Reach out to those without faith, too

Keith Kahn-Harris is a sociologist and the convener of New Jewish Thought

This article titled “Reach out to those without faith, too” was written by Keith Kahn-Harris, for guardian.co.uk on Friday 15th October 2010 12.01 UTC

Most people would accept that religion can be an extremely divisive force. You don’t have to subscribe to theories of “the clash of civilisations” to note that religious fanaticism is a continued source of conflict in the world. But in the modern era there is a counter-trend that tends to be overlooked: that of dialogue and conciliation between faiths.

The catastrophe of the holocaust has given particular impetus to attempts at Christian-Jewish reconciliation in the post-war period and these have had some notable successes, particularly in the warm relations achieved by Jewish leaders with Pope John Paul II. There are now serious attempts to develop dialogue between Islam and other faiths that, while they often appear to be a sisyphean task, have begun to engender improved relations between community leaders.

Religion though is only one source of contemporary conflict. Interfaith dialogue often has difficulty in including those who define themselves ethnically rather than religiously – as many Jews do, for instance. Just as importantly, interfaith also excludes those who define themselves as atheists and humanists. I would argue then that the interfaith dialogue needs to be completely rethought to reach out to those who are not religious or who are antagonistic towards religion.

Animosity between atheists and the religious appears to be growing. The recent papal visit to the UK saw a concerted campaign against the crimes of the Catholic church and at Benedict being granted the status of a state leader. The proponents of the assertive atheism that has developed in the past few years often express themselves in highly uncivil language, Richard Dawkins being the most prominent example. In recent weeks, New Humanist magazine has chronicled and criticised the abusive language used against religious figures by atheist campaigners and even at fellow atheists judged less ideologically pure.

Of course the traffic goes both ways and there is no shortage of abuse directed by the religious towards atheists. What is depressing though is that a movement that prides itself on rational enlightenment has, among its fiercer proponents, begun to develop exactly the kinds of high-minded incivility that is a hallmark of the religious fundamentalist.

There are those – religious and atheist – who have no problem with this situation: they want to defeat what they see as unacceptable beliefs and practices. However, mutual abusiveness rarely leads to anything more than ideological entrenchment and social discord. Do we really need to add another set of barricades to our divided world?

In any case, civil dialogue can actually shift beliefs and behaviours more than conflictual debates can. Those who have a long experience in interfaith dialogue frequently attest to its transformative potential for deeper self-understanding as well as understanding of the other. Close interfaith relations can create channels of communication that prove invaluable during times when relations between communities are under strain. To give one example, the highly regarded Muslim-Jewish Forum in Hackney comes into its own during times of Israel-Palestinian conflict, preventing violence in the Middle East from spilling over into the streets of London.

If there were more established relations between prominent atheists and Catholic leaders, who knows how the papal visit might have gone? If there were established channels to communicate how disturbing many non-Catholics find, for example, the church’s attitude to Aids in Africa, then there would be less need to shout them from the rooftops. In fact, if there was a more civil conversation then the many Catholics who are opposed to the church’s teachings on contraception could be heard more prominently. Embattled religious groups tend to turn in on themselves, strengthening fundamentalist forces. Maybe a Catholic church that didn’t see itself as at war with atheism would be a Catholic church within which liberal forces could rise.

Of course, there are many atheists and humanists who would have little interest if interfaith dialogue were opened up to them. But there are others who would seize the opportunity. Humanist celebrants, for example, work in many of the same areas as religious leaders and many would welcome the implicit validation of being included in dialogue. With a little imagination, the growing band of atheists who are uncomfortable with the vitriol of militant atheism could be reached out to. In any case, religious-atheist debates are pretty common and it cannot be too much of a stretch to transform public debating into private dialoguing.

Dialogue is not a panacea for the world’s ills. It is, when done properly, a challenging practice that can help us live with difference. Paradoxically, it is this ability to help us live with difference that can actually transform the nature of those differences. Now is the time to extend the practice of dialogue to include those without faith.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.