Salman Rushdie: There is no other atheism

Rushdie criticizes David Evans who suggests: "live and let live", according to which atheists should declare a truce with religions. "No such arrangement can exist, and there is not even a slight chance that such an agreement can be reached."

Does postmodernist atheism exist? The Canadian newspaper Toronto Star recently published an editorial penned by the writer Salman Rushdie, about David Evans' proposal as presented in a recent article in the Guardian, which calls for an atheism that values ​​religion, treats science as a means to achieve the goal, and finds the meaning of life in art." In this article, Evans accepts that the many types of atheism have become extinct and only an old and tired type remains which he calls "19th century style atheism" which he says is expressed in the articles of Richard Dawkins or Jonathan Miller.

According to Rushdie, the essence of Evans' proposal is: "live and let live", according to which atheists should declare a truce with religions. "No such arrangement can exist, and there is not even a slight chance that such an agreement can be reached."

Rushdie writes. "One of the beliefs shared by all religions beyond any doubt is that godlessness is equivalent to immorality and that ethics and morality require as a basis the existence of some kind of ultimate arbiter, a certain kind of something completely supernatural, in which secularism, humanism, relativism, donism, liberalism and all the rest The manifestations of permissiveness inevitably deprive the unbeliever of his morality."

"For those of us who are willing to completely indulge in this 'corruption' and still believe that we are moral beings, it is very difficult to swallow the position that godlessness means immorality. Neither is the current behavior of the new breed of organized religion who take the disappearing hand approach. Education everywhere is in danger of religious attacks."

"I find myself more and more concerned these days than ever because the US is becoming a de facto pseudo-theocracy. Not something like Iran, but with a tendency to have a government that is close to a certain type of Christianity. In addition to concerns about what these trends mean for the lives of atheists in this country, I am also concerned about the effect of this alignment on the actions of our government in the rest of the world. A country that is convinced that God is on its side may not check if, by chance, it is doing something wrong." Rushdie writes.

"Seeing religion as 'a kind of art', as Evans sweetly suggests, is only possible when religion dies, or like the Anglican Church, becomes a series of polite rituals. The ancient Greeks lived the mythology. The Old Norse left us the Norse myths, and yes, we can read them as literature. The Bible also contains beautiful literature, but the voice of literal Christianity is growing louder, and it is doubtful that they will promote Evans' children's story approach.

Meanwhile the religious continue to attack their artists. Paintings by Hindu artists are attacked by Hindu mobs. Sikh playwrights are threatened with violence by his own people and Muslim writers and filmmakers are in danger from Muslim fanatics in complete ignorance of any blood connection. If religion were a private matter, it would be easier to respect the right of believers to seek comfort and spiritual nourishment.

However, religion today is a large public business, using efficient political organizations and the latest information technologies to advance its goals. The religion uses an iron fist and demands silk gloves from its opponents. As Evans correctly identified atheists like Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are not immature or deserving of punishment for their criticism of such religions. They are doing something vital and necessary."

to Salman Rushdie's article
to Evans' article
to the site Skeptic News