Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

The God issue

Andrew Marr

Published 31 January 2008

Is the Divine dead? In this special issue, we weigh up the evidence. Andrew Marr opens by revealing the roots of Britain's deep-seated distrust of fanaticism

We agreed to disagree, God and I, more than 30 years ago. I concluded that He was a metaphor, He begged to differ, and things went downhill after that. Yet for all I've led a secular life in a country regularly described as the least religious in the world, God takes some shaking off. His teams say He is omnipresent and though I don't agree, He has quite a property portfolio, many voluble cheerleaders and, if official statistics mean anything, the tacit support of most of the country. Then there are churches! The minarets! That slot on the Today programme . . . If God is a metaphor, He's a pretty noisy one.

The last census showed that more than 72 per cent of British people called themselves Christian, around 3 per cent Muslim (it will be more by now) and half a per cent Jewish; so that's more than three-quarters for the Sky-God, as Gore Vidal puts it, or the Abrahamics. Just under 15 per cent said they had no religion, and just under 8 per cent ignored the question, being either so secular that they didn't get it, or perhaps people who think God disapproves of questionnaires.

Now, of course plenty of the three-quarters only mean they quite like humming the songs, or feel sentimental when they roll up to see Fiddler on the Roof. They are religious in the way that someone who has bought a pair of trainers is an athlete. They might be mildly offended by the New Atheism, the broadsides of Richard Dawkins, A C Grayling or Christopher Hitchens, but not enough to turn up and listen to a vicar putting the other side. The 2005 Church Survey, assessing the size of congregations in the country's 37,000 churches, reckoned that only 6.3 per cent of people showed up regularly. A thousand people joined a church each week, but 2,500 left one.

Behind the raw figures, there is plenty of change. Driving back from work on a Sunday, I pass big groups of black kids outside church, clutching their Bibles. The decline in attendance has slowed only because of immigrants: more Poles boost Catholic churches, and yes, in inner London, for instance, less than half the churchgoers are white. Above all, there is the rise in British Islam, both in visibility and numbers.

Much of this is a familiar story for the modern British. The Church of England suffered one of its most precipitous periods of decline from 1935-45 and overall church attendance after the Second World War was boosted by immigrant Irish and refugee Poles. The rise in the Catholic Church has been a long, slow curve, not a recent burst.

Crazy about moderation

What has really changed is God in the public culture. He may still be in the Garden, in private places, but think of Britain in the 1940s and 1950s. Think of the influence of religious poets (T S Eliot, the later Auden), of religious art and architecture (the rebuilding of Coventry Cathedral), of religious music (Britten's hymns, Missa Brevis and carols) and of religious writers such as C S Lewis, and it's clear that Christianity at least has moved from a powerful cultural position to a marginal one. Add to that the saturating influence of hymn and psalm settings and the near-ubiquity of church weddings and funerals, and you see a really big change. Go a little further back and think of Victorian Britain: a much smaller population and churches which now seem ludicrously large and empty.

I think it is simply because the once-dominant church, the Anglican one, and for that matter the Church of Scotland, in which I grew up, were simply never as aggressive and authoritarian as the Catholic Church, or any variety of Islam. This is a watery, temperate country with a long and soundly based suspicion of intensity. Apart from Northern Ireland, the last time the British were really intense about religion was in the 17th century. If you want to imagine what the civil wars were like for many villages and towns, with neighbours killing neighbours and families dividing, think of the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq, or the worst of times in the post-Yugoslavia Balkans. Oh, and we had our Taliban, too, from John Knox's version in Scotland to the statue-smashers and dance police of Cromwellian England. The misogyny that allows Muslim women to be stoned or beaten for alleged sexual transgressions is vile, as vile as our one-time relish for roasting witches. Though no one knows the real figures, it is thought that some 40,000 women were killed here in the "burning times".

Somehow, the folk memories remain for longer than his torians acknowledge. It's less that the British are irreligious, or even secular, though many of us are. It's not that the Brit-ish are hostile to God. It's that they are hostile to fervour, to fanaticism, to taking anything, even the Meaning of Life, too seriously. It's a lesson learned long ago, the hard way, and never quite forgotten. And it gets more important, not less. A small, crowded place, the world's island, can't afford assertive, flaming certainties. Something, or somebody, might catch fire.

