CULTURAL CHRISTAINITY

 

Rcihard Dawkins (from Wikipedia)

Curiously enough, it was that famous atheist Richard Dawkins who introduced me to the concept. Maybe he was trying to deflect attention away from his notorious atheism – in effect, saying that there was more to him than just his lack of belief in a deity overlooking humanity – or maybe he did genuinely believe in what he was saying, which was that he had a great affection for things like evensong and festivals associated with Christianity. He was a ‘cultural Christian’, a concept I identified with, although I had not come across if before. 

 

I would go a little further than Dawkins and say that inventing religion – and the concept of an afterlife that goes with it – is one of the most creative things that human beings have done and that we should not throw out everything that it encompasses if we choose to follow Darwin in believing that humans are just sophisticated animals, who have evolved over centuries and now stand at the apex of the world, dominating the landscape.

 

Try as hard as I can, I find it impossible to believe in an afterlife. In that sense, I am an atheist and I believe, as my own ends draws ever nearer, that our life – traditionally three score years and ten – is all that we have to enjoy and that we should make the most of it because nothing comes afterwards. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not believe in either Heaven of Hell coming after death – just oblivion.

With life traditionally 'nasty, brutish and short' in days of old the promise of an afterlife were things would get better was particularly attractive to people who could not enjoy riches in this world. They were promised them in the next world and might be expected to accept their lot more phlegmatically (and less revolutionarily) in this one. In this way religions can be seen as the handmaiden of conservative government systems that required mass obedience. 

 

Apart from anything else, perpetual life might turn out to be rather dull. Just imagine being stuck in Heaven (or Hell) with nothing to do except being nice to your neighbours, who you might not have got on well with in this world and do not want to be stuck with in the next. This idea was expressed in an article in The New Yorker magazine and I found myself agreeing with it – as I often do with things I read there, the world’s best magazine. 

 

I found it repeated in John Mortimer’s play A Voyage Around My Father, in which the father in question did not look forward to an afterlife once he had died. In fact, he dreaded being unable to enjoy his garden and the few things he had left after his sight was lost in, ironically perhaps, a gardening accident. His blindness was then ignored and never mentioned by the family for the rest of his time on earth and things continued pretty much as before.

 

I have seen the play three times now with actors like Laurence Olivier, Derek Jacobi and now Rupert Everett (a gay actor like Jacobi) who nevertheless took on the role of Mortimer’s father. They are portraying a man they cannot be like in real life because they will never marry and have a family. That is not to say that gay men (and women) cannot be parents, as Elton John has shown, just that they cannot marry someone of the opposite gender.

 

I have seen the play several times but had forgotten the father’s outburst at Christianity, an antipathy that was shared by his son. However, Mortimer said that he took his own children to Midnight Mass at Christmas and, like Dawkins, enjoyed the cultural aspects of Christianity without sharing the belief system behind it. I do not think that these well-known atheists are being hypocritical, just that they accept parts of Christianity they like and reject others.

I have no desire to live in a godless society and the idea of a Museum of Atheism, which apparently are found in communist countries, fills me with horror. 

Religion teaches us humility, which many of us could use. When Vladimir Putin was asked to confess his sins, he reportedly replied that he was leader of the world’s greatest nation and had nothing to fear. All I can say is that I hope he rots in hell, having being brought down by God, probably the only figure who is more powerful than him. His power is eternal and omnipotent. Putin’s is merely temporal and, therefore, temporary in comparison.

 

The church maybe has more to fear from those who are indifferent to religion totally rather than those who reject it intellectually but accept it emotionally – as I do. As a teenager I was an atheist but, as an adult, I have come around to accepting some of the premises – but not all – of the premises of Christianity. Much of this, of course, has to do with my work as a tourist guide. Some of that religion has rubbed off on me after taking people into churches.

   

It was, I think, Coleridge who said that intelligence means being able to hold two apparently  contradictory ideas in your head at the same time without fully rejecting either of them. I do (and should) not claim to be a particularly intelligent person but, in religion, I am able to accept religion and its contributions to society completely while rejecting its fundamental belief system. If that means that I am a hypocrite, so be it or, as they say in church, Amen.    

Edwin Lerner 

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

 

 

   

BOILED ALIVE OR SLOW COOKED, SIR?

Atheists are often very moral – and indeed admirable – people.  In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins’ book on the process by which human beings evolved into the marvellous creatures we have become, he writes several comments ins which he makes his ethical beliefs clear.  One of these stood out in particular – and I have never forgotten it.  Near the beginning of the book he points out that some chefs prefer to boil lobster alive because this gives the flesh a more tender taste than if they were to dispatch it with quick bash of the mallet and cook it after killing it rather than by killing it.   Dawkins writes that he strongly disapproves of the practice of slow-boiling the poor creatures to death in order to gain a slight margin in tenderness and taste.

According to Dawkins and other admirable atheists like Dan Dennett, who was the subject of a profile I read recently in The New Yorker, we humans are the result of a gradual but relentless process as life became established on the planet and humans very slowly developed.  We were not created but rather we evolved and part of this evolution was the development of morality which helps to bind society together and make life more tolerable for us by treating other humans with a modicum of decency.  You definitely do not have to believe in a higher being who gave us this sense of decency to live your life by it.

That sense of decency is now extending to other species.  Indeed, the word ‘speciesism’ has been coined to stand alongside sexism and racism to denote those who do not treat all species as equal.  I think that treating species as equal in the way we at least try to treat genders and races as equal is hopelessly unrealistic and actually disguises an evolutionary process by which humans are increasing their domination of the planet at the expense of other species - but that is a subject for a different essay.  Even though I continue to eat other creatures I believe that we should treat them with compassion.  Hit the poor buggers over the head before cooking them and then eat them with a reasonably clear conscience.

Dawkins, presumably Dennett, and I all agree that we should treat other species well even – especially - if we are not vegetarian.  Our moral systems have developed over thousands of years to the extent that we now feel bad if we treat other people (or species) badly.  The atheist would say that this comes from a series of electro-chemical impulses which are working in our brains to give us a consciousness and to guide our way of living.

However, sometimes explaining something can explain it away.  Another set of electro-chemical impulses has developed in these same brains which leads some people to spend large sums of money on expensive bottles of wine and indulgent items of food.  Personally, I think most of the pleasure gained from a good meal comes by way of the people sitting around the table rather than the food on the plates or the liquid in the glasses, but there is nothing inherently wrong with indulging yourself occasionally and, if you want the best of everything, go ahead and order the slow-boiled rather than quick-killed lobster when you go out for dinner.

Two impulses have developed inside the eighty plus billion neurons and two and a half pounds of matter which make up the modern human brain.  One tells us that it is wrong to boil lobsters alive slowly. The other tells us that the resulting dish tastes better if prepared in this way. Most of us who consider ourselves moral people obey the first impulse. A few sophisticated gastronomes obey the second.  We are good, they are bad, we like to think.

But why?  If these are purely scientific processes taking place inside our brains, one set of impulses according priority to the action we consider ‘good’, the other preferring to give in to our taste buds, why on earth should we obey one set and not the other?   Society will still continue to function if we order boiled-alive rather than quick-killed lobster.  Indeed, lobsters will continue to breed and thrive as long as there are people who want to eat them, however they are prepared.  It is only if we stop eating lobsters or other creatures because of our scruples that their continued survival might come under threat.  

I am utterly clear that I ought not to prepare or order the slow-boiled version, no matter how much better it tastes (not much, I suspect).  I certainly do not reject Darwinism and theories of evolution.  It is just that they are not enough in themselves for me to lead my life by.  I do not envy people who choose the slow-boiled dish rather than the quick-killed one just as I do not envy people who think sex is more important than love (well, maybe a little if they are getting a lot more than me).  This may make me a wimp but I will embrace my wimphood and sleep better at night as a result.

If I could dispense with these scruples and still sleep well without living my life in some kind of moral way, I might do so, but I cannot so there is no point in trying.  My brain has given priority to the electro-chemical impulses whizzing around it which choose the moral options rather than the taste preferences and I – whoever ‘I’ am in this scenario – will not/cannot override this process.  But what, in the end, is the point of morality – of leading the good life – if it is merely one set of electro-chemical impulses working in competition with another? This is why I still think that there must be some force or power which is outside of me that is making me a moral being.  This is where we find God – or god, if you prefer.

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com which is posted every Monday.

Due to other commitments I will now be posting on Man Friday on the last day of each month (not weekly).