknowing universe. But it does mean we can’t “get rid” of religion which is what you’re implying should happen. I have major problems with the God Delusion on this – I don’t think Dawkins has a proper answer to Boyer. We’re stuck with religion. What we have to do is stop it interacting formally with the state.
Laurence, without wishing to pry, what was this personal thing with you and religion? Can you share it in broad terms? I am sorry if it is painful – please forget I asked the question if so.
Facebook? Cross section of the community? It’s funny how those nautical rowlocks crop up in most discussions isn’t it?
Hi Paul. Feeling the heat a bit? No? Damn! But I’ve noticed that when anyone produces a statistic, you do a good trade in debunking it using the word “rowlocks.” Well, statistics provide indicators, not reliable facts, but in the case of the Facebook data, I think it’s reasonably compelling. So perhaps I should set it out for the benefit of the non-Facebook people. (What??? You’re not on Facebook??? What are you DOING???)
As I write, 5130 people have signed up for the Facebook UK Politics application – a pretty big sample, but granted not fully representative. The overall voting figures at present are:
Con 34.7%, Lab 33.0%, LD 18.6%
Now look how this changes, when we sort by religion. Inevitably, the categories are a somewhat arbitrary. (The number in brackets in the sample size.)
Atheist (343) : Con 22.8%, Lab 35.7%, LD 26.6%
Christian (209) : Con 45.2%, Lab 29.1%, LD 16.5%
Agnostic (168) : Con 36.9%, Lab 26.7%, LD 26.2%
None (111) : Con 35.9%, Lab 30.5%, LD 20.3%
Catholic (99) : Con 49.1%, Lab 30.0%, LD 10.9%
Anglican (93) : Con 59.2%, Lab 20.4%, LD 15.3%
Protestant (67) : Con 52.0%, Lab 24.0%, LD 13.3%
OK, the sample figures are not huge, but I think there is a pretty clear indicator here that Christians are more conservative than the average. But, more importantly, they show a general skewing which gives the lie to the idea that religion is a purely private affair which has no bearing upon public life. There is an obvious correlation here, and doubtless one could spend a while arguing over the causes. But please don’t say that religious beliefs are not relevant to politics when they so manifestly are. The bods at Cowley Street should be studying figures like this with interest.
It isn’t simple at all.
I know it’s not quite as simple as that.
That’s a meaningless causal relationship.
No it isn’t. You don’t fly a plane into a building unless you believe in the afterlife. This, for me, is what has placed the General’s remarks beyond the pale.
Religion is part and parcel of the human condition for some people, and always will be.
Oh sure, if we carry on “respecting” it, then it will be around for ever.
We can’t “get rid” of religion which is what you’re implying should happen.
Why so absolute? We should simply be seeking to diminish and erode the influence of religion. And in Europe, religion has indeed been in decline for about the last 100 years. Unfortunately, radical Islam is very much on the rise, and liberal religion is going to do absolutely nothing to counter this. Because the corrective to a literal reading of the Koran, is not to suggest a watered down reading of the Bible as an alternative. The corrective is to point out that all these “holy” books are misogynistic, homophobic, cruel, flagrantly immoral, historically false, the writings of some ancient nomad with a psychological disorder as Pat Condell puts it.
Laurence wrote: “You don’t fly a plane into a building unless you believe in the afterlife.”
Don’t you?
So all the people who jump off Beachy Head believe in the afterlife?
Sorry, Laurence. The afterlife is a fact based on abundant evidence. You may not like it, but the facts won’t go away just because you and your allies in the scientific and academic elites suppress them.
What the evidence shows is that someone who dies in such circumstances (violent, self-inflicted death) is likely to become earthbound and exist in limbo for decades and sometimes centuries. Not an attractive prospect.
Hiding the facts isn’t going to help your cause, Laurence. What it does is drive people into the arms of organised religion.
The way to destroy the organised one-god religions is to show people that we all survive the deaths of our bodies whether or not we grovel to priests. Once you do that, religion as we know it is finished.
You, Laurence, are the best recruiting sergeant for the priests and mullahs you effect to despise.
Angus, who the hell are you? Do you have a website or Facebook profile? I enjoy tangling with you, but sometimes I think you’re just taking the piss.
Laurence, without wishing to pry, what was this personal thing with you and religion?
It’s no secret Paul, though it’s not entirely relevant either. I was raised a Catholic. I was taught a pack of lies from the moment I could walk. All this was reinforced by the Church and Schools I went to. I believed every word of it. Now missing out a few intermediate steps. Lots of problems in my early twenties. Finally ended up psychologically damaged. (In case you hadn’t noticed!)
But there are two important points to make here. First of all, I have far more respect for my parents, who were honest Catholics, than I do for all the liberal watered-down incoherent bollocks that goes by the name of “moderate” religious belief. Secondly, the reason I was damaged, was because I really believed the lies I was fed. Now what does it say about any field of human endeavour if the most damage is done by the truest believers, whether it be my insignificant example, or 9/11? It’s not flattering for sure.
But as I say, while this may help explain why I’m blogging this stuff, it’s not wholly relevant. Because my principal argument is not that religion does damage (though I think it does). My principal argument is simply this: that the claims of religion are false. You wouldn’t believe how much follows from that simple insight.
Laurence, take a look at the links I posted further up the thread.
I bet you won’t. And that’s because you’re afraid of what you might see there.
Like Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen, you prefer to look through your telescope with your blind eye and see no ships.
What is Facebook anyway?
Facebook (facebook.com) is a social networking site where you can actually see who you are talking to, up to a point. Most of the Lib Dem bloggers have an account. And it’s totally free.
Sure I’ll take a look at those links and report back later, assuming I don’t get sucked into a vortex or something. But as others have pointed out, the truly amazing thing would be how this “proof” of the afterlife has managed to slip under the radar for so long.
I have a strong suspicion that the reason is simply because it’s all just a load of old bollocks. But, in the spirit of free inquiry, I’ll take a look.
29.
OK Angus – I have had a good look at these sites – they are reports of subjective reports/opinions in relation to claimed supernatural experiences and statements along the lines of ‘if an eminent person says X you cannot ignore it’ even if there is no other reason to believe it. There is no objective evidence presented here and nothing worthy of serious scientific thesis.
Laurence, speaking as a (Jewish) agnostic, I must say that I strongly disagree with you. What is wrong wioth a general choosing to address a confernce of evangelical Christians? To compare a major religion, with thousnds of years of intellectual histroy, with Greek mythology is positively sixth-form. One might as well compare JS Mill’s essay On Liberty with an editorial in The Sun.
How can you say that Sir Richard has views no different “qualitatively” from the 9/11 bombers. It is the content of a person’s belief that matters, not whether or not those beliefs are religious. A secular fascist has more in commomn with the 9/11 killers than Sir Richard does. By your logic, liberalism and Nazism are “qualitatively” no different from each other, as they are both political philosopies, just as the 9/11 killers’ ideology and Sir Richard’s views are both based on religious philosophies.
The rest of us see these as deeply complex spiritual and intellectual issues that have been debated by great minds for thousands of years, but you see it all as being so simple. Like the worst kind of religious fundamentalist, you appear to believe that you have a privileged insight which means that you don’t have to wrestle with the subtleties perceived by the rest of us. Your article demonstrates a peurile hostility religious believers.
Ha, you beat me to it! Here are my findings:
One of the sites seemed to specialise in “near death experiences.” This is now fairly well understood at the level of the brain. The psychologist Sue Blackmore had an NDE when she was at university doing drugs. She then spent several years investigating the paranormal, but could find no scientific basis whatsoever for the claims being made. I believe that it is now possible to generate an NDE by stimulating the relevant part of the brain. It’s all completely natural.
Another of the sites seemed to be mostly about “mediumship.” It contained a number of fuzzy black and white photos, perfectly typical of the sort of fraudulent stuff you would expect. Moving swiftly on.
The final site was about digging out memories of the “past lives” of children under hypnosis, which sounds totally unethical to me. You can convince people of just about anything under hypnosis (a fact incidentally which should give religious folk considerable pause for thought).
The bottom line Angus is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence for religion and the paranormal is invariably of the calibre which would only ever convince the gullible or highly suggestible. But if one day, the “paranormal” is finally elucidated, we’ll all know about it because people will be getting Nobel prizes. We won’t need to get the information from a dodgy website.
Lively rant chaps!
I’ve always wondered why those claiming near death experiences never seem to glimpse a warm welcome from Old Nick at the end of the tunnel. The law of averages says there should be a few.
Get some rest!
The two leadership contenders have posted their views on the nuclear deterrent on this site today. They have had less than a dozen responses apiece.
And we are arguing into the night about paranormal phenomena.
Good god (and I’m not taking the piss) I love this party.
Peter Dunphy said: “OK Angus – I have had a good look at these sites – they are reports of subjective reports/opinions in relation to claimed supernatural experiences and statements along the lines of ‘if an eminent person says X you cannot ignore it’ even if there is no other reason to believe it. There is no objective evidence presented here and nothing worthy of serious scientific thesis.”
