THE LAST DITCH

 

At the O2 Arena last week, popular comedian Micky Flanagan got a roar of approval from most of his capacity audience for the following line;

"I am not religious … because I AM NOT FUCKING MENTAL."

He went on to make them roll in the aisles (a dangerous pastime on the steep tiers at the O2) by conducting a conversation with an imaginary vicar about 'teabagging' his imaginary gay boyfriend. This to give his audience the comedic pleasure of picturing the discomfiture of the 'homophobic' clergyman. 

I am sure his audience members are more typical of current British public opinion than the Christians among my friends. Religion in general and the faith of our fathers in particular has become little more than a synonym for 'homophobia' in metropolitan circles. If most Londoners met their creator on Hampstead Heath (as an accountant does in one of my favourite jokes) they would not fall to their knees. They would look Him up and down contemptuously and say "Some people are gay, God. Get over it."

I have stated my own views on religion here before. They have not changed much, even after the shock of the late Mrs P.'s conversion to Catholicism. I hope I am no smug, dismissive, arrogant Dawkins-style atheist. I have religious friends. I like them, respect them and am careful not to deploy my weapons-grade argumentation to undermine their faith. When I see a friend in trouble, I envy them the confidence their faith gives them to try to help in the face of implacable fate. 

Every culture in history evolved at least one religion in the course of its development. The utility of religious belief in handling the central problem of being human is obvious. Voltaire said it best. Like most people, I am not so narcissistic or self-important as to worry about my own death. My passing will make no significant ripple in the cosmos and that's fine with me. But every time I lose someone I care about, I would love the comfort of religion. When I look back on some aspects of my life, I also understand the appeal of the Catholic rite of confession. Absolution. What's not to like?

Christianity, even if little-practised now in Britain, is an inseparable part of our culture. Even British atheists are clearly a- the Christian Theos. It informs who we are. Our art and literature are so steeped in it that they make little sense without a basic understanding of The Bible. I feel guilty when a Christian would and am impelled to similar good acts. I feel bad if I am not suitably grateful for the blessings in my life; ludicrously as I have no-one to thank for conferring them. I don't think a Christian neighbour would be able to identify me as an atheist without asking.

I am not in any way against religious belief. I simply don't have it.

At the suggestion of a friend I have been attending weekly viewings of Father Robert Barron's film series, "Catholicism". I asked the organisers if it was ok for an atheist to come along and explained that I wanted to understand what my late wife had signed up to. They have been welcoming and I rather fear becoming their pet heathen. I am certainly now the most prayed-for atheist in Chiswick. They are good, serious, kind people but they are even more hopelessly at odds with the zeitgeist of modern Britain than I am. Like so many in our weirdly fragmented society, they operate in their own social bubble and seem unaware of the rising hostility they face. Their naievety is touching and worrying. I feel as protective of them as they do of me.

The recently retired Chief Rabbi wrote an interesting article suggesting that atheists are failing in an implied obligation to offer an alternative moral structure.

I have not yet found a secular ethic capable of sustaining in the long run a society of strong communities and families on the one hand, altruism, virtue, self-restraint, honour, obligation and trust on the other

Most atheists I know are quick to say that the religious have no monopoly on morality. Fair enough. There are many moral atheists. I hope I am one of them. But Rabbi Sacks is right that we offer no common moral basis for society. As the rubble of the old faiths is consigned to the landfill of history, I fear that without common values our behaviours can only be kept within safe bounds by state power. If men fear no gods, they must fear other men.

That's a sobering thought because, while we can mock the violence caused by religion (the conquistadores, the crusaders, the Inquisition, 'the Troubles', Islamic terrorism etc.) the state is an institution with a worse record. Having conceded control of so much of our lives to it, are we now ready to let it define our morals too?

22 responses to “Religion in today’s Britain”

  1. Fcablog Avatar

    An interesting piece, thank you. As a practising Christian, I don’t think I’m quite as downbeat on atheism as you are in your penultimate paragraph. But you’re right to identify the risk.
    In your final paragraph, I was pondering in church only this Sunday that, yes, it is easy to mock religion for its violence. But it’s lazy, unfair and frankly idiotic to do so. Atheists ignore religion’s benefits and emphasise its problems, while ignoring science’s problems and emphasising its benefits. One could, if one were so inclined, design a narrative of science as a discipline dedicated solely to violence, destruction and death.

