Gospel of the Atheists II (modernity)
Now, the following is constructed based on ONE nations experience. It is NOT something that I say is universal. I draw universal conclusions out of it- but I write this taking into account that each nation and culture has a difference engine built into it…
The nation in question in the UK.
The UK is a country whose culture and identity was formed by its religious belief systems. It’s a Christian nation- many of its important rituals (Christmas, Easter, the feast days of St. George, St. Patrick, St. Andrew, St. David) are religious in origin. Its head of state is the head of the state church (the Church of England which will soon be probably splitting up). There remain strong laws showing EXTREME religious bias on the books (for example, NO Catholic may become King or Queen of Britain).
It is also a modern western liberal secular democracy. Which means that it has at its heart the ongoing crisis that all other western liberal secular democracies- a Christian origin and a mind set based upon modernity.
The debates about atheism, about God, about religion etc. MUST be seen in all Western liberal democracies in the context of the changing nature of belief. I will use the UK as an example- I do NOT use France (where secularism is seen as the highest ideal and state rejection of religion (any religion) means their rich Christian heritage is being deconstructed); I do NOT use America; nor Ireland (which like Spain to a lesser extent is seeing a crisis of religion).
What I have found CAN be applied to those nations just as well- with differing numbers- but the base conclusions can be adapted to suit them (see above caveat regarding universality).
So- what DO people believe in this country?
The "British Social Attitude Survey" reveals much about what this population believes and more importantly the WAY Britain believes. A vast study it asks people to list their beliefs within quantifiable measurements.
And what we have is a wonderfully rich picture of spiritual life in this western democracy. The data below does NOT concern itself with questions like- who is Muslim or Christian- rather at a more base level- Do you believe in a God/Gods full stop. That is what makes it more interesting. We get to look at belief systems as opposed to specific belief. And its findings?
Agnostics come in for the hardest time- formally only 2% of the British population are agnostic (i.e. they define themselves when it comes to the belief in God as ‘I don’t know’).
Agnostic is a term often used- but really it is OVER USED- only a tiny teeny minority of any population formally take the position of ‘I do not know and therefore remain open’. WHy is it so small? I believe it is because there is a misunderstanding and/or a confusing debate as to the precise meaning of the word agnostic. This will be covered below- but for NOW I will take the survey's definition of Agnosticism- and say that ONLY 2% of the population.
Those who SAY they are agnostic, but THEN get into debates about how wrong/flawed organised religion is, are actually either believers in something. These demi-agnostics (my term) usually ARE believers- maybe not in God as described in the Bible but in something. There are not that many demi-agnostics in Britain, I would assume maybe 5% (why? See below…)
Atheists constitute 10% of the British population. Some say that is fairly high- but then we are an increasingly secular society (10% of British population define themselves by the words ‘I do not believe in a God’). Others say that is a very low number. because when you add the agnostic anbd atheist population of Britain you only cover 12% of her population.
Which leaves 88% of the British population who believe. 88%!
That’s a huge number.
Which could PROBABLY explains away why atheists become so fundamentalist so often- they perceive their religion has not gained full acceptance and are bewildered about it (see below about why I think this DOES happen on occasion).
We need however to look closer at that supposed 88%.
This group falls into 4 camps of belief systems-
1) Those who believe in a ‘higher power’ of some kind but not God as the West usually suggests it (not Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim), come in at about 13%.
This section includes what I define as demi-agnostics. Above I said demi-agnostics make up about 5%- this is an approx. figure because I suggest the rest of the ‘believe in some kind of higher power’ camp includes most of the British pagan/new age religious population and I would say they take the lions share of this camp. Here is the hinterland between what the TYPICAL definition of a religion is (church on Sunday, Cum By Yar etc) and the PRECISE definition of religion (6 elements) lies. The 'Higher power' camp generally have a wide variety of beliefs- much of it subjective and very personal.
2) Those who “believe in God some of the time” make up another 13% of the God believers. SO lets get this straight- out of the 88% of the British population who BELIEVE in God, 26% believe in a ‘higher power’ or only believe ‘some of the time’ (leaving now 62% as true believers). Into this section however comes many of those who cross over from the earlier type- those pagans with hybrid ideas (for example those who respect SOME elements of the Christian church but not others); those who refuse to join a religion because ‘they don’t do religions’ (oddly enough these type run through ALL subgroups) and so if asked would say they are Christian but dislike all other Christians and as such get ambivalent when asked about their Christianity.