It's important to try to rein in Muslim extremists. It matters that more level-headed imams gain ground. For a country in a world that will depend on science to get us through hard times ahead, it is vital not to equate creationism with Darwinism, or to allow any religious group to dictate to others how they live their lives. But as people come here, and live here, and look around and wonder about God and the British, the real prize is to persuade them just to calm down. He may be among us. Or, as I think, He may not. (I take no pleasure in that, by the way: praise, in the sense of drinking in the delight of life, is good, and asking, "What's it all for?" is inevitable. Wondering about death is, too, and communal singing is a wonderful thing. It's just the facts I have trouble with.)

But either way, if God is still with the British, He will be quiet, understated, embarrassed by enthusiasm, and no supporter of violence, or even violent words. Some think God is a bright-eyed woman; others think He is a local and shy affair, fluvial, bosky and - in Louis MacNeice's phrase - incorrigibly plural. Over time, I think, His property portfolio will shrink and He will quit any involvement with the state, and a good thing, too. But the problem isn't God. The problem is anger.

Andrew Marr hosts a Sunday morning TV show on BBC1 and Radio 4's Start the Week. His next book will be a history of modern Britons from 1900-45

A brief history of God

1200BC Zoroastrians in ancient Persia begin to speak of a single, unchanging God

1200-400BC Judaism develops as a faith in one God for a single, chosen people

4thc BC Plato describes "the divine creator" as the highest and most perfect being

1stc AD In Palestine, Jesus preaches that there is one God - the Father - and he is His son

325AD The Nicene Creed defines Christian belief in the Trinity

613AD In Arabia, Muhammad preaches that Allah is the one eternal, transcendent God

1517AD Martin Luther's teachings begin the Protestant Reformation

1882AD Friedrich Nietzsche announces that "God is dead"

1900sAD Sigmund Freud describes God as a projection of the mind

Research by Aditi Charanji

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

30 comments from readers

RobinEdgar
31 January 2008 at 21:55

The rumours of God`s death are greatly exaggerated. God`s teams understand that God is omniscient as well as omnipresent and omnipotent. The Creator of the Universe has seen fit in Its wisdom to symbolize Its attribute of divine omniscience with the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God'.

See - http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Totality_Carlos_Kern...

The total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' symbolically looked down from the heavens on southern England and Europe on August 11th, 1999. Unfortunately heavy cloud obscured the view of this bona fide 'Sign In The Heavens'. Six months from now, on August 1st 2008, the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' will appear in the skies above northern China, Mongolia, Russia (Siberia) and the Arctic regions including north western Greenland and some of Canada's Arctic Islands.

See - http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEmono/TSE2008/TSE2008...

I am proposing that human beings should observe a World Day of Conscience whenever the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' makes an appearance in the skies above our planet. Please see the World Day of Conscience blog for more information about this proposal.

http://worlddayofconscience.blogspot.com

mama pajama
01 February 2008 at 04:56

As a Jew who has studied Jewish history for many years, the above timeline does not fit with Jewish understanding regarding it's origin and development. A Jewish perspective would read a closer rounded number of 1800-425 B.C.E It is even off by about a hundred years too late for the concensus of receiving the Torah by Moses at Sinai, which was definitely not the beginning of Judaism. While the wording in the above timeline states "Judaism developed from...,etc. a cursory glance would tend to see that date as the origin, rather than a reaffirmation and renewal of the covenant nation in it's emancipation from the bondage of polytheism, idolatry to man/gods and a culture obsessed with the afterlife as well as from their physical bondage.

A more commonly accepted timeline for Jewish history regarding it's origins and development may be viewed at http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_J...

or from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/context....

In addition, I wish to note that the use of the word Palestine to refer to Judea in the !st century CE is controversial at best.

According to Thomas McCall, the name "Palestine" was not used until the early second century CE. The Romans continued the use of Judea and called the northern regions Galilee. McCall wrote: "When Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Roman government struck a coin with the phrase 'Judea Capta,' meaning Judea has been captured. The term Palestine was never used in the early Roman designations." 3 After Bar Kochba's unsuccessful second Jewish revolt against Rome in 135 CE, Emperor Hadrian ordered that all Jews be exiled from the Holy Land. "He took the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, Latinized it to Palestine, and applied it to the Land of Israel. He hoped to erase the name Israel from all memory."

