Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Is theism getting a bad press?

I'm not very sure how to phrase this post correctly. I have been musing for a while about a change I've observed over the time I have been ordained. It seems that there are now significantly more atheist voices who are more vocal and critical of belief in God, especially in the media and in public life. The question is: why?

Looking at the kinds of digs atheists make online, they're not always very sophisticated or original. Some atheists even seem to mirror religious fundamentalists in their absolutism. Even when the critique is more considered, it's usually the case that Christians have been struggling with the same issues for centuries. Suffering, theodicy, Old Testament wrath vs New testament compassion, etc are all there in theology textbooks (but not any neat answers). Maybe that's the problem: people who want neat answers find a messy God difficult.

If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.

I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger  tag  of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.

What's become clear in recent years is that attitudes to organised faith/religion have changed. The Church of England was once seen as basically benign, if rather odd, eccentric, ineffectual and from a different era. Church of England schools and colleges would be seen as 'nice' places to study, even by those who didn't practise the faith in any committed way. There is now a debate as to whether these institutions should receive any public support at all, or even whether churches and faith groups qualify as charities.

So why isn't theism seen as benign for wider society any more? Religious conflicts must be part of the picture. These aren't new, either, and nor is sectarian terrorism. There was plenty of that during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. However, more recent developments such as suicide bombing and the description of such as martyrdoms has pointed to a difficult question. If it is believed that human existence doesn't depend on this material world, but upon a relationship with the divine, then someone can acquire an attitude that says this life doesn't really matter. And in case Christians start getting superior at this point, that tradition is there in our faith too. It hasn't worked itself out in suicide bombing, but in medieval times, being killed on the Crusades was regarded as tantamount to martyrdom. How do we hold that 'this isn't everything', yet still value the material world as real and precious?

Ethics and values have changed the goalposts too. Churches are often seen as maintaining sexist and homophobic values in an era when society's norms and the laws of the land have moved on from traditional standpoints. If the perception out there is growing that theism = prejudice and discrimination, then it's hardly surprising to hear a more vocal critique from theosceptics. (Have I just invented that word? Must look it up later)

If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.

On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.

Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 29, 2009

Atheism, Hospitals and Prayer

Got a good response to the Atheist post which all took place over on facebook, which this blog feeds into. The conversation discussed what people mean when they self-describe as atheist. As I said earlier, I suspect that for many it just means "I don't do God" or even "can't be bothered to think about it", rather than the adoption of a clear ideology. There also seem to be passive and active atheists in the latter category - some who keep their views private, whereas others want to convert you as passionately as Christian evangelists.

Meanwhile, there is now a debate about prayer in hospitals, which follows on from a case where a nurse was disciplined for offering to pray for a patient. The BMA will be debating a motion about the right of health care professionals to offer to pray with patients.

The coverage has interested me. "Doctors are demanding the right..." was the BBC Sunday radio headline, and is echoed on the news website. In fact, the motion being put to the the BMA representative meeting is as follows:

Motion by THE AGENDA COMMITTEE: That this Meeting:
(i) recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients;
(ii) notes the position on inappropriate discussion of faith matters in GMC Guidance on
Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice;
(iii) while welcoming the constructive and necessary advice in the document "Religion or
belief", is concerned that some paragraphs suggest that any discussion of spiritual matters
with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action;
(iv) believes that offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension;
(v) calls on Health Departments to allow appropriate consensual discussion of spiritual matters
within the NHS, when done with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals.
(Sheffield Division has been asked to propose this motion)

Full agenda available at http://www.bma.org.uk/images/ARMgenda2009_tcm41-187028.pdf


Hardly the mandate for aggressive and exploitative manipulation of vulnerable people, which the National Secular Society spokesman suggested. The Radio 4 debate descended into a rather odd conversation about whether it was inconsistent not to offer prayer to everyone, when he seemed to be suggesting that one could be a little more discerning than that. After all, not praying with a patient doesn't mean you don't pray for a patient.

Banning spiritual/religious issues from the practitioner-patient conversation would be a conscious decision to make health care atheistically secular. A democratic society is entitled to make that decision, but it isn't a decision to be taken by default. Even limiting that conversation to Chaplains represents a compartmentalising of spiritual matters. If the NHS is more than a mechanistic service, and seeks to offer person-centred care, then it would seem that every aspect of a person needs to be cared for.

Patient Concern, a (not Christian-based) patient advocacy organisation seemed to be the voice of reason in the midst of all of this.

But Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern said: "Most complaints from patients are about being on a conveyor belt of care. They don't rate with staff as real people.
"Offering to say a prayer is a warm and kind thought. Most patients will accept it as such. It is no more offensive than being offered a sleeping pill. You can say thanks but that sort of thing isn't my cup of tea.
"But if Christian doctors see this as an opportunity to promote their faith to people at a time when they are particularly vulnerable, that is totally unacceptable."
Quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8116497.stm