It’s not me you need to say this to, Jason, but to the members of (some) faiths. You betray your post-modern credentials here- not all views are compatible or are willing to work together.

In my experience- (you seem to assume I havent really thought about these things, and have not discussed these issues with people of faith) belief is often just a default position because people dont understand the rational position- which you also misrepresent by calling it “scientism”; Greer also misrepresents it. He is simply wrong, it is not a matter of opinion. So I think TT should play a more proactive role in the public understanding of science. Why dont you work towards that yourself rather than spending all this time pointing out the obvious- that not everyone agrees?

I’m not quite as naive about all this as you seem to suppose. I’ve been in discussions with people of faith for quite a while. I am always open to new ideas but I am far to long in the tooth to expect the surprises you seem to think may be awaiting me- if you have such surprises why dont you share them in your comment? Actually the kind of things people say about their beliefs and why they have them can be collated into a very narrow range of themes, even though to each person they may seem deeply personal. Have a look at this- it is a good demolition of some of the best defences of faith: http://reasonweekly.com/atheism-and-religion/book-review-the-case-for-god-by-karen-armstrong/comment-page-1#comment-1678

People are free to believe what they want- but they are not free to publicly promote beliefs, especially when they claim they are backed by science in some way, and then claim immunity from criticism.

I will just say three things:

1. I did indeed say that your view was ‘just one amongst many’ — but I did not say all views were equal! You obviously believe your views to be superior, and so do many other people. The only point I made was that everyone holding many different views has got to work together at the moment, and so they all have to understand that the person standing next to them doesn’t share their opinion right now. Which view was right, I didn’t enquire into.

2. For that reason, it seemed a little strange to me that you questioned whether people of faith had tried the ‘alternative of rationality’ or not. I simply wasn’t clear what you were trying to achieve! Since you have made it clear above that you don’t intend to ‘bash’ anyone’s faith, what are you hoping to do by questioning it?

Is it your intention that as many people as possible should leave their faiths, in favour of reason, persuaded by your arguments? Or should they somehow keep their faiths but simply admit the faiths are false and that what you say is correct? It seems to me that neither is very likely.

I think what Sharon was trying to say with her response was that, if you want to know where people with some kind of faith stand vis-a-vis science, rationality, etc., then you need to ask them on an individual basis why they believe what they believe. In that exchange you might influence them of course to question their beliefs, but equally, you might be surprised by what they said. Who knows?

1. I am still quite happy to debate you by email if you want. I wouldn’t want you to think that I was trying to lynch you… on the contrary. Nor am I interested in form over content, I assure you. As I mentioned, I’ve had conversations of this kind before with Dawkins-style atheists, and it wasn’t a waste of time for anyone. I have views in common with all sides in this debate. I understand perfectly the points you’ve made here, but I don’t think they are quite unanswerable.

All best wishes,

Jason