God is not a delusion. That is to be the gospel according to Dumbledore, a.k.a. Rowan Williams, the Archwizard of Cant, when he addresses the faithful at the Taliesin Arts Centre in 
Swansea today (or when he addressed – past tense – if you’re reading this after about 4–4.30 p.m.).
“Dr Williams will confront the arguments of bestselling atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in the lecture, How to Misunderstand Religion,” says a story in today’s Western Mail, Wales’s daily.
How to misunderstand religion. Hmm. Well, let’s start with the idea that it’s a mishmash of myths, homey wisdom, legends and other tosh, plus some historical fact, no doubt, some politics and some attempts at explanation of those natural phenomena that perplexed humankind back then more than many of them do now, a dash of fervour and a generous sprinkling of a propensity to be taken in by madmen, added to which is more than a soupçon of blind faith (baked in a moderate to white-hot oven for a few thousand years), shall we?
So misunderstanding religion should be a piece of piss, then.
“How to Understand Religion” might be a better title for the lecture, given that religion can be manipulated to suit any arguments of the moment, in the favour of those wielding them. One person’s exegesis is another’s sophistry and semantic conjuring.
But what might exercise some Freethinker blog readers is the opinion of an Oxford boffin, formerly of Wales. The paper says:
The intellectual battle has been welcomed by John Lennox, a Reader in Mathematics at Green College, Oxford, who spent 29 years at Cardiff University.
Earlier this month he debated with Prof Dawkins, and is the author of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?.
He told the Western Mail yesterday [Friday], “There is nothing new about the new atheism. What’s new is the aggressive tone.”
And religionists have never, ever, been aggressive over the years when it comes to stamping their beliefs and often their egos on the world? Robust might be a better adjective for the atheists and secularists, but, whatever, if the opponent who has been hogging the floor for hundreds of years, bellowing and making demands, continues to shout, you have perforce to raise your voice to make yourself heard.
Anyway, the Mail tale continues:
Criticising the allegation that religion fuels violence, he said, “[Dawkins] thinks that with Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao their atheism had nothing to do with their atrocities.”
Er, just how does a lack of a belief in something have something “to do” with “atrocities”? Unless, Dr Lennox, you’re implying that we’re looking at two mutually exclusive scenarios here, and that the converse is true, too: that you need to have religion in order not to commit atrocities.
Come now, you’re an academic, a clever bloke wot uses big words and maybe talks posh. You should know better than that.
Come to think of it, there are a lot of posh blokes with big words around who’re as mad as snakes. Most of them are religionists.
Email this article
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
October 14th, 2007 at 12:03 am
“There is nothing new about the new atheism. What’s new is the aggressive tone.”
But of course! The New Atheists™ are debunking the same old religious nonsense the old atheists (D’Holbach, Cohen, Russell and Mackie) have debunked through the centuries. Mr. Lennox’ argument for his imaginary friend is nothing more than some touchy-feely crap. And he’s supposed to be an academic! ~_~
October 14th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
There is nothing new about the new atheism precisely because there is nothing new about religion. Dr. Lennox trots out the same tired old clichés that religionists always come out with.
The one way he could scotch atheism once and for all is to produce hard evidence for the existence of God. He can’t do this, so he dodges the issue and implies the fault is with atheism.
Cut to the chase: show us your god.