Atheists and Theists of the World - Unite!

Well, I certainly got a response to my letter to the editor, published in The Age newspaper yesterday. Of course, I don't know how many people wrote to The Age, or whether the consensus view was for or against the case for mutual engagement that I outlined, but this letter published in today's edition is obviously the most vitriolically opposed (scroll down to the letter entitled "Problem With God").

A number of issues arise. Firstly, the author of this letter obviously only had access to the much truncated version of my letter that was eventually published; this may have affected the tone of this individual's response. Secondly, I don't know how extensive this responding letter was edited; that is, whether the published portion represents the thrust of the letter or just its most inflammatory aspects. Thirdly, and following on from the second point, I don't know how representative this letter was of the responses received, or whether The Age simply elected to publish the most trenchant response in order to generate a confrontational dichotomy.

Assuming, however, a minimum of editing and that the letter as published does accurately represent the author's views, this response is indicative of the approach adopted by fanatical atheists determined to misrepresent people of faith as irrational, superstitious fools who literally believe in anything. Briefly stated, the features of this letter are as follows:

• The patronising tone is typical of militant atheism. But this tone is quite deliberate, and serves a specific purpose. In the same way that certain fundamentalist Christians (for example) begin every theological sentence they utter with the phrase "Biblically speaking" in order to both assert their moral superiority and denigrate their opponents' theological credibility, so militant atheists use this kind of tone to imply both their superior reasoning capacity and undermine the rational credibility of their opponents.
• The next feature is obfuscation. Note how the author states that I complained about journalist Catherine Deveny "highlighting the absurdities of irrational belief". But a careful reading of my letter, even in its edited form, reveals that I did no such thing. What I did say in my letter was that Ms Deveny would be better served refraining from taking the easy option of mocking the abuses of faith that cultural practice or personal vanity sometimes impose, and instead make the effort to understand the interior, lived experience of faith. But this obfuscation, like the patronising tone, is quite deliberate: it is intended to project the militant atheist as the defender of reason and reasonableness against the raving illogicity of theism.
• The next feature is dismissal. The author refers to " 'the lived experience of faith', whatever that is", suggesting that my characterisation of faith as an actuality that informs the life of the theist is, in fact, just a clever confabulation of empty words. The writer then goes on to tell me what this experience actually is: 'the "feel-good" trust in an imaginary friend, or the "fellowship" from "belonging" to a "communion" with a "higher purpose"'. In other words, faith is either a quaint superstition in someone who doesn't actually exist, or a cosy social club for people too afraid to face the world and who accordingly invest themselves with a higher moral purpose as a compensation. Again, the objective is portrayal: the militant atheist has intellectual depth and credibility, whereas the theist is essentially a phoney - and a coward, to boot.
• After all this posturing comes condemnation. The author details various atrocities and horrors perpetrated in the name of faith and / or religion, and on the basis of these, condemns faith in its entirety as irredeemably corrupt and destructive. Of course, the author is careful not to detail all the positive and constructive and humane endeavours undertaken by millions of people around the world and across history on the basis of their lived experience of faith. But beyond this, the author's purpose is simple: any crime perpetrated in the name of God is sufficient to discredit faith in toto. As if: a) people of faith were incapable of being outraged by, and responding to, wrongdoing perpetrated in the name of their faith; and b) religious belief alone is capable of producing crimes and horrors and atrocities. In short, people of faith are by definition mindless automatons incapable of independent thought; faith as a lived experience does not involve wrestling with conscience, or holding in tension the claims of institutional authority with the promptings of individual conviction - it is just a process for mass producing clones who are happy to be complicit in inhumanity.
• Finally, the writer finishes with another round of obfuscation spiced by a dose of pretence to objectivity. Obfuscation in the form of suggesting that I claimed the "consequences of irrational belief" could be separated from religious practice - which I patently did not. The pretence to objectivity is the reference to the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, a passing acknowledgement to non-religiously motivated crimes that is intended solely to boost the militant atheist's "credentials" as an objective, non-partisan humanitarian (an especial irony given atheism was the official theological position of the Soviet Union).

So what is to be made all of this? Reflecting on the last 24 hours, I have become convinced that the problem is not the rise of "assertive atheism". Rather, the problem is that the debate has degenerated into a slanging match between entrenched militants on both sides, whose objective is not to engage in meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding, but to assert their claims to truth to the exclusion of all others. The result is that moderates, both theist and atheist, are being trodden on and silenced, leaving the field to the fanatics and agents provocateur on both sides.

The solution to this can only come through an alliance of moderate, thinking atheists and moderate, thinking theists. By this, I mean those atheists who do not automatically assert that the phrase "thinking person of faith" is an oxymoron; and, likewise, those theists who do not automatically assume the term "atheist" denotes a rabid, aggressively blustering anti-theist. In other words, those theists and atheists who understand they have more in common with one another through a commitment to genuine dialogue and engagement, than they do with the hard-liners on their "own side".

Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that such an alliance should involve each side meekly accepting the views of the other, or conveniently looking the other way in respect of those positions or arguments with which they disagree. Rather, it is the commitment to a genuine process of exchange, in which each side, with humility and integrity, seeks to genuinely understand the other, and apply this understanding to their own assumptions and insights. In short, a process of mutual enrichment based on mutual respect and a shared determination to reject fanaticism.

Of course, I understand that forging such an alliance will be extremely difficult. But I think we owe it to ourselves to try; and I think the cost of not making the attempt will be far too high. Certainly, allowing the fanatics on either side to rule the roost will be to no-one's benefit.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Farce is a genre that's closer to tragedy in its essence than comedy is. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge)