Religion as a conversation stopper

Others (more informed and eloquent than I) have already commented on the recent hoo-hah about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

(This, for example, is particularly good. As is most of the stuff here).

To be honest, I've been unable to work up much annoyance about the whole thing because a) some religious figure or other kicking up a fuss at Easter was inevitable and b) I think that MPs should be able to vote with their conscience on all issues.

What I will add, however, is that the whole thing illustrates the problem with bringing religion into political debates perfectly. The title of this post is that of an essay by Richard Rorty in 'Philosophy and Social Hope', in which he argues that bringing religion into the political sphere is to be discouraged because to say that “My God disapproves of X” is to say no more than “I dislike X”. When pushed upon the issue, the religious can only retreat to a “divine sense” that is inaccessible to the rest of us mere mortals.

It is an end to the conversation rather than a contribution to it.

Priorities

February 12th is Charles Darwin Day.

I won't be celebrating.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of the man himself. As scientific figures go he's quite impressive, and his contribution to modern evolutionary theory, and therefore how we see our place in the universe, is remarkable.

The idea of Darwin Day is to establish a sort of secular equivalent to the various Saint's days we have. But surely, given that science is supposed to be about ideas rather than people, it's the work that should be celebrated rather than the person? Why not 'Origin the Species' Day (24th November) – celebrating the advance in scientific thinking symbolised by the book? The same goes for Richard Dawkins' suggestion that atheists celebrate Newton's birthday (4th January) instead of that of Jesus. While doing so would make far more sense for a non-Christian (at least one interested in science and what it's given us), celebrating the publication of something like the 'Principia Mathematica' (5th July) would make even more.

While I respect the likes of Newton and Darwin, it's ultimately their contribution to our understanding of the universe that's important.

A way forward?

In my recent 'Atheists of the world...' post, I made the – fairly obvious - point that atheists and theists need not be on completely opposite sides of the fence and may even be able to work together on a number of important issues.

As a number of theist and atheist groups are (unnecessarily) sectarian in their approach, it's always nice to find groups which aim to bring people of differing views together. Cassilis has highlighted such a group on his own blog: The Unitarian Universalists.

He quotes from British UU Jim Corrigall, writing in the New Statesman:

"Today Unitarianism is best described as a liberal, non-dogmatic faith, open to the insights and wisdom of all the world’s religions and to the rich heritage of the arts, sciences and humanities. We do not demand that people wishing to join us should subscribe to any creed or dogma. Ours is a very ‘broad church’. We are proud to have as members those who describe themselves as liberal and radical Christians; as humanists and agnostics; as well as Buddhists and liberal Jews, Muslims and Hindus. We also have followers of earth-centred spirituality, and members of no specific faith who find in community their highest aspirations"

The group's Wikipedia page shows that its US contingent breaks down roughly as:

• Humanist - 54%
• Agnostic - 33%
• Earth-centered - 31%
• Atheist - 18%
• Buddhist - 16.5%
• Christian - 13.1%
• Pagan - 13.1%

While the UU may not be for everyone, it certainly looks like the kid of organisation that those interested in secularism should be encouraging. Not only is it likely to inspire its members to learn more about other faiths and viewpoints, but in doing so it's going to decrease friction between these different sections of society and therefore open to the way to productive dialogue.

The fruits of this diversity can be seen in the history of the group:

Unitarian Universalists have often been active in political causes, notably the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the social justice movement, and the feminist movement. In the 19th century, Unitarians and Universalists were active in abolitionism, the women's movement, the temperance movement and other social reform movements.

I'm not going to rush out and become a UU myself, but do I think it provides a pretty good model for other secular groups to build upon: It tries to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, it insists on individual liberty in matters of religion and it promotes the questioning of our beliefs - what more could you ask for?

http://www.unitarian.org.uk

Atheists of the world...

It should come as no surprise to most of the people who read this blog (all two of you) that I'm an atheist.

I believe that naturalistic accounts explain the universe better than theological ones. I believe that most of the arguments put forward for the existence of Gods (and the supernatural in general) are flawed and unconvincing. And I believe that a belief should stand or fall on the amount of cogent evidence that supports it. Assertion and intuition rarely convince anyone.

However, I'm not sure that the attempts to create organisations around atheism are that desirable. The term simply denotes a lack of theistic beliefs – within that category you get naturalism, scientism, humanism, agnosticism, objectivism, nihilism, etc. all of which look at the universe in quite different ways.

Stand me next to another atheist and – beyond the absence of religious beliefs – there's no guarantee that we'll have any values or outlooks in common. In fact, I find some atheists misguided, even repugnant in some of their views.

Just as I believe that religious moderates need to organise against the extremists in their midsts, non-theists need to promote the values at the heart of their worldview – my agnosticism, humanism, naturalism and rationalism define who I am far more than my views on the supernatural. Indeed, there are even theists who are closer to my views than some atheists. Which is why I don't display the attempts at an atheist symbol (no matter how snazzy they might look). Atheism isn't a value – it's an absence. Rather than defining ourselves by what we're against, we need to define ourselves by what we're for.

Viewing Faith Through an Atheist's Eyes

This is the third in what I like to think of as the unholy trinity of books on religion which I've been reading. 'I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith Through an Atheist's Eyes' by Hemant Mehta is perhaps the most interesting of the three.

I've often wondered (well... maybe not “often”) which book I'd choose if I could recommend only one to religious believers. This is perhaps it. I'd probably recommend it to a lot of atheists as well.

It's a personal account by Mehta, an atheist, of his upbringing (as a Jainist) and his experiment of visiting a number of Christian churches in order to gain a better understanding of America's main religion. Mehta became an atheist at fourteen and went on to be heavily involved in organising secular groups at university. His daily contact with Christian groups stoked his curiosity about the religion, leading to the idea of – as it quickly became know – putting his “soul” on eBay. What this meant in reality was agreeing to attend one church service for every $10 of the winning bid, with the bidder picking the church.

As he explains it:

But at the age of twenty-two, while I was still confident in my nonbelief, I realised that I had never been to a Christian worship service... or a Muslim service... or any other non-Jain religious service for that matter. In the interest of seeing what else was out there I felt compelled to attend religious services. I didn't want others to question the basis of my nonbelief: “You're an atheist only because you don't know what Christianity is all about!”

Some national press coverage later, the winning bid was $504 by Jim Henderson a former minister and author of Christian books. He decided that it would be best if Mehta attended a range of Christian churches across the country, writing up a review of each for Henderson's website – thereby giving Christians the chance to see how they were perceived by outsiders. These reviews have been expanded, and alongside Mehta's description of his atheism form the bulk of the book.

As such, 'How I Sold My Soul on eBay' is really targeted at theists – specially mainstream American Christians, but I think that anyone interested in religion (from a secular or believer perspective) will find something useful in it. His account of growing up in a Jainist household, becoming an atheist and his subsequent activities in what I'd call the “secular community” show not only what it means to be an atheist but also how the relationship between the religious and non-religious need not be an antagonistic one. As he points out a number of times in the book, while there may be a number of disagreements (some of them perhaps unsolvable) there are also a large number of commonalities: most of us want to make the world a better place, and we tend to agree on the basics of what that involves. Expanding democracy and eliminating poverty, to take just two examples, are issues on which many theists and atheists agree.

All co-operation requires is respect for each other – no more dismissing the “other side” as stupid or evil.

Throughout, Mehta lives up to the name of his current blog: The Friendly Atheist. In a stark contrast to the likes of Hitchens, he remains respectful towards those around him, though this doesn't mean he spares them from criticism and questioning. His goal is to understand the world better, keeping an open mind at all times and refusing to dismiss beliefs and ideas out of hand. As he explains in the book, if Christianity provided the answers to the questions he has then he'd gladly become a Christian. (I hope I'm not spoiling the ending of the book if I point out that it doesn't).

For me, this book provided a thought-provoking glimpse of Christianity in the US. It also left me feeling a little more optimistic about the state of the world than when I picked it up.

The Case Against Religion

I've just finished reading 'God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion' by Christopher Hitchens.

I've generally avoided the recent wave of antitheist books as I'm not quite sure what they have to offer me. I hope I don't appear immodest when I say that I doubt the likes of Dawkins, etc. can add anything to my disbelief. I already know most of the arguments for the divine, and I've read some of the extremely insightful and eloquent critiques of them (of which more later).

The reason I decided to pick up this book is simply that I'm a fan of Hitchens writing, even on the occasions when I disagree with his position (such as the invasion of Iraq).

On that level the book lived up to my expectations. Like him or not, Hitchens is probably one of the most interesting writers of our time: incredibly eloquent and with an insight into the world gleamed from both arduous study – of literature, science and history – and first-hand experience from such diverse places as North Korea, Bosnia and India. I tore through this book in a matter of days and while most of it simply told me what I already knew there were still some interesting nuggets of information to be found. I wasn't aware, for example, that the concept of zero had been considered heretical by the papacy in the Middle Ages. Nor that the term “Big Bang” was originally intended to ridicule the event it's supposed to describe.

The main thesis of the book – that religion can be an intensely destructive force - is also extremely well argued: highlighting the way religious claims have been used as justification for savagery and genocide in the past and the way they continue to spread fear and suffering in the present. The churches and their flocks have stood in the way of scientific advances from trying to stamp out the wisdom of the Greeks through opposing the theories of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin and onto the spreading of disease and misery through opposition to contraceptives and certain life-saving vaccines in the modern day.

No-one with an open mind can come away from this book without regarding our numerous religions as – at best – a mixed blessing. However, it falls far short from demonstrating its central claim: that religion poisons everything.

It's this reaching too far that ultimately undermines the book and makes it an interesting rather than great read. I would think that any liberal religious believer reading it would be left with an awareness of how careful we have to be not to slip into dogmatism and authoritarianism, but I doubt that their religious belief would be significantly shaken.

This, for me, is one of the ironies about the alleged new wave of “militant atheism”: while criticised for their attacks against the idea of the divine, their arguments actually lack the weight of past figures such as David Hume, Tom Paine or Bertrand Russell. In terms of deconstructing religious arguments Hitchens has nothing on Hume or Russell. Nor in his detestation of religion does he match the passion and forensic approach of Paine.

Anyone looking to tackle the arguments of devout believers would gain far more from reading the essays of Bertrand Russell, Hume's 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', Paine's 'Age of Reason' or even A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'.

Anyone looking for a cracking read will find 'God is Not Great' well worth their time.

Not just the language which separates us

The Friendly Atheist is normally a pretty interesting read, but a couple of recent posts, showing the difference in attitudes between here and the US, have really stood out:

How Long Does the Deconversion Take?
Sowing the Seeds of Faith by Cutting Down the Neighbors' Plant

Kinda makes me glad I live in a country where people generally don't care what your religious views are.

Remember kids: too much ideology is bad for you!

atheism vs. religion / liberty vs. authoritarianism

A. C. Grayling in New Humanist:

[20th-century totalitarianisms] were counter-Enlightenment projects because they rejected the idea of pluralism and its concomitant liberties of thought and the person, and in the time-honoured unEnlightened way forcibly demanded submission to a monolithic ideal. They even used the forms and techniques of religion, from the notion of thought-crime to the embalming of saints in mausoleums (Lenin and Mao, like any number of saints and their relics, invite pilgrimage to their glass cases). Totalitarianism is not about progress but stasis; it is not about realising a golden age but coercively sustaining the myth of one. This indeed is the lineament of religion: it is the opposite of secular progressivism.

I think Grayling's more or less right here - I've long thought that political and religious extremism are united by far more than what separates them. It's just unfortunate that by framing the debate in terms of atheism/Enlightenment vs. religion rather than the more accurate liberty vs. authoritarianism he's (along with the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) alienating a lot of potential allies and supporters (religious and otherwise).

Why are atheists moral?

It’s a question which gets asked with a depressing frequency on theist blogs. The following is a comment by Alex, but it expresses a worry which seems to be felt by a number of religious believers:

My natural impulses strongly urge me to do things that most any reasonable person would admit is immoral. My immoral urges are often much stronger than what I know to be the moral action. I have the ability to choose which option I go with. I use reason to play out the scenarios of both choices before I act. If I am able to reason that I could go with the "immoral" impulse (that is much stronger) and get away with it, is there anything that should stop me from pursuing this end?

I to – being human – have a number of “immoral” urges. So why don’t I act on them? Hmmm… perhaps because doing so would more than likely leave me friendless, jobless, hunted by the police and wracked by guilt at the misery I’d caused.

At what point does that become attractive?

Immoral acts – i.e. acts which cause pain and/or suffering to others – are attractive only to psychopaths. The rest of us, regardless of our metaphysical beliefs, have plenty of good reasons – internal and external – for avoiding them.

Angry atheists: doing more harm than good

Atheists have got something of a bad rep at the moment.

Before I launch into why I think that is, I want to make one thing clear: When I talk about being an atheist, or even a humanist, I carefully and purposely deal only in the lower case. The reason for this is simply that I consider these views to be attributes of who I am rather than defining characteristics. I’m an atheist in the sense that my view of life requires no divine presence, and a humanist in the sense that I believe individual compassion and reason to be the best guides to how to live.

While atheists have never been overly popular, there’s an increasing tendency to characterise them as intolerant, bigoted, ignorant and “fundamentalist” – with the likes of Richard Dawkins at the forefront of an attempt to wipe religion from the face of the planet, through any means necessary.

I want to quickly deal with the “fundamentalist” tag first. The attempt to suggest some kind of equivalence between the likes of Dawkins and religious fundamentalists – those who adhere rigidly to central dogma - is profoundly flawed. Evolutionary theory, or “Darwinism” as some like to call it, is – as with all scientific theories – is under a constant process of revision and alteration in light of increasing evidence. To see this you need only compare the version of evolution presented in Darwin’s work with that presented in that of Dawkins. The attempt by some to suggest an equivalence between the likes of Dawkins and religious extremists – such as the Taliban – is even more preposterous, as though oppression and violence can be compared to writing angry books. The term “Atheist Fundamentalist” cannot be defended on any real grounds.

On the question of intolerance, people may have a point.

The attempts by religious organisations to restrict the freedom of others must be resisted. Groups such as the National Secular Society do an invaluable job in opposing unfair and undemocratic religious privileges, such as compulsory worship in education, faith schools funded with tax payer’s money, state support for the Church of England, etc. The entwining of church of state is an anachronism that should be unpicked – if religion is to flourish in this country, then it must stand on its own feet and not rely on the support of those who don’t share its views. This is not intolerance, it’s standing up for the principles of liberal democracy.

Secularism, however, has itself become entwined with crude anti-theism. Instead of viewing it as synonymous with religious freedom, the right of every individual to determine their religious views freely, many – including those at the head of organisations such as the NSS – use it as an opportunity to insult and attack religious belief simply for its own sake. We’re told that it’s a virus, a dangerous remnant of our primitive past, a matter only of indoctrination and oppression that only the gullible could believe in and that should be eradicated from society.

What worries me about this are two things:

First, that by adopting this anti-theistic tone secular movements are alienating a considerable number of vital allies: Liberal religious believers – those who regard faith as something which is personal and which must be arrived at freely. These people, by advocating that belief and tolerance sit side-by-side can do far more to stem the tide of extremism than we atheists can do.

Second, that the hostile tone adopted considerably weakens the arguments being made. Whatever you believe, starting off by telling those you want to convince that they’re dangerous idiots is not the way to go about things. It simply hardens people against you – as can be seen by the responses to columns written by the likes of Terry Sanderson or A. C. Grayling in the Guardian and elsewhere. They’re merely preaching to the choir, and are unlikely to have changed any minds by it. Instead, they merely reinforce the negative stereotype of atheism which dominates in the media and public mind.

What I want to see is a more positive take on atheism presented by these highly intelligent and erudite people. Arguably, far more people are likely to be won over through reading ‘The Selfish Gene’ than ‘The God Delusion’, as it puts forward an explanation of naturalism free from tirades against other belief systems. When dealing with the subject of religion itself, my own experiences have shown that showing a degree of respect for other people's heart-felt beliefs ultimately leads to far more productive debate than insults.

Reasoned, measured and polite debate is the best way forward. Once the likes of Dawkins realise that the future will be a lot brighter for us atheists.

