Let's get rid of the Atheists

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.....