From Dr Chris Scanlan
Sir: There are only two fundamental challenges to the spread of atheism: the first is that faith is demonstrably true, the second is that faith is necessary for the wellbeing of society. Unfortunately many philosophers, including Roger Scruton, confuse these concepts, using the one to justify the other.
The first challenge, concerning the intrinsic veracity of faith, should frighten no one who claims to be a rational agent. For example, both geology and Genesis make claims about the reality of early life on our planet. However, only the wilfully credulous maintain that they live on a planet that is a few thousand, rather than a few billion, years old. Of course, there is still room for a god to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe, but who wants to worship a god that gets smaller every day (assuming it wants to be worshipped at all)?
Disconcertingly, however, as the persuasive power of the first challenge has waned, a second, more insidious argument for theism has gained popularity: that religion, even if it is essentially false, is necessary for human wellbeing. The twin spectres of Nazism and communism are usually summoned at this point as evidence for the indispensable nature of faith. Atheists are thus required to believe that a culture of collective gullibility is our best defence against political extremism; we must embrace the blinkers of religion to save us from ourselves. I cannot think of a more depressing prospect for civilisation than this: that our humanity can be secured only by utilitarian deception.
Chris Scanlan Oxford
Previous page
