Blogger Christian Franz shares his strongly-worded, individual perspective on charges of ‘militant atheism’ in Britain and elsewhere, and more besides.
Is there really such a thing as militant atheism? Photo: Ashley Basil
If you believe what some politicians would tell you, the UK is developing a new problem; a social evil so menacing that it threatens to eclipse ‘Islamophobia’ any day now: militant atheism.
There is a certain progression to be observed: first come accusations of ‘special rights’, then we hear dire warnings of a slippery slope, invariably ending in persecution of religious people and death camps for believers, run by – you guessed it – militant atheists.
This calls for some explanation – on more than one account: by and large, ‘militant atheists’ are about as threatening as ‘fundamental hippies’. Coining the phrase is demonstrably an attempt to tarnish a term of non-description (‘atheist’) by combining it with a word evocative of conflict, violence, automatic weapons, scimitars, and death: ‘militant’. And yet, this attempt is about as successful in suggesting lethality as the term ‘combat doe’.
The most ‘militant’ of atheists was Christopher Hitchens. He earned that distinction by publicly assailing men of the cloth with remarks as cutting as ‘you are an idiot!’
The world’s second most ‘militant’ atheist would be Professor Richard Dawkins. Soft-spoken and infuriatingly polite, he’s known for book signings where, on occasion, he brings along a sharp pen.
So it’s not by their actions that militant atheists have gained the ‘militant’ epithet; there is a decided lack of streets overflowing with blood, no posters yelling ‘massacre those who insult atheism’, and to my knowledge no atheist has yet blown up a church on the grounds of advancing atheism.
So, for better understanding, we need to turn to the source. Recently, a number of British exponents have complained about the exploits of militant atheism:
In a highly publicized BBC-produced episode of The Big Questions (and a same-day publication on their web page), Voice For Justice UK speaker Lynda Rose raised awareness about the alarming fact that militant atheism is the reason why Christians are now persecuted in the UK.
A few days later, UK Minister of Faith (an office I have difficulty mentioning while keeping a straight face – it’s way too Phythonesque) Baroness Warsi voiced similar sentiments.
Shortly thereafter, Prime Minister David Cameron went on record saying that living in a religious country was easier for people of competing faiths than in a country run by (presumably militant) secularists.
And just a few days after that, former MP Anne Widdecombe – in a strangely pre-emptive evocation of Godwin’s Law – bemoaned the fact that today Christians have it more difficult to live in the UK than Nazis.
What is going on here? From a rational thinker’s point of view it surely seems as if they left a lot of lead in the pipes feeding the drinking fountains of Westminster Palace. Let’s take a closer look.
VFJUK’s Lynda Rose complained:[i]
But now, apparently, the newly claimed sexual rights of a minority are being prioritised over all other traditional rights, to the extent that ‘religious’ rights are now being assigned a separate, and seemingly subsidiary, category.
It’s a bit disconcerting that Lynda – who is a lawyer – makes this mistake: there are no ‘rights of a minority’. She was referring to a couple in the UK who had their existing right to their sexuality enforced. Lynda not only makes it sound as if a sexual minority (gay people) have special rights; she then asserts that there is something called ‘traditional rights’. First, of course, there are no special rights, and in fact, everyone has the same rights. And further to this, no civilized country in the world recognizes ‘traditional rights’. After all, once it is determined that something is unethical (such as slavery, or the right to discipline your disobedient wife), it is done away with, all ‘tradition’ be damned. ‘Traditional’ never trumps ‘just’. Most importantly, though, there scarcely any special rights attained only through adherence to a particular religion in the UK, restrictions on ascending to the throne notwithstanding. Today it is one law for all. Or at least it should be, anyway.
What we do see here – and we’ll see this again – is the feeling of entitlement: people are loath to give up privileges that they used to have. In this case, it is the privilege of imposing one’s own view of sexuality on others, something which Christianity has enjoyed for over two millennia, but has now been curtailed.
We next turn our attention to Minister of Faith, Baroness Warsi. In trying to make sharia law more acceptable in the UK, Warsi first remarked that[ii]
There is no doubt that the word ‘sharia’ carries huge challenges in relation to public relations. If you talk about anything [related to] ‘sharia’, the first vision people get is chopping off of people’s hands, having four wives and all sorts of unusual practices which, in today’s world, are not compatible with the values which we live by.
Above is an astute observation. The word ‘sharia’ does have a bad reputation: much like the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘Spanish Inquisition’. Personally, I believe that this is well deserved, on all accounts.
Now, Warsi, for reasons fully understood, complains that acceptance of ill-reputed Sharia law into UK’s courts is impeded by secular fundamentalists[iii]:
The most aggressive post I get is [sic] from people who are secular fundamentalists.
Of course atheists are vehemently opposed to these ideas, ideas that would introduce superstition and medieval morals into present-day jurisdiction – but I would submit that vehement opposition is to be expected not only from ‘militant atheists’, but from everyone who can count to eleven without having to remove a sock.
Warsi’s efforts to impose her preferred version of law are frustrated by people who do not share her ideology. She believes that she is entitled to bring Sharia law into UK’s courts, and spots the enemy among what she believes to be militant atheists – those people who publish so many ‘aggressive post[s]’.
Not being outdone by amateurs, David Cameron enters the fray asserting that[iv]
it is easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country.
