WHO NEEDS TO BE AN
ATHEIST?
Yesterday I awoke
to the the News that George Carey, an ex-archbishop of
something-or-other, was criticising David Cameron. Good, I thought,
another voice against the evils of this government getting some
coverage. What would he pick on? Just the general theme of the
persistent attack against the most vulnerable in society, exemplified
by the massive wave of unjust welfare cuts about to be implemented
next week? Or something more specific? The bedroom tax? The
destruction of the NHS in England? The war being waged against
disabled people? The proliferation of food banks? There are so many
to choose from.
And which of this
raft of defenceless targets did he seek to protect? Christians.
Because they are a "persecuted minority". Said the man
with a protected seat in the state legislature (along with a bunch of
his colleagues) during the bank holiday weekend given over to a
religious festival. I've forgotten which religion that is, but maybe
George could remind me? This is a group so persecuted that the head
of state is also head of their organisation, has it's own shows on
the BBC and is able to indoctrinate thousands of children through the
medium of the oxymoronic 'faith schools'. I could go on....
I'm sure various
churches do a lot of good work helping their communities. But many
christian organisations, notably the Church of England, have ongoing
problems with misogyny and homophobia. If they really were being
'persecuted' then maybe they should look in the mirror first and see
if the reasons lie within. Should Mr Carey want to learn what it's
really like to be part of a downtrodden minority, in this case one
that he himself has contributed to oppressing, he might want to start
with this article published on the same day his whinging was
reported.
That's
what persecution looks like George.
How many religions
are there in the world? I saw a figure of around 4,500 and, although
I've no way of checking if that's anywhere near correct or not, it
does sound plausible. I know of no human society which didn't come
up with some form of supernatural belief system as it developed. The
moon, the sun, forests, mountains and rivers. Gods as animals, gods
as humans, families of gods, single gods. Heavens, hells,
reincarnation, eternal spirits. There are and have been so many
variations and combinations of things people will set their stall by.
What does this tell us? Whilst acknowledging that a proper answer
to that question could fill a book, I can see two basic alternatives.
Either there is some kind of supernatural force out there, and all
these variations reflect human efforts to understand that fact from
within their own social contexts. Or it demonstrates a fundamental
need of homo sapiens to find explanations for the world around them.
If the data isn't available then making something up will do.
Stories are in our DNA.
If the former were
true there is one thing missing. I'm not aware of a single belief
system which sprang up, spontaneously, in more than one geographic
location. Many have spread from a single starting point (often
through military and/or political conquest, but that's another
story....) and are now considered 'major' religions. If any of these
were objectively 'true' I would have expected that their development
could have taken place without that kind of external assistance. So
at best it seems we can say they are all equally misguided.
Other forms of
supernatural belief have come and (largely) gone. There was a time
when most people in this country would have sworn to the very real
existence of witches. There are still some societies where those
beliefs remain mainstream and we saw how horrendous the implications
can be in a case here last year.
How many people in
twenty first century Britain would say they believed in witches? Far
fewer than 1% I'm sure. Does that make the rest of us awitchist?
No, because we don't choose to define ourselves through our disbelief
in something which was quite clearly made up in the first place. You
won't find people calling themselves afairyists or asantaists, will
you? So why do we need the word atheist? Isn't about time it
disappeared and was replaced by ..... I don't know, how about
'rational'?
So no George, there
is no such thing as 'aggressive secularism' (it does sound a bit like
people have taken to punching vicars, doesn't it?). There is simply
the tide of history and the advancement of knowledge over ignorance.
As science becomes better and better able to explain the world around
us and the workings of the human body, so there is less and less need
for supernatural explanations. This is not the same as saying that
we no longer require our myths and stories, and religions can provide
a part of that. But they should no longer be allowed to dominate and
influence government in the ways they have in the past.
Far from being
persecuted it's about time the church was disestablished and lost its
state funding. Stop trying to fight a rearguard action and accept
that you must adapt to a new, more secular world. Giles Fraser, one
of your own, has it right, as he showed in this BBC interview recorded in response to Carey's statement.
So let's get rid of
the 'atheists'. If religious people want to have their own labels
then that's fine by me. Just so long as they can begin to accept
that we are the default. We're what's 'normal' nowadays.
FOOTNOTE Having
written the above I then read at item showing that some churches are making a stand on the important issues, a reminder that, even by christian standards, George Carey may just
be the teensiest bit out of touch.....
