User talk:Clockback/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 My Evolution/Religion Diatribe 2 Beliefs and Values 3 Swearing 4 PH; ‘swinging from the gallows pole’ 5 This Sceptic Isle

My Evolution/Religion Diatribe

(...continued from the discussion on the Peter Hitchens discussion page...)

First of all, you asked me to withdraw a claim of certainty about the theory of evolution, as you have done about alternatives like creationism. I’d already admitted I was wrong to use a word like “literally” when describing what the fossil record appears to show. In truth, no theory can ever be “proven”, only disproven by observation. Even with a theory like gravity… if one day the earth’s mass stopped pulling us inward, the theory would have to be abandoned.

I have demonstrated a lack of certainty by stating that, if the theory is disproven by observation, I will abandon it with no qualms at all. If that happens, all I will have lost is a delusion, and the search for truth will continue. Nevertheless, I find evolution to be a convincing theory that makes sense to me and correlates well with the world I observe.

You wrote: “You have persuaded yourself that you are certain of the truth of evolutionary theory, which, bizarrely, you treat as a proven fact, apparently because it's 'obvious'.” --- Hopefully, this is now cleared up. You perhaps hint that I have some kind of emotional investment in this theory. That is not the case. The theory convinces me because the evidence for it convinces me. Its only appeal to me is that I think it is true (some reasons are mentioned above and some further below).

You wrote: “I'll happily concede that the eye might have evolved. It might have done. I cannot prove it didn't. I just don't think it did (because I prefer the idea of an ordered, purposeful universe, and its moral implications), and nobody has ever proved, or ever will prove, that it did. Are you prepared to make the matching concession, and say that, likewise, it might have been created, and that you cannot prove it wasn't?” --- Although you answered “no” for me, my answer is yes.

It’s not that I “prefer” to believe in godless evolution for aesthetic reasons. Your version of events actually sounds much nicer in many ways. I just personally find the ID story unlikely and implausible. It does not tally well with the world I observe.

When I think about biological malfunctions like cancers, or when I hear of babies being born horribly disfigured and malformed due to a “genetic glitch”, I cannot reconcile these things with the idea of an all-knowing designer. It does not make any sense to me. Any God who would design wasps to lay their larvae inside living caterpillars, to burst out while the poor creature is still crawling along, has a seriously perverse streak.

You wrote: “That is because your supposedly scientific view is actually based not upon knowledge, but upon your evolutionist faith, to whose dogma all facts must be subjected.” I don’t accept that evolution is a faith any more than I accept the theory of optics is a faith. If it ceases to stand up to scrutiny, I will dismiss the theory. It is as simple as that. I only stick with it so long as evidence supports it and nothing disproves it. As a faith-based dogma, this hardly compares to Islam or Catholicism.

You asked: “What is your source for this belief? Someone told you so at school? You read it in a magazine?” I’m not sure if it intentional or not (probably not), but that reads as slightly patronizing. In fact my “bog standard comprehensive education” was pretty limited all round. It may have touched upon evolution at some point, but it was not very in-depth and it didn’t make much of an impression on me. After leaving school I developed a thirst for knowledge that persists and grows as time passes. It’s self-perpetuating – the more I learn, the more I want to find out. I’ve always been interested in nature, even from childhood, playing with insects and bugs outside. I’ve also always been an avid reader, not being a natural social animal, and I used to spend half my spare time roaming through libraries. My conditional “belief” in evolution has developed as I’ve learned more about it.

For a time in my mid-teens I believed in the Bible, and that was not conditional at all. Gradually, though, I began to see gaping holes and contradictions in my belief system - I just couldn’t keep it up. Feeling tricked and quite silly for ever being taken in, I crawled out of the hole I’d dug. What I found quite scary afterwards is how humourless and judgemental my delusions had made me towards people I knew. At one stage I offended my sister by quoting scary mumbo-jumbo from Revelation at her, because I’d become convinced that her soul was in jeopardy. It never quite occurred to me that maybe the whole thing is a made-up mythology, like ancient Greek gods or astrology. The Bible was written a couple of thousand years ago, hardly an enlightened age. Mental illness was seen as demonic possession; angels and miracles were pretty commonplace.

You wrote: “ID is a sceptical current. It does not seek to prescribe any particular belief, but to cast doubt on the dogmas of the Darwinist Ayatollahs.” – That’s one way of putting it. Critics point out that prominent ID advocates have made speeches to Evangelical congregations, saying that the reason for distancing the term ID from literalist creationism is strategic – they think it has more chance of being taken seriously if its public face is stripped of any explicit religious connotations.

My main problem with ID is that it is without substance. The ID lobby uses many impressive-sounding phrases, but essentially it’s a group of people saying “evolution is wrong” because they don’t like it. Where is the hard science? Dissent alone does not discredit a theory.

As you rightly point out, ID is not a rival theory. It’s not really anything more than vague criticisms of evolution without backup, and that is the problem when it tries to present itself as a credible counter-Darwinism force. Some unkind critics also allege links to the Christian Right in America, and its attempted campaign to turn the USA into the CRA, the Christian Republic of America. After watching scary documentaries like God’s next army, nothing much would surprise me.

Going back over some of your earlier comments, I notice that you criticize evolution for not having the characteristics of a proper theory. I find your arguments flawed.

You wrote: “If it took place at all, it took place when there were no witnesses to record it.” –Yes, indeed, but the fossils and bones are still around for us to look at. The process of evolution is so gradual, anyway, that the only way to directly “witness” evolution in action is to see a person or animal with an unusual feature or mutation that conferred an advantage in survival or reproduction rather than being detrimental – and if this person or creature goes on to procreate and pass on the feature. We rely mostly on the fossil record, stacks of physical evidence, to “witness” the process.

You wrote: “And it is not taking place now.” - But of course it is taking place now. Even a while ago in the Daily Mail there was an article about how the human face and skull is changing shape, in terms of relatively recent history. Male faces in particular have become more rounded and feminine, facial bones becoming smaller by centimetres. Researchers took thousands of head and facial measurements of adults walking around today and compared them to statistics of people only a few generations ago. This is subtle change based on sexual selection, rather than anything radical and mutation-based, but it still demonstrates a drip-drip of change. Remember that major changes can take millions of years, dictated by fluctuating selection pressures.

There are other examples you could think about – humans taking wolves as companions and ending up with Labradors, Red-Setters, and Poodles. That’s guided sexual-selection by breeders rather than natural selection, but it demonstrates the physical differences (and even differences in temperament and behaviour) than can come about by selection alone.

You wrote: “And it cannot be used to predict events.” Yes it can. It predicts that living creatures will physically change over time to adapt to environments they find themselves in.

You wrote: “You breezily accept that the fossil record is full of gaps, though you (wisely, perhaps) weave past the other fossil problem, that of the sudden appearances and disappearances which it reveals.” --- I don’t accept that it “reveals” sudden appearances at all. I would say it is more rational to acknowledge that the fossil record is incomplete and that we haven’t yet found all the missing jigsaw pieces. If there was a sequence of numbers – 1, 2, 3, 4… 6… 9, 10 – I would look at it and say steps 5, 7, and 8 are missing. I wouldn’t say that 6 is strange anomaly that has appeared in the sequence with no connection to it. I would first assume that somebody had rubbed out the missing numbers. In other words, it’s unrealistic to expect every stage of every animal in evolution to have a corresponding fossil in the archive. Archaeologists and fossil hunters do their best, but they’re not super-humans. As it stands, the fossil record is still pretty impressive.

We can probably argue about the details and specifics of this theory until hell freezes over or until war criminal Tony Blair apologizes for plunging Iraq into a sectarian bloodbath, but I doubt we are ever likely to see eye to eye on this. If Oxford don Richard Dawkins can’t convince you with book-length arguments, I do not have much chance.

On the subject of RD, you wrote: “Why do think Richard Dawkins keeps writing books trying to prove that it is true, if it has already been proven to be so?” --- Again, it is impossible to ever “prove” a scientific theory. But Dawkins has said he fears religion is on the march, challenging science itself - while mainstream scientists are not doing enough to educate the wider public. For instance he was baffled to visit an Evangelical Christian academy in England where Noah’s flood was being taught in “science” lessons. For anyone with a vaguely rational mind, such developments are frightening. He fears, rightly, that the institutions of religion are far better versed in the arts of propaganda and proselytizing (they’ve had centuries of practise) than scientists are at making discoveries known and understood.

On Israel and the Middle East…

You wrote: “If, as you say, you don't know much about the Middle East, and if you really doubt ( for example) that Zionism, National Socialism, British and American colonialism, Arab nationalism and many of the other forces which have been at work there are secular, then shouldn't you try to find out a bit more before expressing such strong opinions?”

I admit that I do not know as much about the Middle East as you probably do, although I do aim to educate myself more on this. My main sources of Middle-Eastern information are general history books and news reports.

You mentioned a few “secular forces” that have influenced the region. I need to find out more about this, evidently, but are you actually saying that Zionism has no connection to the faith Judaism? Isn’t that its inspiration, ideas about Jewish destiny based upon the faith?

Arab nationalism… while there may be some purely secular Arab nationalists out there, are you arguing that the thrust of Arab nationalist feeling (as it relates to the foreign policy makers of Arabic states) has nothing to do with Muslim Arabs wanting Islamic dominance of the region when there is an “intolerable” Jewish state stuck in their backyard?

Iran has been linked both to Hezbollah and to Shiite Islamist fighters in Iraq. If Iran is aiding these groups (with funds/weapons and so on), is this motivated purely by opportunistic nationalist interests or is it an attempt to spread the Islamic revolution and Shiite theocracy?

