From Twitter:
Oxford sadly lost @DrEvanHarris as MP. The new LibDem @LaylaMoran is a scientist & teacher. She has by far best chance of beating the Tory.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 9, 2015
If ever there was a case for voting for individual rather than party, it’s @MaajidLibDem in Hampstead & Kilburn. A truly moral & brave man.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 9, 2015
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Actually, this Summer of Strategy could be quite good… (Caron Lindsay)
Accountability and international law (Anne-Marie Simpson)
Good luck Scotland and England (Caron Lindsay)
We need a tax rise to fund additional defence spending (Simon McGrath)
Putting Liberal values into practice in the heart of London (Victor Chamberlain)
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Aidan O'Rourke: Mangersta Beach
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
The Joy of Six 1532
Sighcology: The Snake Pit, Out of True and Nellie Bly
What people get wrong about secondary legislation: interview by James O'Malley
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2026
Party leadership plotting: Yes, Minister's Party Games episode
From cinema to book shop
David Raw 
Tom Reeve 
paul barker 
Neil Hickman 
Tom Bailey 
78 Comments
For all that Richard Dawkins on Twitter is generally speaking argumentative, insensitive and downright trollish, he is totally correct here 🙂
I’m slightly surprised he hasn’t backed Michael Mullaney in Bosworth against David “Astrology & Homeopathy on the NHS” Tredinnick.
I’d also like to congratulate Richard Dawkins for his recent contribution to Nightwish’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” album. I’m enjoying listening to that in the car as a break from election nonsense on the radio 🙂
Dawkins on allowing downs syndrome children to live: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659
… and this attack on Mehdi Hasan’s religion: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/21/richard-dawkins-mehdi-hasan_n_3127629.html
Incendiary headline Helen. It only works though if you take the quaint view that an early fetus is “alive”.
As for the second, the fact he was Muslim was irrelevant. He has in the past for example made similar comments about people who believe in virgin birth or bodily ascension into heaven.
Maajid is everywhere. UK newspapers, CNN broadcasts, local community. One time I was watching a US political comedy show (Bill Maher) and Maajid walks in and starts promoting liberalism. I couldn’t believe it – it surely did make me laugh!
Layla Moran sounds good too.
He endorsed Julian Huppert too
I’m not sure endorsement by Dawkins is necessarily a good thing
tabman: Is that because it is not “necessarily a good thing” to say what is true?
What Dawkins does is his affair but I sincerely hope no official Lib Dem source endorses Dawkins as a suitable champion of the party. If we promote his endorsement, we suggest we approve of him.
Martin. No it’s because he’s so insufferably joyless and lacking in humility
@ Tabman. Are you sure you are talking about Richard Dawkins, not man you see in the mirror?
Ryan McAlister
Not really. Parents with downs syndrome children were very offended. Dawkins makes little secret of his positive views of eugenics aswell by the way.
I had hoped all talk of eugenics had been consigned to history by the Nuremberg laws, never to be revived.
Dawkins attacked Medhi Hasan’s religious beliefs despite having no understanding of them. He mocked them and suggested Hasan had no place as a Journalist because of them.
Is that tolerant or liberal? I rather think to the contrary.
Nick Collins. I’m sure. Are you?
Dawkins advocacy and enthusiasm for the natural world has brought joy to millions; his books display considerable humility in the face of the complexity of nature.
A common difficulty for Liberals is to suffer opprobrium for taking a stand for what is true or right. Dawkins is attacked because he defends evidence based Science against populist superstition; Maajid makes a stand for secularism that is unpopular within Islamic communities; Nick Clegg, even, is castigated for accepting collective cabinet responsibility in Government with Conservatives as he argues for Lib Dem measures, while helping steer the UK out of an economic hole; an easier and more comfortable life was available by taking a more easily popular, but less responsible course.
I do not know about what Ben Jephcott calls “a suitable champion of the party”, but Richard Dawkins is and has been an important advocate and practitioner of Liberalism.
@ Tabman Yes, thank you. And I’m glad that you and I are no longer members of the same political party. I also consider that most of the comments on this thread do no credit to a self-styled “liberal” forum.
Well said, Martin.
Nick Collins. Nice to meet you too. Glad to see you’re such a liberal, tolerant chap who practices what he preaches.
“Dawkins attacked Medhi Hasan’s religious beliefs despite having no understanding of them. He mocked them and suggested Hasan had no place as a Journalist because of them. ”
Helen, what is there to “understand” about the literal belief that someone rode to heaven on a winged horse? Or gave birth while a virgin? Or received two slate tablets from God on a mountain top? Since when did liberalism equate to being mute when presented with plaintive nonsense?
Isn’t Richard Dawkins a member of the Liberal Democrats? He’s certainly supported them for a very long time.
Dawkins attacked Medhi Hasan’s religious beliefs despite having no understanding of them. He mocked them and suggested Hasan had no place as a Journalist because of them.
Dawkins is also supporting Nawaz, who is also a Muslim. So it’s not anti-Muslim sentiment he’s expressing there, so much as a criticism of Hasan taking the Koran as a literal text, which Hasan does.
We will just have to wait to hear who God endorses.
Paul Walter – “We will just have to wait to hear who God endorses.”
I have a fancy that Douglas Adams had Dawkins in mind when he wrote this:
“`I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’
`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’
`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, “Well, That about Wraps It Up for God.””
Colin W, could you please point me at his endorsement of Julian so I can add it in?
Thanks.
Paul Walter 10th Apr ’15 – 2:53pm
We will just have to wait to hear who God endorses.
I seem to remember that George W Bush and Tony Blair had a direct line to God and had every one of their invasions fully endorsed.
Ryan McAlister
‘ Helen, what is there to “understand” about the literal belief that someone rode to heaven on a winged horse? Or gave birth while a virgin? Or received two slate tablets from God on a mountain top? Since when did liberalism equate to being mute when presented with plaintive nonsense?’
Since when did liberalism become a party hostile to religious beliefs to the point of openly mocking them and those of some their fellow party members in public?
I’m afraid your comment intentionally or otherwise does not show much understanding of religious beliefs beyond bald and literal statements removed from any context and any interpretation. It simply a re-statement of the positivist assumptions and deductions so beloved of ‘new atheists’ who are not representative of Liberal Democrat members’ views in my long experience.
@Martin – ‘Richard Dawkins is and has been an important advocate and practitioner of Liberalism.’ Hardly. His views are deeply and passionately intolerant. He writes well about science and I enjoy his books on science but on religion, he shows little if any grasp of the subject. He writes polemic, that’s all.
That is where we differ Helen.
You seem to think religious thought should be uniquely exempted from the scrutiny, challenge and yes, sometimes, mockery that is afforded all other view points- politics, economics, sport and any other. I see no reason why it should be.
Helen, it’s often easier for people starting from a point of prejudice to resort to easily-mockable oversimplifications or distortions than to bother sitting down and trying to understand the object of their mockery. (If they took the trouble, they might find that many of their prejudices didn’t hold up.) This is true on both sides; there are some religious people who prefer ignorant simplifications of science because it makes it easier for them to dismiss its challenges to their worldviews. And of course we see it in politics all the time — trying to understand the point of view of a political rival is so much less fun than taking their statements out of context and bashing them at every turn.
@ g
‘ Dawkins is also supporting Nawaz, who is also a Muslim. So it’s not anti-Muslim sentiment he’s expressing there, so much as a criticism of Hasan taking the Koran as a literal text, which Hasan does.’
The night journey of Muhammad can be read as a literal journey and/or a spiritual or mystical journey. It is sourced not just in the Qur’an but the tradition or Hadith.
As a Liberal Democrat who is not a Muslim, I respect religious diversity, whether it be between very liberal end of the spectrum such as Maajid Nawaz to a more orthodox understanding such as Mahdi Hasan. It is not for me to judge someone’s religious beliefs when they are held sincerely by someone in good standing with our society.
In my view a liberal respects diversity and freedom of religious belief and expression.
Richard Dawkins suggested Mehdi Hasan should not practice as a journalist because of his beliefs.
This is intolerance.
Who next?
Ryan
‘ You seem to think religious thought should be uniquely exempted from the scrutiny, challenge and yes, sometimes, mockery that is afforded all other view points- politics, economics, sport and any other. I see no reason why it should be.’
Definitely not. I do not think that and have not written that. I am against intolerance and mockery based on a threadbare understanding of the object of mockery.
If people like Dawkins are going to attack religious belief, at least do the research and find out what religious people actually believe, how they practised their faith and so on. It can be done. Others have done it like Julian Baggini and Alain de Botton. In fact, we can go back in history and read David Hume for a serious critique based on on knowledge.
Instead he offers a diet of polemic and assertion. This is not serious critical thinking.
Ryan McAlister 10th Apr ’15 – 5:04pm
I agree Ryan, there is no good reason why strongly held beliefs from thousands of years ago must be afforded greater respect than similarly strongly held beliefs posted at 5:04pm today.
As a Liberal humanist I am sorry that this is likely to offend but people of faith appear to have chosen to be offended by a non-believer endorsing two or more excellent Lib Dem candidates. Just how many times have religious leaders attempted to sway the voting intentions of their congregations?
Stephen
As a liberal democrat I’m offended by intolerance based on a lack of knowledge. Aren’t you?
There is a big difference between the kind of critical thinking atheist philosophers such as Hume, de Botton et al have espoused and someone whose criticism of religion leads him to advocate open discrimination based on nothing but distaste (and lack of grasp and empathy) for his beliefs
@Helen Tedcastle
“bald and literal statements removed from any context and any interpretation”
That’s a good description of the way Dawkins’ opponents use his Downs tweet.
“The night journey of Muhammad can be read as a literal journey and/or a spiritual or mystical journey.”
The original discussion between Dawkins and Hasan on the subject is pretty entertaining viewing :-
There is a definite lack of evidence that Richard Dawkins lacks knowledge of what he criticises. On the contrary he appears to have gone to great lengths to acquire information. Far from being particularly polemical, it seems to me that his writings on belief in deities, though lively and well written, are not really that original, Naturally those who disagree with him are at liberty to explain rather than assert his alleged lack of knowledge.
Concerning his advocacy of Maajid Newaz, Layla Moran and ,I presume, Julian Huppert, I am not sure what this lack of knowledge might be.
Stuart
Except that Dawkins also says this on Twitterabout the eminently reasonable, serious journalist Mehdi Hasan, who happens to be a Muslim:
‘ Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist’
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/325957740835004416
The Dawkins of the discussion doesn’t think on Twitter that Hasan should be in print. Now this is suggesting he should be discriminated against because of his beliefs.
This is illiberal and not so entertaining in reality.
Martin
‘ There is a definite lack of evidence that Richard Dawkins lacks knowledge of what he criticises’
On the contrary.
Jonathan Sacks demolishes Dawkins’ allegedly humorous but profoundly unpleasant and illiterate lampooning of the the Hebrew Bible as part of ancient Christian polemic against Judaism. This polemic is discredited within mainstream contemporary Christianity but recycled in God Delusion.
Later in the debate, Sacks goes on to show that Dawkins does not understand the Jewish context of some of the key passages of the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible cited in his polemical work eg: Abraham and Isaac as examples of God’s alleged capriciousness.
There is an excerpt here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/19563336
If I were Layla Moran I would give Dawkins’ endorsement a wide berth.
Helen, Dawkins does not say that Medhi Hassan should not be in print, he says that he should not be treated as a serious journalist. You throw about accusations of illiberalism with ease, but your deliberate twisting of what Dawkins says is not liberal either.
I agree with Helen. Intolerance of individuals strongly held faith and religious is not particularly liberal or tolerant. Although Dawkins has recently singled out Muslims for some of his pretty unpleasant views, presumably he believes devout Christians or Jews, should also ‘not be in print.’ Or does that only apply to Muslims? Would his cheerleaders on this thread, support those views too? I though the Liberal Democrats were a party that valued diversity and non conformity, or is that just lip service?
Richard Church: ‘He says Mehdi Hasan shouldn’t be treated as a serious journalist’
Because he’s a Muslim- Are you seriously suggesting this is ok? Would you be as relaxed if he’d said that about a Catholic or Jewish journalist?
Dawkins is obsessed with Muslims, and his inflammatory comments have even caused outrage from atheists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/richard-dawkins-anti-muslim-tweets_n_3732678.html
I wouldn’t want his endorsement for anything.
I agree @Helen Tedcastle. Dawkins writes intelligently, respectfully and persuasively on the subject he has studied and understands (science). He not only writes nonsense about subjects he doesn’t understand and has no interest in (religion and religious belief), but seems to go out of his way to cause offence.
He has every right to do so, and his ‘anti-religious’ argument is a perfectly legitimate position for a liberal to hold, but it’s by no means the only legitimate liberal argument. There are many and competing liberalisms, and history (and our party) is full of trying to work out the tensions between them.
Personally I’m glad that our party is generally much more tolerant (and appreciative!) of religion and religious people than Dawkins is.
Good points @Meral.
I’ve recently read – and strongly recommend – the ‘Liberal Democrats do God’ book / collection of essays published by the Lib Dem Christian Forum. Although not a Christian myself, and although I didn’t agree with all of the writers, it nevertheless made me feel very much more positively about our party.
Throughout history there is a strong theme of religious liberals campaigning to make the world a better place. The compassion displayed in the book, the interest in the well being of our world, our society and the lives of the individuals came through very strongly and very much makes me feel ‘at home’ politically.
@Meral
“Although Dawkins has recently singled out Muslims for some of his pretty unpleasant views, presumably he believes devout Christians or Jews, should also ‘not be in print.’ Or does that only apply to Muslims?”
I’m a long-time follower of Dawkins’ career (I used to admire him enormously; these days slightly less so, though this thread might make me change my mind on that). For a long time his attacks on religion were directed pretty much solely at Christianity, and tended to be cheered on by the kind of liberal who believes that it’s important for religions to face the same kind of critical scrutiny as any other kind of institution that seeks to influence how we live our lives. I first noticed him when he presented the 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. At the time, as a young atheist, I found it pretty thrilling that the BBC should give him such a platform to rubbish Christianity at Christmas.
He barely mentioned Islam at all until after 9/11. Even in recent years, he has given Islam much less attention than Christianity – mainly because, as he states in the video interview with Mehdi Hasan, he admits to knowing much less about it.
I mention all this just to point out that whatever sins you may want to accuse Dawkins of, singling Islam out for especially harsh treatment is definitely not one of them.
Stuart: I agree with much of what you say, but I did say its his recent obsession with Muslims which is unpleasant, and adds to the general intolerance and casual Islamophobia that increasing numbers of Muslims are experiencing.
@Jonathan Brown
“Throughout history there is a strong theme of religious liberals campaigning to make the world a better place.”
I think you’ll find that throughout history there is also a strong theme of religion trampling over liberty. It’s only comparatively recently that people like Dawkins have been able to say the things they do in safety (and alarmingly this appears to be going in to reverse again). Though I’m not as much of an acolyte as I used to be, it’s absolutely essential that people like Dawkins exist.
@Helen
“Except that Dawkins also says this on Twitter about the eminently reasonable, serious journalist Mehdi Hasan”
Interestingly, you keep referring to Dawkins pejoratively as a “polemicist”, but that’s exactly the same word Hasan uses to describe himself. I know little about him so have no idea how serious he is.
“‘Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist’”
That just reads like a joke to me. It’s Twitter – one-liners is all it’s fit for, in fact that’s the whole point of it. To portray Dawkins as some sort of intolerant bigot who wants to deny somebody employment on the basis of that seems very over the top.
@Jonathan Brown Thanks. I will look out for the book. One of the reasons I joined the party was exactly what you describe: a tolerance of people from different backgrounds, and many good people I’ve had the pleasure to work with, many who are Christians who passionately believe in making the world a better please. I’ve been concerned that in recent years, there’s an increasing intolerance towards Muslims, reflecting media and the rise in UKIP. Which is worrying.
@Meral
I agree that some of his comments directed at Islam have gone too far and have not helped with the situation you describe. That’s one of the reasons why I’ve gone off him a little bit in recent years. Twitter really isn’t the best forum for someone like him…
I agree with Helen, Meral and Jonathan (probably others too) that respect towards people’s religions is very important.
Yes we should be free to mock anything, but I rarely see these hardline atheists mocking atheism, so it just comes across as another form of intolerance.
Meral- Where does Dawkins say that Hassan should not be treated as a serious journalist because he is a Muslim? Believing that Mohammed literally ascended to heaven on a winged horse is not, I believe, the definition of a Muslim.
@Stuart – “I think you’ll find that throughout history there is also a strong theme of religion trampling over liberty. It’s only comparatively recently that people like Dawkins have been able to say the things they do in safety”
You’re absolutely correct. My statement was only meant to highlight the fact that while there is an anti-clerical strand of liberalism, there is ALSO a religious strand of liberalism. And that the religious liberal strand has always been an important part of the British political liberal tradition and the Liberal Party (and Liberal Democrats).
“Though I’m not as much of an acolyte as I used to be, it’s absolutely essential that people like Dawkins exist.”
I used to agree wholeheartedly with this. I’m now much less enthusiastic for the proposition, because the militant secularists and militant religious fundamentalists feed off each other. A calmer, more tolerant approach would I believe be far more effective. (Although just in case clarification is needed, I am in no way suggesting that people promoting views which cause offence should ever be met with violence. I mmy wish Dawkins would tone it down but I’d rather he be volubly annoying and insulting than unable to speak at all.)
@ stuart
I refer to Dawkins’ book the God Delusion as a work of polemic. Dawkins is a scientist and popular science writer not a polemicist as such. The book was his attempt at polemic.
I enjoy reading his writing about science, which is informative and well-written. However, one cannot pass off his Twitter blasts as jokes as it was not taken to be so by anyone other than his die-hard supporters. His remarks on God in God Delusion he referred to also as a ‘joke’, until it was pointed out to him that his humour bore an uncanny resemblance to ancient Christian polemic against Judaism by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.
Richard Church – ‘ . You throw about accusations of illiberalism with ease, but your deliberate twisting of what Dawkins says is not liberal either.’
How so? I quoted his Twitter remarks verbatim.
Making a parallel between “militant secularists and militant religious fundamentalists” is akin to a parallel between ‘militant’ Liberals and ‘militant’ totalitarians or between people who are ‘militantly’ tolerant and those who are ‘militantly’ intolerant.
In any case when about 40% of American adults believe that humans were divinely created less than 10 000 years ago and not a product of evolution, Dawkins and others are engaged in public good by challenging such misconceptions. Only when such misconceived thinking ceases to have significant traction, could there be a case to say that Dawkins responses are over the top. What hope is there to make a case for enacting controls on the causes of climate change, when so many refuse to accept how fossil fuels have formed?
Religion is a species of ideology. Ideological fanatics have done harm throughout human history- most of them have been religious fanatics, but there are well known examples where atheism was a key point in the ideology.
I wouldn’t put Dawkins in quite that category though.
A fundamental question I find impossible to avoid is why faith-based beliefs should be valued and respected above all others?
@Stephen Hesketh: erm, isn’t that a “have you stopped beating your wife?” type of question?
Jonathan Brown 10th Apr ’15 – 11:58pm
” … while there is an anti-clerical strand of liberalism, there is ALSO a religious strand of liberalism. And that the religious liberal strand has always been an important part of the British political liberal tradition and the Liberal Party (and Liberal Democrats). ”
Just as Christianity also appears to inform political beliefs from left wing liberation theology in South America to the the right wing Tea Party in the U.S. It is far from being uniquely Liberal or enlightened.
Philip Thomas 11th Apr ’15 – 5:39am
@Stephen Hesketh: erm, isn’t that a “have you stopped beating your wife?” type of question?
🙂 Nevertheless, understanding a believers position on this would help me.
When we don’t have a faith, do other values and beliefs occupy a similar position in our psyche? If so, should they not be equally respected?
By the way, good morning to you Philip.
An interesting debate.
Although Islam does seem to fall into a different category – because it is both a religion and a political system [defined by a ‘last prophet’ so is difficult to amend by later followers] – I would argue that religions such as Christianity do provide the world with compulsory ‘compassion’ in its followers. In a political context – this should ‘add to the sum of human happiness/reduce the amount of suffering’ and therefore is generally likely to be a force for good.
Good morning.
Whether a particular belief or value should be respected depends on various factors such as: Is it true? Is it harmful? Is it beneficial? Etc etc
For me that a belief is religious (which I take it is what you mean by “faith-based”) doesn’t alter the analysis, although usually the first question will be unanswerable.
I’ll be a trifle more inclined to listen to complaints about the unique nature of Muslim commingling of politics and religion on the day when (1) the monarch is no longer Supreme Governor of the Church of England and (2) bishops no longer sit in Parliament.
Philip Thomas 11th Apr ’15 – 7:17am
“Whether a particular belief or value should be respected depends on various factors such as: Is it true? Is it harmful? Is it beneficial? Etc etc”
Good morning Philip – I think I am arguing. in last resort, that the only judgement that is important [certainly in a political context] is the impact of a religion in the world – that also seems to be the Mahdi Hasan argument.
@John Roffey Indeed- since religious truth is for practical purposes unknowable, we are left with harm/benefit or impact on the world. But I was answering Stephen Hesketh’s question about religious beliefs being somehow higher value. I do not think that religion has higher value than other ideological beliefs a priori. Liberalism is not somehow less valuable than Buddhism. Communism is not less valuable than Scientology, etc.
Philip Thomas 11th Apr ’15 – 7:48am
“Indeed- since religious truth is for practical purposes unknowable, we are left with harm/benefit or impact on the world. But I was answering Stephen Hesketh’s question about religious beliefs being somehow higher value. I do not think that religion has higher value than other ideological beliefs a priori. Liberalism is not somehow less valuable than Buddhism. Communism is not less valuable than Scientology, etc.”
It might be. If we go back to the Dawkins overall view – that, that which can be proved by science is all that is to believed – we are really concerned with the laws of nature – and the laws of nature are compassion free [excluding those which further the chance of offspring surviving].
Compassion only seems to exist in humans [although I have seen footage of a orangutang saving an insect from drowning] – since virtually all humans have a degree of compassion – from whence does it come? Arguably there must be other laws at work – apart from the laws of nature. Religions could then be considered as the most knowledgable of these laws.
John Roffey
It might be. If we go back to the Dawkins overall view – that, that which can be proved by science is all that is to believed – we are really concerned with the laws of nature – and the laws of nature are compassion free [excluding those which further the chance of offspring surviving].
Compassion only seems to exist in humans [although I have seen footage of a orangutang saving an insect from drowning] – since virtually all humans have a degree of compassion – from whence does it come? Arguably there must be other laws at work – apart from the laws of nature. Religions could then be considered as the most knowledgable of these laws.
Compassion and morality can be sufficiently explained using evolutionary theory such that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations.
Incidentally, why should we take Hasan seriously on religion? I am tolerant of journalists who have outlandish beliefs, such as denying evolution or climate change if they don’t write on these subjects, we’re all irrational about some things. However, Hasan takes the Koran as a literal text, which is an absurd position to take given all the stories of winged horses and so on, and then writes about Islam and society? Is it not reasonable to challenge him on his own beliefs as they inform his arguments?
g 11th Apr ’15 – 8:51am
“Compassion and morality can be sufficiently explained using evolutionary theory such that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations.”
Can you do that briefly for me – but particularly for compassion?
John Roffey 11th Apr ’15 – 8:08am
Hi John, as you know human beings have several unique physical and apparently unique mental abilities. Many of these developed before and in conjunction with language. Enhanced social cooperation and extended group and family identity may have resulted in ever higher levels of attributes such as compassion. Those individuals who possessed these and other attributes such as analytical thinking would have been more successful in passing on their genes.
Analytical thinking would have led to our early ancestors attempting to make sense of the world around them. Perhaps feelings of being watched over by ancestors special to the individual or group, the mingling of anniversaries and practical issues of food storage and preservation, sitting around camp fires retelling folk memories … I don’t think I need to develop this line of thought.
I would contend that our higher social skills such as compassion are simply global human characteristics hard wired in to us by the process of evolution. People vary significantly in their levels of compassion and this variation is certainly independent of any faith belief.
John Roffey,
“Compassion and morality can be sufficiently explained using evolutionary theory such that there is no need to invoke supernatural explanations.”
Can you do that briefly for me – but particularly for compassion?
Sure. We’re a social species, we have evolved to survive by cooperating. One mechanism by which social groups maintain cohesion is through empathy, being able to appreciate the feelings of others, of which compassion is a part. Selection would ensure that those humans (although more likely early primates, rather than hominds) with the ability to empathise are more likely to have offspring that survive, given advantages of group behaviour, hence this trait is selected for and spreads throughout the population. Empathy is a trait that has broad implications, hence us feeling empathy with other species we are familiar with, particularly those we keep as pets, or livestock.
This is a broad explanation. But it is as simple as it needs to be, and adding a supernatural source into it just complicates things, which goes against parsimony.
Philip Thomas
‘Religion is a species of ideology. Ideological fanatics have done harm throughout human history- most of them have been religious fanatics’
In reality ‘religion’ is a practice. It is a way of living. That is how it is for most if not all people who have a faith. If one mixes it with political ideology such as pan-Arab nationalism then it becomes more than a practice of charity and love and compassion and can turn very nasty indeed. Also one has to account for the fact that within religions various movements can grow, some extreme liberal others extremely austere and severe.
Religions are vast and diverse ‘systems’ and should be taken as monoliths. That is why the media’s portrayal of Islam is often so simplistic.
In return, simply condemning ‘religion’ uniformly as a bad thing is just as simplistic.
Stephen Hesketh 11th Apr ’15 – 9:55am
Hello Stephen – the things that you highlight an can be argued from the point of view of Dawkins ‘selfish gene’. For example in a monogamous society – it is an advantage to all if each partner obeys the rules – therefore the ‘selfish gene’ is benefitted. However, in scientific terms, what is the root of compassion – particularly in the example of the orangutang I gave – where no benefit can accrue for the selfish gene? What scientific law is at work?
The key words in my earlier comment were “for practical purposes”. Even if compassion somehow proves that religion must be true, the question of which religion remains, practically speaking (in the political context especially) unanswerable.
I have religious beliefs. Obviously, I think they are true and they inform my worldview- I can’t help that. However, I do try to bear in mind that most people disagree with me in one way or another and that forcing my beliefs on others is generally inappropriate and I wouldn’t like others to do it to me.
Frankly, *in the political context* who cares whether or not a winged horse flew Mohammed to heaven over a thousand years ago? Everyone has irrational beliefs. I’d rather my PPC believed in Winged Horses than in benefit migrants…
Apologies: a sentence in my last comment should read: ‘Religions are vast and diverse ‘systems’ and should not be taken as monoliths.’
@Helen Tedcastle
And Communism is also a practice/system of living- Communism being the classic example of a non-religious ideology.
Ideology is necessary for human existence and human progress. It comes at a price, but I think the price ultimately worth paying.
Stephen Hesketh
‘I would contend that our higher social skills such as compassion are simply global human characteristics hard wired in to us by the process of evolution. People vary significantly in their levels of compassion and this variation is certainly independent of any faith belief.’
Hi Stephen,
I agree with your comment. Evolution can indeed describe for us how genes propagate over time. No doubt we are hard-wired to behave in certain ways and it could be that compassion is something which ‘evolved’ for the benefit of the community over time.
Religious people should not claim to be better than anyone else automatically. They need to work at it like like others.
Religious faith gives a tried and tested a way of doing so – its wisdom has developed over thousands of years to help this happen.
Science and evolution is not incompatible with faith. As one of the greatest geneticists, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic monk it is perfectly reasonable and do-able to me to explore and find out about the natural world and its mechanisms – in order to find out about its wonders. The fact that state faith schools all have science departments seems to prove this as true also.
This to me is the great disservice of people like Dawkins – to put around the idea that being a person of religious faith is incompatible with science.
It isn’t.
Can we stop with the discussion of merits and demerits of various religions, please? That is not what this thread is about. No further such comments will be approved and whole thread is now on pre-moderation.
Hi Caron
I must say I think your decision to put this discussion on to pre-moderation at this point is a mistake. Today’s comments by several regular Liberal (and predominantly radical) contributors to LDV can not be considered angry or offensive in any way – at least in my opinion 🙂 I would say we had actually made some progress as we have sought to come to a respectful understanding of each others beliefs and positions. Regards, Stephen
No mention made on this thread (or anywhere else on LDV that I can see?) of Majid Nawaz’s private lap dance caught on CCTV…
What do the feminists on here think of that???
We will never know, because of course this post won’t ever see the light of day. Lib Dem Voice more and more resembles the North Korean State Media in its censorship of anything it disagrees with.
So LIBERAL. 🙂
This whole thread shows how much of a “Marmite” character Dawkins is. I would have thought welcoming his support, especially for fellow scientists, whilst also finding a way to highlight that his views are sometimes controversial and not representative of the wider views of the Party.
Personally I like his scientific writing but find his religious ones overly simplistic as they centre on the more extreme and / or literal interpretations of both Christianity and Islam. He is of course entitled to write and have these views published as others are entitled to challenge them.
Helen Tedcastle11th Apr ’15 – 10:35am
“Science and evolution is not incompatible with faith.”
Hi Helen, if I am permitted one last post on this, I would like to agree with you concerning the above point. Clearly they are not incompatible.
The fact that, depending upon their original family/national culture, scientists globally might believe in none, one or several Gods, suggests that a scientific mind and the propensity to hold a faith are essentially unrelated.
Well, how amazing that my post was printed!
What is the answer to the question though? I actually really like Majid Nawaz, he seems both bright and principled, and a lot of what he says I agree with, even as a Kipper.
Plus, to my mind a private lap dance is no biggie. So what frankly?
But what does Caron feel about it for example? Is this not exploiting women and treating them as sex objects from a feminist perspective?
Answer me this, what would all be your reactions be if he were a UKIP candidate?? You would be outraged, right?
I argue these are double standards from the biased liberal establishment.
A google search of Majid Nawaz Lap Dance comes up with nothing from the Guardian, or the BBC or even the Times or Telegraph. Ask yourself, what would have been the media narrative if this were a kipper caught ogling a stripper?
“what is the root of compassion – particularly in the example of the orangutang I gave – where no benefit can accrue for the selfish gene? What scientific law is at work?”
Compassion is an instinct. Having it has advantages in a social society. If you have it, you react in a compassionate way to signs of helplessness even if there is no logical advantage. Creatures much less intelligent than an orang-outang demonstrate it. There is also an element of sexual selection. If you show compassion to an insect, you might well be seen as a better potential co-parent.