I don't mean to preach

I didn't go to the World Atheist Convention in Dublin last weekend, though I doubt my failure to attend is considered a sin in such circles. However, Anthony McIntyre did and was kind enough to scribble up a short report afterwards on the day's goings on. Like Anthony I am not an "atheist activist" either. Indeed, the very notion of 'organised' atheism or some form of evangelical non-believer is enough to make me cringe. Thankfully I have never come across such a person. What I have come across though are members of the religious community complaining about "proselytising atheists."

That was the phrase a friend of mine used the other day. "If you don't believe in anything," he said, "why would you feel the need to go on about it?" I didn't get drawn into a lengthy debate (people of faith tend not to enjoy such things) but I did say that if his statement is accurate then would it not be equally true to say that if you do believe in a god why do you feel the need to "go on about it?" Or, to put it another way, why would you feel the need to have that god put in your country's constitution? Or, for another example, why would you feel the need for your church to control the schools our children are educated in? I could go on but you get the gist of what I'm saying.

As Christopher Hitchens put it so succinctly, "our belief is not a belief." In other words we atheists do not gather together in temples to shriek and celebrate our lack of faith. Nor is there a modern equivalent of the League of the Militant Godless going around attempting to enforce a brand of state atheism on society. If either of these two things ever occur I'll be the first to oppose them. Two things are currently in vogue though.

The first is the spontaneous reigniting of a philosophical debate on whether a god (or gods) exists or not. Bestsellers such as The God Delusion, god is not Great and Letters to a Christian Nation all appeared at around the same time. They were not coordinated. Their impact was not planned by a Machiavellian group of atheists. They are not part of any organised movement seeking recruits for its cause. That some in the faith-based community mistake contributions to a debate as proselytising speaks volumes. For me it is a sign that they fear reason. Evidence of this can be seen from the frankly idiotic retort of one the respondents to Anthony McIntyre's piece who made the comment "qui nimis probat, nihil probat" ("he who proves too much, proves nothing"). I don't know about you but I think I'll stick with the side that "proves too much."

The second thing that we have been seeing a lot of recently and is often mistaken for 'evangelical atheism' is actually little more than good old fashioned secularism. True, groups like the National Secular Society in the UK might well be chock-a-block with those horrible godless types, but their goals remain purely political. They are not attempting to 'save' anyone. They are not looking for converts. They merely strive to achieve that age old objective of the separation of church and state. I once came across one enlightened chap at university, a north Antrim Protestant no less, who described himself as a 'secular Christian'. If only the almighty could send us a few more of those in future.

So there you have it. I just thought I should get those couple of things straight. I'll stop blathering now and be on my merry way. I certainly wouldn't want to make it look like I was proselytising or anything.