Wednesday, 31 May 2017

BELIEVERS AND ATHEISTS LIVING TOGETHER

Image result for tolerance


by ERASMUS – The Economist

CAN theists and atheists live together in any sort of mutual respect? That is far more than an academic debating point. Throughout history, theocrats have punished dissidents who rejected the state religion. In the 20th century, atheist regimes subjected religion to bloody repression, and a few, like North Korea, still do. And in recent years, especially in the Islamic world, there has been a resurgence in the persecution of those who reject the prevailing form of religion, or all religion.
The rise in religious repression is one of the factors that galvanised "new atheists" like the late Christopher Hitchens, who thought "religion poisons everything


DAWKINS


and Richard Dawkins, the biologist who has argued that religion has a unique capacity to make good people do bad things. But there is another sort of cerebral atheism. John Gray, one of Britain's top public intellectuals, is a strong advocate of the view that theism and atheism can coexist in freedom and a sort of amity. (Yes, Britain does have intellectuals, even though it would be a kiss of death if, as happens in France, "100 intellectuals" were to declare their support for a particular party or candidate for British office.)
In his latest trope on that theme, an essay for the BBC website, Mr Gray cited the examples of two non-believers who were, for different reasons, respectful of religion. One was the Italian thinker and poet Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837, pictured), 


Image result for Giacomo Leopardi
LEOPARDI

who rejected the conservative Catholicism in which he grew up. Leopardi intuited, correctly as it turned out, that militant secularism would take forms that were even bloodier than the French Revolution whose aftermath he saw. In Leopardi's view, religion as he knew it was preferable to the sort of armed atheism that would one day take shape. Mr Gray's other example is Llewellyn Powys (1884-1938), one of several members of a clerical family from England's West country who became lightish popular writers. Dogged by poor health, Powys was a hedonist who believed in seizing the moment and enjoying the pleasures of nature and love; but he still acknowledged religion as "a kind of poetry which fortified the human spirit in the face of death."


Image result for Llewelyn Powys
POWYS

Mr Gray could have chosen more contemporary eggheads. Giuliano Ferrara, an Italian newspaper editor and friendly interlocutor with the Vatican, is an atheist and erstwhile communist who admires the Catholic church for defending Christian culture. Terry Eagleton, a British-born literary theorist influenced both by Marxism and by the Catholicism in which he was raised, is not formally religious, but is sharply critical of the new atheists for misunderstanding religion. A similar line is taken by Karen Armstrong, a former nun and best-selling writer, who became badly disillusioned with Catholicism. She insists that the word God refers not to a true-or-false proposition but to a human quest for meaning and transcendence. Like Leopardi, she seems more preoccupied by secularist brutality than the religious sort.  
What about the theist side of the discussion? Can people who believe in God live amicably with those who don't? Perhaps that raises a harder question. For those who see the existence of God as not merely true but, in a sense, truer than anything else, how is it possible to respect people who disagree? In a western world that no longer burns heretics, most religious people would probably say something like this: faith in God is an existential choice which only has value if it is made in absolute freedom, and that freedom must also imply the right of people to say no. From this viewpoint, the right to atheism underpins faith. In liberal readings of Islam, meanwhile, the Koranic statement that "there is no compulsion in religion" is taken as a statement of value more than mere fact; religion has no merit if it is embraced under duress. 
David Jenkins is a maverick Anglican cleric who was accused of atheist tendencies when he was bishop of Durham. He denied the charge, but he did once argue that theism and atheism were, in some paradoxical way, two sides of the same coin. In a 1966 book entitled "Guide to the Debate about God", he minutely explained the theological ideas of brainy Teutons like Friedrich Schleiermacher, Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth, and then concluded, enigmatically: "In the end there are no adequate reasons for God's existence. He is. The atheist also understands this. He does not believe."


Image result for bishop jenkins
BISHOP JENKINS

If the clash between theism and atheism were merely about metaphysical ideas, personal choices, or even quests made by consenting adults, then it should indeed be a negotiable difference in societies which allow for many other kinds of diversity. Thinkers like Mr Gray or even Bishop Jenkins may help us negotiate. But they do not entirely solve the problem. It is striking that the most intractable disputes between believers and non-believers concern the treatment of children: how and by whom they should be raised; what they should be taught about the origin of the world; whether, in the name of religious custom, their bodies should be mutilated; whether the education of boys and girls should be separate and in some way differentiated, as conservative Islam mandates; and at what point in their biological development one can speak of a life which cannot morally be terminated. With or without the guidance of brainy public intellectuals, these are hard arguments which lead to hard choices.

PAT SAYS:

I believe that one of the hallmarks of a good and genuine person is tolerance.

I think that both believers and non believers should show tolerance to each other.

I have as little time for atheistic fundamentalists as I have for believing fundamentalism.

All fundamentalists have something wrong with them.

We should have little time for both believing and atheistic fundamentalists.

In fact we waste our time talking to them.

They suffer from a particular type of IGNORANCE and ignorance is like a concrete wall - very difficult to penetrate.

I had a Christian fundamentalist telephone me late on Sunday evening to try and convert me ti his form of Christianity which involved a veganism based on the Book of Genesis.

I did not waste much time telling him to get off the telephone.

Of course we cannot tolerate evil or indeed movements and organisations that promote evil.

7 comments:

  1. Karen Armstrong is a fundamentalist herself. The Catholic Church under St Thomas influence did and probably largely still does understand God as a true or false issue. What business has she defining what religion is doing or telling it she knows what it teaches even when it disagrees with her? Then she sets about calling all who contradict her fundamentalists or fundamentalist sympathisers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some thoughts: Religion likes to blame most wars on atheists or atheism. Even when religion implies that there can be no real peace without it it is accusing atheism. That can be dangerous. And religion permits and encourages the publication of materials that slander atheists and incite hatred against them. The atheist who challenges religion with firmness and dignity is engaging in self-defence. And he is helping to protect other atheists. If religion gets strong enough in society again atheists will suffer.

    You never hear of atheists making bitter factions among themselves and persecuting one another. No war has ever been fought in the name of atheism. Religionists though are infamous for fighting in the name of God, miracles and divine revelations. People are prepared to wage war in the name of something be it a religion or God or political agenda/philosophy. They fight in for something they see as bigger and more important than themselves. The religious think they have superior knowledge given to them by God so they feel so sure they are right that they can wage war against the "wrong". God and religion add fuel to the fire. Even if atheism were arrogant and produced wars, at least it tries to base itself on facts not revelations. Also, the ultimate reason why any religion got established enough to gain great power and influence is because of its marriage with political powerhouses. Consider how Mormonism ran Utah and consider the infernal marriage between Christianity and the Roman Empire. Atheism, understood as a faith in humankind not God, never had to marry politics to get power. It earns it. Religion could only make the problem of belligerency worse and creates more things to fight over. Politics and war gave it its privileged position and only they can continue it.

    Stalin protected many churches and the religious communities relevant to them. There was mutual co-operation. He did not then hate religion in itself. He hated it only when it contradicted him. He obviously perceived that religion and murder and genocide are indeed compatible. And so did the Christians who collaborated with him!

    Religion lies that Hitler was an atheist. Christianity tries to avoid the blame for the Holocaust of the Jews. But the truth is Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "In defending myself against the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work". In Vienna in 1938, Hitler declared after the Anschluss, "I believe that it was God's will that from here a boy was sent into the Reich and that he grew up to become leader of the nation". Hitler in Mein Kamph used the story of Jesus driving the Jews out of the temple to ague that the Jews today needed to be driven out of society. In 1941 Hitler wrote to Engel the following words, “I am...a Catholic, and will always remain so”.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a thoroughly enjoyable article to read. Thanks Pat for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. +Pat any update on that deacon Aidan Gallagher? An email went to all guests yesterday. Very strange

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the things I've found out about religion is that some believers want to own the faith and the world as well. If it doesn't fit throw it out. Sadly for such reality is objective and does not depend on me or anyone else for it's existence. Of course theists and athiestis can live and work together because of the basic makeup of the human psyche. So can different religions as was evident by the recent news coverage of a high ranking Muslim cleric and the bishop of Manchester in Manchester cathedral

    ReplyDelete
  6. MournemanMichael1 June 2017 at 09:12

    Had intended to comment on this excellent blog Pat but see Maynooth soap opera now predominates. So thank you for raising this in a thought provoking erudite way.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete