All through my college years I resisted beng a pagan/satanist/goth/vamrire etc etc, but now if I become an atheist Dave says I can be an anti-christian, anti-social parasite! OOh the sheer sexiness of it! Where can I get a copy of the Origin of Species?

E Skelton, cardiff, wales

Post 2
From a purely utilitarian point of view, one needs God as a transcendent as an organising social agent, whose very unknowable presence limits the carnage that unrestrained human ego can inflict on society. Nazism and Marxist communism are cases in point. It is a fact that there has never been in history, a nation founded on atheism that has been successful and humane.

It is not Atheism but Christian ethos and devout Christians, that have given rise to separation of church and state, the abolition of slavery, emancipation of women, compassion to prisoners of war, the Red Cross, charities, to name just a few. It is the Christian ethos that gave rise to modern science and technology. It is not a coincidence that such developments took place only in a Christian Europe and not elsewhere. Even the secular state is a Christian invention. Atheism is simply a social parasite that exists as a counterpoint to Christianity.

DaveP, Beverley, UK

There is beauty in wonder, in not being able to explain something, in simply not knowing the answer and the day science proves, or disproves, all of our theological ideas will be a very sad one. I myself am not hugely religious. I do, however, draw great strength at times from the concept that there is something or someone more powerful than us all who can, if not solve a problem, simply walk through it with us.
Not knowing gives us hope. And whilst I should not like to neglect my thirst for rational, concrete proofs and solid fact, I am also happy to remain ignorant when it comes to theology and religious concepts. Science has opened up countless doors to new age understanding. However religion and science are two fields which shouldn't overlap as they will forever contradict one another. It's time we stopped trying to disprove religion through science. Some things were simply never meant to be understood.

Daniella M, Kettering, England

There is the rational and there is the emotional. The rational takes care of itself. The emotional comes within the package of our being and we are not human without it. Anger, sorrow, love; and a belief in a superior power or a guardian angel may give comfort. I guess arrogance is another.
I tell my children Father Christmas is real because I like the idea and so do they. Apply rational thought and the magic disappears. We know what the score is, Dr Hawkins.

David, Bromley,

Dawkins essentially agrees with the words that define 'transcendent'.

You then take it as him agreeing with 'transcendent' in a sense that you want him to.

You then say that you both understand and perceive the same things, but talk about them differently.

You stubbornly reach a false conclusion here, I think. The idea of god and the idea of something natural and powerful that is more complex (or beautifully simpler) than what we observe now are vastly different.

frank, london,

Richard Shaw,
Not existing, of course, is something that OTHER things do. If there were nothing, then, there would be, er, nothing, including us.
The Einstein Field Equations, which generate the conditions for all possible universes have certain solutions that are empty by definition (the de Sitter universe, for example). It is hard to see in what sense these solutions could exist, and maybe that's why they don't.
Not existing, furthermore, is something that people think that they're going to be doing after they're dead, and that's why they're frightened enough of it to be persuaded of Heaven, etc. They think that not existing consists in some way of lying in a cold grave. This is no more possible than it is for any of us not to exist.
We are convinced that the universe must have a cause, because everything else seems to have a cause. But it doesn't have to be a benign sentient God cause. It might just be that it's in the nature of the universe to exist.

Paul Caira, London, England

The true value of Dawkins's message is that humanity cannot place responsibility for its own salvation on a mythical God's shoulders through prayer, invocation, wishful thinking or anything else. Humanity has to do it for itself, and it's time it learnt that lesson.

Robin Hawdon, Bath,

I am a scientist, I was the only religious member of a family of scientists. I now realise that all religions are man made. To me this is all Dawkins says and I agree. No one knows if there is a god or not, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is. However, I do think that we will cease to be when we die, all the evidence is there. But then why look forward to the imagined when the here and now is so beautiful?

matt, manchester, uk

Correction- atheists assert that the universe explains itself.

John, Seattle,

Atheism is not a faith. It makes no assertions at all. It is simply the conclusion that one comes to after examining the available evidence for the existence of gods. It does not require you to hold any beliefs without evidence, which is what religions do.

And we are all are atheists about Zeus, and Thor. Atheists just believe in one fewer god than Christians, Muslims and Jews do, and we dismiss that god with the same criteria that theists dismiss Sekhmet and Baal.

To claim that atheism is a faith position, a religion, is not just to demostrate ignorance of what atheism is, but of what a religion (and a dictionary) is.

Tony Bannister, London, UK

Why does the Universe exist ? Why is there not a total void, an everlasting nothingness - no time, no space, simply nothing at all, not even the consciousness that there is nothing, just a completeand permanent void of nothingness ? Yet the universe exists. It contains matter, life, energy in astonishing complexity, and the system within which these operate and interact is defined by complex physical laws. Did ithis complex and incredible universe, which no human mind could possibly have conceived - we have difficulty even understanding it - invent itself ? Did it bring itself into existence ?

Atheism claims to be a denial of faith. Yet it is a faith itself.
Nobody can prove that there is no God, no creative intelligence. To assert that there is no God is therefore an act of faith. Welcome Richard Dawkins, the founder of the new religion of atheism.

Richard Shaw, Pinner, UK

Everyone believes in God just that many chose not to accept the definition of God put forward by some. Generations of of abuse of the nature and concept of God have led people to redefine their understanding of God as, for example, A Universal Intelligence. Reality is, what they are choosing to identify has already been identified in the original teachings of the worlds major faiths from Judiasm, Christianity and Islam to Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like. The difference is how each faith has changed from its original teachings through years of misinterpretation and sadly, how people chose to manipulate faith and, worse how people one one faith chose to distort the teachings of another.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Is Dawkins finally converting?

He seems almost superstitious about using the word God, yet that is what he seems to be coming round to - a wonderful uplifting other dimensional transcendant awe inspiring something that he has faith will be revealed at some time in the future.

Sounds like God...in other words.

Joshua, London, UK

Religious people argue that evolution is only a theory as it is not capable of being proved. On that basis we should in fairness speak of the theory, not the doctrine, of the existence of God, the theory of the resurrection of Jesus, the theory of Jesus being divine, the theory of Mohammed being inspired by God and so on. It has taken Dawkin's courage to make atheism respectable and to blow the god delusion out of the water.

David Bennington, Ruislip, UK

Dawkins teaches the true word, not the superstition of "God."

God didn't form the world in a few days and then take a break. Maybe "he/she/it" put the universe into motion in the beginning, some 14.5 billion years ago (something did), but niether the Earth itself nor humanity is any kind of special creation although we're an arrogant and narcistic enough species to think ourselves some sort of special creation. Nor were we "designed" (an even more moronic idea). The Earth, all of the planets, and Mankind are simply masses of elements which formed out of the dust of the early solar system. We're simply lucky that there's a universal proclivity for the basic amino acids to form whenever the proper chemical elements get near each other (kind of like rabbits). Time did the rest, not "God." Thank "God" for scientifically knowledgeable and literate individuals like Dawkins.

Religion is indeed the opiate of the masses whose addiction is supplied by organized religious cartels.

Thomas, Atlanta, GA, USA

men and hallelujah! Dawkins preaches the true word of "God!"

God didn't form the world in a few days nor take a break on the 6th. Maybe "he/she/it" put the universe into motion in the beginning, some 14.5 billion years ago, but niether the Earth itself nor humanity is any kind of special creation although we're an arrogant and narcistic enough species to think ourselves some sort of special creation. Nor was it "designed" (an even more moronic idea). The Earth, all of the planets, and Mankind are simply masses of elements which formed out of the dust of the early solar system. We're simply lucky that there's a universal proclivity for the basic amino acids to form whenever the proper chemical elements get near each other (kind of like rabbits). Time did the rest, not "God." Thank "God" for scientifically knowledgeable and literate individuals like Dawkins.

Religion is indeed the opiate of the masses whose addiction is adriotly supplied by organized religious cartels.

Scott, New York, NY, USA

How would someone from the dark ages react if they could be transported to the present day? They would be totally freaked out.Radio,TV,planes,cars,computers etc. all of which are taken for granted today, would blow their superstitious mind. Let alone having enough food available in plenty every day, good clothing,warm houses,etc.again. Yet, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of the knowledge about this amazing, beautiful world,remarkable knowledge has been given in the last 100 years. All which already existed except people did'nt know about them. Surely all these would be thought to be truly miraculous by anyone from back then. We really ought to stop blaming God for all the human failings, and thank Him for what we do have. God is not human. Thank God.

Peter Richardson, Kippens,

Reading all the posts so far, it's plain that the 'fundamental truth' ( LOL), is that the response from all the believers in 'the supernatural' are at a loss to come up with any real or valid criticism to Dawkins', and atheism in general.

No it's not athiests anyone has to worry about, it's the religious idiots!

In Christianity there's always been precious little "love thy neighbour" demonstrated, but plenty of smiting. Also I read that Islamic martyrs are also worryingly being mislead, as the Koran's promise of seventy virgins was mistranslated and should have read, 'seven translucent currents of purity'..If only they had known that before they blew themselves up, for just a few currents...

