Chris Mulherin is a Melbourne Anglican minister currently writing a doctorate on science and theology. Chris has been blogging about the Global Atheist Convention, 'The Rise of Atheism', on the ABC religion blog. Various links in this article are to blogs on the ABC site (http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention ) there are more reports and commentary as well as audio of some of the presentations.
What could 2500 atheists and I have in common? More than expected, I realized, when I was part of the maddened crowd at the Rise of Atheism convention in Melbourne last weekend (March 11-13). Yes, en masse, the atheists were mad at religion and mad at religious interference in society and politics. They were especially mad at Christianity; mostly its historical atrocities and its sexual norms and abuses.
The Convention was packed on Sunday to hear Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and one of the '˜four horsemen' of the so-called New Atheism. I was keen to engage with the issues and to judge for myself the mood of this movement. At times I was surprised, at other times disappointed, at other times challenged.
I was surprised by how central religion was for the atheists represented. It's remarkable that as much as the New Atheists want to move away from religion there is a sense in which they are defined by it; by their anti-religious and anti-theist stance. I heard echoes of Alister McGrath's suggestion that 'Western atheism now finds itself in something of a twilight zone. Once a worldview with a positive view of reality, it seems to have become a permanent pressure group, its defensive agenda dominated by concerns about limiting the growing political influence of religion.' (The Twilight of Atheism, p.279)
I was also surprised when it dawned on me that, despite the apparent opposition of belief systems, I shared common ground with these committed ‘true non-believers'. Like Christians, the atheists have taken their stand. In a bizarre sort of way it was good to be amongst people who have no truck with relativism or with a postmodernism which turns truth into plasticine. A Credo of 10 things we have in common is on the ABC website. (http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=474)
At times the claim was made that atheists themselves are only united around their non-belief in God. But most delegates shared more in common, especially the conviction that it is science that offers the way, the truth and the answers to life. They also shared a frustration at being marginalised in our not-secular-enough society. While Christians feel marginalised at times by secularism, it was interesting to be transported into the shoes of the atheist and realize their angst at finding religion at every turn of politics (Christian politicians), education (Chaplains in schools) and law (tax exemptions for religious organisations).
Philip Adams, perhaps Australia's most vocal atheist, took up the political theme and surprised me with his call to moderation and to serious conversation with those who do not share atheists' non-faith. Rather than focussing on emptying the churches, atheists should unite with those who share similar political and global concerns. It was a call to humility and balance, albeit with the constant undertone that while Christians and others might be committed to the right causes, their beliefs are nevertheless foolish. 'People of religious faith are more to be pitied than blamed,' he said. (An edited version of Philip Adams' talk is now online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/19/2850137.htm My blog post is at http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=273 )
Adams warned about stereotypes and prejudice amongst the atheist flock: 'We say no to one thing,' he said, 'but that does not make us better people;we do not have a monopoly on decency.' He also warned those who refuse to accept 'the possibility that Christians for example can be significant social reformers,' recognising that 'it was Christians following Wilberforce that worked mightily to destroy the slave trade.' And just because Christians live with the hope of 'frequent flyer points at the end' is not a reason to doubt their ethical integrity, he said.
While Adams and others, including philosophers A.C. Grayling and Tamas Pataki (audio and report here: http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=315 ), made for thoughtful listening, I was disappointed overall with the program. I hoped for discussion about the nature of science, but it was clear that this meeting was not about debating issues of faith and non-belief. There was little attempt to argue for atheism as a (non) belief, nor to defend the view that science is the only source of truth. The sense was that religious people are simply misguided and not willing to accept the clear evidence of science, but unfortunately it was a simplistic view of science that dominated proceedings. The program was also laced with comedians, and despite suggestions that Christians have hang-ups about sex, the various performers were fixated on the subject.
Richard Dawkins gave a fascinating talk ( http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=444 ) about evolution and the fine tuning of the universe. While the science was riveting, his characteristic disdain for believers was also on show. An example: He referred to the work of Simon Conway Morris, a Christian and Cambridge palaeontologist. While Dawkins respects him as a scientist, they part ways said Dawkins, because Conway Morris sees human evolutionary development 'as evidence for his weird belief in Christianity.' After a question about how scientists could be Christians, Dawkins replied, 'Religion poisons your ability to use your brain.'