Elsewhere

Religion can be democratic:

For the record, the fact that many Christians see it as our goal to influence culture ("be salt and light" in our lingo) does not automatically mean that we seek to impose our vision through government oppression. A healthy democracy supports many people's visions of the good, even visions that are held in absolute conviction. This is true of religious and secular perspectives alike. It is in the church's best interest to uphold such a pluralistic society, in order to let the gospel flourish and be freely accepted by those who need to hear it.

(From 'Some Strange Ideas')

Atheists can be suicide-bombers:

In his own studies, [Scott Atram] reports that the greatest predictors of suicide bombings is not religion but group dynamics. A group of people get together, they eat the same foods, they dress they same, and they become ‘fictitious kin’ – blood brothers, as it were. They are willing to die for each other.

(From 'Atheist Ethicist')

And Julian Baggini thinks that Richard Rorty is to blame for all our problems:

Unless we can make a convincing case that the choice is not between relativism or dogmatism, more and more people will reject the former and embrace the latter. When they do, those who helped create the impression that modern, secular rationality leaves everything up for grabs in the marketplace of belief will have to take their share of the blame.

(From 'Comment is Free')

Going in the right direction

The Atheist Ethicist blog has a great post on the idea that atheists are less charitable than religious believers:

There is a reason why atheists do not build hospitals or engage in charity in the name of atheism. It is because atheism is not an organized religion. An atheist does not make a contribution in the name of 'no god'. He makes a contribution . . . period.

For example, two leading atheist billionaires - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - have contributed $60 billion in private charity. This is more than all of the top 50 Christian billionaires combined. Yet, nowhere in their charitable work will you see the word 'atheist'. This is because atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply a belief that, because there is no God to take care of us, we must take care of each other.

The only thing I'd change in this quote is the "Atheism is simply..." bit. Atheism is not, in itself, a set of beliefs, but rather denotes a number of positions ranging from nihilism at one end to humanism at the other - and it's the latter that lays claim to being "a belief that, because there is no God to take care of us, we must take care of each other."

Aside from that, however, the post is a good example of standing up for atheism without resorting to crude attacks on the other person's religious beliefs.

Still heading in the wrong direction

I realise that the last thing the world needs right now is another piece on atheism vs. religion, but I need something to get me back into this blogging malarkey and it might as well be this.

Westminster Central Hall recently played host to a debate on that very subject, fielding an impressive line-up of anti-theists making their case against religion. Although I haven’t had the chance to listen to the podcasts of the events yet, the snippets I’ve read/heard don’t suggest that the likes of Dawkins, Grayling and Hitchens had anything new to say on the matter. It was, it seems, ‘the God Delusion’ on stage.

As I’ve pointed out before, I’m an atheist (though not an anti-theist – I don’t have any religious beliefs, but I don’t hate them). The idea of having to go up against the intelligence and erudition of those three speakers would terrify me, and I have the greatest respect for their writing abilities. However, by going for polemic over intelligent criticism I think they’re backing the wrong horse and actually doing the ‘cause’ of atheism a grave disservice.

There seems to be a common misconception that the way to prove yourself right is simply to prove your opponent wrong. This is the approach often adopted by Dawkins and co. when it comes to religion.

In my opinion though, the best way of winning people round to your side is to make the best defence possible of your position and then allow others to make up their own minds. Books such as the ‘The Selfish Gene’ probably do more to erode the more dogmatic strain of religious thought than a whole army of ‘The God Delusion’ books could. In the same way, if Grayling managed to unentwine his passionate advocation of humanism from his (rather lazy) attacks on religion his arguments would seem all the more persuading. Hitchens, as an essayist, falls more into the critic rather than advocate camp, but his arguments would have far more weight if he stopped allowing his dislike of religion to get in the way and returned to writing pieces with the restraint of ‘The Future of an Illusion’.

This is what I want to hear from these people – not why religion is stupid, but why it is unnecessary.

The National Secular Society is heading in the wrong direction

Apologies for the lack of blogging to the people that missed me. Apologies for starting again to the people who didn't.

I have somewhere a letter asking me to renew my membership of the National Secular Society. The reasons I'm in two minds about doing so are nicely summed up over at Pickled Politics.

