Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

30 comments from readers

latsot
03 April 2009 at 15:49

Wishful thinking is always genuinely sad. Wilson comes across as someone who has pretended to accept Pascal's wager. If you want to find beauty in the universe, you don't have to look very far and you don't need to embrace the supernatural. Just look out of your window, for goodness' sake.

aelfinn
08 April 2009 at 17:07

Oh great, another writer who has not grasped the first thing about evolution *or* Darwin. Would it be asking too much to actually *read* The Origin to come up with an *informed* opinion about the relationship between Darwinism and gods? What about Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea? Read Morris's Darwin's Sacred Cause for his views on humanity in general and slavery in particular. What is an offense to the intelligence are Wilson's inane arguments. And basically telling Hitchens and Dawkins to get a life? I suppose Wilson has never even heard of the concept of irony. Amending Weinberg, apparently to make a complete arse out of oneself, it also takes religion.

George Walker
08 April 2009 at 19:18

After reading the above, it just confirms my immediate reaction thath AN Wilson's article could boil down to "I beleive there is a God, therefore everybody else should." His fellow christians must be wishing you had requested a more intelligently argued peice of writing.

If he seriously thought that even agnostics, never mind aitheists, like myself, would be persuaded he is seriously deluded.

suecpage
12 April 2009 at 17:15

Dear all,

I am a believer in Jesus Christ the Messiah and God and the whole word of God. I do believe that there is a better way to live and that is with the blessing of God on your life- you only have to look around a the world to see what has happened since people have disowned God. Without God there is nothing but hatred and anger and mistrust. With God if you take the 10 Commandments seriously you will find that there is only Love Joy and Peace for all mankind. It is a sad day that people are so adamant that to believe in God is a sad thing. Well - they thought that at the time of Noah too and look what happened. The world is at this moment entering into a very dark phase of unbelief and deception. Without Christs Death there is no redemption only misery and hell. Look around.and see for yourself. People who choose to serve and love God are happier and freer in mind and spirit.

Quidam
13 April 2009 at 17:30

The question should be rephrased: Can you love God and accept reality?

At least Wilson acknowledges that evolution is a scientific not religious question, however the scientific jury is only out because it reached a verdict a long time ago. The only argument left is a religious and political one. This is not to say that everything is known or settled, rather that the only role God has is to hide in the ever shrinking gaps of our knowledge.

He introduces the term "Honest Doubter" and capitalizes it too. What I wonder is a "Dishonest Doubter"? Or is this a term like "True Christian" - a means of denigrating those the author disagrees with?

Seeing the world in mythological terms may be much more INTERESTING than reality, but it would be dangerous to believe it to be anything other than myth, I enjoy the stories of Asgard, Middle Earth, The Hitchhikers Guide, but would consider myself seriously deluded if I actually believed in them merely because they are 'interesting'.

Books like "A brief history of time", "Your Inner Fish" and "The Selfish Gene" are fascinating and mind enhancing because they provide an insight into reality that we don't normally experience directly. But AN Wilson finds them boring and would rather return to the comfortable faith of his childhood read his big book of myths.

The belief that black people are more primitive than white people is obviously perfectly compatible with Christianity. It was preached (and still is in some churches) for hundreds of years and the Bible was used by Christian slave owners as justification.

I've never heard the views that religious people are spotty, spec wearing types. That sounds more like the popular image of scientific nerds. Religious people are (in my opinion) uncool because they express certainty about things they can manifestly know nothing about and try to impose their certainties on everyone else through law and education.

David Thomson
13 April 2009 at 18:23

This fellow Christian of A N Wilson isn't in fact wishing he had argued more intelligently - which might be thought presumptuous, but is a little bemused to find words like 'pretence', 'inane' and 'deluded' being used to describe him.

alanhogan
14 April 2009 at 01:33

Latsot couldn’t have said it better, and I agree wholeheartedly. Wishful thinking doth not an argument make.