I’m looking at my watch. The entire Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research stretch along three walls – then you come to the Journals. You’ve been through the lot? Even the websites would take you several days to study properly.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “I believe that it is now possible to generate an NDE by stimulating the relevant part of the brain.”
You believe wrongly. No-one has ever done this, and no-one ever will.
Laurence Boyce also wrote: “The psychologist Sue Blackmore had an NDE when she was at university doing drugs. She then spent several years investigating the paranormal, but could find no scientific basis whatsoever for the claims being made.”
Susan Blackmore suppressed (ie, lied about) positive results from her own experiments. She also made totally baseless allegations against her colleague, Dr Carl Sargent, having tricked her way into his office and having searched his desk while he was out at the coffee-machine. She wrote a “confidential” “report” for the Council of the Society for Psychcial Research but leaked portions of it selectively to colleagues. Blackmore denied this, but the numerous affidavits collected by the Parapsychological Association committee set up to investigate the matter proved Blackmore was lying. Can this unethical individual be trusted in any matter whatsoever?
Laurence further wrote: “The final site was about digging out memories of the “past lives” of children under hypnosis, which sounds totally unethical to me.”
You haven’t even bothered to read it, Laurence. Dr Stevenson NEVER used hypnosis. All the memories he studied were conscious memories.
“The bottom line Angus is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Quite right, Laurence. Let’s have some evidence for the materialist theory of mind, and for the absence of free will. And Hanratty’s guilt.
“But if one day, the “paranormal” is finally elucidated, we’ll all know about it because people will be getting Nobel prizes.”
Quite a few of them have won Nobel prizes. The most recent being Professor Brian Josephson, who lives up the road from you, Laurence. You might bump into him on your way to the off-licence. Ready with some snide comments about Brian, Laurence?
Some people cannot be convinced because they don’t want to know, others cannot be convinced because they already know but don’t want to acknowledge.
Andrew Duffiield wrote: “I’ve always wondered why those claiming near death experiences never seem to glimpse a warm welcome from Old Nick at the end of the tunnel. The law of averages says there should be a few.”
Negative NDEs have been reported in the literature, but they are a minority.
Interestingly, Evangelical Christians, who say all paranormal phenomena are the work of the Devil, seize on negative NDEs as proof that hell exists.
Angus, explain to me why James Randi hasn’t had to pay out his £1 million yet?
Why can none of these claims be reproduced in laboratory conditions? Ditto homeopathy.
By the way, the ‘no atheists in foxholes’ analogy is very over-used and frankly false.
Similarly, Hitler was not an atheist – but a Roman Catholic. The Vatican should also be deeply ashamed by the controversial part they played in the Holocaust. Pope Pius XII was pretty silent on Nazi atrocities, refused to excommunicate members of the SS and stood by while the jews in Rome were despatched to concentration camps.
You should look at examples of ‘strawmen’ – the argument that you should believe something because ‘clever, wise, people do’ is a misleading fallacy. In any case the numbers of clever, wise, people are pretty equal on both sides:
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC – 65 AD)
Ultimately, people with beliefs that cannot be backed up by hard-evidence deserve to have them questioned and ridiculed if they seek to make laws or decisions affecting the lives of the public(or teach such complete and utter dangerous nonsense as creationsim/intelligent design in our schools).
What they want to believe in private is up to them.
Very interesting discussion…
Laurence – you really should come and join us all over on http://www.iidb.com.
Matthew Harris,
What is wrong with a General choosing to address a conference of evangelical Christians?
In the context of fighting two wars with a deeply religious context? Oh, nothing I suppose.
To compare a major religion, with thousands of years of intellectual history, with Greek mythology is positively sixth-form.
I’m sorry but I’m just not impressed with all those thousands of years and millions of people. Whatever is true in the present, must be discoverable in the present. But the irony is that the ancient Greeks had a far healthier worldview than we do. We’ve actually been going backwards for the last 2,000 years. The Greeks placed a great emphasis on friendship and the “good life.” Their gods were capricious and fallible, and certainly didn’t give a damn about what anyone was doing in bed. Only with the advent of monotheism do we end up with this ghastly Stalinist God who is always watching us, requires total obedience, constant praise, and if we don’t get it quite right, is going to hurl us into a lake of fire for all eternity. Oh, and don’t forget that he loves you really.
How can you say that Sir Richard has views no different “qualitatively” from the 9/11 bombers?
Er . . . because they are? They both believe in an afterlife which dictates their behaviour in this life to a greater or lesser extent with potentially dangerous consequence and all without a shred of evidence.
It is the content of a person’s belief that matters, not whether or not those beliefs are religious.
Well I agree, but the “religious” tag broadly indicates that the beliefs are being arrived at through faith not reason. This is not my idea. Religions bang on about faith all the time as if it was a good thing. It’s not. It’s a terrible thing which guarantees conflict where none should exist.
A secular fascist has more in common with the 9/11 killers than Sir Richard does.
Well of course I’m opposed to all ideologies. But what on earth is a secular fascist when it’s at home? The idea that Hitler or Stalin (say) were secular is pretty strained. Hitler had some guy investigate how the Aryan race was beamed in from another planet. Stalin went along with the whole un-scientific and disastrous Lysenko fiasco. These guys were barking mad, driven by ideology, not reason.
The rest of us see these as deeply complex spiritual and intellectual issues that have been debated by great minds for thousands of years . . .
I’ll take your word for it that the minds were great. But they simply didn’t have the data they needed to fully comprehend the natural world. It was only after Darwin, that we could really begin measuring up for God’s coffin in earnest.
. . . but you see it all as being so simple.
No. But it’s not exactly rocket science either.
Like the worst kind of religious fundamentalist . . .
I’m sorry, but I’m completely immune to that one.
. . . you appear to believe that you have a privileged insight which means that you don’t have to wrestle with the subtleties perceived by the rest of us.
No, I have no privileged insight. How could I? I’m a naturalist. My insights, for what they are worth, are available to everyone. It is religion which requires the privileged standpoint of “faith.” You have to wait ages for the Holy Spirit to enter your heart, or whatever, though in fact most people get bored and just fake it instead.
Your article demonstrates a puerile hostility religious believers.
Not one person on this thread has provided one good reason why we should take the claims of religion seriously. What is puerile is to cling on to one’s delusions when every last prop has been kicked away.
Sorry, http://www.iidb.org
Seneca also beat Wilberforce to it by several thousand years:
“Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies.”
The stoics were well known for their stance on treatment of slaves.
Get some rest!
No way! I’m going right through the night on this one! It’s Karin Giannone tonight. Who are your favourite News 24 presenters? Mine is Juliet Dunlop. She’s not often on, but she’s so gentle and restful. Just watching George Bush now invoking “the almighty” again, in the “war on terror.” What a dangerous idiot he is.
Angus, explain to me why James Randi hasn’t had to pay out his £1 million yet?
Yeah, why don’t you go and scoop a cool million from Randi, Angus? So Helen, who are these internet infidels? I think I may have heard of them.
Seneca also beat Wilberforce to it by several thousand years.
And Confucius beat Jesus to the golden rule by a few hundred. In fact, did Jesus say anything that wasn’t either blindingly obvious or completely meaningless? I’m struggling . . .
who are these internet infidels? I think I may have heard of them.
It’s the discussion board for The Secular Web and is a forum for discussion of religion from a secularists viewpoint.
Members range from strong atheist to weak agnostic with a sprinkling of christians, pagans and the odd muslim who enjoy the debates.
There are some very distinguished members – Professor Per Ahlberg who delivered the Presentation Speech for the 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, most of the Natural History Museum’s Paleontology dept etc.
It’s a great place, for discussion, debates (formal and informal), study of theology and campaign organisation.
Hmm. I think I’m going to stick with these Lib Dems for now. Lib Dems are very nice, apart from me. Are you a Lib Dem?
Let’s have some evidence for the materialist theory of mind.
If you suffer a serious physical brain injury, then typically you lose a part of your “mind” too.
And for the absence of free will.
We have two choices. The world is either deterministic or random or perhaps a mixture. But in either case we have no free will. Dan Dennett has tried to rescue something from the ashes, but I’m not convinced it adds up to very much.
And Hanratty’s guilt.
All I know about Hanratty is that he was convicted on DNA evidence. Now please don’t tell me again about the time he ejaculated in his underpants.
Mohammad Atta had a masters degree in town planning.
I’m too tired to read the whole thread, but I had a meeting on community land trusts with some fundamentalist planners today. Should I be worried about MI5 calling round?
By the way, have the clocks not been changed on the server here or is BST in my profile settings somewhere?
Hmm. I think I’m going to stick with these Lib Dems for now. Lib Dems are very nice, apart from me. Are you a Lib Dem?
Very much so. One of the comments further up was made by someone who I knew from the Sec Web and I think had a hand in pointing him in the LD’s direction.
So who is the secular choice for Lib Dem leader?
Jock, the clocks are wrong on this site. Don’t worry, we’ll be on the ball when we’re running the country.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “We have two choices. The world is either deterministic or random or perhaps a mixture. But in either case we have no free will.”