Some sources claim an even later common usage origin to the early 4th century. I cannot find any reference dating to the first century calling the Holy Land by the Latinized reference to the Phillistines of Palestine.

clp
01 February 2008 at 13:02

"The last census showed that more than 72 per cent of British people called themselves Christian,"

I can't vouch for the other religions in the UK, but it's my experience that that many British people consider Christianity to mean 'British' and therefore are Christian by default if they're British (unless they're another 'foreign' religion).

So the fact the 70% consider themselves Christian is no way surprising. Ask how many of them are actively religious (ie go to church once in a while, even if only at Christmas) then you'll get another result altogether.

Guy Bellairs
01 February 2008 at 15:48

The 'natural parameters' of Nature which determine, for instance, how strong gravity is, cannot (strangely) be calculated. But in fact they have been set exactly so as to make the Universe fit for living things to exist in. If they were a bit bigger or smaller the universe would be a complete wreck or at any rate uninhabitable.

In consequence, being open-minded, I deduce the obvious - the universe was devised by an external 'rational designer' which must ever lie beyond our understanding and is unlikely to have any animal characteristics or to have identified with any of the thousands of Deities that human animals believe in.

merlin
01 February 2008 at 16:30

I'm not so much concerned with what type of "God" but what his/her purpose is, which answers for me the who what and why - try this for size:

Suppose at the beginning of time there was only Intelligence – and nothing else!

Who is it - What is it?

Who knows - because there is nothing else with which it can compare? As comparison is the only means by which measurement, analysis, knowledge and understanding are achieved, what is to be done?

By its very nature intelligence is inquisitive. So how does this Intelligence begin the mighty task of establishing who and what it is all about?

The answer I would suggest is to “Create” an infinite number of different aspects of it. Through the experiences created by these differing aspects interacting with each other in a constantly changing environment, this Intelligence can gradually build up a picture of who and what it is and its capabilities. "Balance" is the means by which this information is created, assessed, retained, refined or discarded.

This is my personal slant on what Science refers to as “The Big Bang” and Religion calls Creation, in which a vast amount of energy was applied to an immense task of investigation and understanding.

As time has passed many and various aspects that have been created have been retained, refined or obsoleted, depending upon “what works” and “what does not work” in a process of comparison and balance that we call Evolution.

If we look at the shark for example, it reached perfection millions of years ago. It continues to operate within this thing called life without seeming to endanger the subtle balances in its own environment – it works!

Conversely the internal combustion engine reached perfection 100 years ago and through its interaction with the atmosphere is now contributing to unsettling the balance of the environment. This imbalance cannot be remedied unless it is obsoleted, or dramatically changed from its present form – it doesn’t work!

These two examples have one thing in common – their ability to function within an integrated and evolving universe – a “living and working” universe - and in so doing add another piece to the vast jigsaw puzzle that is Creation.

Similar experiences on every new and diverse aspect of life are generated continuously as this “Intelligence” goes about the business of gaining knowledge and understanding. Evolution is the direct result of this generation of information, which also fuels new experience and knowledge.

Ancient (and modern) Wisdoms extol us to “live in the present”. The past and future are two aspects of life over which we have no control. If the purpose of life is to experience then the past has served its purpose and the future is waiting to do its job. By living in the present we too fulfil our role as elements of this Intelligence, experiencing every moment of our lives to the full.

Time (in human years) offers some idea of the magnitude of the task, and the miniscule and detailed level of understanding that is sought. It is at this point that I find human values are totally inadequate to try and even begin to estimate the magnitude of information gathering that is going on and the manner in which it is happening. However the simplicity of this description of what life is all about answers for me the “paradox, pain and perfection” that is life.

Riaz Ahmad
02 February 2008 at 13:57

It is not God who created man in his own image, on the contrary, it is man who created god, imagined all the human attributes, streched them beyond all proportions to that of perfection and allocated them to God. If one is acknowledge the god of religion, all powerful and all knowing, the perfect being, then he could not have created this world with all its mess. Even if he made a mistake in creating this mess, then at the very least, this perfect being will not allow such mess to continue unabated. As for his kindness, mecry and justice, 50% of the world goes to bed every night hungry, and he does not even blink and eye lid.

