Articles RSSTo Hell with Gharby's God.
In practice, even 'believers' are essentially godless.
'Campaigning for “godlessness” rather than atheism'
Rare are the occasions which see me agreeing with the statements of theists, but such have been known: for example, the tenet that a Jew or a heathen, though a decent, honest and moral man, may not enter heaven seems to me fairly self-evident, if unnecessarily specific. Despite precedents, however, I am surprised to have found myself in agreement with a sentiment expressed by Dr. Rowan Williams.
I was reminded of the following joke, circulated a few years ago in response to the increasing vogue of the word "godless" (meant, bizarrely, in a pejorative sense, and used to describe atheists): theists too are godless, since there is no God. Perhaps we can now venture a third definition of the term: those who live their lives as if God did not exist. Accordingly, the recent bus advertisements – "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" – campaigned for “godlessness” rather than atheism.
Moreover, we have the word deist, as opposed to theist, to describe one who believes that God created the world, but takes no further action in human affairs – in other words, he does not believe in Providence. Such a person would therefore also be considered "godless", and it is my contention that he or she has more in common with an atheist than with a theist: the more significant part of his or her belief is what is rejected than what is accepted.
Indeed, in recent decades we have seen a sharp decline in the number of genuine believers in an immanent God, who cares about one’s diet and/or sexual exploits and/or how many times and in what way one grovels one’s thanks for the bespoke world so graciously created for one’s convenience.
Such a belief, in its sincere form, is a false hypothesis that only scratches the surface, and necessitates endless convolutions in a futile attempt to dig a way out of the hole. Once you posit the existence of an omnipotent and involved God, everything must be subject to His righteous and perfect justice. Inventing a "Satan" doesn't help, because God is either omnipotent or he is not, and must therefore be credited with both all of the good and all of the evil.
In Camus' La Peste, Father Paneloux thunders to the terrified Oranais, "My brethren, a calamity has befallen you; my brethren, you have deserved it." Just a few decades on from that fictional sermon there is a public outcry whenever a religious leader asserts that some natural disaster or terrorist attack is a punishment from a wrathful God – no less reasonable a theological standpoint than any other, it seems to me.
But even if, like Father Paneloux, we insist that God is to be regarded as the source of a given problem, our circle has not quite been squared (which, to be fair, might leave Spinoza’s circles content). In addition to this, He must be the solution.
You have heard it said, that there are no atheists in foxholes, but verily I say unto you that the opposite sentiment in fact holds more water. That is to say, if, in the case of illness, one's first port of call is the surgery rather than the church, or if, in the case of fire, the first number dialled is that of the fire service rather than one's vicar, then that demonstrates unequivocally what is to me a "godless" world view.
Cases such as that of the Tunisian pilot Captain Chafik Gharby, sentenced to 10 years in prison after 16 passengers died as a result of his deploying prayer as an emergency measure, have become the exception rather than the rule. Back when religion actually involved theology and had not yet been reduced, as Stephen Fry puts it, to a "kind of sharing", there was widespread opposition to anaesthesia and lightning rods, deemed to be subversive to His will. After all, I believe it was the Lord who saith, "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord" (Jeremiah 17:5).
Again, we are all familiar with the particular disgust afforded to the dregs who watch their children die rather see that they receive medical treatment, though it is not so long ago that this course of action was widely seen as the logical conclusion to belief in God.
I must say, though, that even if I were a theist I might prefer to be called a "hypocrite" than a "murderer", and the vast majority of self-professed theists seem to agree. By and large, God has at best been relegated to nothing more than a psychological phenomenon, a drugless placebo based on desperation and delusion.
And so to resume the thrusting of my argument. Up until now, those with vague notions of an "overarching, underlying energy", or a "force that flows through everything", or a "binding consciousness" (etc. etc.), have been reluctant to count themselves among and align themselves with the bleak ranks of the empty-lived atheists, and even suspect and pity us for our soulless lives (not realising that theirs are too).
Given that we have an outspokenly godless Archbishop of Canterbury advocating secularism, perhaps this silent majority will begin to recognise in the non-believers their own scepticism and ignore the irrelevant similarity between their own held beliefs and those of the equally godless, but blissfully unaware.