If we have choices, then we have free will. For Laurence to behave as though he does have free will is having his cake and eating it.
“All I know about Hanratty is that he was convicted on DNA evidence.”
Hanratty was convicted in 1962, before DNA was discovered, I believe. And no, he didn’t ejaculate over his underpants, he ejaculated over his trousers.
“If you suffer a serious physical brain injury, then typically you lose a part of your “mind” too.”
But people have NDEs when their brains are not working at all.
Helen JB wrote: “Angus, explain to me why James Randi hasn’t had to pay out his £1 million yet?”
Randall James Hamilton Zwinge (who was once taped telling a teenage boy that he has a “9-inch willy”) doesn’t have a million dollars. His “test” is scientifically worthless (only one attempt allowed) and Zwinge gets to set all the conditions. Oh, and Zwinge told his friend, the astronomer, Denis Rawlins, that he always has an “out”. I am much more impressed by the millions Uri Geller has been paid by oil and mining companies.
“Similarly, Hitler was not an atheist – but a Roman Catholic”
There isn’t space in this thread to copy out quotations from “Hitler’s Table Talk” which prove that he had views on religion and the universe very similar to Laurence Boyce.
Oh, and before I go. Laurence quotes a half-remembered “study” from Berlin purporting to show that NDEs can be stimulated artificially in the brain. No doubt one of his CSICOP playmates told him to say this. Where is the replication?
Quotes from Seneca the Younger? The collapse of the Soviet Union has left the pseudo-intellectual fraternity with time on its hands.
I am much more impressed by the millions Uri Geller has been paid by oil and mining companies.
Hmm, yes that is pretty impressive. Did you know that Geller has proved by hypnosis that Michael Jackson is completely innocent? He’s worth his weight in gold. Literally.
Not sure what this adds to the debate but…. I went to parents’ evening for my 6 year old on Tuesday. I looked at his work books while waiting for the teacher.
There were some pictures they had coloured in relating to ‘harvest festival’. One of the pictures had a tree and a pile of cut corn. The printed caption was “God made the corn grow”.
Now maybe I misunderstood something in biology, but I thought it was photosynthesis that made the corn grow. I would prefer my son understood that first. Maybe one day he will want to know how photosysnthesis, not to mention the planet, came about. I want an enquiring mind not a closed mind.
I was surprised how worried I was about that one instance. It is not even a church-supported school. It had made me realise quite how deeply embedded religion is in society.
Given that approach from so early in life, it is a relief that so many of us still end up with open minds, and not surprising that many do not.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Hmm, yes that is pretty impressive. Did you know that Geller has proved by hypnosis that Michael Jackson is completely innocent? He’s worth his weight in gold. Literally.”
Worth his weight in oil and minerals, actually. Plus a fair bit more.
If we get back to the army, they have always exposed soldiers to the pardres. I don’t think the chief’s comments really change that at all, one way or the other.
As for Facebook, it is based on at least two very concentrated groups – the young and/or political active.
The data from Facebook is randomly divorced from church congregataions. I know that if I asked, say an average congregation at my church whether they had heard of Facebook, well in the 8am and 9.15am services about two hands would go up. In the 11am “happy clappy” service about 40 hands would go up. It really does depend on the congregration. The Anglican church was often described as the “Conservative party at prayer” but recently it has been described in places as “the Liberal Democrat party” at prayer. I really don’t know. What I do know is that the Liberal Party was very much based on non-conformist religion, particularly the Methodists. Certainly in Cornwall, there has been a huge co-relation between Methodism and Liberalism.
The fact is that in the army soldiers are allowed to go their own way. Yes they are exposed to Christianity via the pardres and services etc, but if they don’t want to go along with it they don’t have to, and for those of other faiths they are catered for.
As for Laurence, your views on faith. Great. Well done. Lovely. Brilliant. Go for it.
And?……
Of course Lawrence is right in most of what he says – I live in the US and religion is pretty damn scary over here!
What no-one seems to have mentioned though (I admit to not having read EVERY single posting, so maybe someone did) is the hypocrisy of the General – a man of war – expounding on Christianity which (on paper at least) claims to be in favour of peace!!! (Though we know what the piece of paper is worth…)
Laurence is SO right. And I rarely feel that.
All religion is just mindless superstition. As a Liberal I have absolutely no problem with people holding these ludicrous views about their imaginary friends, but I reserve the right to despise & ridicule those beliefs.
What real Liberals must object to is when the irrational rubbish spouted by Christians, Muslims & the rest – no more valid, incidentally, than the loons who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens – has official status – eg. faith schools, the established church, preferential tax arrangements etc etc.
Oh, please!
I liked the suggestion that a detailed explanation of why things grow should be given to kids in preparation for any harvest festival ceremony.
I’m just wondering how many of you would enjoy watching eight-year-olds singing hymns which attempt to rhyme the more accurate scientific terms.
The scars of growing into adulthood go very deep, obviously.
In the 11am “happy clappy” service about 40 hands would go up.
This is a PERFECT example of the sort of ROWLOCKS statistics that people say. At the happy clappy service, grown men and women are waving their hands in the air ALL THE TIME. As well as FALLING OVER, and SPEAKING IN TONGUES, and generally behaving like DEMENTED IDIOTS. It doesn’t prove ANYTHING AT ALL. (Help! I’ve been possessed by the Millennium Elephant!)
What no-one seems to have mentioned is the hypocrisy of the General – a man of war – expounding on Christianity which claims to be in favour of peace!
No, I don’t think anyone has mentioned it. Maybe it’s just too brazen a hypocrisy to be considered worthy of comment.
Laurence is SO right. And I rarely feel that.
Well you should feel it more often, is all I can say!
What real Liberals must object to is when the irrational rubbish spouted by Christians, Muslims & the rest – no more valid, incidentally, than the loons who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens – has official status – eg. faith schools, the established church, preferential tax arrangements etc.
Well yes. Obviously. So why aren’t we? Why do we never hear Liberal Democrats stating the obvious on faith schools? Why are we – the radical “anti-establishment” party – so timid about rolling back the influence and standing of religion in society? Are you listening Chris and Nick?
“This is a PERFECT example of the sort of ROWLOCKS statistics that people say. At the happy clappy service, grown men and women are waving their hands in the air ALL THE TIME. As well as FALLING OVER, and SPEAKING IN TONGUES, and generally behaving like DEMENTED IDIOTS. It doesn’t prove ANYTHING AT ALL. (Help! I’ve been possessed by the Millennium Elephant!)”
I think the number of capitals in your comment says it all, Laurence. Been a long week, has it? If you read my comment carefully you will see that I was simply using the variation in Facebook usage habits by different church congregations to illustrate that using Facebook statistics will only give you an idea of the behaviour of a very small proportion of church goers.
If you go to any average Church of England congregation you see that the cross-section is frankly – grey. And there ain’t a lot of us greysters using Facebook.
While I’ll accept that there is some hand waving in our happy clappy service, you really are living on a different planet if you think there is generally speaking in tongues and falling over in Church of England services. Maybe in the States and maybe at Holy Trinity Brompton, but not across the Church of England.
Anyway, anything else to discuss?
Colin W says: “no more valid, incidentally, than the loons who believe they’ve been abducted by aliens”
Colin W’s abusive, anti-social attitude towards people who have undergone a terrifying and sometimes psychologically harmful experience is not only profoundly illiberal, it ranks with the worst excesses of the saloon-bar pontificators who deride gays, women and people of colour.
I myself know and count as my friends several people who have undergone the alien abduction experience, and none is reasonably describable as a “loon”. As people, all rate considerably higher in my estimation than Colin W, who strikes me as a truly vile human being.
Does Colin W mock people who have lost limbs in road traffic accidents? Or have been made bankrupt through no fault of their own?
But there is one issue where Colin W and I concur (shiver down spine). The state should keep out of religion. Children should not be segregated according to the religious preferences of their parents and should not be indoctrinated with relgiious beliefs at public expense.
Similarly, children should be spared incalcation with pernicious, unscientific ideological poppycock like the materialist theory of mind, evolutionary biology, crude, dogmatic Darwinism, and mechanist determinism.
And, yes. Paul Sample’s call to bring God back into politics was at best an embarrassment.
Paul, it was a JOKE! I was pretending to be the Millennium Elephant. Oh never mind . . .
Ah I see! It’s just that I am normally not acustomed to humour from you!
There seems to be some disagreement in this thread as to the political preferences of religious people in the UK.
In the mid 1980s there was a survey that showed that a clear majority of clergymen (as opposed to their congregations) supported the SDP Liberal Alliance. This was true of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Non-Conformist clerics (yes, even among Roman Catholic priests, Alliance support was ahead of Labour).
I wonder if anyone has the details?
If we look at our own history, we see that religion has not been altogether negative.
Prior to the creation of the welfare state, the Church provided the only safety net (have you ever noticed all those old almshouses?).
Even in the Middle Ages, the one third of the land that the Church owned tended to be better managed than that controlled by secular landowners (witness the role of the abbeys in the success of the wool industry).