Joel
14 April 2009 at 01:41

The third question where Wilson talks about how some song composers led a more interesting life is rather telling. Apparently their lives were deeper and more meaningful because they believed in a story that you didn't? Does a child lead a more interesting and meaningful life for believing in the Easter Bunny? It's all a bit bizarre to me, those people would have been just as talented and awe inspiring if they were atheists. Invoking them seems like a cleverly veiled appeal to authority.

MeltdownMessiah
14 April 2009 at 05:25

I'm disappointed that there was no delving into the impetus behind Wilson's becoming an atheist in the first place. To be honest, I doubt there was any better motivation for becoming an atheist than those insipid "childish playground things" that were listed.

You aren't an atheist simply because you don't want to lump yourself in with the religious in-group. You're an atheist if you simply don't believe in god(s).

In my estimation, Wilson wasn't an atheist any more than a pre-teen who rebels against the religion of their parental figures is an atheist.

To be atheist is to admit to an absence of belief, not in specific dogma or the embarrassing social structure of which you were a part, but of the whole absurdity of "super"natural existence and the lazy, blanket cop out of putting the unknown in the hands of whatever god or gods apply.

If this was meant to provide illumination or perhaps to persuade atheists to consider that there might be some manner of error in their way of thinking, then it falls horribly short of the mark. Reading this, I'm not given any impression that Wilson is any sort of source of wisdom or insight beyond the idle platitudes that come a dime a dozen from any uninformed proselytizer.

JoeDeMocritus
14 April 2009 at 09:17

Of course the problem with Pascal's wager is what happens if the god you've chosen to support in life is not the god that you find when you snuff-it. Oops, hellfire in eternity for supporting the wrong team.

I don't expect religionists to read accounts of Darwin or any other science books, most are too afraid of the challenge to their entrenched superstition.

Ben_UK
14 April 2009 at 09:37

It is interesting that his response to the original challenges to his faith are not given as lack of evidence or conflict with current evidence, His differentiation into scientific and religious questions at the end of the piece shows the usual parting of mental exhibited by educated religious people. It does not hold. The only thing this lacked was the tired attack on the strawman of materialism. Clearly this is a simple individual choice as so is a bit boring. It would be better if any religious person could forward a better argument than 'i quite like it thanks'

Atheism doesnt disclude mythology. There is plenty of it around. Atheists can still love father christmas and revel in fantasy and sci-fi. The are plenty of avenues for the imagination. You can indulge in them as much as you like, but self indulgence to the point of the acceptance of mythology as reality because you like how it makes you feel can be dangerous.

The Churches have always presented themselves as political organisations. They do good, of course. Any political organisation has to, but the good is used to defend the bad. Some might disagree with me, but any organisation that sells some idea, raises money for itself through this, lobbies on local and national issues and even global ones is clearly political. Especially if it is given privileges in national government. Politics based on mythology has not historically proven itself to be responsible.

Keep the good and get rid of the bad. Enjoy mythology, but dont lie to yourself about it.

Kagehi
14 April 2009 at 17:06

Wait.. His reason for not being religious was that religious people where not the "cool kids". It wasn't the logical inconsistencies, the ability of people to come up with moral rules without a magic being looking over their shoulder, an understanding of "why" we find Bach compelling that is based on biology, society and neuroscience, not on woo about 'spooky magic feelings', or anything else tangible. This guy opted to do the reverse of my niece, who recently told me, "I was hanging on and kind of hoping it was all somehow real, despite all the nonsense, but I recently realized that all of them are totally nuts.", and instead, apparently, found that some of the members of some local church are actually "cool", so he joined up again?

Sorry, but such thinking implies that the reasons for atheism had nothing to do with logic, reason, or evidence, and everything to do with "emotional appeal". He no longer finds it appealing, so he is now shopping for something else. This isn't news, its evidence that a purely "emotional" path to atheism doesn't work, and its a tragedy. The real thing tend to start from an emotional rejection of behavior they observe, and search for why, finding that the behavior is "encoded" in the ideas, irrationality, subservience, and rejection of contrary evidence, which are the core of religions. I.e., they reject the inequities and disturbing behavior they see, then the things that "teach" those inequities. Sounds like AN Wilson never quite "got" that far. Possibly because he never had a reason to look that deep, but only a shallow rejection of it, based on it not being "cool" to him. The ones that will fall back into it, all have weak basis for their lack of faith, and you can only hope they learn better ones before they do. Mere dislike of religion, isn't sufficient, since method #1 of evangelists is, "make them feel wanted and happy, until they are hooked, then get them to push the same".

