Being Human: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Many are willing, but few are chosen for the exotic tropical mission field, especially if you have kids going to school or elderly parents to care for

Here's another bulletin-item from the enthusiastic anonymous Church:

Anonymous-Church reaches out to Thailand
The "Jones's" will be leaving 1 August to serve God in Thailand. It is not simply about them going, but rather an extension of influence from Anonymous-Church. This first term they are visiting small groups in Anonymous-Church to share this vision, the needs of those less fortunate than ourselves, and how all of us as a church can be involved in this mission.

It will be interesting to see how much we will be told that "we" are extending "our" influence in Thailand once "they" arrive.

I will be reminded to fight the spiritual battle that takes place in the heavenly realm so that their labour in the field will not be in vain but they will reap a harvest, pressed down, running over, I'll have fries and a coke with that thanks.

Unless you are a dear friend of the people going on an overseas mission, or have a strong personal interest in the location they are going to, you will rarely give these people a second thought once they are gone.

That's life.

I guess some people find that doing what God wants them to do, whether other people care or not, is still not good enough. They have to make sure that others hear about it over and over again so that it pushes people into the position of having to pretend to be interested, just to be polite.

Oh well, I guess that's life too.

Back to my mission field

Spiritual Attack on Language

Pastors can be roasted by manipulative words

Sigh...

Have a read of this recent church correspondence written by an "enthusiastic" bulletin writer:

It is likely that we are on the threshold of a pivotal time in "anonymous church name's" history, and we may find ourselves being distracted from Making a Kingdom Difference by what gets hurled at us from the other realm. Let’s not get distracted. This is also a matter for prayer, and we cannot emphasise enough that unless all of us are talking and listening to God, then what we attempt in ministry will not bear the fruit we anticipate.

Is it me? Doesn't this Battlestar Galactica language seem a little extreme? Shouldn't church notices go through an editor?

The story behind this notice is that the pastor is taking one month off due to fatigue. This seems quite reasonable. My work colleague just had a nervous breakdown so taking a month off due to fatigue is pretty mild in the scheme of things.

There are two issues that get me about the language people use when they discuss church or spiritual matters:

Firstly, someone's fatigue is nudge, nudge, wink, wink - MORE than fatigue: it's a full-blown spiritual attack. Well it might be. However I'm reluctant to use such extreme language when we don't really know the causes. Maybe the fatigue is caused by:
- a physical illness
- an emotional illness
- regret at becoming the senior pastor
- other contributing factors

So then why choose the most vivid "spiritual" description when more circumspect language would be closer to the truth of our ignorance?

Warning: Cylons cause fatigue

Secondly, I have an allergic reaction to the phrase "we are on the threshold of a pivotal time," this is classic ideology-speak, whether it's by a religious cult leader or spoken at a left-green political branch meeting. Keep the faithful tuning-in by using the language of revolution.

Anyone with a smattering of experience or historical perspective would know that "pivotal times" are generally bollocks.

What would life be like if the "threshold" was indeed crossed? Would your daily life be that much different: going to work, paying the bills, raising children, etc.?

Ronald Knox in his classic work "Enthusiasm" detailed without rancor, some of the "odd" spiritual movements which have disturbed Church history through the ages, including Montanists, Donatists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Jansenists, Quietists, and Methodists.

From his introduction:
There is, I would say, a recurrent situation in Church history - using the word 'church' in the widest sense - where an excess of charity threatens unity. You have a clique, an elite, of Christian men and (more importantly) women, who are trying to live a less worldly life than their neighbors; to be more attentive to the guidance (directly felt, they would tell you) of the Holy Spirit...The pattern is always repeating itself, not in outline merely but in detail. Almost always the enthusiastic movement is denounced as an innovation, yet claims to be preserving, or to be restoring, the primitive discipline of the Church... I would have called [this] tendancy 'ultrasupernaturalism'. For that is the real character of the enthusiast; he expects more evident results from the grace of God than we others. He sees what effects religion can have, does sometimes have, in transforming a man's whole life and outlook; these exceptional cases (so we are content to think them) are for him the average standard of religious achievement. He will have no 'almost-Christians', no weaker brethren who plod and stumble... the emphasis lies on a direct personal access to the Author of our salvation, with little of intellectual background or of liturgical expression... at the root of it lies a different theology of grace. Our traditional doctrine is that grace perfects nature but leaves it nature still. The assumption of the enthusiast is bolder and simpler; for him, grace has destroyed nature, and replaced it."

I'm genuinely sorry that the above-mentioned pastor is distressed to the point of requiring time off work. I will genuinely pray for his well-being. I won't however be drawn into the dubious metaphor of crossing thresholds of pivotal times. Taking advantage of someone's distress to make well-intentioned but manipulative statements is no way to respect the complexities of a man (or roast a pastor)!

"Words are born and die; they live only so long as they have an important errand to fulfill, by expressing what needs expression." (from Enthusiasm, 1950)

Overheard in New York

Bimbette: What's the plural of 'Jesus'? Jesuses? Jesi?
Friend: Why would you ever need to pluralize 'Jesus'? There's only one!
Bimbette: Well, like, if you were at a Halloween party or something and you had to tell your friend 'There were, like, eight Jesi at the party last night!'
Friend: Just stop talking.

--Grand Central

Overheard by: Irasian

From http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/

Too heavenly minded to be of earthly use?

Can you see me? I'm stuck down here somewhere!

In some Christian circles, and indeed many canonised saints, there is the view that the affairs of this world are not worth the bother. Some have no interest in public policy, business, economics, popular culture or sports. They advocate a 100% attention to Christ, at the expense of any time, effort or thought on other "worldly" matters.

For many years I was under this kind of influence, starting with a church youth group and extending through to a Bible college for missionaries. To be a top-notch Christian, one had to be dedicated wholeheartedly to certain sanctioned "spiritual" causes, such as prayer, church and missionary work. Other activities were really second-rate.

The reality however is that the problems of this world still have an impact, even on heavenly minded individuals. One still has bills to pay, employment to gain and votes to cast.

I later discovered that some of these heavenly minded people had little opinion to express about worldly matters, they were often ignorant of the issues that were affecting the "normal" people around them. Obviously this wouldn't apply to all saintly people, but I observed it enough to no longer think that they were people worthy of emulating across all spheres of their lives.

I thought to myself, why couldn't one be a prayerful person, but still be aware and interested in the daily things that affect our lives?

To this end, one of the problems I've found trying to come to grips with how the world ticks is that the information the mass media broadcasts or publishes is not helping me understand what's going on.

Often what's needed is an historical appreciation of the issues that crop up in the news so that you know where current conflicts and debates fit into the scheme of things.

One source of useful information I recently discovered for geo-political news and analysis is Stratfor, which some people refer to as the 'private CIA,' but they seem to be more right than their government counterpart!

To give one example I found helpful, a recent Stratfor report concerned the insurgency in Iraq, where they analysed how the Sunni and Shia groups lined-up across ethnic and political divides, which provided a complete framework by which to view and appreciate American and Iranian foreign policy.

If one doesn't have a framework (philosophy, politics, economics, etc.), then all the tid-bits that appear on the evening news are disjointed sound-bytes of entertainment.

The goal of all this understanding is to enable me to be a more responsible citizen, and where appropriate, respond in ways that are more advantageous politically, economically and even spiritually.

B.T.W. I recently read the life story of the patron saint of Switzerland St. Nicholas von Flue. Here was a man who seemed to get balance between earthly and heavenly affairs, even though these significant events occured at different points in his life. "At the age of 50, after a successful political career, Nicholas decided to live the life of a hermit. With a reputation for being a holy and wise man, Swiss leaders of the day sought out this hermit's advice. In 1481 he helped Switzerland avoid a civil war by negotiating the inclusion of Fribourg and Soleure in the Swiss Confederation."

