Dolan Cummings Talks Arse

Dolan Cummings repeats the tired mantra of the religious nut-cases in the Times today:

The desire to belong has made atheism into its own religion. But non-belief is no basis for a group identity

As a strap-line, it sets the tone of the piece – wrong-headed nonsense. Atheism is not a religion and the only people trying to make it one are the Dolan Cummings of this world. Atheism is merely not believing in god(s). I’ve said it enough and will continue to do so while ignorant fuckwits such as Dolan Cummings continue to repeat the nonsense that it is a religion or anything like a religion. For those who believe in the Hebrew god, my lack of belief in their deity is no different to their lack of belief in, say, the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome or Persia; they are interesting insights into ancient cultures, but nothing more.

Richard Dawkins’s campaign urging atheists to ‘come out’ and be counted, is oddly reminiscent of an evangelical rally where born-again Christians are implored to rush down to the stage.

I tend to agree with him on this one. I find Dawkins incredibly abrasive and irritating. “We” do not need an evangelist to trumpet our cause – because, quite simply, we do not have a cause. A lack of belief is not a cause, it is… well… just that, a lack of belief. It doesn’t make us members of a group, because that lack of belief is the only common thread, just as a non-belief in unicorns is not a religion and people who don’t believe in unicorns are not a definable group.

And if sales of Dawkins’s The God Delusion and other recent books like it are anything to go by, there is no shortage of people ready to join up.

No, it means that there are plenty of people who want to read what Dawkins has to say. Likely as not, to use Cummings’ logic, they have already “joined up” because Dawkins is confirming what they already don’t believe. Despite my irritation with Dawkins’ strident approach, I agree with the principles of his points. Unlike Dawkins I have no particular problem with people believing in whatever deity they wish – live and let live; just don’t presume to tell me that my failure to share that belief makes me a member of some sort of alternative religion; I don’t worship anything, don’t follow any rituals, don’t belong to any sect and do not acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings; therefore, I neither belong to nor follow a religion.

While some critics have labelled Dawkins and co ‘atheist fundamentalists’, the real similarity between atheism and religion today is less fanaticism than a palpable yearning to belong.

No, it is because people realise that they are not alone in their lack of belief, that there are others who find the idea of following bronze age myths and legends in the twenty-first century faintly absurd. I recall my realisation that I didn’t believe, and hearing others voice those thoughts made me feel that way – it was nothing to do with belonging, it was simply that I wasn’t some sort of oddity – well, maybe I am some sort of oddity, but it isn’t because of my non-belief in gods.

There is nothing wrong with this very human impulse, but non-belief is an odd basis for belonging.

That’s because it isn’t.

But atheism itself ought to be the least interesting thing about atheists, who surely have various and often conflicting beliefs and passions of their own.

Of course we have various and conflicting beliefs of our own. I share my lack of belief with Neil Harding for instance, yet in almost everything else we are diametrically opposed. Atheism isn’t a case of “ought to be the least interesting thing about us” it is the least interesting thing about us. Atheists by and large do not seek to form groups based upon our lack of belief, rather we are to be found in all sorts of groups and communities with other, more interesting and compelling reasons to bind us. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and yes, there are those who want to add an atheist voice to the “thought of the day” – but anyone who has listened to the insufferable, sanctimonious clap-trap on the radio’s thought for the day is likely to want to hear anything that might be an alternative…

The most promising term used by some atheists to describe a more positive outlook is humanism, evoking a rich tradition going back to the Renaissance. But this won’t serve as a label for the non-religious for the simple reason that humanism does not preclude religious faith.

This is nothing more than unfounded bigotry and assertion. I’ve come across plenty of atheists who describe themselves as humanists while being perfectly well aware that it does not exclude religious belief. The two are not mutually exclusive. To assume therefore that atheists reject the term because it does not preclude religious belief is without foundation. Arse, in fact.

Indeed, those of us with a positive belief in the human potential do not especially need to distinguish ourselves from others who share that belief while also identifying with a religious tradition.

And the same sentiment applies to non-believers. What asinine twaddle.

Rather than joining together with others who share a positive vision of the future, self-styled atheists define themselves against an external threat.

Bollocks. There are plenty of us in all walks of life who just get on with it – we don’t see some external threat, and try, despite the best attempts of our politicians, to hold a positive outlook and optimism for the future. The only people defining us by our lack of belief and attempting to turn that lack of belief into a religion are people like Dolan Cummings – deeply stupid and ignorant people who give religious believers a bad name.

If coming out as an atheist means subscribing to an ersatz religion with the fire taken out, atheists can expect to remain in the cold.

But no one is, are they? Once more we have someone attempting to project their religious philosophy on something that is absent. I don’t define myself by my lack of belief in gods and those I meet who also lack belief do not define themselves thus either.