| www.tonybenn.net |
| www.tonybenn.net |
The ITV programme 'The Sunday Edition' recently featured a debate on the nature of
religion with Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins. You can watch the converation here.
You can also read an article suggesting, that despite the lack of consensus during
the programme, Benn and Dawkins have a lot more in common than either of them
seem to realise.
religion with Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins. You can watch the converation here.
You can also read an article suggesting, that despite the lack of consensus during
the programme, Benn and Dawkins have a lot more in common than either of them
seem to realise.
THE CHRISTIAN AGNOSTIC VS THE EVANGELICAL ATHEIST
In a televised debate on the existence or non-existence of God, one guest was introduced as a life long Christian, the
other a evangelical atheist, hardly fertile ground for consensus.
As a longstanding admirer of both Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins it was with great interest that I watched ITV’s
Sunday Edition featuring the two in a discussion on religion. After the ten minute debate, interrupted frequently by a
loud Andrew Rawnsley, there was still no consensus and no meeting of minds, not a positive sign for a person who
has deep respect for and been influenced by both.
However, having widely read both Benn and Dawkins, their viewpoint on religion is surprisingly similar, a fact they
themselves seem to have missed.
Tony Benn’s upbringing is steeped in religion and it permeates his speeches, his books, indeed his whole
political philosophy. His great grandfather, Julius Benn, was a Congregationalist minister. His mother was also a
congregationalist, read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, she has a library in the
Hebrew university named after her. Benn’s brother wanted to become a minister although he died in the
Second World War before this aim could be achieved.
Richard Dawkins background is slightly more usual as he describes his childhood as ‘a normal Anglican
upbringing’ but became a non-believer around the age of 16.
Despite his family life, Benn has reached a point where he is indeed as sceptical about many aspects of religion as
Dawkins himself. Benn is very critical of organised religion and how it is used by those in power to control. This
is true whether it’s Islam and the ‘holy’ war or Christianity and the ‘just’ war. Where Dawkins
would conclude that this controlling element is inherent in religion, Benn would point to other (non-religious) power
structures with those tendencies, the similar use of Marxism in Soviet Russia for example. However, whether
inherent or not, both men are mistrustful and keen to guard against the negative aspects of faith and how it is played
out all over the world.
Dawkins is far more dismissive of the supernatural claims of religion than Benn but again their judgements are
broadly the same. Benn states that his ‘doubts are about the risen Christ and not about the importance of
Jesus. Christians claim to have founded a church in Jesus’s name, and my doubts are about this institution
rather than about the teachings of he left behind.’ Dawkins too has never sought to dismiss the historical Jesus
and has described him as ‘a quite exceptionally good man… who has taught us lessons in moral philosophy
which were centuries, millennia ahead of their time… there is a great deal to learn from great teachers of whom
Jesus was certainly one'. Indeed Dawkins proudly wears a t shirt baring the slogan ‘Atheists for Jesus’.
Both focus on the profoundly progressive moral element to Jesus’ teaching and it’s fundamental role in our
social make up. So if we set aside the agreement on Jesus’s teaching, surely Dawkins criticism of the rest of the
Bible couldn’t be reconciled with Benn’s philosophy. Many people in particular questions Dawkins on the
new testament, what problem could he possibly have with that? His answer is simple; the concept of ‘original sinâ
€™. ‘I think that the idea that we are all born evil is a thoroughly wicked idea… I think that that, the use of
religion to demoralise people, is a wicked, wicked thing to do.' It’s revealing that the last statement is not from
the pen of Dawkins but from a speech Tony Benn gave to a Jewish audience during Jewish book week in 2003.
And what about the after life? Dawkins suggests this is highly unlikely whereas Benn simply points out that no-one
knows what happens. But again, when it comes down to it, they’re positions are virtually the same. Benn
doesn’t believe in an afterlife in the usual sense of the word but writes ‘…for me immortality was meaningful
in quite a different sense, in that ideas and the spirit survive physical death… I see my parents in my brother David
and myself, and I see my wife’s influence on my children and grandchildren'. It couldn’t have been put
better by a genetic scientist.
Dawkins has also focused on the theological idea of hell and the rather immoral way that concept is used to control
by fear and Benn is also very critical.
Lastly, Dawkins does not dismiss the cultural aspect of religion as one might expect. Benn strongly stresses the role
of religion in our culture and mentions his love of weddings, christenings, funerals and Dawkins doesn’t
disagree. He would call himself a cultural Christian too.
Where does this encounter on an ITV Sunday afternoon show fit into humanism as a whole? The programme did a
good job of magnifying disagreement between the two without really touching on the more profound agreement.
This is something humanists should work to avoid. Whether religion is intrinsically bad, Dawkin’s view or
heavily misused to do bad, Benn’s view, the point is what can we do to make things better.
Both men seem to reject the institutions, the supernatural side to different extents but both can see the positive role
of teachers like Jesus, Gandhi, Marter Luther King and yes, Bertrand Russell. I can see the positive role of
teachers like Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins would happily call himself an atheist and sometimes refers to himself as a ‘bright’ (a world view that is
free of supernaturalism and mysticism). Benn would probably be happy to associate himself with ‘bright’ but
not atheist. On the other hand, he has refered to himself as ‘christian agnostic’ and ‘humanist’.
Professor Dawkins would not accept the first description but would probably be happy with humanist.
Yet Benn often tells of a man whom he once asked of his religion, the man replied ‘I’m a lapsed atheist. I donâ
€™t believe in God but everyone has a spiritual nature that has to be cherished and nourished’. This made a lot
of sense to Benn. I would think that Professor Dawkins would say ‘amen’ to that.
In a televised debate on the existence or non-existence of God, one guest was introduced as a life long Christian, the
other a evangelical atheist, hardly fertile ground for consensus.
As a longstanding admirer of both Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins it was with great interest that I watched ITV’s
Sunday Edition featuring the two in a discussion on religion. After the ten minute debate, interrupted frequently by a
loud Andrew Rawnsley, there was still no consensus and no meeting of minds, not a positive sign for a person who
has deep respect for and been influenced by both.
However, having widely read both Benn and Dawkins, their viewpoint on religion is surprisingly similar, a fact they
themselves seem to have missed.
Tony Benn’s upbringing is steeped in religion and it permeates his speeches, his books, indeed his whole
political philosophy. His great grandfather, Julius Benn, was a Congregationalist minister. His mother was also a
congregationalist, read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, she has a library in the
Hebrew university named after her. Benn’s brother wanted to become a minister although he died in the
Second World War before this aim could be achieved.
Richard Dawkins background is slightly more usual as he describes his childhood as ‘a normal Anglican
upbringing’ but became a non-believer around the age of 16.
Despite his family life, Benn has reached a point where he is indeed as sceptical about many aspects of religion as
Dawkins himself. Benn is very critical of organised religion and how it is used by those in power to control. This
is true whether it’s Islam and the ‘holy’ war or Christianity and the ‘just’ war. Where Dawkins
would conclude that this controlling element is inherent in religion, Benn would point to other (non-religious) power
structures with those tendencies, the similar use of Marxism in Soviet Russia for example. However, whether
inherent or not, both men are mistrustful and keen to guard against the negative aspects of faith and how it is played
out all over the world.
Dawkins is far more dismissive of the supernatural claims of religion than Benn but again their judgements are
broadly the same. Benn states that his ‘doubts are about the risen Christ and not about the importance of
Jesus. Christians claim to have founded a church in Jesus’s name, and my doubts are about this institution
rather than about the teachings of he left behind.’ Dawkins too has never sought to dismiss the historical Jesus
and has described him as ‘a quite exceptionally good man… who has taught us lessons in moral philosophy
which were centuries, millennia ahead of their time… there is a great deal to learn from great teachers of whom
Jesus was certainly one'. Indeed Dawkins proudly wears a t shirt baring the slogan ‘Atheists for Jesus’.
Both focus on the profoundly progressive moral element to Jesus’ teaching and it’s fundamental role in our
social make up. So if we set aside the agreement on Jesus’s teaching, surely Dawkins criticism of the rest of the
Bible couldn’t be reconciled with Benn’s philosophy. Many people in particular questions Dawkins on the
new testament, what problem could he possibly have with that? His answer is simple; the concept of ‘original sinâ
€™. ‘I think that the idea that we are all born evil is a thoroughly wicked idea… I think that that, the use of
religion to demoralise people, is a wicked, wicked thing to do.' It’s revealing that the last statement is not from
the pen of Dawkins but from a speech Tony Benn gave to a Jewish audience during Jewish book week in 2003.
And what about the after life? Dawkins suggests this is highly unlikely whereas Benn simply points out that no-one
knows what happens. But again, when it comes down to it, they’re positions are virtually the same. Benn
doesn’t believe in an afterlife in the usual sense of the word but writes ‘…for me immortality was meaningful
in quite a different sense, in that ideas and the spirit survive physical death… I see my parents in my brother David
and myself, and I see my wife’s influence on my children and grandchildren'. It couldn’t have been put
better by a genetic scientist.
Dawkins has also focused on the theological idea of hell and the rather immoral way that concept is used to control
by fear and Benn is also very critical.
Lastly, Dawkins does not dismiss the cultural aspect of religion as one might expect. Benn strongly stresses the role
of religion in our culture and mentions his love of weddings, christenings, funerals and Dawkins doesn’t
disagree. He would call himself a cultural Christian too.
Where does this encounter on an ITV Sunday afternoon show fit into humanism as a whole? The programme did a
good job of magnifying disagreement between the two without really touching on the more profound agreement.
This is something humanists should work to avoid. Whether religion is intrinsically bad, Dawkin’s view or
heavily misused to do bad, Benn’s view, the point is what can we do to make things better.
Both men seem to reject the institutions, the supernatural side to different extents but both can see the positive role
of teachers like Jesus, Gandhi, Marter Luther King and yes, Bertrand Russell. I can see the positive role of
teachers like Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins would happily call himself an atheist and sometimes refers to himself as a ‘bright’ (a world view that is
free of supernaturalism and mysticism). Benn would probably be happy to associate himself with ‘bright’ but
not atheist. On the other hand, he has refered to himself as ‘christian agnostic’ and ‘humanist’.
Professor Dawkins would not accept the first description but would probably be happy with humanist.
Yet Benn often tells of a man whom he once asked of his religion, the man replied ‘I’m a lapsed atheist. I donâ
€™t believe in God but everyone has a spiritual nature that has to be cherished and nourished’. This made a lot
of sense to Benn. I would think that Professor Dawkins would say ‘amen’ to that.