The reason? Militant atheists, of course. He goes on to extol the virtues of a religious society – blithely ignoring that each and every social advance of the past two hundred years has come at the cost of lives among humanists, and in the face of strong opposition from the Church. To me it seems as if Cameron is building up a straw man and defending religion for one reason only: because the devout in his constituency are starting to grumble that their privileges are being taken away, that they can no longer tell the gays what to do.
More frighteningly, though, Cameron concludes his speech with this:
Greater confidence in our Christianity can also inspire a stronger belief that we can get out there and actually change people’s lives, and improve both the spiritual, physical, and moral state of our country, and even the world.
I guess it does take a pesky militant atheist to point out that if you replace ‘Christianity’ with ‘Islam’, Cameron would be saying exactly what the Taliban and Boko Haram are saying: they, too, believe that by stronger adherence to belief, that by following scripture more closely, this world will become a better place. The Taliban in particular are quite explicit about this; they state that their intent is to improve this world by changing the way people behave: by making them stronger believers.
Changing people’s lives based on faith is a terrible idea. Ask any woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. When we talk about ‘improvements’ based on religion, we almost always talk about restrictions: no gay marriages, no abortions, no women’s education, no blaspheming, no work on the holy day, etc. The more confidence people have in their religion, the more likely they are to impose their religious ideology on others. Ironically, there is only one group who can’t do that: (militant) atheists – who, by definition, don’t have a religion.
Ann Widdecombe’s rant takes the cake, though[v]:
Christians now have quite a lot of problems, whether it’s that you can’t display even very discreet small symbols of your faith at work, that you can’t say ‘God bless you’, you can’t offer to pray for somebody, if it’s an even bigger stance on conscience that you’re taking, some of the equality laws can actually bring you to the attention of the police themselves.
So I think it is a very difficult country now, unlike when I was growing up, in which to be a Christian, an active Christian at any rate.
A former MP, Ann has unfortunately developed a distinct habit of being economical with the truth. She did so when during the ‘Intelligence Squared’ debate she claimed that everyone who joined the Waffen-SS had to sign away their religion. The exact opposite is a documented, fact. People who joined the SS had to sign a paper stating that they were gottgläubig – believers in God – and affirmed that they were not atheists.
Widdecombe does it again here when she claims people can no longer wear religiously-themed jewelry, say endearing well-wishes, or promise piety to other people.
In reality Ann is angry at another fact: she has lost the privilege of an automatic religious bonus. People now openly scoff when someone offers prayer as ‘help’, and do not look impressed when someone openly wears a crucifix, crescent, or Star of David. Her importance and status as an openly devout believer have diminished – which is what irks her. In short, she’s angry that she’s become unpopular, and wants to assign blame.
That, in short, is what ‘militant atheism’ is all about: a scapegoat for one’s own misgivings and shortcomings, a scapegoat for the perceived injustice of privileges revoked, a scapegoat for being called upon one’s own moral failings.
Well, at least the believers are staying true to form – if there ever was an Abrahamic ritual, it’s the scapegoat.
Is it really that simple? Are politicians really trying to shift the blame from them to a minority? After all, much of what was said is monumentally stupid. Wouldn’t the political elite be more careful to avoid putting their foot into their collective mouth? Obviously, no. The reason for that, though, can be explained:
As we know, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is virtually indistinguishable from religion. That is what is tripping up politicians: they are increasingly coming down on the wrong side when they try to decide: ‘Is this still stupid or already religion?’
And then they do something ‘militantly’ stupid.
Notes
[i] “Human vs. Religious Rights“, No Blogs, No Glory
[ii] “Sharia-conform blood diamonds“, No Blogs, No Glory
[iii] “Sharia’s bad rap“, No Blogs, No Glory
[iv] “Come on, Cameron!“, No Blogs, No Glory
[v] “MP’s race to IQ bottom“, No Blogs, No Glory
Christian Franz is a secular blogger and the author of No Gods, No Glory – Unpreaching the Choir. You can also visit his blog , No Blog, No Glory – further unpreachings.
Hi there,
Good piece; interesting read. You also see the term fundamentalist atheist which is a hilarious juxtaposition! And I though Socrates chat with Euthyphro would have ended the argument of God guiding morality 200o years ago, but the debate seems alive and well somehow!
It is also interesting to see that the the Law Society has endorses guidance that advocates adhering to Sharia Law in the cases of wills, leading to open sexism and religious discrimination. For example male heirs are allowed to receive twice as much that female heirs. You make the point ”Traditional’ never trumps ‘just” which is exactly what is going on here; the UK Laws say one thing and because the traditions of some (not even all Muslims) say another then these should be adhered to. Wholly ridiculous.
Finally, I would always advocate reading ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ by Peter Bogohssian which is an interesting read exploring how an open mind an honest questioning style can support people to change their stance on many issues, including religious ones, rather than just stating opposing arguments.
Humanists and secularists,by and large,tend to follow the evidence when making statements.They,quite legitimately,challenge metaphysical beliefs and practices based on myth and superstition,with no basis in reality.If a doctor states that medication is intrinsically more effective than prayer at curing medical ailments,is that doctor being militant simply because he/she excludes the possibility of a God playing a role in the cure? Indeed this would be a real litmus test for religious fundamentalists.If they had to choose between modern medicine and prayer to treat an illness,which option would they choose? I am pretty sure,that in most instances,they would rely on science rather than metaphysics to alleviate their suffering.
The problem arises when they have control over medical treatment for others.
I am sure you will recall a recent case where a religioius parent refused to allow his son to receive proper medical treatment because he believed it would be an insult to god if they did anything other than pray for the boy’s recovery.