And what might be the results of this unholy union of non-theists (not counting a change in attitude towards atheists, which would be a prerequisite)?
Perhaps we might start paying less attention to the views of those who claim to be channelling the will of a celestial chess-player, but are in fact parroting bronze-age bigotry and idiocy.
Perhaps when it comes to national discourse on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality, sexual ethics, medical and scientific research, euthanasia, and education (to list but a few), we might apply the same godless enlightenment values as we do to our own lives.
And maybe – just maybe – it will no longer be expected of us to "respect" religious beliefs.
Comments in chronological order
Total: 9
Fri 10 Apr 2009 2:45pm
This debate reminds me somewhat of that age old method of controlling unruly children by asking them, on unearthing some heinous transgression of ethical and social norms, 'what would your mother think if she saw you doing - saying - eating that?'. For the rest of the day, Mummy is arguably present in every sphere of life. Yet she may equally be rapidly forgotten, or indeed certain of her inconvenient moral strictures explained away, as more impulsive, 'human' activity is engaged in. With a large number of potentially naughty scamps, the problem lies not only in the multiplicity of perceptions of mothers by all parties involved, and their respective behavioural effects of these perceptions in varying situations, but also in the futility of those who respond in the manner of New Atheists with a transcendent 'your mum' response, so to speak, on encountering challenging opinions and behaviour which result from this relationship. This is clearly unproductive. The question of living side by side with believers is decided not so much over what Mummy actually thinks, or if she indeed exists, but in what little Adam thinks Mummy would want him to do. I feel that having a chat with Adam, and finding a compromise which leaves him aware of the need to get on with everybody else in the framework of Mummy's transcendence, rather than straight up insulting his mother and deconstructing her claim to existence itself, is the most productive solution.
Sat 11 Apr 2009 9:20pm
I agree. But New Atheism also needs to realise that its deconstructions are as invalid as they are unproductive, since they only work on their own terms. They seek to disprove one language game, to lapse into Wittgensteinian speak, by use of another language game, whilst failing to recognise that we cannot occupy a position outside language from which we can evaluate these competing games. What matters is, as you say, whether people are getting on with their lives and with everybody else. To the disproofs of Richard Dawkins, we should respond exactly as Voltaire's Candide responds to the proofs of Dr Pangloss: 'Excellently put', he says, 'but let us cultivate our garden.' Finally, both theists and atheists might cease their abstract arguments and return to the concrete world.
Sun 12 Apr 2009 1:35am
Now hang on there, Tom. God seems to be knowable enough for the Pope to tell us that AIDS is preferable to condom use (to give an immediate example). And as for returning to the concrete world, that was exactly what I was trying to do with this article. God may exist, but who cares? He doesn't play any part in day-to-day life.
Sorry, that's crass. And I know that I was somewhat unfashionably Cartesian in my logical process. But whether or not god exists is, for our purposes, irrelevant. The question is whether a certain conception of God is correct, and the Archbishop of Canterbury and I agree that it is not.
And Hector, your mother analogy is a lot like Christian theology: flawed from the start, but makes a valiant run nonetheless. If Adam's mother doesn't exist, never has, and yet he has got it into his head that she would like for him to campaign against equal rights for homosexuals (again, just an example), then Adam's misconception needs to be addressed. If, however, it's just a device to float Adam's secular moral boat, then again I ask, who cares? I might suggest that it says a lot about Adam that he needs that kind of invisible overseer to stop him raping and pillaging, but that's not really any of my business. As long as he keeps his mummy issues to himself.
And while I'm here, what's all this about "new atheism"? Atheism is much the same as it has always been, and fairly simple it is too. Admittedly, in Christianity, there are more gods the existence of which to deny, but at the end of the day our position has remained the same through the centuries. Yet no-one ever seems to talk about "new Christianity"; perhaps it's because it reinvents itself so often that no-one would know what was being referred to.