I also understand that Nazism influenced the region during the 1940s, as you mentioned. Interestingly, Nazism has all the characteristics that I find distasteful about religion itself… a central figurehead who must be obeyed and who is beyond all question (the deity Hitler), an absolute faith in an irrational belief-system (pseudo-scientific racial nonsense, German “destiny”)… I could almost use this as yet another example of religion scarring the region, leaving a legacy of racial hatred towards Jews.

I realize that politics and perceived injustices on all sides play a role in the Israeli/Arab tensions. Obviously it is more complicated than a pure Islam versus Judaism holy-conflict. But I certainly question whether the problems would be half as bad without absolutist religious positions polarizing everyone involved, motivating “martyrdom operations”, causing Iran’s meddling into foreign conflicts, and all the rest.

Is it purely a coincidence that the “Holy land” is a focal point for three major Abrahamic religions and it has not known any lasting peace for centuries? From Saladin and Richard the Lionheart to the present day, the problems appear never-ending.

There is more to criticize about religion than obvious Crusades and Jihads anyway. The general influence of religion, even in peaceful times within advanced societies, is something I view as mostly negative. Whether it is George Bush fighting stem-cell research that could save lives, whether it is the Catholic Church preaching against condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa, whether it is various faith groups in Europe forcing the censorship of plays and cartoons (all of these initiatives informed by odd supernatural beliefs), religion loves condemning or banning the “sinful decadence” of society – except the nature of “sin” depends upon which faith is most vocal or powerful at the time.

Although the local Imam may think it evil and sinful for women to wear short skirts, I find it warped and unnatural to pressure women into wrapping themselves in black cloth to appease an imaginary super-being who supposedly even watches people when they are on the toilet. If such fairytale nonsense were not formalized in ancient texts, it would probably lead to padded rooms and straight-jackets, or at least psychiatric evaluation.

There may be a difference between religious moderates and religious fundamentalists, but all buy into the idea that virtually any outlandish belief can or should be taken seriously and treated with respect merely because it appears on a very old scroll or because many people believe the same thing. Anyway, what is an extremist but a moderate who one-day got serious and decided to believe everything in his Bible or Koran – even the lunatic bits about killing non-believers?

The problem with religious tolerance is that it paves the way to a society where me poking fun at Tom Cruise’s Scientology becomes a hate crime, perhaps only permissible if I claim mocking Scientology is part of my own Evolutionist Ayatollah religion. I’m tired of the notion, cherished by my Leftie political bedfellows, that religious views and practices are somehow sacrosanct and beyond any criticism. So where do we draw the line? Certain imported African churches, such as Combat Spirituel, have preached that children could be possessed by demons and should be beaten severely if tainted by evil spirits. This has culminated in several cases of appalling abuse and even child-murder. Should we refrain from pointing out the ignorant superstitious madness of believing in demons, for fear of upsetting minority religious sensibilities? Or does stopping child-torture take priority in this case?

I am not saying that everyone should become an atheist. One of my best friends is a non-religious theist, and I often find his views thoughtful and intelligent, although we have a lot of debates about his idea of theism (he gets around the problem of evil, for example, by stripping away omni-benevolence from the deity, arguing that God is neither “good” or “evil”, that God is beyond such terms of reference altogether, or that the deity is equally good and evil – all the suffering in the universe is God’s dark side, all the Good and compassion is the light side. Rather than argue against evolution, he says that God created the universe with the Big Bang, knowing that life would eventually evolve as it has done.)

I always have to wonder, if a God created the universe… who or what created God? And what created that creator?

I’m not arguing that everyone should be an atheist. I am saying we would be better off without dogmatic organized religions that are based upon blind faith in supernatural claims rather than rationality.

HERE we go again, round the same old tragic roundabout. You won't give an inch, will you? You still think that evolution is proveable and proven, until and unless God sends you an e-mail to tell you you're wrong. It doesn't matter to you that Richard Dawkins accepts that it is unproven. You, in some mysterious and unstated way, know better. Your parallel with gravity is wholly absurd and logically worthless. If gravity ceased to operate, then we would want to know why it had ceased to operate. We would not conclude that it had never existed, because there is endless evidence that it previously did. We know it exists now, can describe it and can use it as a predictor. We even know how to escape it and nullify its effects. What we don't acually know is how or why it exists. There is no parallel at all between this observable phenomenon and the speculative, conjectural theory of evolution. It cannot be disproved because it has never been observed in operation, and because it makes no falsifiable predictions. Let me try it another way. No 'law of evoliution' can be stated and then observed in action. There would be no way of knowing if it had ceased to operate because it has never observably operated in the first place. Evolution concerns events which took place before there were any humans to observe them, and offers conjectures about events that might, if it is correct, be observable long after we are all dead. Gravity concerns here and now. Any of us can observe it in operation. This difference is so blindingly obvious to me that until you have grasped it I really cannot see any point in continuing this exchange. I can argue only with people who are responsive to my arguments, and deal with them, and I think I can say that I have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to discuss this with you. I would persist endlessly if I thought you were paying attention. But, like so many people in the grip of the Darwinist Moonie cult, you aren't. Please try again, and start by explaining to me why Professor Dawkins is wrong about the unproven nature of evolution, and you are right. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Are we on the same page? I never claimed that evolution was proven. I think somebody called Allen Roth did on the article discussion page, but that wasn't me. If I say that evolution is "established science", I refer to the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts it as the most likely origin of the life we see today. Although some disagree on the details, virtually all agree with evolution in principle, and I don't know of any serious scientific paper supporting Intelligent Design as an alternative. I don't claim Dawkins is wrong : I have already discussed the unprovability of scientific theories above. -Neural 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My profuse apologies. My error, mistaking an old entry for a new one. Consider the above withdrawn.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

-Neural 11:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I do not answer at equivalent length. If I have understood you correctly, you have now withdrawn your claim of certainty. Good. This is all I ask anyone to do in this matter. The prescriptive belief in the absolute, unquestioned truth of the theory of evolution implies the untruth of any other position, including one of scepticism. This appears to me to be totalitarian in nature, especially since I agree with Richard Dawkins that the evolutionary theory is prescriptively atheist, and cannot buy the attempts to claim that evolution (a random, undirected process by definition) might have been a creator's chosen method.

I do not wish to debate types of religious belief, or even the reasons why I prefer the idea of an ordered, purposeful universe to that of a chaotic purposeless one. By expressing sympathy for what I regard as the sceptical current of ID, I do not associate myself with every exponent or supporter of that theory. I oppose dogmatism on this subject, of any kind. Religious belief is and ought to be a choice. You say that ID is 'without substance'. That is precisely why I like it. It does not prescribe what anyone should believe about things of which we know little. As I think I pointed out to you, Darwin destroyed a universal certainty. Perhaps for that reason, his followers sought to replace it with a new universal certainty. Yet they are unable to do so. With arguments as elaborate as those of the ancient Church fathers and the dogmatic Popes, they seek to maintain that their theory is the truth and all others are false. What is quite plain (and it is the ability to date rock that is far more important in this than the theory of evolution)is that Biblical literalism is incompatible with scientific knowledge. But Biblical literalism is not the only form in which a man might believe in an ordered universe.

Your assertion that ID is "not really anything more than vague criticisms of evolution without backup" is worrying. Do you really think so? How much of the ID case have you read? The Michael Behe argument about irreducible complexity is not vague, nor is it without back-up. It is a serious attack on the probability of the evolutionary process. Phillip Johnson's popular essays on Darwinism and the justified critiques of evolution education in "Icons of Evolution" also seem to me to score some important points about the pitiful state of public knowledge on this subject, matched with the absurd certainty of so many people about a subject they imperfectly understand. Any serious discussion of the fossil record, especially of the "Cambrian explosion" and the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, casts doubts on Darwinist orthodoxy. And , as you will know, there are significant differences among Evolutionsits on the nature of the process, notably between Gould and Dawkins. It is sympathisers of ID who - with whatever motives and associations - have raised these legitimate criticisms. Whatever else they say and do, their actions have brought us closer to the tyruth, not taken us further from it. Johnson is also good on the popular misrepresentation of the argument itself in popular culture, especially the play and film "Inherit the Wind" which purport to be true accounts of the Scopes case, and are not.

In part of your note, you confuse evolution with adaptation. Rounder faces, refined dog-breeding (which reverts as soon as human agency is withdrawn) and such things are alterations within species of a kind which a designed creation would or could contain. If you think that these developments are the same as evolution, then you wholly underestimate the ambition of the theory you defend - which posits changes from one species to another, from fish to amphibian to biped, from reptile to bird, etc, never observed. You still don't get it about the fossil record. Sudden appearances and disappearances, in strata whose age is known, do not illustrate the lack of evidence of intermediate stages. They illustrate a much faster process than evolution, as currently understood, allows for. The gaps, while damaging to the theory, simply demonstrate a lack of actual evidence for a conjecture which is in any case essentially circular, and explains differences in fossils separated by time as being the result of evolution. If you don't accept the theory of evolution, there are dozens of other possible explanations, one of them being that different but similar creatures existed at different times and are not necessarily each other's ancestors or descendants. Let me try to illustrate this by a non-evolutionary parallel. Denmark and Albania both have several essential similarities, small countries with long coasts at the edges of Europe. They are also deeply different.But is Albania Denmark in an earlier stage of development? Or vice versa? Or are they just phenomena in their own right, unconnected by anything except the fact that they are human societies on the European continent?

The sudden appearances and disappearances, on the other hand, have a wholly different significance. The existence, in dated strata, of evidence of such appearances and disappearances in short periods of time suggests that the evolutionary process, at some stages, suddenly happened much more rapidly than at any other point. Unless you can allow for 'saltations' which suddenly accelerate the process, such things can't happen. And if it does have such 'saltations', then the whole idea of an undirected process is undermined. What could cause these leaps?

By the way, the wasp larva seems pretty difficult to explain whichever approach you adopt.

I repeat, I have NO intention of getting you to see eye to eye, a simple point with which you appear to have grave difficulty. I merely wish you to acknowledge ( as you initially did) that your received belief that evolution is a proven truth is ill-founded, and that I am free to believe otherwise without being derided as a denier of scientific truth.

If you rely on news reports for your understanding of the Middle East then, forgive the expression, heaven help you. This daily parade of ignorance dressed up as expertise is grievous to the point of pain to anyone who actually knows anything. As for general history, the case for Israel is rarely presented in books published on the Eastern shores of the Atlantic, where Middle Eastern (Muslim, Arab) oil is more important than it is on the Western shores.

I haven't time to engage in religious argument here, nor do I wish to confuse it with my much more important case, for freedom of belief in this area.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and Values

(...continued from the discussion on the Peter Hitchens discussion page...)

The unicorn analogy was very lazy, I admit. Then again... I genuinely don't believe that a personalized deity (or any deity) is required to explain the existence of life. I believe that a God raises more impossible questions than it gives pat answers to.

You wrote: There is no comparable equation which would or could be completed by the existence of unicorns, though if Darwinists believed in them I have little doubt they would by now have found alleged unicorn fossils. --You often make these vague insinuations about fossils, and I'm never sure quite what to make of them. Are you suggesting that scientists are gluing bits of old bone together to "create" fossils that back up their theory? If so, do you really think this could survive the scrutiny of the scientific community worldwide? The unicorn analogy may have been intellectually lazy as I rushed out that last reply, but such hints at a conspiracy theory seem... incredible. Perhaps you could elaborate on fossil-evidence being manufactured by scientists, evidently with an amazing degree of sophistication, and the naive gullibility of the entire scientific community and general populace in post-religious societies.

You wrote: It is perfectly possible to be familiar with the discoveries of modern science and to be a Theist. --Indeed. I agree. I've said as much. I just don't think it is too reasonable to be familiar with the discoveries of modern science and believe in people walking on water or flying up to "heaven" as Mohammed was supposed to have done. Although the David Blaines of this world can create clever illusions, actual levitation or walking on water would seem to break the laws of physics.

Even if we ignore the astounding nature of religious claims (demons, djin, men claiming God to be their dad...), the monotheistic holy texts are riddled with internal contradictions. I am bemused by those who can overcome all this to find a way to believe it all.

You wrote: I am not urging my opponents in this discussion to adopt my faith. I am seeking to persuade them to accept that my faith is just as valid as theirs. --I don't accept that my weak atheism is a faith. Strong atheism might be. I don't accept that evolution is a faith. As for your faith being "valid"... Yes, I suppose it is as valid as any set of astonishing beliefs. It depends on what you mean by the word valid. However, I simply don't see such beliefs as being rational.

Perhaps it would help if you explained why on earth you believe what you do, how/why you are able to suspend your disbelief to have faith in claims that many find utterly incredible. Or how faith alone is any kind of meaningful defense of these claims.

You wrote: Do not seek to mock what you do not - yet - understand. Do not assume that religious believers are stupid. --I have never suggested you were stupid, or called into question the intelligence of religious people. Somebody could be a delusional genuis, and there is no contradiction. If I thought you were stupid, I would not be writing lengthly messages and replies for you to read.

You wrote: Treat your opponent's arguments with respect and answer his case. --I've tried to answer your claim that religion is compatible with science, with modern society, or with rationality. I think uncritical faith in religion is a suspension of rationality and critical thinking. I think it is dangerous, divisive, and harmful to humanity. I take the same approach to Christianity, Islam, or Judaism as I would to a UFO-worshipping cult that somehow became evangelical enough to dominate half the world.

As for some of your political or social views, I may indeed gain more respect for them if/when I understand them better.

I may try to play on the absurdity of my opponent's claims, especially regarding religion, but this is not out of any disrespect towards you as a human being. I have long respected you, as a journalist and writer, for a number of reasons... despite having many views that are polar-opposite to yours.

I try to focus my criticisms on attitudes and beliefs rather than people. Muslims are as beautiful as human beings as any other human beings... who often waste their lives in subservience to a religion that stifles their every thought and action. To use a Dawkins-like analogy... I hate the virus, not the person who is ill. I would never attack any Muslim personally, but I refuse to take claims about Allah and Mohammed seriously, because the claims are meaningless/untestable/dangerous. I will democratically oppose the spread of Islam and Christianity by, for instance, voting for anyone who advocates closing down publically-funded faith schools that indoctrinate children. I do not dislike "Muslims" (human beings). I dislike Islam and the effect it has on societies it dominates. I apply the same approach to Christians and Scientologists, or any vocal faith group.

You wrote: Former atheists such as me, however, can be said to have chosen their belief. --Maybe so... but now that you are so invested in this belief-system, I'd imagine it would be virtually impossible to "choose" atheism again. Atheism can't provide a heaven or the sense that the universe has a decreed purpose.

Likewise, it is almost impossible for me to "choose" to adopt a religion, when they all present an unlikely view of the world, a view that does not correspond to what I see. Not to mention the fact that the BibleGod and Allah often seem unreasonable and psychotic brutes in those texts. I wouldn't want to worship them even if I thought there was a reasonable chance they existed - which I honestly don't.

Btw... it is interesting that we are coming from totally opposite directions. I was a believer, raised by strict Christians, but eventually came to my senses (as I see it). You were an atheist and somehow willingly bought into what I see as supernatural nonsense.

Instead of going back and forth arguing about evolution (you repeatedly insist it is a religious faith, I repeatedly insist it is a widely-accepted theory, a conditional belief subject to incoming evidence), I thought it might be useful to summarize some of my other beliefs and how they relate to my general views of your social/political/moral ideology...

• I believe that human empathy is the soundest basis for any system of morality. Difficult moral dilemmas are best solved by starting from this foundation and applying clear-headed reason. Far from being helpful, I believe that religion is a barrier to real morality; people are encouraged to do “good” in order to gain rewards in an imagined hereafter - where “good” is whatever the relevant holy book says is good. This is like the artificial morality of infants trying to please their parents and avoid being punished. I'm not arguing that this is your morality, only that this is the morality of dominant holy texts, and the morality of some who slavishly follow religious dogma. This is also often a warped morality, elevating irrational homophobia to a virtue, for example, or advocating disproportionate punishments for people who offend religious sensibilities. It replaces genuine morality with a simplistic black & white view of the world. Terrible evils have been perpetrated by pious religious fanatics who thought their actions were the epitome of good (see Matthew Hopkins or Osama bin Laden). I believe that morals we discern for ourselves, using empathy and reason, will always be superior to morals gleaned from various ancient holy texts - I'd say they do more harm than good.
• I don’t believe in any gods, and see no reason to follow any religious creed. Religion may have acted as a stabilizing force in less enlightened times, it may have inspired some good art, but I believe that its usefulness has come to an end. It is a barrier to any positive social change; it is divisive, fostering hatred between different religious factions; it is a grave threat to our freedom of speech; it encourages irrationality and the suspension of critical faculties as virtuous; it puts outlandish myths of miracles on a par with scientific discoveries; it attacks science itself whenever these discoveries contradict baseless religious claims; it spreads through the cynical indoctrination of children, who’ll usually believe whatever a parent or teacher tells them; it influences governments and entire societies, often with disastrous consequences. I believe that humanity should abandon religion (Bronze-age and New-age mythologies alike) in favour of philosophy and science.
• Social conservatism is the attempt to preserve traditions and traditional attitudes of a society, especially the least progressive attitudes. It appears to be a fearful/reactionary movement, sometimes linked with entrenched religious dogma concerning how people should behave, and/or the perceived “decadence” or “sin” of alternative behaviours. Typically, it is sexual liberalism in others that’s the most reviled of “decadent” attitudes.
• I believe sex is an inherently good and beautiful thing between willing/consenting partners, where at least mutual affection is assumed. Gay/lesbian sex is not a sin or a perversion, except in irrelevant religious or Nazi dogmas. I don’t expect homosexuals to remain celibate because they’re only attracted to members of their own gender. Sex outside of marriage isn’t necessarily harmful, but secretive extra-marital affairs could be, where families/children are concerned. I see STDs in the same light as Ebola or Malaria – no extra taboo is helpful or necessary. Some woefully ignorant people claim that HIV is their God’s wrath; if so, God’s murderous bile towards His own creations is indiscriminate, since most of the millions dying in Africa from AIDS are heterosexuals, including mothers and their children. Unlike the Catholic clergy, I imagine this holocaust could be lessened by encouraging condom-use. I urge people here and elsewhere to practise safe sex, and view irresponsibility in this area to be immoral. Taking the pill isn’t evil. Abortion is distasteful and wrong where pregnancy could be easily avoided (abortion in rape cases is, of course, another matter). As for relationship-types, I have nothing against monogamy (some argue against it just to sound sophisticated and cool). If it works for those involved, I see nothing wrong with polyamory either (although it’s perhaps only advisable for people not prone to jealousy).
• I see no valid reason for the strong taboos placed on nudity and sex. For those who believe in a creator-god, the nudity-taboo seems particularly absurd, since the creator’s design is being cursed as “indecent”. People offended by nudity baffle me. I hope that prudish attitudes towards sex and nudity gradually dwindle, as seems to be a general trend, despite attempts by latter-day Mary Whitehouse figures and ranting Muslim clerics to make sex (or sexual openness) the enemy of the civilized world. For me, sex is not ugly or dangerous or harmful (unless mixed in with the drink/drug/irresponsible cultural values we have). I believe it is possible to have a sexually liberal society and still have people be responsible and care about each other.
• I’m not convinced that watching straightforward pornography (a couple, depicted having mutually-enjoyable sex) could harm anybody in any way, and I favour liberalization. Many feminists have turned against the old argument of pornography exploiting women (emphasizing a competent woman’s right to choose to appear in porn or not) - especially now that women are producing/directing/selling much of the porn with male and female audiences in mind. I’m much more concerned about ultra-violent computer games and rap lyrics that blatantly/graphically glorify violence, even mass-murder. Some of the most convincing arguments for censorship involve violent imagery and violent pornography, such as simulated rape. Our culture is far too blasé about the casual glamorization of real violence (and callousness in general), while simultaneously far too obsessed with stopping kids seeing bare boobs on TV (I’m amazed that breast-feeding is still legal). There is nothing wrong with nudity or sex - everything wrong with violence. Yet you’d think it was the other way around, to look at our cultural values.
• Like our national religion, football, the drink and drug culture in Britain is vacuous and moronic. Most recreational drugs, including alcohol, produce brain-damage in the quantities they’re commonly ingested. If we had a society that was more humanistic, less centred on accumulating pointless junk, our lives would be far happier and we wouldn’t need to dope ourselves into an oblivious stupor just to cope with the endless routine of working ourselves to death to buy rubbish we’re brainwashed to think we should want. Traditionally terrified of sex (it’s what most of our humour has always been based on), substance-abuse is the only thing we in England have ever had much of an appetite for liberalizing. So now we’re a nation of boring drunks puking into gutters every night. I don’t touch illegal drugs and rarely drink, I’m pleased to say.
• The doctrine of multiculturalism was supposed to create a cultural “melting-pot” of creativity. Perhaps it has in some areas, but we seem to be creating cultural ghettos and adopting an odd system of cultural Darwinism. A main principle of this doctrine is that all cultural values are of equal worth and validity, no matter what they are. I disagree. I think that secular and humanistic cultural values are healthier than the slavishly dogmatic religious-conservative values of Muslims, for instance. In principle, I would prefer there to be a set of enshrined cultural values that all were obliged to sign up to if they wanted to be part of this society. If those defining cultural values were your values rather than mine, I would perhaps move to the Netherlands and argue for my values over there. I think that those who dream of turning Britain into an Islamic republic should not be encouraged to move here.
• The universe is awe-inspiring, whether it has a purpose or not. Life is precious and fragile; instead of wasting our lives praying to empty rooms, fantasizing about mystical afterlives and striving for glory in death, we should appreciate this reality while we can still touch it, communicate with it, affect it, and marvel at the mystery of all this. -Neural 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, to restate yet again the point of this exchange, we are not discussing what you "genuinely don't believe" or genuinely do. If you find the idea of a deity impossible, that's your business.