    Like

  2. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    They would say “Some people are gay, God. Get over it”. Maybe they ought to get over themselves? I don’t figure God would be too suprised about the existence of Gays, or majorly bothered. I never saw him/her as a member of the Taliban anyhow.
    To me tho I don’t examine it closely I don’t have an issue with good morals being rooted in enlightened self interest, Why should I need someone with a big stick standing over me to make me a decent human being? Supernatural or Statist. Is it being moral if you are compelled anyway, no just being a trained animal, maybe not even that worthwhile…

    Like

  3. Tom Avatar

    One good act done voluntarily is worth ten under compulsion. I could not agree more. But I don’t have any ethical framework to persuade others of that. ‘It feels right to me’ is not as persuasive as ‘the Author of the Universe wills it’ is it?

    Like

  4. Tom Avatar

    I don’t see religion and science as being in any way opposed. If you believe in God, then scientists (whether they believe or not) are just exploring the wonderful complexity of His method of constructing the universe. You will confidently expect them to produce more and more evidence of the wonders of creation and not worry at all if they ‘misunderstand’ their findings along the way.
    I am not downbeat about atheists, just worried about how we establish a common morality without shared beliefs. Politicians bang on about ‘British values’ but what are they? They are clearly not against violent expropriation, for example, as our society is now based on it. More than half of annual GDP is now taken by force and spent by the state. Who will tell people that’s wrong? What’s to stop them taking the rest over time? The trend is certainly towards that.
    I am bossed every single day by some creep with state power behind him. The trend is towards more of that too and I see no moral force to stop it. Democracy itself is no protector of the oppressed. It’s the least bad way to select the custodians of state power, but it has nothing to say about its limits. An increasing proportion of the population is prepared to gang up behind the state to seize the fruits of others’ work and tell their fellow-citizens how to live. They are ethically no different to any other gangsters as far as I can discern and they are far more irritating in that they see their violence as virtue.
    Every time I hear some state-backed clown claim an order he issues to me – a supposedly free man – is ‘for my own protection’ the only thing that keeps the bastard vertical is my ethic of non-violence. Maybe he needs to start worrying about the ethical bases of our existence too?

    Like

  5. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    Ah, some conversation suitable for Chiswick dinner parties, let me add some non-controversial opinion.
    It seems to me that there is a conscious attempt in modern society to elevate homosexuals to the level of the new saints, (aided it would seem by the new populist preachers, comedians)-they are not to be criticized, indeed everything they say and do must be worshipped. Except of course the bad, catholic priest, child molesting, homosexuals. The only bad homosexuals are the religious ones, nothing too controversial there-we all agree (as reasonable people) surely?
    Lets ignore for the moment the current trend to accept muslim teachings allowing pedophilia as well as their frankly homophobe teachings, and acceptance by our new preachers of those abominations, that will get us off track. Besides it would be impolite to point out the preachers craven refusal to decry the moslem faith. It is the teachings of the western church that must be attacked endlessly, by the most puerile and cowardly individuals.
    So let me state, I have no dog in this fight, I am non-religious, though not atheist-if that makes any sense.
    I applaud Tom’s attempt to understand more about Catholicism, and perhaps he will be brave enough to view a site I read on occasion.
    http://www.barnhardt.biz/
    This young lady, writes some robust commentary on modern catholicism, muslims, politics and financial collapse, it is easy to dismiss her as a kook, because she states her case so bluntly and frankly applies extreme solutions to the world she finds herself in (not one in several millions would have the guts to do what she is doing-including myself). Despite that, concentrate on her articles related to Catholicism and her loathing of the modern church, it is very interesting and coherent. She is the most faithful Catholic I have come across.
    I admire people that have the fortitude to declare publicly they are religious in today’s society.
    I have not yet viewed the Robert Barron film as I fear he may fall into the happy-clappy, super fun classification of priest. But that’s just me being judgmental before I have all the facts.

    Like

  6. Sackerson Avatar

    Profound issue. I think Hume’s is/ought divide can only be bridged if you postulate an entity that is both creator and lawgiver.
    Otherwise, morality loses its hortative force and can be reduced to a description of why x happens to feel z is right or wrong. It’ll be explained away by personal psychology or genetic drives.
    Peter Hitchens has said more than once that for him, religion was a choice for believing in a universe with meaning rather than meaninglessness, so it may be a matter of choosing a weltanschauung rather than being convinced by logical argument.

    Like

  7. Peter Whale Avatar
    Peter Whale

    What I or you believe fortunately has no bearing or influence on whatever the truth is. A belief just reinforces the predominant mindset that is prevalent at the time it is believed, with whatever concepts it is viewed through. This is why “know yourself” is such a good
    mantra.

    Like

  8. Tom Avatar

    Having been raised CofE they seem pretty militant to me. 'Happy clappy' would not be my insult of choice if so minded. Fr Barron is pulling no punches and does not pander to the wishy-washy 'everyone goes to Heaven if they are basically kind and hell is just not going to Heaven' tendency. He's challenging the nice Chiswickians a bit, I think. Without his guidance they might have been inclined to smuggle me in (at least until I said their churches were gaudy). B^)

    Like

  9. Cascadian Avatar
    Cascadian

    I must apologise for judging the man before even reviewing part of his extensive library of works. Obviously if one is attempting to attract new congregants then it is probably better to appear genial and welcoming, rather than concentrate on the fire-and-brimstone-going-straight-to-hell side of the arguement. From your description, I should perhaps spend some time reviewing his work.
    As I stated, I admire any christian forthrightly declaring their opinions publically.
    As for the churches being gaudy, that surely cannot be the case, if it were, then homosexuals would be climbing over each other to enter them-just so they could redecorate them!
    Give Ann twenty minutes of your time (though not when you are feeling down), perhaps as an introduction read the “About Ann Barnhardt” tab. The happy-clappy, superfun priest reference will soon become obvious. I have never met an extremist (perhaps literalist is a better word) Catholic before, I must say say I found the intensity of her arguments refreshing.

    Like

  10. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    A non compelled basis for morals? How about enlightened self interest, especially if we include our jeans.
    Why would I help someone out? Say if they had broken down in the middle of nowhere? Well in the hope that if it happened to me someone would help me out and if enough of us do then then we have a good chance of getting helped when needed. The same goes for Neigbourlyness. Quid Pro Quoe.
    I take in a package, they take in a package, they need help with something and I help and they help me if I need it. We are more likely to get on, maybe like each other more. If there are any little niggles we can discuss them and not fall out. Life is nicer that way and an honest basis for morality.

    Like

  11. Penseivat Avatar
    Penseivat

    One can be an atheist and have moral values. It has been said that someone who doesn’t believe in religion, doesn’t believe in anything – a statement which I refute. Family values; love for relatives and friends; appreciation of aesthetic sights, sounds and surroundings; the desire for a caring and considerate society; the list goes on. My personal life experiences have guided my views that there is no God and religion is a superstition forced upon the (initially) easily led and uneducated by those seeking power over other people’s lives. I quite like Mickey Flanagan but felt that his routine about religion was ‘safe’. Apart from Christianity, which has lost the will to fight its corner, and Judaism, which excels in self deprecating humour, few religions can be made the topic of a joke without cries of racism or religious persecution. When was the last time you heard a Muslim tell jokes about their religion in the way that Flanagan does about Christianity? Try making a joke about Scientology, Islam, the Moonies, or Hare Krishna – all self proclaimed religions of peace and understanding – and watch the messages of hatred grow. Atheist humour: The worst thing about being an atheist is that when you have a blow job there is no one to call out to to let them know how good a time you’ve having.

    Like

  12. Tom Avatar

    I echo your refutation. And then? Doesn't a society need at least the basics of a common morality? Or are disconnected individuals doing what they perceive to be right a good enough basis for a civilisation? All previous atheist societies (France immediately after the revolution, various Communist regimes) resulted in violence to make any mockery of poor outcomes from religion ironic. We are embarking on a non-revolutionary atheist society in Britain with no widely-shared values that I have seen adequately defined. Maybe it's not a problem, but it's surely worth some thought.
    It's interesting that you seen Flanagan as joking about 'his' religion in a way that others couldn't joke about theirs. Why is it 'his' when he has rejected it? Or are you just agreeing with my observation that British atheists are a- the Christian Theos?

    Like

  13. OldSouth Avatar

    A wonderful essay! Truly spot on.
    Your observation about Londoners meeting their creator and dressing down the Almighty is a great description of current attitudes, a parable of our day. It describes the very core of our predicament.
    The issue is not homosexuality, but rather position: Who is in charge? The Almighty? Us? No one in particular? Ethical conclusions emerge from theological precept.
    Keep us posted on your progress in Chiswick…

    Like

  14. Andrew Duffin Avatar
    Andrew Duffin

    “If men fear no gods, they must fear other men”
    Is it really necessary to fear in order to behave properly?
    Can one not be a moral person just because that seems the right thing?
    Is do-as-you-would-be-done-by a hopelessly inadequate basis for a good life?

    Like

  15. Penseivat Avatar
    Penseivat

    I may have written my earlier piece rather badly and, if I did, I apologise. I thought I had made the point that you can be an athiest and still have morals. Anyone can be an athiest and uphold the law of the land, just as religious people can commit crimes; you can be an athiest and care for others, just as religious people can make lives worse for others. I know of doctors, lawyers, politicians, soldiers, police officers, etc, who are athiests yet follow their professional codes of conduct – the doctor the Hippocratic Oath, the soldiers and police officers the oath of allegiance to the Crown and their internal rules of discipline and conduct, while the lawyers and politicians follow their own codes of ethics and morals. The France you mention, whether it was an athiest society, as opposed to a Republican one, was based, like communism, on figureheads who proclaimed themselves more or less omnipotent. Republican France had people like Robspierre, Communism had Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, etc, North Korea had the various Kims and Germany’s National Socialism had Hitler. In those cases, their political ideals were their religion and they were the Gods. Being an athiest does not turn a person into an unfeeling, uncaring, monster. It is simply a belief that there is nothing after death and definitely no supreme being leading good people to heaven and sending bad people to hell. In fact, according to the Christian faith, Christ died so all our sins would be forgiven. That’s the sins we have committed, the sins we are committing, and the sins we will commit. This means that you can be the worst example of humanity and then, when you pop your clogs, your sins will have automatically been forgiven and you will spend the rest of eternity on fluffy white clouds with other worthies such as Piers Morgan, or Tony and Cherie Blair (as well as Robspierre, Stalin, Hitler, etc). Many athiests have common values of benefit to society as a whole, some of which I mentioned in my earlier comments. As far as Mickey Flanagan is concerned, I don’t believe I referred to Christianity as being ‘his’ religion. The words I used were, “…his routine about religion was ‘safe’. I do recall, however, a much earlier routine of his where he mentioned getting married in church. Whether this was true, or he was using artistic licence for a punchline, I have no idea. This is, at the moment, a predominantly Christian society and I, and many others with my beliefs, have no problem with that but there is some concern that while one religion is an open target for ridicule, there is a covert fear of offending any other, unless you are writers of ‘South Park’. You see, not believing in a religion does not mean we don’t care about those who do believe.

    Like

  16. Tom Avatar

    Perhaps I must apologise because my question was unclear? I accept entirely and understood your point that an individual atheist can be moral. I am one and I certainly try to be. I also accept that atheists can care about those who do believe. I am one and here I am doing it in writing my original post and other ways.
    The question I asked you was “And then?” by which I meant how do all us atheists with our different moralities come together in a society in which we are the majority (as will soon be the case in Britain) and agree a common set of values for it?
    We are not doing very well so far and you cite one example; namely that we treat Christianity and Judaism with contempt, because its adherents are not going to attack us in violent defence of their God’s honour, but we are very circumspect around religious people we expect to react aggressively. Does that mean our new morality is based on respect for violence? It very much looks that way.
    Another example would be the way in we forced Catholic adoption agencies to close (or cease to behave in accordance with the Church’s teachings). The state must be neutral between all non-violent and non-fraudulent citizens and it is clearly the popular will that state adoption agencies should place children with homosexual couples. I don’t have a problem with that. Years ago I knew one of the first gay men in America to adopt. I respected him and his values and I think he and his partner probably did a great job. There’s a shortage of adoptive parents and if gay people have the resources, the ethics and the wish to take care of children who would otherwise be alone, that’s great. I am less keen on surrogacy, but that’s another issue.
    But having said all that what kind of morality would vengefully insist that the state has the right to tell the Catholic Church that its community’s orphans and abandoned children cannot now be placed in accordance with the Church’s teachings?
    Previous atheistic societies ended in disaster, but that was probably because they were revolutionary societies with an openly violent new ‘morality’ that subjected the individual – even his right to exist – to the will of the collective. Perhaps individuals would not have perished by the millions if the will of the collective had been truthfully expressed, rather than hijacked as a mere incantation by Robespierres, Stalins and Castros.
    I am not saying it’s not possible, I am just saying I am fearful about how it will work out in practice because – as the Chief Rabbi said – I see no understanding by atheists that they have a duty to develop a shared morality and no sign that the new ‘values’ of modern Britain will stop edging towards tyranny and state violence.

    Like

  17. Tom Avatar

    I think it’s a pretty good start and thanks for trying to answer my question! I would accept a legal constitution that prohibited me from doing anything to others without their consent that I would not wish them to do to me.
    There’s taxation gone, for a start, as I claim no right to expropriate my fellow men. Nor do I claim the right to tell them what to eat, to smoke, how much water to use to flush their lavatories, whom they may hire to help them in their businesses, what to think or what to say.
    Where do I sign?

    Like

  18. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    It isn’t really a matter of religion or atheism – the major ethical question is still exactly the same old question, ( of at least the last 200 years), of liberalism vs. something else – and the battlelines on that one aren’t drawn according to belief in God.
    I don’t see a society divided among massive numbers of competeing ethical systems. Personally, I see society as drawn into three main camps – those who believe that each man is an end in himself/ do unto others etc. – those who believe that other higher ethical/moral considerations make the treatment of the individual more or less irrelevent – and those who almost entirely go with the flow of the society around them.
    The catch is that the anti-liberals have now adopted the language of individualism – individualism above the individual, as it were.
    And the vicious old self-righteous prudes of yesteryear have mutated into the vicious self-righteous libertines of today. The sad thing is that these – the overly socially concerned, the meddlers, those who turn nazi – have a disproportionate influence on the general tenor of society and they may already have taken the disinterested over to their side.

    Like

  19. Tom Avatar

    We should separate law and ethics (although laws themselves should not be unethical) My ideal legal system would interfere as little as possible with possible ethical approaches. If you wanted to form a commune or a religious community with its own strict rules, hurrah. The law would only say you couldn’t force others to join.
    As for your three camps, I am clearly in the first. You are clearly neither in the first nor third. That leaves only the second and I had never thought you quite as bad as that. Is there a fourth?
    I must say (because I have long waited to be able to say it) that I entirely agree with something you wrote; namely your final paragraph. The Guardianisti, health-fascists and Green fanatics are the good old Puritans of yesteryear, still trying to ban beer and dancing and cancel Christmas, damn their miserabilist eyes.

    Like

  20. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    I think that laws have to be practical – which laws are appropriate depends upon the particular social conditions/ tchnological reality of that time and place – but of course they should always ultimately be aimed towards some ethical end. The ethical systems which inform the laws are more dependent on abstract thought of some kind.
    The ethical system which I would aim towards, with the laws I advocate, is liberal. I would like to see a society in which the individual is largely free to make his own decisions, with the proviso that the individual can only emerge from society and that the free market of action/ideas is only possible to the extent which people actually think about what they are doing.
    For example – I believe we have a general moral duty to prevent those who wish to kill themselves for doing so, since many who wish to do so haven’t thought clearly about what they are doing and would be robbing themselves of the right to ever make a decision again. While I don’t have any objection to someone who has made an informed choice to die being allowed to do so (or perhaps even helped to do so) – I oppose laws which make suicide easier (or the removal of any laws which make it difficult.).
    I have a similar attitude to drugs – basically bad but ok if people are making an informed choice about using them.
    I’m sure the above sounds like weasel-words to you – just another way for a meddler to disguise his true intent – and perhaps that is true. However, there is also the danger that Libertarians are advocating laws on the basis of an individualist fantasy rather than a consideration of the real effect those laws will have on individuals – there is the danger that people are being corralled by social pressure into damaging situations which they have made no clear decision to be in.
    As such the primary aim of a liberal should be to first encourage the kind of society in which people think about everything they do.*
    * “It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.” (Whitehead)
    Which is of course true when talking about the advances of society – and a good argument for conservatism in law making. Less true when talking about advances in the individual.

    Like

  21. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    The happy and healthy individual requires love – which is why the unconditional love of the family is the first basis of individual freedom. The unconditional love of God is the basic foundation of liberal religion.
    People require society – the unconditional membership of society is therefore the basis of political liberalism – we hold these truths to be self-evident…- the unconditional provision of necessities is also a liberal policy….

    Like

  22. james higham Avatar

    Christianity, even if little-practised now in Britain, is an inseparable part of our culture. Even British atheists are clearly a- the Christian Theos. It informs who we are.
    Though Pat Condell and the like are altering that a bit.

    Like

Leave a comment

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar