Letters II: Militant atheism originated south of the Border

However, as a long-time aficionado of the theological writings of great German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (even though I am currently an agnostic), I question Mr McDonald’s suggestion that Scotland – or any other advanced post-industrial society – is “losing its religion”.

Boenhoeffer was not – to use actor Karl Malden’s memorable phrase in the film On The Waterfront – “a clerical gravy train rider with a turned around collar.’’ He was hanged bearing witness to his Lutheran Christian faith on April 9, 1945, in Flossenburg concentration camp for opposing the moral nihilism of the Nazis.

However, by 1944 Bonhoeffer could explain ordinary 20th-century man’s palpable disengagement with regular church-based Christianity. When he spoke of modern mankind “coming of age spiritually” it was the result of having less and less need of an institutional, church-attendance-based form of religious practice.

Bonhoeffer wrote in 1944 regarding coming of age spiritually: “God would have us know that we must live as men (and women) who live our lives without him ... the God who is with us is the God who forsakes us. Christ helps us not by his omnipotence but by virtue of his weakness and impotence ... ie, modern man and woman must live an overwhelmingly secular life and so share in God’s sufferings.’’

So I wonder how much the progressive abandonment of traditional church-based, worship-based models of Protestant Christianity really has to do with atheistic impulses, given Bonhoeffer’s view that modern man coming of age spiritually rightly rejected evangelical traditional models of practice which effectively deny mankind’s status as no longer needing or accepting total passive acceptance of being a wee powerless sinner totally dependent on Big Daddy in the sky’s mercy and munificence?

I recall clearly the stushie caused by Honest to God, the challenging book by Boenhoeffer disciple and Bishop of Woolwich, John Robinson, in 1963 Britain. I personally think that the answers to Hugh McDonald’s questions lie, at least in part, in the pages of Bonhoeffer circa 1944 and Bishop Robinson circa 1963. Because it is demonstrably and empirically true, and has been for many years, that modern industrial mankind only ever see the need for Christianity on four occasions in their busy secular lives: birth, marriage, death and attendance at feelgood Christmas watchnight services.

In Britain there never was a golden age of societal church attendance – that’s as big a myth as the traditional (in some quarters) naive view that God is the ultra benevolent manager of a big, celestial warehouse who rewards those who pray with subliminal spiritual goodies on demand.

In 1851, when Britain’s total population stood at 21 million, a census showed that seven million people – mainly working class – never saw the inside of a Victorian church between the cradle and the grave. That’s one third of the British population.

Brian Donald

Kirkcaldy

With regard to Hugh MacDonald’s article in Saturday’s National “Losing our Religion” - thank God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Tony Williams
Muasdale

HUGH MacDonald describes Scotland as a “nation of personal choices” when it comes to religious identity. But what choice does a young child have when it comes to being indoctrinated from birth by his or her religious parents?

Those raised with religion may have the option to reject it when they are older, but this is easier said that done in the face of family pressures and the power of guilt-based belief systems.

Joan Brown
Edinburgh

AS a former atheist, I question Hugh Macdonald’s assertion (Losing Our Religion, The National, August 27) that “The move towards atheism ... is very Scottish in nature”. Rather, intolerant militant or “new” atheism is a particularly English phenomenon advocated by English academics like Richard Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens who have a gripe with the Church of England. England is, after all, one of the few modern Western countries which still has an established Church.

The result, spread by the media, is that in Britain as a whole today, if you are educated you are expected to be atheist. If you question the idea that existence, matter, life, consciousness and the laws of physics simply appeared out of nothing by accident, you are best to keep quiet about it or face ridicule. And yet, throughout my life, I have questioned people who called themselves atheist who, when examined more deeply, turn out to be agnostic, pantheist or simply disinterested.

I would therefore like to put it to the Scottish public that the great question is not “Is there a God?” but “What do we mean by God?” And that can only be answered by oneself.

Jeff Fallow
Windygates

HUGH MacDonald’s piece is a somewhat heartening notice. We are being told that Scotland has a greater proportion of non-believers than elsewhere in the UK. For myself as a fairly recent questioner of religion, I took first an inquisitive stance, followed by some work in reading relevant areas of scientific discovery. This required a fair amount of effort on my behalf in understanding how the facts relate to life on our planet.

Reading books and watching Youtube videos by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and the American astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson gave me a speedy and easier to comprehend route to some scientific understanding of the topic. The books are a “must” to read even if you are a strong theist.

I think my first doubts about the existence of a “deity” were raised when I was trying to read books on “Intelligent Design” (creationism if you like). I found the writing difficult to understand, they seemed to me to be full of pseudo-science writing, whereas when reading Dawkins’ account of Darwin, the books were more analytical, clear and demonstrable. In any case we know now in science that evolution is a fact and no longer a theory. We know that man has a common ancestor and that the evidence is there to prove it. The realisation of this evidence, for me has lit up my mind like a beacon and taken a great weight off my shoulders. I had been thinking, “If God made the world then who made God”? Why did I think that all things needed to be manufactured by a creator when evolution clearly showed the answer? How can the concept, that we all possess a “soul” retaining “identity” and “thought” be proved, that the “soul” leaves the body after death and travels to a certain place to be interrogated and scrutinised by a higher authority? How do we reconcile this notion with a deceased person who has expired with dementia? We now know that all memory and thought are lost when the brain dies. Could there be a sort of “organic Bluetooth” arrangement set up by God to copy the content before the event?

Science will seek out the truth if it is allowed to and the truth will always be there, no matter how much we are tempted to follow the writings and rituals of the ancient scribes. Science can be tested and confirmed. Anything relying on a faith-based system cannot. Yes, we need to understand and know about the world’s religious systems but we are not obliged to believe in them. I feel that it is wiser, even healthier, to keep religion out of politics and schools to keep our country secular. This way we can believe in what we wish to believe in as long as it is within the law and then hopefully, in the near future we can begin to understand the scientific basis for life. Our existence doesn’t require a reason any more than a virus or a plague. We don’t need scriptures to tell us what is right and wrong. We have a treasure of historic and modern philosophy to show us “ethics” and we should teach this subject at school instead of religion.

Hugh’s article would indicate that the Scots are not followers of any form of dictat. Perhaps Scots have now begun a process of reasoning to think very deeply for themselves. Originators of the next “enlightenment” perhaps?

Ian Russell
Strathaven