In my recent arguments and debates with creationists and arch theists I’ve been repeatedly confronted with the question ‘what if you’re wrong’, when I admit my atheism. Richard Dawkins perhaps puts it better than I ever could:
I’m back. Sorry for the protracted delay, but I’d lost my enjoyment of writing almost entirely for a spell. But I think that’s mostly passed, and I’m feeling more comfortable with what I’m going to write about and why I’m doing it.
I’ve recently had confrontations on Twitter with creationists and other religious extremists and nutjobs, who believe that they are only (in their minds) good people because they are religious. This delightful video has Christopher Hitchins breaking that argument into smithereens:
It’s a wonderful argument, not allowing Christianity (or any monotheistic belief system) take any credit whatsoever for morality, even hinting outright totalitarian intent behind even some of the Ten Commandments. I get incensed when the devout (who have an alarming tendency to behave in discriminatory ways) insist that they are better than others because of their blind belief in hocus pocus. It’s intellectually retarded to suggest morality can only come from religious instruction - I’m sure numerous children who are branded as witches in Christian communities and then abused would agree, as well as all the other victims throughout the ages of religion-incited violence, abuse and murder.
I’m going to try to vary my writing style in the blog from time to time to see what fits with people’s interests and enjoyment levels. More than anything what I’d like is discussion. If you think my argument’s hogwash then say so. If you agree with my viewpoint then add your own please.
Communities Secretary John Denham has argued that religious values are essential in building a progressive society:
“Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril,” he said.
“We should continually seek ways of encouraging and enhancing the contribution faith communities make on the central issues of our time.
“Faith is a strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity – the very values which are essential to politics, to our economy and our society.”
The minister said that the Government needed to be educated by faith groups on “how to inform the rest of society about these issues”.
Last year, the Church of England was highly critical of Labour, with bishops questioning the morality of its policies and accusing it of giving preferential treatment to the Muslim community.
Mr Denham said it was wrong to give special status to minority faiths, such as Islam, and stressed that faiths should not be free from criticism.
“I don’t think you should have special treatment or special favours for any particular faith. I think the treatment, in terms of the ability to have robust debate or criticism of it, should be equal.”
He added that he was sympathetic with religious leaders, such as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had complained of the rise of aggressive secularism in Britain.
“I don’t like the strand of secularism that says that faith is inherently a bad thing to have and should be kept out of public life,” Mr Denham said.
I don’t know who he thinks is making a claim that faith is inherently a bad thing to have. I don’t believe it is – the question is where religion belongs in civil society. And I would maintain until my dying breath that religion doesn’t belong in politics, that it’s toxic to the political process, that informing a process based on reason and evidence by one which is founded on belief and nothing else should be counter-intuitive. It’s monstrous to suggest that the only meaningful sources of honesty, solidarity and generosity are mainstream religions – it gives them social value disproportionate to their real worth.
The National Secular Society is quite right when it complains about unelected people influencing decision-making, but that’s not the heart of the problem here. This is a government which has throughout its life-span undermined the rule of law, attacked evidence-based policy making and made the most dangerous and reckless decisions based entirely on faith. It’s brought our political process to the brink of self-destruction, and aimed more people than ever at the political fringes. Maybe Denham should give that a little thought before he complains about secularism.
Until the apologists for religion are comprehensively shown to be, at best, deluded idiots or at worst manipulative power-mongers, we will never be free from their influence. They must be shown to be emperors with no clothes. You can’t do that by trying to talk to them on their own terms (“let’s have a bit of respect around here – these are deeply held beliefs and any challenged to them is unacceptably offensive”).
The present challengers of theology – Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al – have taken the gloves off. And rightly so, in my opinion. I consider H.L. Mencken had it right when he said: “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.” And Thomas Paine said it even better: “The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”
The National Secular Society reports on serious consequences for a member who ticked the wrong box:
“On Friday 18th September 2009 at 3.45pm I was confronted with a questionnaire which I understand was lawfully pinned to the wall on London Bridge railway station, platforms 1 and 2, inviting members of the public to participate by ticking the appropriate box.
The question, “Does God Exist?”, was very straightforward, and “No” was obviously the correct answer. I was particularly concerned that vulnerable people exposed to the alternative answers of “Yes” and “Probably” were at risk of exploitation by individuals who might attach a set of rules and obligations to those who hope that some super-being will take responsibility for their lives, or intervene in some other way.
I felt the offered answer “Probably”, to be particularly sinister. It was for this reason I chose to engage with the questionnaire and ensure that the correct answer was ticked.
As a result of responding to this questionnaire I was arrested by a plain clothes police officer. Two other plain clothes police officers were in attendance. I was informed that I had been seen ticking the correct answer on CCTV.
As I sat caged in the back of the police van I counted 6 police officers who were attending this incident, which was presented to me as being criminal damage. My tick was entirely within the specified “No” box, and the questionnaire was not damaged in any way.
Interestingly the arresting police officer spent much of his time ticking similar multiple choice boxes on a questionnaire of his own. I understand that I am required to pay an £80 penalty notice fine, or attend court. I am left with little choice but to ask that this matter be dealt with by the court. I await police advice about when and where I should attend.”
Last night the great Richard Dawkins went on the Colbert Report to promote his new book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Enjoy.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c |
| Richard Dawkins | |
© Copyright 2010 | Cosmodaddy | All Rights Reserved
Recent Comments