This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Civic life and law must bind us, not ritual and religion

Civic life and law must bind us, not ritual and religion - Comments

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 1 by Michael Gray

This is a good sign.
They are mortally frightened for their very parasitic existence.
And rightly so.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:19:37 UTC | #918709

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 2 by SaganTheCat

brilliant article

as ever though CiF responses full of "ah but dawkins...." comments that effectively state they read the bit of the article that said 'agressive secularism' before jumping to the feedback

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:44:43 UTC | #918720

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 3 by Premiseless

HM the Queen sits sipping tea, swilling down the remnants of a clotted cream scone when suddenly alerted by her door bell chiming, "She who would valiant be." on a specially reclaimed set of church organ pipes, she calls out to Philip to, "See who that is darling whilst I joost pop on maiy bonnet."

Amidst muffles and scuffles and undertones of, '"Gawd I thawt it was those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses for a minute, but it looks as though they brought in reinforcements." Philip dashes out back calling, "Hold the fort Elizabeth whilst I rally the guards."

If only?

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:50:35 UTC | #918726

Mr Blue Sky's Avatar Comment 4 by Mr Blue Sky

Someone like Cameron can use his professional experience of being creative - a skill that I might liken to lying for the highhest bidder, since advertising standards are to be got round rather than embraced by some in the industry. I do not intend this as an ad hominem attack but he and his cronies can promote all and in fact almost any sort of nonsense to get votes and to make sponsors feel more comfortable. We really must keep up the volume of anti privilege articles while they become more widely acccepted. Richard & Paula have done sterling work this week and so too Polly Toynbee. Music to my ears...

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:00:55 UTC | #918735

sbooder's Avatar Comment 5 by sbooder

          [Comment 3](/articles/644984-civic-life-and-law-must-bind-us-not-ritual-and-religion/comments?page=1#comment_918726) by  [Premiseless](/profiles/172509)          :


                 HM the Queen sits sipping tea, swilling down the remnants of a clotted cream scone when suddenly alerted by her door bell chiming, "She who would valiant be." on a specially reclaimed set of church organ pipes, she calls out to Philip to, "See who that is darling whilst I joost pop on maiy bonnet."Amidst muffles and scuffles and undertones of, '"Gawd I thawt it was those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses for a minute, but it looks as though they brought in reinforcements." Philip dashes out back calling, "Hold the fort Elizabeth whilst I rally the guards."If only?

Love the spelling. It reminds me of the old saying "Sex, are what rich people keep potatoes in"

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:22:15 UTC | #918752

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 6 by Mrkimbo

An excellent article. Particularly liked the image of all the god-botherers huddled inside a ring of circled wagons, all hating each other's guts just slightly less than they hate the people outside, who most unfairly won't let them victimise others (as their religions tell them they must) in peace and quiet.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:38:12 UTC | #918757

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 7 by Premiseless

Comment 5 by sbooder :

It reminds me of the old saying "Sex, are what rich people keep potatoes in"

The rich, religious and powerful do a lot of double digging in that particular area.

Civic life and law will do well to reclaim the land!

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:51:17 UTC | #918766

Rational Ape's Avatar Comment 8 by Rational Ape

Sikh and ye shall find.

(Sometimes I cannot resist a bad pun.)

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:22:27 UTC | #918774

mattersoffact's Avatar Comment 9 by mattersoffact

Comment 8 by Rational Ape

Sikh and ye shall find.

I'd say that's islam dunk.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:07:22 UTC | #918831

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 10 by Schrodinger's Cat

I'd say that's islam dunk.

There's mo where dat came from.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:50 UTC | #918844

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 11 by Vorlund

The fawning snivelling mewling pewking faithful oozing mendacity like oily spivs. They aren't concened about a united front against secularism, they are jumping on a bandwagon knowing that whatever dubious footholds one woo pedlar gains can be applied to all of them.

That's why our scrofulous archbish argues for sharia, he'd like to impose a few homophobic mysogynistic rules of his own.

They should know there is danger in such alliances as ultimately they will all share the losses!

No prayers in council meetings means no Allah hu akbars either! Muslim homophobic thugs in jail means no bigoted B&B owners unlawfully discriminating against people.

In the UK might be about to witness a complete rout!

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:14:31 UTC | #918913

The Big Holey Cheese's Avatar Comment 12 by The Big Holey Cheese

Its a good article but some of the comments are amazing. Reasoned thinking just appears to be completely absent.

