God: read and be saved - 5 comments

Neil's been taking on all comers (OK, mainly Blimpish) on the subject of religion, or, more specifically, on the existence of 'God'. I was going to leave a comment, but decided there might just be enough in it to warrant a non-meme post.

Atheist I may still be, but whether I could have been this way if I had been socialised into a community of zealous believers, instead of being brought up as a lapsed, liberal CofE, I wouldn't like to say. Perhaps it is a myth, but if it were true that the CofE clergy were less committed to their cause than others, and assuming they've been granted no greater insight than those of other religions, perhaps the problem is with them, and not the cause?

I'd also add that, while it's great to be an atheist and have a sound, moral code (if it's really that different from Christianity without the god, and assuming you trust me when I say it 'works') it seems obvious to me that, for some people, believing in something like 'God' would be better for them than believing in nothing. That's why, when I hear about the decline in mainstream church attendance, and notice churches disappearing from the skyline, I don't necessarily feel that science and rationality are filling the gap. Quite the contrary.

Now I generally only buy the New Statesman once a year (at Christmas), which is only slightly less frequently than I buy The Guardian (though this is largely due to my inability to read on the train in the morning, and not for political reasons), but it did allow me, back in 2002, to catch John Gray's essay, The Myth of Secularism, (taken from his book, Straw Dogs) which should be pretty tough reading for atheists (and I remember it being so). Here's an extract:

The need for religion appears to be hard-wired in the human animal. Certainly the behaviour of secular humanists supports this hypothesis. Atheists are usually just as emotionally engaged as believers. Quite commonly, they are more intellectually rigid. One cannot engage in dialogue with religious thinkers in Britain today without quickly discovering that they are, on the whole, more intelligent, better educated and strikingly more free-thinking than unbelievers (as evangelical atheists still incongruously describe themselves). No doubt there are many reasons for this state of affairs, but I suspect it is the repression of the religious impulse that explains the obsessive rigidity of secular thought.

Liberal humanists repress religious experience - in themselves and others - in much the same way that sexuality was repressed in the strait-laced societies of the past.

These may be easy targets, but not many atheists seem to have progressed beyond the "how can 'God' exist as a living being, and where?" argument, the thoroughly anal "Can 'God' create something he cannot control?", or indeed the classic, "Why does a benign god inflict suffering upon mankind", which any keen student of moral philosophy ought to absolutely lap up. Lame argument it may be, but I bet even I could give an answer from a religious perspective that could trump any from the secular side.

So what's our real enemy: is it theism, religions (or, indeed, particular ones), all non-scientific belief systems (including political ideologies), faith, the hierarchies of organised religions, its perceived conservatism, or the political power and moral influence wielded by those religions that the State has bestowed special privileges?

Would disestablishment of the Church of England (which I moderately support) pull the rug under the CofE, liberate more children from the tyranny of school assemblies and foster atheism, or liberate the organisation from being the "provider of last resort"?