PZ Myers: "I compared religion to knitting - a hobby"

Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers discuss life, religion AC Grayling's new university.

"We come from a culture which values critical thinking," said biologist PZ Myers last night. In conversation with Richard Dawkins at the Institute of Education, the pair of New Atheists attempted to show that they could demonstrate that quality.

Dawkins and Myers are both biologists, and both share the same strong ideas on evolution (fact) and religion (fiction). Myers believes it's OK to practise religion, but that it should never be taken seriously. "I compared religion to knitting - a hobby," he said. Both claim they would remain skeptical about the existence of God even if a 15ft Jesus stood in front of them and boomed "I exist!"

The discussion sparked some interesting questions: "Can we already predict what is outside of life?" and "What is the supernatural?" Of the former, Myers said that "carbon seems to be the tool" and Dawkins added "to believe the supernatural would be to give up".

The pair came across as intelligent, if occasionally self-righteous. Dawkins claimed: "If you teach a child that it's a good thing to believe that just because he has faith you don't have to justify it, then those children are going to grow up in a minority. They're going to say, well, my faith tells me to go and bomb skyscrapers."

They also tackled the question of whether believers should be respected. "I will not tolerate this excuse of faith, of wallowing in faith," said Myers. Dawkins agreed, complaining that "they teach children that faith is a virtue".

You might expect a discussion between two such strident atheists to attract the ire of religious groups, but in fact it was another group which took exception to the event - students. Protesters angered by Richard Dawkins' involvement with AC Grayling's private university, the New College of the Humanities, disrupted the evening by popping up periodically to shout at the speakers. The audience didn't seem to have much sympathy for the students, though, so perhaps they had picked the wrong crowd.

Towards the end of the question time, one protester asked why Dawkins felt that the university was acceptable at a time when students were fighting hard for their right to education.

Dawkins made it clear from the beginning of his response that his answer was, basically, that life is not fair: "like it or not we do live in a political system where some people are richer than others". He added: "If you want to picket Anthony Grayling, you might as well picket anybody who owns a car that is above average price."

Dawkins told the audience that he would like it if "the government, through taxation, paid for free education for everyone" and his supporters appeared satisfied. The discussion on the university was closed and there were a few more questions about faith. The biologist predicted that soon there would be no need for the word "atheist", as "you don't need to say what you don't believe in, because there's no reason to believe it in the first place".

Henrietta also blogs here.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How a small tax rise exposed the SNP's anti-austerity talk for just that

The SNP refuse to use their extra powers to lessen austerity, says Kezia Dugdale.

"We will demand an alternative to slash and burn austerity."

With those few words, Nicola Sturgeon sought to reassure the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland last year that the SNP were a party opposed to public spending cuts. We all remember the general election TV debates, where the First Minister built her celebrity as the leader of the anti-austerity cause.

Last week, though, she was found out. When faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to invest in the future or imposing cuts to our schools, Nicola Sturgeon chose cuts. Incredible as it sounds the SNP stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories to vote for hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts to schools and other vital public services, rather than asking people to pay a little bit more to invest. That's not the choice of an anti-austerity pin-up. It's a sell-out.

People living outside of Scotland may not be fully aware of the significant shift that has taken place in politics north of the border in the last week. The days of grievance and blaming someone else for decisions made in Scotland appear to be coming to an end.

The SNP's budget is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament. It will impose hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to local public services - including our schools. We don't know what cuts the SNP are planning for future years because they are only presenting a one year budget to get them through the election, but we know from the experts that the biggest cuts are likely to come in 2017/18 and 2018/19. For unprotected budgets like education that could mean cuts of 16 per cent.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. The Scottish Parliament has the power to stop these cuts, if only we have the political will to act. Last week I did just that.

I set out a plan, using the new powers we have today, to set a Scottish rate of income tax 1p higher than that set by George Osborne. This would raise an extra half a billion pounds, giving us the chance to stop the cuts to education and other services. Labour would protect education funding in real terms over the next five years in Scotland. Faced with the choice of asking people to pay a little bit more to invest or carrying on with the SNP's cuts, the choice was pretty simple for me - I won't support cuts to our nation’s future prosperity.

Being told by commentators across the political spectrum that my plan is bold should normally set alarm bells ringing. Bold is usually code for saying something unpopular. In reality, it's pretty simple - how can I say I am against cuts but refuse to use the powers we have to stop them?

Experts - including Professors David Bell and David Eiser of the University of Stirling; the Resolution Foundation; and IPPR Scotland - have said our plan is fair because the wealthiest few would pay the most. Trade unions have backed our proposal, because they recognise the damage hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts will do to our schools and the jobs it will cost.

Council leaders have said our plan to pay £100 cashback to low income taxpayers - including pensioners - to ensure they benefit from this plan is workable.

The silliest of all the SNP's objections is that they won't back our plan because the poorest shouldn't have to pay the price of Tory austerity. The idea that imposing hundreds of millions of pounds of spending cuts on our schools and public services won't make the poorest pay is risible. It's not just the poorest who will lose out from cuts to education. Every single family and business in Scotland would benefit from having a world class education system that gives our young the skills they need to make their way in the world.

The next time we hear Nicola Sturgeon talk up her anti-austerity credentials, people should remember how she did nothing when she had the chance to end austerity. Until now it may have been acceptable to say you are opposed to spending cuts but doing nothing to stop them. Those days are rapidly coming to a close. It makes for the most important, and most interesting, election we’ve had in Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale is leader of Scottish Labour.