Screwtape and the Global Atheist Convention 2012

Demonmail file services: ‘Screwtape reviews Global Atheist Convention 2012

From: Screwtape, on behalf of the infernal father

To: Wormwood

Subject: GAC 2012.

My dear Wormwood,

I acknowledge receipt of your report on the recent GAC and the attached expense claim.

What were you thinking?

It was a mistake to allow GAC to be held just near Crown Casino. It was too visible a reminder that there are more losers than winners in the cosmic lottery that is all we can offer in an accidental universe.

How could you allow people who are consistent atheists and clear communicators to be on stage? The last thing we want is for people to actually understand the truth of our position. I remind you than our infernal father rejoices to be the father of all lies and master of underhand ways. We want speakers who disguise our grim message in lamb’s wool.

The following were among your mistakes with speakers:

·       ‘Life has no purpose’ said by Dan Barker, a former pastor. Don’t you realise that will make people ask whether life does have a purpose? It is not a question that helps us! And then you let Dan go over the top and pillory the enemy as someone keeping a torture chamber to which he sent his son so that others don’t have to go there. Such overstatements draw sympathy for the enemy and prompt sensitive people to go and read what he actually says in his book. I remind you that we want people to think that we are the reasonable and harmless ones.

·       ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ was asked by Lawrence Krauss. You should know that this too is a dangerous question because it easily leads to the enemy. But then you also allowed him to say: ‘ ... cosmology tells us that we are far far more insignificant than we thought’. And again: ‘it is all an accident’. And then his all-to-honest conclusion that people are to create their own meaning in life. I sometimes wonder whose side Krauss is really on.

·       Why did you allow Richard Dawkins on stage with his aggressive call for ethics and intelligent design to be taken back by our forces and then to pillory the enemy with his foolish remark about the ‘odious doctrine of redemption’?  Dawkins is one we need to control - once he slips the leash he is too stridently honest about our real position.

·       And why did you let Sam Harris change topics to talk about an atheist view of death?

That’s a topic that we try and avoid (the distractions of the casino are a good ally here). Sure, he said that Christianity was untrue in its message of hope, but then you let him talk about the comfort that religion gives in death and suffering. But worse was to come. This was a convention that extolled thought and reason, but then you allowed him to give an atheistic suggestion that people suspend all thought and give themselves to some meditative mindfulness to relieve death’s pain. Did you really mean to give such a thoughtless exposure of atheism’s emptiness?

Surely you could manage a foul-up with the sound system when such things were being said?

Another blunder concerned the Islamists. How could allow their noisy protest on the Sunday and which included announcements of hellfire on Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Yes, I know that you thought that would make all religions look venomous. But it gave an opening for our enemy to be well spoken of. Hirsi Ali had already noted how it was conservative Christians not atheists who stood up for persecuted Islamic women but then some of our speakers conceded that Christianity was more friendly to science than Islam. My blood pressure was diabolical when I heard about this.

Between that and Eugenie Scott’s remark about some Christians doing evidence-based science, I wondered whose convention it really was.

It was always a risk allowing the atheist convention to go ahead, for it exposed our cause far too openly. Our only consolation is that the Victorian and Melbourne government authorities helped defray some of our costs.

Your expense claim is refused!

(This is a slightly varied version of an article to be published in New Life, Australia’s online Christian newspaper (www.nlife.com.au), on 1 May.

A theist among the theists - the personal challenge of GAC

I attended GAC as a theist among the atheists.

I went as a Christian believer and left as a Christian believer.

Oddly, my faith was strengthened and deepened by attending.

How did this happen?

For one, I was irritated at unfair parodies and caricatures of Christianity. These included describing faith as dehumanising submission to a cruel slave master who subjected his own son to a torture chamber. Again and again I felt like saying that I didn’t believe in that god either. I didn't expect the case for faith to be presented at such a gathering but had hoped for integrity in discussing faith. Instead, I was unimpressed at the lack of integrity by many speakers in the way they treated Christianity. 

How weak is the atheist case if the ‘Christianity’ they argue against is a parody of their own making and not the Christianity of the Bible?

For another thing, I was exposed to the emptiness of the atheist position. Hence Krauss on the insignificance of humanity in a vast accidental universe and Harris with his urging to suspend thought for ‘mindfulness’ as an atheistic response to death. What kind of a world is that?

As I walked to my hotel one night I thought about this.

