Brain Walden writes on the BBC web page on spirituality. It’s an interesting and thought-provoking piece.
Several years back a journalist called David Margolis interviewed Tony Blair for “Vanity Fair.” Naturally enough he was very interested in the relationship between the Prime Minister and President Bush.
He asked Mr Blair if his religious beliefs bonded him to the American President. At which point Tony Blair’s spin doctor Alastair Campbell stepped in sharply and famously said “We don’t do God.” Mr Campbell is a controversial figure, but on this issue public opinion was on his side.
Actually (and make the most of it, it doesn’t happen often) I agreed with Alistair Campbell on this one, too. The state; governance, if you like; should never be influenced by religious belief. Religion is a personal matter and has no place in government. So, yes, Mr Campbell was right on this occasion – mind you there’s an old adage about broken clocks being right twice a day. :devil:
Walden continues:
Most of us don’t want to see politicians dragging God into political arguments. But we go beyond that. We don’t want to hear God discussed in an extremely dogmatic way that might upset others of different faiths. So we don’t do God.
It’s not as straightforward as that, I think. I simply don’t want to hear God discussed irrespective of others’ beliefs in the room. A Golden Wedding celebration dinner that I attended recently involved the couple concerned starting the meal by saying grace. They were not aware that some of us were curling our toes in acute embarrassment. They believe; it simply didn’t occur to them that others didn’t share that belief. It wasn’t their belief that I found uncomfortable, it was the assumption that we should all partake of a religious ritual.
I don’t generally discuss my atheism in company – indeed, only my immediate family are aware of it and not all of them. I tend to take a view that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want; whether it is Christianity, Islam or Scientology – their choice, it’s not my place to be involved. Therefore, not doing God in public simply avoids unnecessary confrontation and awkwardness. It isn’t about respecting others’ beliefs, because, frankly, I don’t. I respect their right to believe whatever they want, nothing more.
Walden then goes on to bemoan the fact that our not doing God leads to a purely secular outlook:
But unfortunately we don’t do much of anything else that isn’t strictly secular.
This leads him to the conclusion that we lose something in the process; spirituality. That is, the human spirit as opposed to a belief in diety. I don’t know, I’m not sure he’s necessarily hit the spot, there. I’m an atheist, yet not particularly materialistic. I value the world around me and have a contemplative nature. It’s the nearest I’ll get to admitting spirituality, so make the most of it. However, I keep this part of myself strictly private – I don’t discuss it in company, just as I don’t discuss my lack of belief in a deity. I suspect that I am not alone and, therefore, Walden’s concern is probably misplaced. The British are a reserved people. Not doing God in public, is simply good manners. Private belief is just that; private.
Walden then goes on to discuss humanism:
The belief that now dominates some Western societies, including Britain, is a particular kind of secular humanism. It asserts that mankind is the central fact of the universe and that our duty is to make progress ever more rapidly. We mustn’t spend much time on idleness or contemplation, but must be endlessly active, conquering new worlds and facing new challenges.
His concern is that we are rushing headlong without question; that progress is all. He has a point, I suspect. Certainly I am inclined to be suspicious of the idea that the universe exists “simply to serve the purposes of humanity” but then, that might have something to do with an innate sense of misanthropy caused by reflection on mankind’s impact on the world. :dry:
Consequently, I find myself in agreement with Walden when he says:
Our narrow view of progress leads us to be hyper-active and our imperialistic desire to dominate evermore aspects of the planet is the most serious problem we face. Personally, I believe we should contemplate more and do less.
Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for contemplation in the right circumstances. And his final paragraphs echo with me, perhaps because I have reached similar conclusions. Walden’s reference to Buddhism and its contemplative, passive and selfless nature is a philosophy with which I have empathy. Yes we are individuals – I’ve argued the case here for the recognition of individual determination, which is why I am so opposed to authoritarian politics. However, individualism does not automatically mean obsession with self, nor does it mean being selfish. Recognising the need for self determination in oneself, means that we recognise that need in others; therefore allowing others to be what they want to be. It is the effect of growing older, I suspect, but I have become more contemplative as the years pass and my need for material things diminishes. Perhaps that is why I now yearn for a simpler existence in an agrarian environment without the rushing crowds and headlong flight of “progress”.
The answer to Walden’s final question:
Do we need to do progress and its grinding materialism with such intensity?
Ought to be “no” but I suspect that it is “yes”.
Brian Walden on Civil Liberties, about a year ago. Quel twat! 🙄
A bit like Alistair Campbell, then? :devil:
I didn’t see that article last year – it does make interesting reading. The comparison between the Nazis and the Muslim Extremists doesn’t hold up. We know exactly why those bombers attacked us (actually, we know why the Nazis engaged on their war of aggression, too).
Walden is entirely wrong in his belief that the appropriate response to terrorism is to capitulate and appease – which is what his preferred approach amounts to. Equally he is wrong to dismiss any ideas about understanding ones enemy. The better you understand, the more chance there is of either defeating them or reaching a settlement – whichever is most appropriate.
Absolument… 😉
I’m in agreement with Longrider that religion should not be part of politics (ie there should be no state religion and no specific promulgation or prohibition by the state). However, religous, anti-religious or neutral views form part of the background of any politician. It therefore strikes me that one can, quite legitimately, seek to judge someone’s political views according to their religious beliefs (or not as the case may be). I cannot see this as different from judging them according to their belief in socialist or capitalist economics, the rights of animals, or anything else.
Longrider claims not to talk much about his atheism. I dispute that. He mentions it here a fair bit. Personally, I like it. That is the careful and thoughtful discussion, rather than agreeing with every view he puts forward. And, as a good Englishman (I think), he does not overdo it.
Concerning the saying of grace before a meal, are there not two sides. Those who habitually say grace might find it offensive to be in the company of those who do not; this is to just the same extent as vice versa. Surely in mixed (gracing) company, the choice of the host should prevail, he/she should not overdo it (noting that it is mixed company), and the no-gracers should make no big thing of it.
Best regards
Nigel:
Longrider claims not to talk much about his atheism. I dispute that. He mentions it here a fair bit.
Yes, I talk about it in essays here. I do not discuss it in company and have never mentioned it to those (apart from my wife) at the golden wedding I discussed. If asked, I would simply reply honestly – they don’t ask, so I don’t say. 😉
Regarding the “grace” incident – it was really just an observation about the assumption of others – an assumed shared belief. It simply did not occur to them that others were not of the same belief. I didn’t make anything of it, simply remained mute; which is the polite thing to do.
I spent part of yesterday morning with a friend. He took us (Kim & I) to a church in the grounds of Exeter University. Once there, Kim sat down, I sat at the piano and he played the clarinet. It was then I became aware of what I have mistakenly termed the ‘religious impulse’ – a sense of connection, awe and reverence for my surroundings. The building itself has a beautiful ceiling and took me into a meditative space almost instantly. I love churches, the stillness within. Yet I’ve never had any of the underlying belief and I’ve tried to, believe me I have but it’s not there and I know it never will be. When we’d finished playing, I felt at peace and walked from the place settled and calm. I cannot believe in the supernatural but I will always have a need to feel a part of something.
You sound like one of those spiritual atheists to me…
Darius, welcome. You could be right. 😉
Is there such a thing as a spiritual atheist? 😯