Robert Estrada
14 April 2009 at 20:22

Dear suecpage,

I am an atheist. I was born and raised as one. Most of the people I know who are believers are as free as I am but many are not nearly so. A small minority live their lives in fear of a sinful misstep. It is sad that AN is so impressed by great masters in the arts. Yes they create great works of beauty but that does not mean they were not whole persons who are in the process of having their lesser sides forgotten.

By the way, your god is a loving father? I would call CPS if I suspected that a parent was even remotely as abusive as I have heard your god is.

Robert Estrada

God's Child
15 April 2009 at 18:14

I am a Christian and I just wanted to ask you to read John 3:16-21 with an open mind. I am a Christian because I believe Jesus Christ died and rose again for me. We as men do not determine the reality of God, we must simply answer to Him. The saddest truth is that one day we will both die. I know that my Redeemer lives and that he will stand at the last. Your future is not nearly so bright if you hold to your current belief system. Martin Luther truly said it best:

Whoever believes and holds to Christ’s Word, heaven stands open to him, hell is shut, the devil is imprisoned, sins are forgiven, and he is a child of eternal life. That is what this book teaches you— the Holy Scripture—and no other book on earth.

—Martin Luther

sandwiches
15 April 2009 at 21:22

Robert Estrada

You were born and raised an atheist? You were indoctrinated then? Oh No... that just religious people isn't it? Oh and Satanists (I always remember Peter Cook once being asked about Satanism when it was in the news and claiming to have been born and raised a Satanist.).

Treasa
21 April 2009 at 08:17

What this all boils down to is: The so called freedom non-believers cherish is not really freedom at all. They are bound to sarcasm, emptiness, following 'their leader' (whichever atheist is in fashion). They ride on feelings bordering on ridicule and even sadly, hatred of Christians. The true Christian prays for all his brothers and sisters, practices generosity of time and talent for alleviating suffering of others and tries to live within the parameters of the Ten Commandments so that he remains in the state of grace and pleases both God and man. Those who abandon those precious ten rules for living cause great mayhem, tragedy, greed and cruelty. When the world was civilized would we have thought that millions of children would become the pawns of porn and their death brought about by their own parents (inconvenient, career blockers, unwanted) ? Would governments have made laws that allowed such diabolical cruelty? Would the monetarily powerful countries have used their people's taxes to force smaller countries to change their laws leading to extermination of innocent lives? Would the so called freedom of a godless society force silence on those who speak of God's laws? Marriage, a Sacrament in Christianity, was never the property of government so what right have they to change its meaning?

Atheism is not freedom, agnosticism is just fence sitting. Your 'rights' end where mine begins. May God guide you.

djk
27 April 2009 at 14:24

Before Wilson gets too excited about Bonhoeffer’s Christianity he should seriously consider “Letters and papers from prison,” especially beginning with the entry dated 30 April 1944. He also quotes Coleridge: “‘And man became a living soul.’ Materialism will never explain those last words.” And yet, that biblical “living soul” is exactly the same soul that Genesis claims for the animals: it is not unique to humans at all. Finally, what Wilson needs is the explicit realization that “theism” is a genus, of which Christian supernaturalism is only a single species that may well be approaching (deserved) extinction. A serious look at A. N. Whitehead’s process philosophy/theology might serve him well in his present state.

RNijhoff
28 April 2009 at 15:16

From a Dutch perspective it is interesting to notice British writers like Anthony Flew and now, it seems, A.N. Wilson have the guts to change their mind without hiding this. Flew was accused of becoming senile, now the question of 'fear of death' is fired at someone not yet sixty. In any case, 'conversions' in both directions are possible, and it is my wish this would be more visible in Dutch press, too.