And in the 19th century, it was the Non-Conformist churches that got the working-class off booze and into public libraries.
Believe it or not, William Booth provided a street-by-street map of social deprivation in London – a precursor of the modern social sciences.
And as for international affairs, the Quakers were campaigning against war a good two centuries before CND was thought of.
Thinking Christians should follow the lead of the late Bishop Hugh Montefiore, dump much of the indefensible doctrine and incorporate the facts of psychical research. If Christianity is to survive, that is the route it must take.
97
Wooooooooooooooooooooooh!!
It’s just that I am normally not accustomed to humour from you!
What? I thought I had packed my article with the most hilarious jokes. Did no-one else see it that way?
Do you mean to say that there was an article at the start of this?!
I was surprised how worried I was about that one instance. It is not even a church-supported school. It had made me realise quite how deeply embedded religion is in society.
Thanks Stephen. I think you’re right to be worried. I have in front of me a book entitled “Miracles – wonders Jesus worked,” by Mary Hoffman and Jackie Morris (ISBN 0711215693). On the back it says, “Suitable for National Curriculum English – Reading, Key Stages 2 and 3; and for Religious Education, Key Stages 2 and 3.” Well let’s see how “suitable” this book really is. Here are a few quotes:
Jesus could walk on water, cure people without even meeting them, feed thousands with a few odds and ends, and control the weather.
Jesus spoke sternly to the storm, but the disciples couldn’t hear his words for the howling of the wind and the driving rain. Immediately the wind dropped, the rain stopped and the water became as calm as a mill-pond.
We may feel that there is no more need for miracles. After all, people have even walked on the moon. But no one has yet walked on water – and that’s exactly what Jesus did.
And Lazarus, who had been dead, stepped out of the cave, still wrapped in his grave clothes. Jesus had performed his greatest miracle.
And there’s plenty more of course. This pack of lies (for that is what it is: a pack of lies from beginning to end), is presented as if it were all historical fact without the slightest caveat. And this is what the government deems “suitable”??? Quite apart from the flagrant abuse of feeding this rubbish to the suggestible minds of young children, why can we not see that this undermining of reason and science is going to have a damaging effect right across the curriculum? In particular, why should we expect anyone who may have been duped like this to respect the scientific consensus on climate change? Why worry about global warming when Jesus can “control the weather”?
And then they say that there’s no indoctrination in faith schools these days. Give me a break . . .
105. The answer is simple, Laurence.
Instructing children in religious twaddle & instilling fear & guilt in their little minds is simply a form of child abuse.
If either Nick or Chris comes up with a proposal to put this on the statute book & deal with these child abusers, they’ve got my vote.
My guess is that we won’t hear a thing about faith schools. Because that would be “illiberal” and “disrespectful.”
What surprising books you keep in front of you, Laurence.
‘On the back it says, “Suitable for National Curriculum English – Reading, Key Stages 2 and 3; and for Religious Education, Key Stages 2 and 3.”’
Are those the words of the publisher or the government? If it is a set book it would be for RE lessons, yes?
“Undermining of reason and science is going to have a damaging effect right across the curriculum?”
Having a ten year old at a non-faith school (as an aside our nearest school is a Church of England school but we chose one further away that isn’t), any reference to the Bible has been kept very separately within the RE lessons where it is looked at alonsgide the full spectrum of other faiths and none, as well as moral/social subjects.
By the way, RE is a very small part of the school week. I think it’s just 30 minutes.
Looking at the Key Stage 1 National Curriculum, it does have a degree of balance:
http://www.curriculumonline.gov.uk/Subjects/RE/browse.htm?hid=3002193&navid=3050985
Science and reason is taught completely separately. For example, I think my daughter was taught initially about evolution and Darwin when she was eight years old.
If there is such a heavy degree of incalcation of Christian views, then it can’t be working very well can it?! They must be pathetic at teaching it, given the ever decreasing number of church goers in this country!
You say “going to have a damaging effect” but surely teaching of faiths, predominantly Christianity, has been going on for donkeys years and if anything, presumably, it is much less pronounced nowadays than it used to be. We used to have the full scale assembly with gospel readings etc but nowadays it seems to be an exception if there is a hymn. My daughter’s school seems be specialise in hymns which don’t mention God or anything that obnoxious. 😉
(Cough) Some of the personal comments have got rather abusive in this thread. I’ve removed the last few comments where things really went too far. A little civility does no harm. Thanks 🙂
What surprising books you keep in front of you, Laurence.
I know. I’ve got a whole stash of religious books. You’ve got to have them if you’re serious about destroying religion, though it pains me to hand over the money. I’m still waiting for my copy of “Women who deserve to go to Hell” – available from all good Islamic bookshops.
Are those the words of the publisher or the government?
I don’t know. I just know that the book is “suitable” only for the bonfire.
Looking at the Key Stage 1 National Curriculum, it does have a degree of balance.
Really? I looked under Islam, and there’s absolutely nothing there at all about jihad – a key tenet of the Muslim faith. It looks like their only teaching the “nice bits.” Also it’s troubling to see the BBC involved again. Yet another example of the BBC not having a clue what its purpose is meant to be.
Science and reason is taught completely separately.
That won’t do. Anyone who succeeds in walking on water is heading straight for the Nobel prize in physics. The Gospel stories are scientific theories of potentially enormous interest. Or at least they would be if they hadn’t all been made up.
For example, I think my daughter was taught initially about evolution and Darwin when she was eight years old.
Well that’s a bit silly; she won’t get it at that age. Give her a copy of “River Out of Eden” by Richard Dawkins when she’s around fifteen.
If there is such a heavy degree of inculcation of Christian views, then it can’t be working very well can it?! They must be pathetic at teaching it, given the ever decreasing number of church goers in this country!
Oh yes, there’s no doubt that you’re losing the argument. I just want to hurry things on a little.
. . . any reference to the Bible has been kept very separately within the RE lessons where it is looked at alongside the full spectrum of other faiths and none, as well as moral/social subjects. By the way, RE is a very small part of the school week. I think it’s just 30 minutes.
Now you see you’re doing it again. “Don’t worry, there’s no indoctrination going on. It’s only 30 minutes, and it’s all very watered down. Nobody will believe any of it!” So . . . what is the point then? Do you possess the key to eternal life or not? If you do, then I would want every school to be a Christian school. It’s a bit like saying, “Give me your daughter, let me take all her clothes off, and get into bed with her. But don’t worry, we’re not going to have sex!”
Let me ask you some simple questions:
– Do you believe that Jesus walked on water?
– Do you believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse?
– Do you think that your answers bear more relation to reality, or to the culture into which you were born?
Laurence and Angus. Two Huhne supporters discuss the existence or otherwise of God.
And all the time the great man himself looks down from above and his displeasure is plain to see …
… “how is all this gonna help me win the leadership contest?” 😉
Well to be honest, I’m a bit if disappointed with both God and Chris. His manifesto started off with the very promising line, “The task for Liberal Democrats is to revive our anti-establishment edge, and remember that we are the party that wants to change the system.” And then what? Not a sausage about religion, secularism, the monarchy – in fact if there was anything “anti-establishment” in there at all, I’d be grateful to have it pointed out.
“Are those the words of the publisher or the government?
I don’t know.”
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out before saying “this is what the government deems “suitable” ” albeit with question marks?
“Now you see you’re doing it again. “Don’t worry, there’s no indoctrination going on. It’s only 30 minutes, and it’s all very watered down. Nobody will believe any of it!” So . . . what is the point then? Do you possess the key to eternal life or not?”
Not with sufficient certainty to foist my ideas on any one else who doesn’t specifically ask for my advice, no.
“Let me ask you some simple questions:
– Do you believe that Jesus walked on water?”
I really don’t know.
“- Do you believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse?”
Haven’t got a clue. Did he?
“- Do you think that your answers bear more relation to reality, or to the culture into which you were born?”
Haven’t got a clue.
Let me make it easier for you Laurence. I am quite happy to have a reduced element of Christian teaching schools, I am not in favour of faith schools with any degree of exclusivity and I would like to see the Church of England disestablished.
Does that help – at least save on a about seven statements and questions?
“” Do you believe that Jesus walked on water?”
I really don’t know.”
Let me make it easier for you with that one also. I am not a priest or in any degree someone who sets out to prosyletise, least of all on the internet.
I really haven’t got a clue about much if not all that is in the Bible. But I do read it and try to move forward with it.
I agree with you. Dannatt is weird and I am very very wary about anyone in that going on about their faith. I think he should keep it quietly to himself, perhaps just quietly acknowledging it, until he retires.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to find out before saying “this is what the government deems suitable” albeit with question marks?
Well, I guess what I meant was that if the government were doing its job, then these sorts of books would come with a health warning, not an endorsement of sorts, whoever may be technically responsible for it. I would suggest something entirely neutral and factual. Something like this: “Many people would say that the stories contained in this book could not possibly be true.” Then that way we’d be covered for use in both school and church. But how the Christians would squeal if my idea ever came to pass!
Do you believe that Jesus walked on water? – I really don’t know.
