Episode Summary
Executive Summary: This 2009 Intelligence Squared debate examined whether atheism has become a new kind of fundamentalism. Bishop Richard Harris and Charles Moore argued that many critics target a caricatured God and overlook the mystery, ethical depth, and cultural role of religion. Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling countered that atheism is evidence-based, not creed-based, and that secular humanism resists religious overreach in public life. The audience ultimately voted against the motion.
Main Topics: What counts as fundamentalism (Priority: 5/5): The panel split over whether atheism can be called fundamentalist. Critics said new atheists show dogmatism, certainty, and scorn; Dawkins and Grayling said atheism lacks a holy book, creed, or blind obedience. The nature of God being debated (Priority: 5/5): Richard Harris argued that opponents attack a simplistic, creationist God rather than classical theism, mystery, or the God of Christian tradition. He said the real issue is which God people mean when they believe or disbelieve. Religion, culture, and humanism (Priority: 4/5): Harris and Moore emphasized religion’s influence on philosophy, art, music, and moral imagination, while Grayling argued non-believers often adopt humanist ethics grounded in human flourishing rather than divine authority. Secularism and public policy (Priority: 5/5): Grayling argued that religion should not dominate the public square or govern laws, citing examples like abortion policy, faith schools, and restrictions in Taliban-controlled areas. Evidence, certainty, and scientific method (Priority: 4/5): Dawkins stressed that atheism follows evidence and revises beliefs with new data, contrasting this with religious certainty and claims from pulpits about God’s will. Tone, respect, and public discourse after 9/11 (Priority: 3/5): Grayling argued the post-9/11 climate made the debate harsher and emboldened outspoken atheism, while critics complained that religious belief is often protected from criticism and satire.
Key Arguments: Harris argued that new atheism is fundamentalist because it is impervious to facts, focuses on weakest arguments, attacks a caricature of God, and ignores classical religious thought and culture. Harris said the God he believes in is not a creature-like figure but a mysterious reality, illustrated by Hugo Grin’s Auschwitz reflection that asks not where God was, but where man was. Grayling separated atheism, secularism, and humanism: nonbelief is simply rejecting supernatural agencies, secularism limits religion’s power in public policy, and humanism builds ethics from human nature and relationships. Grayling argued that most atheists are former believers who understand religion deeply, and that criticism of religion is not intolerance in the same way disbelief in magic is not intolerance of magic. Moore claimed fundamentalism is an attitude toward truth and other people, and that Dawkins’ approach reduces religion, attacks intelligence-based superiority, and misses paradox and moral complexity. Moore argued that great religion uplifts both the learned and the vulnerable, and that truth and human value cannot be reduced to IQ, success, or scientific explanation alone. Dawkins responded that atheism is not a belief system, has no scripture or catechism, and is open to changing with evidence, so it cannot be fundamentalist in the religious sense. Dawkins said religious certainty is the real dogmatism because clergy often state God wants X or not Y without evidence, whereas scientists admit uncertainty and gaps in knowledge. Dawkins denied that atheism leads to violence, arguing that atrocities by Stalin, Mao, or other regimes were caused by politics and brutality, not by atheism itself. Dawkins and Grayling argued that criticism of religion is often perceived as extreme only because religion has historically been exempted from the normal rules of criticism. Harris and Moore insisted the debate is not about bad religion but about whether new atheists mirror the very absolutism they claim to oppose. The audience questions pushed the speakers on faith schools, secular law, the atheist bus campaign, and whether atheism can claim agnosticism given its wording about God. The debate repeatedly returned to a distinction between simple disbelief in God and broader anti-religious activism in society. In closing, the pro-religion side stressed mystery, humility, and transcendence, while the anti-religion side stressed evidence, freedom from dogma, and human responsibility. The final vote favored the view that atheism is not the new fundamentalism, despite the motion’s initial support from some attendees.
Data Points: Original audience vote for motion: 333 - Pre-debate vote in favor of the motion that atheism is the new fundamentalism Original audience vote against motion: 675 - Pre-debate vote against the motion Original audience don't knows: 389 - Pre-debate undecided audience members Post-debate audience vote for motion: 363 - Final in-room vote in favor of the motion Post-debate audience vote against motion: 1,070 - Final in-room vote against the motion Post-debate audience don't knows: 85 - Final in-room undecided audience members Online vote for motion: 35 - Online audience voting in favor of the motion Online vote against motion: 877 - Online audience voting against the motion Online don't knows: 12 - Online audience undecided Debate year: 2009 - Archive debate date referenced by the host Motion: atheism is the new fundamentalism - Central proposition debated by the panel Grayling self-placement on belief scale: 6.5 out of 7 - He said he is close to certainty there is no God Dawkins book chapter title: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God - Referenced during exchange about probability language
Pivotal Quotes: "there is no holy book of atheism, and never could be" — Richard Dawkins: Dawkins argued atheism cannot be fundamentalist because it is evidence-based rather than creed-based "the real question is, where was man in Auschwitz?" — Richard Harris: Harris used this to argue for a mysterious, suffering God rather than a simplistic deity "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" — Charles Moore: Moore’s closing appeal for intellectual humility and openness to mystery
Implications: The debate frames modern atheism not just as disbelief, but as a public posture toward religion, evidence, and authority. It suggests future disputes will center less on God’s existence alone and more on who gets to shape morality, education, and law.