Tuesday, September 4, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

by Magnus Linklater, Times Online

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article2388129.ece

Thank God I'm an atheist. It's a big step to take, but it was becoming difficult to cling to the agnostic fig-leaf any longer. As Lloyd George once said, if you sit on the fence too long it means that the iron enters your soul. Now, however, I am reassured by Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, that I can "stand tall to face the far horizon". Atheism, he says, "nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind, and indeed a healthy mind".

I'm a bit worried about that "nearly always" – an uncharacteristically fuzzy phrase surely, from the master of certainty; but at least I can stand shoulder to shoulder with the new president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, who announces that by embracing atheism we are resisting religious zealotry, "because the here and now is all there is, and our destiny is in our own hands".

I suppose I agree with that. The notion of a life hereafter, the rewards of Heaven or the punishment of Hell are fantasies that I find it easy to dispense with, while the alternative – to seek the spiritual life within the confines of one's own imagination – is a far more challenging proposition.

I wonder, then, why I find the militant convictions of the anti-religionists so chilling? Far from converting me, I find myself repelled by the way that Professor Dawkins so expertly picks off each and every argument put up by those who cling to their faith, while the virulence of Toynbee's attacks on the evils of state-sponsored religion is unattractive, at best. They may be intellectually rigorous, but they do not win me over.

They seem, however, to be having a wider effect. A poll in The Sunday Times, carried out for John Humphrys, the broadcaster, whose book In God We Doubt is published this week, revealed that nearly half of those questioned – 42 per cent – think that religion has had a harmful effect. This may stem more from the current suspicion of Muslim extremists than a flight from faith, but it does suggest that we have entered a new and increasingly intolerant era, for which the God-assailants must accept some responsibility. "Perhaps we are having an effect now," comments Professor Dawkins. And perhaps "we" are.

I cannot, however, share Professor Dawkins's contempt for what he sees as the vacuity of those who proclaim their doubts about an external God, but still cling to the traditions or the comfort of organised religion. Nor do I warm to Toynbee's visceral hostility to the idea of an established Church. I stood, earlier this week, at a funeral where the bereaved family – not themselves believers – took deep solace from a Presbyterian service, with hymns whose lines were rich in language and faith. We listened to words from Proverbs about the virtuous woman who is "a crown to her husband", and felt that the surroundings of an ancient church were perfectly in tune with the messages of love and remembrance that ran through the service.

By the end of it, my atheism was still intact, but I was very glad to have been there. I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject. Professor Dawkins is expert at exposing, with pinpoint precision, the inconsistencies of this position. He compares those who take comfort from traditional religion to people stuck for the night on a bare mountain, who warm to the appearance of a large St Bernard dog, "not forgetting, of course, the brandy barrel around its neck". Death, he says, is something to be approached without hope or fear. It is far more invigorating to face "the strong keen wind of understanding", which comes with a complete absence of faith, than to cling to "the security blanket of ignorance".

Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives. As for Toynbee, I cannot quite follow her contempt for the evils perpetrated by our established religion. She cites the damage perpetrated by faith schools, the absurdity of a constitution that allows bishops into the House of Lords, and the extremism of Christian organisations that campaign against homosexuality, abortion and stem-cell research. There are arguments to be had about all of these, but I shrink from the shrill language with which she deploys them.

Do we really think, like her, that public services are "held to ransom by the weird sexual fantasies of unelected service providers", or that faith groups are responsible for the "homophobic bullying" of young boys who are driven to kill themselves in our schools, or that religious leaders, "given an ounce of power . . . abuse it to deny basic liberties"? All this she ascribes to the overweening influence of our established religion, by which she must mean the Anglican Church.

Yet never in our history has that influence been so weak, its doctrines so torn by doubt, its preaching so uncertain. Listening to the Toynbee tirades one might imagine that this country was in the hands of a latterday Torquemada, or that Thomas Cromwell was once again sending heretics to the rack. Instead, we have an Archbishop of Canterbury who agonises, publicly, over the complexities of the Christian faith, and a Church that is on the point of tearing itself apart because the liberal argument on homosexual priests is becoming unstoppable.

What unites both Dawkins and Toynbee is their absolute insistence that we sign up to the fixed and rigid agenda they have set us. For one, it is a case of choosing between rationalism and stupidity. For the other, it comes down to the liberalism of the secular life, or the red-necked fundamentalism of state-sponsored religion.

All this leaves me feeling distinctly uncomfortable. Despite my new-found position, I still seem to be on the shifting sands of uncertainty. Is there, I wonder, something called an atheist heretic?

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 50 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #67805 by Inferno on September 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm

First!

Anyway...Appears Linklater is someone who enjoys the religious traditions and customs, while not believing a word of them. That is fair enough for somethings, but for sitting in church wasting away an hour or more each week listening to how you're going to hell? Not much fun in my book.

Other Comments by Inferno

2. Comment #67806 by roach on September 4, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I was really annoyed after the first sentence but whatever.

I can understand the discomfort felt by the author. About a year ago, a good friend of mine recommended I read TGD and I was very hesitant. I described myself as an agnostic and "believed in belief". And I simply didn't like the idea that there was a book attacking religious people. Happily, I realized that Dawkins et al. are criticizing IDEAS, not necessarily the people who hold those ideas.

This article has many problems. Linklater never explains any of his self-imposed "why" questions. He just states that the tactics of Dawkins and Toynbee don't win him over. His entire argument is emotional. Such an analysis may be valid when attempting to explain why you don't like the music of a particular band or why you find Sarah more attractive than Jane, but it just doesn't hold up in this context. It's a completely unfair tactic that I admittedly employ from time to time. But I'm not a professional journalist. .Basically what Linklater is saying is "They present rational and valid arguments, but I don't like it so humph".

He also fabricates a complete lie when he states "What unites both Dawkins and Toynbee is their absolute insistence that we sign up to the fixed and rigid agenda they have set us".

Oh well. You can't please everyone. What's offensive to one person is convincing to the next.

Other Comments by roach

3. Comment #67809 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 10:59 pm

I guess that means any atheist who doesn't agree with him isn't half-decent then?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

4. Comment #67810 by Mango on September 4, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Here's just one item that irked me:

Atheism, he [Dawkins] says, "nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind, and indeed a healthy mind". I'm a bit worried about that "nearly always" – an uncharacteristically fuzzy phrase surely, from the master of certainty.

What Linklater doesn't understand is that Dawkins cannot claim certainty for this because to do so would be untenable, just as Dawkins says there is "almost certainly" no God. Methinks that the writer doesn't quite grasp how honest writers write.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #67811 by jagmarz on September 4, 2007 at 11:06 pm

These are questions I have thought about, myself.

We have science, the established protocol for establishing knowledge. Well and good.

But that begs the question ... is knowledge all there is? How deep must our knowledge be? Is purity of knowledge sufficient? After all, we must all certainly act in the absence of absolute knowledge about anything. Worse, science is telling us it's ALL based on fantastically complex systems that are, at heart, random processes. Where's that electron now? Don't even try to talk to me about certainty!

What things can we be said to know, without being able to prove them? It seems there is a great deal that falls into this category, at least partly because we can't all know the details of everything. We can all accept, for instance, that water freezes at 0C, but ... the physics involved probably escape most people. And anyway, why should they care?

And there's the danger. Because if we get too complacent about what we can accept without proof, then we have opened ourselves up to exploitation.

Dr. Dawkins' books speak to me, mainly because I'm a liberal American who's watching his country go off the deep end. Everything that matters, everything real is in one particular edition of one ancient book -- anything which contradicts must simply be wrong. Amen. Perhaps I'm seeing a phantom menace; perhaps the devout believers aren't trying to quietly assume all the reigns; perhaps I've read too much Ludlum. Maybe all of us have.

It's been said that to fight fire, you use fire; this, I believe, is exactly Dr. Dawkins' tactic. Does it undermine the side of reason to resort to the same tactics used, seemingly so successfully, by those pushing religion? Maybe. Has it raised the ire of those same proponents? Absolutely! Has it raised the visibility of the atheism movement? No doubt there! Prof. Dawkins has repeatedly used the analogy of the gay movement in deliberately outing itself, so I think the comparison can rightly be drawn about Gay Pride parades as lightning rods, serving roughly the same function as these books. By creating an almighty splash, they draw a fantastic amount of attention and necessarily move the center of the debate a little in their direction. Even if they're being laughed at in some quarters, at least they're getting some attention, now. That's the first step.

Other Comments by jagmarz

6. Comment #67815 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Despite my new-found position, I still seem to be on the shifting sands of uncertainty. Is there, I wonder, something called an atheist heretic?

"Atheist heretic" perhaps, but what I'm hearing sounds a lot more like a good dose of nostalgia for form and ritual. This is natural and understandable in somebdy for whom "enlightenment" is recent. Don't worry - this will diminish and pass with time.
Apparently lots of people in Iraq "miss" Saddam Hossein.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

7. Comment #67817 by PsyPro on September 4, 2007 at 11:59 pm

I apologise if this point has already been said (or understood), but is the missive of this article not a quintessential example of what Dan Dennett referred to as belief in belief? I, too, think the beliefs of children are charming and sometimes evocative*, but please note the age prerequisite.

*I recently heard second hand of a delightful belief of a young child that left me rethinking many things: the child was listening to CBC (Canadian public radio), and was enthralled by the reports of the major fires in Greece. He, a child living in Lethbridge in southern Alberta, was now hearing these reports on a radio he knew as having been purchased in Red Deer, Alberta. He opined that wasn't it terrible that all these fires were taking place in Red Deer. He just assumed (correctly?) that the source of the machine (the radio) was the source of what it reported. Don't rush to judgement: give it a moment. Doesn't it give you a chill about your own assumptions?

Other Comments by PsyPro

8. Comment #67819 by Philip1978 on September 5, 2007 at 12:11 am

Richard Morgan

"Apparently lots of people in Iraq "miss" Saddam "

Maybe they should have recalibrated their gun sights and checked the humidity and wind? arf arf! (Sorry poor joke, but I am in that sort of mood this morning!)

I dont like this article, from what I gather he can't get his head around Professor Dawkins or Polly Toynbee just because their arguments are too good???
I rather get the feeling he hasnt quite got over his agnosticism yet, there is still that tiny part of him that HAS to believe in something. I also get a hint of "Dawkins et all, stop being such a bunch of know-it-alls" which I find a bit grating. If his only fault is with Atheists speaking out against religion in such a precise and straight forward manner, so be it!

Possibly I am being too rough with the chap, I don't know what belief is other than my understanding from a load of books I have read and the people who I ask about it. I liked Billy Sands's description of it being Mental Slavery, but I still cannot fully grasp belief having never had any.

Hey ho, more Tea I think, that last cuppa was incredible!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

9. Comment #67822 by tobyowl on September 5, 2007 at 12:18 am

re the funeral anecdote, I was recently at a funeral where no one was very religious but it was being held in a church (long story).
Everyone was commenting afterwards that the religious parts left them all cold and the only moving parts of the service were the readings relating to the deceased.
Nobody took solace from the religious readings, they were mostly irritated by them.

Other Comments by tobyowl

10. Comment #67826 by Ford Prefect on September 5, 2007 at 12:42 am

I can understand that people like ritual to mark important events. Until very recently the Church seemed to have a monopoly. There are now alternatives that hopefully will become the norm.

I also failed to find any absolute insistence to join a fixed agenda. Can Linklater show me where I can find it ?

Other Comments by Ford Prefect

11. Comment #67828 by pewkatchoo on September 5, 2007 at 12:50 am

I was not aware that Professor Dawkins had set an agenda on atheism. It does not really come out of his writings in TGD. Maybe I am not very bright. As for Toynbee, can't stand the woman so I am unlikely to follow her line anyway.

In fact, I am not quite sure what the author was trying to get at! I think it was just a case of coming to terms with his new position, but I am unsure. We all have our own ways, and that is the point of atheism I guess.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

12. Comment #67836 by Jiten on September 5, 2007 at 1:29 am

Because they have the ceremonies for weddings and funerals and births.There exist humanist ceremonies but religions have a thousands of years head start.

Other Comments by Jiten

13. Comment #67838 by the_assayer on September 5, 2007 at 1:35 am

I think the key issue here is "belief". Beliefs are what we base our judgements on. And the question to be asked is "Are we willing to make judgements just because something(here God) is "possible". Is it not possible, atleast slightly, that your "mother" is a blood thirsty vampire? So are you gonna go "Van Helsing" on her based on 'just' that feeling?

I think we ought to separate stuff that affect our judgement from stuff that we do, just because its fun or because its habitual. For instance, I speak to my Dog, even though I know he doesn't understand what I'm saying. I even do it to my one year old Nephew. Also, if someone close to me were to die, I might want to have an imaginery conversation with the person once in a while or might find it hard to resist thinking how that person would feel about this or that. Rationalism doesn't require that we be anything other than Human. But we need reason and critical thought(science) to help us get a grip over "reality".