The end result – inevitably – was that the poor boy died.
Religion can indeed be injurious if not downright murderous for human health.
I could not agree more with your sentiments.Religion should be a totally personal fiefdom.The religionists can pray to whoever they want, but in a sane,secular and rational society superstitious beliefs must never be allowed to compromise human welfare,including that of the religionists’ immediate families.
Calling somebody militant only means that someone did not expect to oppose you on this point and is perhaps not prepared to logic their way to an answer but rather feel inside that they “should not have to do so because of my position of privilege”.
Equally there is no need for atheists or anyone to get upset about being called militant. ‘They’ were once called militant. All we have to do, preferably under the banner of Humanism, is do better than those who have been calling the tune religiously for a few millennia. We know that our case based upon logic and reason,backed by science will win through in the end .
KEEP CALM AND LOGIC !
We need logic AND compassion. Logic can only take you so far and like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment can lead to murder. I agree we need humanism but that’s logic and compassion right there!
When atheists are accused of being militant, my response is to point to the unfortunate Nigerian who has been interred in an insane hospital by his relatives because he does not believe in the existence. There is also the Sudanese woman who was sentenced to death for converting to from Islam to Christianity.
Recent examples of murderous brutality in Syria and Iraq carried out by religionists also serve as a clear warning of the excesses of militant religionists.
Are these examples of what religionists would like to see in operation here and elsewhere around the world?
If so, it is little wonder that people globally are steadily rejecting religion.
Sorry – I meant to end the first sentence above with the words ‘of god.’
If anything this (my own) article at BHA is an indication of just how careful, restrained, and perhaps timid most atheists are. You may have noticed that BHA (whom I’m an ardent fan of) advertises this article as my “strongly-worded, individual perspective” – carefully inserting that I’m going further than they feel comfortable with. Which is OK; after all, I too, have been called a ‘militant’ for my writing; and BHA have to carefully maintain an image of moderation. But Boy! – You should have read my original version 🙂
There simply are no militant atheists in this world, at least not by the true meaning of the word ‘militant’. Yet, we should not take umbrage at being called that – we should wear it as a badge of honor. We speak up for our belief in strong ethics, we will not offer meaningless prayer when help is needed, and we definitely will not stand by idly when we see injustice. If that is the new definition of ‘militant’, then it is a good change.
-ch
[please note: I’m the author of ‘Militant atheism’, and my views are of course biased]
I have just had a visit by the Mormons and this morning received a booklet in my postbox issued by the Church of Scotland.
Religionists are getting very worried.
The latter tells me that if there were 100 people living in my small parish of about 3 dozen 44% of them would be ‘religious’. Speaks for itself that at one time this would be 100% so what are they trying to tell me.
Last Sunday I listened to another CofE saying most of what are described at ‘British Values are a result of the established church. You mean – beheading your wives, raping, plundering and burning down peoples houses as Old Henry did, first ‘defender of the faith’. After that, of course, we had Oliver Cromwell whose troups went around raping and plundering and burning Catholics and women practising ancient herbal remedies. If these are British Values, we should live in fear.
How do you deal with these illogical arguments? Pray tell. My friends (Jehovah’s Witnesses) yesterday explained a new campaign of leaving literature in public places, because they were afraid of being undermined by ‘militant atheists’. I pointed out that (as they know) I am one. I am a member of BHA and the Secular Society and there are too few of us to go marauding and chopping peoples’ head off. Anyway we have no stomach for it. They too speak of Nazis in the same breath, but I have to point out there – as does a previous blogger, that the SS all were all signed up to belief in God as a pre-requisite; Hitler was a Christian; Stalin was educated in a seminary and originally a devout Catholic. So Christianity did not do much good in the recent history of Europe.
I am happy to discuss with people of all faiths, I am content for them to indulge in whatever strange practices in churches etc I cannot help finding it all a bit tedious these days in having to defend the fact that I have arrived at my beliefs over a long, experienced lifetime and have no fear of dying.
I feel I am being persecuted for my rational beliefs. I don’t often lose the argument but I still feel disturbed there is now such a panic stricken reaction by the Christian churches; they do indeed use us as scapegoat, because in truth this is really a response to the overwhelming influence of Islam.
Hitler was a Catholic right up till the moment he blew his brains out in the Furherbunker. Another person “educated” as a Catholic was Pol Pot.
Stalin was “educated” within the Orthodox Church I believe (not Catholic) and he lived in the home of a priest where his mother worked as a housekeeper after Stalin and his mother had been abandoned by his father. He trained as a monk before taking up a more lucrative career as a Bolshevik bank robber.
I don’t think the panic among Christian religionists is anything to do with Islam.
Their fear is that modern life styles render religion and religious belief increasingly irrelevant. This can be seen, for example, in polling data, where young people respond “No religion” in higher numbers than older people.
It is apparent to the religionists that if this trend continues, their “product” will have fewer and fewer consumers over time. They need new customers.
Their marketing drives are designed to achieve increased market penetration. However, what they are all ending up doing is squabbling with one another for a steadily declining market. The long-run consequences are obvious.
