The Scottish Reviewers

Atheists and believers: spot the difference

Walter Humes

I see that an atheist advertising campaign has been launched with the slogan 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'. Not exactly snappy but it gets the message across. Over the next month buses will carry the advertisements in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, as well as cities in England and Wales. Members of the public have raised funds to finance the campaign, which also received support from the British Humanist Association and the author of 'The God Delusion', Richard Dawkins.
     One of the people responsible for the initiative had objected to a series of Christian adverts on London buses and wanted to provide an alternative perspective. That suggests a rather negative motivation, though in a democratic society individuals and groups should certainly have the freedom to challenge beliefs that they regard as misleading or damaging. Moreover, it can be argued that in Western societies Christianity has had a very good innings, dominating thinking and exercising considerable power for many centuries. The Church of England, an institution which I find it difficult to take seriously, still has a significant constitutional role and its bishops are given a platform from which to speak in the House of Lords. It is not difficult to construct a case which suggests that, historically, the institutional church has been an oppressive agency in relation to many groups – women, children, dissenters, homosexuals and other minorities. Equally, however, at an individual level, many Christians over the centuries have demonstrated courage, compassion and selflessness of an exceptional kind.
     I write this as a non-believer but as someone who has in the past worked in a Christian (Catholic) institution and who has been enriched by colleagues whose faith has been a vital part of their identity. Although I do not share their beliefs, I can respect their stance and learn from their perspectives on life. A number of them would also wish to draw the distinction between the personal and the institutional dimensions of faith. Many Catholics are now prepared to depart from approved doctrine on particular issues, while retaining their allegiance to what they see as the fundamentals of their Church.
     The atheists undoubtedly have a right to present their case but I think they need to be careful about the style and tone they adopt. Here a distinction between commitment and zealotry is relevant. There is a difference between, on the one hand, holding a view with conviction and arguing for it strongly and, on the other, having a closed mind to the point where no amount of reasoning, however well-founded, will influence one's thinking. Ironically, there is a danger that atheists might display some of the same characteristics as those they are seeking to counter. Dogmatic atheism would be just as unattractive as dogmatic religion. Not long ago I watched a television programme in which Richard Dawkins was debating with a Muslim cleric. What struck me at the time was that it was the Muslim cleric who seemed rational and logical in his arguments, while Dawkins came across as authoritarian and fundamentalist. There is a lesson here, similar to the one which draws attention to the fact that the extremes of the political left and the political right have much in common: a rigid, intolerant ideology and a desire to change minds in such a way that nothing will allow the victims to think for themselves. There is a name for this process: it is called indoctrination.