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.

Belief that isn’t based on evidence and rationality is a dangerous thing. And yet a desire for the magical, fantastic or the comforting can lead us into believing some very strange things indeed.

My new novel, Black Project, is all about the strange things people choose to believe. It centres on two characters: Dick Kennedy is the UFO reporter for a supermarket tabloid, the Weekly World Inquisitor. He’s desperate for contact with the numinous, but his intelligence just keeps getting in the way. And Kate Macmillan is an engineer working on super-secret government projects, although she has some rather dark secrets of her own.

They both come face-to-face with something strange and inexplicable. Their responses are guided as much by their desires as their intellect until, eventually, they can’t avoid facing the truth.

In the meantime, the US around them is descending into totalitarianism – masked as homeland defence and customer service – as a fundamentalist President is controlled by sinister forces.

Oh, and by the way, it’s also very funny.

Black Project is available now from WebVivant Press in print, Kindle and Apple iBooks editions. And you can read the first three chapters for free – online or as a PDF download. Find out more »

It seems there’s a belief among certain extremist factions in the UK’s Christian community that they are being discriminated against.

According to the people behind the new (and hilariously titled) ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign, their views and needs are being ignored in public life and elsewhere.

It is, of course, baseless paranoia. Actually, it’s probably not even that: it’s a cynical and mendacious attempt to portray Christians as an oppressed group. After all, such groups tend to garner sympathy and special treatment.

As if 2,000 years of power and special treatment weren’t enough.

In the UK, Christianity already enjoys privileges and benefits out of all proportion to its importance or worth to society. Just to give one example: we have unelected bishops able to wield votes in the House of Lords purely by dint of their pointy hats.

It may be that some of those behind this campaign – such as Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury – genuinely believe themselves to be marginalised. Clearly, they haven’t stopped to consider whether they should be marginalised.

Religion is a personal matter. No faith – whether it’s Christianity, Islam or Jedi-ism – should form the basis of any kind of public policy. Nor should people be given special privileges purely on the basis of their superstititions.

It’s not discrimination these people are experiencing – merely an end to their unwarranted privilege. They are not accustomed to being a marginal group. They are not used to being treated like everyone else.

After two millennia of grasping on to power – of being able to control and manipulate – they suddenly find themselves a dwindling minority, unable to make themselves heard because no-one is interested in the silly things they want to say. If they feel powerless it’s because there is no reason for them to have power.

This is not discrimination – it’s simply a genuine reflection of their irrelevance.

It’s time for these Christians to engage in some deep reflection and face up to a future in which their faith assumes its proper place in society – as a sometimes quaint, mostly weird and always irrelevant fringe activity.

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.

In a poll of 2,000+ British people, 79% declared no interest in the forthcoming visit by Pope Benedict XVI.

This level of apathy towards such a high-profile religious leader is significant given the nature of the visit. Popes have manifested themselves in the UK before. But this is the first state visit. Benedict is coming not just as the Holy Father but also as head of state of the Vatican.

But the British, bless ‘em, still don’t care. According to the poll, carried out by ComRes for religious think tank Theos, those who have strong views are in the minority. Only 29% think that the visit will be good for Britain, while a larger number – 33% – disagree. The biggest proportion, 38%, have no opinion.

The apathy vanishes, however, when we get to the not so small matter of cost. A whopping 76% believe that the taxpayer should not foot the bill for the visit (which rises to 81% in Scotland). After all, the Roman Catholic church is rich. Guilt and oppression is a business model capable of surviving any recession.

The press release about the poll rather disingenuously claims that, when it comes to the Pope’s views, people largely “agree with his social teaching”.

Theos cherry-picked 12 “representative statements” from the Pope’s third encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate and asked people if they agreed with them. But look at the kind of thing they chose.

Some 82% agreed that ‘technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption’; 79% agree that ‘the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure’; 63% agree that ‘investment always has moral, as well as economic significance’; 69% agree that ‘the consumer has a specific social responsibility’; 90% agree that ‘food and access to water are universal rights of all human beings’.

This is heartening, of course. It shows a strong moral sense among the general public. But the Pope doesn’t own these attitudes. Nor does any church. These are ethical beliefs common among all kinds of people, including we atheists who are in no need of an authoritarian figure like the Pope to tell us how to think.

It is typical that the faithful should try to lay claim to these moral and ethical beliefs. After all, how often do we hear the nonsense those without faith have no source of morality. (As we know, there is an evolutionary basis for morality, something I’ll come back to soon.)

So, the Pope is far from unique in espousing these attitudes. There are many of us who have come to the same conclusions without being lectured to by an ex-Nazi in a silly hat, thanks.

It’s interesting that the support started to waver with the assertion that ‘An overemphasis on [human] rights leads to a disregard for duties’, with 59% agreeing. What duties are these, by the way? One suspects that many of them may be purely religious. If would be no surprise that the Pope would prefer obedience to the church, even if it means relinquishing human rights the rest of us regard as important.

One wonders how many of those polled would have agreed to statements like, ‘It is more important to be obedient to an oppressive view of contraception even if this means thousands of Africans dying of AIDS’ or ‘Women must not have control over their own bodies or fertility’. Now, those are attitudes the Catholic church can call its own.

Spotted this today in the right-hand panel of Facebook (which I normally ignore). I’m not sure why Facebook is recommending the page ‘I LOVE ALLAH’ (note the uppercase shouting). I’m even less sure why I was quite so amused by the comment ‘Many who like Facebook Security like this’.

I mean, seeing the words ‘Allah’, ‘security’ and ‘What are you planning?’ in close proximity should be sinister, no? Oh well, maybe it’s just me.

You have to pity people who suffer from anatidaephobia. This, according to many websites, some of them serious, is the irrational fear that, somewhere, a duck is watching you.

Scary? No. Funny? definitely.

It would be hard to take seriously. There’s some poor soul quivering in terror at the thought of being stalked by a small, feathered animal and all you can do is laugh. And it’s unreasonable to trivialise someone’s deeply held fears in this way. Or maybe it isn’t. Maybe this fear is so ridiculous that it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

But wait a minute. Is a fear of duck surveillance any more ludicrous than the idea that we are being constantly watched – and judged – by some big, bearded bloke in the sky?

Actually, the duck thing is less ludicrous. We know ducks exist. We’ve seen them. Bred them. Eaten them. Why shouldn’t we fear something we know is real? It’s fearing something for which absolutely no evidence exists that’s silly.

God is a fiction. But then so is anatidaephobia. It’s a made-up phobia with its origins in Gary Larson’s The Far Side (a bizarre world that also makes far more sense than religion).

Still, if I have to believe I’m being watched by something, it clearly makes more sense to believe it’s a duck.

Before The Times goes pay-per-view, check out this story:

Vienna Boys’ Choir caught up in sex abuse scandals

It’s not so much the story itself that caught my eye – it seems pretty much par for the course with church institutions these days.

No, it’s the byline. The article is by the The Times‘ Berlin correspondent – Roger Boyes.

If I were him, I’d change my name.

Pope John Paul II - not a well man

According to a new book, Pope John Paul II regularly whipped himself. At other times, and in spite of illness, he slept on a bare floor. This, apparently, makes him eligible for sainthood.

To the faithful, the self-flagellation and hardship, in emulation of Christ’s suffering, are heroic. But outside the warped logic of faith, is there any other context in which this kind of behaviour wouldn’t be regarded as unbalanced?

The details of the late Pope’s masochism come in a new book, Why He Is a Saint: the Real John Paul II. It’s by Vatican official Monsignor Slawomir Oder who will be in charge of the process that will probably end in John Paul II’s canonisation (so it’s probably not a very balanced view of the erstwhile Pontiff).

There could be no clearer illustration of how religious and real-world perspectives do not align.

To the faithful Roman Catholic, John Paul II’s actions demonstrate devotion and courage.

To the ordinary human being, such behaviour seems suspiciously deviant. Indulging in such masochism suggests mental disorder, perhaps with sexual overtones. Masochism, after all, frequently has sexual implications, and in a sect that imposes lifelong celibacy (in theory) on its priests, one might expect many different manifestations of aberrant psychosexual pathology.

Even without such dark overtones, this behaviour still seems odd. To deliberately hurt oneself in emulation of a character in a fictional story is hardly normal, is it? What would we make, for example, of a teenager who chose to live in a wardrobe to honour the story of Narnia? That’s right – we’d get them help. And that’s without them self-harming – a sure sign of psychological issues.

This wouldn’t be the first time that behaviour which would seem odd or unacceptable to society at large is excused by religious adherence. There is a broad spectrum ranging from violent jihad to the Church of England’s recent fight to protect its ‘right’ to discriminate against homosexuals. Right now, in Kansas, a man is claiming that his religious beliefs left him no choice but to murder a doctor.

It’s also worth remembering that, when he wasn’t enjoying a sound self-whipping, Pope John Paul II lived in an environment of fantastic wealth and privilege.

Still, the Roman Catholic church has elevated people to sainthood on any number of feeble premises. It’s a form of marketing. By making people saints, you’re saying, ‘See how our church contains so many good and righteous people’. It helps counter the bad press the church gets for its paedophile priests and its effective genocide-by-AIDS in Africa.

Most organised religions are fundamentally bizarre. They involve a wholesale acceptance of strange and improbable ideas. Most of the time, we let this slide, because many of these ideas have become entrenched as part of the whole patchwork that is our mythological and historical landscape.

But occasionally, something crops up that makes you step back and think, “wow, now that’s weird”. This is one of those occasions, and it’s the clearest sign you could ask for of the gulf between faith and the real world.