The particular type of not-sense described as faith is best understood as a combination of accidents of birth, broader cultural baggage, political expediency (why was the Roman Empire abruptly Christian?) compounded by an intellectual laziness or indifference to evidence which some actually seem to relish. How rare, and thus how telling, is it that a child’s faith is not that of its parents: isn’t it just too obvious that religion is essentially a sexually transmitted disease? All the immensely sophisticated intellectual effort of theology seems to ignore this rather stark fact. Counting angels on the head of a pin is only quantitatively more daft than deciding about bodily assumption, the doctrine of the Trinity or whether St Thomas’ gospel really should have been in the New Testament. If the Bhuddists are actually right, or the Hindus or whoever, why bother with the details of the Pope’s claim to infallibility or Ian Paisley’s denial of the Bishop of Rome? That very smart people have bent their terrific intellects to these pseudo-questions does not make them valid questions.

Dawkins’ thesis is that faith is not just a benign cultural artefact (’mostly harmless’ in Douglas Adam’s two-word Hitchhiker’s Guide summary of planet earth!) and I agree. The engine for so much that is negative in society and between societies is variously initiated, accelerated, fuelled and expanded because of the power of the unreason of religious faith.

There is such a mountain of improbability (to misuse Dawkins’ marvellous metaphor – though one that didn’t work in the programme IMHO) to faith that one hardly knows where to start. Dawkins seems to be sticking to the Abrahamic god shared by Christians, Jews and Muslims (would that even they acknowledged its sharing better). You cannot ignore the fact that, if he had tried to run this programme in our culture 400 years ago, he would have gone to the stake. At what point in the slow untangling of the (old?/original?/fundamental?) articles of faith and subservience to unreason do present-day believers think we should stop? It should seem clear, with a little reflection, that another 3-400 years is unlikely to leave anything of the mystical, superstitious, miraculous, vague god concepts that a modern, sophisticated believer currently defends. The theological gulf between today and 1600 should serve as a message to current believers; those of us enlightened (by the Enlightenment!) are having a long wait whilst the remnants of the old baggage are discarded.

(Wo)Men certainly created gods in their own images. As Man’s image of herself advances, there is no room for, or need of, the baggage of our human intellectual childhood lingering on from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Belzebub and baby Jesus are bound to come to occupy the same mental space – a purely metaphorical space – for ever more people. But Dawkins is right to express concern that, as at many times in history, unreason is on the march again. That is why atheists can’t just patronisingly tolerate the persistence of faith. Those near enough to the top of the slope of faith must be helped and encouraged to escape up and away to reason. ‘Being reasonable’ is surely something to aspire to!

I’m not convinced, however, that problems such as these are exclusively religious. The examples of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot come to mind.

I think people like the ones he met are as dangerous as he fears. How did he not give that pastor a smack for arrogantly telling him off for arrogance! (Maybe he did, and that’s why he was chased?!) That pastor and his church were as ‘normal’ as many I’ve encountered…

I can see Dawkins’ problem. He exposes himself to the mad fundamentalists of all creeds, and comes across some incredible and offensive attitudes and beliefs.

He doesn’t encounter the reasonable, thinking and rational people of faith who feel exactly the same repulsion of bigoted views that he does. He doesn’t encounter the people of faith (Norman Kember, Desmond Tutu, Christian Aid workers etc.) who are trying to make the world a better place through a faith-influenced compassion. He doesn’t encounter the people of faith who question their beliefs and weigh up the evidence of their own experience.

I think Dawkins is looking for evidence that backs up his own prejudices and opinions, and is not taking a wider view that might show that the extremists are actually that, extreme.

Maybe the conversation that Dawkins needs to have is with Christians (and Jews, Hindus, Muslims and others) whose faith has the capacity to deal with a complex world, incorporating both the evidence of science and the diverse nature of biblical literature (poetry, wisdom, history, prophecy).

This is timely coming just after the conclusion of the Dover trial. However, I don’t think even Dawkins can win over fundamentalists, just as creationists will simply ignore evidence and change tack again in the battle over America’s education system.

I’m with you on faith schools, especially where they are state funded. It is a parent’s responsibility to educate a child, especially in matters of faith.

I’ll bet it wasn’t easy for you to befriend Catholics at QUB.