Recently,I entered into a debate about the nature of Jesus Christ,the human being and what his stance on gay marriage might have been.I affirmed that the existential Jesus Christ must have been as much a product of evolution as every other human being.In short,I stated that his ancestors came out of Africa,that he was descended from a fish and,going even further back in time,he originated from a simple uni-cellular organism.I asked whether there was any evidence that Jesus Christ,the human being,had been exempt from the process of natural selection acting on chance mutations and that if not,like all of us,indeed humanity itself,he could equally not have come into existence.I elaborated that,again like the rest of mankind/life, there was no divine certainty that any particular member species or member of a species would be born.I finished by saying that as human being,Jesus Christ’s stance on any aspect of morality,sexual or otherwise,was just as likely to be as fallible as that of any other person.The only response I got from my religious opponents was an assertion,without evidence,that Jesus Christ was God incarnate.Without evidence of this assertion,we reached an impasse and the debate could proceed no further.
I question whether or not any such person ever actually existed. Apart from the bible there is no alternative historical record to verify any such person’s existence.
Considering the claims that are made that his life and death were earth-shattering moments in the entire history of the planet Earth and of all humankind, surely it must strike any objective observer as strange – to say the least – that his alleged life has been marked by no contemporaneous historical record whatsoever?
The bible is just a story book, cobbled together by the early church men to support their religious claims but supported by absolutely no other historical source.
No intelligent person could possibly believe in biblical nonsense – could they?
You are absolutely correct in clarifying that Jesus Christ may not have existed at all. Perhaps,I should have prefaced my comment by,”Assuming the actual human existence of the biblical Jesus Christ”The point I made to the religionists was that their Jesus Christ,a human being,must have been as much a part of Nature–with all that that entails,in evolutionary terms—-as the rest of us.
Except, I imagine, you will then be told that the father of this character – like Heracles before him – was the product of a divine father and an earthly mother.
Therefore, DNA sequencing would not apply to him Well, that is the fiction…..
It is simpler to challenge them to provide contemporary evidence he even existed.
John,
The religionists I debated with told me that they still “believed”in science.Thus,I took them at their word and challenged their “beliefs” on scientific grounds.I reminded them also that science was really a matter of recognition rather than belief ie we accept,rather than believe,that bacteria causes disease.Had they not muttered the word science,I may well have ended up debating them on historical grounds.
Archeology is a branch of science. Next time, ask them where their scientific archeological evidence is for the existence of any such person ever existing?
May well do so,although,at least one of them,probably won’t debate with me again as he alleged I was damned.Bizarrely,he originally seemed to accept the validity of science but sort of diluted this by,just before saying where I was destined for,referring to science as incomplete leaving room for religion.Non-overlapping magisteria?
Personally, I consider any true “believer” to be clinically insane. They say anything to try to get people like us into debate in the mistaken belief they can somehow “convert” us. They are idiots, of course, but this does not stop them trying it on.
What IS bizarre is just how much these people are prepared to lie to us, like – for example – claiming to believe in science. It simply is not true that they do. They lied to you but I suppose they justify lying to themselves by thinking it is a small sin they have to commit for a greater good, i.e. to “convert” you.
What they fail to grasp – and what any humanist/secularist knows well – is that once you start lying you have to continue doing so indefinitely.
They are just too stupid to work out this simple fact.
Have nothing to do with such people in future.
They are not worth the bother.
John,I bother because at least on some occasions,when there is an audience either listening or reading,the fatuous arguments of the religionists are exposed in public as being irrational,unscientific and superstitious. Religion,almost unbelievably,still exercises a lot of influence in the public domain,particularly in our schools.In some ways,though it may be unworkable,I wish we had schools totally dedicated to a humanist/secular ethos to counteract the effects of religious indoctrination. In Scotland,where I live,such schools would be a real turn up for the books!We need a multi-pronged strategy for challenging the claimed validity of religion.
Christian, You should read a book called the New Athiest Novel it has a lot to say abount militant atheism. You can read the whole of the introduction on Amazon and that on it’s own is interesting. It is written by a Christian and an Atheist. It picks out Sam Harris, Dennet, Hitchens and Dawkins, I would like to hear your argument. I like what you have said and it has given me the confidence to continue being an ‘out of the closet’ atheist/humanist.
Aniela, thank you for the pointer. I’m not familiar with that work, so I have read the into that is available for free. I am familiar with the works of Harris, Hitchens, Dennet and Dawkins (whom I’ll abbreviate as HHDD for brevity), of course, having read more than just the works mentioned.
That being said, I’m not sure I would consider ‘New Atheist Novel’ to be worth a read; the evaluation of HHDD’s literary reception may be interesting to linguists; with the possible exception of Hitchen’s, the other works are scientific; measuring their literary reception is meaningless. Criticizing a scientific text on linguistic principles completely misses the point. You criticize science by proving counterpoints, not by pointing out how crudely the text is structured.
I’m also slightly put off by the author’s insistence to use the word ‘cult’ for something that is it’s perfect antithesis; it’s as if I was speaking of the ‘disease of health’. I can’t help but feel that there is some innuendo, a somewhat unhealthy bias. It’s also not a promising start if the authors brush aside the works of HHDD as ‘polemics’. Granted, Hitchens can be polemic, and to great effect uses this style. But it is obvious, to the point, and in no way the sum of his book. When you read Harris, the last word that comes to mind is ‘polemic’, much less ‘hysterical’. If you have read ‘End of Faith’ or ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’ (Harris), you already know what I mean.
Most importantly, though: I fail to see the point of ‘New Atheist Novel’. It’s (seemingly) not so much a critique of what HHDD say, but how they say it. Interesting approach – but firstly, I doubt that it is relevant, and secondly, I doubly doubt that Bradley’s and Tate’s authority on how to write things has more impetus than mine. And I think mine’s close to zero.