 If I really believed what such speakers said, it would be entirely sensible to flee rationality for sensual indulgence and then kill myself. Who wants to live and who can live in such a universe? Instead I enjoyed dinner on my walk, prayed, read my Bible and slept secure in the knowledge that I would awaken to a world that made sense because of the creator, sustainer and redeemer whose world it is.

That being said, GAC was challenging. It challenges me to examine the basis of my faith, to live and talk in a way that commends the gospel (especially in its intellectual aspect) and to be genuinely open regarding big questions of life and faith.

However, I remain a theist even more firmly after being among the atheists having seen them first hand and found their cause wanting.

Overheard @ GAC 2012

Overheard @ GAC 2012

Here is a summary of some key points made at some GAC conference sessions. These are intentionally presented without comment to help give a feel for the content of key talks.

Many of the sessions revolved around scientific issues (creationism and cosmology) and political ones (especially education and church-state separation), along with some sessions on topics such as ethics and death.

PETER SINGER: Reason and ethics. (Singer is an Australian born ethicist who teaches at Princeton and Melbourne unis.)

Optimism about human ethical progress in recent decades. For example a decline in deaths by human violence and an absence of wars between major powers since 1945.

Singer attributes this to the rise of the civil government that restrains and to Enlightenment with the rise of questioning reason.

LESLIE CANNOLD: Separating church and state: a call to action (Cannold is an Australian writer and was 2011 Australian Humanist of the Year.)

She questions whether Australia really has a separation of church and state as mandated by Section 116 of the federal constitution. To support her case she cited such things as public funding of Catholic Youth day; tax breaks for religious institutions, state-funded chaplaincies in government schools and access for religious bodies to schools for special religious education classes. Her conclusion is that Australia is a ‘soft-theocracy’ and she argued for activism against this.

DAN BARKER: Life driven purpose’ (Barker is co-President of the US Freedom from Religion Foundation as was once a pastor.)

The same desire to know and teach the truth that took him into ministry also took him out. Many other clergy are in the same boat and hence bodies such as ‘the clergy project’ to help religious workers discuss related issues and leave ministry.

Dan spoke of how a desire to glorify God is to bow down before a slave master and of how atheism is a revolt against the heavenly dictator. He portrays God as maintaining a torture chamber of great horrors into which he sent his son so that others don’t need to enter it, if only they will believe in him.

He stressed how life has no outside-driven purpose and there are no outside-driven morals and said that this is the good news of atheism. Why good news: because it leaves us at the centre of life and free to find goodness within. 

AC GRAYLING: What next for atheism? (Grayling is Master of the New College of the Humanities and a Supernumery Fellow of St Anne’s College Oxford.)

Grayling spoke of how things are trending well for atheism, especially among young people. However, care is needed for theism has a track record of fighting back when threatened.

He identified three areas for continued attention to foster the advance of atheism: (1) the metaphysical debate about evidences, (2) the debate and campaign about secularism in public life and especially in education, (3) fostering atheistic approaches to ethics and life-affirming understandings of life.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: A universe from nothing (A cosmologist at the Uni of Arizona).

Krauss addressed the question of why there is something rather than nothing, commenting ‘it’s all an accident’. After surveying the vast scope of the cosmos he concluded ‘… cosmology tells us that we are far more insignificant than we thought’ and that ‘we have this incredible conceit to think that we are the peak of evolution’. As to those who differed from his view, he categorised them as … morons like Cardinal Pell.

After scanning through the evidence and options, Krauss concludes that it is entirely possible that we have a steady state universe that came from nothing. Hw do you live and find meaning in a such a universe … well you just create your own meaning and enjoy your moment in the sun.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: The Arab protests of 2011: a secular spring or an Islamist winter (Ayaan is a former Muslim and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC).

The Arab spring is more like a winter as Islamist forces take power in the regimes that have changed governments.

Amidst this there are signs of hope through the (small) secularist parties in many Arab states, the growing number of Arabs who have discarded Islam and the rising use of social media. Western secular liberals were asked why they haven’t been more involved in helping in this situation, especially in contrast to the role of conservative Christians in defending the rights of Muslim women.

Some of these same themes arose later in the conference after a noisy Muslim protest at the conference venue changed the agenda from an almost-exclusive focus on Christianity to consider how atheists respond to Islam.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Now praise intelligent design (Dawkins is a recently retired evolutionary biologist based at Oxford uni.)

Dawkins called for atheists to take back intelligent design and ethics from religious bodies.

With respect to intelligent design he argued that the appearance of design does not imply a designer because design can evolve by natural selection. He then distinguished between paleo-design (design by natural selection) and neo-design (design by humans) making the observation that people can plan for the future in a way that nature cannot.

With regard to morality, he referred to the ‘odious doctrine of redemption and asserted that we cannot and do not derive moral from religion, but that moral are designed by us and fitted for our times. He noted that evolution excludes constructing ethics based on special pleading arising from a special sense of the uniqueness of human identity.

In a side comment, he referred to believers who accept evolution but who still have a theology of creation – observing the capacity of theology to maintain theological meaning even after abandoning the alleged factual basis supporting it.            

EUGENIE SCOTT: Reason and creationism (Scott is executive director of the National Center for science Education in the US).

Scott defined two forms of creationism. Young earth creationism argues for a comparatively recent special creation of the world it is present form. Old earth accepts much of modern science and includes development within kinds over long time periods. Either form of creationism can be linked with theistic intelligent design.

Scott acknowledged that creationists do so data-driven science, even if doing it badly and only seeking confirmatory evidence (as compared with falsifying evidence).

She was dismissive of intelligent design as being more of an ideological and philosophical position (rather then a scientific one) and as motivated by a concern that scientific materialism necessitates philosophical materialism.

Scott saw creationists as seeking to undermine evolution and thus undermine science and materialism. She acknowledged that all the monotheistic faiths had great problems with evolution, but that it is not an issue for traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

SAM HARRIS: The illusion of free will (Harris is co-founder and CEO of project reason in the US)

Sam started by announcing a change of topic from free will to death.

He noted the reality of death and its importance as a theme among religions. By contrast, atheism taught that that there is nothing to worry about in death and that life is the problem, not death.

Nonetheless, death was a painful reality that had to be faced. He noted how religions had mechanisms to make sense of and give comfort before death and other painful experiences and what atheism had to offer as an alternate to these bad ideas.

The answer lies in the nature of the problem. Death is a painful problem because of thoughts about past deaths of loved ones and anticipatory thoughts of future death. However, if we have a ‘now’ focus and suppress these past and present thoughts these painful past/ future thoughts can be avoided. Sam then took attendees through a mindfulness exercise using meditation techniques of breathing and a focus on consciousness in order to show how these painful thoughts can be set aside in the now.

PZ BEYERS: Scientists! If you’re not an atheist, you aren’t doing science right (Meyers is a Prof of biology at the Uni of Minnesota Morris.)

Morris acknowledged the power of ideas to change the world as seen in Christianity and its creation of a community that crosses borders – a community of the word. He called for an all-out assault on Christianity and the ‘killing of God’.

The only way to do this was to develop better ideas by rejecting ideas based on superstition for those based on evidence: ‘...our only authority is reality and we learn by questioning it’. Science was extolled as actually working and as being the ‘God-killer’ as it created a community of the world.

Beyers referred to the ‘illogical lunacy’ and ‘odious doctrines’ of Christianity and asserted that ‘we are not baboons’.

As to how to live as a good atheist, Beyer staled about a focus on truth (especially evolution), human autonomy and community.

Faith in reason or reasons for faith?

For an alternate view on questions of faith and reason check out this website and the linked events and resources: http://reasonforfaith.org.au/

For a teaser: here's a short radio interview that's worth a listen: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/04/bst_20120417_0644.mp3

And if you in Melbourne, there's a conference running until 20 April.

Pic of the GAC crowd and of the Islamist protestors

The agenda shifts ... GAC day three

Day three of the GAC remained as interesting as the first two.

A highlight among the talks was a presentation on death in atheistic perspective.

Sam Harris acknowledged that Christianity did have comforting things to say about suffering and death but that it was all wrong.

His alternate was to suggest a focus on the 'now' moment as allowing relief from painful memory thoughts of the past and painful anticipatory thoughts of the future. To help with this he taught a meditative technique to help suspend thought about past and present and escape into mind consciousness in the present.

This is quite remarkable. The remainder of the conference stressed evidence based thinking and yet the proposed response to death was to escape from thought!

Lunchtime saw a noisy protest by a group of Islamists whose banners proclaimed the fires of hell for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She was one of the key speakers and has renounced Islam for atheism with the result of living in witness protection etc programmes.  That  put Islam  on the table at an afternoon forum where the likes of Richard Dawkins conceded that Islam is a greater threat to science and rationality than Christianity and also that he and others had failed to stand with Salmon Rushdie.

And so the conference ends. Three days of rich stimulation that confirmed my Christian theism. I will say more about the conference and my response in later and more reflective posts.

Wow, am I really that small? Day two of the Global Atheist Convention 2012

Day two was fascinating with a range of world class speakers on a range of topics.

This included Richard Dawkins (sounding tired and cranky), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (fascinating and evocative), Geoffrey Robertson (brilliant communicator), A C Grayling (optimistic about atheism's prognosis) etc.

Lawrence Krauss was one of the most consistent as he traced out cosmological issues. He said: 'it's all an accident'. And again: 'cosmology tells us that we are far more insignificant than we thought'. Lest listeners find this all a bit dismal he urged that we all go out to create our own meaning and enjoy our moment under the sun.

 As I walked home I thought about this. If it is true the most sensible thing would be mindless escapism then suicide. Instead I enjoyed a meal with thanks to the creator, read the Bible and prayed, then went to sleep secure in the confidence that I would awaken to a world and a life that had meaning and joy because of its creator, sustainer and redeemer.

Canapés and comedy - day one of GAC

About 4000 people from 40 countries gathered for day one of the GAC last night.

 After introductory speeches, including thanks to the Victorian and Melbourne governments for financial support the comics took over the stage.

Mikey Robbins Ben Elton and Jim Jeffries all assured us that they respected people's religious beliefs and then proceeded to mock those beliefs and their holders. Christian theism was the main target though Islam and Buddhism were also mentioned. Where were the anti-vilification police?

Meanwhile the bookstall flourished with titles such as 'how I converted from being a pastor' being especially popular.

Well, the wine and canapés were good. I'm hopeful that today will have more substance with people like Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer on stage.

Thoughts on the eve of the Global Atheist Convention 2012

Thoughts on the eve of the Global Atheist Convention 2012

Well, the Global Atheist Convention 2012 (GAC) starts in Melbourne. I’ve paid my money and am off soon for a flight to attend.

But, what should I expect?

The GAC is entitled a celebration of reason. The word ‘celebration’ makes me expect a note of joy, confidence and even fun. While I expect some discussions of alternates to a life of reason, I’d expect that the conference would have a largely serious but positive note. That is, that it will have talks espousing, defending and explaining a life lived by the light of reason alone.

To be frank, I’ll be watching for contradictions.

·       Will there be unguarded words expressing values like faith, hope, and love (along with their opposites) that are built on assumptions other than reason alone?

·       Will there be a self-referenced critique of pure reason in which the life of reason alone is submitted to Socratic examination?

·       Will there be explanations of how axiology can advance by grounding artistic and aesthetic and ethical values in reason alone?

·       Will epistemology be grounded in ways that don’t involve faith in inductive logic and in which all premises have absolute certitude?

I know what happens at religious conventions. Strangers gather with goodwill to one another and united by a common love of God. The programme is typically dominated by acts of worship to God that celebrate his goodness, explanations and challenges from the Bible, along with stories of God at work and appeals to support his work with time, talents and treasure. On the side of this programme people gather to pray and chat among themselves amidst hospitality that is normally of modest scale. Perhaps a Christian convention is best summarized by a hymn sung to the creator / redeemer How great thou art.

I wonder whether an atheist convention will shadow this pattern (as in de Botton’s urging that atheists copy over good things from religion after strip the religious dogma and beliefs out)?

Meanwhile, here’s a thoughtful piece from a theistic perspective to read:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/faith-in-the-infallibility-of-the-mind-is-the-atheists-delusion-20120411-1ws4j.html

Responding to Dawkins

Many will have watched the debate on Australian ABC TV (9th April) between George Pell (representing Roman Catholicism) and Richard Dawkins (representing atheism).

Many, myself included, felt that Pell was a weak spokesmen for Christian theism.

A much stronger Christan apologetic in response to Dawkins' arguments can be found at: http://doubtingdawkins.com/

Religion for atheists 3 – Kindness

Religion for atheists 3 – Kindness*

How do we promote kindness and other desirable public and private behaviours?

Consider these remarks from atheist philosopher Alain de Botton about religion and ethics: Religions, on the other hand, have always had far more directive ambitions, advancing far-reaching ideas about how members of a community should behave towards one another. (p71)

And again: Christianity never minded creating a moral atmosphere in which people could point out their flaws to one another and acknowledge that there was room for improvement in their behaviour. (p85)

De Botton is here acknowledging that theistic religion has a natural affinity for moral guidance. This arises from the ethical thinking of theistic faiths that naturally give rise to ethical values that are tied to the deity rather than to the devotee. Whether right behaviour is thought of as a means of earning divine favour, avoiding the wrath of judgement or being thankful for divine mercy, it is there. Ethics and theism go hand in hand.

Thus Christian theism. In one of the clearest passages on Christian ethics Paul writes: I urge you therefore brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God (Rom 12:1). The following words tell us what it means to ‘present your bodies’ as they talk about hating evil, loving enemies, showing mercy to the needy, being good citizens, avoiding sexual immorality, bearing with the weak and so forth.  This is typical Pauline material. Clear moral values are founded on the character and deeds of God (and especially on his mercy in Christ to put sin to death) and translated into behavioural imperatives and urgings.

There has been recent debate as to whether there can be good ethical systems without a religious base. Some atheists have asserted that religion is not needed to make people good. De Botton is among their number, although he is aware that the path is difficult. Thus he acknowledges that atheism has a problem that begins with ... A key assumption of modern western political thinking is that we should be left alone to live as we like without being nagged, without fear of moral judgement and without being subject to the whims of authority. Freedom has become our supreme political virtue (p70). And that means a fear of state-sanctioned criticism of human follies, lest the opprobrium of ‘nanny state’ be drawn.

However, he sees the problem as lying deeper than a reticence in secular moral education but as consisting in doubt regarding the very foundation of ethics. Thus his note that scepticism leads to a ... persuasive doubt that anyone could ever be in a position to know exactly what virtue is, let alone how it might be safely and judiciously instilled in others (p73) and  ... at heart no one any longer knows what is good or bad (p78). He later faces the necessary recognition that, for atheists, that we are the authors of our moral commandments (p80).

Where then for secular ethics? Why, in the absence of God, should I be kind to my neighbour, stranger and enemy, especially if being kind counters my self-interest?

De Botton want to have ethics and public moral instruction but is caught between the absolutising of freedom and the scepticism of DIY moral values.

Let’s note his suggestions for moral improvement and then think about what lies under them:

1.     Despite the above uncertainties, parents have no trouble setting moral standards for their children, admonishing their observance and reinforcing it with a behavioural star chart and promised rewards.

2.     Is there place for a gentle reminder to adults through some kind of adult star chart? (p75).

3.     Real freedom should be compatible with being harnessed and guided. (p78)

4.     A secularised understanding of original sin allows us to admit to and attempt to rectify our species-wide faults as we inch towards moral improvement. (p82)

5.     Public spaces are already not neutral as libertarians argue they should be. Rather they are typically covered with commercial messages that attempt to manipulate our minds and behaviours. Why not use such spaces to give gentle reminders of virtues such as kindness? (p87-88)

6.     Just as Christianity parades its positive role models so A well-functioning secular society would think with similar care about its role models (p95).

De Botton states the assumption undergirding these as follows: … it is in the end a sign of immaturity to object too strenuously to being treated like a child. The libertarian obsession with freedom ignores how much of our original childhood need for constraint and guidance endures within us, and therefore how much we stand to learn from paternalistic strategies (p95).

The assumption here is that the human problem is fundamentally one of incomplete development or immaturity and thus the solution lies in paternalistic restraint to protect us from one another’s immaturity and providing reminders of morality to help nudge us to moral behaviour.

Is immaturity really the human problem? If so, we might expect immoral behaviour to be less common as people age and are better educated – for their maturity would lead them to better behaviours. On the other hand, the worst of immorality would be found among the young and poorly educated. The Duke of Wellington had a wise saying on this: educate people without religion and you make them but clever devils.

At this point Christian theism gives a very different diagnosis of the human condition and it lies with Scripture texts that De Botton himself cites (Ps 51; Rom 5:12, p82). Our root problem does not lie in immaturity or being deprived of moral education, but in a sinful nature arising from our rebellion against God. Likewise, the root solution does not lie in billboards exhorting kindness, but rather in the kindness of God who provided his Son as a sacrifice to lift the penalty of sin and to break its power (Rom 3:21-26).

In essence De Botton leaves us with a moral code resting on our own authority and moral improvement resting on our underlying capacity for learning and maturity. In removing the spiritual base of religious ethics and its motives for right behaviour he has done more than remove religious mythology. He has left morality without motivation and foundation.

Yet again, De Botton’s attempt to harvest the good fruits of religion without embracing its spiritual roots looks thin and we are left wondering if it was worth the effort.

