Paul Johnson: Militant Atheism Threatens our Happiness, Well-Being
Paul Johnson writes:
It's hard for most of us to face such a fearful world without some kind of faith to sustain us, without a traditional formula through which to express our longings for peace and safety. I believe that religion is a central part of our civilization. But even more than that, I believe religious faith to be an indispensable element to our peace of mind and such happiness as we are capable of enjoying on this Earth.
I could not find content in a landscape whose horizon held no churches or in a civilization whose literature was purged of any reference to a divine being; whose art had blotted out the nativities, crucifixions, saints and angels; and whose music contained no intimations of immortality. And I believe the vast majority of people share such a view.
As for doing something about the militant atheism that threatens our happiness and well-being, it is in the interests of all people that those of us who enjoy religious faith should examine carefully what it has done, is doing and will do to sustain and comfort us in this harsh and difficult world. We should add up all its benefits--and then proclaim the results to the world. There will be plenty who will listen.
Source: Forbes
Let's take a moment to recount just a few of Paul Johnson's many errors:
- He doesn't define what he means by "militant" atheism
- He doesn't explain exactly how it might threaten anyone's "happiness and well-being"
- He doesn't explain how or why such a threat is immediate enough to justify being concerned about
- He doesn't explain how religion is an "indispensable element" of peace of mind and happiness
- He doesn't explain how irreligious atheists manage to have peace of mind and happiness
- He doesn't say who is trying to purge literature of religious or theistic references
- He doesn't say who is trying to blot out religious or theistic references in art
- He doesn't acknowledge that all his concrete concerns are with Christianity, not religion generally
All of this is absolutely fundamental to the claims which Paul Johnson is making — there's just no good reason for leaving them out. If he was concerned about space, he should have considered writing something slightly different. In the final analysis, all he produced was a series of unsupported and unjustified assertions that reduce to "secularism and atheism bad; religion and God good." There's no value in that, but I suppose it might make some religious theists feel better about themselves. Was that Paul Johnson's purpose — a feel-good piece designed to validate the feelings of believers on the basis for anti-atheist myths and bigotry?
To get a sense for just how much of a threat secular atheism really is, David N. Miles has kindly summarized the situation in Norway:
In Norway, 82.9 percent of the population are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (they are automatically registered at birth and few bother to be unregistered). However, only approximately 10 percent regularly attend church services and identify themselves as being personally Christian.
A 2006 survey found: 29 percent believe in a god or deity; 23 percent believe in a higher power without being certain of what; 26 percent don't believe in God or higher powers; 22 percent have doubts.
Depending on the definition of atheism, Norway thus has between 26 percent and 71 percent atheists. The Norwegian Humanist Association is the world's largest humanist association per capita.
And what has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years.
Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.
Source: Montgomery Advertiser
Well, I suppose all those Norwegians are still really unhappy, right? After all, there is so much more to happiness and well-being than living in a peaceful nation, living a long life, being well-educated (or at least literate), having a job, being in a nation with a high GDP, having high wages, etc. These poor Norwegians are missing out on all the really important things that this life has to offer and which depend on religious theism: going to church every Sunday (if not more often), singing hymns, seeing how much your neighbor adds to the collection plate, and...uh... there has to be something else, right?
What does America have that Norway is lacking? Oh, I know: a religiously devout president that has taken his country into a war which, for many devout believers, is in fact a religious conflict that's part of the End Times predicted in their religious text. No wonder the Norwegians are less happy than Americans. Can we send them a care package or something?
Comments
Only within the past 4 or 5 years has it been at all common to see attacks on atheism in the mainstream press
Not surprising - the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
“…I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” -George Herbert Walker Bush, Aug. 27, 1987
“President Bush told the Washington Times yesterday he doesn’t “see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord.” “I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit,” Bush said. “That’s what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. “On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord.” Bush has often said that he is a religious man who supports freedom of religion, but yesterday may be the first time he has so clearly suggested in his use of words that he harbors the feeling that these two principles are to some degree in conflict. You don’t use the “other hand” construction for two concepts that complement each other. And his suggestion that someone is not qualified to be president unless they are religious is sure to spark some further discussion. There’s another enigmatic quote from the same interview: “I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you’re not equally as patriotic if you’re not a religious person,” Bush said. “I’ve never said that. I’ve never acted like that. I think that’s just the way it is.”" -Dan Froomkin, White House Briefing, 01-12-05
“I could not find content in a landscape whose horizon held no churches…”
Wow, that’s sad. I feel really sorry for Paul Johnson.
I could not find content in a landscape whose horizon held no temples or in a civilization whose literature was purged of any reference to Mithra; whose art had blotted out the portrayal of Prometheus having his liver devoured, statues of Leda being raped by the swan, images of the Buddha under the Bodhi tree, and whose music contained no intimations of the incest between Siegmund and Sieglinde. I believe the vast majority of people share such a view.
“Only within the past 4 or 5 years has it been at all common to see attacks on atheism in the mainstream press.”
This reminds a little of this whiny white guy on CNN named Glenn Beck. He is always taking about the breakdown of American society…which he believes is partly due to atheism in America.
Cowalker, that was beautiful - I couldn’t have said it better myself!
-DF
What harsh world does this guy live in? It must indeed be a terrible place. I am an atheist and live in the USA and think for the most part it’s a pretty good deal, although living amidst all the religious fervor does impart some harshness.
If we substitute “teddy bears” for “faith,” “religion,” “church,” etc., I think we get a better idea of Paul Johnson’s logic.
Paul Johnson has long since lost any credibility he had in the UK.He is well known for his long polemics with little argument to back them up,sweeping statements and moral inconsistency.His nickname in the British satirical press is “loonybins.”
He once told a Black American writer that he could not know what it was to be discriminated against unless,like Johnson, he had red hair and was left-handed.