One thing that the New Atheists have got clear is that atheism and Christianity are not compatible at the philosophical/theological level. For them, there is no God and theology is a project without an object. But does this incompatibility extend to our living and acting in the world? Apparently for some at least, it does. The tone of some of the speakers was that there is no possibility of a sane and harmonious future until the world is rid of religion.
But all atheists cannot be tarred with the same brush. The New Atheism represented by Dawkins and the Convention organisers is not representative: there are many atheists and agnostics who do not share either the zealous non-faith or the political agenda of the ‘New' variety of a very old tradition. Many atheists do not see all religion as the threat to world harmony and civic life. Nor would such people be happy with Dawkins' description of brain-poisoned believers. One atheist philosopher of religion who works with believers recognises that they are often very good philosophers respected by their atheist colleagues. He says: 'The people I don't like are the New Atheists, because they don't seem to realize that the people with whom I must contend even exist.' (See http://philpapers.org/post/2423 )
Philosopher and animal rights activist Peter Singer spoke on 'Ethics without religion' (See http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/?p=378 ) asking about the source of morality. His answer was equivocal: on the one hand morality is a natural phenomenon rooted in our evolutionary development and perhaps hard wired into the human brain. But on the other hand, Singer warned that even if that is true, we should not take it as our guide. Nature and the good are not to be equated, he said, because our moral judgements have evolved for situations we are familiar with and might give us the wrong answers in new situations. For example, while there may be some biological component to an instinctive racism, it 'is something we need to get over because the world is a very different place to what it was. We shouldn't fall into a trap of thinking that a natural response is necessarily right.' In the end Singer's measure for morality is rooted, not in the divine, nor in nature, but is a subtle version of the pleasure principle; of maximising the well-being of all sentient beings. How Singer arrives at this basic moral intuition is not clear and I'm not sure that his rejection of an evolutionary ethics would have satisfied the ruthless empiricists that dominated the conference.
What about the challenges the conference posed, especially for the Christian church? What can we learn? Some personal thoughts for reflection:
Firstly, it is salutary for the church to listen respectfully to those who are critical of us. Although it was not put in these terms, time and again the refrain amounts to, 'you have not acted like Christ.' There are two issues at stake: one is that of respecting the opinions of those who do not share our faith, the other issue is dealing with sin in our camp with a transparency that will catch atheists by surprise and build trust. I've been pleased at the positive comments from atheists about my commentary on the Convention. They knew I stood opposed to their convictions, but they did not perceive a hidden agenda and were happy to dialogue. I enjoyed many honest conversations, including an amicable one with the raging and iconoclastic Catherine Deveny.
If I were into mind reading—and I'm not of course!—I might guess that much of the passion heard at the Convention had roots in hurt people expressing deep pain through anger, for sins and perceived sins committed by the church. I can't help but reflect that Jesus rejected no one except the religious bigots and those who thought themselves righteous.
Second, Christians ought to thank God for the dialogue made possible by atheism. Conversation with atheists throws the spotlight on the distinctives of the Christian faith. Beliefs and agendas are on the table for all to see. This is a stark contrast and challenge to the temptation to hide the light under a bushel for fear of causing offence. Christianity is not simply one option amongst other compatible belief systems and engaging with atheists leaves that abundantly clear.
Thirdly, while the uniqueness of Christian claims is highlighted by the dialogue, that is not a reason to participate in culture wars premised on the idea that one or other belief system must dominate. We need to examine the implications of living in an increasingly secular society where a harmonious future will only be forged through mutual tolerance. Trust can be built, but only when beliefs and values are clear, and when all parties accept the limitations imposed by a secular democratic state. As Christians we ought to preach the Gospel in word and deed, we ought to persuade others, offering good reasons for our hope. But coercion and manipulation are ungodly and will bring disrepute to the church and its Lord.
I thank God for 'The Rise of Atheism' and for my conversations with atheists who provoked me to reflection.