» Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Church Of England To Take On ‘New Atheists’

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as “a social problem” and says the next five years are set to be a period of “exceptional challenge”.

It expresses concern that Christians are facing hostility at work and says the Church could lose its place at the centre of public life unless it challenges attempts to marginalise religious belief.

The rallying call comes amid fears that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs.

Members of the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, will be asked at this week’s meeting to back the landmark report, which outlines a vision to ensure a strong future of the Church.

Commissioned by Dr Williams and Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, it says that religion in Britain is under threat from atheists, but admits that the Church faces many internal problems as well, from ageing congregations to rows over homosexuality.

Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens, it says the Church must respond if it is not to be pushed from the public square.

“One of the paradoxes of recent times has been the increasing secularisation of society and attempts to marginalise religion alongside an increasing interest in spiritual issues and in the social and cultural implications of religious faith,” says the report, called Challenges for the New Quinquennium.

The Church must be “explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem,” it says.

“This is partly about taking on the ‘new atheism’.

“Bishops have a key role here both as public apologists and as teachers of the faith.”

The Church is keen to address the rise of new atheism, which has grown over recent years with the publication of bestselling books arguing against religion.

However, the document says that this intolerance is becoming more widespread and can be seen in public bodies, which it says must be challenged over attitudes of “suspicion or hostility towards churches and other faith groups”.

In recent years, a number of Christians have taken legal action against local councils and hospital trusts after being disciplined for expressing their faith by wearing crosses or refusing to act against their orthodox beliefs.

“There is still work to be done to counter the prevailing tendency of treating faith as a private matter which should not impact on what happens in the public realm.

“This is a challenge for all churches and faiths, but especially for the Church of England.”

The report, produced by the Rt Rev David Urquhart and the Rt Rev Alastair Redfern, the bishops of Birmingham and Derby respectively, also highlights the main problems facing the Church.

It says the Church of England can appear too vague on where it stands on issues and risks further divisions over the introduction of women bishops and future debates about sexuality.

“By conducting its internal discussions in public it offers a model of openness yet sometimes makes it hard for others to discern where it stands on particular issues,” the report states.

It predicts “the next five years are set to be a period of exceptional challenge for the nation and the Church of England.”

In particular, it points to the fallout from the economic crisis, shrinking and ageing congregations and the retirement of 40 per cent of its paid clergy in the next decade.

Stewart Lee On Creationism And Richard Dawkins

Monday, November 29th, 2010

Comedian Stewart Lee’s take on creationism:

Dawkins on Absolute Morality

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

Richard Dawkins answers the question:

How can atheists have absolute morality without a “leap of faith”?

Watch the entire episode here.

Richard Dawkins Interview on Religion, Evolution and Iraq

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

By Matt Kennard

MK: Do you draw distinctions between religions? In terms of Islam and Christianity do you think they are both equally malicious and malign or do you think that one is worse than the other?

RD: Well in terms of the potential danger from blind faith there’s no difference between them. All faith is dangerous because all faith teaches that you don’t need to argue for your point of view – you just simply assert: this is my faith, this is what I believe, I don’t have to give reasons for belief. That is very dangerous. And in the case of Christianity the danger in practice was sort of played out in the Middle Ages and thereafter and Christianity has now more or less tamed it except in some extreme areas in America. In Islam it hasn’t and so what we’re seeing in Islam – they are now doing what Christianity used to do in the Middle Ages, in much more dangerous circumstances because now there are much more terrible weapons than the Crusaders, for example, ever had. Or than other Medieval Christians ever had.

So Islam is the big danger today because they have a Medieval mindset which bursts through into the twenty-first century.

MK: How far do you think the rise of this Medieval mindset can be put at the door of the West in terms of encouraging it in the 20th century?

RD: That is always a good point that one has to make. That the West in a way has been answering for trouble by its belligerent posture, for example, in the Iraq war. This has served to exacerbate political – that’s undoubtedly true. But I think it’s a sort of added affect over the precept of Islam.

MK: Do you think religion – I know your very anti-it – could it be described as an evolutionary mechanism to consolidate social relations and that type of thing?

RD: I believe that it probably does have to have some kind of evolutionary explanation. But you immediately slid into one particular hypothesis, which was social consolidation. That’s only one of many hypothesis that one could offer and it could be right but you don’t have to plump for that one when you talk about an evolutionary hypothesis.

MK: So it could be a whole manner of things?

RD: Yes. Social consolidation is not a very good evolutionary theory, by the way, because it doesn’t explain how it could have evolved. It says that in some vague sort of way it’s a good thing. But a vague good thing – there’s no rule that says it has to evolve. No absolutely not. I mean natural selection is a very specific process, which works by the differential survival of some kind of entities as opposed to alternative entities. In real biological evolution that usually means genes: that successful genes survive at the expense of unsuccessful genes. The reason they survive is that they are good at doing something: good at building bodies that fly or hunt or swim or whatever it is. To say that something that something is good for social consolidation doesn’t explain anything because it doesn’t say why natural selection would therefore favour it.

You could make a kind of group selection model. There are people who believe that natural selection works at the group level. That some groups survive while other groups don’t survive. Then you could say, well, groups that have a religion that causes social consolidation survive. Groups that don’t have a religion or have a less efficient religion don’t survive. And that is group selection but group selection is a very… I mean it’s controversial and I’m partisan in that controversy – I don’t think it works. This could be the one place where it does work but I would rather bring it down to the level of the individual and say: “What is it about the psychology of humans which makes them take to religion under the right circumstances? And how is it that that particular kind of psychology in the past made them more likely to survive and reproduce?”

Click to continue »