OK Paul, time for some friendly advice. If you don’t really believe in any of it, then GIVE UP!
“Well, I guess what I meant was that if the government were doing its job, then these sorts of books would come with a health warning, not an endorsement of sorts, whoever may be technically responsible for it.”
But I don’t think this book is used in schools – certainly not non faith schools such as the one my daughter goes to. I would be quite happy for books to have a “health warning” on them but where would you stop? Would you put a health warning on, for example, Michael Moore’s “Farenheit 9-11” much of which is polemical but entertaining claptrap? Would you put a health warning on Jeffrey Archer’s auto-biographical works? The list of candidates for health warnings is endless.
“OK Paul, time for some friendly advice. If you don’t really believe in any of it, then GIVE UP!”
All right I will. You’ve convinced me. 😉
Sorry that was me in 112.
In the words of that great philosopher, the late Ron Purse, “When you’re dead, you’re dead”.
But I don’t think this book is used in schools.
Wherever it is used, it is used fraudulently.
Would you put a health warning on, for example, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11?
Well Fahrenheit 9/11 already has a 15 certificate. That’s the other way of doing it.
Would you put a health warning on Jeffrey Archer’s auto-biographical works?
Yes why not? “This author is an incurable egotist.” Hey, can I have this job when we’re in power? 🙂
Anyway, my copy of “Women who deserve to go to Hell” by Mansoor Abul Hakim, has finally arrived. This would make a great Christmas present for wives or girlfriends. Here’s how it begins:
We have no intention to accuse women when we say that they will be in a majority in Hell. These are not our words, but the words of Allah’s Messenger. He had seen Hell with his eyes, and had observed that mostly women were fuel of the fire of Hell. He was asked, “O Messenger of Allah, why were more women than men observed in Hell?” He said, “It is that you curse people often, and you are ungrateful to your husbands. Though he may be kind to you always, yet if he happens to be unkind once, you tell him that you have never observed good in him.”
It’s not hard to see why this sort of thing might appeal to men whose only achievement in life (in the words of Pat Condell) was to be born with a penis in one hand and a Koran in the other. Warning: this book is revolting.
“Yes why not? “This author is an incurable egotist.” Hey, can I have this job when we’re in power?”
Of course Laurence and you can also be in charge of stoking up the bonfire of all those books in your little collection.
Hey, thanks Paul. I can’t wait!
“Hey, can I have this job when we’re in power?”
Nobody is having this job when we’re in power!
Laurence Boyce asked: “Did Jesus walk on water?”
Well, for my own part, the answer has to be: “I haven’t a clue. I wasn’t there. There is no surviving contemporaneous record. So how can I possibly know?”
Believe it or not, I was told at Sunday school that the water in the Dead Sea is peculiarly bouyant, making it easy for people to float.
Then you have the problem of translation. Remember, none of this was written in English. Some languages give the verb “to walk” extended meanings. Take Basque, for example. When I say , I could mean “I walked in the mountains”, “I travelled across the mountains” or “I lived in the mountains”.
For one-God religionists, the whole point of miracles of the kind attributed to Jesus is that they prove a person’s divinity because they are things only God can do.
Now, I disagree fundamentally with that. Psychic abilities are natural and normal abilities inherent in some form in all or most biological organisms. The fact that you can do something which science cannot or refuses to explain, that doesn’t make you God.
Is Uri Geller God? Not even Uri would go that far!! Great guy though he is.
If Laurence or one of his chums ever found someone who actually could walk on water, they would do everything in their power to cover it up.
“Even if it were true, I would not be interested” – T H Huxley.
Sorry. I am 120.
Sorry. The system has removed the (Basque) words “bortuetan nebilen” because I placed the wrong symbols either side of them.
Something useful LB could do is teach us how to format text.
Believe it or not, I was told at Sunday school that the water in the Dead Sea is peculiarly buoyant, making it easy for people to float.
Oh I believe it! If I had a pound for every story I’ve heard like that. Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho because his trumpets hit the resonant frequency of the masonry. The people of Israel managed to crossed the Red Sea because it was in fact the “reed sea,” i.e. a marshy swamp. The feeding of the five thousand showed how successful a pot-luck picnic can be if everyone is prepared to freely share around. Jesus didn’t die, but went into a deep coma on the cross which lasted for three days. And besides, “three days” really just means “in a jiffy” in the original Greek. Gaaa!!! I can’t take any more!!!
If Laurence or one of his chums ever found someone who actually could walk on water, they would do everything in their power to cover it up.
Completely untrue. Being able to walk on water would have to entail negating the force of gravity. This would be the scientific breakthrough of the century, leading potentially to extremely cheap forms of long distance travel. I wouldn’t be able to cover it up even if I wanted to, and I don’t. But here’s the difference: it would be something tangible and repeatable, with real implications and benefits; not merely some stupid old story which has about as much chance of being true as . . . well, something which is totally untrue.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “I wouldn’t be able to cover it up even if I wanted to, and I don’t.”
Well, the mediaeval church managed to cover up heliocentricity for several centuries. And corporate science has covered up the facts of psychical research for over 100 years with some success. Now, if a source of extremely cheap energy really did exist, I am sure some very powerful people indeed would want to keep it hidden, not least the oil industry!!
(Quite how someone being able to walk on water leads to extremely cheap energy eludes me. Yet another of Laurence’s transparently specious arguments.)
Opinion research shows us that a majority of rank-and-file scientists acknowledge the reality of the paranormal or at least are open-minded about it. It is the people at the top who are the problem. The people who have used the old boy network to get where they are and ruthlessly enforce the prevailing ideology.
For them, the materialist theory of mind is the glue that holds them together as a community, that gives them their feeling of specialness and superiority over the ignorant masses.
There are many scientists who would love to come out, and research the paranormal, but they cannot do so for fear of blighting their careers.
Laurence knows this perfectly well. Don’t be fooled by his grandstanding.
Interesting post Laurence, and I agree with almost everything you say. I don’t suppose you need my endorsement, but keep it up anyway.
Who are these rank-and-file scientists who believe this nonsense Angus Huck talks about?
Not the kind of scientists worthy of the name, methinks
It is precisely because bigoted obscurantist thugs like Martin J Ball control the academic and scientific professions in this country that rank-and-file scientists are afraid to speak out.
Look at his second sentence and note it with care. Scientists who acknowledge the reality of the paranormal are not “worthy of the name”. This is exactly the attitude the mediaeval church took to priests and monks who committed heresy. Martin J Ball is exhibiting the very same mentality.
True scientists follow the evidence.
Sadly, if you want to have a career as a scientist you have to allow yourself to be whipped into line by ideological commissars like Martin J Ball.
126. I’m a biochemist & I’ve never met any other scientist who believed in the ‘paranormal’.
Science is based on EVIDENCE, not belief.
It’s not a matter of faith or ideology & is always open to evidence-based challenge.
Mr Colin W is in desperate need of a bit of education.
Here is a scientist who acknowledges the reality of the paranormal:
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?action=view&id=16&module=newsmodule&src=%40random46a20362c7bfb
I could name thousands of others (many of whom I have met), but time and space do not allow.
Science is based on evidence. Absolutely. I cannot agree more. And that includes the vast body of evidence for the reality of the parnormal.
Are you unaware of this, Mr Colin W?
I thought, at first, that LB knew perfectly well that the paranormal is real, but the level of his ignorance in this thread (he thinks Ian Stevenson hypnotised children) suggests he simply doesn’t know.
Are you in the same category, Colin W?
For if you are, it shows just how successful Dawkins, Wolpert, Humphrey, et al, have been in keeping the truth under wraps.
Here is a scientist who acknowledges the reality of the paranormal:
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?action=view&id=16&module=newsmodule&src=%40random46a20362c7bfb
Along with many others, including scores I myself have met.
“Science is based on evidence.” Quite right, Mr Colin W. And that includes the vast body of evidence for the paranormal.
Well, the mediaeval church managed to cover up heliocentricity for several centuries.
I like to think that we’ve moved on a bit since then.
And corporate science has covered up the facts of psychical research for over 100 years with some success.
Utter rubbish.
Quite how someone being able to walk on water leads to extremely cheap energy eludes me.
Well this is getting a bit silly, but my reasoning is simply that I take walking on water to be equivalent to the problem of negating the force of gravity, (if one excludes all the arguments along the lines that Jesus was wearing platform shoes made of cork.) And if gravity could be negated easily, then we could have cheap zero friction monorail transport systems, or whatever. But it’s all very hypothetical, because I’m fairly sure that the only way to negate the gravitational pull of the Earth, would be to have another planet of the same mass as the Earth hovering just above your head. And I don’t think Saint Mark mentioned that.
Here are a few more:-
http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=35
Interesting post Laurence, and I agree with almost everything you say. I don’t suppose you need my endorsement, but keep it up anyway.
Thanks Martin, I really appreciate it. Please join Facebook and come on board. We can do this together!
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Utter rubbish.”
Brilliant answer. Quite irrefutable. As a super silk he would make millions. Demolish any argument with two words: “utter rubbish”.
Except “utter rubbish” was more or less what Lewis Wolpert said when he participated in a debate with Rupert Sheldrake at the Royal Society of Arts. Sheldrake reduced Wolpert to a pitiful pulp, so maybe “utter rubbish” is not as good an answer as it looks.
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/telepathy_debate.html
As Laurence is ill-informed enough to think Ian Stevenson hypnotised children, I wonder how competent he is to guage the success of corporate sicence in suppressing the truth about the paranormal.
As Laurence is ill-informed enough to think Ian Stevenson hypnotised children . . .
I’m sorry, I just saw the word hypnosis and jumped to a conclusion. Bear in mind that I had already waded through two bollocks websites by then . . . 🙂
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Bear in mind that I had already waded through two bollocks websites by then . . .”
Just a moment. I thought you were a Chris Huhne supporter? Isn’t Chris the one with the barrabilak?
Psychic abilities are natural and normal abilities inherent in some form in all or most biological organisms.
I’d just like to pick out this sentence from something you said earlier Angus, because it is an occasion where we come perilously close to agreeing with each other. I’m very sceptical about all this psychic business, as you know, but if you are saying that psychic abilities are a purely natural phenomenon, then I’m with you all the way. Because I think that everything is a natural phenomenon. Once such phenomena have been elucidated, they go from being paranormal to just plain normal.
And this is my point: that it is the language employed which is more than a little misleading in my view. Paranormal, supernatural, miraculous, dualistic – all these words imply two distinct domains, one governed by science, and the other “beyond” science. But this just won’t do. If a clear causal link exists between the two domains then, in effect, they become one. Conversely, if the two domains are completely decoupled, then there is really no point even contemplating the “other side.”
Logically, there can be only one coherent domain of existence. You can call it whatever you like. I just call it “reality.” If the word “paranormal” means “stuff we don’t yet understand,” then I don’t have any problem with that, but I don’t think that is what all the mystics mean when they use that word. The paranormal has to be tamed by the scientific method otherwise it simply isn’t useful. And worse than not being useful, it is then virtually guaranteed to become a vehicle for abuse, just like religion.
The only miracle worthy of the name, would be if all paranormal claims ever made turned out to be true, because it’s just far too easy to find someone who is willing to fake it for the sake of some transient notoriety.
I think it is inappropriate for a serving general to express his religious views publicly. He should concentrate on those opinions that he can expect to share with almost everybody under his command.
However, neither do I think it is appropriate for articulate liberals to display their opposition to the views of many of those that they would like to attract as members and voters.
Is opposition to the supernatural liberal democrat policy? I don’t think so. Mr Boyce should keep his eye on the political ball. There are many liberal issues upon which he can find common cause with theists and those believers in other supernatural ideas.
[Dannatt] should concentrate on those opinions that he can expect to share with almost everybody under his command.
But to give him his due, he’s very welcoming to soldiers of other faiths. Like when he said, “If [Muslims] are prepared to take the Queen’s shilling, they will go wherever the mission requires them to go.”
However, neither do I think it is appropriate for articulate liberals to display their opposition to the views of many of those that they would like to attract as members and voters.
I totally agree. It dismays me to see the party making frequent attacks on racism, when there are so many racists in our society.
Is opposition to the supernatural liberal democrat policy?
Yes. Implicitly, every political party is opposed to the supernatural. That is why you never hear anyone get up in the House of Commons and say, “It has been revealed to me from on high that we should nuke Iran.” Politics is strictly about the governance of this world, not the next. We are no longer a Christian nation. We are a secular nation, and it is time to reflect this explicitly in our constitutional arrangements.
Another day, another victim.
Your point Lawrence?
People refuse medical treatment every day for all sorts of reasons and it is pretty much page one of a medical ethics text book that treatment is only with consent (the caselaw being mainly concerned with capacity)
What you’re outlining is a very steep slope with SS guards standing at the school gates ready to cut the hair of Orthox Jewish boys at the bottom.
Your point Lawrence?
Hywel, I don’t misspell your name, so suppose you don’t misspell mine?
It is pretty much page one of a medical ethics text book that treatment is only with consent.
Hey, that’s good. Because without that principle, we might think that we had every right to saw off part of the genitals of a new born baby who is quite incapable of providing informed consent. No, hang on. We do allow that. We allow that for religious reasons. It looks like you can get away with just about anything if you play the religion card.
. . . the case law being mainly concerned with capacity.
Not so. Once Emma Gough slipped out of consciousness, her relatives had the right to overrule her wishes. But no. Having carefully consulted their copy of Thomas the Tank Engine, they decided against saving her life.
What you’re outlining is a very steep slope with SS guards standing at the school gates ready to cut the hair of Orthodox Jewish boys at the bottom.
Oh please can we have an end to Nazi analogies which are about as relevant to this situation as the Bible itself. What you’re advocating is a slippery slope towards allowing a beautiful young lady who should be enjoying the happiest time of her life to bleed to death in full view of her friends and family.
Except that it’s not a slippery slope. It’s just happened.
Laurence,
Have I missed something? Is Dannatt a Jehovah’s Witness?
No, we’ve changed tack. But then again, I suppose he does witness to “Jehovah.”
No, Lawrence is talking about a young mother who bled to death because she and her family were told, and therefore believed, that God prefers death over blood transfusions.
The next time I have JWs at the door I am going to give them such a piece of my mind over this. It is difficult to see how their evangelising is morally any better than persuading people to play Russian roulette.
Yes, maybe the state is the wrong agency to deal with these murderers. But where is the condemnation from our guardians of right and wrong? The doctrine of refusing transfusions is an unmitigated moral evil. Why aren’t all the other churches shouting this out, demanding a change of policy from the JWs, leafleting and picketing? Why is it only atheist organisations like the NSS and BHA that seem to be bothered at all that this young mother has been tricked into killing herself?
From what little I know of the case, the young woman in question was conscious and refused to accept a blood transfusion. If the doctors had administered a transfusion regardless, they would have committed an offence contrary to section 18, Offences Against the Person Act 1862 and could have got themselves criminal records.
Had the woman been unconscious, then the doctors would have been under a duty to administer a transfusion even if they knew she was a JW (it cannot be assumed that a JW will refuse a transfusion).
If the woman had been a minor, then she would not be deemed to have the capacity to consent, so the doctors would have been under a duty to administer the transfusion against her wishes and those of her parents or legal guardian.
If a JW wants to bleed him/herself to death, then that is his/her affair. One nuisance doorstep natterer less, the cynic might say.
If a JW allows his/her beliefs to lead him/her to let his/her children die, then that is murder in English law (being a JW is not a recognised defense). Generally, the doctors will administer the transfusion and find a “pyjama judge” to make the child a ward of court.
Because JWs are mainly white Europeans, there are few who will defend their practices (Christians I have met have a very low opinion of them). It would be different if they were mainly people of colour (or owned a lot of oil), because everyone from George Galloway to Dr Jesse Dickson Mabon would tell us we have no basis for holding that our way is better than theirs. Which is racist, when one comes to think of it, because people of colour are condemned to a perpetuity of subjection.
When Moses (was it?) prohibited the drinking of blood, what he meant was blood from living cattle, who might carry infection. JWs are so idiotic they don’t see this.
See what David Icke has to say about them. Not nice reading.
http://www.davidicke.com
For once I agree with Ally Campbell, when he said ‘We don’t do God.’
146. Couldn’t find anything on JWs on the David Icke site…?
Is Angus now a believer in Ickeism – or against it???
“Not so. Once Emma Gough slipped out of consciousness, her relatives had the right to overrule her wishes”
This is rubbish. A competent patient has the right to refuse treatment irrespective of the consequences. If those wishes are clearly expressed then that consent of relatives is irrelevant.
It’s not totally clear cut – but it’s about as near as you get with any medical law/ethical issue.
The caselaw on treatment without without consent all revolves around the capacity of patient.
If a JW wants to bleed him/herself to death, then that is his/her affair. One nuisance doorstep natterer less, the cynic might say.
Or two kids without a mother, is the other way of looking at it.
When Moses (was it?) prohibited the drinking of blood, what he meant was blood from living cattle, who might carry infection. JWs are so idiotic they don’t see this.
What is idiotic is to be reading the Bible at all for moral guidance.
See what David Icke has to say about them.
Do I have to?
For once I agree with Ally Campbell, when he said “We don’t do God.”
Yes, I often used to wonder what on earth Campbell made of the whole Blair/Bush/God freak show.
This is rubbish. A competent patient has the right to refuse treatment irrespective of the consequences. If those wishes are clearly expressed then that consent of relatives is irrelevant.
Well I was just going by the report which says: “Medics begged husband Anthony, 24, and other members of Emma’s family to overrule her after she suffered severe blood loss and began slipping away.” Admittedly, this was the Sun.
The case law on treatment without consent all revolves around the capacity of patient.
Well then maybe it’s time we acknowledged that Britain’s 120,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses (plus a few others) are so deranged by their beliefs that they are not “capable” of making any rational decision.
Meirion Gwril says: “Is Angus now a believer in Ickeism – or against it???”