* This post is a response to chapter three of Religion for Atheists by Alain De Botton (Hamish Hamilton, 2012).

Just another kid?

My grandchild is due to be born tomorrow*.

I have three children and this is my fourth grandchild. Just another kid! No way! I have a sense of awe at the new life that the birth represents. Today, my son and his wife are a childless couple. Tomorrow they will have their firstborn to hold in their arms.

Of course, the first thing we want to know is the child’s gender. But then the bigger wonders: what will this baby grow to be like? What abilities will develop? What study and career path will shape its adulthood? How will this baby contribute to the family line as it grows, possible pairs off and reproduces?

It is an awesome event. Two adults come lovingly together as one flesh and a new life results.

In Christian view this event has an extra awesomeness, for the Bible speaks of all human life bearing God’s image (which is why it is not our call to wilfully destroy it. Gen 1:26-27; 9:6).  Irrespective of how beautiful, clever, helpful etc this new child is, the child has the highest worth because it bears God’s image. This child is a prince or princess of his kingdom and over his creation. And that is before it is able to do anything or actually does anything.

Compare that with the view of prominent atheist and ethicist Peter Singer: “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23.

I’m thankful that my grandchild is born into a world that God rules and not Peter Singer. His criteria of human identity and worth seems rooted to what the (non)person can or cannot do. On that logic, its not just all newborns who need to watch lest he comes calling, but any person who has disability or the weaknesses of old age. This grim reaper’s calling card will be cast broadly.

Compare again with the Bible’s view that God watched over my unborn grandchild from conception: You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. … My frame was not hidden from you when I was being made in secret intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them (Ps 139:13-16).

Through his intricate paths of genetics and DNA God has set my grandchild’s nature. To me these mechanisms are mysteries before which I bow. Were I to understand the biological complexities behind my mysteries I expect I would the more in awesome wonder. The biology tells me how these happen. The Bible gives the back-story that shapes their meaning.

My grandchild is not a ‘thing’ waiting Singer’s inspection and certificate of humanity. Its worth does not depend on its capacities. And that is why I will love and treasure this child and would give my life for it. And it is why God loves and treasures this child and why the Son of God gave his life so it could be redeemed and live in fellowship with its maker.

The child is not just a ‘thing’ or just another kid.

* 2nd March update: I'm pleased to report that Xavier Alexander Burke arrived as expected and is much loved.

Oh the twists and turns in the world of atheism

Christians are sometimes accused of dividing into a thousand sects that turn on each other with fury ... but read this for an account of divisions in atheism as the fundamentalist atheists turn on soft atheists like de Botton ...

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2012/02/neo-atheism-atheists-dawkins

How little we see

Dawkins doubts?

Just saw this interesting report from the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102164/Richard-Dawkins-6.9-out-of-seven-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

Of course its no big surprise that Dawkins says he cannot be certain that God does not exist - unless he or someone else has inspected every corner of visible and invisible reality.

Odd isn't it: atheism critiques theism as being dogmatic yet is itself dogmatic about the non-existence of God.

Religion for atheists – 2. Creating community

In Religion for Atheists Alain de Botton has a high ambition. He ... hopes to rescue some of what is beautiful, touching and wise from all that no longer seems true (p19). De Botton acknowledges that religions have bestowed many of these beautiful, touching and wise things on humanity in a way unmatched by the atheism he espouses. And thus his dilemma. He asserts the fundamental falsehood of religion yet wants to preserve and recover its helpful bestowments to help meet the yawning gaps in modern life.

First up he addresses the problem of loneliness and community.

In many ways people are closer than ever before. Many of us live in the near proximity of cities and the almost-daily digital discovery makes it easier to be in touch over the voids of space and time. But here’s the problem: we are closer together and further apart. Who talks to the person they share a bus seat with? Or the person of a different social group whom we see every day? We have become experts in the art of being ‘so near yet so far’ and few of us make friends once over 30 years of age.

De Botton both documents and laments this sad state. He speaks of a past sense of community that is now largely lost n the privatization and stratification of modern life. The pain is eloquently expressed in his words on love. Love is now mono-dimensionally romantic and we have lost … the expansive, universal brotherhood of mankind (p27). But even romantic love is an artefact of the loss of community, for we have  ... a maniacal quest for a single person with whom we hope to achieve a life-long and complete communion, one person in particular who will spare us any need for people in general (p29). How sad. Love has lost its open-hearted inclusiveness of the many and instead becomes a closed-door exclusiveness of the two.

From this perspective, De Botton takes a long look at the Roman Catholic Mass. He admits that it is not ... the ideal habitat for an atheist (p30) yet sees much of value in creating and maintaining a community. He sees value in its mixed composition, the stripping away of the distinctions that divide, the care for the poor and the attack on human pride.

In keeping with his programme of atheistic borrowing, de Botton wants to strip the Mass of its distinctly religious elements. He identifies its heart in such things as a discrete venue, rules to shape constructive human interactions and its origins in a love meal of the Christian community. By contrast much modern dining keeps people separated from outsiders to their group and does not foster meaningful contact between fellow-diners.

Next comes the atheistic reconstruction of the Mass in the form of an Agape Restaurant followed by a godless Day of Atonement and Feast of Fools.

Let’s look at the Agape Restaurant. Diners will enter an open door, pay a modest entrance fee, be scattered over tables of mixed composition and have conversation on prescribed topics according to a schedule laid out like a Catholic missal or a Jewish Haggadah. De Botton acknowledges that this will seem awkward at first, but expects it will be a learned behaviour in which our fear of strangers recedes and we humanize one another. As he remarks: Sitting down at a table with a group of strangers has the incomparable and odd benefit of making it a little more difficult to hate them with impunity (p43).

All this sounds wonderful and is an earthly echo of the Christian metaphor for heaven as being like a vast wedding dinner. But where is the centre of the secular love feast and what lifts eyes upwards to a higher aspiration in order that we may then look downward on one another with warmth?

The Roman Catholic Mass is derived from the Jewish Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his followers and also turned into what we know as the last supper (Matt 26:26-29). It in turn became the eucharist, holy communion and the mass in later Christian tradition. This meal has a backward focus as Christians remember the great work of God to save his people through the death of Jesus. It also has a forward focus, for as Jesus himself said, he would not drink the fruit of the vine with his followers until he does so in his Father’s kingdom.

All this gives the Christian meal an upward lift and a transcendent centre. All who gather at the table are united in their sense of needing divine forgiveness, recognising their ability for self-help and in saying to their God ‘you must save and you alone’. Those who participate indeed participate in the one supper, eating from the one loaf and drinking from the one cup (1 Cor 10:16-17). In doing so they participate in the crucified and raised body of Christ and are the one body his church.

All this gives a strong point of unity at God’s love feast – strong enough to cross the human divides and create a remarkable community.  It’s hard to see how all this happens in De Botton’s secular Agape Restaurant. Where is its centre and what is the point of community?

The Christian feast can create community because it is based on a Day of Atonement grounded in the historical acts of God to save through the Old Testament sacrifices and the New Testament sacrifice of Jesus. He is the one whose blood is the grace-given propitiation for sin that brings redemption. Against that De Botton’s secular and quarterly day of atonement seems just so much wishful thinking and his Feast of Fools empty escapism. The real human loneliness is loneliness with God and because of that we face loneliness with one another. Real community starts with connection to God through his Day of Atonement in Jesus and that alone creates lasting communion with one another that will be celebrated in heaven’s feast of faith.

This post is a response to chapter two of Religion for Atheists by Alain De Botton (Hamish Hamilton, 2012).

Religion for Atheists – 1

When I was a child I behaved in childish ways. My mother baked wonderful cakes and the house filled with their smell. However, my interest was all in the sweet seductiveness of the icing bowl. As my mother prepared the icing, I would linger in the hope of a spoonful or at least to lick the bowl when it was done. Sometimes mother indulged me, but generally she made me wait until the icing was on the cake.

That’s wisdom: no icing without the cake.

All that is by way of introduction to Religion for Atheists by Alain De Botton (Hamish Hamilton, 2012).

I have read several of De Botton’s books and find him a rarity among modern philosophers. He writes in an easily accessible form and with a great concern for practical life applications. His work is enjoyable and stimulating and I find it thought provoking and instructive.

De Botton speaks of being raised in a secular Jewish household where any form of religious belief was a decided ‘no no’. However, he found his faithlessness challenged by encounters with Christian and Buddhist inspired art forms. What was going on there?

In this book De Botton joins the new atheist debate but insists that writers such as Dawkins and Hitchens have it wrong. De Botton takes it as a given that ... of course no religions are true in any God-given sense (p11). Presumably the pun was intended. His concern is with what happens next. What does life look like once God is removed?

This is where the icing and the cake come in and the book gets interesting.

The basic argument of the book is stated in chapter one whose title indicates the agenda: Wisdom without doctrine. I think that the argument can be summarised in four steps:

1.     The truth claims of religions concerning God are false.

2.     However, religions help meet important human needs by providing valued things such as a sense of community and a means to cope with pain.

3.     Secular society is impoverished and incomplete by discarding these useful aspects of religions, along with their supporting dogmas.

4.     The challenge for atheists is to re-appropriate these good things that religions had once colonised and baptised from earlier non-religious sources.

The rest of the book takes up this agenda and will be commented in later blogs in this series. In overview: De Botton notes a contemporary problem, notes how religion has addressed it, removes the religious dogma and identifies the helpful features, and, finally, proposes an alternative that expresses the helpful feature in secular dress. It is an interesting read to see how he does this chapter by chapter.

All this reads like trying to have the icing without the cake. Some words from the end of chapter one illustrate the problem:

… religions merit our attention for their sheer conceptual ambition; for changing the world in a way that few secular institutions ever have. They have managed to combine theories about ethics and metaphysics with a practical involvement in education, fashion, politics, travel, hospitality, initiation ceremonies, publishing, art and architecture – a range of interests which puts to shame the scope of the greatest and most secular movements and individuals in history. For those interested in the spread and impact of ideas, it is hard not to be mesmerized by examples of the most successful educational and intellectual movements the planet has ever witnesses. (p18)

This is a significant admission in its recognition of how the ideas of religions have impacted the whole of life in the most practical and applied manner. But still he wants to strip the ideas away and just have their good effects. Can we not see how the effects are the fruit and the ideas the root? Take away the ideas and there is no fruit.

The icing needs the cake.

More on the idea of an atheist temple

Today's paper carries this piece: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/atheist-temple-an-aberration-not-divine-inspiration-20120203-1qxfa.html

Despite the efforts and premature obituaries of some, religion remains alive and well. Be it from the cultured despisrrs of religion in the west, or totalitarianisms of the left or right, religious belief and practice refuses to disappear.

Could it be that eternity really is in the heart of humanity and that we really are hard-wired to worship?

This is not the same as saying that all religions are the same (most certainly not). However, it is an assertion of the essentially spiritual nature of humanity and the universe.

One shudders at a temple of atheism that celebrates reason alone and worships humanity. There are too many examples of the horrors that soon follow. For example attempt to eliminate the old, the ill, the disabled and the different on grounds of cost-based economics or a chilling Darwinean attempt to enhance the human gene pool.

A Temple to atheism?

Hmm ... a prominent UK atheist wants to build a temple to atheism and says he has the design and some financial backers lined up: http://www.smh.com.au/world/dawkins-spurns-the-tenets-of-de-bottons-temple-for-atheists-20120127-1qlk3.html

But what do you do in such a temple? Look in the mirror and sing 'how great thou art'?

Will be a venue from which charity is extended to the needy; andsacrificial giving of time, talents and treasure occur?

Or will it be another tower of Babel shaking a fist at God and waiting to be overthrown or atrophy?

Ye gods!

Have a read of this: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-fn6b3v4f-1225980669696?sv=aea42b6d737afb759022a3a2f341cfad

Will the prophets of reason  examine and discuss this suspension of reason in the name of deep green environmentalism?

Theism at work

Follow this link to check out what Christian theism led one Sydney couple to do:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/house-of-hope-20120118-1q62h.html

Hmm ... this story could be written many times over from the last 2000+ years.

Wonder what good works are bred from atheism ... esp from atheism that does not have a faith-heritage lurking somewhere in its past.

Why I signed for the global atheist convention

A Global Atheist Convention is being in Melbourne in April 2012.

You can find details at: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

I have signed up to attend despite being a theist and despite it being an expensive weekend when conference fees, air fare and accommodation are thrown in.

Why go?

I'm curious. I know what happens when theists gather, but what do atheists do?

The conference is subtitled 'a celebration of reason'. An abundance of reason's prophets will gather, with a galaxy of speakers including Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer. (Its a great opportunity to hear these people first hand and I look forward to it.)

A theist gathering has talks explaining God's word and songs praising his goodness and deeds.

But what of atheists?  To whom do they sing? Whose word do they tell?

I guess I know what they are against. Any form of religious belief but especially theism and most especially Christian theism draws their ire. So I expect talks debunking and ridiculing religion in reason's name.

But what are atheists for and what does it mean to celebrate reason?

Well, I guess that the answers have to wait until later in April.