Fry-Gate

Greetings and welcome back...I bet you thought I'd gone for good!

Sadly I have had to resurrect the blog as it is the only way in which I can adequately say a few words about Stephen Fry and god.

The tone of this blog might cause a stir to those who are entering my world for the first time but let me calm your nerves by explaining  that although I like to cause mischief and can seem sarcastic and provoking on occasion, I strongly support the individual human beings  right to believe in god, no matter what shape that god takes for them.  I just don’t think a persons right to believe is any greater than my right to not believe.


Let me take you back to last Sunday morning when I was invited to participate in an eight minute debate on BBC Radio Nottingham, a debate about the comments Stephen Fry had made about god.

If you have not seen the clip it is included in a link below.

Granted,in eight minutes it’s very hard to discuss in any detail the full complexity of the issues raised especially when the eight minutes is shared with someone else.

The other participant in the debate was the Rev. Dr Ian Paul. He is a writer, blogger, theologian, and self confessed slave of Christ.

For those of us who sometimes find faith a foreign language, Ian is an interpreter and a very well regarded one. He is not as famous as the Gogglebox vicar or as populist perhaps, but he is a man who interprets the religious texts of his faith to try to make them accessible and relevant in a modern world. I’m sure he will correct this section if he feels it misrepresents him.

I have also attached the blog that Ian Paul wrote concerning what I shall call Fry-Gate and you will be pleased to see that I get a passing mention, although not by name of course as we don’t want to give any heathen atheists free publicity. Here is the link and you might find it worthwhile reading this first. This link contains the Fry-Gate video.

http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/stephen-fry-and-god/


Our meeting was a little like David meeting Goliath, the Rev Dr. was armed with his laptop, his notes, his vast theological knowledge and deeply held belief and me, well I just had a few pebbles of what I would call truth. I hasten to add, there was no knockout blow.

Anyway, this is my response and comes after Dr Paul also wrote on his Facebook page that he has serious questions to ask of Humanists around the areas of justice and hope.

First of all, I’m not answering on behalf of all Humanists or some atheists or the one and  only Stephen Fry, I’m simply offering my opinion.

Secondly, I’m not an academic so to all the very clever people who might read this blog, please forgive the fact that I have no qualifications other than my experience of life and a brain that functions moderately well.

Thirdly, I’m not writing this as a rebuttal nor am I trying to counter the argument as laid out in the blog and I’m not trying to change anyone’s point of view. It is realistic to expect that those on both sides of the question will have pretty entrenched opinions.

It is true that I can be severely critical of religious organisations that want to stifle  progress or deny education and equality or pass judgement on people just because they have a different view of the world. But please note I am not a member of any organisation that promotes a secular revolution or the banning of religion or the placing of restrictions on personal faith.



Finally the reason why I decided to engage at all is that this week I was told, once again, by people of faith, that my life has no meaning and purpose and to be honest it wears a bit thin. I’ll go further, it makes me angry. It is disrespectful to me and to the many families I support through non religious funeral ceremonies.

I know I have value as a human being, I know I contribute to society through my work and I know how important love,compassion, charity and goodness are. The only difference between me and many similarly inclined people of faith is that I am happy to accept that when I die, I die. I am looking for no reward other than knowing I’m doing my best to be a good man.

I don't expect to have a chance to ask any god any questions and neither I suspect did Stephen Fry but he answered hypothetically and that was where the kerfuffle started.

I want to turn the question around and pose it to all of you with faith…hypothetically, if God did not exist, are you certain you could not find some purpose and joy in life?

This is the question I, as an atheist, a Humanist, frequently asks myself and obviously I managed to find a positive and life affirming answer.

I was once a man who believed that he believed in God. I was born more than 50 years ago and raised in a small village where the church held sway. The school was run by the church and so I was conscripted/indoctrinated into God’s army with very little fuss.

It was only as I grew older and started to ask questions that I realised that I only believed that I believed in god and once that belief had been dispelled, god was the next target of my questions.



One of the things that human beings possess that other species do not is a large and powerful brain. We also have a propensity to use it! We are inquisitive. We ask questions.

It would seem there are two issues that arise here, should we ask questions about god and if we can ask them, what form should those question take?

I was once told by a vicar that people with faith didn't need to question god and people who had no faith had no right to question anything! Equally, on the very morning of this interview, a Baptist minister told me that she fully agreed with Stephen Fry’s right to pose questions and it was up to us all to search for answers. This is why faith can be confusing sometimes - so many contrary views.

Perhaps the faithful would prefer if questions were not asked because the need to find answers can sometimes uncover areas that even Ian Paul admits are problematic, areas such as suffering.

I must note here that Dr Paul’s blog itself is a series of questions and answers, so is the asking and answering of questions about faith restricted to those in the club?