Keith Baigrie, Dartmouth, Devon

Dawkins is the equivalent of an internet troll. The common traits are the need to attract attention by provocation and insult (a not unknown way to promote book sales), and the belief in his "supreme" intelligence. Any person that starts a book by claiming "a society has come into maturity when it understands the reason for its existence" cannot be but a pretentious ignoramus. Another quote from "The selfish gene", "I look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility", shows the stupidity of someone who overlooks the fact that computers are programmed by humans.
If Dawkins doesn't belief in God, that's a respectable personal choice. But when his "non serviam" is accompanied by insults to those who do, he should be reminded that he is no more than the Mourinho of scholarly debate. A Special one that doesn't deliver.

Ignacio Rodriguez, London,

Ruth Gledhill clearly came to this interview intent on "proving" that Richard Dawkins was actually religious. Typically all religious thought starts with the answers (i.e.God exists etc.) and attempts to fit all the facts to the answer. Such is the approach of a closed mind.

Contrast that with Richard Dawkins open minded behaviour when asked to consider 'transcendant' and 'numinous' "being a good scientist" He is willing to accept a change to his position to fit new facts as they are discovered. Deep down I get the impression that Ruth Gledhill knows this approach to be correct and now has a dilemma to face.

Roy Marsh, Singapore, Singapore

I am a fully paid up atheist, I wish there was a kind and loving God who could make everybody happy, there is not.
My real heartache begins with such as Aberfan or Dunblane,as it is today with the dreadful event in Portugal.
I could not ever tell parents such as those that there is no Heaven for their darling children.
What is the answer ?

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

The difference between the Christian teaching of reciprocity and e.g. the categorical imperative is that nobody has gone to Africa to feed the poor because of categorical imperative. If there is no God, neither is there a motive to fulfill the imperative.

Peter, London,

Much as I enjoy reading anything featuring Richard Dawkins, he generally has an easy time of it; any debate of this kind, a necessarily rational process, will highlight and reward knowledge and reason and expose chauvinism and ignorance in even the best prepared adversary. The Religion Correspondent of the Times apparently believed until this interview that the ethic of reciprocity (do unto others etc...) originated with Christianity. Ho hum.

Now I had reservations about drawing attention to this little embarrassment, not least because, as I believe that chap Confucious once said "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." Apparently that was in about 500 BC (thx wikipedia). But, maybe I'll get away with it just this once.

philip, cambridge,

Why does Dawkins spend so much time and energy in fighting something he does not believe exists. Education is not wisdom. Regards Flatroofer.

Eddie Ward, Llandrindod Wells, Powys

There are undoubtedly forces or aliens beyond what we know - the size of the universe almost guarantees it. But not a God. I believe God is merely a metaphor for Good, and like Dawkins that it is fundamentalists who are dangerous.

Ben, York,

another thing - how can you have an extremist atheist? How does that work? I'm an atheist in that I don't beleive in any of this nonsense. It's PAINFULLY obvious to me that it is all nonsense. Someone who is an atheist is a free thinker whereas a religious person can't be as they only allow themselves to think within the constraints of whatever mumbo jumbo they believe. I love the way religious folk try to pretend that atheists are just like another religion or something, as if this makes their viewpoint just as sensible. Anyway aren't all religious people athiests about all other religions? I haven't met a christian who believes in Odin and Thor yet. Stop trying to pretend that athiesm is just another quasi religious viewpoint. It is NOT, it is a refusal to believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence. I can have no more respect for an adult that honestly believes in religion than I could have for one that still believes in santa claus or the tooth fairy! Sad!

CJ, Manchester,

James:
Yes, it would be nice to believe that the bishops were in some sense authorities in matters 'spiritual' whatever that means, who could demonstrate the majestic insight that their prayerful lives had given them. Unfortunately they almost always come out with pointless platitudes.
One often hears the platitude 'Science deals with the "How?" and Religion deals with the "Why?"' To which my reply would be: 'All right then, why?' I've never heard a convincing answer yet - because the question is a pointless one.
Science, by contrast is really REMARKABLY good at the "How?"

Three cheers for scepticism!

Paul Caira, London,

It must be truly wonderful to believe and I honestly do envy those in that fortunate position . Or to put it another way ignorance is bliss.

jerym eedy, caerphilly, U.K.

Dan, Manchester, UK:

Your point looks valid, superficially. The difference between the scientist and the religious leaders, not to speak of politicians, is that the scientist calls the "religious idiots" by that name, while the others keep quiet or even pander to their whims. It's the scientists who are the salt of the Earth, I'd say.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

'But wait a second, along this line of thinking, scientists are totally irrelevant even to secular culture, because they are outnumbered by vast hordes of secular idiots. Specifically, because modern science is so far beyond the grasp of an overwhelming majority of humanity that popular science publications have no choice but to distort their subject beyond all recognition. And because the number of people with interest in science is every bit as negligible as the number of people interested in balanced theology. '
Dan Manchester

Actually you are incorrect. Your analogy would make sense if the bishops and so forth, through their expertise in 'religious work' were securing breakthroughs and advances from God, the benefits of which would then filter down through society. This is what the scientists achieve - their research and subsequesntly improved understanding of chemistry,biology, physics, and technology may not be fully understood by the layman, but manifests in medicine, etc

James, London,

Albert Einstein quotes:
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith..........
Dawkins is merely agreeing with big Al

jim rogers, Sydney, Australia

"Is it because the religious are unused to having their beliefs scrutinised..." My goodness. Do you *really* live in this country, Martin?

Dawkins comes across as so aggressive and unkind in his book and when talking to a camera. But during one to ones, interviews and such like, he seems a thoroughly decent chap. I do think he is terribly out of his depth in matters of theology though and I for one am getting pretty bored with all this arguing the toss about things that can't be proven one way or another anyway. I also can't stand the way he always alludes to an 'everyone is an idiot and/or deluded apart from me and all my likeminded friends and heroes' attitude.

There are extremists on both sides who refuse to listen to the other without ridiculing them and being snide or threatening. Leave them to it, I say, and we middle grounders can get on with our lives believing what we believe and avoiding the mud.

Esther, Hackney,

Professor Dawkins biggest problem, his biggest
'blindspot', if you like, is that he generously treats religious people as rational and intelligent beings and expects them to use their rational thinking skills and intelligence to approach the subject of whether there is a god.

He is wrong to do so. Religious people do not use any (rational or otherwise) thinking when it comes to god. This inteview by Ruth Gledhill is proof.

Angie, Worcester, UK

"He’ll never destroy the Church if he doesn’t understand the power of the Logos."

I laughed out loud at that, it's like a line from a bad children's fantasy novel. What does that even mean? Utter tripe. Apart from that the interview was interesting, Dawkins came across clearly as usual and left no room for confusion. The article's title was utterly misleading though, indicating that somehow the author had managed to equate Dawkins' beliefs with a kind of region. In that endeavour she failed miserably.

Paul A, Edinburgh,

I'm sure god is also peace. Peace doesn't exist in many parts of the world, and is not long established in others.Maybe peace is everywhere in the universe except the earth, but that's a bit of a cop-out. The earth we experience is made predominantly in the image of men. The only way peace can completely exist on earth is if there exists an incentive for men to change behaviour. So what has christianity got in its locker? It has the line "wives obey your husbands". Lets analyse that a little. Obey = is a condition of = is conditioned by. If this isn't centrepiece territory it should be, because it's determines whether there exists an incentive for men to change behaviour, and whether peace can ever truly exist.

Pat, Limerick,

''Dawkins is a bore'' is an entirely subjective and therefore meaningless statement. Furthermore the existence of large numbers of atheists whether forgotten or not is in itself undisputable evidence of the fact that the human animal does not need superstition to function. On a separate issue, fundamentalism per se is not the problem. It's the type of fundamentalism, ie being fundamentally convinced that opinions based on nonsense are as valid as opinions based on evidence, which is so dangerous.

joe finch, buckingham, uk

Having read "The God Delusion" by Prof.Richard Dawkins , I have to say I thought it a masterpiece. In a subsequent discussion with a friendly theologian, he recommended that I read a critique of the work by prof. Alister McGrath called " Dawkins' God Genes memes, and the meaning of life".

Well having now ploughed through this so called "critique", I can but report my view that the only sense in the work, are the numerous quotations from Dawkins. McGrath with all his literal verbosity didn't grasped the fact that all his criticisms were more than adequately destroyed by Dawkins in the first place. "There are none so blind that don't want to see!" .

I was particularly saddened to see that one of McGrathes' enthused reviewers was "The Times Higher Education Supplement", who thought the work "brilliant". I would say God help us all....but I can't now.

Keith Baigrie, Dartmouth, Devon

Despite all of Dawkins' sophistication, his is a stunningly parochial mind. Look at the following quote:

“I do think that intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today. Regrettable as that may be.” Why so? “Because they’re outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots.”

But wait a second, along this line of thinking, scientists are totally irrelevant even to secular culture, because they are outnumbered by vast hordes of secular idiots. Specifically, because modern science is so far beyond the grasp of an overwhelming majority of humanity that popular science publications have no choice but to distort their subject beyond all recognition. And because the number of people with interest in science is every bit as negligible as the number of people interested in balanced theology.

Except that Dawkins thinks that his own ivory tower is special in being simultaneously sublime and relevant.
Poor thing...

Dan, Manchester, UK

Why do Ruth and many other religious commentators claim that Richard Dawkins is angry, dogmatic, and wants to ban religion? Whenever I have seen or heard him interviewed he speaks calmly, rationally, and makes a considered attempt to reason with his interviewees.
Is it because the religious are unused to having their beliefs scrutinised and as they are unable to defend them when they have to explain why their own religion (as opposed to the many hundreds of different religions) is the true one that they have to resort to character assasination?

Martin, York,

Mr Dawkins you are a breath of fresh air blowing on the primitive religious ideas of the supernaturally inclined.
Our ancestors knew no better. They were more ignorant than we can ever appreciate. Why wouldn't they invent gods to explain everything they couldn't understand?
It was the most basic kind of thinking.
But this is the 21st century.And people who still think like this are becoming difficult to live with,even dangerous.
There is no virtue in religious thinking that I can see.
It has the same credibility for me as astrology has.
None.

yoyo, Vernon, BC Canada

You need to get Dawkins off the "Deism" argument to get anything useful out him. Dawkins himself made a stab at it, “Apart from that, even the sophisticated intelligent so-called religious people that you mentioned, even bishops, do actually believe in something supernatural, they believe in the Resurrection.” Once Dawkins talks about Christianity rather than some vague "theism", or the idiocies of fundamentalism, you find he has all sorts of interesting things to say.
(author, 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted), and a the Confutation of Dawkins' God Delusion).

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

If we are not talking about Jesus, then we are not talking about
religion. Especially regarding the life of the soul, as explained
by Saint Paul.

Hermann Burchard, Stillwater, OK , U.S.A.

Deep down in the personality there's no strong denial of God's existence.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Thank you for a very interesting and informative article. I was staggered to find that Professor Dawkins is actually very religious, I had assumed that he was a traditional ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ Darwinist. As a historian of science I was, however, disappointed to find how little he has learned from history. There have been numerous aging scientists over the last centuries who have assumed that the science of their age had reached a “staggeringly impressively near-to-complete understanding”. They have all been proved wrong. I am confident that Professor Dawkins will eventually be proved to be equally wrong. History suggests that science will continue to progress, sometimes through minor evolutionary tweaking of existing theory, sometimes by quantum leaps to entirely new paradigms.
A few years ago, it was suggested that we had reached ‘The End of History’. Now Professor Dawkins is suggesting that we are very near to reaching ‘The End of Science’. He couldn’t be more wrong.

David Easlea, Philadelphia, USA

This man does not understand epigenesis and is therefore a bit of a twit.

The Duke of Putney, dorset,

I cannot help feeling that Richard Dawkins is a little of a Humpty Dumpty, using words to mean what he wants them to mean. He interprets parables literally and sees them as fairytales. But then, he has invened the notion of the 'meme' or unit of culture to explain why 'the idea of God' has replicated itself in a process analogous to biological evolution down the years. That is itself something of a metaphor or parable; it cannot be tested experimentally as science. Indeed, it is open to contradiction. As Bernard Williams pointed out ( p29 'Truth and Truthfulness), 'the notion that there is an item that goes under the name 'the idea of God' and is everywhere the same is a dramatic misunderstanding of the history even of monotheism, let alone of the anthropology of religion more generally.' Moreover, the forces of selection explaining a meme's survival are not the same as those in biological evolution. Science? Humpty Dumpty.

MDA, London , UK

This interview gives me a over powering sense of Deja Vue for an arguement presented by the late Douglas Adams. (if I remember correctly)

Douglas shows a TV to a tribesman. He is convinced that it is "worked" by an army of little men. Douglas then goes into a long spiel about Cathode ray tubes, signal definition etc. which totally baffles the tribesman. Douglas then asks if he understands now? The tribesman replies yes, but surely there are just a few little men in there!

There is no room for God (or little men!) in scientific arguement. The author lives in the same state of ignorance as the tribesman applying irrelevant concepts to things he does not understand...

Leslie, Manchester, UK

Good God, Bad God, What God?

David Thomas, Merthyr Tydfil, UK

As a Christian, I don't believe in Richard Dawkins: as an atheist, he has nothing to look forward to.

J Elmslie, London, UK

Dr Green, I fail to see the point you're attempting to make. 'Surveying the Universe with awe' certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it was created by a supernatural being.

Scientists (and Darwinians, if you will) can also look at the Universe in an aesthetically pleasing way but surely understanding the principles that bind the Universe together would allow you to survey it with much more pleasure.

Further, your point that an ‘infinitesimal "surge" either way would have resulted in nothing’, for me that leads to the conclusion that Darwin’s theory is the ONLY explantation for the universe (or certainly the best we have).

