It reads like a Facebook correspondence between two very well-read ten-year-old children competing for the affections of their classmates.
"Why do you" jibes Richy D "support schools for children who are too young to have chosen their faith, thereby implicitly labelling them with the faith of their parents, whereas you wouldn't dream of so labelling a 'Keynesian child'?"
Stung by the nasty boy, class president Dave C coolly retorts: "Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows, in my view, why Richard Dawkins just doesn't get it."
Richy, top in science at his school, explains: "I satirised the faith-labelling of children using an analogy that almost everybody gets as soon as he hears it: we wouldn't dream of labelling a child 'Keynesian child' simply because her parents were Keynesian economists.
"Do you get it now, Prime Minister? Obviously I was not comparing Keynes with Jesus. I could just well have used 'monetarist child' or 'postmodernist child' or 'Europhile child'."
A very well educated debate from the two young men, but who is it that 'just doesn't get it' - celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins or prime minister David Cameron? Should we, as a country, value our religious heritage and tradition, or should we do the opposite and end "the real domination of our culture and politics that religion gets away with?"
Alternatively, do neither Cameron nor Dawkins truly get it?
Speaking in Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, Mr Cameron said: "We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so." He criticised the Church for "moral neutrality" in the face of crisis, and said it needs to be a more active force in the country. Cameron claimed that "values and morals" adopted from Christianity have made the nation "what it is today", and that it should continue to do so. "Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. 'Live and let live' has too often become 'do what you please'."
A classic Conservative outlook, this speech will undoubtedly have pleased many religious Tory backbenchers and Christian voters, but there are some worrying underlying tones here. With this year's Census showing that only 53.48% of people in this country consider themselves Christian - and fewer than half of these fully believing in the story of Jesus Christ - it seems outdated and rash to describe Britain as a Christian country.
Dawkins, in last week's New Statesman, wrote: "Modern society requires and deserves a truly secular state, by which I do not mean state atheism, but state neutrality in all matters pertaining to religion: the recognition that faith is personal and no business of the state." He also argues that Church-influenced political decisions are anti-democratic. Returning to the catalyst for the argument, Dawkins claims that children who attend faith schools can be prone to "discrimination and prejudice". This claim goes hand in hand with an article written by Dawkins in 2006 in which he suggested religious indoctrination was a form of "mental child abuse".
Dawkins' first point is well made. A Church active in defining the morals and politics of a nation does threaten democracy if given too much power, especially in a multicultural nation like Britain. However, the evolutionary biologist/philosopher/social activist then risks taking things too far in the other direction, making religion too 'personal' and taking away national and, more importantly, familial tradition. Children are allowed to inherit genes, money and moral values from their parents, so why not religion?
It's not entirely clear what 'it' is, but it is clear that both Cameron and Dawkins are wrong in their own ways. The Church of England should certainly have the right to influence the moral decisions of its members, but just because our political leader is Christian, does not mean the entire nation's morals should be dictated in this way. In the same way, though, Dawkins should respect peoples' rights to be religious and family's rights to 'indoctrinate'.
Follow William Turvill on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wmjtur
Chris Stedman: The Problem With 'Atheist Activism'
Andrew Cooper: Conservatives - Is it 1930 Already?
Nigel Barber: Why Facebook is Killing God?
BBC News - David Cameron on Christianity - views
BBC News - David Cameron says the UK is a Christian country
David Cameron Urges Britons To Stand Up And Defend Christian ...
David Cameron Criticised By Richard Dawkins For Comments To ...
David Cameron says the UK is a Christian country - - - BBC News ...
David Cameron: "We are a Christian country and we should not be ...
David Cameron says UK is Christian in speech in Oxford for King ...
It should be an elementary fact taught to all persons in a democracy, that some people are liars, and that others quite honestly believe things that are false. The skill to test whether such persons might in fact be mistaken, or have a reason to not tell the truth, is called skepticism, and it too is essential to scientific understanding.
In science, even the most beautiful theory can be destroyed by one ugly fact.
The belief that time stretches from minus infinity to plus infinity was refuted by the ugly facts that established the existence of the Big Bang. Time is semi-infinite. By the same token, a God who created in time-dependent intervals -- six days -- cannot have existed before time existed.
Religion, and the notion that "faith" is virtuous, runs contrary to the proper understanding of the basis of the Enlightenment and the understanding of what used to be called Natural Philosophy, now shortened to Science.
General Relativity says that ALL observers are equal. Artificial Intelligence research shows that it is easier to build a robot chess master than the intelligence of a hummingbird.
I will commence and terminate by stating quite categorically that as there is no such an entity as God, Allah, or any other divinity,.
Then one can see there is no need for all this palaver over religious belief. For that is all it is, a mental aberration, that has stuffed the minds of billions over the centuries with fantasy.
I will not deny, indeed I accept that much has come down to us, via this cultish behaviour of the deluded, music, art, architecture, even a moral code of sorts, but that said, when it comes to the bottom line, it is for those who have faith, and a claim there IS, something in which to believe, so far the evidence is just NOT THERE, never will be, so why waste ones time and mental health taking it all on board.
A couple aspects of this worth unpacking
a) You wasted your time writing a post about wasting time. I suspect you aren't wasting your time but enjoying the debate. Dawkins and his disciples don't think of it as time wasted, it is more an active sport, enjoyable for its own sake
b) If you are a practical man, and it sounds like you are, then you must know it is very unlikely that you will convince religious people they are wrong by logic and reason. Religion is about an emotional response to the world, and appears, by its longevity, to be something quite fundamental to who we are.
Why I believe that your rationalist approach is irrational, is because you accelerate past the most important point of your post "for that is all it is, a mental aberration". That is ALL it is. Really? We are as much emotional creatures as rational ones. The most interesting part of many of the social sciences including economics is now about how we get a better understanding of how we structure ourselves, deal with others, make decisions etc by looking at our emotional as well as rational responses. Dawkins is probably right in the fact that there is no God, but the more interesting question, is why, when he doesn't exsist, does he persist so strongly. It could almost make you believe in him (or her).
The way you 'apply' emotion to these peoples claims, is another way of saying, as they all do, 'we have no ultimate answer, but will opt for the safety net of faith'
In regards 'religion', which is after all the corralling of the group mentality, which may give it power, but no certainty or credulity, is seed absolutely no reason whatsoever for myself to even consider the pap they spout.
I indomitably will not tolerate them making my life subject to their moralising and regulations.
There may be 7 billion people on this planet, but if it were to be a case of 6 thousand millions, nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine against, to my one, until and unless any one of that number can present me with evidence that proves what I stand for is incorrect, then I hold my place.
I think this is a question of the practical over the theoretical. The facts do seem to support the idea that faith schools GENERALLY create better citizens. If this is the case in the UK and Cameron was only talking of the UK, then he shouldnt be afraid to celebrate and recommend those values. It is a bit like saying, "I know girls do better at school than boys, but I won't mention it in case it is sexist"
I am a non believer, and dislike organised religion, (even the bland but kind cofe) but if it helps build a more useful society then so be it
Atheists are 8-16% of the US population, yet they only account for 0.21% of the prison population.
If Christianity makes you more moral, why are Christians committing so many more crimes?
When God is no longer mentioned on every single banknote and coin minted in the UK, maybe my eyes will no longer roll so painfully at statements like that.
But hey, that should be any day now, right?
Times are changing. We may have had a Christian majority in the UK in the past but not any more.
The "British Social Attitudes Survey" published in 2011 shows those who describe themselves as "non-religious" rose from 31 percent in 1983 to 51 percent by 2009. By now it may well be higher.
And a poll of England and Wales released last year shows that 48 percent (less than half) of those who accepted the label "Christian" actually believed that "Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God."
At some point, our leaders will have to recognise that this country is increasingly atheist.
And he "doesn't get it" quite deliberately.
Both the left and right of British politics are packed with Christians. This is nothing new in the slightest; the left-wing in Britain arose out of deeply religious movements for reform and social justice, people like Elizabeth Fry among many others. The CofE was always at the forefront of drives for social reform, be it the Education Act or the creation of child labour laws.
The problem here is that men like Dawkins have deliberately perverted Britain's debate about these matters by using the lunatic fringe of American evangelical protestantism or Jihadist Islamism as though these are representative of ordinary lives of faith. They're not; they're the absolute opposite of the average person of faith and HE KNOWS IT! That's the irony - he simply does what he most condemns: twists reality to create an idol he can burn.
Brown was a Christian, so was Blair, so are most of the Cabinet - people with faith believe the world must be a fairer place. QED they end up in politics.
Whether they act upon their faith is another matter.
But to be frank, this is just another British storm in a very small British teacup. We don't have Alabama-style religion in British politics and we never will.
I heard that and smiled, "But of course...the Catholic Cathedral...all that splendour and pomp...a village chapel just won't do!"
