Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

We all know how commercial Xmas has become, and how we have lost sight of its true meaning. Yet, over the past few years, I have rediscovered my enjoyment of this festival. And that’s partly to do with living in the countryside.

What does Xmas mean to you? Rampant spending on pointless and short-lived consumer products? Overindulgence in food? Wasting the planet’s resources through the vulgar adornment of your living room or house with electric illuminations?

Not pretty, is it?

For me, this time of year has become all about getting back to the true and original meaning of Xmas – that is, the pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

I’m not talking about covering myself in wode and hopping naked around a bonfire adorned with holly and uttering strange incantations. I don’t have any time for ancient superstitions, other than from a perspective of academic interest.

No, I’m talking about celebrating the fact that the days will start getting longer again and that we can look forward to spring.

Living in the depths of the countryside, we have become acutely aware of nature’s moods and seasons. And we enjoy witnessing how nature responds to the cycle of the year. Science, of course, has given us greater understanding of what is happening and why, and deepens the awe and wonder of the spectacle.

And so the winter solstice is not as mysterious to us as it was to those pagans who developed rituals around it. But we are every bit as grateful as them for the knowledge that the days will now become longer – that winter’s apparent decline is temporary.

When you understand that this is what the festivities are about, you can shrug off all that nonsense that has been artificially piled on top of this natural waypoint in the year – silly stuff like plastic holly, flashing lights and Christianity.

Sophie in 't Veld MEP

The European Parliament has created a new body that will promote a secular approach to human rights. The European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Europe (which, for some reason, likes to abbreviate itself as EPPSP) plans “to give a voice to secularism in Europe”.

It’s led by Dutch social-liberal MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld (right).

Before religious zealots start getting knots in their skimpies, let’s point out that this new body isn’t promoting atheism. Here’s what the EPPSP says:

The Platform defends and promotes Fundamental Rights, with special focus on freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Freedom of religion is an individual fundamental right, and the Platform will stand up against attempts to use it as a pretext to restrict other fundamental rights.

See that? Freedom of religion is part of the deal. What the EPPSP won’t tolerate, it seems, is religion being privileged in such a way that it impinges on other freedoms. Quite right too.

The body’s home page also states:

The EU institutions must remain secular, so as to ensure that all religions and life stances are treated equally and have equal possibilities to influence EU policy making.

It’s not often you hear such excellent sense coming out of Europe. This deserves support.

The good news is that the inestimable British Humanist Association (BHA) is already doing just that. It’s head of public affairs, Naomi Phillips, attends EPPSP meetings. She commented: “Despite the fact that the European Union is mandated to respect and treat equally both religious and philosophical, non-religious organisations, the churches and other organised religions have wide and privileged access to, and influence over, the institutions of the EU. The BHA works through the EPPSP and through the European Humanist Federation in order to make our contribution to promoting a separation of religion and politics across Europe.”

Which planet is Pope Benedict XVI on? The Roman Rottweiler’s speeches during his tour of the UK show a weird disconnection from reality and a rabid fear of secularism. And this controversial visit demonstrates once again that the Pontiff and his cronies are not above lying.

Let’s have a look at a few of the things the Pope has said:

“Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate.”

The Papists have already made clear their disgust for multiculturalism. Cardinal Walter Kasper, who is normally trotted out to excuse Vatican PR blunders, made one of his own when he compared the UK to a “third-world country”, a comment inspired by the country’s multiculturalism and increasing secularism. When these comments created justifiable outrage, Kasper was dropped from the Pope’s entourage. The excuse given was illness – a transparent lie.

But also note how the Pope wants respect for ‘traditional values’. This, clearly, is a reference to religious belief. As usual, a church leader is demanding special treatment for faith. Why should faith be granted automatic respect? Most religious beliefs are bizarre and have formed the basis of centuries of social and psychological repression. There is a false and insupportable assumption here that ‘traditional’ means ‘good’.

I’m glad that the Pope finds certain aspects of secularism ‘aggressive’. Of course, they’re nothing like as aggressive as Roman Catholicism, a faith so totalitarian in its outlook and implementation that it is still killing people today. But it’s right that the Pope should be afraid. His weird ideas simply can’t withstand the scrutiny of reason.

“Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms”

Here we go again – the age-old conflation of Christianity with morality and ethics. This is an outright lie. What underpins British freedoms is democracy, not the bronze-age myths enforced with mediaeval morality offered by the Christian church. No-one needs Christianity in order to be good. All it offers is narrow-mindedness and suspicion of new ideas. The UK can do perfectly well without that, thanks.

“Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.”

First, let’s not be shy about how many Jews have been persecuted and murdered by Christians. Shall we mention the Blood Libel? Who invented the idea of forcing Jews to sew yellow badges to their clothing? It certainly goes back as far as (Christian) King Edward I and his 1275 Statute of Jewry.

Of course, Pope Benedict is also reiterating the lie that the evils of Nazism were a result of atheism. Hitler was a Christian. He formed a new German church. The Nazi fear and hatred of Jews was inspired, fuelled and justified by Christian attitudes to Judaism. Hitler frequently cited divine inspiration and justification for his actions. And let’s not forget that the motto of the SS, inscribed in their belt buckles, was ‘Gott mit uns’.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

Oh dear, such a twisted view. It’s another cheap and tawdry attempt to conflate atheism with extremist ideologies. What he’s getting at, of course, is Stalinism and Nazism. But none of the evils of the 20th Century’s savage regimes were motivated by or rooted in atheism. They couldn’t be. Atheism offers no basis for ideological action (unlike religion, which so often impels adherents to acts of murder and oppression).

And far from a ‘truncated’ or ‘reductive’ vision, atheism allows one to shed the blinkers of religion, to free oneself from the absurd, narrow and banal confines of faith and open one’s mind to the real wonders of our existence. When you encounter the astonishing complexity and beauty of the universe, what could be more reductive or truncated than the miserable, unimaginative explanation that ‘God did it’? I can’t think of anything more pathetic and feeble.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) had a suitably indignant response to this arrogant and mendacious Pope:

“The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that it somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.

“The notion that it is non-religious people in the UK today who want to force their views on others, coming from a man whose organisation exerts itself internationally to impose its narrow and exclusive form of morality and undermine the human rights of women, children, gay people and many others, is surreal.”

Surreal indeed.

As one of the world’s more famous atheists, Bertrand Russell always had the knack of combining a brilliant intellect and profound insights with a startling clear expression of his ideas. Here’s a classic example.

I have a few favourite moments. He describes how he examined religious ideas and found no good reason to believe in them. When asked by the interviewer whether religion is useful to some people to help them through their lives, Russell says:

“If you can’t find out whether it’s true or whether it isn’t, you should suspend judgment. But it seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it’s useful and not because you think it’s true.”

The interviewer then asks whether faith nevertheless provides people with a solid foundation for morality, to which Russell replies:

“They could probably be able to find a rational morality that they could live by if they dropped this irrational taboo morality that comes down from savage ages.”

The interviewer suggests that many people would be unable to do this for themselves and need something imposed on them from outside. Russell dismisses this with:

“What is imposed on you from outside is of no value.”

The UK Government is looking to amend the law to allow organisations to discriminate against their workers on grounds such as sexual orientation and marital status. But these organisations will be allowed to act in this bullying and prejudicial way only if they are founded on arcane, unverifiable, supernatural beliefs.

The ability to harrass and oppress workers, or discriminate against potential new hires, will continued to be denied to any organisation whose attitudes are founded on rational, modern principles.

As the British Humanist Association points out, the UK’s Equality Bill already provides some scope for religious organisations to behave in an unreasonable and unfair manner. However, there is a possibility that they will be given even more leeway in applying their prejudices in the workplace if proposed amendments to the Bill go through.

Some commentators have seen this as just another piece of fallout from New Labour’s multiculturalism. It’s certainly an example of how religion enjoys a privileged place in society. Attitudes and actions that would be seen as immoral and unconscionable in any reasonable society are automatically excused when they are given the cloak of protection by religion. Identical behaviour would be criticised or banned if it stemmed instead from political or philosophical beliefs.

For example, a religious organisation may be allowed to fire someone who turns out to be gay, if homosexuality offends their religious sensitivities. But would we tolerate the firing of a gay person by, say, a far-right political group?

This comes at the same time that the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has appointed a bunch of ‘faith advisers’ to advise on “the big issues facing society such as the economy, parenting, achieving social justice and tackling climate change.” No-one has explained how being religious has any bearing on these issues, or why these people are better qualified than those whose knowledge is based on, say, facts and research rather than superstition and mythology.

And while the current Government has affirmed its support for the right of humanists to have equal status with religious believers in the Equality Bill, the Conservatives (who will probably form the next government later this year) are trying to weaken the status of non-believers. They want to change the meaning of the term ‘religion or belief’ by removing the words ‘and philosophical’ in the definition of belief, which, in the current Bill, reads: ‘”belief” means any religious or philosophical belief’.

Given the state support for faith schools and its appointment of faith-based organisations to carry out work that has nothing to do with religion, this all points to a worrying trend. Not only is religious prejudice granted a free ride in society, it is also getting special treatment in the halls of power.

We are all capable of being moved by the plight of Haiti. You don’t need to be told – by either earthly or unearthly authority – that the victims of the earthquake need and deserve our help.

Compassion and empathy are human attributes. They are a cornerstone of humanism and the source of morality, in all cultures and at all times. Faiths may claim ownership of moral codes, but for them to assert that their brand of belief is the only route to good and honourable action is as bizarre, arrogant and unjustifiable as claiming that only through religion can you walk on two legs.

We feel because we are human.

And because we are human, we want to help.

And now there is a way of giving for those who want to ensure that their money does not go to aid organisations that confuse faith with compassion.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has set up a fund that will be distributed to two organisations:

• Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
• International Red Cross

To donate, go to: Non-Believers Giving Aid

A recent debate, hosted by the South West London Humanists, tackled what I believe to be a very loaded question: can humanists be spiritual?

Jeremy Rodell and Marilyn Mason led the arguments from the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps respectively (click on their names to see summaries of their points on the HumanistLife blog).

Why is this question so loaded? Because, I think, answering ‘no’ makes you vulnerable to judgment – usually silent, always unjust.

Spirituality is on the rise as organised religion declines. Many people reject the pomp, prejudice, prescriptions, proscriptions and silly stories that are the basis of most of the market-leading faiths. Yet they yearn for the fantastic in their lives, they want to touch the numinous and have some degree of mystery and wonder in their lives. And there’s no end of alternative wackiness they can be sold, from feng shui to crystal swinging.

But being ‘spiritual’ doesn’t just mean being credulous. For some reason, the term has managed to attach to itself some measure of moral righteousness. To many – too many – being spiritual automatically earns approbation.

Marilyn Mason (with whose ‘no’ verdict I entirely agree) points out that spirituality, of course, implies spirit, and thus takes us into the realm of the supernatural. So what does being spiritual actually mean? As far as I can see, it means believing in things you can’t see, can’t prove, can’t predict, can’t use in any meaningful way and can’t possibly explain.

Yet, when I say to people that I am not spiritual, they regard me with either pity or suspicion. Not having a spiritual side is like not being able to see or hear. It’s almost impossible to explain to people who consider themselves spiritual that not sharing that characteristic is not a disability. In fact, I regard it as a form of freedom.

Not being spiritual is not the same as not being capable of emotion. There is much that moves me profoundly. The sight of the Earth seen from a distance – Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot. The marvel of replication by DNA and the staggering profusion of life it has produced via natural selection. In fact, science provides an endless seam of treasures capable of evoking deep contemplation and great emotion. You don’t need the fantasies of the supernatural realm to encounter the marvellous – it’s right there in front of you in the natural world.

While New Age spirituality may lie beyond the pale of organised religion, I think the term has carried over some of the prejudice it acquired within those faiths, especially Christianity.
There are some people for whom saying ‘I am not a Christian’ is synonymous with saying ‘I am immoral’. It is a form of arrogance, of course, but to them the only source of morality is faith. It is generally a fruitless exercise to point out to them the millions of good, moral people who must have existed on this planet before their particular brand of mythology came into being. Faith is about prejudice: the two words are themselves virtually synonymous.

So it is with ‘spiritual’ people. To say that I am not spiritual is, to them, to say that I am unable to marvel or to empathise. They believe that I am missing something – perhaps even my humanity.

And they couldn’t be more wrong. By rejecting the supernatural, by insisting on remaining in this corporeal, temporal world, I am not putting my hopes in the unreal, I do not shift the responsibility for my actions to some ethereal force, I do not attribute the authority for my beliefs to some unimpeachable, unreachable entity. Instead, I find everything I want and need within humanity itself. Knowledge, wisdom, beauty and empathy are human attributes we should value and celebrate. Why look anywhere else?

Some philosophers – not necessarily believers but not strictly atheists either – are turning to theology as a source of ideas. Some feel that ‘liberalism’ (however they choose to define that) has run out of ideas. They feel that perhaps our social ills require what are seen as the strengths of religion – community, something to believe in.

An article in The Guardian by Nathan Schneider outlines this ‘Theology for atheists’ trend. Yet the piece fails to address a critical point.

Theology, for all the insights it might provide, for all its moral and philosophical strengths, suffers from a fatal flaw. If you trace its better ideas back to their roots you find that, ultimately, they depend on Argument from Authority expressed through fairy stories. The very core of theology is at best myth and at worse outright lies.

Yes, there are good things we can take from the Bible or the Qur’an (plus a lot that’s deplorable). The Beatitudes, for example, provide a solid and admirable foundation for any moral code and philosophy. (Of course, it’s possible that the basic text for the Sermon on the Mount comes not from the mouth of Jesus but from Hellenistic Cynic philosophy. It was later adapted and included in the Q document used as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.)

However, let’s also be clear that these are the ideas and thoughts of humans. They can only form part of theology if one accepts the existence of god and his importance as the source and foundation of these ideas and the ultimate authority that determines their worth.

The idea that atheists might adopt a ‘theology’ is a contradiction in terms and an intellectual fudge. It feels like yet another piece of post-modern, multiculturalist piffle. By all means let’s discuss and exchange ideas. But to propose an atheist ‘theology’ is pure nonsense.

A round-up of some of the best books published in 2009 that humanists, atheists and freethinkers will want to have in their libraries.

***

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

In his previous books, Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s leading evolutionary scientists, assumed that most people knew about the evidence for Darwinian evolution. But it seems that many don’t. It’s not just creationists who labour under the delusion that the evidence is somehow weak – or even missing. Even ordinary people persist in believing that evolution is ‘just’ a theory (by misunderstanding what scientists mean by ‘theory’), that it shows no intermediate stages, that evolution can’t deal with the complexity of the eye or the emergence of flight. And, of course, the evidence accumulates and gets stronger every day. In this timely work, Dawkins lays out what that evidence is, and shows us – beyond doubt – that evolution by natural selection is a fact.

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

***

Ideas That Matter: Key Concepts for the 21st Century by A C Grayling

One of our leading philosophers guides you through some of the most important concepts that have shaped our time. The alphabetically ordered entries range across religion, philosophy, scientific theory and political movements. But it’s not just a dry reference work: as usual, Grayling leavens the important subject matter and profound implications with his accessible style, occasional seasonings of wit and customary passion. An invaluable lesson in how we got to where we are today.

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

* See note below about AC Grayling’s latest book, To Set Prometheus Free.

***

The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas edited by Ariane Sherine

A collection of writings – some thoughtful, some iluminating some hilarious – from 42 committed non-believers. The collection was compiled by Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine, who was behind the ‘There’s Probably No God’ poster campaign in the UK. The book contains contributions from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Charlie Brooker, Derren Brown, Ben Goldacre, Jenny Colgan, David Baddiel, Simon Singh, AC Grayling, Brian Cox and Richard Herring. In addition, the full book advance and all royalties go to the UK HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust.

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

***

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

Although not specifically about humanism or atheism, Goldacre’s passionate and often hilarious book provides a valuable lesson in how we need to uphold rigid standards in science. He first takes aim at the lunatic fringe – homeopathy, miracle vitamins and the like – showing how they exploit dubious, ‘sciency’ language to give spurious credibility to their claims while hypocritically condemning science whenever it shows them to be fraudulent, which is often. Then he goes on to attack two more mainstream menaces – Big Pharma and bad journalists. Basically, it’s all about truth and honesty, and how there’s very little room for either in medicine once money enters the picture. Essential reading.

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

***

The Rough Guide to Evolution by Mark Pallen

A very accessible overview of what is rightly claimed as the biggest idea mankind has ever had. The importance of the theory of evolution by natural selection – both to science and to our understanding of ourselves – is such that you simply can’t have too many books about it. This heavily illustrated summary covers: the origins of the idea and the theory’s own evolution; a brief romp through the entire history of life on this planet; and an examination of the impact that the theory has had on science, society, art, history and even religion. And excellent companion to the Dawkins book above (though I would buy the Dawkins first).

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

***

God’s Problem by Bart D Ehrman

Well, okay, maybe a book about suffering isn’t all that Christmas-y. And this originally came out last year (the paperback was published in 2009, though). The thing is, Ehrman is such a good writer, and what he has to say is so important, that I wanted one of his books in this list. And I’ve just finished reading this one. It’s quite a personal book because Christianity’s inability to deal adequately with the question, ‘if god is good, why is there suffering?’ was among the chief reasons Ehrman, a former fundamentalist, lost his faith. He goes through the list of answers that believers lean on in an attempt to answer this question – such as: good comes out of evil; suffering is the result of free will (the most popular and the most easily demolished excuse); god likes testing us; and so on. And he shows just how feeble these responses truly are. In the end, though, I found reading the book a positive experience. The message I took away is a humanist one: there will always be suffering – it’s up to us, as compassionate human beings, to do what we can about it.

 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

***

* Update (17/11/2009): I’ve just been contacted by AC Grayling’s publishers who point out that his latest book is about to hit the bookshelves. To Set Prometheus Free, published by Oberon Books (ISBN:978184002962) is subtitled ‘Religion, reason and humanity’. It is a collection of essays dealing with the need for more secularism in society. In effect, it builds on Against All Gods: Six Polemics Against Religion and an Essay on Kindness, published by Oberon in 2007. You can probably infer the gist of the book from the chapters: Where are we in history?; Why I do not subscribe to religious beliefs; Why Bertrand Russell was not religious; Scientists confront Intelligent Design and Creationism; The War of the Books; The Good Life. Meanwhile, the book is available for pre-order from Amazon.

 Amazon.co.uk

It’s strange how many people are surprised by the answer to the question: what do atheists do at Christmas? Because, of course, that answer is: pretty much the same as anyone else.

Maybe you’re thinking, “Hell, it’s not even November yet and he’s talking about Christmas.”

Well, it’s because of the publication of a new book: The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas edited by Ariane Sherine. Here’s the description from Amazon:

42 atheist celebrities, comedians, scientists and writers give their funny and serious tips for enjoying the Christmas season. Last year, Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine launched the Atheist Bus Campaign and ended up raising over GBP150,000, enough to place the advert ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ on 800 UK buses in January 2009. Now Ariane and dozens of other atheist writers, comedians and scientists are joining together to raise money for a very different cause. The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is a funny, thoughtful handbook all about enjoying Christmas, from 42 of the world’s most entertaining atheists. It features everything from an atheist Christmas miracle to a guide to the best Christmas pop hits, and contributors include Richard Dawkins, Charlie Brooker, Derren Brown, Ben Goldacre, Jenny Colgan, David Baddiel, Simon Singh, AC Grayling, Brian Cox and Richard Herring. The full book advance and all royalties will go to the UK HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust.

So, a worthwhile cause and a fun read. Yet it probably won’t be enough to satisfy one group of people apparently intent on being confused by the idea that atheists celebrate Christmas at all. Yes, I’m talking about journalists. According to a recent bulletin from the British Humanist Association:

The BHA has started getting the yearly media calls about humanists at Christmas. Many journalists seem utterly confused by the concept that someone can have a turkey (or nutroast) dinner, decorate a tree, see family and friends and give and receive gifts yet still be non-religious … we try to explain to journalists is that there is nothing hypocritical about enjoying oneself over a certain period whilst at the same time believing that we are not celebrating the birth of anyone’s messiah.

Let’s face it, for the majority of people – particularly in Western Europe – the religious significance of Christmas is nominal at best. The nativity is a great story, that we can all enjoy at the level of a fairy tale. And we can all have a wonderful time singing carols while knowing that the message they convey is an ancient fiction.

We each decide what Christmas means for us. For many people, it’s about getting together with family. For others, it’s about having a holiday with lots of good food, booze and gifts. I’ve even known non-religious people attend Midnight Mass (I did it once myself, at Truro Cathedral: an amazing spectacle but I found it deeply creepy). And, being humanists, many of us will take the time to reflect on those less fortunate than ourselves and do something about it.

And even if you’re a Christian, it doesn’t pay to dig too deeply into the genuine meaning of Christmas. I’m sure we’re all aware by now that its origins are pagan – a celebration of the Winter solstice and the rebirth of the year.

And many of the symbols of Christmas – Xmas trees, yule logs, Santa – are pagan, too. Or Roman. Or Victorian inventions. As a festival, then, what we’re celebrating is largely the Christian theft of an older ritual.

So let’s forget about all that silly supernatural nonsense. And why not buy The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas as an Xmas present for someone you love – someone intelligent who will appreciate the irony.

The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is available from:
 Amazon.co.uk |  Amazon.com

Update: For some more excellent atheist reading this Xmas – and the perfect gift ideas for the humanist in your life – check out our Top 6 Books for Atheists this Xmas.