Advancing Secularism – An Increase In Atheism Or Just Sheer Laziness?

Yesterday was the third Sunday of Eastertide so I found myself, once again, listening to the Gospel story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. It’s one of the eleven resurrection accounts that feature in the liturgy particularly at this time of year. Each one, however, tells the story of the Resurrection in different ways, but while they supply significant evidence for Christian theistic commitment to life after death they also pose interesting challenges to the reader. Yesterday, I found myself challenged by the idea that followers of Jesus didn’t recognise him for all the time that they travelled together so sociably. While it’s one thing to imagine them plodding along like blinkered shire horses it’s quite another to try to comprehend how they could possibly fail to recognise Jesus until their shared meal was well advanced and something deeply sacred occurred:

He sat down to eat with them, took the bread, and said the blessing; then he broke the bread and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, but he disappeared from their sight. They said to each other, “Wasn’t it like a fire burning in us when he talked to us on the road and explained the Scriptures to

us?”

Later the same day I opened the latest issue of the New Scientist and read Graham Lawton’s article Losing Our Religion. He begins by describing four bases for theism. Firstly, he calls on cognitive by-product theory citing the avoidance of harm led to human beings erring on the side of caution, assuming a threat was there when most likely it wasn’t, then evolving and progressing this error into belief in a deity. Secondly, he asserts that people believe in a god to manage their belief in ‘supernatural surveillance’. Thirdly, theistic belief is posed as relief to our experience of existential dread. By this I suppose he means we are just too weak to cope with questions of life and death relying on theism to bail us out. Fourthly, theism is explained as conforming to social norms especially where ‘credibility enhancing displays’ reign. In other words, if significant personalities in society fast, become martyrs or engage in some other kind of heroic self-sacrifice then people will be more likely to be theistic. Interesting.

This part of the article was mostly of the ilk that I had encountered in the past, but where Lawton advances on the previous ‘atheistic – theistic status quo’ is where he attempts to upgrade atheism and pose it in a new, more inclusive form. Lawton observes the more common definition of the educated atheist who engages in analytical atheism and bravely explores and analyses the philosophical truth claims of the theist. So far, so good. However, he then goes on to include those who ‘simply don’t care’ in his definition. He even labels these as the ‘apatheists’ making the point that their apathy is to be equated with atheism. Secondly, he seeks to include those people who are isolated from ‘credibility enhancing displays’. Thirdly, he labels people as atheist living in parts of the world where prosperity and stability are linked to secularisation and declining religiosity.

Lawton goes on to make some interesting statistical observations. After examining surveys of religiosity in 38 different countries he found religion appears to be in decline in 26 of them over the period 2005 – 2012. This is something the theist must grapple with but before doing so it would be interesting to know why Lawton chose

the countries he did and not others or why chose that specific timeframe compared with another or others that might demonstrate natural fluctuations. Similarly, he noted a fascinating reaction to religion in post-cold war Russia and the US. In the US since the Berlin wall fell in 1989 the youngest generation is statistically the most irreligious leading to the hypothesis that, pre-cold war, identifying yourself as American required one to be ‘God-fearing’ in direct contrast to the atheistic communist enemy. Conversely, in Russia, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall 60% of Russians described themselves as being of no religion. By 2008 this category had fallen to just 18%. Accordingly, these statistics indicate something about how identity, nationality, freedom and oppression have a likely bearing on theism.

In summary, Lawton’s message overall appeared to be that atheism should be treated much more inclusively and it should be treated synonymously with what amounts to good old fashioned agnosticism, a word that is given no real examination or serious acknowledgement throughout the article. To make it even more complicated Lawton proceeds to concede the inevitability of the atheist’s search for the supernatural long after the complete demise of theism. Surely Lawton must recognise the supernatural is at least on the hinterland of the infinite!

The impact of the article on me was my rejection of Lawton’s promotion of atheism as something much more than an intellectual standpoint based on a rational rejection of the existence of God. I believe his four propositions to be accepted as integral to a new definition of atheism stretched the point too far. For example, I simply cannot respect the standpoint of those that ‘can’t be bothered’ to use their intelligence compared with the admiration I hold for the committed atheist who has formed a standpoint arising from a robust and energetic discernment of who we are in reference to ourselves, each other and the existence of God. Someone who is actively searching for truth achieves the status of taking part at least. Whether the debate about God is to be conceived of as distinct polarities or a spectrum of belief and unbelief doesn’t matter as long as there is reflection and debate going on. To ignore the debate and then be labelled as being a contributor is like asking to be awarded for running a marathon when all you did is turn up at the finishing line saying “I want to be included among the competitors but there’s no way I’m going to train and actually run”! To fully engage with the very rational philosophical arguments for God’s existence requires intellectual discipline, commitment, energy and possibly a degree of courage. This kind of person is likely to be someone who will graciously listen to and ponder on your views, meet your claims with good eye contact and probably lets you finish your sentence without rushing you. I would contest that an atheist who is so comfortable and secure in their worldview is a rarity and people like this should not be confused with those who are simply too lazy and committed to their own ignorance for as long as life is treating them well. The lazy or ignorant agnostic should not be aggregated into the more noble category of the atheist.

Secularism is increasing but I do not believe it is being caused by an increase in atheism. Almost as if in direct contrast to the tenets of those held by the readers of the New Scientist, St Paul said the following about faith:

For our life is a matter of faith, not of sight.

As well as being something which should be freely received as a gift theists must grapple with the dynamics of faith. While science makes sense of our material existence it can never answer the fundamental existential questions. The scientist can only begin to fathom eternal truths after submitting to the Creator in Whom the ultimate truths of our existence abide.

Going back to our friends on the road to Emmaus it seems the revelation of the Resurrection could never be something that ends our search for truth but supports it. It seems the Risen Lord was recognising and joining the disciples not only in a journey to a geographical location but facilitating their much more profound existential journey as they reflected on the events of the first Holy Week, dipped into their knowledge of Scripture and, ultimately, began to accept the truth of the empty tomb. All of this was a journey on a journey, a journey in faith that God requires us to make rather than attempting to place Him in a test tube and relegating Him to a mere scientific discovery. The road to Emmaus that day clearly required intellectual honesty, courage to face the unknown and respectful debate. Perhaps the rich developed parts of our world are becoming lazy and depleted of these noble skills and dispositions but that certainly doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.