frontline volume 2, issue 6. March 2008

Beyond Belief – a new approach to Atheism

With debate about religion seldom out of the headlines Nick McKerrell asks if it is time for atheists to stand up and be counted.

Atheism has gone through a bit of a renaissance in the last few years. This may seem counter-intuitive with the growth of religious fundamentalism across the planet which have taken on an increasing political role – be it Christian fundamentalism in America or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and Africa. Yet dotted around best seller lists there have been an increasing number of texts promoting a response to religiosity and its political voice.

Success of Dawkins

Leading the charge has been evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins whose “God Delusion” has sold 1.5 million copies across the planet and been translated into 31 languages. This is even before it went into paperback in the States. Previously fairly obscure philosophical writings on the topic have been revised and re-published. As a result Dawkins himself has become a hate-figure for the religious right and as a side issue creating a cottage industry in anti-Dawkins’ books.1

Dawkins himself puts the reluctant agreement of his publishers to unleash the text down to “4 years of Bush” 2. Yet despite this explicitly political dimension to his polemic many of the left have not fully participated in the atheism v religion debate.
It is also true that perhaps this debate has not touched the vast majority of the world – but it is just the current dinner party conversation or does it touch on something more fundamental.

In fact some have argued that the debate is essentially irrelevant for socialists. Mark Steel, a comedian and until recently a member of the SWP, in his Independent column attacked “militant atheists” as “being smug and superior” and removed from ordinary people. Using the example of modern Islam he states that this has developed from anti-imperialism and hence should be engaged with and not be aggressively confronted3.

SSP Experience

I have helped facilitate discussions on this topics at a number of SSP branches and start every one with the question: “Should this branch discuss atheism?” Up until now the result of this has been positive. But it is not a facile question given the development of the party

The SSP as a political project had the aim of uniting the left in a pluralist organisation. Thus in terms of theoretical debates there was emphasis on the points that united rather than focus on largely abstract differences which has been the bane of the left for so long.

So branch discussions would not focus on the nature of the Soviet state from 1917-91 or whether the SSP had to be explicitly revolutionary. This was necessary to distinguish the SSP from previous experiences with left parties and meant there was no paralysis due to endless debate.

It also meant that in comparison to other hard left “revolutionary” parties there was no clear line – in contrast to some of the platforms that organised within the SSP until 2006. An overhead to this, though, was a general shying away from controversial discussions within the party structures.

Talks on religion and atheism fell into this category, not least because discussions on religion can be quite divisive in society in general. Marxist organisations in the past often had discussions on religion. The SSP was a different party to this and sought to have a broader vision of society – not exclusionary to others.

So there may be members of the SSP who have religious beliefs. It could be argued that this is inevitable if a left party wants to gain a significant foot-hold in society as it is reflective of broader society as a whole. In essence there was a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” approach towards people’s spiritual belief – it was a private matter.

It is my contention that the stick has been bent too far in this direction and the SSP should use the opportunity of increased interest in atheistic ideas in a positive way. That is members should not be neutral on it but engage in discussions on it.

What harm can it do?

One argument against dipping your toes into the religious debate as a socialist is that religious belief is essentially harmless if it remains a private matter for the individual. It simply gives a guide to personal morality it doesn’t have anything to do with political life or activity.

Although this could be seen as superficially attractive it is the beginning of the argument that concludes there are some issues that are nothing to do with politics but personal decisions. This has been used in established political parties in relation to abortion rights, stem cell research, the rights of gay people and religion within state education. Not something we generally accept within the SSP – although there has been some controversy over faith-based schools.

Dawkins in his work kind of tackles this argument albeit in the context of scientific thought. He takes on the ideas of the late Stephen Jay Gould an American evolutionary scientist who wrote very readable popular science books.

Gould, who in many way adopted a more revolutionary approach to evolution than Dawkins does was a strident advocate against creationism and the neo-conservatives. However he argued that religion should be accepted as having a role in society as long as it stayed out of science’s way. Religion could deal with the Rock of Ages whereas science concerned the ages of rock.

Incidentally Gould guest starred in the Simpsons in an episode which essentially propagated this view. It concluded with Judge Snyder granting a restraining order: “Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times”!

Dawkins is dismissive of this argument. Firstly, it promotes an idealised vision of religion and its willingness to accept limitations in its remit. This is particularly true in America in the last twenty years with the growth in influence of the religious right which as will be shown below has had a pernicious influence on all aspects of “politics”. Also in other parts of the planet there are socio-political movements that seek to link explicitly with Islamic thought like Hizbollah in the Lebanon whose leader Nasrallah is an Islamic cleric.

But more importantly Dawkins argues this acceptance of religion’s role weakens the scientific method. As most religions4 are predicated on the existence of some supernatural force which cannot be proven to exist there is a need for absolute faith whether in a God or Allah or whatever. This encourages in humanity a lack of critical thought – there is always something they must accept unquestioningly.

One can see how this would be a major obstacle to science as the method of experimentation requires continual testing of theses. It also requires the ability of scientists to admit in the face of hard evidence that they are wrong.

In a phrase ascribed to Einstein: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” In Dawkin’s argument by allowing religion to use this method in an unchallenged way it weakens the role of critical thought as a whole in society.

Critical Thought

I would argue that a similar case could be made for the damage that such reasoning can do for socialists. The SSP has sought to encourage critical thinking amongst the membership. Currently radical education techniques are being utilised to move away from the idea that there is “one true faith” of individuals who know all the answers.

Experience has shown that fairly hierarchical organisations like the CWI and SWP were uncomfortable with this approach when they are in the party. Generally their members were not allowed to exhibit critical thought – at least not publicly – to their political positions. As a new form of pluralist socialist party developing a method of critical thinking was central in involving the membership and distinguishing it from parties of the past.

As argued above I think religion to a greater or lesser extent discourages critical thought at least at its core – belief in an external, unidentifiable force; this is not good for socialists. Moreover and this is why Marxist organisations in the past viewed the discussion on religion as so central a belief in supernatural powers essentially weakens the role of human agency.

If God/Allah/the spirit exists then surely the role of humans in determining fate is always going to be secondary. For Marxists this was absolutely contradictory, history and society developed by material forces i.e. humanity not from some mystical external forces. In the modern world socialists have striven to build a better planet themselves not to leave it in the hand of the fates or do wait for a better “after-life”.

Religion in this sense was caricatured by socialist organiser Joe Hill as “you’ll get pie in the sky when you die”5. Thus the material world whilst unequal will be made up for in the after-world. This fatalistic approach can also be damaging for socialists to believe in.

Yet in truth people with religious beliefs do struggle to change their material circumstances. Many churches were involved in the massive Make Poverty History movement and demonstration in July 2005 in Edinburgh6. The Southern Baptist Churches in the states played a critical role in the civil rights movements in the 1960s. People of Islamic faith battle to protect their communities in Gaza, the West Bank and the Lebanon from the onslaught of the Israeli war machine on a daily basis. In September 2006 Buddhist monks led demonstrations against the brutal Burmese dictatorship.

Maybe some of these people think they will get rewards for this behaviour in the after-life or in the Buddhists’ case another life that is not really the point they do make a practical difference to the world and the way it is today. Not for them a pious washing of the hands but there is a central weakness if one has in their psyche that ultimately history and the planet are directed by something intangible.

Perhaps through involving themselves in struggle people will draw further reaching conclusions about their belief system – history has many examples of this. But this does not mean that socialists should be silent on these central philosophical issues in the interim. Indeed if we are there would be no other poles of attraction for which people rejecting religion could come.

As the environment suffers more and more with climate change, deforestation and its basic resources being plundered the message has to become clearer that only human beings have the ability to alter this situation. Indeed increasingly the turmoil in weather situations cannot be dismissed as “acts of god” but as a direct result of human behaviour and in particular the economic system of capitalism.

It will be vital to emphasise the power of people to challenge this. Ironically the Archbishop of Canterbury the leader of the Church of England has won a series of awards on his work on the environment stating tackling climate change needs “a spiritual dimension” 7. Putting a slightly different spin from one of his leading bishops who stated a few weeks before this award was granted in the midst of the horrific flooding across England “We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused.” 8

Leaving aside the issue whether religion can be harmless we do not have to look far to see the damage that is done in Bush’s America by his Christian fundamentalism. There have been numerous reports to show how Bush has interfered with scientific research and findings and promoted individuals to committees to block any research which contradicts his religious viewpoint9. From abstinence-only sex education programme, to the effectiveness of condom use in preventing disease to global warming. Far from being harmless these views have had a direct effect on the lives of thousands of people.

In America this approach has created quite a febrile atmosphere where at an early stage of the Presidential race three out of the ten Republican nominees stated they did not believe in evolution. This included leading candidate Mike Huckebee who won the Republican nomination in Iowa. This is not just a rejection of evolution but a rejection of scientific method – which has been possible because of the atmosphere created by Bush.

Wasn’t Jesus a Socialist?

Yet in the West some even on the left may say that their vision of Christianity has nothing to do with Bush. They are inspired by the message of peace of Christianity or Islam. If people take some positives from religion is that not enough particularly if their beliefs are progressive.

An early Marxist Kautsky10 examined these ideas amongst other in his Foundations of Christianity11. Worth a read for all socialists, he explored the contradictory early messages of Christianity and the role of Jesus.

He explored the historical and social context of how Christianity developed as a resistance force to the Roman Empire and its place within Jewish society. Hence he shows that to some extent Christianity was a revolutionary set of beliefs – a section of the book is called Jesus as a Rebel. Indeed some evidence shows that Jesus was crucified because of his leadership of an insurrectionary movement against the Romans. See there is some truth in the Life of Brian!

Yet the evidence is besmirched because from these revolutionary roots the religion was adopted by the state changing its philosophy along the way. One could take inspiration from the stance of Jesus but it is difficult for that to be extracted from the thousands of years of damage that the Church has done and the method of thinking that underpins belief in supernatural power.

A belief in external power, a God, could be seen perhaps as more feasible at that time due to the lack of major scientific advance and the hellish nature of living in the material reality of Imperialist Rome.

This link with Christianity and progressive action though was made more concrete in Latin America in recent times with the growth of liberation theology. In many ways this was of its time and in the context of revolutionary movements across South America from the 60s-90s and reactionary responses to them mainly in the form of military dictatorships.

In some countries many Catholic priests played a progressive role alongside these social movements. Motivated by a desire to help the poor and improve their living conditions. The official hierarchy of the Church sharply criticised the movement – Pope John Paul II did this on a trip to Nicaragua12 and in many ways the current Pope Benedict XVI made his name attacking the very concept of liberation theology.

So the existence of progressive elements in Christianity or indeed any other religions cannot be questioned it is more the context in which they operate. Furthermore what is the balance of forces within the entire religion – is it progressive or reactionary?

No-one could argue that the SSP should not be tolerant but are we more accepting of some religious beliefs than others. If a comrade were to say they were off to mass or mosque we may not even give it a second thought. What if another comrade said they were off to a corner to chant a mantra or was going to a faith healer or a tarot card reader – would we be as tolerant even if it was in our own heads. One poll taken in Britain in 2005 showed that more people believed in ghosts than God.13

All of these actions may give people strength and are their own personal thoughts but are we guilty of giving a hierarchy of superstitions. Surely it is more honest to reject them all and explain that socialists reject all of them equally.

I am not advocating a return to small Marxist sect-dom where people have to subscribe to annals of certain writings to join, ironically similar to many religious groups. But I think there needs to be a more positive message of atheism promoted throughout the party.

The SSP pioneered putting across the message of socialism in Scotland in recent times, combining our positive vision for an Independent Socialist Scotland with campaigning issues. We may have lost our way a little recently but it is not beyond our collective wits to promote our updated vision on many issues: Scotland, feminism, the environment and I think a strong element of atheism.

After the Russian Revolution in 1917 Lenin argued against the idea that religion could be abolished – Christianity and Islam was strong across the Soviet Union. This idea was promoted by Stalin amongst others. This was impossible, argued Lenin just as it is to definitively disprove God’s existence in a purely argumentative way. Organised religion had to be tolerated.

However Lenin did argue that there was a need for relentless propaganda against religion and religious belief. In one work he promoted an “militant atheist organ” written by Communists and others mainly who worked in science, the Dawkins of their day!14 He also argued that Engels had long put forward the belief that eighteenth century atheist writers should be updated into modern language by socialist leaders.

Obviously the context is also different today – a successful revolutionary party like the Communist Party was in 1922 had an authority that we had not. Equally the CP was explicitly Marxist and thus atheist.

The SSP is neither of those things but because of the growing pernicious role of religion internationally, the weakness of superstitious philosophy and the current environmental disaster facing the planet a rethink of our approach to atheism, I think, is required.

Notes

1. With titles like The Dawkins Delusion, Deluded by Dawkins etc etc.
2. Richarddawkins.net, Wednesday, September 20, 2006
3. Mark Steel
4. With the exception of some Eastern philosophies
5. The Preacher and the Slave, Joe Hill 1911.
6. Arguably they made up the majority of those on the Edinburgh demonstration.
7. Environmental award goes to Archbishop of Canterbury, 23rd July 2007, http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5473
8. Floods are judgement on society say Bishops, Sunday Telegraph 2nd July 2007.
9. For example, The House of Representatives Politics and Science in the Bush Administration, August 2003. http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
10. Who unfortunately ended up backing the First World War with the German Social Democratic Party.
    
11. 1908, Full text is available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/
    
12. Where many priests sympathised with the Sandanistas.
    
13. Oct 31st 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9879388/
    
14. 1922, Lenin On the Significance of Militant Materialism, http:/ /www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

Top