It also appears even handed that if atheists have to answer questions as to where they draw their values in life from if not from faith, then those of faith should equally be open to the third degree!

I wonder what questions could Stephen Fry have posed that would have met with the approval of the faithful?

Maybe we should treat god a bit like a film star or a politician who will only agree to an interview if our questions are submitted in advance so they can be vetted?

My own view is that if god did exist, in any form, then submitting him to a few question about life and death should cause him no discomfort at all. (I’m going to use ‘him’ for sake of ease and I presume if I feminised god that would cause some people to flip out anyway).

If he didn’t like the questions or was not prepared to answer them then that would be his prerogative.

It’s perfectly fine for someone to dislike the tenor of the questions Stephen Fry posed, but I have seen many posts across social media where that dislike has taken various uglier forms. People dislike not only the temerity of the questioner but also point out that he is gay, married to a man and is a celebrity misusing his status.

The fact that Stephen Fry is gay, married to a man and a celebrity does not exclude him from asking questions and for people to express dislike (I could use stronger words here but refrain by choice) of the man because he is gay, married to a man and a celebrity tells you more about them than anything else.

I think it clear that although I see no harm in hypothetically questioning a hypothetical god, I understand why some would take an opposite view.   My closing point in this area would be why fear questions if you have nothing to hide and have adequate answers for them?

The next point is the god that Mr Fry described apparently is not the god recognised by Dr Paul. I think we are all grown up enough to acknowledge that there are, however, religious people in the world who do see god in the terms described. An all powerful, all knowing creator whose followers are seen to be supplicants and asking for forgiveness. I understand that one meaning of the word ‘Islam’ is surrender. There are many who would accept that their faith entails a degree of surrender and obeisance. Seeking forgiveness is another aspect of faith easily recognised in the modern world.

The type of capricious god imagined in the clip would probably just click his fingers and send Mr Fry direct to the flames of perdition.

Dr Paul’s interpretation of god is well elucidated in his blog and perhaps more amenable to a gentle discourse with a non believer. A gentle beaming smile perhaps accompanied by a reassuring hand on the shoulder, whispering words of peace and comfort into your ear. That’s the sort of god the modern church of England would like us to see at work.

But where did this god come from? Has he evolved and changed and mellowed with age no longer the vengeful and demanding god of the Old Testament for example?

Should we see god as lacking any human form  at all but more as a concept of overarching goodness and of love?

It must be very hard for that god to watch man be so cruel and destructive in his name with his only resource being to encompass with love those who have earned it when life is done and punish those who have not.

Or is there more to this version of god?

I would think that most of us would say that the Pope must be considered a man of deep faith. Each year he offers prayers for world peace and as far as I can tell, none of those prayers have been answered.  Does this mean that god has no influence in world events and day to day life?

It is questions like these that trouble people like me. It would seem that even the most benevolent and loving interpretation of god has only one thing to offer and that is the reward that a true believer will receive after death…if you have earned it.

I know love exists without god because I have experienced it. I know charity exists without god, my bank statement is evidence to that fact.

I was asked, directly, what form does the god I don't believe in take. I answered, none. Having now reflected on that question I would wish to qualify that answer.

I think it fair to say that I don't believe in fairies and yet if I was asked to describe a fairy I could. The same would be true for dragons and unicorns and so really I should have an image of god within me, especially as I once believed that I believed in him.

As I previously mentioned, I was raised in the C of E but later I joined the Salvation Army so the god I thought I believed in was a god of equality and love and a god who was served by spreading that message and supporting in practical ways those who needed comfort in this life. I think that this god is very close to the god Ian Paul believes in. I don't think of god in negative terms, I just don’t think there is a god.

I suppose part of my character today was formed by exposure to those traits of love, equality and support to be offered in a practical sense to your fellow man. I continue to value those strengths but know with as much certainty as Dr Paul avows his faith, that they can be made manifest without god. Values for life and living can be rooted in common decency and humanity.


Hope and justice - these are the two things that perhaps bother the faithful most about us faithless. They are certainly areas that Dr Paul wished to find answers for. I can only offer my perspective of course.


Do you recall some time ago the story in the news about a missing yacht crew? There was a petition on the internet to have the search continue long after the authorities wanted to give up. The petition drew a lot of support and that support was given a focus by a family who were not prepared to give up on their hope that somewhere their loved ones were fighting for life. It was a slim hope but they had faith.

Hope and faith are words that Humanists don't often turn to, we might use them in casual conversation but the concept of blind faith and unsupported hope are irrational and yet we know that people can draw such comfort from them.

I decided a long time ago that Humanism without a heart is something I could not tolerate. So, although in the face of the evidence it seemed irrational to do so, I signed the petition for the search to be resumed. In that act of support for the family, all who signed proved that although there are times when we feel helpless, a sense that others understand our pain and want the best possible outcome can give us the energy we need to move forward. Our ability to show support to our fellow man at difficult times is beyond value.

