Hello, we're Atheists. We come in peace. Prepare to surrender your Church.

Looks lovely. Let's take it.

Not the most conciliatory of blog titles, or is it? I'm not sure. However, many hands are being wrung, garments being rent and knickers getting twisted in the echelons of the "Defenders of The Faith" these days over what they see as the activities of "militant secularists". B&B owners are not being permitted to discriminate against gay couples. Councils are not being permitted to formally list public prayers as part of their orders of business. Midwives are being told to wear regulation theatre scrubs instead of following Levitican diktat. My golly! It's only a matter of time before militant secularists start running around massacring people, if you listened to the hysterical dribblings of noted brainy people like Baroness Warsi and Lord Carey.

The reality is, of course, that secularists are really only doing the job that Jesus started. In the manner of prayer, Jesus (you can look this up in Matthew 6) was quite explicit - keep it private. Don't trumpet your religiosity. Keep your faith between you and your god, and love your neighbour as yourself, regardless of religion. That last bit is justified, for it is one of the core messages of that wonderful secular parable, the Good Samaritan.

Many Christians, of course, accept this, and it is something of an encouragement to those of us who are Atheistic Christians to see a degree of convergence - often from some of the more evangelical quarters. They know what it's like to be a Dissenter, kept on the outside by established modes and mores of officially-sanctioned religious display.

And then on the other hand we have the calls from respected atheists like Alain de Botton for us to recognise the deeply human needs that the churches have recognised and evolved to cater for - needs for nurturing, direction, inspiration, and even directive ethical guidance. De Botton feels we should incorporate these principles (including the medium of the Sermon) into secular life. He has written a brilliant book, and it's certainly thought-provoking, but is he trying to reinvent the wheel? How can atheists on the one hand decry the toxins of religion, and on the other seek to build a weird simulacrum of religion into our secular society? A conundrum.

Well, it's not a conundrum to Christian Atheists. Furthermore, I propose a Plan that can resolve both these thorny problems, and more besides. A Plan that seems daring and doomed to failure, but which, I would argue, is already well underway, and just needs a little push to take it over the line.

What is that Plan?

A full Atheist takeover of the Church of England. That's what.

Now I can hear the WTFs sounding out like the bells of Canterbury Cathedral, but think about it. We know there is no god - we don't have to fool anyone. What's more, we're quite explicit (at least in the CJCA) that we are seeking to remap a fine (and sometimes not-so-fine, but there are lessons there too) tradition to a modern understanding of science and ethics. We often feel that we are on the fringe, and many of us are trying to break away from churches. However, think about it. About 25% of Church of England clergy and about 15% of regular attendees are atheistic or agnostic anyway. And congregations are tiny - if a bunch of Christian Atheists turned up on a Sunday, we could easily make a majority. We could get those agnostic clergy to publicly identify as Atheistic Christians, and get the CJCA message out there.

I think (OK, I don't know) that enough people would embrace this concept - and the vision behind it - to effect a real demographic change within the pews of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, if not the world. Yes, I know the Anglican church is split up across our nations and outside the UK, but the same principle holds.

What then? Well, we could be very open about our atheological project. Theology would cease to be the study of the non-existent, and a more practical remapping exercise, such as we've been doing (minimally) here at CJCA. We can keep Christianity, and seek a way forward, but using the humanistic principles that seem, as far as we can tell, to be close to the teachings of a Jesus who is a historical "Christ", but who also made mistakes, and could be a bit of a dick when he chose to be. A Jesus that we can actually identify with more!

We need explicitly atheistic sermons (sensitively delivered) ringing out from the pulpits. We need ethical humanistic guidance illustrated with examples, good and bad, from our rich biblical sourcebook and other historical sources. We need scholars to examine the bible and other ancient texts with a proper academic attitude. We need commentators from an Atheistic Christian perspective to go on TV, on radio, on the Internet and elsewhere. We can voice Church support for science, tolerance, inter-faith dialogue (with "faith" being specified as a faith in essential humanity), political activism and societal and intenational ethics.

And we need an institution that will allow us to do that. I suggest that the Anglican Church looks nice. Why don't we simply take it over? All it needs is that teensy push.

I'm only joking a little bit.

Guest book review: “Walking Without God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney

[This is a new (but hopefully to-be-repeated) feature from CJCA - a guest book review. This review is from Simon Clare, the author of the marvellous blog "Faithless Eye". Simon has blogged his experiences as an atheist attending an Alpha Course, and you'll be surprised and enlightened by how he got on.]

“Walking Without God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney

Ben Whitney

http://www.ypdbooks.com/religion-and-spirituality/476-walking-without-god-YPD00424.html

http://www.ben-whitney.org.uk/

Review by Simon Clare Tw: @FaithlessEye : http://lookthroughmyfaithlesseye.blogspot.com/

Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists” is receiving a lot of well-deserved attention in the mainstream media as he is a very well-known writer and the cogs of the publisher’s promotional machine are whirring away. His book - or at least the headlines it has spawned - has also come under the scrutiny of surprisingly indignant atheists who resent the very idea that someone can be secure in their atheism at the same time as recognising the fact that many aspects of religion are worth reclaiming for humanity.

Perhaps de Botton’s book is too big a step for such atheists. To get someone to move from a position where they see all religions as fundamentally evil to one where they can objectively recognise their positive qualities is a little like asking somebody whose life has been ruined by alcoholism to try to appreciate the marvellous flavours of fine whiskeys - and marvellous they truly are.

I would recommend “Walking Without God” as a stepping-stone between militant atheism and a more absorbent humanism. Specifically I would suggest that grumpy, die-hard atheists read it just before they start “Religion for Atheists”. One of the unique things about this book is that it is also my first choice recommendation to Christians who might want to understand how it is possible for non-believers to have a sense of morality. I used to recommend A.C. Grayling’s “The Meaning of Things” but Ben Whitney’s book would be far more effective.

In “Walking Without God” former Baptist minister Ben Whitney manages to describe - in brilliantly simple language - a completely humanist basis for his own morality and ethics, set against a background of the Christianity that he was brought up in. Without renouncing his past or dismissing the views of believers, he shows that you can move seamlessly from being a Christian to being a non-religious, good person.

This book is self-published by Ben Whitney so does not have a vast marketing infrastructure working in the background to promote it. Many critics of de Botton’s book have benefited from the publicity associated with it, they just link their blog with the right hashtag and thousands of de Botton supporters or detractors flow to their websites. Such opportunist critics deserve none of this exposure and writers such as Whitney deserve it all. Books like “Walking Without God” are rare and they have paved the way for de Botton’s work; supplying us atheists who do not dismiss every aspect of the church out of hand with literature to fuel and inspire us.

The book consists of nine chapters; each one a response to one of the psalms. When I first saw the list of chapters, I admit that I feared I had been suckered into buying a Christian book that was masquerading as humanist one. I was not used to seeing atheists dallying this closely with the enemy - with scripture. However, my fears were shown up as the petty prejudices they were within a few pages, when Whitney assured me that he no longer believes in a supernatural ‘God’. “It just does not make any sense to me.”

Whitney writes with a secure, humble certainty that there is no God but does not labour this point. He does not mince his words and says that the idea of

“..salvation through Jesus to secure our eternal future, but only for those who believe certain things about him, is particularly impossible to believe.”

He states clearly what he doesn’t believe without then making inferences about the mental abilities of those who do believe such things, which is what so often happens when atheists write about their beliefs. Whitney demonstrates that there is simply no need to do that.

One of the refreshing characteristics of Whitney’s approach is that he writes only of his own thoughts and conclusions. At no point does he suggest that this is what we ought to think, or that the way he thinks is the best way. He has no need to call attention to his own authority on any matter either, as he is not trying to change the reader’s mind. This is an essential part of why this book is such a joy to read and to read again.

Whether a writer is atheist or Christian, when they attempt to bring us around to their way of thinking they can’t help but be coercive to some degree. Ben Whitney simply lays his thoughts out in plain view and the reader is free to take them or leave them, to agree or to disagree. The mind of the reader is left to do its own thinking in its own way. In reading this review, you will have noticed that I am trying to convince you that my thoughts about this book are the right thoughts and that you ought to have this opinion too. You may well resent this, and maybe you should. My point is that there is a very subtle distinction between a writer who is only writing about their own thoughts and a writer who is also trying to influence the reader’s mind on some level. Perhaps it was a reaction to having read a couple of evangelical Christian books prior to reading this, but I really appreciated someone talking to me without trying to subliminally change my mind.

One of many fine examples of Whitney’s ability to convey fundamental and powerful concepts is in Chapter 7, where Whitney talks about the existence of evil in the world and how it is often seen as an external force. In typically straightforward language he mentions the idea of life being a battle between the forces of good (God) and evil (the Devil) and how this is the way the existence of evil in the world is characterised by many. He then reminds us that this is not what the bible says at all - the serpent was part of the creation too, so whether you believe in God or not, evil is just part of reality. The manifestation of evil, he says, is something that we are responsible for. Blaming the devil for it or trying to hide from it will simply not make it go away and neither will belief in God. Evil is happening to real people right now and only us humans have the power to stop it. God might be content with having set up a planet where evil happens, but Whitney wants it to stop, here and now.

This book is short and concise. You can read it all on a Saturday morning if you like and I’d bet that for the rest of the day you would be a slightly more excellent human being for having done so. You might even be inspired to read the psalms, secure in the knowledge that they won’t infect you with faith because you will know you can just read them as critically as you would any other literature, free to discard the silly bits, but free also to indulge fully in the parts that resonate with your own perspective on the universe.

“Walking With God” shows us what it actually looks like when humanity outshines the religions it created.

-Simon Clare

More good stuff from Alain de Botton

It seems people are determined to either misunderstand or misrepresent Alain de Botton's latest offerings about religion, but I think that he's Alain de Spot-on. From the Christian Atheist (or Atheistic Christian) perspective, a lot of what he has to say makes eminent sense. In some ways secularism has abandoned moral engagement, and left the field wide open to religions. Religions have over the years managed to accrete a number of ways of dealing with the sorts of things that plague this species of sentient ape during daily life, and despite the underlying untruth of their dogmas and beliefs, there is a lot of good there. Perhaps we should throw out the baby Jesus, but keep the bathwater.

Here's the video: http://vimeo.com/35701336

Enjoy, and please leave a comment here and at the main Vimeo site. Your ideas about how to integrate this with Christian Atheism would be most welcome.

Atheism 2.0

http://www.alaindebotton.com

Great talk by Alain de Botton on TED.com on how we might be able to use some of the ideas of religion in an atheistic and secular society. Maybe he has read my blog - Enjoy!
[Incidental point - he was born on exactly the same day as me - the stars must have been in some sort of very auspicious alignment that day ;-)]

Jerusalem: A Biography

I'm reading this tremendous book by Simon Sebag-Montefiore at the moment; it's a 3000-year romp through the history of the world's most fought-over city, and it's wonderful. The problem is that there is just too much history to cover. Surely nowhere else on the planet can have experienced the multiple highs and lows, rebuildings and reinterpretations of Jerusalem? Although it is of central importance to Jews, Christians and Muslims, I do wonder how many of them, if they really knew its history, would retain their beliefs in their religion? Or would they realise that beliefs are unimportant vanities that only serve to keep people apart? And isn't it astonishing that the most impressive religions are not the ones with the most arcane theologies, but the ones that emphasise respect for each other above mere creeds and doctrines? Let's hope the next few years are happier for Jerusalem and the world than the last three millennia.

Atheistic Christianity in action, Dutch style

The Rev Klaas Hendrikse is a minister in the Dutch Protestant Church, and doesn't believe that God is a "thing" or a "being", but a word for human experience. While a lot of traditional believers will have some problems with this purely naturalistic view of Christianity, it strikes a major chord with the many Christians who have come to the realisation that God doesn't really exist in the sense we used to think.

Here is a BBC article on Rev Hendrikse and his church, while here is the Unitarian blogger @TimothyJMoore's take on the subject.

I suspect that there are many people within traditional "theist" congregations who share these views. Any thoughts?

The Authentic Gospel of Jesus

A book by Geza Vermes, author of "Jesus the Jew". JTJ was pretty good, but a little academic & heavy, I thought. I've downloaded AGJ and will see what I think, then post some of my thoughts here.
Anyone else read it? What do you think of the whole enterprise of reconstructing the historical Jesus?