Mark Ravenhill: Secular Atheists Threaten the Future of Art?

I don't know if traditional arguments for anti-atheist bigotry have been wearing thin or what, but for the second time in just a couple of months I find myself faced with noxious claims about some sort of incompatibility between atheism and art. What sort of person can imagine for even a second that disbelief in gods or the supernatural could be the least bit problematic for creativity and art? It's probably the same sort of person who can imagine that there is a link between skin color and intelligence, or religion and morality.

Mark Ravenhill, a British playwright who doesn't seem to know very much about atheism, secularism, or sound reasoning, writes:

I'm sure the narrative, ritual and music of the church were an essential part of my education as a writer. I'm not alone. ...I resent the possibility that aggressive secularism would deny future generations this inspiration. ...Our Christian tradition is very different. We should celebrate the Christian legacy in western art and society - and stop the Dawkins army from denying us the possibility of drawing inspiration from faith to create the art of the future.

Source: Guardian

Mark Ravenhill's hyperbolic language (in addition to the above, the title of this piece is "Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped") makes it sound like Dawkins is leading a mass movement of people dedicated to stripping Western culture of the tools and sources needed to create great art. And where does Ravenhill offer support for such accusations? Nowhere, of course — he offers absolutely nothing whatsoever that could even remotely be construed as supporting anything even remotely close to the accusations he is making. He does, however, try his hardest to leave readers with the impression that Dawkins and his "secular army" are up to no good and must be stopped.

What is this "secular army," anyway? Where are the hordes of secular atheists trying to deny people the possibility of drawing inspiration to create art? Where are the hordes of secular atheists who are likely to accomplish any great changes in culture any time soon? Like so many Christians over the course of time, it appears that Ravenhill is trying to scapegoat atheists for the course of secularization in the West.

It's true that atheists have encouraged secularization, but the fact is that a lot of secularization has occurred at the same time that atheists have been small in number and very unpopular. Why? Because secularization occurs regardless of what atheists say — secularization is something which many religious believers need and want. Blaming atheists whenever secularization appears inconvenient is not only dishonest, but bigoted as well.

I also have to raise serious questions about Ravenhill's perspective on the connection between religion and art here. It's true that religion has inspired art, just as religion has inspired rules of morality, but it's as wrong to conclude or infer that religion is necessary for art as it is to conclude that religion is necessary for morality. This suggests that irreligious people are incapable of creating art, which is no less bigoted than saying that irreligious people are incapable of morality.

If Ravenhill were to deny that he was suggesting any such conclusion, then he contradicts himself because if the growth of secularism leads to serious declines in religion, and if irreligious people are capable of creating art in an irreligious context, then there is no reason to be concerned that an "aggressive secularism" will pose any problems for art.

The best Ravenhill could say is that he merely doesn't want future generations to be without that which has inspired him, even if they find sources of inspiration which are secular but equally good. This wouldn't be bigoted, but it would be ridiculous. Newsflash: culture moves on and the sources of inspiration or ideals we have today weren't the same as that which existed in the past and won't themselves continue on forever. Feeling bad that future generations might have new and different inspirations for art just makes no sense.

The Bible - as literature, if nothing else - should be an essential part of every child's experience. And children should study the great Christian art of the past, too.

Mark Ravenhill's essay is a ridiculously pathetic attempt to attack that which he doesn't understand, and this more than almost anything else is what so decisively seals the conclusion on this. Ravenhill pretends to be arguing against the actions and ideas of Richard Dawkins, but the truth is that Dawkins has expressed strong support for exactly what Ravenhill is calling for here: education about religious myths, literature, and traditions.

Dawkins is unambiguous about his position in his book The God Delusion:

I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was. ...The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. But the main reason the Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.

Dawkins, if you notice, goes a bit further than Ravenhill and does so in a way that makes his call for education about religion far superior to Ravenhill's: Dawkins doesn't limit himself to just Christianity and the Bible. True, he specifically laments ignorance about the Bible, but he also makes a point to say that education in Greek and Roman myths is necessary. There is a tremendous amount of art — literature, sculpture, paintings — that just make no sense without some knowledge of ancient mythology.

For unknown reasons, though, Mark Ravenhill seems to think that only Christianity and the Bible are worth learning about. The Bible and Christian art should be part of children's education... but not a word about any other religious source of art — not even the texts and art based on ancient mythology, which is at least a significant of a foundation of European civilization. At best, Ravenhill's limited interest here must be regarded as narrow and parochial; far worse, it might be an expression of bigotry against anything that isn't Christian.

Christianity is a myth. But it's a myth that has helped us - and continues to help us - ask searching moral and philosophical questions.

I'm not sure what Mark Ravenhill is trying to say here, unless it's that Christianity has value for society and should not be condemned on the basis of a literal reading of it. The problem is, large numbers of Christians don't treat it as a myth which simply helps them wrestle with moral and philosophical questions. That's not surprising, since Christianity did not originate that way and didn't exist for centuries in such a form. The majority of Christians, past and present, have regarded Christianity as not only the literal truth, but the only truth without which one is condemned to an eternity in hell. Ignoring that is dishonest.

Moreover, I would question the value of Christianity in wrestling with moral and philosophical questions. I won't try to argue that it has no value whatsoever in such matters, but I don't think that there can be any basis for arguing that it is the only or even the best context in which one can address such questions. Some people might find aspects of it useful, but there are lots of other religions and belief systems which are equally good. Some may be better. Unless Ravenhill has tried any of them, he isn't in much of a position to tout Christianity in this manner as if it especially necessary for modern society.

Ours is an age in which a lack of belief, at least in secular Europe, is prized. Before, having one overarching belief was central to life, guiding our choices. But now we're all supposed to travel light, be supple, so that we can swap jobs, partners or political allegiances at a moment's notice. But this perpetual state of agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive. Those who are able to locate, and to explore intelligently, a system of belief, be that religious or political, are surely making a valuable contribution to our times. We may not share their beliefs, but we should treasure them.

This is just sheer twaddle. Agnosticism and atheism do not mean a "lack of commitment." An agnostic and an atheist can be very committed to a variety of principles, causes, and or ideologies — human rights, justice, liberalism, conservatism, peace, nationalism, communism, the free market, etc. There is nothing about agnosticism or atheism which require or even encourage not being committed to anything. There is also nothing about agnosticism or atheism which prevent or discourage a person from exploring a system of belief — intelligently or unintelligently.

There is simply nothing here in what Mark Ravenhill says which even remotely resembles reality. There isn't even anything here which would qualify as an understandable mistake or misinterpretation, no matter how generous one tries to be. I can't imagine where he got the above ideas, but there's no question in my mind that Ravenhill didn't any time trying to understand agnosticism or atheism before he decided to sit down and write his little screed complaining about them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since it's also clear that he didn't trouble himself to read Dawkins' recent book before attacking him personally and by name.

I don't know how good of a playwright Ravenhill is, but he should stick to fiction — or at least properly label pieces like this as fiction.