We might know in our heads that we have to prepare for the worst, but as human beings we need occasionally to hope for the best. And what is hope if not above all a positive attitude for the future?

The simple human reaction of supporting, of caring and then acting might not have brought the result the family hoped for but at least they know their fellow human beings cared and that's something tangible and real they can always cling onto.

Does this explain how hope can manifest itself in a non religious way? A hope for a positive outcome in life but without denying the reality of death.


Let me tell you another story, true events, that look at hope and faith. Two men in hospital undergoing similar treatment for cancer. One a devout Christian, the other an atheist.  Both men are hoping to make a full recovery and each deals with this journey through illness guided by their own philosophy. The devout man prays often with the chaplain whilst the atheist places all his faith in the expertise of the medical profession. Both will find their hope rewarded but the man of faith gives added credence to his recovery to god and again offers thanks in prayer whilst the atheist is pleased that the faith he had in the doctors who treated him and the scientists who created the treatment that saved his life, was not misplaced.

Does it really matter from where we draw our hope and inspiration?

Both men were happy so why should we question if one mans faith was somehow more valid than the others?

Justice is probably a harder concept in which to find any mutual agreement. If you believe you will be judged after you are dead for the way in which you have lived your life, then perhaps you will act in a better way. But those of us who are certain we will not be judged by a divine entity, do not immediately set out to be evil or terrible people. Choosing a life without faith does not mean choosing a life without rules. We know people can do terrible things to their fellow man whether they believe in god or not.

Human justice is fallible but it is all we can rely on and hope for, from an atheists point of view. We can also hope that people just choose to be decent but there is more chance of the Pope getting an answer to his world peace prayer I suspect!


I wanted to talk a little about the eye boring worm, the one that it seems does not exist. I also want to talk about President Carter and his very successful campaign against the Guinea worm, as Ian Paul mentions this in his blog.

It is almost certainly true that the worm Stephen Fry described as destroying the sight in children, does not exist. Where did this story come from? I think we know he didn’t make it up as that would certainly undermine his credibility for all of his other arguments. It is more likely that he was repeating a story once told by Sir David Attenborough who most would respect as true authority on nature and the living world.

Who would suspect that such a highly regarded man would offer a story that might not be true? Did he himself get told this tale on one of his many journeys or has he misheard and misquoted the original source? I don’t know.

I think that it is very likely that many people who saw Stephen Fry talk about the mythical insect and who either respect his intellect or want to believe him for other reasons, now believe that worm does  actually exists and will not question it further because why would Stephen Fry lie? Why would David Attenborough lie?

I think there is a clear parallel to be drawn here to the way in which religion and faith benefited over so many years from deference. The father figure told us, so it must be true!

Of course there are many parasitical lifeforms on the planet. Some are so small they can live in the brain of an ant but to further their own life cycle they have to end up in the stomach of a sheep. They manipulate the ant and make it climb up stems of grass where it is more likely to be eaten by a sheep. That’s the beauty of nature.


If an eye eating worm did exist, its purpose would not be to blind children but it would simply be to survive and reproduce giving no thought to the host at all.

The same is true of the Guinea worm. Jimmy Carter was motivated by his faith and his humanitarian nature to eradicate this problem. He has almost succeeded. As I mentioned on the radio, his motivation aside, it was science that found a way to prevent infection.

There are many atheist philanthropists in the world who are using their resources to eradicate all sorts of problems.  Are their efforts less valuable to society because they do not believe in god?

As I stated before, this is not a document in which I want to argue who is right and who is wrong. I cannot undermine the faith of anyone as I know from my own experience, my faith was removed from myself,by myself as I questioned what faith actually is?

Yes, there is pain and suffering in the world and if the only thing that allows you to put your head on the pillow at night and sleep is the thought that one day it will end and you will have eternal peace, then that is your right.

I sleep equally well, and yet I know that there will come a day when I will close my eyes for the final time and then, to quote Samuel Butler,  ‘shall I be all forgetting’.

I can’t control the mischief so I do have one final question and that is about heaven itself.

I know they don't let dogs in, so that’s a reason i’m not bothered about going but who will be there? All the people I have known in life? Are they as they were at the moment of death or are they somehow transformed. Did Henry VIII have all of his wives to contend with? Do the babies who die at birth remain babies or do they grow up?



It’s too complicated - I’ll settle for doing my best to be the best man I can in this life and I wish all of you a safe journey and as Dave Allen used to say, may your god go with you.



Drummond: Darwin took us forward to a hilltop from where we could look back and see the way from which we came, but for this insight, and for this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!

Drummond: Then why did God plaint us with the power to think?! Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth: the power of his brain to reason? What other merit have we?


From Inherit The Wind by Robert E Lee & Jerome Lawrence