Andrew, South Yorkshire, UK

Oh dear, its rather like reading the dialogue of a dimwitted member of the flat earth society trying to change the beliefs of an incredibly intelligent astronaut...

There's science, and then there's the toothfairy, Oops, sorry, I mean God. Or do I mean Isis? or Thor? or maybe Zeus & his mates?

Victoria, London, UK

Anyone reading this should see quite clearly that the "surprising confessions" at the start of the article are nothing of the sort.

It's a shame that an interview where Dawkins neatly argues his case convincingly at every turn, is demeaned by cherry-picked statements taken out of context at the start of the piece and a general tone twisting Dawkins' actual meanings to suggest he believes in God minus the religious terminology.

Ruth Gledhill does get one thing right, though. The pernicious pervasiveness of religious words and symbols in our culture does serve to weaken the positive effects of reason and logical argument. At least atheists and theists can agree that blasphemy should be extinguished.

Alastair Pack, Colwyn Bay,

Richard Dawkins may be accepting that there may be some beauty there, something transcendent, but at no point in the interview does he allow a jump from that to the conclusions that the religions and the churches make.

That there may be something divine, some underlying beauty, does not allow you to deduce that the Bible is the Word of God, that all it commands is true, even the bits about stoning people, that we should hate others who have different interpretations of that divinity, that we should feel threatened by concepts such as hell.

I think it is that that Richard complains about, not about anyone seeing the divine.

Richard, Leeds, UK

In most interviews Dawkins comes out badly, as it quickly becomes clear that, frankly, he's just, you know...not like the rest of us.
But not in this puff job. There were two people involved in that interview and only one of them appeared to believe in anything.

John Blacksmith, London,

Dawkins (and everybody) should read Paramahansa Yogananda. He explains scientifically that God is not a "person" who lives in a "place" called heaven, but Energy, the Prime Energy that existed before the Big Bang, started it, and will exist when the Universe has dissolved. Yoga is the science of religion, and sooner or later it will be acknowledged. Jesus was in India and learned Yoga and meditation and taught it to the apostles. Mohammed had his revelations meditating in a cave, like yogis, and the name A-braham comes from a name of God in India, Brahm. The 7 seals of Revelation and the 7 candles of the Jewish Menora are a symbol of the 7 chakrkas. But people change everything along centuries, until things are rediscovered in this fantastic play and drama.

Don Quixote, Groningen, Netherlands

A most revealing interview and what I have claimed about Dawkins all along: his knowledge and understanding of religious belief and language is primary school level. I totally agree with him about religious fundamentalism but he should know - as an Oxford teacher - that an argument ex extremis is a logical fallacy. Darwinism, except its social applications which are anti-human as well as anti-Christian, is entirely compatible with Christianity because it doesn't address the basic religio-philosophical question: Why is it that all there is, is? We now know that everything hangs together in such a fine balance that an infinitesimal "surge" either way would have resulted in nothing.This doesn't explain God but it goes some way to explaining why religious people express such awe when they survey the universe: what Rudolf Otto called that mysterium tremendum et fascinans. Perhaps RD could begin his RE with a reading of Otto's "Idea of the Holy" and explore the concept of the non-rational?

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

It seems Ruth Gledhill might be a secret atheist - but perhaps that's the best philosophy for a "religion correspondent".

When will she properly come out of the closet?

Rob Green, Braintree, England

Dawkins is a bore.The human race will still have it's gods long after his bones have crumbled into dust. He is just another in a long line of fogotten atheists who don't seem to appreciate that the human animal needs superstition.

Michael J Rigby, Blackburn, England

Dawkins mind is strong and powerful, but like a steamroller, crushing his own spirituality. His athiesm is so steeped a dogmatism of its own. Is he subconsciously longing to believe in God?

Jackie Poulouktsis, Didymoteichon, Greece

When I was a research student I discussed, with a Benedictine monk, the problems I had encountered in reconciling belief in God with the atheistic arguments of secular philosophy, particularly those of the 1960's logical positivists such as A.J.Ayer. The monk opened his reply by quoting, from the Second Commandment, the prohibition of idolatry : "You shall not make to yourself any graven thing." What he meant was that if you create a pat definition of God, and then demonstrate how easy it is to knock your definition to pieces, you will run the risk of going down in history as a playpen philosopher.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Thank God for Richard Dawkins.

Mark Lyndon, London, UK

"Why is the middle ground, as between atheism and rational belief in God, not given the profile it deserves? There are many "people of faith" who understand what drives Dawkins. They recognise the fruits of enlightenment thought and the evidence for evolution. They are also critical of the growing fundamentalist dominance in Christianity. Jack Spong, former Bishop of Newark, book - Jesus for the Non-Religious - is a tour-de-force explaining the basis for a radical review of the historicity of the New Testament. It is perfectly possible with full intellectual rigour to reach a position in which God can be defined beyond traditional theism, as source of life and ground of being, with faith seen as living out our full humanity. In this rethinking Jesus is also redefined by his freedom to challenge religious oppression.

