Walking on eggshells

We wonder:

• How far should we go to avoid the risk of upsetting the sensitivities of religious people?
• How far should religious people go to avoid the risk of upsetting our sensitivities?
• Why is it assumed that we non-religious people have no sensitivities?
• Why are people afraid to laugh at religious ideas - even when they think those ideas are nonsense?
• Why do many well-meaning people feel uncomfortable when someone else laughs at religious ideas?
• Should we be expected to "respect" all "sincerely held" beliefs? (Fascism is a "sincerely held" belief.)
• Should we keep quiet about the many offensive things done in the name of religion?
• Why should we tiptoe round the topic of religion?

Engagement

Do we engage informally with religious people? Of course we do, on a personal level, after all, we know, and are friends with, people from lots of different backgrounds, religious and non-religious.

Some of us engage with the products of religion: art, architecture and particularly music. There is nothing better than a good hymn, a Christmas carol, some plainchant or a good requiem - Faure's preferably!

Do we engage on a more formal level with religious people? Yes, but it's a very qualified "yes".

Experience over many years has shown how frustrating it can be - for a number of reasons.

• "Inter-faith dialogue" excludes us. This is probably unintentionally since no one thought atheists would have anything to contribute when the term was coined - because we don't need a faith. Much of the "dialogue" revolves around polite chats over the tea and biscuits where nothing of substance, nothing controversial, no points of difference are ever discussed. The controversial is definitely discussed when we step in!

• Religious people use a closed language with a vocabulary which is meaningless to us - like the word "god" which many of them find difficult to define. They talk about the "spiritual" as if we non-believers are lacking something.

  We are lacking a need for the supernatural, the vague "something out there". Unlike many religious people we are not "searching" (we found ourselves a long time ago, we are secure in ourselves), we are not wandering around Tibet looking for "spiritual enlightenment". We are enlightened, we are the product of the Enlightenment - we need no more.

• Religious people use a closed frame of reference - as if quoting from their holy books would have any meaning to us. The moment someone quotes from their holy book, we leave the room.
• Without a common language and a common frame of reference there can be no meaningful dialogue. We put people first in the here and now - and we use our own words to argue from our personal view of the world - not from a belief in a supernatural entity and words in holy books.
• What is "engagement" supposed to achieve anyway? The usual answer is "understanding and tolerance."

  We have no problem understanding religions (it's not hard!) and we fully understand why some people need god and religion while others (like us) don't.

  We understand why people become religious: exposure to a single world view, accepting the first thing that comes along, parents, family, community, religious schools, lack of knowledge of the alternatives. (How many "faith" schools ever invite us to speak to their students?)

  We understand what people get out of religions: a feeling of belonging, community, social support, hope, security, easy answers to the big questions of life: "god did it", "it's god's way","ours not to question the will of god" etc.

  We are not so happy with the word "tolerance" for two reasons:

  • It implies "put up with" rather than "accept as equal".
  • There are lots of things done in the name of religion that we don't think anyone should tolerate.

So, yes, we do engage with religious people; we do sit on discussion panels with rabbis, imams, priests and vicars; we do attend "multi-faith" days in our local prison; we do take up invitations from university and other religious groups to speak to them.

However, we are not sure how much good this does since most adults have closed minds, they have too much invested, emotionally and intellectually, in their beliefs to engage in open-minded dialogue - though many of them (usually CofE, even Archbishops!) are happy to admit to having "doubts".

Our time is better spent speaking to young people whose minds may not be so closed - we give them an opportunity to examine and question our world view so they can make a free and informed choice about what to believe.

That's probably why we are rarely invited to speak in religious schools - with a few notable and brave exceptions. The last thing they want is for their students to be exposed to alternative views - though most of them are happy to bring in token speakers from other religions (a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh etc.), after all, they are also "religious" (and obviously "wrong"), but, god forbid, their students should ever have an opportunity to find out about an alternative world view that is free of god and religion. One wonders what they are afraid of. Is their faith so weak?

Advice to parents with a child in a religious school (CofE, Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, whatever): ask the head why we are not invited to speak to students. Let us know the response you get.