Though Cowards Flinch

Obama, during his inauguration speech, made history by acknowledging non-believers as part of the many people who he was happy to represent – sending chills down the spines of many evangelicals, while excitement of the recognition overcame US humanists.

Now that cohort has more reason to celebrate – that is the rise in American atheism, now putting the American right – as one Guardian article puts it – on the defensive.

The article goes on:

The exact number of faithless is unclear. One study by the Pew Research Centre puts them at about 12% of the population, but another by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford puts that figure at around 20%.

No doubt some in the New Atheist camp will take their share of the reason why Godlessness is on the rise. The books of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens had sales in the millions, and their campaign to “raise the consciousness” of atheism seems to have been a success.

The problem with it is clear to see – it pretends that faith will be sidelined through the development of science. Not only will this not chime with those who are both scientists and of faith, it is also a false argument. Like Robert L. Park before them, they try to treat God as a scientific question – and in the words of Park himself, hold the illusion that “Science is the only way of knowing – everything else is just superstition”.

The appropriate stance to take is that humans and science have limits in knowledge. That is to say, God would only be a scientific question if he were imminent, as opposed to transcendent – since there is no immanent God we can never acquire the tools with which to test the God hypothesis.

The theistic and atheistic positions, thus, are both based on a kind of leap since the limits of our knowledge, and of the scope of science, cannot disprove something that exists outside the sphere in which it operates.

I admit to having an atheistic worldview only on the basis that in the absence of certainty, it is beyond the realm of reasonable humans to posit the existence of a being, which they have had no contact – and by its own logic, could never have contact with.

By no means is it a bad thing that Dawkins has raised consciousness about atheism, for if I was an American citizen I, too, would want recognition and to not be prejudiced – but atheism has some lousy representatives in the academic and pop scientific world, and it would be an idea to change the leadership.

An hour ago, the press association ran a piece entitled “Ed Miliband: I don’t believe in God”. This relates to an interview with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 Live, where the question was raised, and the answer carefully noted how important it is to be tolerant of people whatever their view.

This will not stop the insults unfortunately. Nor will it help matters much that Miliband is the son of a Marxist heathen, unmarried, and the brother of an atheist who at least did his best by sending his child to a Roman Catholic school.

None of these things matter of course; and as Miliband said in his interview, his views should be a private matter, much like the atheism of our deputy Prime Minister.

But remember it is not just believers who have over-fetishised God in politics. Few may remember two years ago, when David Miliband was thought to be brewing a leadership bid, the philosopher and atheist A.C. Grayling making a plea in the Guardian for an atheist Prime Minister.

It levelled many ridiculous claims that should divide a believing PM from a non-believing one; atheists will not receive messages from beyond if going to war; they will be sceptical about giving special privileges to religious organisations; sectarianism through faith schools will be a thing of the past; neutrality between religious pressure groups will be the order of the day; and they’ll take more “down-to-earth” views.

Let’s throw this nonsense out of the water, just in case Grayling tries to write it again.

Of course, nobody can actually receive messages from beyond, but if we are dealing with stupid reasons to go to war here, suggesting this is the preserve of the religious is to forget the wars authored by such tyrants as Stalin and Mao.

This might evoke the redundant reaction given by the new atheists, usually that Communism is merely a demi-religion without supernatural Gods, and thus subject to the irrationality reserved by the religious (nb it also helps the “Ditchkins’” out in their mission to single religion out as only evil; secular reason as bringing only good).

Will an atheist be any more or less sceptical about giving privileges to religious organisation? The infection that says some religions are more evil than others strikes through even the most ardent atheist too. Christian schools have long been a feature in the UK educational system, yet Islamic schools still have the effect of discomfort for some people, whether that person is religious or not. This may be more political than theological, but then many attitudes on religion today are.

By no means am I saying that Ed Miliband will come to favour one religious institution over another, but what I will categorically suggest is that his atheism will not de facto ignore the level of favouritism or ill-feeling that is levelled at some religions, or even the level at which some secularists believe certain religions are far less compatible with secularism than others.

Furthermore, on the question of educational sectarianism, such institutions do not have a state sanction to be sectarian, but to open a school with a certain religious value system. I’ve little doubt that Ed, even as an atheist, will be happy, or even indifferent, to religious values being attached to schools. Sectarianism in schools, where it exists, is kept quiet, and is certainly not allowed as such – in fact admissions in most schools are still subject to anti-discrimination measures.

Moreover, this accusation, made by A. C. Grayling was made about David Miliband; who, as mentioned, did send his son to a Roman Catholic school.

On possible neutrality between faiths, Ed Miliband has already upset Israeli supporters by speaking at at a Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East reception. It is inevitable that a political position will eventually upset faiths when politics and faith have become so intertwined. It is quite clear, therefore, that an atheist is just as liable as a believer – a further element overlooked by Grayling.

And as for the point about Miliband being more level headed, this remains to be seen, but frankly the dividing line is not drawn between believer and non-believer, only in Grayling’s black and white mind.