I'm glad Dawkers likes Midnight Mass. Lots of people go simply because it makes you feel part of humanity for a brief moment. And that's ok. As sacristan I used to enjoy figuring out who was a Christian and who wasn't. In a Catholic church it's easy - you can't fake being Catholic as there's too much ritual movement; you'd see these people not knowing what to do when the Pax tecum came around...it's very funny to watch.
And I love the C of E too...spent two years in one when I was annoyed with my own lot. Kind, harmless, warm, superb music.
But they ain't got Palestrina or things like I used to sing at seminary! :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXCE7lMMr8k
:-)
But Jesus himself warned about the people to whom He would say "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I know you not" -- to those who claimed to be his followers.
And please don't blame it only upon American protestants. Reagan was so much less a protestant than Kennedy, he shared Top Secret information with the Pope, and helped to curtail birth control advocates in the USA as part of the damnable bargain.
This is my biggest concern about religion, that people feel they have the right to force it on their children. If you believe something is right, surely you'd have the confidence to bring your children up to be good people and let them make up their own minds on subjects like religion?
I mean Jesus didn’t have Bethlehem renamed after him. Unlike the location brought to prominence by the collaboration between those two Johnnies, Keynes and Milton.
"we wouldn't dream of labelling a child 'Keynesian child' simply because her parents were Keynesian economists."
Or a Scientologist, because his progenitors were a palaeontologist and a psychoanalyst.
"who is it that 'just doesn't get it' - celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins or prime minister David Cameron?"
Well Dick doesn’t get that he’d have to be the infallible deity he says doesn’t exist, in order to possess a 100% certainty. And Dave doesn’t get that one man one vote isn’t democracy, if you’re the only man permitted to vote.
"He criticised the Church for "moral neutrality”
The time has come," the Walrus said
To talk of other things.
Not morals, machinations nor Murdochs.
Not missing majority mandates, or less than Magnificent Mings. Goo goo g’joob…
"Modern society requires and deserves a truly"
transparent approach to ideology. Whereby all who make claims can be held up to the light of enquiry.
"It's not entirely clear what 'it' is"
Isn’t “it”, in this instance, a mistaken belief that belief of any persuasion (especially if "it" is mine) is beyond query?
Every child that's born alive /
Is either a little Liberal, or else a little Conservative.
1. A Christian society with clear guidance on morality, values and an accepted way of living
2. Good parenting, where these same values and morality were followed in the main
3. Good schooling and classroom standards and discipline that were accepted, and where most teachers were clearly respected by all
4. A police force given the powers, but with the wisdom to use them appropriately, and as a result win the support of the public
5. MPs who were generally respected, and who usually had held real jobs before entering politics, led by a number of real leaders - Churchill, Atlee, Thatcher etc, not managers such as Wilson, Heath, Major and possibly Cameron You didn't always agree with their politics but they were leaders.
1. A Christian society with clear guidance on morality, values and an accepted way of living"
You wouldn't care to identify this idyllic age I suppose?
The day on which all religious parents, families and guardians can guarantee that they give complete freedom to their offspring to decide for themselves is the day on which this sentiment is relevant.
Unfortunately, what we see is a tendency among some of the faithful to bully those that choose to differ. This is unacceptable.
Dawkins doesn't tell people not to be religious, incidentally. Though he reserves the right to criticise belief that exists without evidence.
Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Wow, only took three comments this time. New record?
First of all - I grew up in an entirely Irish Catholic part of London with 200,000 just like me. I never met a single person from that world that felt bashed over the head with religion. It's one of society's great past times it seems; to invent myths about people of faith. In fact, most of the time it was just a great, protective community to grow up in. I loved it.
But more importantly, you could turn your argument on its head - the day ALL parents stop forcing their beliefs on their kids is the day the world will be a better place....supposedly. The fact is we all do harm to our kids heads by trying to prevent them from making our mistakes.
The faith in our home was simple - be kind, and if you ___ up at least be honest about it. I'm glad we went to Mass every Sunday - it gave me a billion friends I grew up with, gave me a lifelong sense of duty, and it gave me a world of thought to be amazed by. It was loving, kind and generous.
Sadly, in the US religion is now completely politicised. If this happens in the UK it will almost definitely lead to a powerful evangelical group here too. Yet I trust British politics to not let that ever happen. I don't think bishops should be in Parliament...but those guys aren't my bishops!
Sadly a lot of religion is not just about being kind. Fortunately that's what you've taken from it, and I feel privileged to have discussions with you on this subject, but my impression is that you are considerably more thoughtful and intelligent than most people.
Some of the Catholics my close family members have had to deal with were not as kind and considerate as you. They abused the positions of power that were placed in.
Religion was used to place people in these positions and they abused that trust.