Commentariat

Giles Fraser insists (Comment, 7 February) that “atheists” are defined by what they are against, and should therefore be barred from contributing to the BBC’s Thought for the Day. This is absurd. I might as well call him an anti-rationalist, and insist that he is defined by his opposition to reason, science and evidence. Humanists may privately sympathise with Richard Dawkins’s views, but we are not all determined to “attack the beliefs of others”. As a humanist minister, I am scrupulous about including those with religious beliefs in the funerals, weddings and baby namings I conduct. I am also proud to be celebrating what humankind can achieve, the standards to which we can aspire, and the value of human life - without any need for divine intervention. If you believe in God, good luck to you. I respect Giles Fraser’s beliefs; I’m sorry he seems not to respect those of humanists. Or is he afraid of them?
Rupert Morris
London

Atheism is not merely “defined by what it’s against”. Richard Dawkins is an atheist; he is not atheism’s pope. Because there is no doctrine of atheism I can only speak for myself. As an atheist, I feel drunk with wonder and intellectual delight at the complexities and simplicities of this universe, which outstretch our human comprehension yet whose existence energise inquiry. Scientific inquiry, certainly, but for me particularly ethical enquiry, because we as a species are alone responsible for formulating morality out of our evolutionary heritage and rational brains. To that extent, I was disappointed by the atheist buses’ message: for me the heart of atheism is not enjoyment but responsibility. I cannot be against god for there is no god to be against. I am for life - and for acceptance of death - for those are all we have. They are enough.
Deborah Padfield
Cambridge

Giles Fraser seems to think that a contented absence of religious belief is “parasitic” on the belief itself. Does he think that absences in general are parasitic on what is absent?
Professor Simon Blackburn
Department of philosophy, University of Cambridge

I fully agree with Claire Rayner but, if the BBC’s religious unit can’t bear to allow non religious folk to present TftD then it would be more honest to retitle the slot Religious Thought for the Day. Far more dishonest is BBC1’s Sunday evening programme Songs of Praise. Basically it doesn’t do what it purports to, as religions other than Christianity are very rarely, if ever, featured. Either this programme should feature a range of faiths together with other songs of praise that secularists and humanists can relate to, or, if this is too much for the Beeb’s religious unit to stomach, the programme should be renamed honestly - as Songs of Christian Praise.
Carole Underwood
Kendal, Cumbria

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds