OK, it's a feeble pun, but it's not mine.

It was actually a conference held last November, and put on the web here by The Science Network, who are here.

A whole bunch of scientists and social scientists came together to discuss the problem of religion, and what to do about it. Opinions, as you can imagine, varied. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris said we should execrate it, others said we should learn to live with it, one or two even said we should practice it. Always depressing to hear proper grown ups saying that.

There are ten video clips. Probably the highlight is Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about the cosmos, why he became a scientist, and how he relates to the arts. It's in the tenth and last clip, and starts at 1:02:13 in. Do have a peek, it's quite moving.

Elsewhere, session nine is also very interesting. Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, with backing from Dawkins, debates social issues around Islam with philosopher Jim Woodward and anthropologist Melvin Konner. Roughly speaking, Harris argues for the importance of theology in understanding events in the Islamic world, while Woodward and Konner argue for a more sociological approach. And you might want to watch session seven, with Mahzarin Banaji and Dawkins again.

The whole thing will take you about twenty hours, and it's time well spent.

Ooh, it's me again. This time I shall be mainly talking about religion, and mainly in order to deprecate it.

You may well catch me wandering off the point, though (it's such an infinitesimal place to be), perhaps with quotes like this one from Charlie Brooker in the Guardian, talking about conservatives in comedy. "A lot of people think right-wingers aren't capable of being amusing at all", he says. "Not true. Mussolini looked hilarious swinging from that lamppost". More great jokes like that, mainly stolen and out of context.

Balancing precariously back on the point again, I might add that I was inspired in my choice of theme by Tobias Jones, whose piece in the Guardian a while back can be read here. He writes that us secular types are a new form of fundamentalist, and that what we want is the "eradication of religion, and all believers, from the face of the earth".

He's right about our goals, of course. What he doesn't get is that, uniquely in the history of humanity's grand metaphysical projects, we plan to do this by consent. Our strategy is partly to persuade one believer after another, but much more importantly to speak to the waverers, and to catch the young before the faithful can indoctrinate them. We understand that it will be necessary to wait for the recalcitrant remnants to pass away in the fullness of time. As long as we leave the Earth with less true believers that we found it with, we will be content to hand the torch on to the next generation, and the next after that, until religion is as historical an idea as human sacrifice or the divine right of kings.

Jones seems to have a very low persecution threshold. So far as I can tell, he doesn't allege that religious people in Britain have been threatened with anything more than robust debate. No atheist has demanded that religion be banned, that disrespect for atheism be criminalised, that believers be discriminated against in any way. He does complain about people being prevented from wearing religious symbols in schools or workplaces, as if mandatory dress codes in these places were a fiendish new torture invented by atheists. I wasn't allowed to wear badges on my school uniform either, as I recall. You may consider this to be an infringement of your liberties (I certainly did), but it's not something that's done to the religious alone.

Can I just remind readers of some recent events? After a Danish cartoonist drew some questionable pictures of one of history's less impressive demagogues, marchers across the world called for him to be killed. One marcher tottered under the combined burden of his "Behead the enemies of Islam" placard and his young child. Meanwhile, Sikh demonstrators had a play closed down and evangelical Christians waged their own private war against that well known social menace the comic opera.

Have we done anything like this, or have we just forcefully argued our case? How then, exactly, do we qualify for the epithet "fundamentalist"? We don't throw things, we don't threaten with hellfire, we just make our point. Show us contradictory evidence, and we'll even stop doing that.

Jones alleges, with no actual evidence at all, that Danish cartoons, Sikh plays and Jerry Springer The Opera were a tactical ploy by atheist "fundamentalists" to provoke religious groups into a reaction which would enable us to portray them as out of step. I wasn't actually at the meeting where this strategy was thrashed out, but I'd like to commend Stuart Lee and the rest on their brilliant planning.

I don't want to dwell on Jones, though. The article wasn't a recent one, and the gap between its date and mine really only serves to emphasise my own laziness. I just needed something to get me going. Once I'm started, I'm like the beaver who accidentally found himself at the Bering Straits. I've got a goal, you see. I can see it's going to take a while, but I don't really mind, it's in my nature.

Incidentally, did you know that according to the Catholic Church the beaver is a fish? It was so trappers had something to eat on a Friday. I can't get enough of that kind of thing, and I hereby define all world religions as landmines, in the hope that concerned individuals across the globe will organise a campaign to defuse them. Won't somebody think of the children?