Again, the main defining feature of this group is their subjectivity of belief- personal beliefs not focused in any organised religion.
3) Those who “believe but have some doubts’ constitute 26% of the believers- the largest faction of all in the survey. This ‘have some doubts’ is perhaps the most significant- for two reasons.
It shows the fluidity between "higher power" believers and "believe with some doubts"- that peoples experiences of religion/faith changes throughout their lives’ but more importantly it shows that questioning of religious belief systems by those within it is VERY strong.
It is an oft used insult by strong atheists that people who believe are sheep.
When figures show that in Britain, 51% of the population both believe AND question/doubt things. Indeed those who believe in God but have doubts are nearly three times as large as atheists. Those atheists who have doubts about their atheism come into this camp as well. Hardly sheep now is it?
4) Those who believe in God without any doubts number 23% of the British population.
Now, 23% is a LOT less than 88%. These are the ‘true believers’.
Alright...
First question:
If only 23% of the population actually BELIEVE in God without doubt, why do elements of the 10% who do NOT believe always attack/go after them?
Or put another way-
Why IS Dawkins saying what he is saying?
There is this huge whopping mass of 67% of the British population who fit within the ‘don’t know/have doubts of varying degrees’ camps that they should be talking to, as surely these people would be more receptive yes? And you know what- when you look CAREFULLY at the arguments of 'strong' atheists against religion- you find they always fall into one of two types or argument.
Type one- the defensive. This is done when some religious type uses their belief system to attack something rather secular- for example a creationist wishes creationism to replace or be taught alongside evolution in schools; enter atheist to show they are a wingnut who shouldn’t EVER be allowed in schools.This is the defensive.
Type Two- the attack. This is the argument that gets me. This is when an atheist comes out and starts pointing out the flaws in belief systems of the 23% of those who have no doubts. They attack the 23%. Do they hope/think they can change the opinions of the 23%? Maybe.
But most realise they have as much chance of that... as the 23% have of converting them.
So then, why DO they do it?
And the answer is always the same- they are actually trying to point out the flaws to that huge 67% of us who have doubts and issues. So they debate with the 23% (true believers) to win over the doubters.
And why would they be talking to them?
Well to convince them of course. Show them what is flawed with belief in God.
So let me get this right… an atheist starts talking about the flaws in the belief system of those who hold a completely different position to their own; they are talking to people who they hope to bring around to their way of thinking, right? And what do we call that?
Well, in all ways it is what it is… PREACHING! This is a Christian community... we KNOW preaching!
So let us return to Dawkins... Who is he trying to impress?
Is he seriously trying to convince the 25% of the British to drop their crucifixes and follow him? No- he is talking to the other 67% of the British population.
He is preaching!
Atheism is a good religion for some. Like Hinduism and Jewish, if it floats ya boat, and does no harm, then cool. But I really, REALLY wish "strong atheists" wouldn’t make out that what they have is anything more than what the rest of us have- its just a religion. Maybe a disorganised one (sure) maybe one who don’t believe in some big bloke with a beard (fine), but those are just trappings.
At its based level it is just a religion like all the others (see previous post for a MUCH more detailed argument for this).
That aside- if you look at the heart of the matter- what you see in the UK is the entire debate about religion in a nice small microcosm. In most western liberal democratic nations- when asked, the majority of the population believe in SOMETHING- but not in an organised religion. Indeed there is a reaction AGAINST organised belief systems in the West. FAITH seems fine- religion- traditional religion- seems under attack.
Think about it- faith (and its cause- doubt) are healthy and well- the ‘crisis’ in our churches (dropping attendance, loss of political power and influence) seems to follow a set series of steps. Some nations (such as France) have seen a DRASTIC drop in those attending religious services. In France we have an example of a culture which wants secular values to replace religious ones. Yet they have hartdly created a secular utopia have they?
So- what's happening?
Some believe that atheism is behind the fall in church numbers. This is a fallacy.
Other, much more complex issues are behind the fall in church numbers- best example- Ireland. Church attendances are plummeting there- at least Roman Catholic attendances are.
The growth in ‘new age’ religious belief systems in Ireland has been immense, as has the growth in non-sectarian Christian groups (I should know- my uncle heads one of Irelands biggest non-sectarian ministries- even got the Irish government to change the law so they could set up a CHRISTAIN school as opposed to a Catholic/Protestant one). As I said above- FAITH is strong and well. What is being rejected is certain organised religions and their role in society. So why blame atheists (and there IS a school of Christian thought that equate atheism with immorality with the decline of church attendence- Lord help us, but as Christians we have to deal with them!) ?
People blame atheists because there is a confusion. The real debate is what PRECISELY is an atheist?
And luckily for us as Christians- they get divided as much as any other religion. The debate within atheist circles is as strong as 'what is a Christian' is amidst ours.
I am in debt to
foxmagic for making me aware of the recently coined term ‘strong atheism’ and ‘weak atheism’- this is on top of terms like irreligionism, antitheism, agnosticism, positive atheism, negative atheism, antireligionism, secularism, humanism, materialism, nontheism, and methodological naturalism (which I just discovered is also known as methodological atheism). There is a healthy and passionate debate taking place within the ranks of atheism- and gradiations of belief and opinion- just like Christianity. What struck me back when I sat over with the 10%'ers and strikes me just now as I sit with the 'true belivers' camp is the fact that there IS such debate.
When I first started arguing an atheist world view many years ago, I found myself at first with fellow atheists and on occsion would find common cause with them. When one would dig deeper however, I found that we usually differed significantly in our views. There was a subjective approch going on... this subjectivity was not the reason I left atheist belief systems behind me later in my life- but it is indicative of something deeper that goes beyond atheism and Christianity.
So- where am I going here?
There is no clear cut and dried definition of atheism- but one can be common sensical and describe it as ‘belief in No God’ and/or ‘veneration of no religion’ (bar itself of course). This does not stop the sometimes silly debates between we Chistians and atheists nor the way they reduce down to name calling. Much of the confusion in dialogue between atheists and Christians is caused by neiother side realising they are debating the same way a Jew and a Muslim would over 'which religion is right'... but another cause is the current state of the world and belief in the world itself
Atheists often see themselves as persecuted by people of faith- dismissed as being immoral, decried as being evil and in some countries still, it’s a belief that is illegal.
They see themselves as being under attack.
Which is often why atheists "come out fighting". (see the post on this list where the clip of Dawkins was posted for examples of this).
Which is why Dawkin is saying what he is saying. He believes atheism and secularisation is under attack by elements of the Christian religion and he is conducting a dsesperate rear-guard defence, preaching the ‘word of No God’ in an attempt to stave off the attacks.
MEANWHILE…
Secularisation presents many churches with a crisis- numbers are falling. Spirituality and ‘alternative faiths’ are growing, but there is a tangible air of 'shock' within Christian communities - the shock of falling numbers, diminishing influence and increased secularisation. Many see religion and their version of faith as being under attack- so they defend themselves. A desperate rear-guard defence, preaching the word of God in an attempt to stave off the attacks.
What both are failing to see is that the reason why atheism is not really growing beyond 20% of any given population, is also the same reason why many of the traditional religions are falling in numbers. Both sides are reacting to an outside third force.
Modernity.
Christianity isn't alone in having serious issues with modernity. Islam has been as well. They have been having this debate for a few years now. Indeed Islam's interaction with modernity is at the heart of most Muslim debates. Christians we see having the debate often- often differing from islamic debates as Christian comments tend to be about symptoms (i.e. changes in public opinions; decline in moral values; advertising; cultural changes) as opposed to the wholistic approch (not ALWAYS the case- just in most cases)
And atheists usually assume modernity is on their side. This assumption is taken on board and accepted by many religious people- leading the identification of modernity with atheism and the need to attack BOTH. But modernity is NOT on atheism's side.
Modernity presents us a complex world view- like Britain I described- we have many nations with a strong religious heritage, and growing secular institutions. We have great big Hegelian inspired concepts- like communism and capitalism; we have increased secularisation- but these have NOT dealt with the NEED for belief that human beings have. Humans NEED religion/faith/belief like they need water and food and love.
(Yes I will back that statement up- but it deserves its own post as it’s a big issue).
Modernity offers us a secular world but does not supply the 'solution' to the need for faith answers- this is why so many years after ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’- God is clearly NOT dead. This is why atheism is still a minority point of view. HOWEVER- modernity is very clearly challenging religion and its impact is vast. Modernity is why religious attendances are down in the traditional religions.
We are finding that the ethos of self-determination and the increase of choice present people with increased means to find personal expression and they are taking it in ways which are confounding both sides in this debate.
My conclusions?
Well I have differant ones for both Christians and atheists.
Christians:
For good or for bad, modernity is challenging traditional organised religions- and in the west Christianity is taking the brunt of it. This makes many Christians get defensive and over-react.
My own personal take is that in terms of Christianity- we are seeing the revenge of the Gnostics. PERSONAL and subjective experiences of God/Jesus grow, while the desire to partake of organised Christian faith is shrinking. Short term- this means that many Christian groups will react with fear and OVER-REACT to this- swinging to the right. With typical foresight the Roman Catholics did this around the turn of the 20th Century. We are seeing it now in America- lets face it- Creationism and Intelligent Design actually has more followers now than they ever did.
A REACTIONARY brand of Christianity.
Long term however- unless modernity is somehow stopped, the figures we saw in the above British survey will become more indicative- more and more will fall into the ‘believe in SOMETHING’ camp and the ‘believe SOME OF THE TIME’ camp AND the ‘believe but have doubts’ camp (which is mostly have doubts about religion not faith) and the idea of a personal God- (God of my ancestors anyone)- will increase.
The Gnostics are not out of this fight yet!
Atheists:
Must be sitting pretty right now, huh?
Nope. Their numbers will not grow.The human need for spirtuality and faith will not go away. They have a future of being the small but vocal minority- the good news is as organised faiths shrink so will the attacks upon them diminish. The bad news is as the over-reaction to modernity grows, so they will face increased attacks in the short/medium term.
Unless of course- someone is able to take modernity by the horns and calm that thing down.
The most interesting inter-faith debates I have seen lately have been the ones where Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindu's all come together to deal WITH modernity. It is in this debate that common ground is most found. Good examples to look at- the massive inter-faith/inter-sectarian appeals from literally hundreds of sects and faiths towards a rejection of violence seen in the aftermath of 9/11. Another more recent example- the joint Muslim/Christian think tank who just published an open letter to local authorities in Britain begging them to stop secularisaing Christimas: that both Christian AND Muslim communities believe it should be proud to be a Christian festival (see also the debate over the 'Faith Zone' in the Milenium Dome built to celebrate the year 2000 wherein two Hindu buisness who were paying for it said they were amazed Britain was not proud to be Christian).
But crucial to the whole religious response to modernity (and especially the Christian reponse to it) is religions relationship with science and to a lesser extent atheisms relationship to science as well).
Science has been identified as the driving factor in modernity (rightly or wrongly- THAT is a seperate debate).
ALL of the above has for various reasons placed science in a place where it is being attacked by certain religious groups. It is also seen as a cause for which certain atheists (such as Dawkins) will begin getting on a sop-box defending it- and defend science by preaching 'strong atheism'.Because lets face it- that IS the reason why Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion'.
SIr Richard Dawkins is the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science from Oxford University. Now before he wrote The God Delusion he was in the front line of the attacks upon science. You’d see him on TV occasionally- defending science from some reactionary statement. He was becoming increasingly exasperated. You could tell. I remember watching him once and a friend of mine said ‘He’s going to snap if he doesn’t quit’. Guess what?
He snapped.
He became radicalised by circumstance. And he has attached science to strong atheism. But DO the two go together?
So yeah- I'll stop here. ANOTHER long and probably self-indulgant post- but this and the one before it were steps needed fopr the next one- which is where we gotta look at the science v religion debate in a new light. because attacking science is NOT helping us deal with the greater "crisis" of the rise of modernity. It's an battle that does not need to happen... and THAT has been said by moderates from both the Christian side and the scientific community AND the atheist side for years now...
Hope I haven't bored y'all!
pax!
The nation in question in the UK.
The UK is a country whose culture and identity was formed by its religious belief systems. It’s a Christian nation- many of its important rituals (Christmas, Easter, the feast days of St. George, St. Patrick, St. Andrew, St. David) are religious in origin. Its head of state is the head of the state church (the Church of England which will soon be probably splitting up). There remain strong laws showing EXTREME religious bias on the books (for example, NO Catholic may become King or Queen of Britain).
It is also a modern western liberal secular democracy. Which means that it has at its heart the ongoing crisis that all other western liberal secular democracies- a Christian origin and a mind set based upon modernity.
The debates about atheism, about God, about religion etc. MUST be seen in all Western liberal democracies in the context of the changing nature of belief. I will use the UK as an example- I do NOT use France (where secularism is seen as the highest ideal and state rejection of religion (any religion) means their rich Christian heritage is being deconstructed); I do NOT use America; nor Ireland (which like Spain to a lesser extent is seeing a crisis of religion).
What I have found CAN be applied to those nations just as well- with differing numbers- but the base conclusions can be adapted to suit them (see above caveat regarding universality).
So- what DO people believe in this country?
The "British Social Attitude Survey" reveals much about what this population believes and more importantly the WAY Britain believes. A vast study it asks people to list their beliefs within quantifiable measurements.
And what we have is a wonderfully rich picture of spiritual life in this western democracy. The data below does NOT concern itself with questions like- who is Muslim or Christian- rather at a more base level- Do you believe in a God/Gods full stop. That is what makes it more interesting. We get to look at belief systems as opposed to specific belief. And its findings?
Agnostics come in for the hardest time- formally only 2% of the British population are agnostic (i.e. they define themselves when it comes to the belief in God as ‘I don’t know’).
Agnostic is a term often used- but really it is OVER USED- only a tiny teeny minority of any population formally take the position of ‘I do not know and therefore remain open’. WHy is it so small? I believe it is because there is a misunderstanding and/or a confusing debate as to the precise meaning of the word agnostic. This will be covered below- but for NOW I will take the survey's definition of Agnosticism- and say that ONLY 2% of the population.
Those who SAY they are agnostic, but THEN get into debates about how wrong/flawed organised religion is, are actually either believers in something. These demi-agnostics (my term) usually ARE believers- maybe not in God as described in the Bible but in something. There are not that many demi-agnostics in Britain, I would assume maybe 5% (why? See below…)
Atheists constitute 10% of the British population. Some say that is fairly high- but then we are an increasingly secular society (10% of British population define themselves by the words ‘I do not believe in a God’). Others say that is a very low number. because when you add the agnostic anbd atheist population of Britain you only cover 12% of her population.
Which leaves 88% of the British population who believe. 88%!
That’s a huge number.
Which could PROBABLY explains away why atheists become so fundamentalist so often- they perceive their religion has not gained full acceptance and are bewildered about it (see below about why I think this DOES happen on occasion).
We need however to look closer at that supposed 88%.
This group falls into 4 camps of belief systems-
1) Those who believe in a ‘higher power’ of some kind but not God as the West usually suggests it (not Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim), come in at about 13%.
This section includes what I define as demi-agnostics. Above I said demi-agnostics make up about 5%- this is an approx. figure because I suggest the rest of the ‘believe in some kind of higher power’ camp includes most of the British pagan/new age religious population and I would say they take the lions share of this camp. Here is the hinterland between what the TYPICAL definition of a religion is (church on Sunday, Cum By Yar etc) and the PRECISE definition of religion (6 elements) lies. The 'Higher power' camp generally have a wide variety of beliefs- much of it subjective and very personal.
2) Those who “believe in God some of the time” make up another 13% of the God believers. SO lets get this straight- out of the 88% of the British population who BELIEVE in God, 26% believe in a ‘higher power’ or only believe ‘some of the time’ (leaving now 62% as true believers). Into this section however comes many of those who cross over from the earlier type- those pagans with hybrid ideas (for example those who respect SOME elements of the Christian church but not others); those who refuse to join a religion because ‘they don’t do religions’ (oddly enough these type run through ALL subgroups) and so if asked would say they are Christian but dislike all other Christians and as such get ambivalent when asked about their Christianity.
