The New Atheism

This is something I've been meaning to say for a while, something that riles me more than almost anything: The myth of "New Atheism".

I fail to see just how there can be a "New Atheism". Atheism is the same as it has always been, namely, a lack of belief in God and, subsequently, a distancing of oneself from any religious organisation. That's it. What people mean when they say "New Atheism" is "more atheists", or perhaps "more vocal atheists". I don't see why this is such a problem – people have been expressing faith far more vocally for years.

And then you get to the big points: Atheism is a religion as bad as any other, and Richard Dawkins is its leader. And they're all smug.

writerJames wrote a brilliant piece about that "smug" notice, but suffice it to say that most commentators using that term are not being awfully humble themselves. You can basically describe anybody who has an opinion that they feel strongly enough about to voice as “smug”, and so it just becomes a convenient way to belittle an argument without going through the exhausting process of actually conveying a rational argument. I think the Pope is unbearably smug, but that doesn’t render his arguments invalid (there are far more things that do that).

The issue of Richard Dawkins is curious as well. A very important point to make right now would be that DAWKINS IS NOT ATHEISM. Dawkins is an atheist. This would be (I would have thought) a pretty obvious distinction, were it not for the fact that so few people seem to be able to make it. I hold Dawkins in very high esteem, but he is not my Pope. I do not feel compelled to agree with him because he is a representative for a perfect being. In many ways, he is more similar to an actor or musician – I enjoy his work, but were he to suddenly offer opinions that I continually disagreed with I would feel no more compelled to stay with him than I was with “Heroes”.

It seems to me that people outside of atheism are more obsessed with Dawkins than those within. Perhaps that is doing them an injustice, but he is undeniably the go-to guy whenever an atheist story drops. The Atheist Bus campaign and the idea of arresting the Pope were all attributed to him simply because when the ideas arose, journalists went to him asking if he approved. Any hint that he did resulted in them becoming Dawkins’s plans.

Things reached a nadir when Stephen Fry was accused of leading an “Atheist Hate Campaign”. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that Stephen Fry could lead a Hate Campaign. But, of course, this was shoddy, scaremongering journalism that was wrong on every count. As Fry’s wonderful blog describes (and, just as a side note, is it possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?), he was a signatory of a letter, not a leader. This letter began with the phrase:

“I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…”

It is sheer religious privilege that makes atheists the enemies. Our arguments challenge their beliefs and question their actions, as all worthwhile arguments do, and as a result we are accused of bullying, and labelled no better than racists, misogynists and homophobes – all things promoted, at one time or another, on religious grounds.

The Exeter Reclaim the Night March 2010

In November, Exeter was to have seen its first Reclaim the Night March, a march in keeping with the others nationwide promoting awareness of the issues women face, particularly walking at night. Sadly, this event is now no longer to take place, at least, not in November. Below is the email sent by Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, the president of Exeter University's Gender Equality Society, explaining the situation:

Dear all,

I'm afraid I have some sad news. For now, Exeter Reclaim the Night is going to have to be cancelled. This is certainly not for want of trying - in fact, it very nearly became a reality. However, the Devon Police Force withdrew its support, rendering the march financially impossible.

Their reasons for doing so are two-fold. The first is a desire not to take officers away from their core duties. Their second reason is much less palatable - a Reclaim the Night march is, apparently, not of National Significance. This statement follows detailed descriptions of the aims of such an event: to protest the shockingly low national rape conviction rate, to raise awareness of the importance of women's safety on the streets at night, and to campaign for a rape crisis centre to be opened in Devon.

One would hope that women's safety would be a number one priority of the police force. This response shatters that illusion. Of course, we're not taking this lying down. While there is a limit to how much we can do to change the police force's decision, we can make our discontent and disapproval heard. In order to do this, the committee have drawn up a petition.

This message, then, is not entirely bad news. There is something you can do to help. Please come find us, in town or on campus - I'll be sending out times as soon as we know them - and sign the petition. Also, if you'd like to be part of the campaigning team don't hesitate to get in touch. The more of us out there making ourselves heard, the better.

This situation is such a shame, as I know just how much effort went into making this happen. But we can show that, although women's safety might not be a priority to Devon's Police Force, it is to us. If we can't make the message heard on the streets of Exeter, we do have the internet. Use Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or anything to let people know. If you're in Exeter sign the petition. Even if you're not, please sign the online petition. And there IS still hope. Caitlin ends her e-mail with this:

Thank you all for your support thus far. We WILL bring Reclaim the Night to the streets of Exeter, one way or another. And when we do, we hope to see you there.

UPDATE, 21/10/2010: The Exeter Reclaim The Night event has a blog, which will keep be used to keep you updated on events.

A Secular Society is a Better Society

I was recently asked to speak at a debate with this blog's title as its motion. I have reproduced my argument in full below, and must point out that throughout I was indebted to Evan Harris's excellent Secularist manifesto:

A secular society is not only a better society, it is the only fair society. It is a society that does not judge a person by their religion, nor does it make decisions based on religious privilege. It is a society that treats everyone equally, regardless of faith, but does not let their faith impact on others. Essentially, it is an ability to express any and all religious beliefs openly, limited only by, as Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights puts it, “the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". This separation of Church from State also allows for decisions to be made based on what is fairest to the society at that time, rather than being held to the unswaying doctrines of other eras; doctrines that we would mostly now consider to be outdated. Finally, it offers a greater accountability of politicians and decision-makers, who must justify their actions beyond matters of faith.

You have heard the arguments in favour of Secular Schools*. A Secularist is not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools – even Richard Dawkins admits that without an understanding of Christianity, it would be difficult to understand the history of Britain, for instance. But it is essential that no one religion should be forced onto a person, and that they should be free to decide which, if any, religion is appropriate for them. It is not up to any state authority to push one set of beliefs onto children, even if the state were to fund many different Faith Schools. These choices should be made by well-informed, well-balanced individuals, who are in possession of all the facts.

This society should not be atheist, agnostic, or humanist in views, but impartial. Protecting the right of all religions to say whatever they want is essential to a secular government, but with that also comes the right for anyone to challenge any view or opinion. No-one should have the right not to be offended. This is why the English blasphemy laws were so vigorously campaigned against by secularists, as well as the fact that they were Christian-only, up until the point that they were abolished in 2008. These laws showed a clear bias towards both faith in general and Christianity in particular at the heart of government – a government that has been elected to represent the whole country, and not just those who believe in the Christian God.

A secular nation is also a free nation, in the sense that it is unchained from the past. I shall use the example of homosexuality, since this is something treated with the severest punishments in a huge number of religions, including, but not limited to, Christianity. Despite the religious imperative to criminalise it, we as a society realised the injustice of this law, and legalised it in 1967. This abolition has led to countless people being freed from the threat of legal action simply for being who they are, and has resulted in a better standard of life for them. Crucially, it also does not criminalise opposition to homosexuality. Religious organisations, such as the Catholic Church, are still free to condemn homosexuality in exactly the same way that organisations like Stonewall are able to criticise their statements.

This freedom of religious expression ends when it starts to impact on the lives of others. Anyone may say anything, provided that it does not incite violence, and provided that they do not engage in any activity that is detrimental to the welfare of that individual or group. Let’s take the example of the gay couple barred from the Christian run Bed and Breakfast this March. The views of the Christian couple running the B&B are protected by law, no matter what your personal opinions on that may be. However, their actions were not, as they directly affected the happiness and welfare of the gay couple specifically because of their homosexuality. A secular law should allow for no justification on religious grounds. Why should someone be mistreated simply because the person behind the actions believes in a deity of some kind? An impartial system should accept only a rational argument to something like this, and not accept a supernatural one. The same rules apply to any religious organisation delivering a public service, such as a charitable organisation. They are more than welcome to provide that service, provided that they do not withhold any part of it from users for religious reasons.

A Secular Nation is stronger because its reliance on a rational argument, which emphasises the consequences of actions. Whatever your opinions of the Iraq war, it was shocking to hear that Tony Blair – a well-known opponent of secularism – made the decision to go in feeling that “God will be [his] judge”**. This reliance on a God which a huge percentage of his country does not believe in can easily cause arguments to be cyclical (“Why?” “Because God says!” “Why?” etc...), leaving those who hold different or no beliefs to feel unrepresented. A secular society deals purely with what unites us, our common humanity.

To conclude, a Secular society is neither theocratic nor atheist, but a society which supports freedom of religious, or indeed any other belief. However, it does not permit religious belief to be a justification for actions that in some way adversely affect another person. It promotes each belief system without bias on one or the other, leading to a fairer society for all, whilst at the same time vetting religious privilege. It allows for reasonable debate, and the jettisoning of old-fashioned ideology. Simply, it is the most inclusive society possible.

Despite the support that the religious societies had rallied, we only narrowly lost the vote 57 to 70.

*I was the second speaker for the proposition, and education was a large part of the first, hence the rather cursory reference.

**This argument was challenged, as Blair's statement was a reflection, rather than a reason, on the decision to go to war. Whilst I would say that it's true that I oversimplified the point, I maintain its relevance to the argument: a decision on the scale of going to war should not be made on the basis of faith, and its airing clearly caused a lot of anguish to people who saw Blair as leading the invasion under false pretenses.

Breast Cancer on Facebook

Recently on Facebook a lot of people have been posting the phrase "I like it on...", and then a location, referring to where they leave their handbag (only it's funny, cos it sounds like sex!). This is all for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is a very worthy cause. However, I have a LOT of issues with this campaign.

The logic behind it is non-existent. It's making an in-joke out of a scheme to raise Breast Cancer awareness. I usually find awareness is much better when, you know, people are BEING MADE AWARE, as opposed to being kept in the dark. Why not post a link to, say, Cancer Research UK (you can even just click here). That way, everyone knows what you're talking about, and maybe some of them might even donate. They are certainly more likely to do so after being directed from a link than with an obscure reference to where you leave your handbag.

For some reason that I haven't fully worked out, breast cancer seems to hold a special place amongst terminal illnesses, in that it's the only one that you're allowed to find sexy. Yes, I know they're breasts, but if you're getting turned on by a mammogram then there is something wrong with you. Try doing that with any other serious illness or condition -- if you made a sexual innuendo about AIDS, for instance, people would rightly deem it in poor taste (at best). I appreciate that dwelling on the details of cancer might not be best suited to Facebook, but there is a huge gulf between doing that and sexualising something that, I am sure, a huge percentage of your Facebook friends have seen affect or take a loved one.

All this, and I haven't even mentioned the fact that there is no link between cancer and handbags. Demonstrably. The only link is that it involves breasts -- like what girls got -- and handbags -- like what girls got. The word "Tenuous" probably covers that connection best, and only then if we assume strict gender binaries: that all women have a handbag, and all men don't (and we then forget about the 1-2% of cases affecting men).

So don't post this status. It's ridiculous. It really is no better at awareness raising than the chain e-mails that used to spam Bebo and the like, and certainly much worse than donating, or even telling people about it plainly. Or clicking this link, which directs you to a site where each hit earns someone a free mammogram. Much better.

(Thanks to Charlotte Bennett, whose Facebook comment helped lead to this blog)