Comment: Atheism under attack

Thursday, 19, Feb 2009 10:10

By Ian Dunt

Atheists are having a tough time of it. So tough, in fact, that they've started banding together. Today, the not-so-snappily titled National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Students forms in central London, partly due to the hostility from campus faith groups that individual societies face when setting up. Why has it come to this?

About 200 years ago, most of the progressive men of Europe presumed religion would be dead by now. The enlightenment philosophers thought the triumph of science and reason would turn men away from God. Sometimes in Britain - arguably the least religious society in the west - it feels that way. But the reality is very different.

A few years ago, another educated man called Samuel P Huntington proposed an altogether different theory, neatly summarised as the 'clash of civilisations'. He posited that the main source of conflict would centre around a handful of distinct cultures, with the primary fault line being Islam and the west.

It was hopelessly reductionist, but it had the enviable quality of chiming perfectly with its time. Shortly afterwards, planes were flying into the Twin Towers in New York and the rest is history. Right now, religion is one of the most - if not the most - important issue in world politics.

In a global political system defined by the clash, atheists have discovered something curious. Religious people hate them very much, and they have organised against them with alarming speed and efficiency. Perhaps it gives Muslims and Christians living in western societies something to unite around. Regardless; the political momentum is on their side.

Recently, the UN's rapporteur on human rights, who is tasked with protecting freedom of speech, had his job description altered. The council agreed to a Pakistani request for the rapporteur to also tackle "abuses of free expression", including, rather shockingly, "defamation" of religions and prophets.

In the UK, religious protections have grown in a subtler manner. Tony Blair consistently rejected calls to discuss his deeply-held faith, but this was not evident in his policy making. Faith schools were not just tolerated, but encouraged. An attempt was made to outlaw 'religious hatred', including abuse or insult, although the Lords managed to water it down after an eye-catching rearguard defence by a motley collection of secularists, comedians, and free-thinkers.

Across the western world, religion has been elevated to a unique and entirely unhelpful position - a position which ringfences it against criticism or questioning. The only other qualities in this category are things like race, sexuality and gender. But these are qualitatively different. They cannot be changed. A black man does not choose to be so, nor does a homosexual. Religion is about conviction and belief. Its advocates call it faith and that is indeed a decent description of belief that does not follow from reason or evidence. But it does not somehow entitle it to preferential treatment.

The thought process that drove us to this undesirable state of affairs hinges on the word 'freedom', which is itself massively unhelpful.

Freedom in and of itself does not mean anything. Its only meaning derives from the words that follow it. Freedom to worship? Quite right. Freedom to hurt people in the street? Absolutely not. But many religious groups have framed the freedom to not have faith challenged as part of the freedom of worship. They have argued that criticism is an infringement of their right to be believers. It is not. It is merely the price one pays to live in a free country.

It is unacceptable for atheist groups to be prevented from forming in universities because faith groups deride them as negative. It is unacceptable that atheist posters and banners are defaced when we would react with outrage if Christian or Muslim posters were treated in such a way. These are real world examples given to me by atheist activists. They have every right to pursue their agenda as they see fit. Prejudice against atheists is as bad as prejudice against anyone else.

What do you think?

Name 

Location 

Email 

Comment 

Enter the text shown to the right
  • "Remarkably, I found Ian Dunt's article to have a modicum of common sense in it this time. Usually he bangs the 'diversity drum' along with the rest of the political gang of three. Religion vs Science is no contest. Religion is based on faith, which effectively means you can believe whatever you like and no one is allowed to 'dis' you, no matter how outrageous your view - because of the enshrined right to freedom of religion. On the other hand, science can be contested, and quiet rightly so as new discoveries are made everyday which change opions. This is what makes the atheist a stronger and more tolerable person. The atheist is not relying on a delusion of faith, and is ready to amend or even change their view depending on the best explanatory evidence. This willingness to make u-turns is seen by the religious as a weakness, but in fact it is a strength. It is the religious intolerance which is the root cause of evil as Dawkins put it, and should be given no encouragement in our education and political systems. "

    N Jakeman (Southampton) Posted: 14/06/2009 16:58:00

  • "Religion is, has been, & will be responsible for more death, intolerence & hatred than any other organised movement on the planet. Atheism, or even agnosticism if you're hedging your bets for the afterlife, is the only sane response to organised religion. I have nothing against those who pursue their beliefs in a spiritual sense, ie those who don't feel the need to ram their belief system down peoples throats at every opportunity, but the real danger lies with those of ANY faith who seek to rabidly espouse their beliefs above all others, so this is what should be targeted. Possibly remove some of the very public platforms that exist for religion, nad maybe a more common sense approach might appear. "

    Simon Capps (UK) Posted: 15/06/2009 13:17:26

  • "This article mentions the Twin Towers without mentioning the gulags. The various events mentioned here could have been reported without a wholesale sell-out to how wonderful and innocent atheism is. This article paints a picture of atheism as generally progressive and positive and a picture of religion as generally a force for destruction and prejudice which, who would credit it, still exists despite being 'generally' discredited 200 years ago. Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19 recognises the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind."

    Calum (Dun Éideann) Posted: 09/07/2009 13:59:58

  • "This article mentions the Twin Towers without mentioning the gulags. The various events mentioned here could have been reported without a wholesale sell-out to how wonderful and innocent atheism is. This article paints a picture of atheism as generally progressive and positive and a picture of religion as generally a force for destruction and prejudice which, who would credit it, still exists despite being 'generally' discredited 200 years ago. Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19 recognises the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind."

    Calum (Dun Éideann) Posted: 09/07/2009 14:11:41

  • "well really God isn't real here i well tell you why. 1st which idiot said that god was everywhere because if he was why can't we see him (because he's a pure spirit) that's just plain dumb. 2nd what ever happened to the prophet of Egypt wait don't tell me GOD KILLED HIM No he didn't deserve it it was his beliefe you don't kill something if they don't believe in you. 3rd i hear people saying that god created the universe so if he did why did he make it dark and make a sun until it burns out into a black hole and sucks in everything (even light). 4th who's fault was it that made Eve eat from the tree hint: eviler than Saiten. God he knew that Adam and Eve would eat from it so why did he make it what i mean is people want life easier right so why did he even make the tree dosen't god love us all equally well i guess not. 5th how many people did god kill in the bible about 2,000,000 and guess how many sainten killed 12 then god probally sent them all down to HELL to suffer even more. Last but least if Jesus is god what's that make god himself or Jesus example: if god was himself than the people that believe in him are breaking the 1st commandment because you believe in Jesus aka god that's 1 and god is himself so that's 2. So if you still believe in god you must think he's eveil"

    alwaysinatheist (california) Posted: 30/08/2009 02:17:06

  • "You make some good points about religion, and rightly so. Why then, do you not tolerate criticism of your religion of collectivism? I read your piece "Why I'll never understand Americans" and have written a response, which you can read at:- http://blizzard.freedom-blogs.com/442/a-world-war-on-truth I am a Briton, and one who would encourage you to consider why you don't understand me either."

    Chris Blizzard (Britain) Posted: 24/09/2009 23:04:51

Simon Slater, Portsmouth: Religion has and always will be a pillar for the weak, all clear thinking society's are aware of this, science and reason has and will continue to answer all. unfortunately for the atheist its all to convenient for government's to keep in place as an extremely effective and destructive tool to keep down the global population.

Entrails, Yorkshire: Perhaps it would help to start from the basis that 'Atheism' is simply another belief---it occupies the same category as a 'religion', and certainly has as much right to shape up and argue its place on a campus or in society. However, perhaps one of the reasons at least some people of religious faith are so ready to try and deny Atheists et al their place in the forum is because they see, rightly or wrongly, that Atheists are very often identified by what they are against, and what they are against they are also seen to want to destroy. Religions can certainly have their problems, but by and large and certainly in the case of the major religions, they are generally identified by what they are for, i.e. they are not usually lived out on the basis of wanting to destroy something else, at least that is not their primary purpose. People of religious faith, if they are genuinely committed to their faith with integrity and some degree of humility should not be defensive about their faith, nor should they feel threatened by those who disagree with it---even by those who would like to destroy it (certainly not Christians). However some clearly are defensive and threatened, and so we have the backlash of the kind described. We should certainly be prepared to stand up for what we believe, but to deny others the ability and freedom to do the same simply because we do not like what they stand for is not the way to build a healthy society. It might help the Atheists' cause if they were a little more humble about their conviction that 'God is dead', and a little less focussed on destroying the beliefs of others when their own stands on no firmer ground.

More News

Work till you drop?

Employers will not be able to force 65-year-olds to retire from October 2011, the government has announced, giving older people the opportunity to continue working as long as they like.

Default retirement age will be dropped from October 2011

Coalition rewrites post-election history

David Cameron has denied misleading Conservative MPs during coalition talks with the Liberal Democrats, insisting he did not tell them Labour was offering Nick Clegg's party electoral reform without a referendum.

Tory leaders leave the Cabinet Office during coalition negotiations

Indian 'jobs mission' continues

David Cameron is meeting with Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh for talks today as the British trade delegation's trip enters its final day.

David Cameron meets with Manmohan Singh today

Ex-Blair aide cleared of wrongdoing

A former aide to Tony Blair has been cleared of wrongdoing after allegations that she would take cash to exercise parliamentary influence.

Politicians were investigated for promoting issues in exchange for cash

Free Newsletter

Sign up to politics.co.uk's free daily newsletter and never miss a key political news story again.


Opinion Formers

We are the UK's leading dedicated political news website. Find out how you can get your message across to our audience of opinion leaders and policy makers.

Election Manifesto Videos

British Security Industry Association New Government Manifesto

Click on the video below to begin playing, or view the full size video here. Get Adobe Flash player

politics.co.uk's Opinion Formers set out to present their manifesto "wish lists" to the next generation of MPs and ministers ahead of the General Election in 2010.

Check out more Opinion Former election manifesto videos here.