On fossils, my jibe about unicorns was a reference to the essential circularity of fossil evidence. If you believe that the fossil record would prove the existence of evolution if only it were complete, then you will find evidence of that proof in every fossil you examine. If you don't, you won't. I think I've troubled you with the Denmark/Albania analogy before. If I have, you clearly haven't understood it, so I'll try again. Albania and Denmark are both very similar, small countries in Europe with a lengthy sea coast. They have many fundamental things in common. But is Denmark Albania in a later stage of development? Or will Albania always remain different? Think on.

I was also, ever so slightly, laughing at the way in which dinosaurs are constantly being reimagined, in different shapes and colours. Extrapolation from fossils, which by their nature lack evidence of the soft and biodegradable parts of the creature, seems to me to involve a lot of guesswork. Willingness to believe what suits you must play a part. I find it illuminating to study outdated books on Evolution, including an old encyclopaedia of mine which refers reverentially to the importance of Piltdown Man, a forgery which was not finally exposed for more than 40 years after its alleged discovery. As the Wikipedia entry on this event states :" the genius of the forgery is generally regarded as being that it offered the experts of the day exactly what they wanted: convincing evidence that human evolution was brain-led. It is argued that because it gave them what they wanted, the experts taken in by the Piltdown forgery were prepared to ignore all of the rules that are normally applied to evidence." Of course that could never happen again, could it? Please don't accuse me of conspiracy theories, a tedious and silly way of avoiding the point. . Conspiracies do take place ( they're generally called 'lunch' in London) but widespread willingness to believe something can mislead people into believing - with great conviction - things which are not true. This is as true of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes ( again not a conspiracy) as it was of Piltdown man.

Once again, I'm not here to argue about Biblical miracles. I'm here to argue about whether evolution disqualifies an educated person from having any Theist belief. As soon as we settle that, you might want to start another argument and I might get involved in it, but not now. Your bemusement is not evidence. To me the nature of normality seems miraculous. I am bemused by those who examine the universe (packed as it is by phenomena we cannot explain) and the world around them, constructed to tiny tolerances, including enormous globes (whose interiors we have never penetrated to any depth) simultaneously revolving and travelling at immense speeds on axes and orbits which would be catastrophic if they were only slightly altered, held in position by forces whose origin and nature we do not know, and believe it is the result of random chaos. But there. You do think that, and I just have to accept it. If it were not possible to believe in something so apparently ridiculous, then you couldn't do it, could you? By the way, if an inhabitant of the 18th century had been shown a television broadcast, an aeroplane or a telephone, he would have found it quite incredible - just as I found it difficult to credit the evidence of my senses when I recently travelled on Shanghai's MagLev train. But these artefacts (often mistakenly attributed to human creation, when invention actually means 'discovery' not 'creation') involved the discovery of forces always extant in the universe, but of which men of science were wholly unaware for centuries. What else exists unseen around us now, of which we are wholly unaware? We have barely begun to discover the complexity of the universe we inhabit, and yet so many of us presume to act as if we were omniscient. Theism irrational? Hardly, in anyone with an open mind. Think. Please.

You say you have never suggested that I was stupid. Not explicitly, no. But you imply this conclusion again and again by your assertions that my position is 'irrational' or that it 'bemuses' you that anyone could hold religious beliefs. That is why I feel it necessary to point out to you that others might view your position in the same way.

I am not obliged, for the purposes of this argument, to explain why I hold religious beliefs. It is, in fact, none of your business. If you wish to argue with Christian theologians, find one and try it. I am not one. This argument is about my right to hold such beliefs without being dismissed as an ignorant fool by people who think they know better (and don't) , and informed that my decision is incompatible with scientific truth.

I think uncritical faith in the Darwin cult is a suspension of rationality and critical thinking. But then I think uncritical credulity in any field is that. You are aware of my attitude towards Bible literalism, which I put in the same intellectual class as received Darwinist faith such as yours.

Darwinism has spawned many beliefs, especially in Herbert Spencer's formulation of 'survival of the fittest' which have led to terrible horrors. Humanity, when it becomes arrogant and over-confident in itself (and in particular ignores the Biblical injunction to "do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God"), can turn any belief to an evil end. But I think in purely numerical terms, the atheist faiths of Communism and National Socialism have the edge over any religion in the licensing of evil in the name of ideals. It is HUMAN EVIL which is at the root of these things, not religion or atheism. Or why would they occur under both dispensations?

Forgive me (or don't if you prefer) if I bypass your screed on morality. I really haven't time to engage with it, and it wouldn't profit the discussion if I did. If you really are what you say you are, an atheist, then I have no idea why you should concern yourself with this. A general morality, governing actions on an abstract scale, would be of no use to you. What possible purpose could it serve.?Why should anyone else pay any attention to what YOU thought was good, or bad? In an atheist world, the mugger and the nurse are equal, except that the mugger will usually be stronger and will therefore prevail. Hence the attachment of the rich and powerful to atheism (at least in their private conduct) and power-worship, and the attachment of the poor and weak to religion. If there is no God, then there is no good, just as a compass could not function if there were no magnetic North. There is just expediency and ends justify means. If there IS a God, then all kinds of inonvenient problems arise, which is why so many people wish to abolish him. Currently this is specially common in the area of sexual morality, the constitution of private life, where Christian ideas of monogamy, fidelity, constancy, 'heteronormativeness' etc are widely regarded as repressive and pettifogging. But these rules actually deal with pwoerful forces, jealousy, paternity, inheritance, responsibility, duty in sickness and misfortune, and society is having quite a struggle coping without them. I might add that if ther human body is designed, then there a number of sexual practices which it is plainly not designed for. But if it's not designed, I suppose that doesn't matter.

Absolute morality LOOKS unattractive, and ad-hoc make-it-up yourself morality LOOKS attractive. But in the immense complexity of real, long life they don't necessarily work out that way.

Your self-developed DIY moral code makes me think of a man who is given a huge, complex and incredibly advanced computer, which controls his whole neighbourhood, along with a rather simple and brief instruction manual mainly comprised of instructions beginning with the word "Don't...". Well, he begins by following the rules and finds it tiresome and inconvenient, a strain on his patience, so by dint of pressing a few buttons and a bit of experiment, he finds he can get this machine to do all kinds of seemingly wonderful things, if he ignores the maker's instructions. And then he finds that the whole thing is out of his control, shuddering and rumbling, giving off smoke and sparks, howling with alarms and red lights, and he cannot control it at all.

Which brings me to the Garden of Eden, where exactly the same mistake is made, the simplest, clearest instruction ever given to mankind. And the whisper of the serpent , ignore these foolish rules and "Ye shall be as gods". Your mistake is to regard this as a fable. It is the fundamental warning against the arrogance of a humanity which acknowledges no superior, and no law but its own will. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Although I limit my own beliefs to premises I think have a reasonable chance of being true, we can agree that each of us is ultimately free to believe or disbelieve anything we choose. (What convinces me does not necessarily convince you. What I find reasonable, you find absurd… etc, and vicea-verca.) I suppose only time will tell which of us ends up in the straight-jacket.

Again… if evolution is one day disproven (I doubt it, but…) I will rejoice in the fact that all I’ve lost is a delusion.

Your beliefs can never be disproven, and that is the clever part of all religions.

I could be having this same discussion with a hard-line Muslim cleric, and we would be saying the same things to each other. He would accuse me (and you, probably) of having an irrelevant moral code that did not come from the One True God. Only by following the ways of HIS God could anyone reach paradise. He would likely dismiss the Anglican faith as flawed heresy, while dismissing me as Devil-spawn.

So who is right? You or him? Which religion is the One True religion, the moral-system that, alone, can put the world to right? Maybe you are both wrong. Perhaps only by strictly following the teachings of Judaism and being circumcised can one have a hope of being smiled upon by the Lord. What if only the old Pagan gods are real - and they detest Christians and Muslims for massacring their followers throughout history? You’re all in trouble then, however strongly-held your faith may be.

This is why these religions are so dangerous. All of you are convinced that only your morals are the correct morals, because they’re God-given. Everyone else is either wicked or misguided. They need to have the TRUE God-given morality drummed into them for their own good. If you can’t convince them, you need to enforce your morality through the law. If another heretical religion dares to oppose you or gets in the way of your righteous agenda, you must denounce them as unenlightened infidels.

You say that my personal morality is irrelevant – who will listen to me, after all? Why would anyone care what I thought? I don’t know. I am one voice among many, trying to argue my case. The moral-reasoning of people in Britain has certainly “evolved” by this method in the last 50 years. I don’t relish a return to a time when everyone thought like Alf Garnet.

I can only argue for my values by discussing them with others. Sometimes people listen, sometimes they don’t. As time goes by, an accumulation of different views and ideas produces new philosophies and slowly changes the morality of the society, hopefully for the better. As long as human empathy and reason are central to this, the change will be positive. People are not stupid, and human beings instinctively rebel against injustice. While sometimes we have to endure holy fools like Tony Blair, eventually people get sick of unethical conduct and scream for him to leave. If philosophies like secular humanism one day become dominant, I think we will see increasing change for the better.

This may be a flawed and uncertain process, as you point out. However, the more certain alternative is a legally-enforced religious moral code, and some way of ensuring everyone follows the same religion, so there isn’t mass dissent. Basically… a theocratic regime.

Yet again I will say that theism as a philosophical stance is arguably as reasonable as atheism, so long as you have some way of addressing the problem of evil (or random suffering). However, you are not talking about just theism or even just monotheism. You are also defending a range of outlandish mythology that contradicts itself in many places. If you continue to claim that my beliefs are as “absurd” as these religious beliefs, I really don’t know what to say, except that I disagree.

Your Denmark/Albania analogy (regarding the fossil record) is fine until you consider the almost-infinite variety in morphology an animal could have. A country on a map is a two-dimensional image. The three-dimensional structure of a living thing has far more variables that would all have to be similar. It rather stretches the limits of credulity to imagine two unrelated creatures could have a genetic structure so similar as to produce such similar morphologies as those we’re talking about. If you think about the range of life, from a centipede to an elephant, the 2D shape of a country doesn’t really make a good analogy.

You are not actually making any statements about how life came to be, giving me little to criticize. The Bible does make some bold claims, but you are not prepared to defend them, admitting by your silence that they are incredible/useless. This leads to the conclusion that the Bible itself is unreliable. If you are free to abandon Genesis, why not all of it?

How can you bemoan the "decline of faith in Britain" when you yourself feel free to pick and choose which parts God meant in the Bible and which parts he didn't mean? You accuse me of elevating myself to a god by having my own morality, but you do so yourself, arbitrating what is true in the Bible and what isn't. If you believe the Bible to be the word of the Lord, who are you to second-guess him? You criticize the fact that people are not religious or faithful enough, but then you only half-believe in your own religion.

You wrote (about humans discerning their own morality): Which brings me to the Garden of Eden, where exactly the same mistake is made, the simplest, clearest instruction ever given to mankind. Which leaves me to wonder how I can debate with someone who believes this to have literally happened (you go from moderate to fundamentalist from one paragraph to the next, incidentally). I am open-minded enough to imagine theism as a possible reality (although my conception of a cosmic architect may differ considerably from yours – I have difficulty thinking of a narrow-minded or vindictive God who hated gay people, for example). Theism can be a reasonable position, even if I can't convince myself it is true. But maybe I’m not quite open-minded enough to believe in Satanic Serpents and all the rest. I will continue to point out to others what I see as the absurdity of religious claims, whether they relate to Thetans or demons.

I’m not sure how far we can continue with this. You have willingly bought into a belief system that does not tolerate any possibility of being wrong. I freely admit that my belief in evolution is conditional upon the evidence continuing to support it – if it is wrong, it is wrong. Neither you nor any of your Islamic friends will be able to escape the self-justifying mental prisons you have constructed for yourselves unless you apply the same degree of scepticism to religious texts as you would to the policies of Tony Blair.

-Neural 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You have reminded me about why I have until now avoided any discussion of religious opinions, however tangential. You don't understand them, because at present you have no sympathy with them. And any attempt by me to explain them to you will be as hopeless as playing music to the tone deaf. Nothing in what I write above suggests a belief in the literal word-for-word truth of the Garden of Eden story, beautiful, haunting and moving as it is. I doubt if any human mind could comprehend or describe what I suspect actually did take place at the beginning of humanity. Read again what I wrote, and you will see that you have misunderstood it as thoroughly as your Edwardian predecessors mmisunderstood Piltdown man, and for the same reason. You wanted to misunderstand it. The story is important because it contains a fundamental warning to mankind, which mankind repeatedly ignores with terrible results. The Bible is an extraordinarily disparate assembly of books, prophecy, journalism, history and literature. Much of it is poetry, that extraordinarily elusive form which conveys far more than the sum of its parts, unsurprisingly since religion is at least partly inexplicable in the vocabulary of men. This is one of the reasons for my opposition to modern paraphrases of the Authorised Version. The poetry is lost in the process, and this is not just a matter of lyrical beauty and sonorousness, but of meaning. Any serious Christian would be willing to debate for years the significance of every part of the Bible in the formation of a Christian conscience. Serious Jews do little else but discuss the Torah and its meaning, which they regard as the most important task of their lives, and who is to say that they are wrong? It might be important to note that so much of the recorded discourse of Jesus of Nazareth took the form of parables, a sort of clue to one or two things. But to treat every word of the Bible as if it were the same, and of the same significance, would be like (say) treating bricks, potatoes, ice-cream, gold coins and night-scented stocks as if they were all the same item. I also note with regret that, after all your apparent willingness to open your mind on this subject, you have tediously reverted to your baseless belief that Darwinism is either proven or open to disproof. Which is why I now withdraw from this conversation. I have done all that is in my power to urge you to think it possible you may be mistaken, my only goal. This is impossible if you treat the discussion as an attempt to persuade you to become a Communicant Anglican ( or 'confused religious maniac' as another generous-hearted contributor to this page would say, which seems unfair to my fellow Anglicans even if it isn't unfair to me). You ask me to be as sceptical about the claims of religion as I am about Mr Blair and his government. But these are things of a different nature. A proper scepticism about earthly power is in fact much aided by a belief in the possibility that there may be a higher source of authority, and the most courageous opponents of tyranny have very often been men and women of religious faith, for that very reason. But, as I find all too often with diehard tribal Tories, American neocon believers in the Global Jihad, visceral Judophobes and people who believe Identity Cards are a good idea, you cannot reason a man out of a position he hasn't been reasoned into in the first place. My chief ally will have to be that most powerful persuader of all, time, and its daughter, truth. Go well. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You two are wasting your time. Hitchens is a confused religious maniac trying to pass off as a rational "moderate" person, and Neural is as sure in his beliefs as Richard Dawkins. This is like watching two people butt heads until they both fall unconscious... Seek an alternative.

-195.93.21.8 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (Michael).