P.S. I was asked for a reference for the opening gambit about the Jew or heathen being denied entrance to heaven. I read it once in an essay by Max Lilienthal, who didn't cite a source, but it is fairly basic Christian doctrine (or, at least, it was back in the day), based on, among others, John 14:6.
Sun 12 Apr 2009 9:59am
I understand New Atheist as a poorly-read intellectual bombast who imagines that all religious believers are evolution-denying, comdon-bashing imbeciles - and proceeds, naively, to rehash the arguments of past atheists with the conviction that this time they will work.
New Atheism also needs to reflect on the fragility of the notion of 'godless enlightenment reason' in light of a postmodernism which rejects it, as well as debates about realism in science, which seem to be taking the non-realist line.
And surely Hector is right when he says it is more productive to focus on the moral precepts rather than their foundation. The Pope is much more likely to be persauded by arguments that focus on the therapeutic benefits of comdom use than those that undermine the God from which he takes his authority. This would be the more productive approach.
What I take issue with is your confusion of the Archbishop's conception of God with secularism. Because God sustains all things in existence, according to Christian doctrine, God is much more intimately involved in the world than a God who observed the world from afar and intervened only occasionally. If this is godlessness, then it is also godfullness. There might no longer be a proper distinction between the religious and secular realm, but that is not to say secularism has won the day.
Sun 12 Apr 2009 2:35pm
Leo, the 'flaw' begins when you say that Adam's mother never existed and never has. The question of whether you are right or wrong about that is dealt with by Tom with reference to the unequal playing field of language games. Arguing about the existence of God, instead of looking for areas of compromise, is a classic recipe for trouble. The existence of ideas manifests itself only in some form of physical medium - you can say that God does not exist from a logical, scientific point of view, but the existence of churches and a worldwide Catholic community, with effects on everything from politics and philosophy to childcare and the economy, requires you to accept 'God' as a valid influence on the behaviour of others and the world. It is impossible to make a distinction between the moral device and the spiritual guide - however much we would like to we cannot step into the minds of others. We can, however, push people to emphasise elements of compromise and cooperation contained within their religious code rather than deny fundamental elements of their character.
Sun 12 Apr 2009 3:25pm
As a poorly-read (I can't deny it), intellectual (not for me to say, but I take it as a compliment) bombast (I've certainly been called worse), I suppose I fit well the template of your "new atheist". I do not, however, make the assumption that all religious believers are as you paint them, and you would do well not to put words in people's mouths. If anything, I assert the opposite. What I (and I can't speak for my fellow spectres) am in fact saying is that there is a wide range of imbecility within the believing community, and that those who are effectively secular would be better off dissociating themselves from the nuttier elements of the fruitcake.
As for rehashing the old arguments, if they don't work it is because religion has so radically changed its tune. Science and reason have chased it out of its traditional domains, and it now lurks quivering under linguistic loopholes. Something that sustains all things in existence? "No thing"? What am I supposed to say to nonsense such as this? If the world would operate identically with or without God, then He may as well not exist, and the Archbishop, in denying an intervening God, is taking what can only be a secular approach. By all means believe in him, just do't act on that belief. Go to the doctor, use your life-jacket. And if you survive an earthquake that kills hundreds of others, by all means thank God, but do it under your breath.
But it's none of my business whether or not people believe in God, and I'm not trying to change hearts or minds (well, not hearts anyway). It only becomes relevant when Adam, Benedict or whoever decides that his religion is my business - by all means deny evolution, just don't deny it to my children (full disclosure: I have no children).
It is at the point where he claims to have authority beyond the human realm, where he claims to have access to knowledge that he cannot have, that we have a breakdown in communication. Did you really say, Tom, "The Pope is much more likely to be persauded"? Are we talking about the same infallible vicar of God on Earth? Why should he listen to a mere mortal when he's got the Creator of Heaven and Earth whispering in his ear?
There's your uneven playing field, Hector. Debate is effectively impossible while the religious operate on a different moral plane. There can be no compromise, as there is no common ground. I am calling for those who have fingers in both pies to give more weight to their secular impulses, and [insert here the closing paragraphs of the original essay].
Mon 13 Apr 2009 12:28pm
First, contrary to popular belief, the Pope is only speaking infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra. Catholics often joked that the only time the Pope has actually spoken infallibly is when the doctrine itself was codified at the First Vatican Council in 1870, though it was invoked by Pius XII when he declared that the assumption of the Virgin Mary was an article of faith in 1950.
Second, I take issue with your charge that religion has changed its tune. You are right that the theology I am trying to defend - and I share with you the concern about its meaningfulness - is not that with which New Atheists are familiar. But Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas, for instance, all shared a sense of the mystery of God - a mystery that was lost during the Enlightenment (when all spheres became subject to 'Reason'), and might be recaptured now that the central tenets and universalism of the Enlightenment have been discredited.
Third, the world might operate identically with God, but it would not operate at all without God - so Christians would not agree that the world would operate identically with or without God. That is why Christians talk about the world as a gift from God. (Of course, you may respond that if God is 'no thing', how can we possibly know God? The Christian response is that God reveals himself in Christ; other Abrahamic religions have parallel doctrines of revelation).
Fourth, it is less easy than you might think to dismiss the ultimate question. Wittgenstein said, 'The mystery is not what the world is but that the world is.' If God is what explains existence, then the reality of the world depends on God.
Is this meaningless or meaningful? I think this is the question that really divides theism and atheism. I also think it is an irresolvable question. You either see the meaning, or you don't. Any attempt to define what is meaningful by set criteria will end up committing the same fallacy as the Logical Positivists.
The divide between atheists and theists (and here I am ignoring the fruitcakes) is minute, but makes all the difference in the world, for it makes the world a gift and grounds the reality of the world. This is why I think it is unfair to declare this a form of secularism. For you it might be, but not for those who believe.
Wed 6 May 2009 4:59pm
In the 21st century England, attacking God as an extant prinicple is about as worthwhile a past-time as kicking a dead cow.
The cow will be as dead when you started as when you finished and you will probably break your foot, wasting time in hospital when you could have been considering the far more pertinent question of why there is no longer much milk in your fridge.
God is a psychological, and not a physical, phenomenon - (at a stretch, perhaps a metaphysically psychological one)- and is best considered as such. Certainly the physical phenomena resultant upon man's conception of a 'God' are nonetheless worth engaging with. Thus, on such principles, I have to side with Mr Kociak on this one.
Share/bookmark
Facebook
digg
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon
Send email
Send gmail
Tom Bird
Wed 8 Apr 2009 9:05pm
Like so much of the writing which might be filed away under the label ‘New Atheism’, this article completely misunderstands the history of Western theology, as well as the Rowan Williams’ Ebor Lecture.
You state that religion goes wrong when it ‘actually involve[s] theology’. To blame ‘theology’ for crude conceptions of God as a celestial chess-player does a gross disservice to the dominant Christian theological tradition which has consistently affirmed the unknowability of God. Thomas Aquinas would be the first to condemn Spinoza’s circles or indeed any univocal description that confused God with a thing. Theologians provide a constant reminder to those who speak of God that that they are stretching language to breaking point. Perhaps this linguistic apophasis is meaningless. Perhaps it is not. Regardless, theology keeps religion in check; it stops it from going wrong.
Much of what New Atheism does is the day job of the theologian. Theologians are not unaware of the propensity of religious language to fall into the trap of idolatry. What they grapple with is an overwhelming question – Why is there something, rather than nothing? – the answer to which is God. If God made all things out of nothing, then God can be no thing. Therein lies the mystery of existence. Atheists ignore this question and declare it juvenile: the ultimate ‘why?’ of a child. The world, says Russell, ‘just is’. Science concerns itself with existents, not existence. That is why God can never be treated like a scientific hypothesis.
The Archbishop was not advocating ‘secularism’, because secularism would imply that God, somehow, is not involved in every sphere of life. Christianity, however, states that God is involved in everything because God sustains everything in existence. Williams was pointing out that it is a mistake to suppose that God can intervene in the universe in the same way a powerful person might intervene.
The reason New Atheism will fail is because it does not listen to what Christian theologians actually say.