Pope: Christian Media's Goal Is to Educate the Mind

I thought you'd like these comments from Pope Benedict. It's a shame more Sunday preachers don't think the same!

Pope Benedict XVI knows how to handle a crowd

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The objective of the Christian media is to educate the mind according to the spirit of the Gospel, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope explained this when he received representatives of the Italian Federation of Catholic Weeklies (FISC), who concluded a congress on the theme "Catholics in Political Life: Free or Missing?"

The Holy Father began the meeting Saturday by greeting Bishop Giuseppe Betori, secretary of the Italian episcopal conference, and Father Giorgio Zucchelli, president of the FISC, as well as directors and staff of more than 160 diocesan newspapers.

He also noted that FISC is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.

"The special role of the Christian-inspired social communications media is to educate minds and to form public opinion in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel," said Benedict XVI.

"Their function is to serve the truth courageously, helping public opinion to contemplate, understand and experience reality with the eyes of God," the Pope continued.

"The aim of diocesan newspapers is to give everyone a message of truth and hope, highlighting events and situations where the Gospel is put into practice, where goodness and truth triumph," he continued.

In the era of new communications technologies, the Holy Father said that the role of these Christian weeklies is even more important as they give "a voice to the local communities that are not adequately represented in the great information channels."

He told the Christian journalists: "You can reach those places where traditional pastoral care methods fail to arrive."

ZE06112708

In addition to my comments to your previous post, maybe there's room for a bulletin supplement/periodical if the pulpit isn't available?

Low Church = Low Quality?

This coming Sunday I have the opportunity to attend either a "low church" service that has contemporary praise and worship music, or a traditional "high church" Latin Mass that will have the music of William Byrd's Mass for four voices.

The low church service will be led by a well intentioned and earnest worship leader who only knows one way of playing his guitar: loud and fast. He also yells alot. Because of his loud and earnest manner, I avoid sitting near the front-of-house speakers when he's leading. His music group frequently struggle with the introductions and endings of their songs. I find these idiosyncrasies distracting and annoying. As a musician myself, I know that these errors of musical unpleasantness can be easily avoided with a bit of forethought and practice.

The choir at the Latin Mass on the other hand is singing a masterpiece of Tudor polyphony. The four-part harmonies require a great deal of rehearsal to get right and each member of the choir is capable of keeping their part. They wouldn't be in the choir otherwise.

I sometimes amuse myself with thought of what would a building of Christian worship look like if it was designed by the low church music group compared to the polyphany choir.

I suspect that, like their music, they would look something like this:

Low church building



High church building

The difference in the beauty of the buildings illustrates the difference in the quality of music composition and execution.

I appreciate that the low church people wish to emphasise fellowship and community, so the extra expense and attention to detail (in architecture at least) to them seems really superfluous to the purpose of Christian community.

My complaint however is why setup such a false dichotomy in the first place? Will you really lose fellowship and community because you have a beautiful building?

On the issue at hand regarding music, will you really lose the sense of the presence of God because you have practiced to the point of reducing all known errors so that your listeners are not distracted by your mistakes? Are loud and earnest calls to feel God's presence really going to make up for the poorly executed music?

I would prefer to see excellence exercised in all areas of human activity, anything less is really quite lazy and shows a lack of respect for one's neighbour and a lack of loving God with all of one's heart, soul, mind and strength.

It should be obvious which church I shall attend this weekend.

P.S. To hear samples of Byrd's Mass for four voices, you can listen to the clips available at Amazon.

Bad Vicar

Here's an amusing rant by a conservative vicar in the Church of England.

Both conservatives and liberals get a serve here with the stereotyping. There are some memorable lines, such as "Aren't you all entitled to your half-arsed musings on the divine? You've thought about eternity for twenty-five minutes and think you've come to some interesting conclusions."



