Last Words on Religion

Just before Christmas, when I was coming round after the worst of being ill I heard of the sad death of Christopher Hitchens. I had followed his writings and particularly enjoyed his debate with Tony Blair on whether religion is a force for good or not. It wasn't to do with which side of the debate I personally agreed with but how well he conducted himself in presenting his argument.

This got me thinking in to why Richard Dawkins rubs people up the wrong way and why Christopher Hitchens who I strongly disagreed with over the war with Iraq still interested me. I felt it must be in their manners. This was what interested me. Not whether God or Yahweh existed or not. All the subsequent debate quite baffled me.

I was brought up to be an atheist or at least an agnostic who feels it highly unlikely that there is any sort of interventionist god. This is from where my thinking grows. It is important as you will see. Dawkins, and probably Hitchens I imagine grew up with religion as a given that they then looked in to and became 'enlightened' and felt it their duty to spread the word. I had thought the debate was over. To me questioning the existence of god is akin to questioning the existence of father christmas. I know it to be untrue. I know there are those who believe yet it would be ridiculous to try to discuss anything of that nature with someone who believes in the supernatural without question. I have no desire to engage in debates of this sort. It is done, resolved. Perhaps one day god will reveal himself and I shall save discussion until that day. I know you can ask, 'well if santa doesn't exist then where do all the presents come from?', but we should know that it is best not to interfere with the thoughts of people who are at that stage of their development. It is cruel to deprive a child of santa. Dawkins effectively does the same.

I regularly check my beliefs. I do keep my eyes open and change my belief to cater for fresh discovery. This is reason.

When I was about 14 I fell out with a catholic freind of mine. I was young and naive. I had not taken my agnostisism out to play before and assumed all reasonable people were the same as me. The christian made to strike me. I had pushed his buttons to the point where his facade of peacefullness was broken. From that day I decided it best not to point out gods' absence to others.

Yet when I saw Dawkins being abused, when I heard that christians that knew Hitchens had cancer were praying for his death I thought I ought to have a fresh look.

I read both Dawkins 'God Delusion' and Hitchens 'God is not Great'. Dawkins book is particularly strong but lacks the humour of Hitchens. There are hardly any areas Dawkins can not beat with his rational. It is a powerhouse of a book I would have as required reading in all schools. But why do the religious get so angry? why are they so violent. What is it that upsets them when Dawkins speaks?

There are no atheist murderers, no atheist suicide bombers, atheists do not hurt others. No, all the violence is one way.

Even secularism is under attack. Secularism has heald this country in peace since the enlightenment. The agreement that religion is as private as your sexuality. Something to be practiced in private. Not at council meetings. The questionably elected baronness Warsi taking time to speak out against secularism, her misunderstanding, thinking that secularism is atheism telling people not to pray when what it means is we are all allowed to believe as we want but do not expect preferential treatment at any governing juncture seems terribly worrying. How can these people have misunderstood that secularism is there to protect all our rights.

Why do some religious people insist on getting it wrong and dragging their superstitions in to all the wrong places. It isn't that we atheists wish to take away your beliefs, we just want sense, a world where it doesn't matter, a world where we are free to believe what we want. Not submit to supernatural dictators.

The better question is why do all societies have religion? Why do all cultures have religion?

The answer I believe is simple. You are better off with faith. When logic is not enough. When reason alone will not push you that extra mile, religion will. The best sportsmen, the best craftsmen are usually religious. The rest eventually give up. It doesn't matter that much. Reason takes over , why bother? The religious will always survive better.

Not only as an individual are you better off but as a culture, as a species you are more likely to survive if you will sacrifice yourself for your people. It is better to be part of the in crowd. Religion can make aliens subhuman when needed. It can make you help out strangers of your own kind. Atheists are less likely to succeed at virtually anything other than reason.

If you ever watch debates on the subject the atheists always win, their reasoning is superior. But when it comes to survival they come second. Religion is of help when you are ill, when someone close dies, when you are recovering from addiction, at any time where logic is unhelpful. Arguably we need something else. Our reason alone will not always do.

So I believe Dawkins and Hitchens were brought up believing then reasoned their way out. If they had been always atheist they wouldn't have felt the need to write books on the subject. You might ask why I spent time on this. The answer is I am jealous. I will always be agnostic unless god turns up, I can do nothing else. I have tried. I wish to God I could have faith but I just can't make him real. No more than I can believe in father christmas. I have to accept I am less well equiped for survival than those of faith yet I can do nothing about it.