PCNBritain (www.pcnbritain.org.uk) is one of many organisations seeking a middle way beween strident atheism and fundamentalism. Maybe Richard is one of us!

John Hetherington, Kendal, Cumbria, UK

What a blessing to see that Richard Dawkins understands that there are things beyond him. We all understand this and try to fill this gap with many things; hobbies,careers or families. Ritualistic religion especialy. These cannot fill this gap,as it defines our purpose, showing our need to relate to our creator God. We cannot do this ourselves, as we are seperated from God by sin. So God in His love has revealed Himself to us in His Word (the Bible), but above all in the historical person of His Son,Jesus Christ.
Christ's existence is shown by non-christian contempories. Also our main sources on Him,the Gospels,are exceptionaly reliable and represent a message their eyewitness authors died for.
To fill the gap,besaved from just judgement and reconsiled to God we must accept this gift by trusting in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. There He was cuttoff from God(Biblical hell)and died in our place, so we can live,now and for eternity, properly;to God's glory, under His perfect rule

Gareth Rhymes, Hull, UK

I think this writer has a problem.She cannot accept that Dawkins does not subscribe to her dogma of religion and a belief in a God.
She tries to use words to confuse Richard but is caught out

I cant stand religion and the idea of a God.

Jobe, Johannesburg, South Africa

That noisy minority (and like other noisy controversial sections of our society, it is indeed a tiny minority) that thinks Dawkins is the new truth should educate themselves about the counter view to his arguments and his views - otherwise they are as closed minded and blind to the truth as they allege their religious opponents are. I assume I am not allowed to list book titles here, but I strongly recommend checking out the authors Alistair McGrath and Paul Back. Let me just say that Dawkins has been resoundingly discredited - by other scientists (let alone from religion) - and indeed many scientists are now convinced that evolution is a theory on it's last legs. A bit of self-education rather than automatically believing all the hype in this area goes a long way. Make your own mind up.

Alex Kerr, London, UK

The only game in town when I was a boy was to be Anglican and God was clearly English. I have now been travelling for 50 years and regularly meet people whose religion is quite different from my own. I find it difficult to know that I am right! Since we are all here, one might suppose someone put us here. I am a bit sceptical, but I do have difficulty in saying there was no beginning and there is no end. My problem is that wherever I go (Riyadh, Delhi,Tokyo, Jerusalem, Dallas and yes - Canterbury) I am told I am wrong. Every religion condemns every other religion. I have never really seen a good definition of God to which all religions can subscribe. In fact God is so unknowable that I have never seen a satisfactory definition except that he is already here and don't ask any questions - or else! I think that until every religion (and there seem to be hundreds of variations) I will bide my tme and occasionally think I am right and perhaps - tentatively - you are all wrong.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Is that fact that Ms Gledhill was trying to fool Dawkins by using unusual words evidence that she has lost the argument and has resorted to trickery ?

Jack Thomson, Guildford, UK

It would be well for you and Dawkins actually to know something about religion in America, where--even without the buffer of the Anglican Church--there are a lot of thoughtful religious people and not nearly as many fundamentalist religious people as you would seem to like to believe. On examination it often turns out that those who might at first glance appear to be fundamentalist or not nearly so much as they appear.

J. Faulconer, Chicago, USA

I wish Ms Gledhill would make her mind up. She spends 99% of this piece telling us about her god , and then contradicts it all in the last paragraph when she says "I’m not superstitious".

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

It's quite impossible to eradicate all notions of the Transcendent from our confused, passionate human nature.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

This man has come at the right time and place.
He speaks such common sense.
I have spent my last 63 years in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Revealed Religion is bunkum.
Theology is Fairyology.
There is no evidence to found any of it.
But I have no regrets.
It is better to have learned late that it is all folly, than not to have learnt at all.
I have just read the current Bestseller "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris.
If any of your readers haven't read it - please do.
Let us be rid of this corrupting, degrading and historically dreadful series of revealed religions.
This Article shows a man wide open to all concepts unlike the Keepers of the Keys in the Fairy Kingdoms of revealed religion.

John Collins, Lewes, East Sussex

I am a committed Catholic, and I would recommend Zimbardo’s “The Lucifer Effect” (Rider) as a brilliant scientific exposition of how groups and systems, from Christianity to scientific sceptics, can exchange personal autonomy for the behaviour and the norms of their group. It behoves every thinking person to see in what ways it may apply to them. Frankly it is a horrifying but invaluable account.

