Intelligence Squared - Atheism is the new fundamentalism

Atheism is the new fundamentalism

29 Nov 2009

Speakers: Charles Moore, Professor Richard Dawkins, Richard Harries, Dr Anthony Seldon, Anthony Grayling

For the first time, this Intelligence Squared debate was live-streamed over the internet, allowing people to watch, and participate, from anywhere in the world. The online audience's vote is included below.

Initial Vote: For 333, Against 675, Undecided 389

Final Vote: For 363, Against 1070, Undecided 85

Final Online Vote: For 37, Against 889, Undecided 12

The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.

Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).

Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.

Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.

This event was the first in a new partnership between Intelligence Squared and Wellington College. To find out more, visit Wellington College

Charles Moore

Journalist
Professor Richard Dawkins

Ethologist, evolutionary biologist and best-selling author
Richard Harries

Bishop of Oxford 1987-2006
Dr Anthony Seldon

Political Historian, Headmaster, and Unofficial Biographer of Tony Blair
Anthony Grayling

Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London

Peter Grant (30 Nov 2009 6:58pm)

Could you guys please also offer an audio only stream next time, some of us have bandwidth issues. :(
T Ray (01 Dec 2009 6:00am)

Charles Moore starting at 24:48 ~ “It’s part of our opponents’ fundamentalist position that they don’t really distinguish between fundamentalism and other forms of religious belief." Is that true? I don't think that's entirely true. I'm sure I've heard and read Richard regarding various practices and degrees of intractability with equally varied degrees of disdain. "Just as followers of bin Laden will say that all infidels are damned," Regardless of what bin Laden’s followers do say, this is an unveiled attempt by Moore at suggesting guilt by association. "so these hyper-atheists say that all religion is equally contemptible." I take "hyper-atheists" to mean "militant atheists" unless it is possible to believe less than none. If lies are contemptible and all religions are equally credible then this may be a stance worth adopting. It should be pointed out that while he’s saying at this point that he’s comparing religions he wants the audience to draw o
Garry Honey (02 Dec 2009 12:41pm)
Garry Honey (02 Dec 2009 12:41pm)
Garry Honey (02 Dec 2009 12:59pm)

A greatly enjoyable debate, but I'd have to say, an absurd notion: science and reason is the very embodiment of openness to change; it leaves open the door to ANY hypothesis, irrespective of how seemingly implausible to begin with, provided it can be substantiated with empircally-derived evidence. Religion is no exception to the umbrella of ideas which science would readily endorse, given appropriate evidence. However, we cannot forget that extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. The idea that a being exists outside of our existence, and that we can know its purpose and its specific intentions for our species is so extreme and so fanciful, that only the most fundemental could possibly support its legitimacy. Those who take a more rational view accept that we could conceivably be persuaded, but it would take the most extraordinary level of proof, since it would override everything we thought we knew. Even confronted with some level of evidence, we would first have to apply O
Ted Maxwell (10 Dec 2009 10:10am)

<a href="http://www.google.com">Google</a>
Mark Roberts (11 Dec 2009 1:37pm)

<a href="http://www.google.com">Go to google.com - great website</a>
william urquhart (11 Dec 2009 10:10pm)

As a confirmed atheist (and, as alluded to by AC Grayling,a member of the majority of atheists who was raised a Christian) I would like to know why some religious people fight, literally, for their religion. Why do some soldiers pray before going into battle? Do they believe their god to be stronger than their enemy's? The comedian Marcus Brigstock does a brilliant sketch asking religious people to let us have our world back please once you've finished killing each other. RD is right, we need to become militant and demand, as atheists, to be heard. How did the universe come about if there is no 'God'? The answer is 'nobody knows' and nobody in the history of mankind has ever known. As an atheist, I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps religious people need to invent a Creator in order to find peace. So many questions......great debate.

Username
Password

Atheism is the new fundamentalism

Share this video