What about this classic? "A predictably ignorant, vague piece. Yet more hand wringing about our long established Church and the beliefs of the Christian majority. Yawn..."

oh dear. it may take a couple more thousand years to get sense to prevail.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:28:04 UTC | #918987

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 13 by Schrodinger's Cat

The faiths are all in a tizzy because someone has finally called out 'the Emperor has no clothes'.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:58:33 UTC | #918999

Viveca's Avatar Comment 14 by Viveca

Not often I agree with Toynbee, but she gets my vote here.

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:48:27 UTC | #919078

quarecuss's Avatar Comment 15 by quarecuss

The Pope and Popess of the once powerful Protestant empire, watching papal privilege peter out.

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:00:14 UTC | #919106

Rick1985's Avatar Comment 16 by Rick1985

A poor article from Toynbee. Secularists are not in fact the most vilified - in fact, amongst high-calibre religious, secularists are respected for their deep intellectualism.

The worst to a deep mystical Roman Catholic would be a waspish shallow religious who interprets their faith in the most ridiculous of ways. Every authentic religious must believe in miracles for example, as a matter of course.

And so the true battleground Dawkins needs to set out is not against these waspish shallow people but instead (respectfully) against the deep intellectual Roman Catholics (there are quite a few). To raise the profile of secularism, the real fundamental issues need to be targeted.

An example could be the nature of Spirit. What is Spirit? Is it ever empirically justifiable? Until the 20th Century the universal ether was advanced as the main macrocosmic theory, derived ultimately from Aristotle. Has a turning away from theories about the ether signalled a collapse of interest in this seemingly vacuous entity? How can secularists defend against it?

A final thought. Mysticism is widely practiced in religious faiths, included the seemingly exoteric Abrahamic ones. The root of all religion is mysticism, whether through extra-sensory experience or monotheistic revelation. Secularists need a stronger attack than simply dismissing mysticism as non-evidential.

How about considering the philosophical grounds behind a belief in extra-sensory phenomena? These can be arguments from utility or they can rely on philosophical traditions - Kant and Heidegger in particular. The former for his theory of noumena; the latter for the nature of 'Being' as a supposedly essential hermeneutic. As far as I can see it these are both secularisations of 'Spirit'. Something worth investigating further.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:38:27 UTC | #919583

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 17 by Stafford Gordon

A well written, balanced and concise article; you can't ask for more.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:45:20 UTC | #919668

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

Comment 16 by Rick1985

The root of all religion is mysticism, whether through extra-sensory experience or monotheistic revelation. Secularists need a stronger attack than simply dismissing mysticism as non-evidential.

The positive dismissals come from material physics and neurology which adequately explain spiritual feelings.(but do not give all the details because of the complexity of brains and their interactions).

All matter and energy is "natural". "Supernatural" does not exist in the real material universe. It only exists as a figment of deist /theist imagination slotted into a god-of-gaps assertion.

"Theist revelation", is an internal psychological feature, not a communication.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:19:49 UTC | #919703

PERSON's Avatar Comment 19 by PERSON

Comment 9 by mattersoffact :

Comment 8 by Rational Ape Sikh and ye shall find.

I'd say that's islam dunk.

Buddhist not acceptable to criticise religion.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:23:09 UTC | #919796

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 20 by Cartomancer

Buddhist not acceptable to criticise religion.

When did we ever feel the need to Tao the line? You're Confucian us with this reticence!

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:17:09 UTC | #919865

mmurray's Avatar Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 20 by Cartomancer :

Buddhist not acceptable to criticise religion.

When did we ever feel the need to Tao the line? You're Confucian us with this reticence!

I think you are over reacting. Try to stay a little karma.

Michael

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:19:50 UTC | #919875

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 22 by Zeuglodon

Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 20 by Cartomancer :

When did we ever feel the need to Tao the line? You're Confucian us with this reticence!

I think you are over reacting. Try to stay a little karma.

Jew think this joke is getting a little old now?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:15:51 UTC | #919880

mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

Comment 22 by Zeuglodon :

Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 20 by Cartomancer :

When did we ever feel the need to Tao the line? You're Confucian us with this reticence!

I think you are over reacting. Try to stay a little karma.

Jew think this joke is getting a little old now?

I Noah, I Noah.

Michael

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:48:38 UTC | #919893