Perhaps some other time.
-ch
I got in to an interesting debate on Twitter a while back when I got a retweet from Richard Dawkins for my tweet saying: ‘I was reading picture books to my young niece. I asked if Cinderella was real; she said no; I asked her if Jesus (from another book) was real she said yes; I asked her why; she said because daddy said so. I have to say that I got a lot of abuse for this; told I needed mental help etc. though i must say not all from all religious people on twitter; some were reasoned and curious. It was a really interesting how some reacted.
I would advocate to anyone trying to change views to read ‘A manual for creating atheists’ which shows how you can change views in ways that work, mainly through non-judgmental socratic questioning. Very intersting
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
I am sorry to read some of the blogs on this website. I can now see why we are called ‘militant atheists’ and despair.
As a humanist secularist for 60 years these views in no way represent my feelings.
Calling people idiots and even worse ‘mentally ill’ becuase they believe in God is not kind, not helpful and in the long run will just alienate people you might have influenced to the opposite viewpoint. So please stop.
I was brought up in a devout Irish Catholic home and seemed to have discarded belief in God along with belief in Father Christmas. Certainly my parents always thought that I was too ‘independent’ in every way.
As a scientist I am too well aware of the flaws in the evolutionary theory. Very many of the ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. As a scientist also, I have no great expectation that we will ever disprove God, so don’t waste time arguing pros and cons. Scientists have, and frequently are, proved wrong. I speak as a psychologist and brain biochemist.
As for dealing with small children I have no children of my own but have great nieces and nephews. Whenever they have asked about God or Jesus I am always truthful and say I don’t believe in God and you may not when you get older. This is happily accepted by their parents and them.
One of the greatest services we can do for children is to stop brainwashing them. The humanist perspective has always been, in my long lifetime ,’do good, be good’. You will be judged by your humanity not by clever arguments and beligerence. Believe me, some people will come around to your way of thinking and doing things if its attractive enough. I have lived and worked in the Middle East and East Africa as well as in Europe where views and behaviour were very different and treading a wobbly line between several faiths great opportunities arose to interject a little common sense and kindness.
Its as unethical and unjust to bomb peoples’ minds as it is to bomb their physical selves. A humane stance works much better. People judge other people by their behaviour as well as their beliefs.
Please show a little more understanding and respect. We are all only human.
Hello,
Quickly to clarify. People who were religious were saying that I was mentally ill for not believing. An example of this: In a recent video by BHA and stephen Fry it talked about the pointlessness of eternal life. Someone on twitter said I was wasting my time asking them questions, to which I said ‘if life is eternal how can one WASTE time?’ to which he replied ‘what drugs are you on?’
As I say in other comments humanism is based on logic and most importantly compassion, and the boghossian book is about using critical thinking skills. I do not condone criticising people based on their beliefs but I do believe in supporting people in engaging critical thinking tools to their beliefs (about religion science, politics etc). One idea of this I raise in a blog on this website: https://humanistlife.org.uk/2014/06/18/what-can-social-psychology-tell-us-about-teaching-british-values/
I felt that asking a children how they knew a person was real was a good question for helping to enhance their own critical reasoning; I didn’t respond that her dad was wrong or anything.
I hope this clarifies anything from my post. I never wish to demean anyone for anything, and I hope that I didn’t cause any offence.
Thank you
I am sorry if I came across as critical. I fully understand how you feel that no matter how rational we try to be there are times when we get so angry at being judged by our lack of faith.
Like you, I suppose, I am automaticaly assumed to be immoral because of my lack of faith and am often preached at by people I don’t know. I also despair when I see incidents such as my mother’s young neighbour being stoned to death in Oldham. Reason: her epilepsy was a sign of her being possessed by the djin. Amazingly the attack was perpetrated by her grandfather the local Imam and her brothers. They got off the murder charge because ‘they did not itend to kill her the stoning was to banish the devil from her’. Unbelievable in 21st Century Britain. I truly lost it and attacked the local police and MPs.
Conclusion: we are all needed in this fight; it applies to everyone in the country, our laws and rights are being undermined by religion. We need to keep together and remain strong and effective or we will go back to ducking women in ponds and imprisoning people for being gay.
Hi,
Thanks for the response. No worries; but if you took differently what I said I worried others might too.
Yes, as I mention in a previous comment the British Law Society advocate upholding wills that are in line with sharia law but are sexist and undermine human rights and equality which is very sad. It seems such an obvious thing to say that a supernatural belief (such as a djin) should not impact on the outcome of law or politics but they do. If a person said ‘Zeus told me to do it’ this would be laughed at in a court purely because it is a defunct religion.
Thanks
Graham
Gabrielle,
although I agree in principle that we should not insult anyone, and I think you were speaking hyperbole, I strongly disagree when you said “Its as unethical and unjust to bomb peoples’ minds as it is to bomb their physical selves”. They are ethically on completely different scales. I do not see a physical response to a verbal disagreement as equal. Especially in the context of ‘militant atheists’ that is what’s happening: atheists are physically bombarded, while they retaliate with words only. Is that equivalent? I don’t think so.
There are nuances here. Ironically, scientifically religion/religious beliefs are medically classified as delusions (this is an assertion. Please correct me if I’m wrong; I’m an engineer, not a psychologist). Worse, I think there’s a news item making the rounds where it is claimed that someone was committed to a mental hospital on grounds of being an atheist. So someone with a delusion is locking up someone on grounds of being normal. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.