dratsie
02 February 2008 at 19:16

merlin - I'm putting this as kindly as I can when I say I can only assume you just haven't been paying attention for a large portion of your life. Your entire post is laughable, but in particular I have to pick out your comparison of sharks and internal combustion engines - the notion that the engine has been 'perfected' in any kind of evolutionary sense, or counts as an independent organism for that matter, instead of one more reason humans are making the environment less habitable all round, is one I cannot fathom in the slightest... I have to raise the issue of this delightful passage as well:

"As time has passed many and various aspects that have been created have been retained, refined or obsoleted, depending upon “what works” and “what does not work” in a process of comparison and balance that we call Evolution."

you have managed to craft one of the worst definitions of evolution I have ever seen, turning it into some quasi-religious process by which means the universe (sorry, 'intelligence') progresses deliberately, improving as it goes until everything is 'perfected'... I can only plead that you take some time and read a scientific text - or maybe just a dictionary - and find out what you are actually professing to know about.

BritishAirman
03 February 2008 at 08:00

A lesson you might like to read, Sunday 03 February 2008.

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

writeon
03 February 2008 at 12:54

Dratsie,

I think you're being rather harsh on the wizard, Merlin. The first part of his post, the abstract part, is quite interesting. Trying to come to terms with what 'God' isn't easy. The idea that God is pure 'intelligence' the power that informs the universe isn't laughable in itself. Metaphysics is often very difficult to put into words and religious attempts to 'define' or 'describe' God, or even give 'him' a name, are notoriously problematic.

When Merlin moves from the abstract to the concrete problems clearly arise. I'm slightly confused by his examples too. But I don't think one needs to ridicule, insult or show quite so much contempt for someones views. It shows a certain lack of grace.

I've often speculated that religion, and God, is a vain, cultural and metaphorical, human attempt to explain the unexplainable. Namely an attempt to develope an acceptable set of answers to an 'infinite' number of questions relating to the nature, source, character, and future of the universe, and our role in this 'mystery'.

writeon
03 February 2008 at 13:31

Andrew Marr - what can one say? More to the point what is Andrew Marr actually saying? I wish I knew. I've read it a few times now and I'm still not really sure! Maybe that't the point? Maybe confusion is the mother of moderation. Is that supposed to be a comfort?

Andrew Marr almost seems to be saying that 'God' resembles him and reflects his attitudes, and the calem, liberal vallues of his 'class'. Can this be right? Do we conclude that the enlightenment was the 'middle-class' dragging God off his throne and replacing him with themselves? I'm sure Beethoven would have understood this type of conceit. I create, I am man becoming... a God!

The point about the British not taking anything too seriously, even the meaning of life, is once again, rather problematic. Which British is he refering to? I think he's talking about himself again and his social group. Is this really an accurate description of the British? That we are so moderate, so lacking in passion and fire, and intensity? I'm prepared to agree that I've met a lot of people like this, but I've also met another kind too. Perhaps the burning passions of the British have been channeled into something else rather than religion?

It's not as if the style and humour of the British middle-class is universally applicable. What is humour anyway? What function does humour have in society? Is it really that funny when one thinks about it a bit?

Is Jane Austin really the epitomy of english style and humour, or does she represent something that's got less to do with irony and far more to do with tragedy?

It really is a bit glib to turn God into a mild-mannered estate agent type from the Home Counties managing his property portfolio, sitting at home by the fire with his pipe and slippers, and occassionally looking over the top of his Gaurdian at the world around him.

writeon
03 February 2008 at 21:05

As it's Sunday a line from Andrew Marr suddenly struck me, we the British are hostile to taking anything, even the meaning of life, too seriously. This wan't meant as a criticism, but as something positive, something commendable, something to be proud of, a shining characteristic of Britishness.

But couldn't one argue that this means we are profoundly shallow and superficial. That nothing really matters to us, that nothing has real worth anymore? Or is it that the only thing that we take seriously is our right to take nothing too seriously? Is life but a joke, not to be taken seriously? Maybe it is? We can distance ourselves from reality by presenting a ironic face and distance to it. It's a way of avoiding real egagement and responsibility for our actions, because, after all we weren't really serious.

A heart are we merely amoral and hollow? Unfeeling husks masquerading as human beings?

What about life and death? Are we the kind of people who don't take life and death too seriously? Because to be really, authentically British means we don't take anything too seriously?

Is this really something to be proud of? That we don't take anything too seriously? Or should we really be deeply ashamed that we have so littlle understanding that we take nothing too seriously?