Again, the main defining feature of this group is their subjectivity of belief- personal beliefs not focused in any organised religion.
3) Those who “believe but have some doubts’ constitute 26% of the believers- the largest faction of all in the survey. This ‘have some doubts’ is perhaps the most significant- for two reasons.
It shows the fluidity between "higher power" believers and "believe with some doubts"- that peoples experiences of religion/faith changes throughout their lives’ but more importantly it shows that questioning of religious belief systems by those within it is VERY strong.
It is an oft used insult by strong atheists that people who believe are sheep.
When figures show that in Britain, 51% of the population both believe AND question/doubt things. Indeed those who believe in God but have doubts are nearly three times as large as atheists. Those atheists who have doubts about their atheism come into this camp as well. Hardly sheep now is it?
4) Those who believe in God without any doubts number 23% of the British population.
Now, 23% is a LOT less than 88%. These are the ‘true believers’.
Alright...
First question:
If only 23% of the population actually BELIEVE in God without doubt, why do elements of the 10% who do NOT believe always attack/go after them?
Or put another way-
Why IS Dawkins saying what he is saying?
There is this huge whopping mass of 67% of the British population who fit within the ‘don’t know/have doubts of varying degrees’ camps that they should be talking to, as surely these people would be more receptive yes? And you know what- when you look CAREFULLY at the arguments of 'strong' atheists against religion- you find they always fall into one of two types or argument.
Type one- the defensive. This is done when some religious type uses their belief system to attack something rather secular- for example a creationist wishes creationism to replace or be taught alongside evolution in schools; enter atheist to show they are a wingnut who shouldn’t EVER be allowed in schools.This is the defensive.
Type Two- the attack. This is the argument that gets me. This is when an atheist comes out and starts pointing out the flaws in belief systems of the 23% of those who have no doubts. They attack the 23%. Do they hope/think they can change the opinions of the 23%? Maybe.
But most realise they have as much chance of that... as the 23% have of converting them.
So then, why DO they do it?
And the answer is always the same- they are actually trying to point out the flaws to that huge 67% of us who have doubts and issues. So they debate with the 23% (true believers) to win over the doubters.
And why would they be talking to them?
Well to convince them of course. Show them what is flawed with belief in God.
So let me get this right… an atheist starts talking about the flaws in the belief system of those who hold a completely different position to their own; they are talking to people who they hope to bring around to their way of thinking, right? And what do we call that?
Well, in all ways it is what it is… PREACHING! This is a Christian community... we KNOW preaching!
So let us return to Dawkins... Who is he trying to impress?
Is he seriously trying to convince the 25% of the British to drop their crucifixes and follow him? No- he is talking to the other 67% of the British population.
He is preaching!
Atheism is a good religion for some. Like Hinduism and Jewish, if it floats ya boat, and does no harm, then cool. But I really, REALLY wish "strong atheists" wouldn’t make out that what they have is anything more than what the rest of us have- its just a religion. Maybe a disorganised one (sure) maybe one who don’t believe in some big bloke with a beard (fine), but those are just trappings.
At its based level it is just a religion like all the others (see previous post for a MUCH more detailed argument for this).
That aside- if you look at the heart of the matter- what you see in the UK is the entire debate about religion in a nice small microcosm. In most western liberal democratic nations- when asked, the majority of the population believe in SOMETHING- but not in an organised religion. Indeed there is a reaction AGAINST organised belief systems in the West. FAITH seems fine- religion- traditional religion- seems under attack.
Think about it- faith (and its cause- doubt) are healthy and well- the ‘crisis’ in our churches (dropping attendance, loss of political power and influence) seems to follow a set series of steps. Some nations (such as France) have seen a DRASTIC drop in those attending religious services. In France we have an example of a culture which wants secular values to replace religious ones. Yet they have hartdly created a secular utopia have they?
So- what's happening?
Some believe that atheism is behind the fall in church numbers. This is a fallacy.
Other, much more complex issues are behind the fall in church numbers- best example- Ireland. Church attendances are plummeting there- at least Roman Catholic attendances are.