RANijhoff, The Netherlands

johnssaga@aol.com
28 April 2009 at 18:37

While not professing any particular faith, I chose to join the company of Einstein and Newton, et al, and believe in a God. I've done it each way and prefer believing. Belief, however, is not simply a matter of intelligence (although it helps); it is, as Wilson pointed out, an ability.

gdnickel
29 April 2009 at 07:02

So I don't get how atheists care what happens at all in life.

If an atheist doesn't like how religious people do things he could just get high day in and out and forget it - that wouldn't be wrong or a waste of life because, well, no such "values" really apply. Or if reality kept intruding on his escapist fog and he kept being troubled by currently evolved notions like "justice" or superstitious holdovers like "mercy" he could just end it all and "his quietus make with a bare bodkin." Because if consciousness is only a temporary illusion anyway, why perpetuate it if it bothers you?

But no, "conscience doth make cowards of us all" and we slog it out day after day. Which is why, after all, I simply don't believe in atheists - they don't really exist. I know they say they do, but they betray themselves with every breath they draw in order to claim so. Everyone who continues to put one foot in from of the other on a daily basis is a (literally) walking repudiation of atheism and a validation of the obviousness that life must have meaning and some kind of ultimate value.

So, maybe atheists will be outraged that I've suggested that their non-belief is a delusional hoax. But, really, why be outraged? Outrage isn't real, it's just an evolved reaction that can be chemically adjusted. Rage, love, hate, pride, joy - NOTHING is real in any ultimate sense.

If an asteroid obliterated earth tomorrow and all human culture with it, would that be tragic? I know it would seem tragic for us, but, after all, we'd be dead so ... no real regrets. Would the universe notice? Would there be a "disturbance in the force" like when Alderaan was wiped out by the Death Star? Would the end of our species make any difference to the mindless cosmos if we humans had either brutally tortured each other for our entire history or built a thriving, caring utopia instead? I can't see why or how.

Or maybe I'm wrong - but if I am - why do you care?

Graham Nickel

Abbotsford, Canada

kloughran
01 May 2009 at 21:33

I do not get the impression that Wilson feels a need to convince anyone of what he believes. He is just writing of his experience, take it as you will.

prhean
04 May 2009 at 03:25

The idea that complex life life evolved through natural selection acting on random mutations is incomprehensibly stupid. Only the dogmatic zeal of fundamentalist atheists and weak minded theistic evolutionists are keeping it alive.

agregg
04 May 2009 at 17:55

Why is it that most of the respondents here are so glib and unimaginatively certain in the supposedly cool logic of dour disbelief? The most appealing aspect of Wilson's piece is its lightness, humour and generosity. He happily recognizes that faith (belief) is difficult and more open ended than any aetheist can imagine.

agregg

BigA
07 May 2009 at 00:45

I'm happy to read about Wilson's experiences, but the cobbler should stick to his last. No serious jury is still "out" on the subject of natural selection. Or perhaps journalists should seek opinions from professionals within their area of expertise. I write as a biologist and a Christian.

jlrp
12 May 2009 at 18:54

I find it ironic when atheists say that those who believe in God can't prove his existence, when in fact they cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

Morgan
15 May 2009 at 00:14

DNA provides the basic codes that each plant and animal is made according to. The evolutionists' problem is the fact that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) has such complicated codes and locks each type of creature into its own pattern. Because of this, it would be impossible for evolution (which is the origin of species and change across species) to occur.

Inside every cell in your body is a microscopic ball. Inside it is a coiled six-foot strip of code! It is your DNA code, the primary code for your entire body. The whole thing is amazing.

In the center of each cell is a nucleus, and, among the complicated things in it, are 23 pairs of chromosomes. These are the strips, and on them are genes. They are like beads on a chain. Each gene has a large number of DNA units. There are about 60 thousand billion (60,000 x 1,000,000,000) cells in your body! Each one has your complete code. This code fixes your physical characteristics; it is your gene pool. All the data in each code set is equivalent to an unabridged dictionary.