That's what I like to see in a vicar, a bit of conviction!

Are Believers Delusional? (Part 2)

Are Believers Delusional? (Part 2)

Richard Dawkins vs. David Quinn

DUBLIN, Ireland, OCT. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org) - Here is Part 2 of a transcription of a debate between Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," and David Quinn, columnist at the Irish Independent, on the existence of God, free will and the effect of religion on the world.

The debate took place Oct. 9 on the "The Tubridy Show," hosted by Ryan Tubridy, and was broadcast on Irish public radio station RTE Radio 1. Part 1 of this debate appeared in the previous blog post below.

* * *
Tubridy: What evidence do you have, Richard Dawkins, that you're right?

Dawkins: I certainly don't believe a word of that. I do not believe we are controlled wholly by our genes. Let me go back to the really important thing that Mr. Quinn says.

Quinn: How are we independent of our genes by your reckoning? What allows us to be independent of our genes? Where is this coming from?

Dawkins: Environment, for a start.

Quinn: But hang on, but that is also a product of, if you like, matter, OK?

Dawkins: Yes, but it's not genes.

Quinn: OK, what part of us allows us to have free will?

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question, and it is not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says.

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion, because if there is no God,there is no free will, because we are completely phenomena.

Dawkins: Who says there is no free will if there is no God? That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Quinn: William Provine for one, whom you quote in your book. I have a quote here from him. Other scientists as well believe the same thing, that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes, entity, environment and chemical reactions, that there is no room for free will.

And Richard, if you haven't got to grips with that, you seriously need to, because many of your colleagues have, and they deny outright the existence of free will, and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: OK, Richard Dawkins, your rebuke to that note if you wish.

Dawkins: I am not interested in free will. What I am interested in is the ridiculous suggestion that if science can't say where the origin of matter comes from, theology can.

The origin of matter is a very -- the origin of the whole universe -- is a very, very difficult question. It's one that scientists are working on, it's one that they hope, eventually, to solve.

Just as before Darwin, biology was a mystery, Darwin solved that; now cosmology is a mystery. The origin of the universe is a mystery, it's a mystery to everyone. Physicists are working on it, they have theories, but if science can't answer that question, then it's sure as hell theology can'teither.

Quinn: Forgive me if I can come in here. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself, Where does matter come from? And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer: God created matter.

Dawkins: It is not reasonable.

Quinn: Many reasonable people believe this. It is quite a different category to say, "Look, we will study matter and we will ask how matter organizes itself in its particular forms," and come up with the answer: evolution.

It is quite another question to ask, Where does matter come from to begin with? And if you like, you must go outside of matter to answer that question, and then you're into philosophical and theological categories.

Dawkins: How can you possibly say God did it if you can't say where God came from?

Quinn: Because you must have an uncaused cause for anything at all to exist.
Now I see in your book, you come up with an argument against this that I frankly find to be bogus. You come up with the idea of a mathematical infinite regress.

But this does not apply to arguments about uncaused causes and unmoved movers, because we're not talking about math, we are talking about existence and existentiality. Nothing exists unless you have an uncaused cause, and that uncaused cause, and that unmoved mover, is by definition, God.

Dawkins: You just defined God as that. You just defined the problem out of existence. That's no solution to the problem. You just evaded it.

Quinn: You can't answer the question where matter comes from, you as an atheist.

Dawkins: I can't, but science is working on it. You can't answer it either.

Quinn: It won't come up with an answer. And you invoked a "mystery argument" that you accuse religious believers of doing all of the time. You invoke it for the very first and most fundamental question about reality. You do not know where matter came from.

Dawkins: I don't know, science is working on it. Science is a progressive thing that is working on it. You don't know, but you claim that you do.

Quinn: I claim to know the probable answer.

Tubridy: Can I suggest that the next question, it is quite appropriate, is on the role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on the local level, Mr. Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?

Dawkins: Yes I do. I don't think religion is the only cause of war, very far from it. Neither the Second World War, nor the First World War were caused by religion, but I do think that religion is a major exacerbator, and especially in the world today, as a matter of fact.

Tubridy: OK, explain yourself.

Dawkins: Well, I think it's pretty obvious if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, thereare many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

Tubridy: Why do you take it upon yourself to preach, if you like, atheism --and there's an interesting choice of words in some ways. You've been accused of being something like a fundamental atheist, if you like, the high priest of atheism. Why go about your business in such a way that you try to disprove these things? Why don't you just believe in it privately, for example?

Dawkins: Well, fundamentalist is not the right word. A fundamentalist is one who believes in a holy book, and thinks that everything in that holy book is true.

I am passionate about what I believe because I think there is evidence for it. And I think it's very different being passionate about evidence from being passionate about a holy book.

So, I do it because I care passionately about the truth. I really, really believe it's a big question, and it's an important question, whether there is a God at the root of the universe. I think it's a question that matters, and I think that we need to discuss it, and that's what I do.

Quinn: Ryan, if I can say, Richard has just come up with a definition of fundamentalism that suits him. He thinks that a fundamentalist is someonewho has to believe in a holy book.
A fundamentalist is someone who firmly believes that they have got the truth, and hold that to an extreme extent, and become intolerant of those who hold to a different truth. Richard Dawkins has just outlined what he thinks the truth to be. It makes him intolerant of those who have religious beliefs.

Now in terms of the effect of religion upon the world, I mean at least Richard has rightly acknowledged that there are many causes of war and strife and ill will in the world, and he mentions World War I and World War II.

In his book he tries to get neatly off the hook of having atheism blamed, for example, for the atrocities carried out by Joseph Stalin, saying that these have nothing particularly to do with atheism.

Stalin, and many communists who were explicitly atheistic, took to view that religion was precisely the sort of malign and evil force that Richard Dawkins thinks it is, and they set out from that premise to, if you like, inflict upon religion, as sort of their own version of a final solution, they set to eradicate it from the earth through violence, and also through education that was explicitly anti-religious.

And under the Soviet Union, and in China, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia, explicit and violent efforts were made to suppress religion underground, religion was a wicked force and we have the truth, and our truth would not admit religion into the picture at all, because we believe religion to be an untruth. So atheism also can lead to fundamentalist violence, and did so in the last century.

Tubridy: Can we let Richard in here?

Dawkins: Stalin was a very, very bad man, and his persecution of religion was a very, very bad thing. End of story. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was an atheist.

We can't just compile lists of bad people who were atheists and lists of bad people who were religious. I am afraid that there were plenty on both sides.

Quinn: Yes, but Richard you are always compiling lists of bad religious people. You do it continually in all your books, and then you devote a paragraph to basically try to dissolve atheism of all blame for any atrocity throughout history. You cannot have it both ways.

Dawkins: I deny that.

Quinn: Of course you do it. Every time you are on a program, talking about religion, you bring up the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and then you try to minimize the atrocities committed by atheists because they were so anti-religious, and because they regarded it as a malign force, in much the same way as you do. You are trying to have it both ways.

Dawkins: Well, I simply deny that. I do think that there is some evil in faith, because faith is belief in something without evidence.

Quinn: But you see, that is not what faith is. You see, that is a caricature and a straw man, and it's so typical. That is not what faith is. You have faith that God does not exist.

Dawkins: What is faith?

Quinn: Wait a second. You have faith that God doesn't exist. You are a man of faith as well.

Dawkins: I do not. I've looked at the evidence.

Quinn: I've looked at the evidence too.

Dawkins: If somebody comes up with evidence that goes the other way, I'll be the first to change my mind.

