The trouble with atheists: a defence of faith

[rug]

Francis Spufford has heard all the arguments against Christianity. He understands the objections of Dawkins and Hitchens and he realises it's a guess as to whether there's a God or not. But here he offers a defence of his faith

Francis Spufford
guardian.co.uk, Friday 31 August 2012 03.00 EDT

My daughter has just turned six. Some time over the next year or so, she will discover that her parents are weird. We're weird because we go to church.

This means as she gets older there'll be voices telling her what it means, getting louder and louder until by the time she's a teenager they'll be shouting right in her ear. It means that we believe in a load of bronze-age absurdities. That we fetishise pain and suffering. That we advocate wishy-washy niceness. That we're too stupid to understand the irrationality of our creeds. That we build absurdly complex intellectual structures on the marshmallow foundations of a fantasy. That we're savagely judgmental. That we'd free murderers to kill again. That we're infantile and can't do without an illusory daddy in the sky. That we destroy the spontaneity and hopefulness of children by implanting a sick mythology in young minds. That we teach people to hate their own natural selves. That we want people to be afraid. That we want people to be ashamed. That we have an imaginary friend, that we believe in a sky pixie; that we prostrate ourseves before a god who has the reality-status of Santa Claus. That we prefer scripture to novels, preaching to storytelling, certainty to doubt, faith to reason, censorship to debate, silence to eloquence, death to life.

But hey, that's not the bad news. Those are the objections of people who care enough about religion to object to it. Or to rent a set of recreational objections from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. As accusations, they may be a hodge-podge, but at least they assume there's a thing called religion which looms with enough definition and significance to be detested. In fact there's something truly devoted about the way that Dawkinsites manage to extract a stimulating hobby from the thought of other people's belief. Some of them even contrive to feel oppressed by the Church of England, which is not easy to do. It must take a deft delicacy at operating on a tiny scale, like fitting a whole model railway layout into an attaché case.

No: the really painful message our daughter will receive is that we're embarrassing. For most people who aren't New Atheists, or old atheists, and have no passion invested in the subject, either negative or positive, believers aren't weird because we're wicked. We're weird because we're inexplicable; because, when there's no necessity for it that anyone sensible can see, we've committed ourselves to a set of awkward and absurd attitudes that obtrude, that stick out against the background of modern life, and not in some important or respectworthy or principled way, either. Believers are people who try to insert Jee-zus into conversations at parties; who put themselves down, with writhings of unease, for perfectly normal human behaviour; who are constantly trying to create a solemn hush that invites a fart, a hiccup, a bit of subversion. Believers are people who, on the rare occasions when you have to listen to them, like at a funeral or a wedding, seize the opportunity to pour the liquidised content of a primary-school nativity play into your earhole, apparently not noticing that childhood is over. And as well as being childish, and abject, and solemn, and awkward, we voluntarily associate ourselves with an old-fashioned, mildewed orthodoxy, an Authority with all its authority gone. Nothing is so sad – sad from the style point of view – as the mainstream taste of the day before yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/aug/31/trouble-with-athiests-defence-of-faith?newsfeed=true

[dmallind]

2. Further evidence of the huge divide between religion in the US and the UK

Perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens are American style atheists because they have been confronted by the biggest and most influential American style Christianity in their frequent long stays here - the style the writer describes so accurately in his second paragraph in obvious bemusement that anyone could think Christianity is like that. I know my reaction to Christianity changed from the latter description to the former when I moved here. Wonder if the writer knows what it's like; guessing very much no, or he'd see the distinction, and the reason for it.

[cbayer]

4. What's an "American style atheist"?

I' m not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that you became a mocking, hostile atheist when you moved to the US and as a result of confronting more in-your-face christianity.

I'm also not sure what distinction you are speaking about in your last sentence.

[dmallind]

5. You're OBVIOUSLY not sure what I'm saying

Because what I actually became was less naive and less blase about the huge-scale almost unopposed drive of Christianity in the US to act exactly as his second paragraph describes. You have to experience that kind of Christianity to believe it I think, and not just for a week at Disneyland as a tourist. The reaction it deserves is simply not in my power to provide no matter how "hostile" (truthful in description really) or how "mocking" (spitting vainly and weakly back into the Christian hurricane of hatred, division and destruction really) I may seem to be to insiders.

It's a naivete I can forgive the British, perhaps self-exculpating as I had it in spades myself. British Christianity with some tiny truly insignificant sects excepted, really IS as the writer describes - a sort of musty harmless almost charming old remnant that is more concerned about wearing nice hats in old stone buildings and raising money for the jamboree, while its american cousin, with some not much less tiny and insignificant sects excepted, centers on destroying science, education, human sexuality, and freedom of action and thought.

That to me is a pretty big distinction that both calls for and nigh inescapably causes distinctly different responses from nonbelievers. If you want British style atheism, seek British style Christianity.

[cbayer]

7. Thanks for attempting to clarify, but I am still not clear.

I had assumed that the writer lived in the UK and that what he was describing was the same kind of hostile, mocking reception that we see from some atheists in the US.

So if the kind of Christian "hurricane" you describe is unique to the US, why is the response from some atheists so similar in the UK?

You may have experienced american style christianity more than someone who spends a week in Disneyland, but clearly not long enough to realize that it is much more diverse than denominations that center on "destroying science, education, human sexuality, and freedom of action and thought".

[dmallind]

12. ok - the remedial class

So if the kind of Christian "hurricane" you describe is unique to the US, why is the response from some atheists so similar in the UK?

I covered that in simple words here:

...Perhaps Dawkins and Hitchens are American style atheists because they have been confronted by the biggest and most influential American style Christianity in their frequent long stays here

Strange that you asked about American style atheists first so obviously read that sentence. Which bit did you find confusing exactly?

You may have experienced american style christianity more than someone who spends a week in Disneyland, but clearly not long enough to realize that it is much more diverse than denominations that center on "destroying science, education, human sexuality, and freedom of action and thought".


Or, unlike you, I'm capable of seeing, or admitting I suppose from the Xian viewpoint, that that is the style of Christianity which has all the power, all the political influence, and the willingness to use it here. When your preferred touchy feely kumbaya types get their act together and actually do something in the political sphere they may be worth paying attention to.

[cbayer]

14. Your need to make things condescendingly personal makes talking to you very unpleasant.

See you in church.

[cbayer]

3. Lol, heard everything in that first paragraph right here on DU.

Pretty stunning when you see it all in one paragraph.

This war between believers and non-believers is so unnecessary and counterproductive.

Why should anyone have to defend what they do or do not believe? Why does anyone feel the need to attack what another does or does not believe if it is not imposing itself on others?

[dmallind]

6. Why?

Why should anyone have to defend what they do or do not believe?

Should? Not at all. DO have to? Because Christianity in the US and in other places less blessedly secular than the writer's home which he fondly imagines is typical, tirelessly seeks to do exactly what the second paragraph describes. If the freedom to teach science not fairy stories in science class is not worth defending; if the freedom to express yourself sexually in natural ways is not worth defending; if the freedom to make reproductive choices is not worth defending - then I feel sorry for you.

Why does anyone feel the need to attack what another does or does not believe if it is not imposing itself on others?

NOT imposing itself? Have you READ the Republican platform? Do you know how many legislative and executive and judicial bodies they control?

[cbayer]

8. That's exactly what I said, isn't it.

That if it is imposing itself on others, which the Republican platform and party are clearly doing, then there is a need to attack it.

The Republican convention was alarming in it's overt push towards theocracy. I found it to be the most disturbing convention of my lifetime. Between the uberpatriotism and the overt religiosity, I felt truly afraid at times.

Save your pity and laughter. We are on the same side here.

[skepticscott]

10. No, we're not

Because you are constantly saying that there is no need to fight against the religious right, and that there should be no conflict since we all have so much "common ground", until you are confronted (for the umpteenth time) with their innumerable crimes, abuses and attempts to impose their beliefs on everyone else. THEN you flop right over and say the exact opposite, sometimes within just a few posts of each other. And you still wonder why no one takes you seriously. Well, except for 3 people.

[dmallind]

13. If your lot showed it once in a while that might be credible.

But all liberal believers do when they consistently oppose any plans to remove Christian establishment, preference, separation and privilege is to protect the use of those advantages by the far more numerous, organized and powerful set of fellow believers - the fundamentalists. Clucking that you disagree with them rings hollow when you serve as willing human shields at every opportunity.

[cbayer]

15. What's my lot? Oh, that's right! You presume to know who I am and therefore maintain

the right to pass judgement on me and throw me in with a group (or a lot, I guess).

If you were paying any attention, you would know that I frequently advocate for separation issues.

I suspect your level of privilege far outweighs mine, but you are possibly sitting so high you can't even see me.

See you around the campfire, or not.

[rug]

16. I thought it was "ilk".

[cbayer]

17. Could be "you people".

[rug]

18. Sometimes I wonder if they have an empty chair next to them while they're posting.

[humblebum]

21. "Clucking that you disagree with them rings hollow" - Well?

I consider myself to be a "liberal believer." However, I consider radical atheism to be the opposite extreme of far right religion and consider them both to be overbearing and dangerous.

[LARED]

9. Thanks a very good read. Best lines

In fact there's something truly devoted about the way that Dawkinsites manage to extract a stimulating hobby from the thought of other people's belief. Some of them even contrive to feel oppressed by the Church of England, which is not easy to do. It must take a deft delicacy at operating on a tiny scale, like fitting a whole model railway layout into an attaché case.

[Silent3]

11. The author seems to really understand a lot of what atheists say, and yet...

Last edited Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

...he apparently still doesn't grasp one of the most basic things you'd think he'd have heard explained many times before when he says something like this:

New Atheists aren't claiming anything outrageous when they say that there probably isn't a God. In fact they aren't claiming anything substantial at all, because, really, how would they know? It's as much of a guess for them as it is for me.

No, guessing that there is a God and guessing that there isn't are not equal propositions. It's not a 50/50 situation, one position is not just as justified or unjustified as the other.

Some people too easily fall into the lazy habit of assuming that if an answer is unknown, if no one can know for sure, and there are only two possible answers such as yes/no or true/false, that this somehow makes both answers equally likely. Yet the question, "Are you going to win the lottery tomorrow?" only has two answers, no one knows for sure, but clearly the answer "No", or the more nuanced "Probably not", are the most sensible answers.

Define your God specifically enough that we can pin down something concrete that you're talking about, and then the odds go down and the burden of proof goes up for anyone claiming that such a God exists, making "there's probably no God" the most reasonable default position. Get vague or slippery about what you mean by God and the odds might start to grow that whatever the hell you're talking about (if you even know yourself) might exist, but by time you get close to making it even odds for this thing to exist you will have become so vague that the existence of this fuzzy whatever will be of little to no importance or consequence.

As for everything the author tries to read into the simple phrase "now stop worrying and enjoy your life", his imagination has gone into full overdrive. One could make almost exactly the same sort of case for religious bumper-sticker length sloganeering like "Let go. Let God" or "No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, know peace".

And then there's Mozart and emotion and mercy and all of that. The author understands, or at least starts to understand, the objection that can easily be made by atheists when he writes, "I hope that isn't your basis for religious faith, you say, because you've described nothing there that isn't compatible with a completely naturalistic account of the universe". But then all he does after acknowledging this objection is some hand waving and special pleading and goalpost moving that doesn't really get him beyond the objection he's already acknowledged.

When he says, "These plastic beings don't need anything that they can't get by going shopping," I think we've slipped into an unjustified confusion of atheism with consumerism that would probably only happen in a place like the UK where non-belief feels like a much larger influence on popular culture than in the US, leading the author to conflate atheism and consumerism.

[intaglio]

19. Have any of you read the entire article?

The entire thing is an exercise in special pleading - and an advertising puff for the authors book.

Mr Spufford is claiming to make a case for faith from first principles, which might seem an extreme claim given the failure of all other theologians and philosophers to achieve that very thing. I do not hold out great hopes for Spufford as he seems to proceed from from the idea that faith is emotional and that, perhaps, emotions are better or more real for the faithful.

I do not hold out much hope as he conceives that a simple statement that you can be free to enjoy yourself despite abandoning religion is actually an anti-Augustinian tirade. He similarly seems to have a perception that the population of the UK is uniformly anti-theist, a judgment which is dubious to say the least.

Still, I'll wait until I see his book before passing judgment on his work.

[cleanhippie]

20. Read the article? Pshaw! It was posted simply for the shit-stirring title.

Any opportunity to try and paint those who do not believe as somehow being the same (only different) from believers in order to try and discredit said non-belief is never to be passed by.

Didn't you get the memo?

[intaglio]

22. Shhh, don't tell anyone we know n/t

[rug]

23. You mean the article with this picture in it?

I look forward to his expansion of ths article.

[intaglio]

24. Not yet published 6 Sept 2012

And I'll wait for my local Library service to get it in ...

TBH if is as verbose and content free as the article I won't enjoy it.