It is clear that only a super mind could make all this! God made you; you did not make yourself. Seawater did not slosh around and do it

Just answer the question. Where did DNA come from. Science has tried and virtually every road, path, experiment has led to the same conclusion. Intelligent design. It is absolutely impossible for DNA to have happened by acident. Once DNA was created the miracle was over Evolution was the easy part..

john23
22 May 2009 at 11:39

Atheists dont need to disprove the exestence of god.the burden of proof is on the theist. A christian or jew cant disprove the existence of zeus or any of the ancient gods, and yet they dont believe in them. Christians are atheists in the sense that they dont believe in the god of war, rain etc. some of us have just gone one step further and stopped beleiving in another god.

BruceLJ
29 June 2009 at 15:56

"The belief that black people are more primitive than

white people is obviously perfectly compatible with

Christianity. It was preached (and still is in some

churches) for hundreds of years and the Bible was

used by Christian slave owners as justification."

There is nothing "obvious" about it if you have anything

beyond a superficial, selective reading of Christian

history much less its foundataional texts.

This clip is good example of the assumptions of many

of the comments above, based on an anti-religious re-

reading of history that has not been self-consciously

examined.

While it is true that, there were (sadly) those who

wrote such things in support of slavery, their

arguments were Johnny-come-lately self-justifications

in certain specific areas, NOT the historic Christian

position and NOT "used for hundreds of years".

As for the notion that this anti-Christian teaching is

"still taught in some churches" -- I'd love to see some

support for that accusation. (OK, take tens of

thousands of churches and you might find a handful

that teach almost ANYTHING! but that's scarcely

evidence that their views are consistent with the faith.)

Also, the terminology used above may mislead. The

view (correct or not) that another group is at a

particular time "more primitive" in its cultural

development does NOT entail the belief that the

people themselves are less capable of advanced

thought or culture. (You will find - it you take time and

care to read actual writers of the times - many who

believed, for instance, that Native Americans were

quite capable.) In other words, many attributed the

differences they saw to historical and cultural

circumstances not to intrinsic differences (as

evolutionary theory might).

Jpenduck
03 July 2009 at 17:47

I'm quite surprised at some of the outrageous, almost fanatical comments by some of the atheists here. I remember a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, when at the pre-debate talk, Dawkins described AN Wilson as a 'good man' and 'insightful writer' (back when Wilson was an atheist also); I reckon that's changed now: far from being a 'good man', or an 'insightful writer', he's gone over to the other side and has become 'inane'. Amazing how irrational and intolerant a liberal rationalist can be when one of their own changes his/her opinion!

JPrescott
13 July 2009 at 13:39

How about we accept that the reality is that the way of

Jesus isn't about religion. Its not about tradition, rules,

legalism, or even 'Christianity'. Dawkins always goes

on about 'religious' people as if aethism isn't a

religion, when in fact if you look at the definition of

'religion', aethism is just as much a religion as

Christianity is. In fact everyone orientates their life

around one way of seeing the world or another,

whether they realise it or not.

Its about living your life according to a set of values, its

about seeing everything in the universe and in

creation, including science, as spiritual and part of

creation. Its about recognising all reality is essentially

about God and comes from God, and that there is a

way to live which he designed for us, but which we

have deviated from which causes all the pain and

suffering in the world - and that through Jesus we see

that the better way of life is possible, and through His

death and resurrection that new life is made available

to us. That Jesus is about restoring things to how they

should have been in the first place, before we decided

we knew better than God.

Its honestly not about religion. Its about a way of life

and a new reality, one that has been there all along

and is wanting us to embrace it. The reality and story

that has been going on all the time, whether we know

it or not. That's real, authentic, 'Christianity'.

Jesus didn't come to start a religion, but to show us the

true reality of life and open the door for us to live

according to that reality, and to model what it looked

like in the flesh. To find our true identity. That's it.