Their faith needs your reason
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on January 2, 2010 7:00 am
An atheist counter-demonstration in New York, 2008. Protests now routinely challenge belief itself
THE depth of hostility toward organised religion in public life became clear during the recent Welsh Labour leadership contest when Edwina Hart, reflecting the views of a great many Labour Party activists, declared she wanted to see faith schools “wither on the vine”. Her two opponents, while not as forthright, also sounded sceptical notes in response. Even allowing for the fact that “faith school” is code for “Blairite policies” within elements of Labour, it was a belligerent declaration towards a form of education that has existed in Wales for 700 years.
Belligerent it may have been, unusual it was not. A 2006 Channel 4 Rod Liddle-fronted Dispatches investigation into the organisations funding faith schools was little more than snobbish sneering at working class religiously adherent parents and teachers. Such attitudes – nearly always only ever directed at Christianity, incidentally – are becoming noticeably more trenchant. Richard Dawkins’ 2006 book The God Delusion, vituperatively attacked both moderate and extreme faith, alleging suicide bombing to be as normal a function of religious belief as pastoral care.
Harsh attitudes are one thing, but there is evidence of an organised anti-faith lobby with clear policy objectives. A quick visit to the National Secular Society’s website reveals a fully-formed manifesto to expunge religious influences from public life. Meanwhile, Charles Moore, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph, says he detects a well-drilled campaign to neuter existing faith schools through legal challenge and procedural know-how.
Dawkins is unusual for having developed a considered, if ill-tempered, anti-religious argument. Mostly, such sentiment is superficial, and falls into four clearly identifiable complaints. The first is that religion is discriminatory, especially against women. The second is that it is a source – if not the source – of human conflict since time immemorial. The third is that it enjoys privileges within public life that other ‘lifestyle’ choices do not. The worst, however seems to be that faith is irrational – a tautology that never seems to strike those making it – and irrationality is no basis for moral judgment. (Once this roll call of condemnation has been listed, it is often patronisingly conceded that these odd and antiquated sects may practice their rituals, provided it they do so out of sight. One imagines that the real ideal would be to allow private religious observance in the same way that the Chinese state used to.)
Clearly, this assault matters greatly to those of faith. But it ought to matter to those without any such beliefs. At the most basic level, seeking to deny those motivated by a different worldview a voice or influence within the public sphere because of their viewpoint is illiberal. That is ironic, given that many or religion’s most trenchant critics consider themselves to be liberals, and to be motivated by a liberal philosophy. But even an authentic reliance on liberal tenets leads atheism in the wrong direction. It is a trite, but irrefutable, observation that no human civilisation has ever evolved without a religious component. Rather than perceive something in this apparent all-encompassing compulsion, rationalist post-enlightenment thinking sees its repudiation as a virtue; as evidence of progress. Yet in jettisoning belief in a supernatural being, much else is being lost that is indeed valuable.
Rational liberalism does natural awe very badly. The things in which we are encouraged to discover such quality are man-made; either great scientific discoveries or artistic expression. Philosopher Alain de Botton believes this fixing of horizons on the strictly human has resulted in a society that has no sense of itself as part of a cosmic order, leading to an individual ethos ever more anxious about status. Others rejoice in the abandonment of innate hierarchy, regarding it as something that frees human ambition and creativity. But that which places mankind at the centre of his environment – what Descartes called being the “master and possessor of nature” – has consequences. It leads to 130 world leaders failing to reach substantive agreement about how to control the side effects of their mastery. A civilisation more alive to the wonder, more accepting of the mysteries, and more respectful of the power of nature might, perhaps, be more seized of the need to treat it better.
Conventional liberalism falls short in other ways. Modern politicians routinely critique it as placing too much emphasis on rights, and not not enough on duties. This only pokes at the real problem – namely that liberalism is often silent on how to be a good person, as opposed to merely a free person. The negative conception of liberty, namely that one is free to do whatever one wishes provided it does not infringe the rights of others to do the same necessitates a moral philosophy that backs away from didacticism. If we are all equal beings of equal worth, who is anyone to tell anyone else what sort of ends to pursue in life? A life passed in pursuit of selfish pleasures has no lesser moral worth than one passed helping the needy – what matters is that we are free to choose.
Religion, by contrast, is very good at ascribing moral value to our behaviour, and is very clear about what constitutes a good life. In some areas, such as abortion or arranged marriage, this can clash with a liberal view of freedom, but most often it is entirely compatible, offering a way to fill those spaces around what we are allowed to do with what we ought to do. This is why religion tends to be far more comfortable and confident about the virtues of community than conventional liberalism. While modern political philosophy has attempted to rediscover and relocate community within an overall conception of individualism, religion often has at its heart a collective ideal. The notion of the flock is integral.
This is why Richard Dawkins is wrong to place regular, community-minded religious people on the same sliding scale as fanatics. Most believers are very good and productive members of their local communities. They are most frequently the volunteers; the ones behind the litter clean-up, or the people who shake a tin at you. They will be the ones who sit as school governors or local councillors, or who raise money for local schools. And they are the ones who do very useful and productive worrying about the state of our society.
Atheists should therefore be concerned when they hear other atheists denounce religion, or when they are enjoined to drive religious influence from public life. By itself, religion is a very incomplete apparatus for organising a modern society or state – one only needs to look at Iran to see that. But that is some way from suggesting that it has nothing to contribute. Religion is not just another lifestyle choice. It deserves a special place in the public sphere which its adherents alone may not now be strong enough to defend. Religion needs some good atheists on its side.
Tags: public debate, religion
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
36 Comments
Indeed, as you say Religion (especially Christianity) is extremely marginalised in British public life, you need only consider the following:
* There is not one single Church or Chapel in the whole of Britain, yet there is at least one atheist outreach centre in every town and village
* The government gives extra funding to the Secularists to run anti-faith school – meaning that these are better resourced than normal schools driving parents to pretend to be athiests so their children can attend
* Twenty six members of the National Secular Society are allowed to sit and vote in the House of Lords on the strength of their atheism, yet members of the church are banned
* Atheists claim to be morally superior to religious people and are constantly organising well funded recruitment drives to convert people, especially targeting the weak and vulnerable.
But more seriously.
Could you please elaborate on your claim that “Religion is not just another lifestyle choice.”? in what way?
Also I notice you brush the issue of the conflict between religious demands and the universal rights of those forced to live under religious control, you mention women (more than half the population of the world themselves) but ignore racial and sexual minorities, and members of minority religious groups (you imply that religion is some sort of homogenous group, but in reality there are numerous mutually contradictory religions who each believe that theirs is the one true faith and that everyone who disagrees either deluded is evil).
The plain and simple fct is that religion is oppressive and divisive – and because the believers claim that they alone are personally mandated by the creator of the universe, its very difficult to persuade them to compromise.
I would imagine that very few atheists object to other people holding private religious views, and living their lives accordingly (I certainly don’t) we don’t even object to living in a culturally Christian society (even Dawkins has said he likes singing Christmas carols!) and no -one is demanding that Christmas, Easter etc be banned to avoid offending a mythical “them.”
In reality what is happening is that Christians are increasingly less able to use state power to impose their veiws and wishes upon everyone else, and to silence those who challenge them – something they consider their absolute right (the whole ‘we are authorised by God’ thing again).
Thus the recent rise of a (politicised) Christian backlash in the west.
A really thought provoking article that I find it difficult to disagree with. But i’ll have a go.
I’m aware that two wrongs don’t make a right but isn’t it the case that atheists are hostile to those with faith because of the belief embedded in most religions that if you don’t agree with them you are in some way immoral and are likely to be damned?
I will freely admit that I’m often hostile towards religion on the basis that there isn’t really any belief middle ground. Religious people do not very often question their faith. It’s also true that faith is often such a personal and involving thing that people find it difficult to enter into a debate about religion.
If, as you say, atheists are guilty of being intolerant of religion is it not the case that this is because folk on the other side of the argument are equally so?
Religion is by its very nature, divisive. Underneath all the extraneous layers of advice and platitudes, each religion has a core statement or direct implication that all who do not adhere to the same belief system are wrong, corrupt and damned. Therefore we will never agree on it. The goal must be tolerance.
Having grown up in another country, where parents have to actually go out of their way to send their children to religious schools, I dread the thought of sending my son to a school that has prayers and talks about God. To me, “God” (note, not religion), has no place in schools. Schools are for teaching people how to think, and arming them with basic tools. A rather obvious solution is for free, or state schools to cut their ties with Christianity. There should be regular and age appropriate Religion classes as the children grow into young adults. A smorgasbord, if you will, of different types of thought.
That is my opinion on schools – as for the rest of it you couldnt do much worse than quote Voltaire. “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is not fair, just or right to lump all religious folk in with extremists or to banish religion to the dusty corners of society. It has a place and it can be a very useful place. We are all human beings, individuals with amazing capacity for love, generosity and evil. Religions seem to me to be quite silly, but some of the people I have respected the most in my life have had very deep faiths that defined who they were. I will not trample on that.
Atheists criticise religion because religions are based on superstitions and unfounded claims. That is it. I’m not sure what your point is, other than that it may be mean to criticise dearly-held beliefs.
You write that some religious people do good things as if you expect people like Dawkins to disagree with you. However, there is not a single good deed that can be done in the name of religion that cannot be done in the name of just rational good citizenship. Nobody argues that religious people do not ever do good. What is argued is that religion is not actually necessary to justify those good deeds.
When you say that the National Secular Society has “a fully-formed manifesto to expunge religious influences from public life”, what that means is that it seeks to argue against religious justifications for policy. You make it sound as if they’re out to sensor religious people or something.
I am an atheist who delights in religion’s decline, and I’m proud of my country for showing perhaps the biggest decline of all. Well done Wales.
Gogoniant, gogoniant, gogoniant (Glory, glory, glory) I used to know the whole spiel yn gymraeg. The position of the capel is rural Wales. Then theres strict chapel, I guess that equates to Gospel hall in Northern Ireland. With Mr Lebedev as new boss may we all go to Khram (Russian Orthodox services”?
Maybe if we tried to avoid necessarily linking “faith schools” with divisive religion, but viewed the potential of such schools to be inclusive, then the faith school may not be such a fearful term.
With the right head teacher and staff, you’d hope they have a role to play. Staff who can recognise the positive pillars of a religious belief system, and allow it to influence their teaching, but not feel the need to preach, wail and put eh fear of god (literally) into their students.
If Christianity was to modernise somewhat, and embrace fields such as science rather than fearing it, what a mammoth leap forward that would be. The parallels between Buddhism and science, for example, particularly Buddhist theory and quantum theory, and Buddhism and neuro-science) are fascinating, inclusive, and educational.
Give me a Buddhist school any day!
I’m a born and bred atheist myself, however I would hope that religion has some role to play in a modern education system – if only it could grow up first.
(Note: who’d ever thought quantum physics would have made it to the Wales.org message board?!)
Adam’s conclusion: “Religion needs some good atheists on its side” is wrong. The Christian Church has survived many periods of persecution and decline. Modern Russia is a good example. Atheistic communism almost brought Christianity in Russia to extinction. Today Russians are more openly religious and more numerous than in the West. China is also another example. Despite a long period of persecution and the suppression of official religion the “Underground Church” is flourishing and growing annually at a rate faster than there are practising Christians in the UK.
Christianity in Wales is changing. While the established institutional churches are in seemingly terminal decline the grass root community based congregations are increasing in both the numbers of places and size of congregation. The social aspect is now expressed in pastoral care and support to the individual. It is less likely in community churches to be the case that people over 65 belonging to them spend Christmas Day alone, as report that 50% of all people over 65 in the UK spent Christmas Day alone.
Here are some facts from modern history. In atheistic Russia programs up to 20 million people were murdered. Atheistic Nazi Germany killed six million Jews. Atheistic Pol Pot murdered an incalculable number of educated people. On the other hand, all of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were Methodist local preachers and as far as I know, not one person has been put to death by the decree of a committee made up of Methodist local preachers.
Liberal atheists are often just as bad as religious fanatics in terms of their intolerance. For example, one of my childhood’s inspirational figures – Johnny Ball – was recently booed off stage at a liberal atheist gathering for daring to question the idea that climate change will lead to Doom. See http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7841/
The new secularists lay into religion for being “irrational” but in their fervour to purge society of religion, they end up witchhunting believers like the case of Caroline Petrie – the Christian nurse suspended for praying for a patient. Meanwhile Dawkins insultingly calls them all ‘delusional’, i.e. having a disturbed mental state, thus laying the ground for more persecution.
These cases indicate that liberal atheism is the form through which the New Inquistion is carried out.
By ‘religion’ some of the responses here mean Christianity. Depressingly, that rather proves your point, Adam.
Duncan:
By ‘religion’ some of the responses here mean Christianity”
When I prepared my comment I had intended to use the generic ‘religion’ but having read the comments, in the writers’ minds it was clear that religion = christianity. I answered the thought.
Apologies for not responding to the comments posted here until now.
WC – I did not say “religion (especially Christianity) is extremely marginalised in British public life”. I said it was under sustained attack, and may no longer be strong enough on its own to withstand what appears to be a concerted effort to marginalise it. What I am suggesting is this would be a mistake; religion can play a productive part in public life, by supplying a moral and ethical code. Moreover, I am arguing that the religious – by-and-large – tend to be decent, contributory members of society.
I necessarily generalised in these assertions (though I’m not sure it’s fair to say that I “brush[ed aside] the issue of the conflict between religious demands and…universal rights” – I acknowledged via Iran that Theocracies tend to be very bad things indeed, and I was careful to mention the charge of discrimination in general and against women in particular). Yes, of course there are religiously intolerant people. Yes, there are zealots who are prepared to oppress others for their beliefs. As Rob says, two wrongs do not make a right; atheists need to avoid such examples.
Erin argues that “Religion is by its very nature, divisive…we will never agree on it. The goal must be tolerance”. It always strikes me as odd that the objective should be to somehow settle this discussion, and agree on one worldview. Yes, people will disagree – within religions, between religions and between religion and other worldviews. This is a good thing, to my mind. We just need to ensure that it’s done on a basis of a shared commitment to pluralism. Many of the contributors seem to suggest that organised religion is incapable of making and standing behind such a value. I disagree.
Dylan – you say that “atheists criticise religion because religions are based on superstitions and unfounded claims” and you seem to believe that I have a problem with that. I don’t. What I have a problem with is the notion that religious influence, no matter how moderated by a secular constitution, must therefore be driven from public life. Two quite different things. You say that “there is not a single good deed that can be done in the name of religion that cannot be done in the name of just rational good citizenship.” Quite right. The problem is that rational good citizenship, as I argued above, is often based on a negative ideal of liberty. It tends to tell us what we can do, not what we should do. Often, religious people do a good deed not in the name of religion, but because they have a more fully-formed notion of what it is to lead a good life.
Jamie, I think makes an excellent point in drawing out the question of faith in teaching, as opposed to telling people what to believe. And yes, that is the first time quantum physics have been mentioned on this site :–)
Len seems convinced that Christianity can survive any future oppression. It’s a hypothesis I’d rather avoid testing.
Finally, Barry expresses well some of my concerns that liberals are acting in quite illiberal ways in this area. We may have seen some of that today.
Wow Adam, hard to consider where to start.
“Richard Dawkins’ 2006 book The God Delusion, vituperatively attacked both moderate and extreme faith, alleging suicide bombing to be as normal a function of religious belief as pastoral care.”
That is a blatant distortion of the book I have read numerous times. Ultimately, while a distinction can be drawn, both those activites share the belief of the supernatural and adopting a code of morality from a book is justifiable, and those not doing so will go to hell. That is the same in every religion.
“The second is that it is a source – if not the source – of human conflict since time immemorial. The third is that it enjoys privileges within public life that other ‘lifestyle’ choices do not. The worst, however seems to be that faith is irrational – a tautology that never seems to strike those making it – and irrationality is no basis for moral judgment. (Once this roll call of condemnation has been listed, it is often patronisingly conceded that these odd and antiquated sects may practice their rituals, provided it they do so out of sight. One imagines that the real ideal would be to allow private religious observance in the same way that the Chinese state used to.)”
Wow. Firstly, your omission of gay people is startling when making that point. All religions forbid, hate and simply will not accept homosexuality. This includes the blue rinse who goes for Midnight mass on xmas eve, the muslim men shunned and stoned to death. Secondly, the issue is not necessarily about people believing in a fairy tale – but that its presence in municipal life is far more amplified that its numbers dictate.
In the realm of science, the current topic is the opposition to stem cell research, the butchering of millions of Africans to aids because the Pope orders no condoms should be used. How is this blatant massacre of people justified? Why is being gay a ‘lifestyle’ choice according to all those of faith, but adhering to a book that you have to read (ie you are not born with it) not?
What annoys me is the slippery nature of all people who believe in any god. Your point about there being a good many religious people who are tolerant is correct, but can be easily stubbed out. Those who make that certain parts of the bible are ‘of its time’ or ‘not to be taken literally’ are part time bullshit artists – there is no need for the genocidal maniac – be it abraham, god or Mohammed. You either believe in god as put forward in any religious books or you dont – once you accept that, you have to accept all the appalling things that the very same ‘God’ tells you.
Len Price’s comical spewing of that the nazi/stalinist point is, well, like an elephant falling into a massive trap labelled ‘Elephants do not enter’.
To make this point – too many people are scared to criticise other religions outside of christianity. I think this is because its culturally easier, less likely to be shouted down as racist. Christianity in the UK is based on that guitar playing, guardian reading beardy priest who probably doesnt mind James Blunt, does the odd sermon about how M People’s ‘Search for a hero’ has a great lesson to take away from it and is wetter than a James Blunt B-side.
I am more than happy to promote the message that any religion that demand total discrimination is a dangerous and horrible.
“Rational liberalism does natural awe very badly.”
Last week I found out that my wife is having identical twins, we went to our second scan to check they were ok – the awe of seeing the wonder of science, procreation and nature combine was inspiring, humbling and engendered ‘natural awe’. Seeing the beauty of snow, the willingness of humans to pull together and also kill each other is both scary and wonderful – there is no natural awe is suspension of disbelief. There was no natural awe in seeing Priests sexually abusing boys, of the pope sponsoring sexual genocide of the oppression of gay people in every single muslim country and community on the face of the earth.
People should be free to practice their religion, but its eradication from public life will be step forward for mankind, the butchery and hate it has wrought on the earth will not be missed and use godless heathens can seek to care for each without some book telling us so.
Marcus
You’ve carefully clipped the first atheist objection to religion that I cite, namely that “religion is discriminatory, especially against women.” I’ve emphasised the word “especially” to demonstrate that I was not only talking about discrimination about women. Then you go on to conflate religion (“All religions forbid…homosexuality”) with the religious (“This includes the blue rinse who goes for Midnight mass…”). Of course religious doctrine is historically hostile to homosexuality. It’s one of many reasons why theocracies don’t work and why the incorporation of its doctrine(s) into public policy needs to be carefully filtered.
“You either believe in god as put forward in any religious books or you dont – once you accept that, you have to accept all the appalling things that the very same ‘God’ tells you.”
This is an absurd position. It is not for you, me or anyone else to tell a religious person that they have to be a literalist or else they are not properly religious (notwithstanding the fact that interpretation of the Bible, for instance, has been keenly debated for two millennia). Besides, I was not singling out moderate or selectively scriptural religious people for praise, I was suggesting that the vast bulk of people of faith are good and productive members of society.
Congratulations on your news. I’ve never doubted that people, regardless of belief, can find beauty in the natural world. I merely argue that one of consequences of an anthropocentric worldview is perhaps insufficiently careful husbandry of our environment.
And of course very bad things have happened at the hands of religious people. So have very many very good things. My solution is to neither put the religious in charge, nor banish them from positions of influence altogether. It’s a balanced view. Quite unlike yours, evidently.
An unusual posting here Adam, although typically provocative. Presumably you will not be celebrating the 90 year anniversary of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in a couple of years time? Although apparently in retreat across Wales over the past 100 years – since the 1904 Loughor revival to be exact – religious faith remains a force in human affairs and may always do so.