The growth in ‘new age’ religious belief systems in Ireland has been immense, as has the growth in non-sectarian Christian groups (I should know- my uncle heads one of Irelands biggest non-sectarian ministries- even got the Irish government to change the law so they could set up a CHRISTAIN school as opposed to a Catholic/Protestant one). As I said above- FAITH is strong and well. What is being rejected is certain organised religions and their role in society. So why blame atheists (and there IS a school of Christian thought that equate atheism with immorality with the decline of church attendence- Lord help us, but as Christians we have to deal with them!) ?
People blame atheists because there is a confusion. The real debate is what PRECISELY is an atheist?
And luckily for us as Christians- they get divided as much as any other religion. The debate within atheist circles is as strong as 'what is a Christian' is amidst ours.
I am in debt to
foxmagic for making me aware of the recently coined term ‘strong atheism’ and ‘weak atheism’- this is on top of terms like irreligionism, antitheism, agnosticism, positive atheism, negative atheism, antireligionism, secularism, humanism, materialism, nontheism, and methodological naturalism (which I just discovered is also known as methodological atheism). There is a healthy and passionate debate taking place within the ranks of atheism- and gradiations of belief and opinion- just like Christianity. What struck me back when I sat over with the 10%'ers and strikes me just now as I sit with the 'true belivers' camp is the fact that there IS such debate.
When I first started arguing an atheist world view many years ago, I found myself at first with fellow atheists and on occsion would find common cause with them. When one would dig deeper however, I found that we usually differed significantly in our views. There was a subjective approch going on... this subjectivity was not the reason I left atheist belief systems behind me later in my life- but it is indicative of something deeper that goes beyond atheism and Christianity.
So- where am I going here?
There is no clear cut and dried definition of atheism- but one can be common sensical and describe it as ‘belief in No God’ and/or ‘veneration of no religion’ (bar itself of course). This does not stop the sometimes silly debates between we Chistians and atheists nor the way they reduce down to name calling. Much of the confusion in dialogue between atheists and Christians is caused by neiother side realising they are debating the same way a Jew and a Muslim would over 'which religion is right'... but another cause is the current state of the world and belief in the world itself
Atheists often see themselves as persecuted by people of faith- dismissed as being immoral, decried as being evil and in some countries still, it’s a belief that is illegal.
They see themselves as being under attack.
Which is often why atheists "come out fighting". (see the post on this list where the clip of Dawkins was posted for examples of this).
Which is why Dawkin is saying what he is saying. He believes atheism and secularisation is under attack by elements of the Christian religion and he is conducting a dsesperate rear-guard defence, preaching the ‘word of No God’ in an attempt to stave off the attacks.
MEANWHILE…
Secularisation presents many churches with a crisis- numbers are falling. Spirituality and ‘alternative faiths’ are growing, but there is a tangible air of 'shock' within Christian communities - the shock of falling numbers, diminishing influence and increased secularisation. Many see religion and their version of faith as being under attack- so they defend themselves. A desperate rear-guard defence, preaching the word of God in an attempt to stave off the attacks.
What both are failing to see is that the reason why atheism is not really growing beyond 20% of any given population, is also the same reason why many of the traditional religions are falling in numbers. Both sides are reacting to an outside third force.
Modernity.
Christianity isn't alone in having serious issues with modernity. Islam has been as well. They have been having this debate for a few years now. Indeed Islam's interaction with modernity is at the heart of most Muslim debates. Christians we see having the debate often- often differing from islamic debates as Christian comments tend to be about symptoms (i.e. changes in public opinions; decline in moral values; advertising; cultural changes) as opposed to the wholistic approch (not ALWAYS the case- just in most cases)
And atheists usually assume modernity is on their side. This assumption is taken on board and accepted by many religious people- leading the identification of modernity with atheism and the need to attack BOTH. But modernity is NOT on atheism's side.
Modernity presents us a complex world view- like Britain I described- we have many nations with a strong religious heritage, and growing secular institutions. We have great big Hegelian inspired concepts- like communism and capitalism; we have increased secularisation- but these have NOT dealt with the NEED for belief that human beings have. Humans NEED religion/faith/belief like they need water and food and love.
(Yes I will back that statement up- but it deserves its own post as it’s a big issue).
Modernity offers us a secular world but does not supply the 'solution' to the need for faith answers- this is why so many years after ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’- God is clearly NOT dead. This is why atheism is still a minority point of view. HOWEVER- modernity is very clearly challenging religion and its impact is vast. Modernity is why religious attendances are down in the traditional religions.
We are finding that the ethos of self-determination and the increase of choice present people with increased means to find personal expression and they are taking it in ways which are confounding both sides in this debate.
My conclusions?
Well I have differant ones for both Christians and atheists.
Christians:
For good or for bad, modernity is challenging traditional organised religions- and in the west Christianity is taking the brunt of it. This makes many Christians get defensive and over-react.
My own personal take is that in terms of Christianity- we are seeing the revenge of the Gnostics. PERSONAL and subjective experiences of God/Jesus grow, while the desire to partake of organised Christian faith is shrinking. Short term- this means that many Christian groups will react with fear and OVER-REACT to this- swinging to the right. With typical foresight the Roman Catholics did this around the turn of the 20th Century. We are seeing it now in America- lets face it- Creationism and Intelligent Design actually has more followers now than they ever did.
A REACTIONARY brand of Christianity.
Long term however- unless modernity is somehow stopped, the figures we saw in the above British survey will become more indicative- more and more will fall into the ‘believe in SOMETHING’ camp and the ‘believe SOME OF THE TIME’ camp AND the ‘believe but have doubts’ camp (which is mostly have doubts about religion not faith) and the idea of a personal God- (God of my ancestors anyone)- will increase.
The Gnostics are not out of this fight yet!
Atheists:
Must be sitting pretty right now, huh?
Nope. Their numbers will not grow.The human need for spirtuality and faith will not go away. They have a future of being the small but vocal minority- the good news is as organised faiths shrink so will the attacks upon them diminish. The bad news is as the over-reaction to modernity grows, so they will face increased attacks in the short/medium term.
Unless of course- someone is able to take modernity by the horns and calm that thing down.
The most interesting inter-faith debates I have seen lately have been the ones where Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindu's all come together to deal WITH modernity. It is in this debate that common ground is most found. Good examples to look at- the massive inter-faith/inter-sectarian appeals from literally hundreds of sects and faiths towards a rejection of violence seen in the aftermath of 9/11. Another more recent example- the joint Muslim/Christian think tank who just published an open letter to local authorities in Britain begging them to stop secularisaing Christimas: that both Christian AND Muslim communities believe it should be proud to be a Christian festival (see also the debate over the 'Faith Zone' in the Milenium Dome built to celebrate the year 2000 wherein two Hindu buisness who were paying for it said they were amazed Britain was not proud to be Christian).
But crucial to the whole religious response to modernity (and especially the Christian reponse to it) is religions relationship with science and to a lesser extent atheisms relationship to science as well).
Science has been identified as the driving factor in modernity (rightly or wrongly- THAT is a seperate debate).
ALL of the above has for various reasons placed science in a place where it is being attacked by certain religious groups. It is also seen as a cause for which certain atheists (such as Dawkins) will begin getting on a sop-box defending it- and defend science by preaching 'strong atheism'.Because lets face it- that IS the reason why Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion'.
SIr Richard Dawkins is the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science from Oxford University. Now before he wrote The God Delusion he was in the front line of the attacks upon science. You’d see him on TV occasionally- defending science from some reactionary statement. He was becoming increasingly exasperated. You could tell. I remember watching him once and a friend of mine said ‘He’s going to snap if he doesn’t quit’. Guess what?
He snapped.
He became radicalised by circumstance. And he has attached science to strong atheism. But DO the two go together?
So yeah- I'll stop here. ANOTHER long and probably self-indulgant post- but this and the one before it were steps needed fopr the next one- which is where we gotta look at the science v religion debate in a new light. because attacking science is NOT helping us deal with the greater "crisis" of the rise of modernity. It's an battle that does not need to happen... and THAT has been said by moderates from both the Christian side and the scientific community AND the atheist side for years now...
Hope I haven't bored y'all!
pax!