Meirion Gwril seems to believe that anyone who points to information on David Icke’s website must be a supporter of David Icke.
In much the same way that patrons of saloon bars used to assume that anyone who spoke up for gays was gay himself.
Give David Icke a sensible message and he is one of the best advocates there is.
Now, just who has been feeding David all this misinformation about climate change? There’s a question!
Now, just who has been feeding David all this misinformation about climate change? There’s a question!
One of those pesky shape-shifting reptilians, I should imagine.
Laurence Boyce wrote: “Well then maybe it’s time we acknowledged that Britain’s 120,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses (plus a few others) are so deranged by their beliefs that they are not “capable” of making any rational decision.”
No. The day we do that we cross a very dangerous line.
On the other side is tyrrany. The world of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ahmadinedjad, Torquemada. The world in which my great great great grandfather, Thomas Huck, had to obtain a licence from the state to hold a Quaker meeting in his own farmhouse.
As a libertarian, I uphold the right of people with capacity to believe what they like, say (more or less) what they like, and do what they like to their own bodies (be it injecting themselves with narcotics or refusing life-saving treatment).
Imagine how Thomas Huck, a freehold hill farmer, felt about having to grovel to some aristocratic clown of a magistrate just so he could practice his religion of choice? Let us be imbued with his spirit.
Joe,
The next time I have JWs at the door I am going to give them such a piece of my mind over this.
Me too. Except they never come round any more because I always make sure they regret knocking on my door.
The doctrine of refusing transfusions is an unmitigated moral evil.
Is it too much too ask that just one of our leading politicians might come out and say this?
Why aren’t all the other churches shouting this out, demanding a change of policy from the JWs, leafleting and picketing?
It’s because all religions are effectively operating in the most cynical unholy alliance with each other. Attack the irrationality of one, and you attack them all. No, we won’t hear a squeak out of Rowan Williams et al.
Why is it only atheist organisations like the NSS and BHA that seem to be bothered at all that this young mother has been tricked into killing herself?
Well I keep trying to tell you all that there’s a terrific opportunity here for Liberal Democrats! I fully support the NSS, but ultimately change has to come through the political process.
“What is idiotic is to be reading the Bible at all for moral guidance.”
I’m about as secular as they come but to suggest that it is idiotic to take moral guidance from say the parable of the good Samaritan (Thatcher excepted 🙂 or”Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” or “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” or “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”
Though, if people start suggesting taking moral guidance from 2 Kings 2.23-24 I think they are really missing the point.
The day we do that, we cross a very dangerous line. On the other side is tyranny. The world of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ahmadinejad, Torquemada.
But religion is tyranny. A tyranny of the mind, and often a great deal more. And Torquemada was a religious thing too. And what do you mean “the world of Ahmadinejad”? He’s not dead, is he? We’ve got Ahmadinejad, whose crazy religious worldview could yet see him fire off a nuke in the direction of Israel. We crossed a dangerous line ages ago, when we lacked the courage to stand up to the manifest lies of religion. And the consequences have been catastrophic, both for the world and for individuals. The Middle East is in meltdown, and in our supposedly civilised nation, a young lady has been allowed to bleed to death in a fully-equipped modern hospital. Ought we not to concern ourselves first and foremost with the problems that we actually have, not the ones that we may or may not encounter one day, always assuming that we actually survive the Armageddon so longed for by the religious psychopaths.
As a libertarian, I uphold the right of people with capacity to believe what they like, say (more or less) what they like, and do what they like to their own bodies (be it injecting themselves with narcotics or refusing life-saving treatment).
Too simplistic by far, Angus. What choice do you really have when, already weakened through pregnancy or injury, the ghastly Jehovah’s Witness “hospital liaison committee” turns up like a pack of vultures and demands that you essentially sign your own death warrant or risk excommunication? We need arguments that cut it in the real world, not libertarian fantasy land.
Laurence, what do you propose to do to stop JWs bleeding themselves to death? Or stop them encouraging others to share their beleifs (which seems to be what you are hinting at)?
Lock them up in a looney bin and dope them with Largactyl?
And only release them when they can prove they are devout atheists and materialists?
And where would you stop? Lock people up because they believe in transubstantiation? Or because they won’t push prams on Saturdays unless they are surrounded by fishing-line?
Sounds a bit like the Soviet Union.
So, to turn your rhetoric round, Laurence, what choice do you really have when the state sticks you in the nearest funny farm when you hold opinions it doesn’t like?
Hospitals do actually have the power to remove nuisance people from wards. And it is a crime to incite people to commit suicide. So therein lies the solution to that particular difficulty.
(Remember Yolande McShane, the former Merseyside Organiser of the BUF and National Front Member, who encouraged her mother to commit suicide because she needed her money? She went to jail, which is where JWs go – or should go – if they try to stop someone in hospital accepting a blood transfusion.)
So I’ll stick to being a libertarian, thank you very much.
151
Believe or not Angus Huck, I really wanted to know as it wasn’t clear from your message, whether you were an Ickean or not! Don’t rush to judgment!! Also I couldn’t find anything on his site on JWs – even used the search engine.
151
Believe or not Angus Huck, I really wanted to know as it wasn’t clear from your message, whether you were an Ickean or not! Don’t rush to judgment!! Also I couldn’t find anything on his site on JWs – even used the search engine.
Laurence, what do you propose to do to stop JWs bleeding themselves to death?
A blood transfusion is just routine medical procedure in the event of unforeseen complications. It is utterly unacceptable that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be allowed to hobble doctors by asking them to do everything possible to save their lives, except for X,Y, and Z. Can I sign a form to say that the surgeon about to remove my appendix should be required to wear roller skates and keep one hand behind his back at all times? Because that’s what this amounts to. People who want to commit suicide can do so in the privacy of their own homes, not in a situation which brings trauma to dedicated doctors and nurses.
Or stop them encouraging others to share their beliefs (which seems to be what you are hinting at)?
Fundamentally, all I’m really advocating is conversation. Hard hitting, pull no punches conversation, always staying within the law. But it has to be all of us in concert. It’s no good if it’s just me.
So, to turn your rhetoric round, Laurence, what choice do you really have when the state sticks you in the nearest funny farm when you hold opinions it doesn’t like?
And because I deploy strong language, people will resort to this caricature. But if we take religion out of this particular case, are we not left with something which bears a close resemblance to corporate manslaughter? Suppose an employer puts undue pressure upon an employee to cut corners with safety procedures, which then leads to a death. Isn’t that essentially what has happened here?
So I’ll stick to being a libertarian, thank you very much.
Fine, I’m not going to lock you up! But it’s an incoherent philosophy to say the very least.
I’m about as secular as they come . . .
I bet you’re not as secular as me, Hywel. 🙂
. . . but to suggest that it is idiotic to take moral guidance from say the parable of the good Samaritan . . .
Well this parable is really about religious hypocrisy. So I guess I’m in agreement with Jesus on this occasion. It should have been the parable of the good atheist really.
. . . or “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” . . .
That has all the hallmarks of a straight lie.
. . . or “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” . . .
Does this include lefty peaceniks? If they are the children of God, then I don’t think much of his parenting skills.
. . . or “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you . . .
Now that is really bad advice. It’s certainly not a good idea to burn up excessive energy on your enemies. But love them? Endeavour to sidestep your enemies, would surely be wiser counsel.
. . . and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
Prayer doesn’t work. It’s official.
Though, if people start suggesting taking moral guidance from 2 Kings 2:23-24, I think they are really missing the point.
OK, if Paul Walter reappears on this thread, then we all say: “Go on up, you baldhead!”
This seems as appropriate a place as any to mention Genesis Chapter 1 verse 28. Jehovah’s Witnesses are so far off the original Dannatt subject that you really ought to start a new article and comments section on it.
162 – that was me.
Go on up, you baldhead! (whatever that means) I could write an article about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but Stephen was reluctant to publish this one in the first place, so I can’t really give him another God article so soon. Then again, it’s been such a roaring success, that maybe he will see things in a new light.
Who would you have leading our Armed Forces;someone who believes ,as i do, that our consciousness continues even though the physical side of us has died,or some Atheist who thinks that the Universe evolved from nothing…..now that really is a bizarre idea!!
Thank you Laurence Boyce for writing this thought provoking piece. Perhaps you would like to write another on yesterdays Dispatches programme concerning the British fundamentalist Christian movement and their increasing influence in our Parliament; their intolerant views regarding Islam and all other religions; their illogical blind faith in a belief system that has it’s roots firmly planted in the mythology of the late iron age; their refusal to accept modern scientific findings such as the fact that the earth is more than 4000 years old and dinosaurs did indeed exist; their failure to recognise the need for unrestricted human stem-cell research governed only by medical ethics. Please write another article but remember, first cause no harm.
As for General Sir Richard Dannatt, I sincerely hope he is not a closet fundamentalist fighting a personal holy war against the Islamic nonbelievers. If he is a fundamentalist and his ability to make rational decisions is as clouded as the rest of them, then he shouldn’t be permitted to play with sharp knives let alone guns and depleted uranium ammunition. Perhaps he shouldnt be permitted to vote on grounds of insanity!
