It’s ironic (or perhaps it isn’t) that the biggest “story” in Christianity for 2010 was atheism. This year saw the Global Atheist Conference in Melbourne and an atheist bus poster campaign in London. Battle lines were drawn over the proposed introduction of an ethics course in NSW primary schools to provide an option for students who don’t attend religious education classes. The country’s newest political force, the Australian Sex Party, campaigned with the slogan of Keeping Religion out of Politics. And English atheist and writer Christopher Hitchens memorably stuck to his guns, turning down offers of prayer in the wake of his diagnosis with cancer.
But while there are proportionately more atheists around today than in Victorian times, I suspect there are fewer Capital-A-Atheists like my personal favourite, Mr Goe. The story has it that this 19th century English solicitor was such a staunch non-believer that he refused to give his sons “Christian” names. So one was called Field Flowers and the other Garden Flowers! (Sadly for Mr Goe, Field Flowers grew up to be a priest and eventually bishop of Melbourne.)
More and more of my friends put “Atheist” as their Facebook religious status. Does this mean that atheism is their religion (which would of course make them people of faith and thus negate their claim)? Do they see atheism as saying “No” to belief, or is it a belief in a fundamental “No”? I must admit I haven’t asked. Perhaps I should make that one of my goals of 2011, but the truth is I’m scared of it turning into a pointless argument for and against the existence of God, on one hand, or the validity of Christianity, on the other.
It’s not that I don’t think that either position is defensible (which is not the same as provable), but that arguing is not the way to do it. Frederick Buchener’s words resonate here:
C. S. Lewis once said something to the effect that no Christian doctrine ever looked so threadbare to him as when he had just finished successfully defending it. The reason is not hard to find. In order to defend the faith successfully… they need to reduce it to a defensible size… They try to make each doctrine as it comes along sound as logical and plausible as they can. The trouble, of course, is that by and large logic and plausibility are not the heart of the matter, and therefore [they] are apt to end up proclaiming a faith that may be quite persuasive on paper but it is difficult to imagine either them or anyone else getting very excited about. (Whistling in the Dark, p 12.)
“Excited” – yes. Perhaps another reason why I shy from arguing with atheists is that, despite years of theological study – which I love – it’s not the stuff of the brain which keeps me going with this Christian thing, but the stuff of the heart.
Once, if you’d asked me why I was a believer, I would have said that it was because Christianity made sense of the world. I still think it does, but it wouldn’t be my answer now. Now I would say that Christianity holds out the hope of the return of splendour to the world. Not just a hope of justice – that wrongs will be righted, or that nature will be healed, or that humans will be freed from their bias to do harm to themselves and others – but of beauty, glory, splendour! The diamond inside everyone and everything will be polished to perfection. And what’s more, there is a role for all in working towards the achievement of this astonishing state.
Would this answer convince Christopher Hitchens – or even your average FB atheist? It doesn’t sound very logical – yet I find it utterly plausibly, and very, very exciting.
Adam's Navel 
Did you know there are three streets named after Bp Goe – ‘Field’, ‘Flowers’, and ‘Goe’ Streets in Caulfield South!
No, I didn’t Fay. How neat!
I think your preference for defensibility rather than invincibility of position makes sense. It seems debates between Christians and Atheists are never enlightening for the combatants, though they occasionally are for the audiences. Christopher Hitchens is one of the most impressive debaters on either side of the debate. This is not because of his logic, which has holes, but because of several factors, the most notable of which is his passionate conviction about being moral. It’s really an argument the Christians ought to be making but they cede this ground to him all the time. I have written Hitchens an open letter in which I share my conviction that everyone – including, of course, him, me, and you – is going to heaven. I hope he reads it: http://bit.ly/fVWa7C
Thanks for your contribution, Mike. I will read your open letter with interest.
Well, personally I believe that most atheists – when push comes to shove – would actually fall under the category of agnostics… Because it is still very difficult to reconcile the ‘basic’ Christian values with the advances of modern science (please – accept that this would be a minimum of two hours conversation face-to-face, but has to be condensed for the purposes of making a comment here!). From Galileo (and probably earlier) through Darwin and on to Stephen Hawking and many other modern physicists, the Church and Science (in whatever guise) have been at loggerheads – with sometimes catastrophic results.
Go for the glory – that’s the best outcome for everyone – whatever the belief system used to get there!
Thanks for your comment, Kathy. I tend to agree that most athiests are probably agnostic. I’m agnostic about a lot of things too!
“Does this mean that atheism is their religion (which would of course make them people of faith and thus negate their claim)? Do they see atheism as saying ‘No’ to belief, or is it a belief in a fundamental ‘No’? I must admit I haven’t asked.”
Allow me to answer anyway: No.
All atheism means is that someone believes in zero gods, which is only one fewer than average. There are agnostic atheists, Jewish atheists, moderate atheists, vocal atheists, foolish atheists, “Gnu” atheists, and many other kinds. The common thread is that, for whatever reason(s), they don’t believe in god. That’s all there is to it.
Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the blog. What is a Gnu atheist? I must Google that one.
“return of splendour to the world”
I like that idea – is more exciting than “kingdom of God”
Christoph Gestrich uses that phrase in his “aesthetic” understanding of sin: his thesis is that what’s wrong with people and the world can best be understood as falling short of “glory”, rather than being broken, or bad, or separated from God in some way. I like it too.
I forget where it started but its just way of re-spelling “New Atheist” to refer to the same group but reject the idea that atheism is, in fact, new. It also implies that the “New Atheist” label is generally sort of silly, a view I happen to share.
Aah! Thanks for that.