leyton.org

Ah, the old chestnuts of Religion and Politics. Don’t ever bring them up in the pub, so the saying goes. The reason is you’re probably going to upset, annoy or become enemies-for-life with your former friends and drinking buddies, and that’s no way to behave. In a pub of all places.

Personally, I’m all for a bit more discussion about politics – there’s just not enough talking about the subject, and lets face it football and rugby do get a bit boring after a while. We’re also becoming too reliant on newspapers for our opinions. For me, argumentative atheist that I am (or at least like to think I am), there’s just not enough talking about religion. That old chestnut of ‘proof’ and ‘no self-referential arguments’ is a simple request on my part, but I’m yet to get much more than that that when religion comes up in conversation. I fear, however, that many friends are well versed with my view point and have developed subtle tactics to change the subject (”Isn’t Vista great”, or “I’m thinking of getting an iMac”, or “look at my new phone), or at least haven’t visited this website and/or we’ve not seen each other in ages, so we have plenty of other stuff to go on about…

But I digress. If ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ are considered inappropriate for pub conversation, how come religion and politics are considered appropriate for mixing in our second, revising, chamber of parliament? Our beloved government has today unveiled their proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. In itself a good thing, but the glaring horrendous exemption is that bishops from the Church of England are to keep their seats.

So much for this country being secular in it’s central establishments.

So much for this country being fully democratic in it’s central establishments.

Just so it’s clear, I’ve no problem with men or women running around on Sunday morning wearing silly outfits and even sillier hats, muttering to themselves and a few others about imaginary friends. What folk do in their own time is their business. I just get upset when they start trying to get special treatment, seek exemption from laws and to (try and) push their strange views of the world on others, in particular me, or the vulnerable, or trusting. Like children, in schools, with state money.

But when it comes to the religious professional getting involved in politics, I get rather concerned. So much so in fact, I start coming up with very very simple requests: That if you espouse to speak on behalf of people in our democratic establishments, you demonstrate that by seeking election. Some bright spark many years ago realised that quite a few people seek to speak on behalf of many other people, and that a great way of filtering out the genuine was to ask everybody to say who they wanted to speak on their behalf. Voila! Democracy.

So, by that simple argument and – dare I suggest – egalitarian approach – we get a representative democracy in which views can be expressed fairly. So on that note it’s fair to say I want a fully elected second house. The religious should feel free to apply, and I’d welcome their voice in parliamentary debates if they had such a mandate. Anything less – especially of one particular religion getting preferential treatment over others – is really asking for trouble, either to charges of illegitimacy, corruption, protected interests, or favouritism. As it is, with the Bishops and their silly hats and ermine gowns ensconced in our democracy every other religion will demand equal treatment, and then I fear we’d have no room left for anybody who actually has a democratic mandate!

It’s simple: They all get equal treatment, and – if you actually do “represent” a large enough body of people – you really shouldn’t have trouble getting in. Right?

I watched the ‘Atheist’ episode of Morgan Spurlock’s “30 days” on more4 last night. By far the most impressive thing about the programme was the incredible resolve and determination of Brenda throughout. The main thrust of the programme was almost lost to me as I looked at the variety of expressions on her face, and felt for her throughout her experiences (attending church/bible groups and so forth). I’ve sort of been there myself (years ago at University), when out of curiosity, I was invited to attend a christian union get together. Try an evangelical wedding too, with all the hand waving. OK, not quite the 30 day immersive experience, but it’s very strange and very awkward trying not to appear rude.

Brenda seemed to have most difficulty with the host husband. He struck me as having a great deal of difficulty accepting that it is perfectly possible to live your life without requiring belief in the supernatural. A complete mental block on the idea (or even basic hypothetical situations regarding words on a dollar note), and some very defensive body language, and what seemed overly concerned expressions as his wife demonstrated a much more open-minded attitude towards Brenda and her opinions/experiences.

I also came across a page with some behind-the-scenes comments following on from a talk she gave, including clarifying comments from Brenda herself which lays out the reasons for some of the tension the programme reflected (as well as some interesting exclusions). Well worth a read, along with the initial review.

It was certainly an interesting, if slightly flawed, programme, but raises the profile of an issue that put’s the problems here in the UK into perspective (certainly if Rod Liddle is anything to go by).

But what a stalwart Brenda proved to be, for atheists in the US, and everywhere else. Congratulations, from one atheist to another

I’m pleased to say that shardcore’s seasonal card, which arrived yesterday, was every bit as good as I’d hoped it would be. A cephalopod messiah is born, with a congregation of primates on hand as witness. It’s up on his website now for all to savour.

Marvellous. Make of it what you will. As last year (cockroaches were involved), I’m sure it’ll be the subject of card-rearrangement battles in the weeks to come between Frances and I…. But I know I very much like it, for it’s novelty, effort and (hopefully) a bit of provocation and, perhaps, thought.

Rod Liddle’s programme “The trouble with atheism” (my preview here) was a rather disappointing ramble that didn’t impress me particularly. But then I didn’t expect to be impressed in the first place, so no harm done, eh? But it did highlight some of the unnecessary and sometimes unpleasant smugness associated with some public atheists (but scientists, as they often are, don’t strike me as media-savvy or ’slick’ presenters), but it was through the filter of somebody seeking to present a case, and a bit of selective editing can do wonders.

I was reminded a little of some attempts, whilst at University, to complete computing assignments. Faced with several at the same time, I was unable to put all the up-front work in to some of the assignments I required. So I’d turn it about face, and program the solution, then retro-fit the design around it. That was a little how I felt with Liddles’ programme: He had a conclusion he wanted to make: “What’s wrong with sitting on the fence?”, and decided that atheists are in the ascendence (at least as far as the media is concerned), and so were in need of a bit of a ribbing.

In a word, it was facile and poorly considered polemic that was disappointing more for it’s deliberate ignorance of key points, and over-blowing the cult of personality and minor characters to draw out dubious conjectures.

So what follows is my response to the key points. There’s certainly nothing new in what I say, but anybody who professed to think it was balanced might find something here to interest them. I’ve had some marvellous and interesting comments on my original post, and hope that there’s something here of interest.

Read the rest of this entry »

I received a flyer from the British Humanist Association to accompany their current “member finds member” membership drive. As many of the people I know read this weblog, I thought I’d do an on-line version. So, my question to anybody who reads this, and considers themselves atheist, agnostic. Heck, even CofE: Are you a Humanist?.

To help, here’s “What Humanists believe”, from the BHA flyer:

• Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text.
• Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism ‑ but is an active and ethical philosophy far greater than these negative responses to religion.
• Humanists believe in individual rights and freedoms ‑ but believe that individual responsibility, social cooperation and mutual respect are just as important.
• Humanists believe that people can and will continue to find solutions to the world’s problems ‑ so that quality of life can be improved for everyone.
• Humanists are positive ‑ gaining inspiration from our lives, art and culture, and a rich natural world.
• Humanists believe that we have only one life ‑ it is our responsibility to make it a good life, and to live it to the full.

If you agree to the above (a recent MORI poll put 36% of the population as ‘humanist in outlook’), you might consider joining The British Humanist Association, which is seeking to grow it’s membership base to campaign on behalf of the non-religious viewpoint. Governments are frequently besieged by special interest groups from religious minorities seeking special treatment or privilege: A larger membership for the BHA would help ensure that the large proportion of the British population who do not claim to adhere to a particular religious group would gain better representation. It would also help push the case for humanist ceremonies to be recognised.

Join the BHA via this link. I’d be delighted to hear if any regular readers have joined, or are already members.

See also:

• Are you a humanist?. Take a look at the questions and see for yourself.
• Supporters – Supporters include Stewart Lee, Philip Pullman, Terry Pratchett, Claire Rayner, as well as many other famous scientists, politicians, authors and figures.
• The trouble with Atheism – Channel 4’s broad-side against atheism, presented by Rod Liddle.
• 42% of the population feel that Government ‘pays too much attention to religious groups and their leaders’, leading to well-supported legislation being dropped – such as assisted dying.