Your central proposition appears to be that atheists and agnostics should support some intangible “special place in the public sphere” for religion. You haven’t spelt out what you would consider “a special place in the public sphere” to involve in practice beyond a pretty clear implication that you believe the taxpayer should continue to fork out for faith schools and presumably, in principle, extend the same support to schools for the children of Wiccans, Scientologists and Wahabist Muslims. Although you maintain that religion does not automatically equate to Christianity, I am not aware of any non Christian faith schools currently existing in Wales, so while in theory you may be including all religions, or at least all ‘mainstream’ ones, in practice we are talking principally about sustaining the position of the Church in Wales and the Roman Catholic Church plus a light sprinkling of Methodists.
Your highlighting of Edwina’s prescription for faith schools served to remind me of how much more timid our political class are about selection on the basis of blind faith than on the basis on ability. Tony Crosland had a more active approach than simply hoping that selection by ability (via an exam at 11) would ‘wither on the vine’. When Wilson made him Education Secretary in 1965 he expounded his policy to his wife in terms with which Malcolm Tucker would have been familiar “If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland”. Via Circular 10/65 he also put that intent into action to very considerable effect. By contrast, questioning the basis of taxpayer subsidy for religious indoctrination in the classroom and whether the compromises inherited from education acts from the 1870’s through to 1948 and onward should be maintained in today’s Wales, is seen as a third rail issue.
To suggest that civic engagement is in some sense a preserve of those people with religious inclinations is also to my mind questionable and potentially offensive to many Welsh humanists. To the extent a relationship exists at all, there may be something of a selection bias. Those people who choose to participate in one voluntary activity (e.g. their local church) may also be more inclined to participate in voluntary activities more generally. Those who are active in political parties are also disproportionately represented on school governing bodies, magistrates benches and charitable bodies. The last census shows that the vast majority of people in Wales profess themselves to have a religious belief (still overwhelmingly Christian) – they simply don’t turn up in Church or Chapel on any regular basis.
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry each put the humanist case in their own terms. They have the same right to free speech as Rowan Williams, Jonathan Sachs or Pope Benedict – or indeed Ian Paisley, Anjem Choudhary or David Icke (i.e. they can say what they like so long as they don’t incite racial or religious hatred). They are no more under a duty not to offend than Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard are. In order to make the case for humanism, some sort of assault on the basis of religious belief is inevitable and that sometimes involves pursuing the proposition all the way.
Dave – v. briefly:
I haven’t attempted to define a new relationship between organised religion and the state because my post was more about urging greater acceptance of the status quo. I’m not even especially concerned with maintaining faith schools (much less funding them from the public purse) although I’d like to see better reasons for their proposed elimination than a general distaste for organised religion.
I also didn’t suggest civic engagement was the preserve of religious people, just that they are disproportionately good at it. You suggest that there is a mere correlation here – I say there is a causal link, and the cause goes in the direction I suggested i.e that people engage because of religious conviction, not vice versa.
Finally, I have no problem at all with people speaking out against religion (hence the phrase “harsh attitudes are one thing…”). That’s not what my piece was about at all.
Adam,
Acceptance of the status quo is IMHO the staus quo – that’s why I suggested Welsh politicians see it as third rail.
I’m not saying a general disposition to activism is the entire explaination for involvement of people of faith in civic society, merely that it needs to be adjusted for before one leaps to draw cast-iron linkage between personal faith and civic engagement.
Part of the issue I take with your piece is that it’s by no means clear WHAT it was about. You threw around a lot of erudite observations, but put forward little or nothing concrete.
Thankfully in this sinful day and age we still have a few people of sincere and genuine belief in Welsh politics – such as the Right Reverend Rhodri Glyn Thomas!
“Rational liberalism does natural awe very badly.”
Try Astronomer Royal Martin Rees for starters.
“You threw around a lot of erudite observations, but put forward little or nothing concrete.”
I suggested that atheists need to let up on organised religion, learn to live with it, accept that it can (and by and large does) play a useful part in civic life and – if necessary – defend its place in public life against more militant, less liberal atheists. That’s my argument. It may not be the argument you would have me make, but it’s the argument I have made.
“Try Astronomer Royal Martin Rees for starters.”
See my reply to Marcus on this point.
heh… on similar lines:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-chrisitanity-mild-form-of-atheism.html
I’m not a Christian, never have been… I think I went to church once for a wedding, and I’ve been to a funeral.
HOWEVER
I would defend a Christian’s right to worship and take part in society to the death (even if they have a history of not reciprocating). If some yobs were smashing a nativity outside a church they’d have to answer to me. Because I believe in it? No. Because I respect the tradition? Absolutely.
Wales was founded as a (Roman Catholic) Christian country – all our ancient laws, legends, traditions and even a large chunk of the language stem from that. Hard to visualise now, when our outlook on such things is drafty chapels and hellfire sermons. Wasn’t always like that. Religion was the thing that drove us on, led us to be creative (also the cause of war and strife, but that comes with the territory).
I heard the Queens speech on Xmas day (not through choice), was boring as hell. I heard the Archbishops speech on new years day and it was in a different league. Personally I think seperation of Church and State was a regressive move – designed to give (the King) freedom (to bonk whoever he wanted), it has left us wandering directionless, no morals. Damn, I’m starting to sound like a Priest.
So I think we need religion, we’re a poorer people without it. BUT religion has to meet us half way – no more closed orders, child abuse, hellfire sermons. We need priests and vicars and imams out in the community, doing good works, giving moral guidance.
Seems like, in our race to be all modern and athiest and futuristic, we’ve not only lost religion, we’ve lost our soul.
In the interchanges between Adam and Dave Collins, Dave writes, “Part of the issue I take with your piece is that it’s by no means clear WHAT it was about. You threw around a lot of erudite observations, but put forward little or nothing concrete.” That is not exactly the case. Adam makes it clear that liberal atheist humanists should be nicer to religious people because their religion causes them to be good volunteers.
The general tone of the comments is not entirely in favour with that suggestion, in fact most, if not all are hostile or dismissive of religion and those who are religious. Marcus Warner writes of me, “Len Price’s* comical spewing of that the nazi/stalinist point is, well, like an elephant falling into a massive trap labelled ‘Elephants do not enter’. The politest comment I can make is better people have said worst things of me than that. (* As the actress said, “Say what you like about me but spell my name right.”)
Adams summary of my posting, “Len seems convinced that Christianity can survive any future oppression. It’s a hypothesis I’d rather avoid testing” is more pertinent. Christians in Wales have experienced oppression in the past. I’ll name one among others as an instance, Vavasor Powell was arrested on a preaching tour in October 1668 and was returned to the Fleet Prison, where he died. The contemporary grass roots community churches have the same practice of local autonomous government and very similar beliefs as that of Vavasor Powell.
The difference between both the article and the comments with Christianity is that Christianity has a different worldview. There isn’t a narrow regional or period delineation. Nor is there a specific political system it favours. It is worldwide in its extent and its interaction. It is astonishingly successful. It is the world’s largest religion and growing at a spectacular rate in countries that are either favourable or hostile. It accepts opposition as par for the course. And survives it. It apologises to none for its existence.
The persecutors of Vavasor Powell have gone. The faith of Vavasor Powell is still practised in Wales. I have a shrewd suspicion that when the liberal atheist humanists of today have been replaced by some other group hostile to Christianity, there will still be people in Wales practising the faith of Vavasor Powell.
But, yes please, in the meanwhile, be nice to us, as Adam notes, we are the people most likely to provide help to others. And the more of us, the more help.
Religion is like sex – it should be left to consenting adults to pursue, preferably behind closed doors.
Adam – “The problem is that rational good citizenship, as I argued above, is often based on a negative ideal of liberty. It tends to tell us what we can do, not what we should do. Often, religious people do a good deed not in the name of religion, but because they have a more fully-formed notion of what it is to lead a good life.”
I reject this completely. The last sentence certainly doesn’t ring true, since the whole basis of monotheistic morality, for example, is based on the notion that you must behave in a particular way lest you suffer eternal punishment. That is not a fully-formed notion of what it is to lead a good life; it is an (imaginary) bully ordering you “do not do this nor that, or else”. It is infantile, and not thoughtful in the slightest. Surely it is the atheist who thinks stuff through who has the more fully-formed notion of what is good or bad.
You say that rational good citizenship tends to tell us what we can do, not what we should do. However, there is clearly a fundamental rule on which every functioning society depends, which is “don’t do things that harm the rights of others”. Beyond that, people use rationality to come to varying conclusions, leading to a battle of ideas. This is surely desirable; it’s the very basis of political discourse.
Of course, it’s very likely that you’re referring to the more nebulous and fluffy religious notions expressed nowadays by beardy Guardian-reading Anglicans or theologians rather than the more literalist types. But they don’t really have anything useful to say. Some of them may say nice cuddly things about a vague idea called faith but ultimately it’s meaningless drivel. Faith is not a virtue in the first place. I’d be interested to see a specific example which you think refutes this.
I must respond to this bit too, which I forgot to do the first time: “Rational liberalism does natural awe very badly”. I’m more than a little appalled by that accusation. Surely the world is even more amazing the more you learn about how all the little details work. Simply invoking God trivialises the whole thing more than anything. Looking at the vast cosmos and just thinking “God did it” is far far more boring and less awe-inspiring than actually learning about how it all came about. Dawkins’ “Unweaving The Rainbow” (one of his better books) is devoted to this issue. The title comes from Keats’ Lamia, and is a refutation of Keats’ accusation that Newton’s research into optics destroyed the mysterious beauty of the rainbow. I recommend it, since it deals wonderfully with the notion that learning about how something works somehow spoils it. It’s a pet peeve of mine.
In response to Len Gibbs, a quick search on Wikipedia (a reasonably reliable source) shows that any ‘persecution’ of Vavasor Powell was political rather than religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavasor_Powell
He was in fact paid by Parliament to promote his particular brand of Christianity in Wales, and it was only after the Restoration of the monarchy that he fell out of favour. Needless to say that the Restoration government was not only a religious one, but that it did in fact follow the (Protestatant) Christian religion excatly like Powell, albeit a slightly different faction.
It is therefore very difficult to see how he can be regarded as having been oppressed for being a Christian.
Dylan
Some very good points. I’ll do my best to address them.
I think it’s important to note (without, I hope, me appearing pedantic) that I was using the comparative rather than the superlative in the passage you quote first. I don’t say a fear of God gives you a fully-formed notion of how to be a good person. I do say that religion tends to be didactic in a way liberalism isn’t (which, as you rightly note, tends to say “don’t do things that harm the rights of others”) resulting in a more fully-formed notion. Yes, people use rationality to come to various conclusions about how to lead their lives, but often the conclusion they come to is “I am entitled to live this life, and my consideration of its worth or its impact on others need go no further than that”. Of course it is possible to be a moral atheist (I like to think I am one); all I am saying is that liberalism on its own often does not supply enough of the positive morality. A religious outlook can do that.
Second, I don’t say learning about something spoils it. I do say that an essential component of religion is to place humanity within a wider natural order. Some modern environmental movements do this as well (think of Lovelock’s Gaia) but by-and-large western secularism spends a lot of time celebrating only human achievement. We defiantly assert that there is nothing that cannot be conquered, harnessed or understood. In many ways this is a great outlook, but it can be overdone. A refusal to act even now on climate change is one such example (though, ironically, it was the born again Christian George W Bush who was the leading proponent of man’s ability to overcome and mitigate the effects of climate change). I think an ever so-slightly more spiritual outlook from our leaders would probably make them sufficiently humble to do more about it. We are all of us capable of being awe-struck by nature. It’s just that on balance, I tend to think religious people do it more naturally.
Dylan Llyr says, “…the whole basis of monotheistic morality, for example, is based on the notion that you must behave in a particular way lest you suffer eternal punishment. That is not a fully-formed notion of what it is to lead a good life; it is an (imaginary) bully ordering you “do not do this nor that, or else”. Dylan, perhaps should understand the difference between the Protestant teaching of justification by faith that rejects the notion that good works provides entry to heaven and Roman Catholicism that says salvation is through good works. Protestanism only requires people to evidence their faith by good works, but not as Dylan so graphically puts it “suffer eternal punishment.” I am more familar with the recommendation, “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, …” rather than if you do that you’ll get fried.
The comment of Welsh Connection has some substance but it can be answered on a timescale. I was fully aware of the circumstances of Powells involvement with Parliament when I made the comment. However, his arrest was not based on his political activity but on his religious activity. In 1662 over 2,000 anglican ministers were ejected from the Church of England for refusing to conform* to the set prayer book form of service. Various pieces of legislation were enacted that made preaching other than by conforming Anglicans a crime. Vasasor Powell was arrested under this legislation and not for his previous political activity. The same legislation was used against John Bunyan who was arrested in 1666, for preaching and he was sent (once) again to the Bedford gaol for another six years. None one would suggest that Bunyan was a political prisoner. Neither was Vavasor Powell. The point remains he died in prison.
* Hence Non-conformist and Dissenter.
What a sad individual Richard Dawkins is. A couple of years ago he wrote some excellent books on evolution which I have read. However now he is going to be known in history (if it bothers to remember him) as a anti religious crank. I think Adam Higgitt is spot on with his criticism that Dawkins ( and his erstwhile fellow travellers such as Christopher Hitchens) see mainstream Christians in the same light as mad fundamentalist like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps (of “God Hates Fags” fame). And yet Marcus Warner trots out the same line about gays and women. Well it may be a surprise to both him and others that the bible is silent about homosexuality, what is condemned is sodomy (which implies both the male and female variety). The Roman Catholic Church does not condemn being gay as being evil. Yet Marcus goes on to portray all Christians even the Christmas variety has gay hating fanatics. what nonsense.As for the pope being responsible for genocide of thousands of Africans dying from aids. What nonsense, most Africans are not even Catholics, and CAFOD and Christian Aid has done more the third world than most countries. Homosexuality was illegal in Cuba until recently, why was that? religion. No because both Freud and Marx saw it as a sickness. So there you have it even the prophets of militant Atheism were Homophobic. The Bible was never meant to be a science and rule book. You look and what inspired Martin Luther King, Gandhi and even the early Labour Party. It was the Bible because the prophets condemned injustice more than they condemned sexual sin. Believers and Atheists have been working together to make this World a better place, Dawkins just seems to be as throwback to distant period of the past, and that’s where it needs to stay.
“Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.” Immanuel Kant
A rational 18th century philosopher like Kant certainly emphasised the ethical dimension of religion when it comes to exercising human moral freedom for both individual and wider society.
His views accommodate thinking on, for example, the concept of grace across the spectrum from Calvinist to Catholic.
You refer to the reliance of conventional liberalism on on rights with little to say about duties. For sure, there is need for some negative liberty as proposed by Isaiah Berlin, as this can release the creative in people, especially important in these times.
I do agree that for a stable equilibrium such negative freedoms have to be balanced by duties to the civic order, a communitarian approach if you like. This way it is possible to combine freedom to act with responsibility to our fellow citizens and I agree that religion has a role to play.
An enabling government is an example of positive liberty, so that the state empowers people to help them make their own lives and community stronger.
While I disagree with the specific views of Richard Dawkins when he equates religious people with fanatics, I do believe it is possible for us to hold a world view in which science and religion can be mutually supportive.
After all, Einstein urged humility in those voices quick to dismiss the role of faith and who instead appealed solely to atheistic reductionism.
And today we have Sir James Lovelock, a green guru and supporter of nuclear energy, who through his Gaia hypothesis enables us to marvel at the self-regulatory nature of the earth. This is where science and faith can meet without being seen as mutually exclusive.
Indeed so, David. An excellent and thoughtful contribution.
To be labelled “militant”, a religious person has to blow stuff up and murder people. For an atheist to be “militant”, it seems all he needs to do is write a book where he writes calmly “there’s probably no god”. Do you not find this odd?
Find it odd? I don’t even recognise it.
What I do, however, see is some atheists attacking religious people for being intolerant, and demonstrating some fairly intolerant attitudes of their own in the process. I find that odd.
Well some times the word is mightier than the sword so when you describe atheist scientists like the late Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Hirst as belonging to the Neville Chamberlain school of thought, for wishing a accommodate with religion. Does that imply that we are the “Nazis”? maybe not, but one could read that into the statement. I could go on, but I would call that militant. I think you have a limited interpretation of the word.
It hasn’t happened explicitly (though I feel it is somewhat implied) in this (excellent) comment thread yet, but calling leading advocates of what has been dubbed the “new atheist” movement “militant” is a widespread habit. (I would like to note as an aside that while I do regard the notion of a god as a silliness, I very much enjoy arguing about the whole religion thing; thanks)
In response to Adam’s last comment, I would simply suggest that intolerance towards intolerant attitudes is a virtue. Further, that intolerance towards superstitious and flimsy concepts is surely beneficial. A large part of what irritates people like Dawkins, Hitchens and myself (if I could be so cheeky as to include myself in that company) is the artificial respect bestowed upon the religious’ views. That is, if someone shouted from the rooftops in support of a particularly silly political view, for example, then nobody here would hesitate in demolishing their arguments with glee. For some reason, however, religious opinions are deemed more, well, sacred. I humbly suggest that the ideas of a person advocating a god should be treated with no more respect than those of a person advocating, say, unreconstructed Leninism. They are all just concepts; there’s nothing special about religion (despite what their gods insist). That is all that’s going on here. If you separate religious ideas from all the rest, you’re doing it wrong.
Surely Dawkins is inconsistent. If we was a true atheist surely he would say “relax there is no god” surely “probably implies doubt, surely he is an agnostic.
Michael, you sound fairly pleased with yourself, as if you’ve just made something resembling a clever point. All you’ve shown, however, is that you haven’t made the slightest effort to acquaint yourself with your opponents’ views. I find it frustrating that so many people try to argue against Dawkins using arguments that he devotes ENTIRE CHAPTERS to countering in his famous book. You’re welcome to counter him in return, of course, but at the very least please don’t just hop back to the beginning and pretend your questions haven’t already been dealt with comfortably. It is a consistent feature of negative reviews of The God Delusion that the writer never actually bothered to read the damn thing before responding.
Dawkins suggests seven degrees on a theist-atheist scale, 1 being “strong theist. 100% certainty of a God”. 7 is the opposite, “100% certainty that there is no God”. #7 is indeed silly, which is why Dawkins states plainly that he’s a 6: “very low probability, but short of zero”. This is where I stand, also. So god is considered so unlikely, so remote, that the only reasonable way to live one’s life is to assume that he doesn’t exist. This is all very lucidly stated in the best-selling atheist-advocacy book of all time; it is nothing deep, it’s quite simple. Yet you carry on as if nobody’s ever pointed it out. The polite and honest thing is at the very least to acknowledge it. I don’t doubt that you may have a good response to it: let’s hear it
Dylan
You are right that intolerance (or a willingness to vigorously challenge) views that one thinks are wrong is a quality to be commended and encouraged. What concerns me – and what I’ve attempted to argue against – is that there is an increasing, and increasingly permissible intolerance towards those who hold these views, and their entitlement to do so.
There’s another point, too; you don’t have to have any truck with the idea of a supernatural entity to realise that the belief systems of those who do often makes them productive and valuable members of secular society. Whether or not our religious leaders are correct in believing in the existence of a God is secondary to the fact that such a belief often impels them to speak and act in ways that benefit us all.
But I like Mike’s idea of a three-way, atheist/agnostic/religious debate. One for WalesHome.org to pitch for, perhaps?
Adam
“One for WalesHome.org to pitch for, perhaps?” – I’ll be more than happy to write an article defending theism, and, more specifically, the eschatological claims of the Christian faith.
I dont really see Dawkins as an opponent in any sense of the word. Being old fashioned if I wanted to read a good atheist I would read either Bertrand Russell or A J Ayer,. since they both know something more about religion. Dawkins seems to be lacking. The main point actually distinguishing the difference between more fundamentalist (or distorted) forms of Christianity, Islam and Judiasm, and the more mainstream variety. I dont care if he hates God, religion, Christianity or Santa Claus. Its attempting to tell us what we as Theists believe. For example that Pope John Paul II was a hypocrite for comments commending evolution implying that “true Christians” should believe that the World was created in 6 days. I might add that Christians in the US were far more upset by Dan Brown’s Da Vinci code than Richard Who? Dawkins.