It's Aelfric who is being dishonest here

Another writer writes that my logic is warped and distorted, then himself cites scripture to support scripture. Finally we have puerile remarks about the SPGB's initials to replace any reasoned argument. Thank goodness for M J Kiernan's humanist letter, a breath of sense in a whirlwind of hysteria. To remind Citizen readers, I did not deliberately start a campaign against Christians, I merely defended a point of view which had evidence to support it, and have been attacked ever since in an increasingly insane way by people who apparently know far less about my ideas than I know about theirs.

Being religious isn't 'bad' in some moral sense. Religion has historically been the main way people learnt about 'good' and 'bad'. However, the limitation of all religions is that, while some of it may be negotiable, part of it is not, and can never be. Because of this 'faith' element, the belief system can never truly examine itself, and in consequence may miss critical defects which then cannot be addressed by any means. A society based on this methodology may be critically flawed and unable to correct itself. The mismatch between orthodoxy and observable fact may then become so acute that only by wholesale censorship and brutality can the orthodoxy be maintained, to society's long lasting detriment. One can as easily cite the 21st century Taliban as 16th century Christianity to illustrate this. Thus, all religions' worst excesses flow naturally from a weakness in their methodology.

Rationalism is an aspiration towards objective truth, and as such can contain no non-negotiable elements. This does not mean making no mistakes. On the contrary, when one is able to correct any mistake, one can afford to make more of them. One can afford, in short, to progress by trial and error. This is what science does, and this is why we have the benefits of technological progress around us. If applied seriously, and not merely meddled with, rationalism can make sense of the cosmos, nature, and crucially for us, the world of ideas about what the future could and should be like.

The world does not at present operate in a rationalist way, but is a boiling cauldron of different non-rational belief systems, of which religion is only one. Others are nationalism, sexism, racism, some of the most divisive and destructive prejudices of all time. Socialists attack all these beliefs precisely because of the way in which they all hold back social progress.

If I criticise the religious idea of heaven and hell, it is because hell already exists, while the world is rich and clever enough to build, if not heaven, then something infinitely superior to our modern superstitious wasteland. If I attack reincarnation, it is because of the lack of ambition in this life which it can engender. If I decry gods, it is because we humans are now the reckless stewards of this earth and we should not go crying to some invisible 'daddy' to sort out our mess for us. Religion is a weapon the rich have always used against us, by keeping us in ignorance and terror. As Napoleon once remarked, 'Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.'

To close this correspondence once and for all, allow me to announce that SPGB members (yes, more than two, Aelfric) have organised a debate on the subject of rationalism and religion, to take place at the Friends Meeting House on Weds Feb 14, at 7.30pm. Those who wish to continue this discussion there are very welcome, as are members of any religious or humanist group.

Being open democrats, we are happy for those people in attendance to choose their own Chairperson, and run the meeting as they see fit.

In the meantime, perhaps we can all agree to stop boring Citizen readers with an increasingly esoteric wrangle which threatens to make even letters about the council seem exciting.

Paddy Shannon SPGB,10 Green St, Lancaster