George Angus Parker – LibDem and Veteran of the 1991 Gulf War to Liberate Kuwait
Ok I am a libdem any one whoknows me will say that without hesitation unless your a Torie.
To suggest that religion should play a part in politics is absolutely silly.
Religion is not the answer to the worlds problems. Maybe thats why Tony Blair eventually got outed by the Labour Party.
Infact politics should be made to give another belife an even stronger belife than the one religious folks have in god. The belife in ones owns achivements and acomplishments and the belife to succeed.Religion dose not do that. Religion says lets belive in a god. Why because a book tells you to.
There is a reason why speaches like this ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583846/Tony-Blair-reveals-why-he-refused-to-'do-God‘.html)
get you outed by a political party’s backbenchers.
Maybe we should address actual needs for a change Housing Food Education Transport Employment Social Care the list goes on.
Religion is and has been one of the biggest starters of war. Or more to the point those that get into power with that belife.
Thanks George and James. I did indeed see the Dispatches programme which everyone should watch. I may write an article about the HFEB debate which would probably touch on this. Thanks for your support. I think people are starting to wake up a bit!
Oh please, let’s not start this again!
Not all religious believers are fundamentalists, so let’s please show some discretion.
I see religion as an abstract conceptualisation, while both it and the anti-religious search for truth are driven by the failure of alternative explanations to match our experience.
Truth? Well that’s an infinitely debatable proposition.
I see religion as an abstract conceptualisation.
I see religion as a vain and foolish delusion which might be tolerable were it not imposing such a terrible burden of division and violence upon the world.
Laurence, you are continually guilty of using the same intemperate language you accuse you opponents of and your actions have the same results as theirs.
I would find it easier to accept the substance of your words if you adapted your method.
Going around insulting potential allies is a certain way of turning them against you; your glee is misplaced.
HI Mary. I see above you point out as libdems we are in favour of freedom of religion.
You no as libdems we stand for freedom of speach freedom of thought and freedom to express ourselves.
The verry substance of our words are what we are out to defend.
Religion dose not do that. It imposes itself on us and society. We shall have the right to speak because we say we do.
Oranjepan, what I do, is that I say what I think. What I have just said is not in the least bit intemperate, because it happens to be what I think when I am at my most sober. Many people have told me not to say what I think, but instead I am going to follow the advice of Dawn Primarolo from yesterday’s deliberations in the Commons:
I believe that the debate would be improved if all honourable members were direct and open about their views on the subject. The honourable member for Strangford should be given for credit for being one of the few who is brutally honest about her views and expresses them in the chamber. I hope that other honourable members will do that instead of trying to conceal their arguments.
Wise words indeed.
Not all religious believers are fundamentalists, so let’s please show some discretion. An interesting but sadly misguided hypothesis perhaps we should debate the meaning of the term fundamentalist. They may not all be fundamentalists (current working definition) but they do share a common trait, belief for no good reason – faith. As I understand it, faith is belief in an idea that is unsupported, or contradicted, by evidence. Failure to alter ones views despite evidence to the contrary, is not a trait I find acceptable in those who hold positions of authority.
It is always best to keep an open mind to accommodate new discoveries and evidence. For me it is the basis of liberalism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But to those of us who value rational thought, an unsupported hypothesis cannot carry much weight. Faith and therefor religious belief is simply irrational.
I see religion as an abstract conceptualisation, while both it and the anti-religious search for truth are driven by the failure of alternative explanations to match our experience. Those of us who could be called anti-religious base our opinion on observed behaviour and the views of others who make no secret of their faith. As for the meaning of the word truth, we could be here until our sun turns supernova and still not reach an accepted definition.
I stand by my previous posting but wish to add that I distrust anyone who behaves or thinks irrationally. There was a time when I was willing to fight to protect the rights of people to hold religious beliefs but recent events have given me good reason to reassess my position.
OK I guess I’m guilty of starting this again, but I guess it’s better than the football.
@171 – that’s a particularly generalised view of religions. On balance throughout the history of all religions I’d say that there has been an equal emphasis on defending and attacking freedom of conscience by both religious and non-religious institutions and individuals. You must be talking for yourself only.
@172 Laurence – I congratulate you for trying to express what you think, although if those are the words which most accurately do so then you also have my commiserations
@173 thanks for the laugh, I enjoy reading contradictions asserted forcefully from a personal perspective. Do you have a veto on everything?
I think none of you grasped the point (made originally by greater minds than mine) that science and religion are both the same thing expressed differently and are both the product of our conceptual failure and our collective inability to systematise and synthesise our experiences – we should each be more humble, particularly when exposing our weaknesses.
I was hesitant to post these qoute’s but here it goes.
Quote1
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
— Albert Einstein
Quote2
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.
— Albert Einstein
Quote3
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
— Albert Einstein
@175 hesitant, why?
Realativity is one thing but a simple belife is another.
Heres another couple of quote’s for you.
All meaningful and lasting change starts first in your imagination and then works its way out. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
— Albert Einstein
Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized.
— Albert Einstein
Heres another one for the degree level scince guys
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
— Albert Einstein
I congratulate you for trying to express what you think, although if those are the words which most accurately do so then you also have my commiserations.
What if I am right? Do I still get your commiserations? Or is it not possible that I am right? If so, how?
I think none of you grasped the point (made originally by greater minds than mine) that science and religion are both the same thing expressed differently.
That point may or may not have been made by a mind greater than yours. But it was most certainly made by a mind grossly inferior to my own. 🙂
As I understand it, faith is belief in an idea that is unsupported, or contradicted, by evidence. Failure to alter ones views despite evidence to the contrary, is not a trait I find acceptable in those who hold positions of authority.
Speak brother!
off religion now are we?
Jamesrap, I’m really glad you brought Einstein into the discussion as I was cribbing from him myself.
It is just a shame how Laurence @180 explicitly draws himself in direct comparison to the doddery old man with a wit wickeder than the witch of the west, then @181 he seems to make a direct admission of the insecurity of his strongly avowed position by making a call for reinforcement.
I think we all have to do better than this – reiterating established oppositions as stock arguments are insufficient to deal with contemporary issues – it is not open-minded enough and neither is it liberal enough or democratic enough.
Posted again, this time making sure that Oranjepan can follow. (Cut and paste has much to answer for.)
“Not all religious believers are fundamentalists, so let’s please show some discretion.”
Reply – An interesting but sadly misguided hypothesis perhaps we should debate the meaning of the term fundamentalist. They may not all be fundamentalists (current working definition) but they do share a common trait, belief for no good reason – faith. As I understand it, faith is belief in an idea that is unsupported, or contradicted, by evidence. Failure to alter ones views despite evidence to the contrary, is not a trait I find acceptable in those who hold positions of authority.
It is always best to keep an open mind to accommodate new discoveries and evidence. For me it is the basis of liberalism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But to those of us who value rational thought, an unsupported hypothesis cannot carry much weight. Faith and therefor religious belief is simply irrational.
“I see religion as an abstract conceptualisation, while both it and the anti-religious search for truth are driven by the failure of alternative explanations to match our experience.”
Reply – Those of us who could be called anti-religious base our opinion on observed behaviour and the views of others who make no secret of their faith. As for the meaning of the word truth, we could be here until our sun turns supernova and still not reach an accepted definition.
I stand by my previous posting but wish to add that I distrust anyone who behaves or thinks irrationally. There was a time when I was willing to fight to protect the rights of people to hold religious beliefs but recent events have given me good reason to reassess my position.
George Angus Parker, let me let you into a secret.
My mother is unshakable in her religious belief, much as I’ve tried to shake it even knowing the full reasons why.
The most specific of which was the occasion when she was to fly to switzerland on a skiing trip during the 60s with a large group of friends, but turned back while climbing the steps (it was the 60s).
In the event it turned out that she never would see her 18 closest friends again after the plane crashed and everyone on board died.
I’ve tried to point out that she was lucky and it was just coincidence, but she quietly reminds me that I and my siblings wouldn’t otherwise be here.
Please advise me how to rationalise that fact.
Orangepan – Out of respect to your Mum and her departed friends I do not think it is appropriate for me to answer that question in open forum. I am more than happy to help explore the subject privately but I am unsure how we can exchange contact details securely. Any ideas?
No, please, don’t feel like you’d be embarrassing yourself.
After all if you don’t think there’s an afterlife then they won’t be listening in.
It is just a shame how Laurence @180 explicitly draws himself in direct comparison to the doddery old man with a wit wickeder than the witch of the west, then @181 he seems to make a direct admission of the insecurity of his strongly avowed position by making a call for reinforcement.
What does any of that mean?
I think we all have to do better than this – reiterating established oppositions as stock arguments are insufficient to deal with contemporary issues – it is not open-minded enough and neither is it liberal enough or democratic enough.
It is self-defeating to suggest that anyone should shut up for the sake of liberal values. Rather it is time that everyone simply spoke their mind clearly and openly.
if you are representative of lib dems then,i certainly would not wish to be governed by a party who have such deluded bigots amongst the ranks.