Is that the reason why we went to war against Iraq so easily, because we no longer take anything too seriously? We no longer take war and mass destruction too seriously? But should we take some things seriously? Isn't life and death too important not to be taken seriously? Can one really have a kind of ironic distance to mass murder and mass destruction? Is it because we are the ones doing the killing that we can afford to not take anything too seriously, because it's not our children and loved ones that are being ripped apart by bombs and bullets?

Clealy I'm taking Andrew Marr's words seriously, very seriously. He is an influential media actor, and he appears so shallow, so full of himself, so lacking in empathy for the suffering of others, so isolated from the consequences of our actions. A million and half dead Iraqis and destroyed nation, but don't lose sleep over it, it the essence of being British to moderate the loss away, the dead don't really bother us too much, because we don't take anything too seriously.

radius
03 February 2008 at 22:22

Riaz, spot-on. As human beings we need to pull down the vanity and striving of creating an all-powerful and eternal being in one's own image, and make our peace with the fact that we are human, with no part of or relationship to, any invisible and silent mega-being.

NatO
04 February 2008 at 09:04

RE: RobinEdgar - Please don't take thi sthe wrong way, but: are you joking? I really can't tell if you are taking the mick or you really believe "The Creator of the Universe has seen fit in Its wisdom to symbolize Its attribute of divine omniscience with the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God'."

Dude, it's an eclipse. This is not the Aztec empire; I thought we had moved beyond worshiping the sun and the moon, and attributing meaning to the predictible movement of astronomical bodies...

Also, RE: Guy Bellairs - we have only had science for a couple of hundred years. Just because some things are not 100% worked out yet doesn't mean they won't be in the future. It's not open minded at all to make a decision that "the universe was devised by an external 'rational designer'" when in reality we are only scratching the surface of knowledge and will surely, given time, find more plausible explanations to these questions.

LowFidelityDisconnect
04 February 2008 at 10:31

I think what Andrew is saying about British-ness is an observation on what is essentially an all too difficult to define quality of what sets the British character apart from other cultures. I think he summed it up quite well, bearing in mind that this is a short essay fro a magazine and only meant as an illustration of a broader point. Writeon needs to consider that what it means to be British was not actually the subject of the piece.

However, as an illustration, I think it was spot on. The British character, if there can be said to be one, is one of almost self-imposed reluctance to get worked up about things. It most certainly does not mean that we don't take anything seriously.

We only need to take a brief look at the circus of election hysteria across the Atlantic to see the effects of taking things so seriously they move out of all proportion to their importance. The issues of race and gender are obscuring what should otherwise be a debate on who should run the country, not whether we can elect a black man or a white woman.

This obfuscation of the real issues is exactly the same in religion. I am an atheist. I believe in physics and evolution. The problem I believe is that we are still talking about religion like it's a viable alternative to measurable fact and observable sense. While I believe anybody has the right to believe what they choose, I do find it frustrating that people choose to believe something that is quite clearly, to the rational (read scientific) mind, false.

Religion has played an immensely important part in our understanding of life in our history, and opened up discussion on some very interesting an important philosophical questions, not least of which is 'why are we here?' These questions are no less relevant after the discovery of evolution than they were before; if anything they are even more interesting, free as we now are to explore the nature of existence without the burden of creationism.

If we assume that God (in whatever form) does not exist, can I posit a more relevant question for our times? No longer should we ask 'why are we here?', but 'what should we do now that we are?'

writeon
04 February 2008 at 14:38

Dear Lowfidelity,

You clearly don't agree with Andrew Marr. You wrote that, 'Britishness' certainly doesn't mean that we don't take anything seriously, and he wrote the opposite. He may not have meant what he said, or meant something else, or doesn't know what he's on about, but, that is what he wrote. I'm not making it up.

I'm aware that the subject of the piece wasn't 'Britishness'. I've written about what I think of the rest of it. But Andrew Marr is an influential, establisment, journalist , writing a rather glib piece about God/religion, and one has to assume he gave some thought to his choice of words and what they mean. I'm not inventing what he said. Andrew Marr wrote that the "British are hostile to taking anything too seriously, even the meaning of life." This may be an attempt at irony, on the other hand, he obviously believe he's got a point. That his words have meaning, otherwise why bother to write anything at all about this subject?