• Interesting. Well, free to ignore this outside perspective if you wish, but here're my thoughts:
• First off, it is essentially physically impossible, under our current understanding of paleontology and geology, for a "complete" fossil record to exist; in fact, one could even argue that if we had such a flawless record, that would disprove many aspects of our current understanding of evolution. It is also important to note that fossil evidence is not circular, merely consistent; that different types of fossils are found at different strata of the geologic column, progressively deeper strata representing progressively earlier time periods, was known long before the acceptance of Darwin's theory, so to claim that evolution is used as evidence for the fossil record is rather bizarre. In reality, the fields of physics and geology are the primary validation of the fossil record.
• I understand what you're trying to say with your "Denmark/Albania" analogy, but it is an exceedingly weak one: you could just as easily try to illustrate a flaw in evolution by saying "a square is similar to a rectangle, yet we don't think that squares evolved from rectangles, right?" Organisms reproduce, die out, pass down their genetic material, etc.; land masses (to simplify a bit) merely change location, so obviously an explanation for the origin of a certain species would be entirely unlike an explanation for the origin of a certain island. Your analogy is also a profound misrepresentation of the actual evidential basis of evolution. Mere superficial similarity between two simultaneously-existing, distinct entities is entirely unlike what evolutionary biology actually deals with, which is ancestry. A better continental analogy would be: "The supercontinent Pangaea can be shown through a wealth of geological evidence to have gradually, progressively broken apart into the modern configuration of the continents." Pangaea and modern continents are not considered to be related simply because they have superficial similarities, anymore than dogs are considered closely-related to wolves, or horses to zebras, for purely superficial reasons: morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence are what justify such links.
• I agree with you that the Piltdown Hoax was a sad moment in paleontology, but it's also a single incident that was resolved over 50 years ago, and a hoax that was uncovered by scientists (not creationists); to dismiss an entire field of science on the basis of a single 50-year-old error is rather absurd, don't you think? No one is saying "it could never happen again"; we are not omniscient, and errors and hoaxes happen in all fields of science ever single day. But that does not invalidate the verified, well-founded research of those fields; it merely reminds us of the need for caution in assessing the validity of new claims, and especially ones with minimal evidence.
• Evolution does not disqualify a rational person from holding theistic beliefs (see theistic evolution), any more than gravity disqualifies people from holding theistic beliefs.[1] Gravity does not, in fact, say anything at all about God; and evolution is exactly the same. They are merely descriptions of observed natural phenomena. Whether you personally wish to believe in God or not is entirely your business; it may require a little compartmentalization to simultaneously believe in a Creator God and not reject more well-evidenced, scientific explanations for phenomena, but most people in this day and age seem capable of it.
• I have never in my life met a scientist who believes that the universe is "the result of random chaos", including numerous atheist scientists. You misunderstand the nature of the scientific understanding of the universe if you believe that not assuming an intelligent, conscious being's hand in things means that the universe is just "chaos"; this is demonstrably untrue. Again, consider gravity: if gravity operates under certain unguided, consistent principles (which it does), rather than being the result of God somehow "pushing" things towards heavy things for no apparent reason, does that make it "random" or "chaotic"? The natural state of the universe is towards order and consistency, not arbitrary chaos; though it may be difficult for us to understand this because of our anthropocentric bias, it is important to recognize that order does not necessitate intelligence: an H2O molecule is ordered, organized, and consistent, yet it is not directly created by an intelligence, not pieced together at an atomic level by some magical invisible watchmaker. Ask any chemist or physicist, and he will tell you that his discipline, despite being entirely secular in nature, is not about "chaos", but about natural, inherent principles and forces which naturally behave in a consistent and regular way (because really, wouldn't the alternative (arbitrary and random inconsistency) be stranger and less expected, even of a godless universe?). Evolution itself is based on natural selection, not mere random chance.
• People consider theism irrational because it has not been demonstrated to be true by any reliable or reproducible evidence. They do not withhold belief in God because they think themselves "omniscient"; please do not resort to such obvious strawmen to mischaracterize the views of those you disagree with, even if it is tempting. On the contrary, they avoid believing in God because they aren't omniscient, and it would be arrogant of them to assume that they know God exists without evidence to that effect. This is the basis of all empirical study, including the entirety of science: reliance on verifiable evidence and observation. When people say that they do not believe in God, most of them do not think that it is impossible that God exists, anymore than they think that it is impossible that Santa Claus or unicorns or Zeus exists: they simply consider it unlikely enough, in lieu of compelling enough evidence, that making such a leap of faith would be premature at best, and outright foolish at worst. Even if you disagree with their reasoning, this is not such a horrible or arrogant way of going about things, is it? Indeed, skeptical empiricism is a humbling thing, as it forces us to pay attention to the world around us even when it means sacrificing the cherished illusions and assumptions we have which are inconsistent with observable reality.
• You say that "Darwinism has spawned many beliefs", and imply that evolutionary biology is somehow responsible for the diversity of ideologies that various people formulated based on poorly-understand conceptions of evolutionary biology; but one could just as easily say that "Christianity has spawned many beliefs" and criticize Christianity for every Christian who has ever done something wrong, or every reprehensible doctrine inspired by Christianity. Surely you don't want us to stoop so low? If you have any issue with Darwinism, then criticize it directly rather than insinuating that it is solely responsible for the various distortions of it that have arisen. To do so is a gross oversimplification, though not nearly as absurd as the one that atheism is somehow responsible for ideologies as unrelated to that theological stance as Communism, and your simply patently false claim that National Socialism was ever in any way atheistic. Hitler was, by his own account, a Christian, not an atheist;[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to condemn atheism for communism's atrocities is even more ridiculous than if I condemned Christianity for the Holocaust. Again, such accusations are baseless historical distortions and oversimplifications, and it is beneath both of us to draw upon them. As you correctly note, it is "HUMAN EVIL", not whether or not one believes in God, that is the cause of such things. In practical, day-to-day life, whether you are a thoughtful and compassionate person is infinitely more important than your opinions on crusty old theological issues or metaphysical disputes.
• By the way, your assumption that atheists are immoral or amoral is a common myth. (Atheism itself can be considered "amoral", in that it does not preclude any particular morality or lack thereof, but individual atheists are in most cases caring, ethical, good human beings.) I recommend that you do some further reading on the subject matter before you continue to parrot such unjustified slander.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
• I agree with you that the Bible is "an extraordinarily disparate assembly of books, prophecy, journalism, history and literature" (as long as by "prophecy" you mean "claimed prophecy"), and I agree with you that a literalist interpretation of the Bible is nonsensical. The book is indisputably a fascinating and important work, whether you're a Christian or not.
• However, your later statement that "A proper scepticism about earthly power is in fact much aided by a belief in the possibility that there may be a higher source of authority, and the most courageous opponents of tyranny have very often been men and women of religious faith, for that very reason" is rather dubious. You are merely assuming a causation without evidence here; wouldn't you expect the vast majority of courageous opponents of tyranny to be religious, considering that the vast majority of human beings are religious? :P If 90% of people in the world are religious and a majority of tyranny-opposers are religious, that obviously does not in any way demonstrate that being religion makes you more inclined to opposing tyranny, anymore than the fact that 90% of the people in the world are religious and a majority of people in the world are female means that religion tends to turn people into females. :) Be a bit more careful in how grounded your conclusions are, especially when you're dealing with such huge generalizations.
• I do not think that you are an altogether unreasonable person; we have a difference of opinion on several issues, but much of that is because we simply come from different backgrounds and have been exposed to dramatically different experiences, information, and areas of knowledge, not because one of us is omniscient and the other is a raving lunatic. Things are rarely so clear-cut. I do have hope that you will maintain an open enough mind to balance your personal convictions with the evidence and outside information you are provided with; as you yourself point out, no human is perfect. Have a nice day. -Silence 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable. I like your tone of reasoned tolerance, though I hope and trust that your concern for the openness of my mind and your concession that I am 'not altogether unreasonable' may not have been meant to sound as patronising as they actually do. Having rather publicly changed my mind (not always a great deal of fun) on most of the major questions of politics, morality and religion, I think I can produce certificates attesting to the openness of that mind. As for the thoughtful Christian's approach to the understanding of his faith, I just wish that dogmatic atheists were half as cautious as we are. The Christian church is an immense edifice of thought, experience, literature, art, music, architecture, courage, martyrdom, and also of failure, ugliness, narrow-mindedness, misunderstanding, persecution, blind dogmatism, intolerance and banality. The ex-atheist, who no longer finds that creed satisfactory, approaches all received religions with caution and - having experienced doubt - respects it. "There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds'(Alfred, Lord Tennyson). This has been a good part of the argument I have been attempting to have with another correspondent. One small but important point about your remarks above. I make no assumption, as claimed above, that atheists are amoral or immoral by Christian standards. It may well be that many atheists observe Christian morality more punctiliously than professed Christians. My only point is that this is, if intentional, is entirely irrational. They have no reason to do so, since their belief precludes the existence of any absolute moral law, there is no such characteristic as 'good' or 'bad' in any action, and they are free to behave as they wish. So, of course, is everyone else, which is why in secular societies some sort of 'common decency' based upon self-interested mutuality, generally exists. Even so, such decency is terribly vulnerable to naked power and wealth, on both the large and small scale. Visit any of the rougher housing estates to see this in operation, as well as any tyrannical or plutocratic country. And it is hard to see how the wealthy and powerful can be persuaded to be subject to any law, unless there is a religious imperative behind that law. This is one part of the enormous equation, which doesn't seem to come out unless there is a divine factor in its somewhere. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much apologize if I came across as condescending in anything I said; that comment about "altogether unreasonable" was not meant to be a jab, just an understatement in jest, it's just hard sometimes to convey tone in written exchanges. I have no interest in offending you; if I wanted to attack you rather than discuss these complex issues with you, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making such a lengthy response. :) I do recognize the increased difficulty of changing one's views significantly when one is a public figure, so I have more respect for you for being willing to make such shifts, and to diverge from mainstream UK conservatives on a number of issues.

Your description of the Christian Church is a very balanced and reasonable one, and I won't dispute that there are "dogmatic" atheists out there (in that noone is immune to dogmatism), though I would certainly dispute the notion that atheists tend towards dogmatism, that atheism fosters dogmatism, or that most dogmatic atheists are dogmatic because of their atheism; the irreligious, like the religious, are about as heterogeneous as a group can be, making it very difficult to construct accurate generalizations of them. Atheism is not really a "creed"; it does not hold any one ideology or moral code or beliefs (other than the lack of belief in a single thing, God), does not have a hierarchy or structure or culture, has no rituals or practices or customs. In essence, atheism is just a term for people who happen not to hold a certain supernatural belief, little different from a term like "areincarnationism" would be for people who don't believe in reincarnation.

Thank you for explaining your views on atheism and morality in more nuance. Here's the heart of the matter: one does not need an "absolute moral law", given by a divine lawmaker, if one bases one's morality on a core assumption like "it is good to help people, and bad to harm them or let them come to harm", rather than on a core assumption like "whatever God likes is good, and whatever God dislikes is bad". In both cases, an assumption is required in order to justify morality, but both are functional and working ways to judge whether something is "good" or "bad". Yes, atheists lack God-given commandments on what Thou Shalt Do and Not Do, but that doesn't mean that they lack basic human compassion, or a desire to bring happiness to themselves and others. It is things like empathy and love for fellow human beings, which are universal to the religious and irreligious alike, that are the ultimate origin of working morality. "Murder is bad" can be just as well justified by defining "bad" as "whatever causes undue harm to people" as by defining it as "whatever is against God". The former, in fact, has an advantage over the latter: it does not rely on an external authority to know right from wrong, but allows individuals to make evaluations like "killing is wrong" or "torture is bad" without knowing every divine decree. Not to mention, of course, that it protects individuals from being deceived by those who would use the name of God to promote unethical conduct, something that's been going on throughout human history and would be impossible to resist without a moral compass external to one's theology. -Silence 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Beliefs and Values and Religion generally, I'd like to put my tuppence worth: The UK is a Christian country (just, but Bliar is changing that) and it's laws and traditions were based on Christian values and beliefs. The foundation of the Christian Church in Britain is the Catholic Church as established in Rome. Even a cursory glance at Roman culture at the time the Catholic Church was established and then brought to Britain is illuminating. Many attitudes inherent in Roman society can be seen expressed in Catholic religion and therefore in the Christian religion of Britain. Despite the excellent work a woman did to amend this faith it is still flawed, in that a misogynistic and arrogant attitude towards women still exists. This attitude comes from the traditions of Rome not from God. Miamomimi 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a few quick points before leaving this.

Firstly… as to having doubts regarding evolution, I’ve acknowledged many times that I’m not certain evolution is true. There’s room for doubt in almost anything. Once again, I have no emotional stake in this theory. I would be an atheist with or without the theory, having reasoned myself out of theism before ever having any real knowledge about evolution. Now that I have more detailed knowledge, however, I find evolution to be the most compelling and reasonable explanation for life on earth, despite being uncertain.

Secondly, Peter, you wrote somewhere above about the moving beauty and poetry of the Bible, suggesting that getting me to appreciate this would be like playing music to the tone-deaf. This is misguided, if not a little insulting. As a former Christian, I know well how moving and intoxicating these texts are. In my view, this is all the more reason to be sceptical rather than be pulled with a torrent of inspiration and emotion that tends to wash away doubt and any attempt to apply rigorous critical thinking. The obvious multi-facetted appeal of religion is what makes it so dangerous, in my opinion.

Thirdly, a minor point regarding a comment from another contributor… I’m not sure how accurate it is to describe Britain as a “Christian country” any more. A majority may be nominally Christian, but how many of these people are Christian in anything but name? Church attendance is pitifully low and dwindling all the time. This is DESPITE Tony Blair’s policy of funding (often Evangelical or Catholic) faith-schools with tax-payer’s money. He sent his own son to a Catholic school, so people can hardly accuse him of having an anti-Christian agenda. He is on a mission from his God, anyway, as he revealed a while back on Parkinson’s chat show. We have a state religion – thankfully, it has little power. But is this a Christian country? It’s probably more accurate to describe Britain as a post-Christian country, one bizarrely reluctant to admit it has lost its religion. Thanks for an interesting discussion everyone. Go well. -Neural 10:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neural - I hope you pop back to notice my comment that I think you're correct - Britain is a post-Christian country. I meant that most of the fundamental laws in Britain were written and based on Christian values and beliefs. Tony Bliar has caused the most change to that foundation I think. Thanks for noticing. Miamomimi 11:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. Since Neural brought up evolution again: Peter, I notice you only responded to the moral and religious parts of my post, not the parts relating to evolution and fossil evidence. Are you still interested in discussing evolution? If so, I've been carefully reading your earlier discussion on this page and would love to respond to some of the points. I've so far written responses regarding (1) the nature of proof in science; (2) the evolution/gravity analogy from before; (3) whether evolution is unfalsifiable and unobserved; (4) science and "purpose"; (5) intelligent design; and (6) fossils. If you're interested and you'd like to discuss these one at a time, feel free to pick any one of them; or if you'd like me to just post them all at once, I can do that too. -Silence 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If people wish to correspond with me direct, rather than in this over-loaded public forum, my e-mail address is published each week at the head of my column in the Mail on Sunday. I try, but do not always manage, to respond to all reasonable communications. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 10:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter, whilst I'm sure those concerned appreciate the invitation I'd like to point out that there is value in a public forum - others who are not involved in the discussion but interested in the topic can watch and learn. Email is private, making that impossible, but if you prefer your own little boys club there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'd just like to point out to the others involved in the discussion that there are others interested in their opinions and arguments. I'm not able to contribute, but I can read, and learn. Miamomimi 11:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and private email means each person cannot be privy to anothers argument so therefore cannot support it. Perhaps you aim to divide and conquer Peter? Be wary of personal invitations chaps, it could be a honey trap! Miamomimi 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can get immediate help from [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], your on-duty Wikipedia:Help desk manager. Just click here to leave a message, and you will get an answer within minutes!

If you think your question has been asked before, then please review the list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) as arranged below.

As to this public page getting "over-loaded", I think it is possible to archive the discussion to clear this page. I'm not sure how this is done, so I've added a help tag.

Btw, everyone... theism and cosmology is an interesting subject to debate.

It seems strange to think humans have an important place in this universe when we consider our place in the cosmos. Our solar-system is a relatively insignificant wisp of dust in an apparently random position in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Galaxy itself is only one of billions, in no particular position of significance compared to other galaxies. And if religion is true, what are all these glaxies for? If creation is centered on the Earth, are these trillions of planets barren and lifeless? If so, this seems mind-bendingly absurd. If not, what is so special about our planet. Theism and religion bring up more impossible questions for believers than they give rather pat answers to. Religious faith appears to be an obsolete method of trying to understand this reality. -Neural 12:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• If we ever really need to get feedback from others, we could easily post the conversation online somewhere after-the-fact. So then, Peter, are you interested in continuing our discussion over e-mail? -Silence 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Swearing

Something made me laugh in Peter's last Mail on Sunday page yesterday. Peter, you objected to politicians and people in the media using the word "cr*p" (I've removed the "a", so as not to offend anyone). Amazing. My Granny used to swear much more colourfully than this, with never much fuss from anyone. You said that swearing was the "de-militarized zone" between normal behaviour and violence. I'd love to your the socialogical research. I got to mentally comparing straight-laced murderers like Osama bin Laden to Tourettes-sufferer Pete from Big Brother 7 who fell out with fellow housemates for harming insects and cried in the diary-room when somebody suggested killing a lame rodent that infiltrated the BB compound. I could be wrong, but your theory sounds like poppyc*ck to me. As you hinted before, human evil probably has more to do with violence. I don't think the f-word has been strongly implicated in any murders in known history... -Neural 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Evil and Cruelty often wear a pretty face and have a pleasing voice. Cruelty is indifference to suffering and even positive pleasure in inflicting it. (Often followed by 'Where's your sense of humour?') Cruel ways of inflicting suffering may involve violence, but violence is not necessary for an act to be cruel. For example, if another person is drowning and begging for help, and you can help but you merely watch with disinterested amusement or pleasure, you are being cruel — not violent. Cruelty usually carries connotations of supremacy over a submissive or weaker force. I've known bigger men whose normal speech involved much swearing but who were not cruel, displayed honest and consistent integrity and, though built like a barn door, were not violent or aggressive. They saw violence for it's own sake as childish but would use it when absolutely necessary and would not run and hide. In fact they upheld their moral code (which they lived not just advocated for others) and saw cruelty or persecution of a weaker person, especially the weaker sex, as the most revolting cowardice. Miamomimi 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the above contributions completely fail to grasp the simple point that the general acceptance of swearing in public places and on broadcast media has lowered general standards of behaviour. Nobody, least of all me, said that "the f-word was implicated in any murders". What I said was that, when there was more inhibition about swearing, there was less casual violence.Clear now? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And what we, or at least I was saying was that the two are not necessarily connected. Clear now?? Miamomimi 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Other readers of this exchange, should there be any, may judge for themselves. My suggestion was as follows, word for word :"How extraordinary that the word beginning with 'c' and ending with 'p' has gone so quickly from being dirty and taboo to being used by Cabinet Ministers and blazoned in headlines. Are we really so short of rude words to describe George Bush's policies that we have to go to the lavatory for one? Taboos matter. Once broken, they cannot be repaired. Swear words are the demilitarised zone between normal behaviour and violence. If they lose their power, there will be more violence. There already is." Now, be so kind as to tell me what, in this brief item, is demonstrably untrue, or unreasonable, or even has anything much to do with the two objections above. One suggests baselessly that I suggest a connection between swearing and murder, the other, equally baselessly that I suggested that swearing - at all - was some kind of personality defect or moral fault in itself. Neither is the case, as is clear from the quotation. What I was discussing was the growing acceptance of swearing in public, and its devaluation as a result. Neither of these correspondents even addresses this point. To say that swearwords are, as I argue that they are, a demilitarised zone between normal behaviour and violence, is to say exactly that. It is not to say that they have no other function or importance, nor does it attempt to be, or purport to be, a full-length essay on the subject. . Had I thought so, I should have said "swearwords are only..." or "swearwords are no more than...", in which case the above contributions might have had some value. I am wearily used to being attacked for being conservative, and therefore automatically horrible, rather than being challenged for what I say. I may well be horrible, and make no pretence of being a moral exemplar, as one correspondent falsely implies that I do. The question is not, am I a bad person, but am I right? This sort of stuff irritates me because of the lack of communication and reason involved. I am perfectly happy to discuss at length the many ways in which swearing is significant and important. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But I am not, at least not with you. I wanted to compliment Neural on a point well made and add my agreement. I am, of course, sensible of the fact that my comments appear on your user talk page so will, of course, explain to you (I cannot be held responsible for your dogged failure to understand) that swearing and violence are not necessarily connected. When ladies wore long skirts, as was the fashion in Edwardian times, they also travelled by horse drawn carriages more, but one fact is not dependant on the other. They just chanced to happen at the same time. There are other factors involved in the increase in casual violence. I believe the most significant is the complete absence of punishment for violent behaviour. It is not the habitual use of swear words. (It's not that subtle a distinction but I don't expect you to get it) I do not wish to repeat my point and suggest you read it again. If I want to read your column I'll buy a paper. Miamomimi 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clockback - yes, please, read my initial comment in this section again and take note of it - especially the last line. I'm sure you missed the point. Miamomimi 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"What I said was that, when there was more inhibition about swearing, there was less casual violence."

Maybe there is more casual violence now. Perhaps a lax attitude to public decorum and verbal etiquette even contributed in some way to the Rwandan genocide. Or maybe there was less swearing when Hitler was purging Europe's Jews and Stalin was liquidating anyone who gave him a sideways glance. In either case, I can't see much of a connection between violence and swear-words at all --- although I find some foul-mouthed people pretty tedious at times, when their vocabulary consists only of expletives or when they swear for punctuation.

Premise 1: "There is more casual violence now than there ever has been." Is there really? Or is it more publicized and talked about now? Going back over history, is our situation today the pinnacle of casual violence? I somehow doubt it.

Premise 2: "Lower inhibitions about swearing have contributed to the tide of bloodshed and low-level disorder mentioned in premise 1.". Says who? Where's your evidence? Common sense would suggest it has more to do with a national fixation on group binge-drinking, and the fact that violence is practically celebrated in our culture, while we remain a country famous for being uptight prudes.

"The question is not, am I a bad person, but am I right?"

You have it back-to-front. I don't think you're a bad person; I just think you're wrong.

-Neural 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is extraordinary, and I'm only returning to it because I happen to have a spare moment and because it so well illustrates the problems that arise when anyone tries to make a statement which is even slightly unconventional. User 'Neural'(Why won't you people use your names? What is the reason for this masked ball?)seems unable to distinguish between a comment on current social mores in this country, and a general theory of violence. It is quite clear that there is no single cause for violence, either here or anywhere else. To suggest that the ending of the taboo against swearing has led to more violence, by removing a restraint on behaviour and a means of warning, is not to say that all violence, or even many types of violence, are thus explained. It says what it says, which I why I have appended the original article which was the cause of Neural's contribution, and which clearly does not make the claims for which 'Neural' criticises it, or anything remotely resembling them. Thus to say that it doesn't explain them is like attacking a dentist because his remedies for your teeth won't help your tulips grow better. The main reason for violence is, as it always has been, the failure of human beings to restrain themselves from violent acts, which is of course the failure of the moral sense and the failure of law. This failure takes many forms. One such form, in modern Britain, is the far quicker resort to violence in public places, with fewer intervening stages of warning or restraint, as those who have ( say) attempted to stop youths damaging cars in the street, now find. Who would deny that this is taking place? Who would care to deny that the decay of manners and restraint, including the devaluation of taboo words, might have something to do with this?

What this even has to do with the incidence of murder in Britain, the Rwandan genocide, or Stalin's mass murders, I have no idea at all. Though it certainly could be connected with some recent street murders and serious assaults reported in the press, and the casual assaults which leave hundreds in hospital every year, , it has little connection with the general homicide statistics, murder especially, which are generally connected with other crimes. 'Neural' also gives away the weakness of his position by his or her attempted summary of my arguments. Both supposed premises are gross misreadings of what I said. I did not say and have never said "there is more casual violence now than there ever has been" . I am sure there was far more casual violence than there is now, certainly in the middle ages, certainly up till the middle of the 19th century and the start of the Victorian remoralisation and the foundation of the police, and possibly - in some places - as recently as the Edwardian era. The interesting thing is that, after a long period of progress in this matter, we are now starting to go backwards again. The second purported premise uses the phrase 'tide of bloodshed'. I never used this phrase or anything resembling it. I think this pretty much wraps the matter up and I might add that this will be my last contribution to this page. I am readily available at my public e-mail address to anyone who wishes to have a reasoned discussion, and I prefer to know to whom I am talking. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Hitchens throws his toys out the pram. Miamomimi 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think he explained what he meant quite well in his above response. The problem was that the original column simply sounded silly. The word in question hasn't seriously been "taboo" for many years and I doubt anyone other than Hitchens would have batted an eyelid at its use. Prescott also said it in private conversation at the time, as each and every one of us do, and he was not expecting his remarks to be leaked to the press, so its hardly as though he was casually swearing in a public statement. I note that the Mail itself did not shy from printing the word - Perhaps Peter could have a word with his employers re their contribution to the lowering of public standards? And anyway, if nothing else, it's the only time in the last 20 years Prescott has actually made sense. Nsign 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some fair arguments, Peter, although I have no idea what my choice of Username or not giving out my real name have to do with anything. Why does who I am matter a jot? Surely it is my argument that you need to overcome in order to make your point stick, not who I am. I could be a cleaner in a Hull hospital or an academic in Oxford University - what does it matter? Surely the onus is still on you to demonstrate some causal link between a lowering of inhibitions about swearing and casual violence, rather than just stating it as some kind of truism. --- Matthew, signed in as Neural 12:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems that religion fosters bad behaviour. Miamomimi 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PH; ‘swinging from the gallows pole’

I’m sure we are all aware of what Peter Hitchens stands for. (if not read his main article) Peter repeatedly writes about the 'liberal elite' that have taken over the asylum. Despite his chosen pseudonym it would be stupid of me to accuse him of simply wanting to turn the clock back as I’m sure others could direct me to his published caveats, and Peter knows the rules. But I came across a comment from another who has “completed a personal journey from soft-left university stereotype.” (was PH ever soft?!!! In the normal wanting to “fit in and be part of the crowd”kinda way) This comment made me think about the people in power that Peter criticises and his own attitude and proposed solutions. Whilst his criticisms of present and past governments are convincing his solutions are not. Well, not to me, I think he fails to fully recognise the reasons those changes came about. We, the people, are the architects of our own downfall. Whilst Peter quite rightly points out that due process in government quietly selects the choices available to us, those choices we selected proposed changes that appealed to the electorate. It wasn’t all spin. There were genuine problems that have been addressed. At the risk of my example seeming cliché, No-fault divorce is a case in point. In defending the married family from State usurpation Peter seems to object to no-fault divorce. I think this is wrong but won’t go into why here. It has been noted (citation needed) that Peter is against political correctness yet has objected to a number of fairly mild words, such as a dogs name, even going so far as to assert a cause and effect between swearing and casual violence (see section above), a position I disagree with. So on the one hand we have a Nanny State, and on the other a ‘pundit’ who would tell us how to live to the same degree: “Offensive T-Shirt? You are The Enemy” (see MoS column july 30th: Clueless Harry is a walking advertisement for tyranny). With our present cultural zeitgeist on his last legs, is Peter tomorrows Volksgeist, or yesterdays man? Miamomimi 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In a few years time if any of us dares to say a taboo word, New Labour will probably come and sterilize us, take away any children we may have (or plan to have if they're not born yet) and send them off to re-education camps to learn correct New Labour values. I will join Peter Hitchens in denouncing Tony Bliar as a hyocrite and a would-be tyrant - a murdering warmonger like him preaching morality to us???? But I wonder if Mr. Hitchens objects to labelling a small child a "Christian child", a "Muslim child" or a "Scientologist child", then sending them off to faith schools to be brainwashed into the correct [insert your religion] values. Ah, but that is different. It is immoral to label and brainwash an infant into being a New Labour child or a UKIP child, but views on the cosmos and the meaning of life are different. These views must be instilled from a young age. Waiting until a child can reason and make her own mind up is dangerous because she might just decide that there is no Lord in the sky and that she is an atheist. -Neural 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Peter and Tony (sounds like a 60’s singing duo) would agree that the main cause for concern is that if the child was conceived and born out of wedlock. FASBO’s pending for the progeny of harlots who do not use the ploy advocated by Peter of withholding sexual favours to get a man up the aisle. (Not so effective today and Peter – were YOU a virgin when you married?) Not forgetting, of course the forgotten hell of everyone in society to conform to the ideal of the nuclear family. As for instilling views from a young age, it seems “Peter would want his children to be brought up as Christians,”but I'm guessing, not as Lib Dems ;-) Miamomimi 21:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Miamomimi, we are getting personal here. Peter met his wife while they were both at York University in the early 1970s (see, I think, the Lynn Barber Observer interview for this piece of information), both tried to reform the Hampstead Labour Party while Peter was a LP member (1979-83) - Peter has openly admitted to this - but only married in 1983. I am hinting at nothing at all disgraceful here, unless one happens to be Peter Hitchens. Perhaps the first offspring was on his or her way? Philip Cross 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea! Oh dear feel I must clarify but typing staright in off the cuff and can't get point to be short. Was just trying to comment on differences in attitude towards sex before marriage - you know, men are 'just sowing their wild oats' kinda thing. With whom? It always seems to be the womans responsibility to be the adult, like she's got a crystal ball! well there's more to the point than that but don't want to go on. Miamomimi 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This Sceptic Isle

I've looked for a link, hopefully to download the prog, or ref to a review at least or transcript of this prog. The one's I've found are either old prog listings on the day it was broadcast or have an unfortunate political bias I want to avoid. It's a good prog and I'm interested in it's factual content. I've even applied to 'Clockback' himself but it seems "communication and reason" go out the window where I'm concerned. I think there should be something in the reference section on his main article to this work but am getting nowhere. Can anyone else provide info? Miamomimi 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)