One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don’t — into the religious and the atheists. And for the last decade or so, it’s been quite clear what being an atheist means. There have been some very vocal atheists who’ve pointed out, not just that religion is wrong, but that it’s ridiculous. These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford, have argued — they’ve argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game. Now I think it’s too easy. I think it’s too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way. And it’s as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And what I’d like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist — if you like, a new version of atheism we could call Atheism 2.0. Now what is Atheism 2.0? Well it starts from a very basic premise: of course, there’s no God. Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels, etc. Now let’s move on; that’s not the end of the story, that’s the very, very beginning. I’m interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, “I can’t believe in any of this stuff.
I can’t believe in the doctrines. I don’t think these doctrines are right. But,” a very important but, “I love Christmas carols. I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament.” Whatever it may be, you know the kind of thing I’m talking about — people who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic, communal side of religion, but can’t bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice. It’s almost as though either you accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff, or you reject the doctrine and you’re living in some kind of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Walmart. So that’s a sort of tough choice. I don’t think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways — and I’m being both very respectful and completely impious — of stealing from religions. If you don’t believe in a religion, there’s nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, “What here could we use?” The secular world is full of holes.
... analyze the views of agnostics and those of atheists. All religions differ in ideology and doctrines. Atheists completely reject the existence of God. Whereas ... as a theist. Therefore, agnosticism is compatible with both religion and atheism. A person can believe in God (theism) without claiming ... exist. The Agnostics have the humility to say they don’t know when questioned on there being a high power ...
We have secularized badly, I would argue. And a thorough study of religion could give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I’d like to run through a few of these today. I’d like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we’re going to make the world a better place, we think education; that’s where we put a lot of money. Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills, it’s also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education, the process of education — particularly higher education — will make us into nobler and better human beings. That’s a lovely idea. Interesting where it came from