HISTORICAL PROOF NOT FORTHCOMING

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury (but not on its website):

Historical proof not forthcoming

There have been quite a few readers' responses to my letter questioning the existence of Christ, but none have so far offered the proof that I demand if I am to unequivocally accept their claim that there are no doubts about a historical Jesus.

All they have offered so far are declarations of the particulars that they personally believe justify their faith.

David Abbott (Mailbox, August 18) says that "The Christian versus Atheist argument has gone on long enough".

This is something that we can both agree on, but one thing that I must correct him over with regard to me is the assumption that I am an atheist.

I do believe in a higher intelligence whose presence permeates the entire universe, but I do not believe for one moment  that this presence is the god of the Bible, or indeed of any other religious text that I have read.

Victoria Brown (also August 18) claims that, as a Christian, she is content with "experience and the balance of probability".

I, too, go along with that maxim, but I am fascinated as to what experience she has had  suggesting the probability that at some point in human history a virgin could give birth to a god who would raise people from the dead, walk on water, change water into wine and survive his own death.

Alan R Pendragon, Leicester

SPIRITUALITY IS A FORCE FOR GOOD

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Spirituality is a force for good

I've read in Mailbox recently about the "Non-Existence of God".

Chris Lymn for instance (July 27) states that "Religions face an inevitable demise", and the "Absurdity of belief in God". How can belief in God be absurd when so many people have been saved by this belief? Some people see their faith as very special to them. The doctrine of Christ, the teachings of Buddha, the Tao of Lao Tsu etc.

These can only do good in this troubled and turbulent world, and though the latter two do not relate to a God, they are just as spiritual. Due respect though, for his views.

If given a choice between Atheism and Religion, I know which I'd choose.

Gordon Newton, Eyres Monsell

EINSTEIN'S THEORY TOUGH TO BELIEVE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury (but not on its website):

Einstein's theory tough to believe

I have been reading the letters in the Mercury from agnostics, secularists and the like and thought to myself these people seem to know what they are talking about.

So I thought I would have a look at what science has to say about creation.

I Googled the subject and was reading about the Big Bang and that the universe just appeared from nowhere and is getting bigger all the time.

Also, this genius called Einstein had worked out that if we could travel faster than light, time would slow down and if you could travel fast enough you could arrive back before you set off.

If I understand it right, to do all this you would have to avoid black holes that can suck you in and you disappear forever, and also avoid dark matter, which I suppose could have been called fairy dust but dark matter sounds more scientific.

No, I'm not an academic so might not have quite grasped this chap Einstein's theories, but I feel he should have stuck to managing the Beatles!

The Noah's Ark story is a little easier to believe.

Lewis Dunkley, Leicester

DEMEANING FAITH NOT AN ARGUMENT

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Demeaning faith not an argument

FO Hipwell's letter (Mailbox July 3) appears to seek evidence of existence of God and fails to note that religion is 'a faith or belief' not 'a fact'.

Atheism is neither a religion nor an ideology or a doctrine. It is a-theism, ie lack of religious faith. It does not present any system of ideas, nor does it promise any salvation. In this sense it is a "negative" or "impoverished" stance.

Of course, spirituality in the intellectual, cultural, or moral sense is common to believers and non-believers in various degrees.

By way of illustration, I would say that very many survivors of the atrocious conditions in Russian death camps, both in the 1930s and during the Second World War, have stated that only religion made them hold the very strong belief that there would be an end to their suffering – and their belief resulted in their survival.

In their opinion, lack of faith would have resulted in their deaths.

Religion is also a part of our Christian culture.

If, as is suggested, religion is a myth, what is one to do when one studies the biographies of Pythagoras, Galena (accused of witchcraft because he was a successful doctor), Averroes (logic in Islamic philosophy), Paracelsus, Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus (a famous free thinker), Newton, Goethe….? They all declared their faith in God. As did many a poet, composer and sculptor.

What are we to do with the works of these famous people in a secular world?

Already children know very little about these people and many other historical figures.

When asked, they look blankly at you and ask 'You what?"

Knowledge of Shakespeare's religion is important in understanding the man and his works, because of the wealth of biblical and liturgical allusions in his writings.

Demeaning people of faith does not advance Mr Hipwell's argument. One can only sympathise with his own "personal experiences" which led him to hold his current views.

Michael Myers, Leicester

GOD'S EXISTENCE NOT DISPROVED

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

God's existence not disproved

The letter from FO Hipwell ('Offensive, but I'd go further', Mailbox, July 3) makes the sweeping statement that science has disproved both the Bible and Christianity.

But my question to him would be: "How does science do this?"

I have just been reading a book by Dr Steve Taylor, a senior researcher and lecturer at Liverpool University, in which he says: "Science is limited in scope and usually asks the questions 'what? and how? But, not usually, 'why?'"

Science is also empirical – it is based upon observation and experiment and so does not usually consider things that are not open to testing.

Therefore, science does not disprove, indeed cannot disprove the existence of God, nor the events recorded in the Bible.

To establish the truth of those things, we must turn to other methods for proof, such as the witness of eyewitnesses and personal experience.

In the Bible, the four Gospels provide eyewitness accounts of the life, teachings, miracles, death and resurrection of the central figure of human history, Jesus Christ.

It is He who divides time into two (AD and BC) and it is He from whom today's date is taken.

There are more books about Him, more songs to Him, and more people who claim to follow Him today than any other person in history.

The Bible is now in 3,000 languages and it still the world's best-selling book.

All over the world, there are thousands of people, young and old and from very different cultures, who have discovered that being a Christian and believing the Bible is not being "gullible".

I became a Christian when I was 19 and doing my National Army service in Singapore. It was in a Chinese church one Easter Monday and a big part in how this happened was by reading the New Testament for myself.

Over many years, I have travelled to many parts of the world and produced 18 missionary documentary films on the impact of the Christian gospel from the Amazon Basin, Africa and even Papua New Guinea.

The Bible and Christianity are very much alive with the largest growth in mainland China, estimated to be in the region of 70 to 90 million, more than the total population of Great Britain!

No, I don't think that God believes in atheists, but He does love them.

Peter Anderson, Leicester

NEW STATESMAN: THE GOD WARS

To hardline atheists, it is now unreasonable and “dramatically peculiar” to argue that religion is not altogether evil. How did such intolerance become acceptable to rational minds?

ACCENTUATING THE POSITIVES OF FAITH

This review appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

  

Accentuating the positives of faith

Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion

By Alain de Botton, published by Hamish Hamilton

Review by Claire Ennis

In an age where debates surrounding religion often focus on the negative – wars, sectarianism, fanaticism, fundamentalism, abuse, terror – philosopher Alain de Botton demonstrates the many positives religious beliefs bring to the world.

Steering clear of any theological arguments, he shows in Religion For Atheists how religious rituals, rules and its sense of community help to bind a society, appeal to our primitive needs, provide guidance and help us experience art in a meaningful way.

The author says that even if you assume the supernatural claims of religion are entirely false, religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world.

He argues that, once it is disconnected from any "supernatural" aspect, many of religion's ideas can be used to solve the problems we face.

While some of the concepts may jar with many it is difficult to disagree with the notion that, whether a believer or not, religion's more honourable ideals and rituals can enrich individuals and help bind communities.

Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from them – because they're packed with good ideas.

I've downloaded the audiobook of this title, from the excellent Audible. I don't get much chance to read these days, but I do make the most of opportunities to listen to good books on my iPhone. Hard as it may seem to believe, I've not been sponsored for this entry or any of the links on it. Missing a trick there, clearly.

WISE WORDS?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Wise words?

I cannot understand why Allan Hayes, of Leicester, describes the Bishop of Leicester's description that the atheist position is a tale told by an idiot, as an unfortunate remark (Mailbox, October 7). It was not an unfortunate remark. Of course, the atheist position is a tale told by an idiot.

In St Matthew's Gospel chapter 25 is a parable of the 10 virgins. Five were wise and five were foolish. Humanists, atheists and the secular people, are all like the foolish virgins.

At the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, if they do not get baptised and believe in Him, they will not go to heaven.

Frank Evans, Enderby

RELIGION UNDER ATTACK

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Religion under attack

Mr Allan Hayes (Mailbox, September 10), member of the Leicester Secular Society and the humanist movement, again tiresomely calls for religious influence to be abandoned.

Some of his views I can find favour with. The need to co-exist, the need for all of us to respect one another's views, the need for understanding.

