Today, somewhere near Bath, tents are being taken down, trains are being boarded and 24 newly enlightened children are on their way home. They are, of course, returning from Camp Quest, the first ever atheist camp in the UK.
The arrival of the camp is another milestone in the rise of a new brand of atheism spearheaded by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. From London buses to Somerset camps, Dawkins’ crusade has marched ever onwards in its mission to expose religious thought as irrational and foolish, and to promote the clear-thinking rationality behind atheistic thought. It is a movement, he will argue, to free atheists of the discrimination and persecution they so frequently face, and to protect those who are the victims of theistic indoctrination.
As an atheist, I naturally see eye to eye with many of Dawkins’ thoughts; I agree that following a strictly rational and logical thought process leads to the lack of belief in a god, and further that this does not inhibit a person from appreciating the astounding complexity of the world we live in. His post-Darwin model of morality is something I find plausible, with the absence of any objective ethical code that religion appeals to, and much his effort to address the aggression shown towards atheist thought is commendable. However, like so many of Dawkins’ critics, I despise and feel let down by the brand of atheism that finds itself at the very heart of Camp Quest.
The problem lies in the premise of Dawkins’ arguments: atheism is rational, logical and reasonable, and so the acceptance of all of science, and nothing more, will not lead to the belief in god. Belief, he argues, requires an extra leap; an unwarranted and unjustified leap, the sort of leap that would lead to belief in fairies, spaghetti monsters and Zeus were you to find the right book. True as this may or not be, it seems to me that attacking theists for irrationality largely misses the point; it is the leap of faith taken by theists that makes their beliefs so important to them. Dawkins’ error is that he fails to recognize that for many there is more to life than thinking rationally, something to be gained from going beyond only that which can be absolutely proven, a happiness to be acquired despite the fact that it comes from incoherent reasoning.
The question is why this should trouble Dawkins so much. Why should he feel threatened because others have not embraced rational thought in the way he has? Here Richard Dawkins has frequently argued that religion offers nothing to the world but evil and conflict, and that atheists the world over are persecuted for essentially being sensible. Neither of these holds up well to gentle questioning.
We have all seen the devastating effects of religion; the planes that destroyed the twin towers in 2001, the bombs that killed 56 people in London in 2005, and the wars across the world declared in the name of higher powers. However we have also seen the devastating effects of capitalism, in the millions who die each year of malnutrition. We have seen politics lead our country to two wars in the Middle East in the last 8 years, and the killing of 6 million Jews by an atheist dictator. Religion is only one source of conflict, and on many occasions religion only serves as a convenient mask for ongoing political struggles; indeed, many extremist regimes, such as that in Saudi Arabia, is a product of that particular society rather than of Islam. I do not deny that religion has claimed its victims, and continually oppresses people to this day; but it is not the only force that does this, and to attack religion from this view fails to account for the importance of spirituality to billions of people.
His claim that he is motivated by the discrimination of atheists is troubling too. Dawkins in particular refers to the US, where atheism is one of the greatest obstacles to political power. However, whichever country he chooses, the persecution of theists is far more significant than that of atheists, both throughout history and today. If this has been overlooked, it is no doubt due to Dawkins’ prioritizing of the Christian faith. Indeed, if there is a greater obstacle to political power in the US than atheism, it is being a muslim, as Barack Obama so nearly found out. To say that the vitriol directed towards Islam is equaled by that against atheists is foolish, and insulting. No persecution is acceptable in any form, but Dawkins’ attempts to paint atheists as the victims is quite negligible in comparison. Aside from this, if it is discrimination he cares about, you certainly couldn’t guess it, as his campaign has gathered ever more aggression. It was only recently, in fact, that Dawkins’ encouraged the ridicule and mocking of theists (Carlo Strenger wrote an interesting article about Dawkins’ complete negligence of the psychology of bullying). If Dawkins has atheists’ best interests at heart, he is certainly not helping them escape discrimination with his belligerence.
If the foundations of this aggressive brand of atheism are weak, it hasn’t yet reached Dawkins. Following the release of ‘The God Delusion’, his campaign has gathered ever more pace, and noticeably more urgency. His media presence has increased, and his message given an airing wherever possible; his recent documentary on Charles Darwin could barely resist a 10 minute aside in which he gently mocked religious belief. In short, the new brand of atheism is becoming as aggressive and inconsiderate as the views it attempts to quash; more than this, it is becoming petty and needless.
Which brings us back to the atheist camp. If one already had suspicions that it was preaching to the converted, its websites’ appeal to “children of atheists, agnostics, humanists and freethinkers” confirms this. The raison d’etre of Camp Quest is inseparable from Dawkins’ aggressive form of atheism; if atheism is defined as the absence of belief in a deity, it should be no more that this. To actively send children to a camp of this nature will only serve to encourage and promote an intolerance and distain for other world views, where we should be encouraging the acceptance and integration of all beliefs.
Still, there is a plus side. If many atheists came from strict religious upbringings, perhaps we can hope that the 3.30 train from Somerset to London is currently occupied by the next generation of Britains’ priests and bishops. It would certainly bring a smug smile to this atheist’s face.
I completely agree. I find Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as off-putting as organised religion itself. They have almost completely succeeded in turning atheism into a religion; not even that, they have given it the worst aspects of religion without the positives (it is militant and confrontational and attempts to convert without providing comfort etc.)
ReplyDeleteAs you say the point of atheism is a belief in no god and it shouldn't go any further. He definitely gives atheism a bad name. I have much more repsect for religious leaders who seem greatly more capable of tolerance.
In some respects militant atheism, reason and logic (such as the Enlightenment movement) spawned capitalism, nationalism, colonialism etc. and therefore has been the source of many evils. Dawkins, Hitchens and Johann Hari seem to be regressing by asserting atheism so strongly.
It's intersting too about religion being the cause of wars, as you point out there are a variety of causes and if religion did not exist those same people would be using something else as a reason to fight. China's treatment of the Tibetans and Uighurs shows the religious as the oppressed and the atheists as the oppressors.
I suppose that I would be described as an atheist but Dawkins et al makes me want to run from such an association.