Next Monday at 8pm, Channel 4 will be showing a documentary by Rod Liddle titled “The trouble with Atheism”, which inspects and challenges atheism. The blurb reads:

Documentary in which controversial journalist Rod Liddle explores and challenges atheist attitudes. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Liddle argues that atheism too has its dogmas and beliefs like the organised groups it opposes. Meeting professors and anti-religious associations, Liddle reveals how atheists give to science a certainty when in fact there is none

I’m an atheist, and am actually looking forward to the programme, although my expectations are quite low. One of the mailing lists I’m on had some involvement in the production of the programme and, shock horror, the pre-production spiel was somewhat different from the programme as described above.

Given a previous documentary by Rod Liddle had him demonstrate the sort of wishy-washy agnosticism associated with membership of the CofE, I’ve an expectation he’ll do little more than just stir things up a bit simply to earn the ‘controversional’ moniker he seems to relish, and to confuse non-belief as a form of belief in itself.

The blurb further worries me that he may fall on the classic misunderstanding that a science theory is the equivalent of fact. A theory, such as that of Darwin’s theory of evolution, is just an explanation that fits the available evidence and observations, and leads to other conclusions which are observable (Wikipedia definition). But that doesn’t mean it’s fact. A better theory could come along tomorrow which supersedes it.

An open mind is to me what Atheism is about, and requiring a burden of proof on alternative theories (including religious ones) that stand up to challenge and inspection. Science is the best process we’ve got by a long shot, and it’s served us very well in understanding the natural world about us.

None the less, I’ll give the programme the benefit of the doubt. Challenging your own views and opinions is a vital part of maintaining an open mind. Expect to hear more about the programme after I’ve seen it (Update:here is my review of the programme), next week… And for any religious folk reading this, why not try it yourself, and pick up a copy of The God Delusion?

Update

• Are you a Humanist? – The British Humanist Association, and National Secular Society are organisations supporting and representing the large number of people without religious views. Joining these organisations will help ensure religious views do not go unchallenged, or present belief in the supernatural as a requirement for a moral outlook and philosophy.
• My response to “The trouble with Atheism”

There seems to be a rich-vein of atheist(ish) writings on the interweb today. This article on agnosticism “God. Who knows?”, by an ex-vicar argues the agnostic viewpoint. A strange change from vicar, to atheist, to agnostic (some might say C of E and agnostic are one and the same – a point raised in the interesting comments.

With regards the points raised, I simply feel quite strongly that the burden of proof rests with the religious to disprove the widely accepted, naturalistic, view of nature and our situation and how it came about without sky-pixies in need of some peculiar ego-massaging. With science providing a demonstrable, and increasingly complete, explanation for the existence of life, an increasing awareness of how the universe, galaxies, stars, and planets formed and changes, I (personally) see no need for god(s) to explain how we’re here. Occam’s razor is very helpful too. But I’m happy to listen to – as any open minded individual should be – any evidential proof that might be put forward for examination. Preferably the non-referential kind.

Science is a principle, not a religion, but I know precisely where the burden of proof lies.

And to discount the view that you must be religious in some way, to somehow be a moral person, have a look at Humanism. No religion required

Regular readers will know I’m something of a fan of Richard Dawkins’ excellent books (see here; My ‘God Delusion’ review is a work in progress). You may therefore be interested in an Independent ‘You ask the questions’ special (also as pdf here), with him. It’s an entertaining and interesting read.

Door-to-door knocking by mormons, jehovah witnesses, is the probably quickest way for a such organisations and groups to alienate any potential converts. This little gem from John Safran is absolutely priceless. I suspect even the odd Mormon might chuckle a bit too.

A magazine I’ve been a fan of for years is Wired, and I do still miss the UK specific version (ie. less adverts!) I used to subscribe to. It’s interesting then to see that, in the light of the publication of Richard Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion and other such books, they are covering the subject of atheism with “The New Atheism“. There’s also an audio discussion/podcast that’s well-worth a listen to.

Battling the perception that atheists, agnostics, or “culturally christian” (ie. doing it to fit in) are a dodgy bunch that aren’t to be trusted, is what organisations like The British Humanist Association and the The Brights are about (I’m a member/supporter of both). As well as a place to meet like-minded, naturalistic and open-minded people.

Hopefully the debates that have been going on in the media over the last few weeks about religion, either in schools, the workplace, or in wider society will spur people to at the very least think about things, as well as demonstrating that I think the UK is, when you get down to it, actually a more liberal, open-minded and tolerant society (if not quite as secular as I would like).