There he should leave it, but, no, he insists on picking a fight with us of faith, all faiths.

He reminds me of the story of two tribes, the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" that lived on either side of the wide densely covered jungle valley. They each survived and lived in peace for many generations unaware of the other's presence.

One day, they discovered each other's existence, and although they lived only several miles apart, they had developed quite separately. The "Haves" had religion, the "Have Nots" had not.

Most of the tribe members were prepared to continue their way of life undisturbed and trade with the new tribe, except one person in the "Have Nots", who felt their way was the supreme way and continually harassed the other tribe to change their ways until the "Haves" patience was exhausted. Readers can finish the story themselves...

It was well over a year ago the Leicester Secular Society and the UK Humanist tribe set out to harass us religious people, even though we had co-existed for years. I cannot claim the Church has a clean record – recent reports would prove me to be deluded if I tried – but the actions of a few selfish, arrogant and perverted individuals in positions of trust should not condemn the millions who do charitable work day in, day out in centres, churches, streets and schools.

If a small minority's actions forecast the fate of millions, atheists would suffer, whatever My [sic] Hayes and his colleagues would claim against religion.

If atheism is so good, and for some it may be, why do committed atheists harass faith followers rather than centre on atheism's merits for recruitment?

Stephen A Warden, Wigston

ANTI-RELIGIOUS LETTERS ARE SO CRUDE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Anti-religious letters are so crude

It has been so good to have this religion verses atheism debate in your columns – long may it continue, despite the latest protests. No-one is forced to read every page.

Sometimes I wonder about the balance you strike or fail to strike between reports on crime, violence and other stories of human behaviour at its worst and reports on noble deeds, good achievements and public service. Usually the bad stuff hits the front page!

Why are the secularists so aggressive and nasty about prayers before council meetings? Surely they can sit quietly with friendly tolerance as most religious people do in the presence of deliberating non-religious events or enter the meeting after prayer finishes.

But we could also do without the rude ignorant and crude remarks in some of your anti-religion correspondents' letters.

Also, when will they accept that the great religions are noble, peaceful and loving, aiming to encourage all that is best in us.

Religion does not cause evil, it is the evil in the hearts and minds of those who misuse and pervert religion to their own wicked ends, that does such terrible damage.

Rev M Stark, Highfields

COULD THIS BE THE CHURCH TO CALM OUR SECULAR OUTRAGE?

Very apposite and interesting article in today's Guardian by John Harris. It addresses some ongoing themes of this blog (social engagement of religious people, pan-equalities work, secularism) and it focuses on Liverpool, where I've just spent the weekend (at the first national conference of Philosophy in Pubs - PIPs).

It's part of a series of crowd-sourced articles and films called, called "Anywhere but Westminster", in which John Harris visits a different part of the UK each month to measure the gap between what politicians talk about and the reality of people's lives.

Could this be the church to calm our secular outrage?

By John Harris

Evangelical worship gets many on the left hostile or awkward. So how do we respond to believers that save the destitute?

It's a particularly remarkable feature of modern British life: the way that in certain circles even the mention of the most modest form of theistic belief is enough to bring down great torrents of hostility. Often the explanation is traceable to the liberal-left's justified concerns about the blurred relationship between religion and state. But, in keeping with the drive of militant secularism to attack the very idea of God as much as what faith means in practice, much of the shouting is usually about philosophical fundamentals. The result: an ongoing scrap between equally staunch believers and non-believers, which arguably gets nobody anywhere.

When we asked our online readers to give us a steer as to the social role played by religion where they lived, it all kicked off again. "I don't trust anyone who needs an instruction manual to tell them how to be good," offered Newbunkie. "My personal view is that all religious groups should be banned," said someone called Youbloodydidwhat.

In response there were slightly more measured claims of religion's practical benefits. "I have seen churches set up hostels for the homeless because the local vicar has encountered so many people sleeping rough in the church porch," wrote JonathanBW. "[They] establish credit unions to help people who are financially excluded … Most of this work does not involve any element of evangelism or proselytising." Similar news came from Manchester, Northampton and Glasgow – and in response, members of the Dawkins-Hitchens tribe dutifully went ape again.

If many of them set foot in Liverpool's Frontline Church, they would presumably explode. It's a standalone evangelical organisation based on the forlorn-looking borders of Picton and Wavertree. Having arrived in Liverpool in 1991, it now draws about 1,000 people – whose average age seems to be around 35 – to the three services staged each Sunday. Recent visitors have included Nick Clegg, Chris Grayling and Cherie Blair; among the first members of the congregation I met the day I visited was a local Labour councillor. Here, God is not acknowledged in that rather bashful way one associates with the tea-and-biscuits model of Anglicanism but loudly saluted. "We are amazed by you," goes one part of the apparently ad hoc liturgy. "We are in awe of you."

Now, I am an unshakeable agnostic. There is something about the unabashed nature of evangelical Christianity that unsettles my very British sensibilities – and I reach my peak of awkwardness during a Sunday service that dispenses with the fusty business of hymns and holy communion, and instead builds itself on music that suggests a grim hybrid of Snow Patrol and LeAnn Rimes. There are collection buckets rather than plates; suggesting that Rymans may have an overlooked sacramental aspect, the flock are invited to write their highest thoughts on Post-It notes, which are then stuck to flip charts.

Drawing on the Book of Joshua, the presiding pastor, a former Bristol GP named Nic Harding, advises his audience to fix their sights on metaphorical mountains, parts of society where their beliefs might be brought to bear. The examples he offers might chill any non-believer to the bone: "Education, healthcare, politics, government – these are all areas where God says, 'Who will claim that mountain?'"

In fact any mention of current affairs brings nonplussed responses from the congregation, and even the pastor tells me that politics is too "top down", and that he wants instead to work against greed and individualism one soul at a time. By way of bowing to the inevitable, I also ask him about the place his church gives to such issues as abortion and gay rights. "To me, those issues are right on the margin of the things we should be focusing on," he says. "The real issues are how we should express and find love for the outcasts and the downtrodden."

This is where he and his people direct their work, as evidenced by Streetwise, a weekly operation in which a handful of volunteers take food, tea and condoms to the city's sex workers. I watch them spend three hours in the encroaching dark as women in various states of drug-related distress flit between their van and streets where money has to be snatched from the jaws of occasionally life-threatening danger. They sometimes quietly pray for those they help, but they don't evangelise. "We're not bible-bashing," one of them tells me. "Whether these girls come to church or not, it makes no difference to how we treat them."

The next day I meet a former sex worker, now apparently off drugs, set on somehow starting college and a regular Frontline worshipper. "I was a prostitute and a drug addict for 11, 12 years – maybe more," she tells me. "God is so forgiving – he wants me to win." Wider society, she says, is "too judgmental … it's: 'That's a prostitute, that's a drug addict.' They don't want to know." And how has the church helped her? "Oh, it saved my life," she shoots back. "I would be dead if it wasn't for this church."

A question soon pops into my head. How does a militant secularist weigh up the choice between a cleaned-up believer and an ungodly crack addict? Back at my hotel I search the atheistic postings on the original Comment is free thread for even the hint of an answer, but I can't find one anywhere.

You can also watch John Harris's film that accompanies his article and contribute ideas of your own to the ongoing series, "Anywhere but Westminster" at the same site.

Has atheism become a religion?

Very interesting article in the Huffington Post, reproduced below. I like the different stance it takes on the topic, which reveals some of the nuances between how atheism is regarded here and across the Pond. It's thoughtful and thought provoking and adds a subtly distinctive flavour to the debate.

Has Atheism beome a religion?

By David Lose

Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:

1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

2) The U.S Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.

3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Chrisotpher Hitchins and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

4) Finally - and you probably knew this was coming - consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)

Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.

While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.

1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs - in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God - that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.

2) Religious faith - and I'd argue atheistic faith - doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.

Read the article, along with reader comments (and the opportunity to leave your own) on the excellent Huffpost Religion website (and don't rush off after reading just this one): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/atheism-religion_b_867217.html

SHOULD WE TICK "NO RELIGION" ON THE CENSUS?

A typically amusing, thought-provoking and wry piece by Deborah Orr in today's edition of The Guardian, on the "religion" question in the Census. The writer's opinions are her own (obviously); I put them here to add a distinctive flavour to the mix of debate on this issue that has already graced this blog.

Should we tick "No Religion'" on the census?

The British Humanist Association would like us to, but its brand of humanism sounds like religion without God 

It is census day on Sunday and, despite sterling efforts from many interested parties, angry controversy around this quaint operation has not quite been ignited. I particularly enjoyed the attempt to muster az boycott on the grounds that the UK subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms company, had been contracted (again) to conduct the thing. Because that's what you want, isn't it? To make sure arms companies stay totally focused on their core business, and don't start piddling around in more peaceable activity?

I filled in my household's form with some alacrity, not least because the part of me that will always be a 10-year-old goody-goody schoolgirl simply loves the opportunity to print in lovely, neat, black capitals. It wasn't until after it had been mailed – why not? Keep postpersons employed – that I caught up with the British Humanist Association's plea: "We urge people who do not want to give continuing or even greater importance to unshared religions in our public life to tick 'No Religion' in the census."

Actually, I had ticked "No Religion". But I still don't like the tenor of this instruction. I don't want to stand against "believers". I am still, for my secular sins, a wet multiculturalist, minded to put up with the beliefs I can't share, whenever possible, in the interests of strengthening those that I can. I'm combative and dogmatic by nature, but I don't think these are among the finest of human qualities. I used to be a combative and dogmatic atheist. But then I realised that combat and dogma might be the problem.

Combat especially, of course. It is a popular atheist assertion, the one that says religion causes war. As if humans would never fight over land, or resources, or power, or out of sheer, carnivorous, animal aggression. Humans cause war. So do chimps and bonobos, our close genetic relatives. Perhaps Lockheed Martin is on a religious mission? Yeah, right.

I was in Motherwell, my home town, outside Glasgow, a few weeks back, on the evening that a recent Rangers v Celtic match descended into on- and off-pitch aggression the like of which had not been seen in 20 years. The Old Firm antipathy is characterised as "religious". But really it's tribal. No one goes home pissed and full of anger because the guys that scored the goals believe in transubstantiation. People go home pissed and full of anger because they left home with the intention of getting that way, and had signed up for it as toddlers. And that's not good.

The British Humanist Association is right to identify the segregation of state institutions as a powerful factor in augmenting the sort of antipathy that the Old Firm shelters. It cites a poll of 1,896 people, in which 61% identified with a religious denomination while only 29% said they were religious. The argument is that the statement of "empty" religious identity results in data that is used to justify continued religious privilege in state policy on public services. The real question is why people cling to a religious identity when they have no religious faith. It's the desire, surely, to be in one team, and opposed to another – a cultural need, a human need, even, a need that helped to deliver humans to the top of the food chain, for better, for worse, or for a bit of both.

Despite great effort to find them, human saints are hard to come by. Julian Assange, for example. Good guy? Bad guy? Perfect guy? Flawed guy? How about a mass of contradictions? That's where I really become uncomfortable with humanism. The British Humanist Association says: "Humanists are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together." Nothing much to complain about there (although a bad person might say words such as "smug" and "piety"). Well, unless you fail to subscribe to the idea that humans are essentially good and wise, rather in the manner that humans tend to characterise the gods they invent and worship.

Mostly, humanism sounds like religion without God, a kind of collective, earnest, well-meaning narcissism. People are welcome to it, if it floats their boat, though the proselytising does demand response, of course. The call to reason forgets that any atheist worth his salt understands that God does exist, but only in the minds of some of those humans who are not entirely and absolutely governed by reason. Which, I would say, is all of us. Few humans live their entire lives in reasonable refusal of all thoughts and deeds that are bad for them, or for others. People often turn to God as a means of helping them to find the discipline to avoid such behaviour. Humanists appear to believe that the opposite is the case. It's dogma – irreligious mumbo-jumbo really – and should not be confused with secularism.

For the fact is that there are plenty of reasons to be relaxed about the attractions of plain secularism, as opposed to humanism. A study, from Northwestern University and the University of Arizona, analysed census data from 85 countries, some of it stretching back a century, and presented it this week at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas.

In nine countries, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, the analysis found that there has been a steady rise in the number of people claiming no religious affiliation. Religious belief, in all these countries, is fading slowly away, and organised protest against it does not appear to be the reason for this. Richard Wiener, who led the research, says: "put simply, it shows that social groups have a kind of 'gravity' that drags in more people the bigger they are". The tide of history is running against the religious. Conspiring to help that powerful tide risks provoking the entrenchment called fundamentalism.