Prelude in the key of Atheism

Everything changes. I have been a very slapdash writer. I've had exams, I've been travelling, but even I can see that if I'm ever going to consider writing as a job option, then I'm going to have to get into the habit and practice of actually writing something. So, everything changes. However not quite yet, because I'm off to the Greenbelt Festival in Cheltenham over the weekend.

I'm very excited of course to be returning once again to British Christianity's premier 'evangelical post-evangelical', bourgeois hippie, come one come all, green, arts, politics and faith festival. It is a genuine joy and I've never met anyone coming away from it for the first time without saying 'I've never seen a place like it anywhere else'. It's still true I think. At least, I've never seen any other place in the world where people neatly line up their litter next to an overflowing bin.

Anyway, since I'm in a tent and don't possess a smartphone or anything of some such quality, I'm just going to exist off the radar for a while, but I thought I would have a warm up this...morning now (whoops), and the topic, for no particular reason other than I've been thinking about it today is atheism.

The catalyst is the Extremely interesting news concerning the emergence of 'Atheism+' an attempt to see the principles or values of scepticism applied to a wide gamut of societal issues and contexts. However, it also seems to be quite a bit about (presently at least) trying to put the Atheist movement's own house in order, endeavouring to make sure its voice is not merely that of a white middle class male.

This I take to be a welcome development. When someone like Dawkins talks of obliterating superstition and having humans being guided by 'reason' he seems to talk as if this is a universal imperative upon humans. But, from his cosy North Oxford home, he hardly can claim anything like a universal perspective; what value does this western, quite cerebral (though not lacking in emotive gestures or even underpinnings), individualistic creed offer to the marginalised of the earth? How far does being guided by reason help one in their moral existence when they're starving to death?

The other thing about the kind of atheism that I have (personally) encountered with people that follow in Dawkin's trail is that it is a rather emaciated creed: partly because it lets religion set the debate as to what qualifies as an important question, and then usually responds with a denial of whatever the religion asserts. But a denial is not a positive, alternative vision for humanity, it lends no worth nor dignity nor purpose to human activity, it gives us no understanding of who we are or where we're going.

Darwinism is sometimes held up as the opposing theory to Religion (questionable as it is to firstly oppose the two, and secondly to treat religion as if it is, first and foremost, a method of explaining natural phenomena), but it doesn't follow that nature's way should necessarily mean we should incorporate it into our man-made social systems. Must we create Spencer's Dystopia?

In fact, most of the time, these atheists I've encountered seem to uncritically, instinctively champion our individualist, capitalist, liberal norms with a startlingly whiggish enthusiasm. Although I know some atheists who do critique our model of society, I've never seen it being derived from, or integrated with their atheist opinions- the two seem to drift, seemingly unconnected in the intellectual ether. But is this failure of introspection on other beliefs they have about the good life apart from which Gods one worships partly because they are being guided by those who have a hegemonic status in society?

So Athism+ promises to throw up some interesting results, should it be able to break through the stale, male and pale ethos that apparently pervades the movement. Will the widening of perspectives and the engagement with issues from an atheist perspective see a growing repudiation of the status quo of society, tackling more things than simply religion in the public square? Will it begin to construct a new idea of what makes a person that doesn't treat particular abstract ideals (i.e. the existence or non-existence of God(s)) as absolutely crucial in determining the fulfilled human existence? Will it give a stronger moral vision than simply 'try to be a good individual in your personal life'?

God knows the world has major problems that need sorting out that require serious human engagement and long term planning, which cannot be derived merely from mechanistic principles but touches upon the questions of what does it mean to be human, to be fulfilled and how should we live together to achieve this. The question is, will Atheism+ be able to find those answers?