Having said all that, God believing and other similar magical ways of thinking ARE judgemental and hence it is important to challenge these beliefs. But if people can cleverly choose what to be irrational about, then it would not necesserily be bad. Because it'll be done only because its fun or because its very hard to curb that sort of behavior. In other words, intentional irrationality should not 'always' be a problem.

There might be "richness" in religious experience, even if there is little actuality to it.

Other Comments by the_assayer

14. Comment #67840 by Shuggy on September 5, 2007 at 1:40 am

Yet never in our history has that influence been so weak, its doctrines so torn by doubt, its preaching so uncertain.

Isn't that an argument for disestablishment? Why on earth should such an institution have a privileged hand on the steering wheel of British government?

Listening to the Toynbee tirades one might imagine that this country was in the hands of a latterday Torquemada, or that Thomas Cromwell was once again sending heretics to the rack.

It almost is, if you live in Nigeria or Zimbabwe, and in the name of Anglicanism.

Instead, we have an Archbishop of Canterbury who agonises, publicly, over the complexities of the Christian faith, and a Church that is on the point of tearing itself apart because the liberal argument on homosexual priests is becoming unstoppable.

Oh I wish! But the more powerful part is likely to be the homophobic part, based in Nigeria.

Other Comments by Shuggy

15. Comment #67845 by Macque on September 5, 2007 at 1:49 am

By the end of it, my atheism was still intact, but I was very glad to have been there. I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject.

Surely this is familiarity brought about through indoctrination and miseducation?
Mr. Linklater has obviously had a Christian upbringing, and so church funerals, meaningless prayer and recitations from the bible are comfortable for him because it is "what is done".
If religion were eradicated, it would no longer be "what is done" and people who had been raised without the trappings of ancient superstitious ritual would find it an unsettling and alien environment.
Secular funerals stir up far more personal emotions as they remove a sky fairy from the equation and concentrate on the one who has passed and the people who mourn.
Familiarity may seem comfortable, but I would be more comfortable if my familiar surroundings were based on truth, not some elaborate story involving a sky fairy granting wishes, resurrections, miracles and cannibalism.
In Mr. Linklater's summing up of the comforts of religion, it is not religion but familiarity that provided the comfort.

Other Comments by Macque

16. Comment #67852 by BMMcArdle on September 5, 2007 at 2:15 am

He jumped off of the fence and landed on the shifting sands of uncertainty.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

17. Comment #67854 by TinyRobot on September 5, 2007 at 2:24 am

I recently attended the (catholic) funeral of a young man who died, tragically, in a car crash. I was friendly with his sister and so i did not really know anything about him personally. I have attended many church-based funerals over the years but i have never really paid much attention to what was said. But this time round i did. I would quickly acknowledge that many nice and comforting things were said (e.g. about bereavement being the price of love) - most of which had nothing to do with religion. However, most of the readings, the gospel and parts of the sermon were markedly anachronistic. There were discussions of the virtue of Jesus, the incomprehensibility of God and his wishes for us (obviously this was some attempt to 'make sense' of the tragedy that occurred), and more pronouncements about how 'sinful' we all were and how we cannot fight God's plan. I'd have to say that this left me 'cold' and, more importantly, perplexed. How anyone could find solace in this was beyond me. Additionally, what relevance it had to the life of the young man, and the tragedy that had befallen him and his family, was beyond me. Why can't a funeral be a celebration of the person's life (no matter how short or tragic it may have been) and an opportunity for everyone to reflect upon how lucky we are to be alive and how important it is not to squander the opportunities that we have. What can recitations of the rosary and making excuses for the gratuitous suffering that a 'perfect' God permits possibly offer us?

Other Comments by TinyRobot

18. Comment #67856 by AdrianB on September 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

Polly Toynbee is the new head of the British Humanists. If you want to listen to one of her "tirades" there was an excellent interview with her on Radio 4 on Sunday morning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/sunday

Interview starts from 36 mins into the programme and is only a few mins in length.

Personally I think she could be an excellent recruit for the musketeers!

Other Comments by AdrianB

19. Comment #67857 by CJ22 on September 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

"Is there, I wonder, something called an atheist heretic?"

No, get over yourself. There's no dogma to be heretical about: you created the straw man yourself then attacked it. This article is remarkably self-absorbed.

Other Comments by CJ22

20. Comment #67858 by Dr Benway on September 5, 2007 at 2:35 am

Secularism: yours, mine, ours. Information in the "ours" set must be corroborated. No other way to prevent nutty leaders from ruining the planet.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

21. Comment #67862 by Graeme on September 5, 2007 at 2:57 am

I thought it was a very good article actually.
I too was at a funeral recently and found myself looking around, glad somehow that the whole set-up was there in place...OK we could have done without the mumbo jumbo, but it was the closure I think that I appreciated... It was only the chaple at the local crematorium, and the lady priest, (its vicars in knickers round this way!)was doing most of the talking and the singing,(there was no service) and as far as I know , no one there was religious at all, but somehow it filled the need as we all pondered our mortality.... even if it was only for that half an hour before we all headed for the pub.
It was as if once that part was over we could start to relax... (and the wake begin.)
If we really want to make organised religions obsolete then I think that this is the ground that we need to be taking back, rather than just telling people theyre nuts to believe in the supernatural.
I've heard that atheist funerals can be very good but I've never been to one...
Maybe its time that I drew EXACTLY what I want at my funeral.
Any recommedations?? Anyone got their intructions written into their will?

Other Comments by Graeme

22. Comment #67865 by phil rimmer on September 5, 2007 at 3:27 am

Nope. The tide turned. In the USA religion met the free-market, cable TV, a huge, culturally isolated group of otherwise harmless folk, and a race for the bottom ensued. Maximum return on investment was to be achieved through offering maximum redemption for oneself, maximum punishment for the hated out-groups with the least personal mental effort.

Pernicious as that was, it was nothing compared to the sickening sight of the politicians spotting the opportunity of using this lame-brained stuff as a means of shortcutting (tiresome)political debate to faster get their way. Of course such a useful tool is not banned but co-opted by other politicians in another spiral to the bottom.

No-one here wants to pull down churches or stop people going to them. But we do want religious people to face up to their responsibilities of keeping their spiritual lives to out of state affairs. More, we want enlightened religious people to publicly condemn other religites if they fail to do so.

Private faith. Public cynicism.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

23. Comment #67867 by pewkatchoo on September 5, 2007 at 3:33 am

Anyone got their intructions written into their will?
No, not as such. However, my wife, who is catholic, has instructions that I will not have a christian funeral. I want a big party so that people can remember me as somebody who enjoyed a good time. No religious mumbo jumbo allowed, though the local priest will be invited to have a beer too. I am pretty sure that my wife will outlive me as she is 20 years younger and she has always said that I will die of a heart attack if I am not careful when watching PM's questions or Newsnight.

Since becoming a full-on atheist, I no longer am bothered about the prospect of death. Odd that eh? The prospect of meeting my maker would disturb me deeply, particularly as I have called him a prat on more than one occasion.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

24. Comment #67871 by Richard Morgan on September 5, 2007 at 3:51 am

Graeme :

I've heard that atheist funerals can be very good but I've never been to one...

A good funeral?
A good funeral?
The only thing that would make a funeral good for me would be eliminating the necessity of having somebody die in order to hold it in the first place. Dead people always spoil the fun a bit, don't you think.

"I went to a super atheist funeral the other day. Nobody mentioned anything about God or Jesus or resurrections or sins. I met lots of old friends, had a few good chin-wags with the old crowd, they served some pretty decent claret (even though I'm a burgundy man myself). The only thing that rather spoiled the general ambiance was this dead guy. You know, an actual corpse, right there, in the middle of the room. The flowers were great, but it seemed to me in rather poor taste to have a real live dead body (you know what I mean) in the room, it's a bit of a conversation stopper. Fortunately the C. of E. vicar (he's what you call an intelligent atheist, because he knows exactly what he doesn't believe in) got things going with a karaoke competition - brought along his own gear and everything. People started loosening up (except the stiff, of course) when Pewkatchoo handed round some really good Moroccan ...y'know what I mean.... because Salley always starts seeing angels after a couple of, y'know, the Moroccan stuff, and Salley's angels are always good for a laugh because she claims they haven't got any... you know...credentials!.
And then this guy Blackford turned up in a King Kong outfit and spouted limericks with an Aussie accent, which everybody found absolutely hilarious.
Of course, people started wandering outside after a while because Veronique always gets very heavily into critical thinking after a couple of glasses of the red stuff, and she kept telling the corpse to "stand up and be counted" 'cos nobody had told her he was dead.
She'd noticed that he looked a bit out of it, and wasn't very talkative, but she wrongly assumed that it was because he, too, came from Mullumbimby.
But, all in all, I suppose, yes, it was a good funeral, as atheist funerals go...."

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

25. Comment #67874 by pewkatchoo on September 5, 2007 at 3:56 am

So who was the stiff? Anybody we know? Don't remember being there myself, but then that is what a few Moroccans will do to you...

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

26. Comment #67879 by CDG1 on September 5, 2007 at 4:04 am

Dawkins and Toynbee's

"attacks on the evils of state-sponsored religion is unattractive, at best. They may be intellectually rigorous, but they do not win me over."

Thats your small minded problem.

Other Comments by CDG1

27. Comment #67883 by toddaa on September 5, 2007 at 4:18 am

We listened to words from Proverbs about the virtuous woman who is "a crown to her husband", and felt that the surroundings of an ancient church were perfectly in tune with the messages of love and remembrance that ran through the service.

If he can't see what's wrong with this Proverb, then I'd suggest he still has a ways to go to escape the grasp of religious indoctrination.

Other Comments by toddaa

28. Comment #67885 by Dr Benway on September 5, 2007 at 4:24 am

What about a bit of Poseidon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFIBsO5w4Fs

Other Comments by Dr Benway

29. Comment #67887 by Yorker on September 5, 2007 at 4:26 am

24. Comment #67871 by Richard Morgan

Been a long time since I attended a good funeral but they do exist. My last was the funeral of an uncle of mine who I despised because of the way he abused me when I was young, I mean violence not sexual abuse. My father had to sort him out more than once and when I grew into a strapping lad I took great pleasure in giving him a good thumping. He was one of those guys liked by friends and disliked by family and others who knew the real person. Being a religious hypocrite my uncle had a church funeral with the usual Scottish-style party afterwards.

It was great, the Rev made the mistake of having a drink with me and telling me of how well people thought of the evil bastard. I got to set him straight about my uncle and how pleased I was to see him dead, and I finally ended up drunk. All in all, I had a very nice time!

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #67889 by FreeThink25 on September 5, 2007 at 4:30 am

"I cannot, however, share Professor Dawkins's contempt for what he sees as the vacuity of those who proclaim their doubts about an external God, but still cling to the traditions or the comfort of organised religion."

"I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy"

Dawkins has never struck me as contemptuous or belittling. His patience in talking to believers is without match, and he has absolutely expressed his perceived value for religion as literature. Just not as a source of truth.

Sam Harris addresses most of these points thoroughly in his first book. These transcendent feelings and emotions are all legitimate aspects of human consciousness...and surely a reasonable explanation will one day emerge, perhaps from his research. No one need believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, however, or that a book that supports slavery, stoning, and child abuse is the source of finding these transcendences, to actually experience them.

Curious: why do atheists keep coming to defense of the religionists? Who are they trying to appease?

Other Comments by FreeThink25

31. Comment #67892 by BAEOZ on September 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

Richard, I've been to some crappy funerals, usually when young people died due to some crappy circumstance and to some good funerals, where the deceased had had a good crack at life, lived it well and the people at the funeral got together to celebrate his life and then get seriously pissed after whilst recalling stories of the stiff being a silly human over too many beers.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

32. Comment #67894 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 4:44 am

Magnus Thinklater is, by his own admission, only half decent. This might help explain why his journalism (if this is a typical example) is likewise.

Just another dull example of category-5 I'm-an-atheist-buttery (http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n)

Other Comments by aitchkay

33. Comment #67898 by irate_atheist on September 5, 2007 at 4:58 am

'Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion'

Speak for yourself Mr. Linklater because I'm not.

And as for taking solace from, quite frankly meaningless, religious ceremonies, I most certainly do not.

The last funeral I went to, my Uncle's, I do recall seeing a foolish, wilfully ignorant shuffling old man upfront. If I remember correctly, he was using the opportunity to proselytise his particular cult's brand of superstition to the recently bereaved. Nothing but a ghoul, in my opinion.

If any of their kind try that sort of nonsense at my funeral, like as not, I'll jump out the box and clock 'em one.

Oh, and given half a chance of serious power, we only need to look at history to comprehend what a lot of these people would do. Or perhaps properly examining their irrational, anti-humanistic, anti-scientific behaviour where and when they ACTUALLY do now, would suffice.

(Irate makes note to self to take a deep breath in...and out. Ah, that's better.)

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #67904 by Kakashi_monkey on September 5, 2007 at 5:24 am

As far as being fond of religion goes for me, it's entertaining to read biblical stories just to see what Saint Peter or Goliath or whoever are up to this time. But The author chose a side of the fence, and shouldn't waver on his position. When you're an atheist, you're completely for it. An atheist heretic is someone who needs a one-on-one with Richard D himself.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

35. Comment #67908 by Theocrapcy on September 5, 2007 at 5:31 am

This is a terrible piece of writing, how on Earth do these people get paid for stuff like this?

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

36. Comment #67909 by irate_atheist on September 5, 2007 at 5:47 am

Theocrapcy -

I suspect it's probably cheaper than having a proper journalist research a proper story and then write properly about it. At least, I hope it's cheaper.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

37. Comment #67911 by Cartomancer on September 5, 2007 at 6:08 am

It annoys me terribly that Linklater dismisses homophobic bullying in schools with a condescending wave of the hand and a "Do we really think this?". He clearly has not experienced the problem himself and does not understand how it happens.

The fact is that homophobic bullying is still rife in our society, although thankfully it is getting rarer. I experienced it myself in school six years ago, and I have seen it happen to my own teen-aged students now I teach part time. As with most kinds of bullying it's not usually the violence and verbal abuse that are the most damaging parts - it's the self-denial and self-loathing you generate yourself. If homosexuality is regarded as unnatural, immoral or sordid by established society - even to a comparatively minor degree - then young people struggling to come to terms with themselves will find it that much harder to reconcile their sexuality with their lives. Acceptance matters to young people, fitting in to society matters. Even treating the subject with kid gloves and getting a bit evasive or embarrassed when talking about it suggests to impressionable minds that there's something not quite right about being gay.

As long as religious people maintain even a shred of animus against homosexuals, and as long as they are credited with even a shred of moral authority while doing so, then this situation will persist. It was only last year that the new provision of goods and services regulations were opposed by the Lords Spiritual and the Catholic lobby because they wanted to prevent adoption agencies from being forced to treat gay couples equally when placing their charges. It was only four years ago that the nasty section 28 was repealed. The government of the United Kingdom has finally agreed to give gay people marriage rights in the last year, but as a sop to the religious lobby it has decided not to call gay marriage marriage, but "civil partnership" instead. I'm sure those familiar with segregation in the US or Apartheid in South Africa will recognise immediately how condescending and dangerous this "separate but equal" institution will be. Would we put up with it if they said that women were not allowed to vote, but could engage in "civil government selection", or if ginger haired people were not allowed to call their sons "children" but had to refer to them as "civil offspring"? No, you bet we wouldn't - but when prejudiced religious sensibilities are invoked as the defence then suddenly it becomes a reasonable proposition. The only reason there has ever been for discriminating against homosexuals is an entirely irrational religious one, which has deeply conditioned western societies for the last two millennia. The impending schism of the Anglican church is just a very recent example. When we finally wake up to our society's unconscious and unwarranted respect for the religious then the little policemen in our heads will stop telling vulnerable children to loathe themselves because society doesn't accept them fully.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

38. Comment #67918 by Russell's Teapot on September 5, 2007 at 6:57 am

Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives

Methinks Mr. Linklater takes too much satisfaction in his own "wit" and is not willing to consider ceremonies and rituals without religious hogwash attached.

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

39. Comment #67928 by Ultraviolet G on September 5, 2007 at 7:30 am

Methinks the Professor takes a little too much satisfaction in the eloquence of his own metaphors and too little account of the richness of the alternatives.

Methinks Mr. Linklater is like a weasel.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

40. Comment #67940 by the izz on September 5, 2007 at 9:20 am

I think we really need to uncouple rituals that mark the passing of time and help us think about life from a belief in a supernatural being.

Linklater is essentially saying that funerals are valuable and comforting and he doesn't want to lose that. Of course they are comforting, no one is saying that they are not. It is like he thinks that to be an atheist you must condemn ritual of all kinds. This is nonsense. Religion is not necessary for ritual celebration (witness Thanksgiving, Halloween, New Year's Eve, etc.) Marking the significant moments in life with familiar cultural actions is a universal human need and nothing to be ashamed of. There is nothing wrong with gathering with your community every week to think about how you live your life and treat other people and share a little coffee and cake. There need not be anything religious about it. We need to make an effort to popularize this concept because I think the cultural aspects of organized religion are the parts that people are most reluctant to give up.

If you are an atheists who doesn't need this sort of thing, great for you. I'm sure everyone here would agree that being an atheist is not like belonging to one group, and you can celebrate or not anyway you like.

I agree with those who said Linklater's position is entirely emotional. He hasn't thought all his ideas though. Of course atheist funerals can be just as moving and transcendent as religious ones. If he needs proof of this I would direct him to read Professor Dawkins' beautiful eulogy for Douglas Adams.

Other Comments by the izz

41. Comment #67950 by gcoupe on September 5, 2007 at 10:31 am

I'm confused. Linklater writes:

I cannot, like Professor Dawkins, think the less of anyone who takes pleasure from a familiar liturgy, nor deride those who fall back on a Church whose central tenets they reject.

But does Linklater mean "like", or "unlike"? The whole thrust of his article seems to be that he (Linklater) is a reasonable and caring atheist, and quite unlike those meanies Dawkins and Toynbee. Is he confused or am I?

Other Comments by gcoupe

42. Comment #67952 by Blue Lithium on September 5, 2007 at 10:54 am

@ Comment 37 by Cartomancer: Excellent comment. I was going to deal with that remark, but you did an excellent job and I have nothing more to add.

On the article:

"we have entered a new and increasingly intolerant era"

Er, no. It was intolerance when people used to beat up black people and try and "fix" homosexuality. How is this era "increasingly intolerant"? In the Western world, it is mostly the reverse--increasing tolerance.

"that religious leaders, "given an ounce of power . . . abuse it to deny basic liberties"?"

This guy needs to take a look at Iran sometime. Or, more closer to hame, the "Dominionist" Christians in America.

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

43. Comment #67959 by monkey2 on September 5, 2007 at 11:37 am

Graeme wrote:

I've heard that atheist funerals can be very good but I've never been to one...
Maybe its time that I drew EXACTLY what I want at my funeral.
Any recommedations?? Anyone got their intructions written into their will?

Check out http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1176

The humanist funeral I went to was appreciated by ALL. The religious mourners were most definitely included. Unlike the religious version which asked me to pray, sing devotional hymns and listen to nonsense about souls, heaven and the afterlife, all of which I knew the deceased had rejected years ago.

Other Comments by monkey2

44. Comment #67969 by Russell's Teapot on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Methinks Mr. Linklater is like a weasel.

I am not worthy :)

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

45. Comment #67974 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm

aitchkay -
I'm a bit intrigued as to what WWFSMD might stand for (the FSM part is obvious). Could you elucidate?

Regards,
deekay

Other Comments by captain underpants

46. Comment #67977 by steveroot on September 5, 2007 at 1:48 pm

45. Comment #67974 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 1:25 pm

aitchkay -
I'm a bit intrigued as to what WWFSMD might stand for (the FSM part is obvious). Could you elucidate?

Does "What Would... ?" help any? :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

47. Comment #67986 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Steve -
Sounds plausible, but there are also other possibilities, e.g.

Who Will FSM Defrock?

Other Comments by captain underpants

48. Comment #67999 by aitchkay on September 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Captain underpants -
WWFSMD = what would flying spaghetti monster do?
It's a parody of the xtian WWJD.

Other Comments by aitchkay

49. Comment #68004 by captain underpants on September 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm

aitchkay -
Thanks, Harry. I had not hitherto been familiar with that acronym.

Other Comments by captain underpants

50. Comment #68136 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 8:25 am

So, the nub of the argument here would appear to be, "Truth is 'unattractive', so I'm going to whine about the people who avidly pursue it".

It smacks of the sort of weak-minded, hand-wringing attitude one sees in the more delicate, sensitive little souls at the church coffee morning, doesn't it? I can see how that would justify only calling yourself a HALF-decent atheist. You'd need a bit more backbone to be a completely decent one.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

Reload Comments | Back to Top