Quinn: Well, I think the very existence of matter is evidence that God exists.
And by the way, remember, you're the man who has problems believing in free will, which you tried to very conveniently [push] to one side earlier.

Dawkins: I'm just not interested in free will, it's just not a big question for me.

Quinn: It's a vast question because we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will. Otherwise we do everything because we are controlled by our genes or our environment. It's a vital question.

Are Believers Delusional? (Part 1)

I came across this debate between Richard Dawkins and David Quinn (details below) published by the Catholic news service Zenit.

The few times I've seen Dawkins interviewed he gets too much of a free ride with his militant atheism. It's good to see someone slow him down with some simple questions.

Are Believers Delusional? (Part 1)

Richard Dawkins vs. David Quinn

DUBLIN, Ireland, OCT. 23, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Differences over the existence of God, free will and the effect of religion on the world triggered a spirited debate recently on Irish public radio.
The debate between Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," and David Quinn, columnist at the Irish Independent, took place Oct. 9 on "The Tubridy Show." The show was hosted by Ryan Tubridy and broadcast on radio station RTE Radio 1.

Here is the first part of a transcription of the show.

* * *
Tubridy: Your most recent book is called "The God Delusion." Let's talk about the word delusion, just to put it into context. Why did you pick that word?

Dawkins: The word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, to me, and I think that is true of religion, it is remarkably widely believed.

It is as though almost all of the population, or a substantial proportion of the population, believe that they'd been abducted by aliens in flying saucers -- you'd call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.

Tubridy: And would it be fair to say you equate God with, say, the imaginary friend, the bogeyman, or the fairies at the end of the garden?

Dawkins: Well, I think he is just as probable to exist, yes. And I do discuss all those things, especially the imaginary friend, which I think is an interesting psychological phenomenon in childhood. And that may possibly have something to do with the appeal of religion.

Tubridy: So take us through that a little bit, about the imaginary friend factor.

Dawkins: Many young children have an imaginary friend. Christopher Robin had Binker; a little girl who wrote to me had a little purple man. The girl with the little purple man actually saw him, she seemed to hallucinate him, and he appeared with a little tinkling bell, and he was very, very real to her, although in a sense she knew he wasn't real.

I suspect that something like that is going on with people who claim to have heard God, or seen God, or hear the voice of God.

Tubridy: And we're back to delusion again. Do you think that anyone who believes in God, anyone of any religion, is deluded? Is that the bottom line with your argument, Richard?

Dawkins: Well, there is a sophisticated form of religion. One form of it is Einstein's, which really wasn't religion at all.

Einstein used the word "God" a great deal, but he didn't mean a personal God, he didn't mean a being who could listen to your prayers or forgive your sins.

He just meant it as a kind of poetic way of describing the deep unknowns, the deep uncertainties of the root of the universe.

Then there are deists who believe in a kind of God, a kind of personal God who set the universe going, a sort of physicist God, but then did no more, and certainly doesn't listen to your thoughts, and has no personal interest in humans at all.

I don't think I would use a word like delusion for, certainly not for Einstein, and I don't think I would for a deist either. I think I'd reserve the word delusion for real theists, who actually think they talk to God and think God talks to them.

Tubridy: You have a very interesting description in "The God Delusion" of the Old Testament God. ... You described God as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Dawkins: Well, that seems fair enough to me, yes.

Tubridy: There are those who would say that's a little over the top.

Dawkins: Read your Old Testament if you think that. Just read it. Read Leviticus, read Deuteronomy, read Judges, read Numbers, read Exodus.

Tubridy: And is it your contention that these elements of the God as described by yourself are what has not helped matters in terms of, say, global religion and the wars that go with it?

Dawkins: Well, not really because no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally, anymore, so it isn't quite like that.

An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally, but that can only be because they've never read it, because if they ever read it, they couldn't possibly take it literally.

But I do think people are a bit confused about where they get their morality from. A lot of people think they get their morality from the Bible because they can find a few good verses -- parts of the Ten Commandments are OK, parts of the Sermon on the Mount are OK -- so they think they get their morality from the Bible. But actually of course nobody gets their morality from the Bible; we get it from somewhere else.

And to the extent that we can find good bits from the Bible, we cherry-pick them, we pick and choose them, we choose the good verses from the Bible and we reject the bad.

Whatever criterion we use to choose the good verses and throw out the bad, that criterion is available to us anyway, whether we're religious or not. Why bother to pick verses, why not just go straight for the morality?

Tubridy: Do you think the people who believe in God and in religion generally, who you think have -- you use the analogy of the imaginary friend -- do you think that the people who believe in God and religion are a little bit dim?

Dawkins: No, because many of them clearly are highly educated and score highly on IQ tests and things.

Tubridy: Why do they believe in something you think doesn't exist?

Dawkins: Well I think people sometimes are remarkably adept at compartmentalizing their mind, separating their mind into two separate parts.

There are some people who even manage to combine being apparently perfectly good working scientists, with believing that the Book of Genesis is literally true, and that the world is only 6,000 years old. If you can perform that level of double-think, then you could do anything.

Tubridy: But they might say that they pity you because you don't believe what they think is fundamentally true.

Dawkins: Well, they might, but we'll have to argue it out by looking at the evidence. The great thing is to argue it by looking at evidence, not just to say, oh well this is my faith, there is no argument to be had, you can't argue with faith.

Tubridy: David Quinn, columnist at the Irish Independent, show us some evidence please.

Quinn: Well, I mean the first thing I'd say is that Richard Dawkins is doing what he commonly does, which is he's setting up straw men, so he puts God in the same -- he puts believing in God in the same -- category as believing in fairies.

Well, children stop believing in fairies when they stop being children, but they usually don't stop believing in God because belief in God, to my mind, is a much more rational proposition than believing in fairies or Santa Claus.

Tubridy: Do we have more proof that God exists than we do for fairies?

Quinn: I'll come to that in a second.

The second thing is that by compartmentalizing yourself, and he uses the examples of, well, you got intelligent people who somehow or other also believe the world is only 6,000 years old, and we have a young Earth, and they don't believe in evolution.

But again, that's a too stark an either-or. There are many people who believe in God, but also in evolution and believe the universe is 20 billion years old, and believe fully in Darwinian evolution, or whatever the case may be.

Now, in all arguments about the existence and nonexistence of God, often these things don't even get off the launch pad because the two people debating can't even agree on where the burden of proof rests. Does it rest with those who are trying to prove the existence of God? Or does it rest with those who are trying to disprove the existence of God?

But I suppose, if I bring this onto Richard Dawkins' turf, and we talk about the theory of evolution: The theory of evolution explains how matter, which we are all made from, organized itself into, for example, highly complex beings like Richard Dawkins and Ryan Tubridy, and other human beings. But what it doesn't explain, just to give one example, is how matter came into being in the first place.

That, in scientific terms, is a question that cannot be answered, and can only be answered, if it can be answered fully at all, by philosophers and theologians. It certainly can't be answered by science.

And the question of whether God exists or not, cannot be answered fully by science either. And commonly, and a common mistake that people can believe, is that the scientist who speaks about evolution with all the authority of science can also speak about the existence of God with all the authority of science -- and of course he can't.

The scientist speaking about the existence of God is actually engaging in philosophy or theology, but he certainly isn't bringing to it the authority of science per se.

Tubridy: Back to the first question, have you any evidence for me?

Quinn: Well I would say the existence of matter itself, I would say the existence of morality, myself and Richard Dawkins clearly have different understandings of the origins of morality, I would say free will.

If you're an atheist, logically speaking, you cannot believe in objective morality, you cannot believe in free will.

These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe for example that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe that they are freely choosing those actions. An atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes and make no free actions at all.

[Part 2 of this debate is in the post above]