I was speculating about whether his statement about not taking anything too seriously applied to wars of mass destruction leading to massive loss of life in, for example, Iraq? I wondered if it might be true, in a strange sort of way. Judging by the muted response to Tony Blair's participation in warcrimes, I believe there's some validity to my argument.

One can of course assume that Andrew Marr just knocked off this article in a tick and didn't mean half of what he said. This is quite possible. But he did write what he wrote. I'm not putting words in his mouth. Have I distorted what he said? Have I taken a simple remark and blown it out of all proportion? Perhaps.

I just wondered if this kind of thinking and attitude applied in a wider context. Perhaps he really means that the British don't take anything too seriously, and that this is a positive quality and characteristic the British have, in contrast to for example, Muslims! Dreaded Muslims again. Compared to us these buggers seem to really take things too seriously and get worked up about 'things'. They actually get upset when we invade their countries, detroy their cities, and slaughter their people, funny lot! Why can't they be more like us? When are cities were being destroyed by the Nazi Luftwaffe we just shrugged, make a joke and put the kettle on! My these Muslims have lot to learn about warfare!

I think his comments about Muslims, who he seems to lump together in one big pack, are outrageous. His 'analysis' about the nature of the occupation of Iraq by western forces is establishment propaganda.

We are rational and moderate and they are raving fanatics, hundreds of years behind us on the scale of development. This is the establishment line, one that's been around for centuries in one form or another, so maybe we aren't as 'advanced' as we like to think we are? Historically we've always turned those who resist us into savages, to make slaughtering them more palatable, sensitive and moderate things that we are.

They he directly compares the stoning of women in some Muslim countries, with the witchtrials when 40,000 were roasted! Isn't this going somewhat over the top? Whoops, my moderation is slipping, damn those Muslims for getting me so worked up!

Then he's off about the need to rein in Muslim extremists and how much it matters that more level-headed imams gain ground. As if the Muslims are somehow irrational when they get angry. He actually states that the problem is anger, not God.

There is nothing about our 'crusader' army invading Iraq and destroying it. Or our Christian nutter of an ex-prime minister Tony Blair leading the charge. Bush the religious nutter/fanatic gets let off too. He unleashes the most powerful Christian army in history on a couple of Muslim nations and kills tens of thousands, but this somehow doesn't warrent a mention, but Muslim anger does!

It's very one sided and biased writing, and terrible history, and very right-wing politics. This dreadful, pathetic idea that we are the innocent victems of Muslim terror and senseless violence, and it's got nothing to do with our military agression towards them. Palestine doesn't exist, Iraq doesn't exist, Afghanistan doesn't exist, only their incomprehensible anger.

maruf the cobbler
04 February 2008 at 19:58

Riaz is being very kind to a sloppy, messy, bungler . Thirtyfive percent going to bed hungry? What about the 165 million born every year without eyes to see or ears to hear or tongues to speak with. What about 1,578 million born with endemic diseases so crippling they are destined never to lead useful lives. And should we write off the chromosomes mix up that result in a sixth of humankind growing up to become creatures of no determinate gender that the bungler's proliferating army of prophets condemn as abominations.

Klatu
04 February 2008 at 23:43

Borrowing sentiments from Mark Twain, The death of God has been greatly exaggerated. I think that Idea, so subject to confusion, exploitation, speculation and abuse is about to make a comeback and this time in no uncertain terms: Check the link, the download is free and change the course of history! http://www.energon.org.uk

Jonc101
05 February 2008 at 05:19

As Nietsche said 'religion is the greatest method for leading Man by the nose'.

chrisdornan
05 February 2008 at 17:07

How very self-satisfied. Funny that relatively speaking, we spend more than anyone else on the planet on the killing business. Perhaps it is because we are so satisfied and sure of our superiority (indeed a shared trait of this club).

http://peaceandwisdom.org

Robert Powell
05 February 2008 at 17:12

Pah. Andrew Marr is the Jackie Ashley of British journalism!

radius
06 February 2008 at 20:00

chrisdornan, i'm not sure in what sense you are using the label "self-satisfied"...the atheistic position is that the self is fleeting: clinging to the self, thinking the universe was specially created for one's self, and fancying that the self has a stake in the eternal, could reasonably be described as "self-satisfied". Humanists do not 'believe' in humans (ie that they're fantastic), just that our humanity is our boundary. We may all find beliefs that contradict our own to be kind of smug when we can't change them - but "self-satisfied" atheists who don't get to live forever in the special favour of the maker of all things? No.

Greywizard
06 February 2008 at 20:10

Is God dead? I wasn't aware he was ever alive.

Ron McKeown
08 February 2008 at 18:10

Andrew

Your article has inspired the usual comments from the usual type of people. I think the problem is that you consider religious belief to be seperate from belief in general. It is no different to any other irrational belief whether that belief is political, scientific, philisophical, alien abduction or a second gunman on the grassy knoll, etc. It is belief itself that poses a danger to the life of the individual as witnessed by Hitler, Stalin or any other madman. Religion is just another aspect of a dangerous human condition.

BritishAirman
10 February 2008 at 08:31

Today's lesson (10 February 2008) concerns: "Is everyting already decided?"

http://markatscotland.blogspot.com

Killfacer
10 February 2008 at 18:33

Bravo andrew

Quanti
11 February 2008 at 00:23

Guy Bellairs

You are assuming the conclusion.

"But in fact they have been set exactly so as to make the Universe fit for living things to exist in. If they were a bit bigger or smaller the universe would be a complete wreck or at any rate uninhabitable."

If you claim to be open minded then please also be open to the idea that the universe just happened to have the properties for life to exist.

Cause if you are going into the logical route of saying that only a designer can create, then the obvious question must of course be, who then created the designer.

Simply stating the devine was always there is simply yet another assumption based on need for your argument to hold water.

The fact of the matter of course is that there is nothing that says that just because the universe supports life, it shows that a designer must have made the universe.

There are so many other possible explanations to this.

So dont claim an open mind if you dont have one.

Ron McKeown
11 February 2008 at 21:55

Can I just speak up for the “True” atheist here. There is no such thing as an atheist “belief”. An atheist does not believe in anything whether it be religion, politics, science or anything else. People who “believe” there is no god are agnostic. It is not a question of belief for an atheist, it is a knowledge based on logic.

merlin
13 February 2008 at 12:20

Dear dratsie

I have spent the last 20 years of my life considering what life is all about and the effect balance plays in it.

Your comments are not thought through properly and come from a scientific bias.

When you talk in a less then glowing term about religion remember that religion is not responsible for global warming - as science is not responsible for continuous human conflict

This is fine as life comprises of opposites (as I mentioned) and is the means by which learning is obtained - even scientific learning!.

How else can quantifiable information be evaluated. So keep up the good work of biased and limited opinion - we all learn from this.

bungle
29 August 2008 at 18:13

Since there is not one scrap of evidence for the existence of a tangible, Omnipotent god while, on the other hand, there are billions of data confirming Darwin's theory of the evolutionary origin of species, may I propose that we adopt Darwin as God and when we say we believe in God, we mean we believe in Darwin. God bless! John Vaughan (aka The Headingley Bugle)

Simon Icke
05 May 2009 at 18:54

Jesus Christ is Alive! I used to be an atheist but realised I had no real purpose in life and nothing that the world offered could fill that spiritual vacuum I felt inside. One day realising that everything the world offered was empty and only of fleeting interest. I humbled myself and repented and invited Jesus into my life. At the moment I said the believer’s prayer I knew that Jesus was alive as I experienced the power and love of his Holy Spirit. That was in 1979 nothing since then has convinced me otherwise than that was the best decision I ever made in my life to become a born again Christian and know the love, joy and power of God's Holy Spirit. I found a living faith that I didn't deserve. It was by God's Grace alone that saved a wretch like me.

I pray than one day when you stopped following the fool Dawkins that you to will find Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Saviour. I am certain that Jesus Christ is alive. I have witnessed many instances where I have seen God's power at work including the miraculous healing of my brother Danny when he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour and given only weeks to live. That also was in 1979. My brother was miraculously healed by the power of prayer. He is still alive and well 30 years later. The bottom line is that I have lived a life without God and found it to be empty. But I have had the humility to believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah, the saviour of the world and found it to be true. Every time I pray I feel his presence and his amazing love. All the money and power in this world cannot compare than having a personal faith in Jesus Christ.

I hope one day that all you who persecute and ridicule Christians will one day have a Saul experience and be touched by the power of the Holy Spirit on your own Road to Demascus( see the book of Acts) and realise how wrong you have been and start to follow Jesus rather than the false empty wisdom of the aggressive atheist . Seek and you will find Jesus is Alive

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker