Religion

Contents

Return to Home Page










Irreligion

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home Page










Richard Dawkins

Return to Irreligion Table of Contents

Return to Religion Table of Contents

Return to Home Page













Your Editor's thoughts on Richard Dawkins

It is my opionion that Mr Dawkins is a fool or a knave or both.  However, I would not expect you to take my own opinion on the matter.  I would much rather let Mr Dawkins hang himself.  Here is an extract of his work, as reported on : books.guardian.co.uk.  The extract, which bears the name of the book it is taken from, is entitled: The God Delusion.  Please may I ask you to take a few minutes to read it?  Then I will tell you why I think it is bunk!

The things that annoys me about Mr Dawkins, is that he thinks his half arsed arguments prove that there is no God.  In my own view they prove no such thing.  In my own view they prove that man's conception of God is often hopelessly inadequate.  They do not prove that there is no intelligent force guiding the universe.  They merely prove that, for example, a literal belief in certain Bible stories, such as, for example, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, is nonsence.  But guess what, Mr Dawkins? Apart from religious fundamentalists, who, in the opinion of your editor, are so stupid we do not even need to consider their opinions in any serious debate on theological matters, nobody believes in the story of Adam and Eve anyway!  Its a myth, Mr Dawkins!  Its a story, told by a primative people, in order to represent a reality, which they could in no way understand! 

Yes Mr Dawkins, Darwin was right.  Human kind evolved, over millions of years, from the most basic organisms ever to form on this planet.  The debate is not over whether or not God created Adam and Eve.  If it was then, yes, you've won.  Hurray!  But then, that debate was finished years ago.  It hardly needed any input from you.  The debate, to my mind, is whether or not there was an intelligent force which guided our evolution, and which is guiding it still.  There Mr Dawkins, if you are willing to apply a little intelligence to the matter, is where you have your problem.  The idea that any of the higher animals, let alone human beings, could have evolved, purely by chance, is surely as completely bonkers as any theory of Adam and Eve, or any of the other "Men of straw" you like to build up and knock down, in your spurious arguments for your atheist point of view? 

I am not a statistician Mr Dawkins, but I defy you to find a statistician, who can prove even a remote probability that human evolution could turn out the way it did, purely by chance.  Why, the whole thing even contradicts one of the most basic laws of physics, a law which always struck me as a little odd anyway.  Evolution contradicts the second law of Thermodynamics. Evolution decreases entropy.  Evolution orders the universe, just as one of the most fundamental laws of physics says that everything, by its very nature, tends to disorder.  How little we know it seems?  We cannot even arrive at a satisfactory theory about something as simple as entropy.  How do we ever presume to define the existence, or non existence of God?  I am suddenly put in mind of Hamlet and his pipe!

Getting back to that atheist point of view of yours Mr Dawkins.  Somewhere in one of the above paragraphs, I mentioned that I considered religious fundamentalists to be so stupid that one really did not need to consider their opinions, in any serious debate on theology.  Here is a little surprise for you Mr Dawkins.  Here is a fact, which I feel, you may not have been aware of?  There are religious fundamentalists in every religion.  Even in that religion known as atheism. 

Mr Dawkins, I have read a little of your work and I have watched you on TV.  In my view, you yourself are a religious fundamentalist.  You have a fundamentalist belief in a religion known as atheism.  You "believe" that there is no God, and you evangelise on behalf of your belief.  In my own view, there is only one position, for a sane and sensible human being to take.  That position is the position of the agnostic.  We cannot possibly know, whether there is a God or not, much less, who are what that God might be like.  It is a mystery.  We can guess.  We can infer.  Each of us infers, according to our own level of knowledge and intelligence.  Argue against organised religion by all means Mr Dawkins.  It has done an awful lot of harm in the world.  However, don't tell me there is no God.  That is your opinion merely.  That is all it is. 

Return to Irreligion Table of Contents

Return to Religion Table of Contents

Return to Home Page

My own Religion

When people ask me my religion I normally say that I am an agnostic.  This seems to disturb and perplex some people.  Conversely, it disturbs and perplexes me that anyone could be disturbed and perplexed by my being an agnostic. In my own view, agnostism is the only relgious viewpoint that an honest and intelligent person can adopt.  I like to consider myself as being an honest and intelligent person, ergo sum an agnostic!

In spite of this, to me, self evident point of view, that agnosticism is the only intelligent position for any person to adopt in matters of religion, people insist on continuing to be perplexed by my assertions that I am an agnostic.  This is particularly the case if I should seek out the company of Quakers and or Pagans, which I am wont to do, and then state in their company that I am, in fact, an agnostic. I do not see why this should be so?  I happen to enjoy the company of both Quakers and Pagans.  I also enjoy the company of Humanists, Athiests, Hindus, Budhists, some Church of England Christians, a very few Roman Catholic Christians, the occassional Baptist, at least one Parsee of my acquaintance, certain Moslems, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

There are certain of my Christian acquaintances who seem to be uncomfortable with my enjoying the company of pagans. There are certain of my pagan acquaintances who tend to be uncomfortable with my assertion that I am an agnostic.  I would, in general, advise those people not to make too big a deal of such ideas in my presence, on the grounds that I am unlikely to change my point of view for anyone.  There may be people who feel that they know better than me what my feelings and beliefs should be.  I would in general advise such people to keep those opinions to themselves, since I understand that, for many people, hearing the expression: "You can take your opinions and shove them up your arse", tends to offend.

In view of the general confusion my assertion, that I am an agnostic, tends to generate, I will state clearly and concisely what I mean when I say that I am an agnostic. I will do so, using the set of bullet points which follows. Most of those bullet points begin with the words: "I assert my right ...". This is entirely appropriate. It is appropriate, because, to my own mind, my agnosticism is nothing more or less than a Bill of Rights.  It is not a bill of the rights for the common man, although you sir, or madam, are welcome to adopt my religion, should you wish to claim for yourself, the rights I claim here.

Anyway, without further ado, here is my own personal "Bill of Rights".  I call myself an agnostic because:

I understand that the oldest religion in this country (England) was the pagan religion,  I am given to believe that the adherents of this religion practised quite a lot of singing, dancing, feasting and fornicating.  If that is true, and if this religion, call it Wicca, Druidism or what you will, is truly The Old Religion then, really there is only one thing left for me to say.  It is this:

Give me that old time religion.  Give me that old time religion.  Give me that old time religion.  Its good enough for me!

Return to Religion Table of Contents

Return to Home Page




























1