My parents were not religious. Consequently, I had no religious education of any form until I attended primary school. I can recall even after half a century has passed, that first autumn term when the Christmas story was read out to us. Fascinated, I listened to stories of angels, a donkey ride and a birth in a manger. Later, I learned of the passion; the crucifixion and the resurrection and ascension. I was five, yet clearly I see it after the passage of those decades, the question that entered my child’s mind “why are there no angels now?”
I guess, if you are going to indoctrinate children into your religion, the age of five is probably leaving it too late. Because, that question has never left me – if angels exist and they can impregnate a mortal woman, why is it not happening now? If a man can die and be laid in a tomb only to rise after three days before ascending into the heavens, why can’t it happen now? Why is it that for 2000 years, there have been no miracles, no water into wine, no magic cures and no solution for necrosis?
By the age of seven I announced to the world in general – or anyone who happened to be listening, that I did not believe in God. My mother said something along the lines of “That’s nice, dear” and that was that. As I grew older, I went along with my peers and my sisters who did believe in God. So it was that I attended Sunday School and by the time I was in my teens, I was helping to run it. I was confirmed and served during church services – and, I make no bones about it, I enjoyed it.
But, but, but… Why are there no angels now? And how did a man who died, manage to stop the necrosis that causes the cells in the brain to die after around six minutes of no heartbeat? No one could answer that question.
Many years later, Jeremy Bowen fronted a three part documentary on the life of Christ. He tried to establish some historical evidence to substantiate the accounts in the Gospels. I have to say here that I remain sceptical. Certainly something happened in 1st Century Judea, but whether it was one man or a combination – much like the Robin Hood myth – is uncertain. There are no independent contemporaneous accounts to verify the myths and they bear a remarkable resemblance to other myths and legends that were doing the rounds at the time.
What this does not alter is that there was a sea change and a cult of peace, love and tolerance emerged. A core set of values that is to be admired and one that even today has resonance. The core principles behind Christianity are good ones – the golden rule that runs like a thread throughout humanity.
Unfortunately, by the time the Roman Catholic Church had taken hold of it, a darker theme emerged and subsequent religious wars drowned out the message of those early hippies, which is a shame.
By the time I was fifteen, I realised that I was a fraud. Jeremy Bowen said of the resurrection that there is no evidence to support it, so you either believe it or you don’t. I don’t. I cannot. And belief isn’t something you can switch on or off. You have it or you don’t; simple as that.
When it comes to religion I am happy for people to do as they wish. I am passionate about freedom of religion as I am about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and should it be challenged by anyone, you will find me on the barricades with the religious folk. However, I do not like the “in your face” witnessing that is a part of the evangelical movement. It is unpleasant and anti-social.
I recall some years back when I was helping at a local fete, a young man came over and engaged me in conversation. The usual stuff, pleasant small talk. Then came the sales pitch – Jesus saves. This was a perfectly executed sales technique – engage the potential client and gain his trust. When the pitch comes, it is that much more difficult for the subject to extricate himself as we are essentially polite creatures and don’t like to be rude – even if we have been subjected to a confidence trick. As a general rule we prefer not to be put on the spot in the first place. This is not an anti-religion stance, it is a matter of basic politeness. And it is why double glazing salesmen and timeshare touts are pretty much universally reviled.
That said, this is a culture thing. In the USA, the “in your face” approach is much more prevalent. I recall one blogger I used to know from the Blog-City days, who answered the door one day to the local pastor who then proceeded to berate him for his promiscuous lifestyle. I cannot imagine for one moment a C of E vicar calling upon someone to berate them for their lifestyle – but this bogger, though annoyed, didn’t seem to find it unusual. So, yeah, a culture thing. And this being Britain, we tend not to like it very much. So religion should be a private matter between the individual and his god. I know where the local church is, so should I want to know more, I can go and speak to the vicar – or priest should I go all catholic. In that, I feel that the French have the right idea – a secular state with a pretty religious society. They keep the two separate and do it well, for the most part.
All of this said, I am equally derisive of the Richard Dawkins approach. Frankly, he gives those of us who do not believe a bad press. It also makes it difficult when engaging in debate as people automatically assume that all atheists take the same belligerent view. Most of us do not. Most of us just don’t believe and would prefer to enter any debate – should we feel it desirable – without the baggage.
So, yes, I do still try to apply that core Christian principle of basic humanity, passivism and generosity of spirit in my daily life. I just manage to do it without any belief in either God or Christ.
In the USA here. I have had no problems with proselytizers. Ever good-natured and charming, I ask, “If I were to pick a religion, how would I know which one of the world’s four thousand?” It flummoxes them.
As for Dawkins and others, they serve a purpose in showing closeted, isolated atheists that they are not alone. Moral support.
That’s one way of looking at it, I guess. I tend to find Dawkins’ style too abrasive, despite agreeing with him on the matter of gods.
Dawkins is in the real world. I’m not surprised he can get a bit abrasive, he can’t ‘delete and ban’ the religious trolls that he has to deal with all the time.
I know he volunteered to do this by writing some books, but I think I would be pretty fed up with the same old dull rhetoric from the deluded, hard-of-thinking, evangelists and self-proclaimed religious ‘leaders’ 25 years on.
Actually, I’ve never deleted and banned a religious troll. Come to that, I don’t think I’ve had one. I have, however, deleted and banned my cyber-stalker. He might be religious, of course 😉
As I said, I agree with Dawkins, I just don’t think his style helps, particularly, even if it is understandable. Not least because the likelihood of changing minds is probably fairly remote.
I think the likelihood of him changing minds is remote even if he were patience and kindness personified.
Which reminds me there was a chap on Radio 3 the other night who was very interesting and who has written a book I must read on the subject – http://righteousmind.com/
Looks interesting.
Sorry, but core christian principles include killing and torturing people wj=ho disgree with you.
…..
Ditto ANY religion.
So what part of peace, love, understanding and generosity of spirit don’t you like?
More seriously, what you (and I) are objecting to is what happened when the whole idea of those early hippies became organised.
“Ditto ANY religion.”
Define “religion”. Remember, not all religions are (a) organised, or (b) theist. Some, like Buddhism and Shintoism are positively passive by nature and cannot be tarred with the same brush as the protection rackets we know as the Abrahamic religions.
Furthermore, Man seems to have developed a habit of worshiping books—or, more accurately, narrative frameworks that can be used to define the basis for his personal philosophies. Religions originally evolved to answer the unanswerable questions. The earliest religions were there to explain where we came from (“magic” / “fairies” / “The Great Arkleseizure”); why planting had to be done on certain days and not others; why the harvest had to be done on certain other days; why offerings were made to the magical invisible fairies who controlled it all and created us, etc.
And then there’s the question most peasants wanted answered: “Why are we here?” The Abrahamic cults generally answer with variations of “You exist to suffer under the crushing heels of your betters, peasants! But we guarantee you’ll be so much happier after you’ve died! And you get to lord it over all those evil, corrupt, rich people too! Honest! It’s written in this sacred anthology of approved fairy tales and everything! See?”
Because, for the most part, the life of the working classes was pretty miserable, while the nobility got carried around in expensive litters to their next orgy.
*
Also: If the religious want to equate all atheists as being like Richard Dawkins, I’m sure they won’t mind if I equate all of them as being like the late Osama Bin Laden. There are opinionated loudmouthed trolls on *all* sides; the religious—and yes, I really do just lump them all into the same basket—have no shortage of similarly opinionated people on their side of the fence.
And, to be fair to Mr. Dawkins, at least he hasn’t flown planes into any buildings, bombed abortion clinics, or murdered any doctors in the name of his cause.
*
Right, I’m sure I had a point to make, but I forget what it was, so, er, let that be a lesson to you. Or something.
If I were to self identify with any organised religion – and it is a pretty loose fit, frankly, then it would be Buddhism. I approve of its passive, contemplative outlook.
Good post Mr. L.
I particularly liked your comment about applying core Christian principles to your daily life. This is what I’ve always thought most people took from their oontact with organised religion in the UK at least.
You certainly got the Dawkins mob engaged if nothing else…
Sort of thought provoking as young Saddam was christened into the “church of the holy spook” on Sunday.
I’m a typical lapsed Yorkshire catholic, but Mrs M! is a bit more religious and really wanted Saddam to get dunked.
I had no objection as it was an excuse for a right good nosh up – and I was right! Also it was good to have a family gathering for something other than a death.
As has been said, something REALLY interesting went on in the first century and I am fascinated by it’s history. But I see it only as history – perhaps some bloke really was nailed to a tree for saying it would be a great idea for us to go round being nice to eachother. Or maybe he was just another failed rebel, but with a better publicity machine than the others. Maybe he even managed to survive the ordeal of crucifixion before being smuggled out of the country of his birth – a few well placed bribes to make sure he wasn’t up there as long as was usual. Who knows…..
Here endeth this mornings ramble.
ANd what is actually wrong with professor R dawkins, pray?
If you’ve heard or seen him speak, you will know that he is the most mild-mannered of men, with an eminently reasonable line in dialogue and written English.
All the howling comes from deliberate religious LIARS.
They lie as easily as breathing, and they just keep on doing it.
It was this realisation that finally turned me from a vaguely Spinozan deist into a full-blown atheist.
Actually, I think I’ve already answered that one. I agree with what he says, but I’m not sure his choice of language is over helpful (delusional? Maybe, but I’m sure it could be put differently). Nor for that matter complaining about the pope visiting. I really don’t think that those protests last year helped the case for atheism one jot, frankly.
I’ve been an atheist for much longer – certainly long before I heard of Prof Dawkins. Since forever, I suspect, which was in part the point I was making in this post.