I may have gotten soft in my old age but recent experience has given me pause for thought. While naturally inclined to the Richard Dawkins copyrighted “fire and brimstone” branch of atheism, I have begun to wonder if there could be a better approach, something a little more inclusive, a little more human.
I am fascinated by faith and always enjoy speaking to those who "get" it precisely because I don't. Where it "feels" true to them in their soul I feel a gloriously empty space - the fact there is no god seems as obvious and natural to me as the fact praying is useful does to them. I can't imagine that we could ever come to a compromise position and I have long passed trying to de-convert the godly. But could the Atheist movement (whatever that is) be a place more welcoming to the waverers? As most Atheists I meet are both warm and lovely this seemed sensible. I enjoyed the idea of some-one who might still have faith but can no longer follow the diktat of their religion could find a place where they could stretch their spiritual legs without ridicule. I agree, by the way with Sam Harris on using that word. There is a clear distinction between those of private deist faith and a fundamentalist psychopath and so it would be stupid to lump all of those with faith in the same box. After all some of my best friends are Christians...
Ultimately though, I guess I enjoyed the mischievous idea of sticking a friendly 2 fingers at the pious and saying “see we’re even better at being nice then you are”.
So resolute in my softening approach to those with faith, I hoped to engage and enjoy the world of faith in a more cheerful and cheering way. The world of religion responded with some of the most stupid, ignorant, bigoted, evil, motivated by God nastiness it had available.
While reeling, confused by the notion that 3 girls are being sent to a penal colony for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” or more accurately “dancing in a church”, I was appalled by the news of a young girl in Pakistan. The idea that she should face any censure let alone the death penalty for maybe burning some pieces of paper literally makes a beggar of belief.
Patriarch Kirill can spit against every notion of moral modernity and be smugly protected by blasphemy laws. A Pakistani Mob can burn people from their homes in a rampage of ethnic cleansing and be applauded for upholding the values of their faith.
But we might say (if we were being faintly post-colonial polite racist) these places are poor, they are not educated, there will be many local issues that have contributed; we don’t understand enough to judge.
Well, in that case we wouldn’t have the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland playing “I’m taking my ball back and you can’t play” over gay Marriage. Or for that instance Todd Atkin a Missouri Republican Who recently had to invent new definitions of rape in order to square the circle of his religious belief and the constitutional right of a woman to control her own body. I am left wondering which semester of his Divinity Masters Degree did he learn about half rape.
Both these guys have every benefit that being a white, educated male born in the west during the second half of the 20th Century can bring. Neither is stupid, nor I would presume evil, but both have been pushed into behaving abhorrently by an out-dated doctrine they cannot shake and feel compelled to follow.
So sorry god(s), I will keep trying to show understanding to your flock and I do realise that having faith doesn't mean a person will be an automaton of your capricious will. But while your rules and sacred texts provide cover and inspiration for the taking of political prisoners, ethnic cleansing, homo-phobia and misogyny I will reserve the right to be as dis-respectful about you and those rules as I wish. And I will apologise to those nice faithful friends who I might upset, but the flip side of your coin is too unpleasant for me to ignore...