I, too, feel that we should never attack, or willingly inflict injury upon whose who disagree with us (actually, I think we should attack anyone, full stop). However, most of the time we are being called ‘militant’ is for when we attack an Idea , not a person. But people who identify with the ideology feel personally attacked. And retaliate, often times not only with words. Atheists are very privileged here in Europe that generally the debate stays verbal.
But how should someone react when she sees a glaring injustice or hurtful act committed out of religiosity? There are times to listen, and there are times to act. As you said, you are defined by your actions – to which I would add ‘and inactions’. Sometimes we have to act.
So, no, bombing someone’s mind with insults isn’t helping, isn’t just, and not ethical by a long shot. But it’s orders of magnitude preferable to becoming physically violent – something that every atheist (in stark contrast to many believers) has always refrained from.
Hello,
These are interesting concepts that you raise Christian. The author and secular philospoher Kenan Malik has recently released a book ‘The Quest for a Moral Compass’. The upshot of this book is that there are obviously no hard and fast rules for moral action but action guided by logic, compassion and through reasoned conversation is key. The idea here is that every situation is unique and should be handled in a unique way using the aforementioned guiding principles. When we see an action that breeches human rights, yes we should act but how we act depends on the situation and it is difficult to give premeditate a response.
What do you think?
Thanks
Graham
Obviously that is a very difficult question to answer; I’m not sure I can, and certainly not in a way meaningful for every application.
I, too, lean towards Utilitarianism, but do think that intent should also count. Someone not intending harm, but whose actions result in such should ethically be looked at as slightly better than someone who intentionally harmed. But by how much? No idea, and certainly not a fixed rule.
One problem with Malik’s approach is that obviously you don’t always have all avenues open – e.g. reasoned discussion – before you must act. Waiting for the outcome to see if the act was ethical seems to me to put the wagon before the horse.
I guess that is why it is so important to think hard and long about your own ethical standing, be prepared to stand your ground on an issue – and be likewise prepared to gracefully fold when someone shows you that you have been wrong.
In the debate between atheists and ardent believers this is usually moot, as believers assert that they hold the moral, god-given high ground. How do you discuss reasonably with that? I only know one way: not to discuss, but try to lead by good example instead. Unfortunately, for me, that has not always turned out to be ethically sound.
So, coming back to your question – the issue for me would be: would I be willing to intentionally harm someone to prevent them from committing greater harm? If I’m successful, my prevention will be the only harm done, and my actions unethical. Is that ethical? This is a dilemma not even premeditation can resolve. So, in truth, I don’t know.
-ch
Interesting from all of you. We don’t have a conflict and I am grateful for all the suggested reading.
‘Bombing the mind…’ Believers fit into many different shaped boxes. In my experience often there is no belief in supernatural ideas. It is just hope that there is something else other than the experiences of unsatisfacotory lives. To enrage or send them into despair is dangerous for them. Its not that their brains are lacking, its that they havn’t developed what Freud would have called ‘ego’. (not that I’m a fan of Freud). Unless they do develop there view of the world vis-a-vis themselves, they use god or mystical rituals as a prop. So we have to be careful.
I have no argument at all with challenging individuals we know well in debate. And I agree completely when it comes to vicars, priests Imams, go for it. We have every right to challenge everything they said and do. For example, where I live we have no budget for dementia care, or special hospital services for the mentally ill, but the Scottish government and Council see fit to allocate £29,000 for a Church of Scotland Minister and £17,000 each for two part-time chaplains at my local hospital. Outrageous isn’t it? No holds barred as fair as I am concerned as they think they are intelligent, fair-minded people so they have to put up with the flack. Before I die I hope to get paid religous chaplaincy out of our hospitals.
Did you know, the cost is increasing year on year and we now get – hold it Pagan and non-denominational chaplains in N.Wales hospitals. I kid thee not.
I am all for anything anyone can do to change the mindset of the people of faith who a real danger to democracy and equality. In my own case I have to bear in mind some individuals are not ready to be challenged. Some individuals are also not that secure in their beliefs but react defensively and that closes off all channels of communication.
But thanks for your comments.
Yes Christian, I fully understand everything you say. Mine was not a plea for inaction at all. In my experience this business of ‘faith’ calls up illogical responses.
Recently I said to a friend ‘I thought you were more intelligent than that’ in response to his justification of an element of his beliefs and received such an angry response totally out of proportion, I thought to a mild aside.
Unfortunately whilst we have to suffer the slings and arrows we have to be, in some circumstances, careful about how we retaliate.
Growing up in a devout Catholic family, I hated some of the teachings but my Protestant friends believed things equally ridiculous. I sorted out my position in relation to a teacher who was an atheist and talked to me as if I were an adult. Also encouraged (unwittingly) by a family friend who everyone loved but who had been brought up with no faith. When I questioned her she merely said since no-one knows whether or not god exists I ignore him. If he wanted me to know I assume he’s got the ability to tell me., so I just get on with life. We can influence people in so many ways can’t we?
Mubarak Bala is the Nigerian atheist who has been committed to a Nigerian mental institute by his family.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28010234 for details.
I imagine Leo Igwe is probably trying to assist him in gaining his release – but I do not know if this is the case.
Gabrielle,you are correct in implying that we should not verbally abuse,insult and treat anyone, not just religious people, with total disdain and contempt.I have to put my hands up here, I have over-reacted on occasion,I was not proud of it and try to maintain good grace and manners despite the provocation.In particular,I feel an instinctive urge to react with controlled anger when religious people declare that praying to the supernatural is very productive at curing bodily ailments.At the very least,when comments of this type (these become dangerous if they are implemented)are made, a robust non aggressive response is required.I have never condemned anyone, but have been personally condemned,to eternal damnation. You are obviously also correct in saying that scientists can be wrong,but they can also be right.Are they wrong about the theory of relativity,the laws of gravity and momentum, the effect of kinetic energy on impacted objects,the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution etc?With respect to the last item,what exactly are the flaws that undermine the scientific fact of evolution?Are they really flaws or unanswered questions that do not invalidate the theory of evolution?Please be assured that I am not arrogant and think that I know all the answers, but it is not unreasonable that I should want to follow the evidence to familiarise myself with the most plausible explanations for life and the world around us.
I always enjoy the discussion with non-scientists about ‘it being just a theory’. As my favourite comic Tim Minchin says; “science adjusts its views based on what’s observed/ faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
Hi – yes I was just concerned – we have to maintain more restraint on these issues.
You are right, of course, about science it can be contradicted precisely because it is always an ongoing project. This is how it should be. Above all, as you say, trying to encourage, especially in children, the search for truth using and logic and creative thinking. Measure it then against what we observe and already know to be fact. this is what makes us free. We have a duty to do this.
Of course we have already rejected myth and heresay as shackles. It is difficult to understand why anyone wants to be enslaved by what is contained (or fabricated) in ancient scrolls in areas of the world irrelevant to us.
Science can be contradicted when the appropriate evidence is gathered.
Nonetheless,many scientific principles are,to all intents and purposes maintained;the theory of gravity,relativity,laws of momentum,germ theory of disease,theory of evolution as I previously cited.What they all have,in common,is that they are all evidence based,unlike religion.I am still intrigued about your definition of flaws in evolutionary theory, (referred to above)which I thought had now been accepted as established scientific fact.
Hi Stephen
These are just questions that I feel evolution does not answer.
I just pondered this whlst living in E.Africa and visiting the Rift Valley where at the time the first ‘man’ was thought to have walked.
If the man evolved from the chimps living in that place why was it they still exist as chimps? You would think if, they were going to evolve, they would all do it. It seems illogical that now, highly developed human beings live there alongside the chimps they developed from.
Also, when I was young it was thought that sea creatures evolved into land living creatures. DNA has shown that this is wrong.
When you think there is only one point of difference in the DNA of chimps and us, yet there is a vast difference in our abilities, why havn’t all the chimps under our observation developed the same faculties as us?
Religionists do not have an explanation because they have to sort out if god gave us ‘souls’ at what point and why were they ascribed?
You may have info on the evolutionary problem. I am no anthropologist so please give it to me in simple terms. Cheers
Hi Gabrielle,there are,indeed,many unanswered questions about the evolutionary process,but the underlying principle that all life forms are inter-related and essentially subject to the laws of natural selection (genetic drift and artificial mutations can also cause change) remains undisputed.The evidence from fossils,comparative anatomy,embryology,molecular DNA and our vestigial traits overwhelmingly endorse the theory of evolution.
The chimps you refer to are,like humans,also the product of evolution and are not our ancestors.Our common ancestor (i.e.that of both modern humans and chimps)was not a chimpanzee and,recent research has suggested that this common ancestor probably didn’t look much like modern humans or chimps.
On the topic of differences between modern humans and chimps (our closest evolutionary cousins) it was once considered that human protein sequences only differed on average by 1% from that of chimps.However,more recent work points to a greater differential of 1.5%.I am now quoting from a book “Why Evolution Is True”by Jerry Coyness which I highly recommend: “A 1.5% difference in a protein 300 amino acids long translates into about 4 differences in the total protein sequence.To use an analogy,if you change only 1% of the letters on this page!you will alter more than 1% of the sentences?The oft quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps,then,is really larger than it looks;a lot more than 1.5% of our proteins will differ by at least 1 amino acid from the sequence in chimps.And since proteins are essential for building and maintaining our bodies,a single difference can have substantial effects”
Apparently,these are not the only distinguishing differences between modern humans and modern chimps.There are 1,400 genes expressed in humans but not in chimps
I hope I haven’t bored you to tears,Gabrielle.I am no expert,I have never formally studied evolutionary biology, but I have no reason to doubt the detailed evidence amassed by scientists in support of evolution.The study of evolution is ongoing but the key principles are invariably reinforced.
Cheers!
Thanks for your reply Stephen. Not boring at all and a lot of food for thought and further research. Much more interesting than working out why god would oversee a fight between good and bad angels and throw lucifer out to cause mahem on the planet earth.
No problem,Gabrielle. Jerry Coyne’s book is a clear, comprehensible and illuminating read.Well worth the small investment.
Incidentally John, you said ‘I believe’ Stalin was raised orthodox. Not true. He was raised by a Catholic mother in the home of a Catholic priest.
Whether the seminary was Eastern orthodox or Catholic is not certain. I was informed, on good authority, that at the time the orthodox church was very much in decline and, there is evidence that the seminary in the district he lived, was Catholic. there is no evidence of a Russian Orthodox seminary there which is where he would have gone had he been of the orthodox church. This information comes from relatives of mine.
I am wholly in favour of schools being secular and I feel also that our first priority should be to spend our energies trying to influence the politicians to this end. I am not, however, in favour of teaching that God does not exist, because it is futile till science has some way of proving it. Our job is to train young minds to observe and discriminate. If we do, they will come to their own sensible conclusions. I am much happier with the loose Buddhist idea of god – with a small g – being within everyone and our task in the world is to become a bigger and more enlightened person.
As for science – as a psychologist – I cannot of course believe in the ‘good versus evil entities’ which is an aspect of both Christianity and Islam. You only have to look at structures of religion to see that they are instruments of power and subjection. Mainly male! The description of good spirits -v- evil spirits are quite clearly based on the models of the time which still apply today – warring factions.
We have to take great care that our humanist arguments do not deteriorate into reflections of that.
I define myself as being an ignostic humanist. For further information on the concept of ignosticism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism.
All knowledge we acquire is through our 5 senses. The concept of god is one that does not present itself to our 5 senses and is therefore insensible.
Therefore, the concept of god is irrelevant to our life and conduct. What is far more relevant is the national and international laws which govern our lives.
Instead of teaching religion in schools – other than its historic development and impact upon emerging societies – children should be taught clearly about what laws are to be followed in our and other societies, as this is far more useful.
As a humanist, I try to be a good person, to lead a good life and to contribute towards creating a good society. As I am human – with all the associated flaws that condition has – I am not always successful in my attempts but, being a humanist, that does not deter me from carrying on trying to achieve these goals.
As a human being, I could try leading a life similar to the one outlined by Hobbes of a man in nature, where life is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short.
Alternatively, I could try living based on my own humanist standards of conduct.
There is a utilitarian calculus in my method. By creating the kind of society I want – where everyone tries to be a good person, lead a good life and contribute towards creating a good society, we all creat a “win-win” society, in which the general welfare of all is consistently raised over time, rather like we have seen over the last several centuries since the unfolding of the Enlightenment.
Religion, by and large, holds back the progressive welfare of all in society as it seeks to enshrine conservatism and opposes progress in almost all fields.
Hi,
I like the sound of ignostic, but could you argue that something like dark matter does not present itself to our 5 senses, we haven’t reliably measured its existence and yet we know it exists?
We sense dark matter through the observed effect it has on the Universe, in the same way as we sense gravity in its effects on the material world.
In both cases, we cannot directly see it, hear it, touch it, smell it or taste it but we can observe its effects on the material world which are predictable and verifiable – unlike claims of religious phenomena.
The existence of dark matter – and dark energy, also – are what compute in the universal model which explains the characteristiocs of the Universe. However, let me not appear dogmatic on this point. Science is all about new knowledge being acquired which alters previous explanations. This could yet happen where dark matter and dark energy are concerned. All we can say with any certainty right now is that the inclusion of dark matter and dark energy makes sense in a colloquial way in explaining how the Universe behaves and why – for example – it appears to be expanding and moving apart at an accerelerating rate.
New explanations could yet arise to clarify our present understanding.
That, to my mind, is a truly humanistic understanding of the natural world.
Yes good answer. I’ll certainly remember ignosticism in the future.
Hi John, isn’t this the way some Christians explain god. They believe because of the effect of god’s creation which can be seen in organisms so complex and symbiotic it must be produced by intelligent design.
Its a bit like my triple glazing. The day looks fine and sunny through the window. I walk outside and there’s a gale and wind-chill. This is the way believers describe god to me – not observable by the 5 senses because of the glass barrier, but a reality all the same.
Religionists have a substantial belief “investment” which they are – understandbly, to an extent – reluctant to give up.
If they choose to believe a creationist explanation, it is up to them.
We have no mandate on how others think, however irrational their beliefs.
A far simpler explanation is evolution and – using the Occa’s Razor principle – that is the best one in which to believe. More and more evidence continues to emerge which supports the principle of evolution, which equally means that religious explanations become ever more desperate in tone and nature.
They will cast around for anything to provide support to their essentially irrational beliefs, sometimes however incredibly unlikely they may be.
The example of weather outside and inside can be countered very simply by pointing towards the use of internal barometers and external weather monitoring equipment, which can provide information on what is happening outside the house before leaving it.
Where is the religious equivalent to indicate what a non-existent entity is doing?
In fact, it is not even necessary to have individual weather monitoring equipment in each of our houses. We can get an idea of the weather outside by listening to the radio, watching TV or going on-line for immediate information.
The religious equivalent, biblical prophecy, has utterly failed to achieve a similar level of performance. Why do they continue clinging on to such nonsense?
Because they are so heavily “invested” in nonsense. It has become the sole focus of their miserable lives. No wonder they are reluctant to give it up.
They feel – and are – nothing without it.
I leave such people alone and leave them to get on with their own nonsensical activities. I am sorry that their lives have ended up going down such a ridiculous pathway but there is nothing I can do to help them leave it.
They have to come to their own realisations.
We cannot teach them differently.
If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the politicians.
They have consistently promoted religion as a cheap form of social control.
Cameron, Gove & Co. – and many others – continue to do so, even though their own beliefs are questionable.
It is a question of “Do as I say, not as I do” where they are concerned.
Simple-minded people – unfortunately – believe them.
An interesting example of human evolurion is Nepal Sherpas and their DNA.
A very good article on this is at http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/sherpa-dna-tibetans-developed-genes-to-help-them-adapt-to-life-at-extreme-elevations.html but more recent research has indicated that they have acquired their particular characteristics through inter-breeding with an earlier species of human being which died out around 50,000 years ago.
Looking ahead, take a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28089987.
Stand by for even more exciting announcements next year – and, NO, I am not talking about the 2015 general election!!!