Quentin de la Bedoyere, London, UK

I would say to all, that it is easy to criticise. However, the more time you spend studying nature, philosophy art or science. Really struggling and etermined to gain knowledge and improving your thought processes, the more you will think like Mr. Dawkins. Try much much harder everybody.

R. Ince, Istanbul, Turkey

Definition of Fundamentalism:

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

It is the intolerance of other views that potentially warrants the insult of stupid. It is one thing to be devout, but quite another to be fundamentalist. As a great philosopher once said 'it is the most intelligent man who realises how much he has yet to learn.'

Dawkins, the intelligent, fundamentalists and the stupid- if we all keep an open mind to other peoples views then the most extreme outcome we can hope for is intelligent debate, and there's no harm in that!

Mandy, Manchester- UK, England

Richard Dawkins owes Ruth Gledhill enormous gratitude for depicting him in the favourable light that she does. However, Mr. Dawkins too has come up with astounding descriptive of an ‘intelligence’ that he believes future physicists will ‘discover’ but refuses to call it God; ‘…something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand…. all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” “….It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.” Adding, “I’ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I’ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes…..”
Never thought I would ever say this but Mr. Dawkins, as a Muslim, this is exactly part of my understanding of God Almighty. All praise belongs to God, Lord of all the worlds!

Shermeen Butt, Somersham, UK

the latest finding of science is that the basis of the universe is energy waves (particles) imbued with information. This implies a knowledgeable entity who is able to move particles to form whatever He wishes.
The Bible clearly indicated that the definitive sound waves of God created everything,(Genesis ch. one).Currently in
Europe the physicists are hoping a supercollision of atoms with reveal the "God" particle that controls the universal particles. My hypothesis is INFINITY'S DEFINITIVE VOICE WAYS CREATED AND MAINTAINS THE UNIVERSE. Jesus said, "Lazarus come forth" and he did.

david fong, La mirada, Ca.

One of the things that blocks God out, is intellectually trying to decide whether he exists or not.

Hugh9, Sassenheim, Netherlands

But, SD Goh, that's the whole point! There aren't more things! To subsume a philosophy which encompasses the whole of the cosmos with all its intricacies to a muddled belief is wanton.

The beliefs as espoused by 'religion' are really no more than crutches for the those who cannot love themselves. These same people seem to need protection from realities which they cannot face, quite possibly because they lack sufficient belief in themselves.

Tim A, Bournemouth, UK

What a delightful and uplifting read this is!
How much understanding can be achieved when two people talk quietly, with respect and carefully considering each other's words.
To think BBC reporters had proved such communication impossible.

David Barfield, Wigan, UK

Take the anthropomorphism out of God and the denial of the facts of modern scientific discovery out of organised religion and you have the truth as explained by Dawkins.

Self evident to all atheists.

A Cullen, Eternity City,

Dear Ms. Gledhill,

Thank you! Thank you for listening! Thank you for not only hearing what most religious correspondents want to hear. We may disagree about the supernatural - but it is so refreshing to read something intelligent written about Dawkins instead of the usual sniveling tripe.

Robin, Elbert, Colorado

The idea that fundamentalist christians (or of any religion) cannot be "intelligent" is offensive and wrong. Many, if not most, of the greatest thinkers in western civilization during the past 2000 years have been fundamentalist christians. This applies to many of the greatest thinkers in eastern society as well, who were devout muslims or buddhists.

Calling people who do not believe the same as you "stupid" is a familiar form of predjudice. In the 20th century those who claimed to be more "intelligent" were responsible for some of the worst atrocities. Let's not go down that slope again.

Agonistes, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Ah, Mr.Dawkins, scientist extraordinare, it would do us all well to remember, now and again, the wisdom of the Bard: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosopy."

SD Goh, PJ, MALAYSIA

Well, there you have it....to paraphrase Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue"...we all saw it just the same, we just saw it from a different point of view..." It seems Dr. Dawkins is a bit hung up on some of the details of religion, but he's in agreement with the generalities. I think if one puts into perspective that the religious texts were written 2,000 or more years ago, one needs to realize that a God communicating with those living then would speak (and/or reveal himself) in terms they could understand. These terms may seem archaic and even childish to our 21st century sensibilities, but if God started spouting modern string theory or astrophysics to a simple sheep herder, his message would never have gotten through.
At any rate, I'm glad that Dr. Dawkins believes in a causal agent for our universe (or our reality). I just wish he wouldn't get so all fired up when we give it a name...i.e. God
La Habra, Calif. USA

Steve Klasna, La Habra, USA, Calif.