Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

[wanderings]

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

There should be a stand off about this stuff. Playing nice got us into this mess.

And the fact that an "atheist with a science background" feels uncomfortable telling a 7 year old the truth about how the world came to be proves it.

I find it utterly shocking that it simply didn't occur to the OP that there are profound and important reasons why we object to the law as it stands - and it's not because we were traumatised by learning about Noah as kids.

Apricot, please don't impute views to me. You really don't know what I think about collective worship, or equality. I don't want to talk about collective worship, but if you do, well fine. It's a free country .

You may not have noticed, but I did say near the beginning of the thread that my children go to their local community school which has precisely two acts of collective worship per year each with minimal actual religious content.

Niminy, what do you perceive as anti- Christian ? Does it include people having an objection to compulsory acts of worship in schools, seats in the Lords etc? Because some if us are very vocal about this (and the fact that nothing changes may well be because Christianity has a priveliged position in our establishment). I am very anti the Christian establishment where it affects education, democracy, etc, but not in the least anti my Christian friends, their faith or their right to practise..

Also : it is possible to have a debate without agreeing or pretending to agree.

I'm not atheist and feel that there shouldn't be collective worship at school in the UK. Schools should not force faith on people and children of all faiths should be able to go to the same schools without feeling they are pushed one way or the other.

Forgot to say, and children with no faith.

"We talked about how the creation story is just that, an allegory that tells us more about God than it does about the formation of the cosmos."

Some people believe the creation story literally. Who are you to dismiss their views like that?

Shouldn't you have said "Some people believe" about the bible story of creation, the same way I am expected to say "some people believe" about religious beliefs and ideas?

So as an athiest I am careful to say "some people believe" about any and all religious beliefs.

Here we have a christian who out and out says "no that didn't happen" about a bible story, while merrily trampling on all the people who do belief that, who are members of the same religion!

Massive hypocrisy is what that is, right there. The respect for other people's beliefs actually means you must respect mine I will afford no such respect to anyone else if I dont' feel like it because my beliefs are the truth.

Well, the OP was raising a question about why people feel so strongly about collective worship and whether it is a recent thing. As far as I can see she wasn't intending to open a discussion about the rights and wrongs of collective worship per se.

I'm not that interested in that discussion either, to be honest, and I've got other things to think about. But if you all want to, then there is nothing stopping you. BigDorrit, I did already say that.

Blu, my position on Establishment (which I've now articulated thrice on this thread) is that it has been a mixed blessing for the Church of England. There are strong voices arguing for disestablishment within the Church of England and I think they have a good case to make.

But that doesn't mean I think faith is an entirely private matter. I do think faith should have a place and a voice in the public square. There's an interesting and valuable conversation to be had about how that can or should happen, but I suspect that conversation won't happen here. Be happy to be proved wrong though .

Some people believe the creation story literally. Who are you to dismiss their views like that?

Shouldn't you have said "Some people believe" about the bible story of creation, the same way I am expected to say "some people believe" about religious beliefs and ideas?

Not exactly the same. The story of creation, as it is written is strongly contradicted by scientific evidence.
Religious beliefs, such as about the existence of god, salvation, etc, can't be dealt with scientifically and can certainly remain in the realm of beliefs and ideas.
Not creation (as in the Genesis), though.

Disco, you don't know exactly how the conversation with my children went, do you, and you don't know whether we talked about why taking the story literally is mistaken, and you don't know whether we talked about people who don't believe any of it. Please don't resort to name-calling on the basis of what you impute from a very brief description.

I do think faith should have a place and a voice in the public square.

Sure, the problem is when it involves states and official organisms. I wouldn't want, say, the court system to be imbued with any faith. Nor would I want school.

Maybe it's a recent thing in the UK that people feel strongly about faith not having place as a collective thing in schools, but in many countries schools have been secular for long, which means that people did feel strongly about it.
And just not atheists, btw.

niminy "I do think faith should have a place and a voice in the public square."

I'd be interested to have that discussion. Firstly, I would like to be clear on what you mean by "place" and "voice"? Secondly, I would be interested to know what you feel the benefits of this are/would be.

Thirdly, I'm wondering if by "faith" you mean "religion" or theism more generally.

It is exactly the same though Lweji because the people who believe the creation story literally have various thoughts about how they refute the evidence. I mean, who is to say what is true? Douglas Adams had a great explanation as to the origin of the Earth, and how the dinosaurs got there when the earth wasn't actually that old!

I really do think it's hypocritical for people with a faith to say that anything anyone else believes in either right or wrong really. One of the main points of science is that we try and work it out as best we can but then things can, and do, come along to disprove what we all previously held as truth, even as so right as to be self-evident!

So no, I don't accept that some aspects of some people's faiths or beliefs are more or less "reasonable" than others, more or less worthy of being placed as a story or a "truth".

Some people believe that the world was created by God in 7 days. That is their absolute right. Scientists can say "well this evidence and that evidence points to that not being how it happened" but BUT can't say "This is 100% certain the way the world was created" as tomorrow anything might happen to show that up to be wrong. It's not very likely, but it's possible. Dealing in absolutes is not a great idea in science especially when looking at things which are out of our direct experience (really long ago, really far away, really big, really small) as straight off you are setting yourself up to view things with a not-open-mind.

So no, I would not say to my children that the people who believe that are wrong. Because 1. that is disrespecting their beliefs 2. I like to teach them to be open-minded and questioning rather than telling them "this is how it is full stop" and 3. maybe they're right. Who knows. Anything's possible.

I would afford equal respect to someone who believed that aliens visit the earth or that they had seen an angel or a monster or thought that their existence was all in someone else's imagination. It's interesting, the things people believe. Especially to someone who doesn't have beliefs of that nature.

The time to not afford respect is when the beliefs of one, or a group, start to impinge on the comfort or freedoms of others, or on their beliefs, which kind of brings us full circle to what the thread is about in the first place.

Er, Niminy, tell us what you think, then, about faith in a Punic arena! How can anyone debate it if you don't say what you think ?

I am interested in these discussions, and I'm sure you don't mean to come across like this , but deciding in advance whether the debate can be had, telling us how far we can go in response to the OP's question, and being patient in an 'I already said this' comes across as pretty controlling and not actually conducive to robust and open conversation .

Douglas Adams had a great explanation as to the origin of the Earth, and how the dinosaurs got there when the earth wasn't actually that old!

Did he? How long ago was that?

Have't you read Hitchhikers? It's brilliant you should find a copy.

He wasn't serious, obviously, but he was making a point, which is, we have no idea really, us little humans, about the secrets of the universe. That, and trying to make an entertaining book, which he did in fine style.

Sorry, clearly I need to go and have lunch. Confused it with someone else.
And, no, I haven't read it. Will see if I can at some point.

and
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs
I am not going to enter another discussion about science and religions beliefs

ups, pressed post too soon

(I'll repeat until I'm convinced)

Or maybe he was serious. Who knows! He's passed away now unfortunately, so we can't ask. I haven't heard that many interviews, I have no idea where the story came from. Maybe it was something that came from nowhere, maybe it was something he would have liked to have been true, maybe it had elements of things he believed in it, maybe he found it amusing to think that for all of our self-importance (as a species) we're actually totally irrelevant. People have believed stranger things. Certainly many people do have a drive to try to "make sense of it all" and our place in the universe and the things that they believe to make sense of those things to them, well, they all come from the same place, whether it's a person traditionally worshipping in a building erected for a mainstream religion, whether it's a person sitting and communing with nature and feeling a connection that way, or whether it's a person who believes that we a side effect of an alien construction.... It makes no odds does it, really.

Lweji honestly it's a classic laugh out loud just brilliant book.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I know the book, I just haven't read it. Or watched the movie, although, I know the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42. :)

The film a few years back didn't hit the spot for me, I think it's accepted that the best version was the radio series in the early 80s (late 70s?) anyway when I was young and then there was a TV series in the 80s as well which was good.

But actually, the books are the best of all, I actually laugh out loud when I read it

So after all that build-up, if you get it I hope you like it!

I actually don't know what I think about faith in the public square. I have a series of questions rather than opinions about it.

Some of those questions might be: how can the views of faith groups which often have very deep roots in their local community - far deeper than most politicians, for example - how can these be heard in the decision-making process about things that will affect that community? how can the social contribution of faith groups (for example, running community groups, social support networks, foodbanks etc) be acknowledged? should the voice of faith groups who sponsor chaplains be heard in debates about health or prisons? How can society as a whole tap into and encourage some of the good things that characterise faith groups, for example charitable giving and volunteering?

Lorelei I'm using the term faith groups as roughly being the same as religious organisations. I think there are even more questions about how non-organised and individualistic faiths might have a say in the public square - pagans, say. Theism doesn't seem to me to be a useful term here, because it's an abstract noun. So I'm not quite sure why you thought the distinction was an important one.

Blu, I really haven't tried to control the discussion. I've said I don't want to talk about collective worship and if you all do that's fine, go ahead. I'm a bit confused about why that is so controlling. I repeated things that were either ignored or misquoted, and I went back to the OP because that was the point I was actually interested in. What's so wrong about that? I'm not saying nobody else can talk about whatever they like, it's just I don't want to.

I remember Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in its original form as a radio programme before Adams wrote it as a book. It was very funny at the time.

I'm on the side of we being quite irrelevant in relation to the universe. :)
We are a tiny speck and have been here for a split second in relation to the age of the universe. It's mind blowing, really.