What is the point of involving the NSS in a debate about keeping religion out of state control if what they really want is something else? Terry Sanderson and the NSS not only misunderstand religion, they hate it. They should call themselves the National Atheists Society instead of getting confused and annoying those who want to bring about real change.

For me, the only type of secularism worth supporting is that which is synonymous with freedom of religion - the idea that the government has no right to interfere with the freedom of religious organisations, except where those organisations interfere with the freedom of the individual.

The NSS has done a lot of good in this direction, campaigning against compulsory worship in schools and against the EU declaring itself a Christian organisation. But, until it accepts the right of the individual to their religious beliefs and abandons its anti-theist tone, it's hard to see any real progress being made in the long run.

More on freedom of religion

As I pointed out in my post on Stewart Lee's 'Think Humanist' contribution, there's no reason that liberal atheists and liberal theists shouldn't work together on the issue of freedom of religious belief.

James, of Nourishing Obscurity, makes the theist case:

The separation of state and religion should be sacrosanct. There is no place for any religion to be aggressively and temporally enforced. Religion is a personal belief. That’s all. Better one person who truly believes than a billion who are coerced;

There's more. Read it - you know you want to.

Freedom of religion

‘Think Humanist’ follows up its inaugural thought from A. C. Grayling with one on religious education from Stewart Lee, whom I imagine that most people will know from the extremely controversial ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’ – though he’s also a (pretty good) comedian in his own right.

Lee is a great choice: thanks to the JS:TO he has a reputation as one of these secular/atheistic fundamentalists we occasionally hear so much about. He’s often portrayed an anti-theist with nothing better to do than mock the beliefs of the faithful. Yet his ‘Think Humanist’ piece is remarkably even-handed and open-minded:

Believers say religious stories survive because they are literally true, but even rationalists accept that religious tales, myths and folk-stories, while not always actually true, can be true in terms of what they tell us about human experience. As rationalists, we should be careful, in trying to block religious education in its most pernicious forms, that we do not prevent young people from accessing a treasure trove of invaluable material.

He goes on to suggest that we should actually expand religious education to include “the folk-tales and ancient stories of all religions and pantheos of Gods alongside each other, without ever addressing the argument of their literal truth.” In other words: we should make children aware of what’s out there and leave them to make up their own minds what’s true and what’s not.

In the current climate, it’s often overlooked that ‘Freedom of Religion’ means not only the freedom of religious groups to practice their beliefs, but also the freedom of the individual to make an informed choice about which religious group (if any) they belong to. That – in my opinion – is one of the core concepts of (small-h) humanism: allowing individuals to make informed choices about how they live their lives. On this issue, I see no reason why liberal atheists, agnostics and religious believers shouldn’t work together against those seeking to impose a more restrictive and intolerant ideology onto the rest of us.

(Speaking of intolerance, guess who’s back in the news: "I don't believe in religions. I think all religions are fairy tales, I think they are evil and I don't think Islam is one of the better ones.”)

Humanist Though for the Day

The Humanist Society of Scotland has drawn together a range of interesting and entertaining voices for their new 'Think Humanist' feature - an irreligious 'Thought for the Day'.

First up is A. C. Grayling with a short piece on tolerance. It's all pretty sound stuff, though it doesn't say anything particularly new. However, I do think that his take on the rise of extremist groups in Europe - he uses the Netherlands as an example - is a little too simplistic.

What was one of the most inclusive and welcoming societies in Europe has been stabbed in the heart by people it sheltered and who have grown into intolerant activists wishing to impose conformity and censorship on others by violence.

To an extent that's certainly true. It's not the whole story though. More often than not we see a cycle of conflict developing in which both "sides" are at fault: the presence of extremist groups tends to expose the uglier side of the native population (expressed through xenophobia, etc.) and generally leads to repressive legislation, both of which end up fueling extremism.

(To be fair: Grayling has spoken out against repressive measures elsewhere)

Dealing with intolerance, no matter how it manifests itself, is undoubtedly an important task. But, perhaps most importantly, it's going to involve an examination of our own attitudes and behaviour as well.

Parental control

The discrimination row continues to rumble along, with news that both Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly are keen to exempt Catholic groups from the new anti-discrimination laws, allowing them to prevent gay couples from adopting. Groups such as the Church of England are eager to present this as a matter of principle – however, as is often the case, I think pragmatism might be more useful for finding a solution.

Should adoption agencies be able to choose who they allow to adopt?

No. Quite simply.

But birth parents should.

When giving up the child to the adoption service, birth parents should be allowed to make certain specifications about who they want their child to be adopted by. This will inevitably lead to discrimination. For example, were I ever in that situation, I’d want my child to go to a non-religious, humanist couple, as they’d hopefully raise him or her in accordance to my basic principles. Some people wouldn’t want their child raised by a gay couple, or be placed with a family of different race, etc. However, this is one area where I think the wishes of the birth parents must outweigh political or social considerations.

Framing this in religious terms is not only pointlessly divisive, but misses the heart of the issue – who should decide what’s best for the children in question.

It's the way you tell 'em

There’s an interesting piece by Francis Sedgemore up on CiF.

For those of you who don’t follow the online soap-opera that is the Guardian’s Comment is Free, allow me to recap:

A number of religious groups decided to protest against new anti-discrimination laws, this led to some extremely critical comment pieces by the likes of Polly Toynbee and AC Grayling, which in turn led Dave Hill to criticise their criticism, which has in turn led to criticism of this criticism of criticism by Grayling and now Francis.

For what it's worth, I'm with Dave in that the conflating of religious moderates and extremists is the wrong way forward on the issue of toleration and risks alienating potentially useful allies. There's also quite a sneering tone to Grayling's second piece which risks distracting people from the quite valid points he goes on to make.

The Trouble with Rod Liddle

There are, generally speaking, two ways of approaching an argument. The first is to assume that your “opponent” is arguing in good faith and to take their ideas seriously. Such an approach is, even if I do say so myself, the one we’ve tried to adopt over at Alex’s blog. The second is to exaggerate your “opponents” arguments in an attempt to make them seem extreme, thereby allowing you to knock down relative straw man with ease. This was the approach adopted by Rod Liddle in his Channel 4 programme, “The Trouble with Atheism”.

Liddle came across as so closed-minded, ill-informed and (to use his favourite phrase) arrogant, that it’s hard to know where to begin complaining. His central thesis was that most atheists are so certain about their views that they become as shrill and intolerant as their religious counterparts. Now, while this is almost certainly true about a section of the atheistic community (as much as one can be said to exist), the programme, despite Liddle's insistence to the contrary, failed to demonstrate that this is more than a minority view. Most of the people he interviewed (four of five at most) would probably fall into the “Bright” category – which represents only a subsection of atheists. For most people, the defining quality of atheism is not certainty of the non-existence of divine beings, but an intense scepticism towards the idea. This was a viewpoint that was largely absent from the programme.

His characterisation of atheism was also woefully ignorant to the point of being fairly ridiculous. Most atheists see science as currently the most valuable tool for understanding the universe, not as an infallible guide to life (something that becomes apparent from reading just the first few chapters of a book like ‘The Selfish Gene’). No-one believes that Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’ holds all the answers. Nor does the idea of punctured equilibrium threaten to wipe away the theory of mutation and natural selection – as Liddle laughably suggests. Most atheists do not believe that a society built purely around science and reason would be utopian.

The idea that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were “atheist regimes” is a tired, ill-informed cliché, trotted out in a desperate tu quoque line of argument – they were nationalistic Fascist and State Communist regimes respectively, which, as with many highly ideological regimes, pursued a vicious anti-theistic programme to stamp out any challenge to their authority from the churches. Nor where they rational, as Liddle suggested, in anyway. In fact, given their slavish adherence to flawed concepts, they were profoundly irrational in many respects.

Finally (though I’m sure I’ve left some stuff out), Liddle makes the common mistake of conflating secularism with atheism (or, in this case, anti-theism) in order to portray it as the first step towards an authoritarian nightmare which only religion (in it’s most basic sense) can prevent.

So what do atheists believe? We believe – like a good 99% of the population – that combining empirical evidence and induction is the best way to make decisions, and that, based on this, the evidence for God is severely lacking. Where you go from this is entirely up to the individual.