The God issue
Is the Divine dead? In this special issue, we weigh up the evidence. And
By Andrew Marr Published 31 January 2008We agreed to disagree, God and I, more than 30 years ago. I concluded that He was a metaphor, He begged to differ, and things went downhill after that. Yet for all I've led a secular life in a country regularly described as the least religious in the world, God takes some shaking off. His teams say He is omnipresent and though I don't agree, He has quite a property portfolio, many voluble cheerleaders and, if official statistics mean anything, the tacit support of most of the country. Then there are churches! The minarets! That slot on the Today programme . . . If God is a metaphor, He's a pretty noisy one.
The last census showed that more than 72 per cent of British people called themselves Christian, around 3 per cent Muslim (it will be more by now) and half a per cent Jewish; so that's more than three-quarters for the Sky-God, as Gore Vidal puts it, or the Abrahamics. Just under 15 per cent said they had no religion, and just under 8 per cent ignored the question, being either so secular that they didn't get it, or perhaps people who think God disapproves of questionnaires.
Now, of course plenty of the three-quarters only mean they quite like humming the songs, or feel sentimental when they roll up to see Fiddler on the Roof. They are religious in the way that someone who has bought a pair of trainers is an athlete. They might be mildly offended by the New Atheism, the broadsides of Richard Dawkins, A C Grayling or Christopher Hitchens, but not enough to turn up and listen to a vicar putting the other side. The 2005 Church Survey, assessing the size of congregations in the country's 37,000 churches, reckoned that only 6.3 per cent of people showed up regularly. A thousand people joined a church each week, but 2,500 left one.
Behind the raw figures, there is plenty of change. Driving back from work on a Sunday, I pass big groups of black kids outside church, clutching their Bibles. The decline in attendance has slowed only because of immigrants: more Poles boost Catholic churches, and yes, in inner London, for instance, less than half the churchgoers are white. Above all, there is the rise in British Islam, both in visibility and numbers.
Much of this is a familiar story for the modern British. The Church of England suffered one of its most precipitous periods of decline from 1935-45 and overall church attendance after the Second World War was boosted by immigrant Irish and refugee Poles. The rise in the Catholic Church has been a long, slow curve, not a recent burst.
Crazy about moderation
What has really changed is God in the public culture. He may still be in the Garden, in private places, but think of Britain in the 1940s and 1950s. Think of the influence of religious poets (T S Eliot, the later Auden), of religious art and architecture (the rebuilding of Coventry Cathedral), of religious music (Britten's hymns, Missa Brevis and carols) and of religious writers such as C S Lewis, and it's clear that Christianity at least has moved from a powerful cultural position to a marginal one. Add to that the saturating influence of hymn and psalm settings and the near-ubiquity of church weddings and funerals, and you see a really big change. Go a little further back and think of Victorian Britain: a much smaller population and churches which now seem ludicrously large and empty.
I think it is simply because the once-dominant church, the Anglican one, and for that matter the Church of Scotland, in which I grew up, were simply never as aggressive and authoritarian as the Catholic Church, or any variety of Islam. This is a watery, temperate country with a long and soundly based suspicion of intensity. Apart from Northern Ireland, the last time the British were really intense about religion was in the 17th century. If you want to imagine what the civil wars were like for many villages and towns, with neighbours killing neighbours and families dividing, think of the Sunni-Shia war in Iraq, or the worst of times in the post-Yugoslavia Balkans. Oh, and we had our Taliban, too, from John Knox's version in Scotland to the statue-smashers and dance police of Cromwellian England. The misogyny that allows Muslim women to be stoned or beaten for alleged sexual transgressions is vile, as vile as our one-time relish for roasting witches. Though no one knows the real figures, it is thought that some 40,000 women were killed here in the "burning times".
Somehow, the folk memories remain for longer than his torians acknowledge. It's less that the British are irreligious, or even secular, though many of us are. It's not that the Brit-ish are hostile to God. It's that they are hostile to fervour, to fanaticism, to taking anything, even the Meaning of Life, too seriously. It's a lesson learned long ago, the hard way, and never quite forgotten. And it gets more important, not less. A small, crowded place, the world's island, can't afford assertive, flaming certainties. Something, or somebody, might catch fire.
It's important to try to rein in Muslim extremists. It matters that more level-headed imams gain ground. For a country in a world that will depend on science to get us through hard times ahead, it is vital not to equate creationism with Darwinism, or to allow any religious group to dictate to others how they live their lives. But as people come here, and live here, and look around and wonder about God and the British, the real prize is to persuade them just to calm down. He may be among us. Or, as I think, He may not. (I take no pleasure in that, by the way: praise, in the sense of drinking in the delight of life, is good, and asking, "What's it all for?" is inevitable. Wondering about death is, too, and communal singing is a wonderful thing. It's just the facts I have trouble with.)
But either way, if God is still with the British, He will be quiet, understated, embarrassed by enthusiasm, and no supporter of violence, or even violent words. Some think God is a bright-eyed woman; others think He is a local and shy affair, fluvial, bosky and - in Louis MacNeice's phrase - incorrigibly plural. Over time, I think, His property portfolio will shrink and He will quit any involvement with the state, and a good thing, too. But the problem isn't God. The problem is anger.
Andrew Marr hosts a Sunday morning TV show on BBC1 and Radio 4's Start the Week. His next book will be a history of modern Britons from 1900-45
A brief history of God
1200BC Zoroastrians in ancient Persia begin to speak of a single, unchanging God
1200-400BC Judaism develops as a faith in one God for a single, chosen people
4thc BC Plato describes "the divine creator" as the highest and most perfect being
1stc AD In Palestine, Jesus preaches that there is one God - the Father - and he is His son
325AD The Nicene Creed defines Christian belief in the Trinity
613AD In Arabia, Muhammad preaches that Allah is the one eternal, transcendent God
1517AD Martin Luther's teachings begin the Protestant Reformation
1882AD Friedrich Nietzsche announces that "God is dead"
1900sAD Sigmund Freud describes God as a projection of the mind
Research by Aditi Charanji
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


30 comments
As Nietsche said 'religion is the greatest method for leading Man by the nose'.
Andrew
Your article has inspired the usual comments from the usual type of people. I think the problem is that you consider religious belief to be seperate from belief in general. It is no different to any other irrational belief whether that belief is political, scientific, philisophical, alien abduction or a second gunman on the grassy knoll, etc. It is belief itself that poses a danger to the life of the individual as witnessed by Hitler, Stalin or any other madman. Religion is just another aspect of a dangerous human condition.
How very self-satisfied. Funny that relatively speaking, we spend more than anyone else on the planet on the killing business. Perhaps it is because we are so satisfied and sure of our superiority (indeed a shared trait of this club).
http://peaceandwisdom.org
Pah. Andrew Marr is the Jackie Ashley of British journalism!
The rumours of God`s death are greatly exaggerated. God`s teams understand that God is omniscient as well as omnipresent and omnipotent. The Creator of the Universe has seen fit in Its wisdom to symbolize Its attribute of divine omniscience with the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God'.
See - http://media.skyandtelescope.com/images/Totality_Carlos_Kern_01_l.jpg
The total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' symbolically looked down from the heavens on southern England and Europe on August 11th, 1999. Unfortunately heavy cloud obscured the view of this bona fide 'Sign In The Heavens'. Six months from now, on August 1st 2008, the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' will appear in the skies above northern China, Mongolia, Russia (Siberia) and the Arctic regions including north western Greenland and some of Canada's Arctic Islands.
See - http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEmono/TSE2008/TSE2008.html
I am proposing that human beings should observe a World Day of Conscience whenever the total solar eclipse 'Eye of God' makes an appearance in the skies above our planet. Please see the World Day of Conscience blog for more information about this proposal.
http://worlddayofconscience.blogspot.com
As a Jew who has studied Jewish history for many years, the above timeline does not fit with Jewish understanding regarding it's origin and development. A Jewish perspective would read a closer rounded number of 1800-425 B.C.E It is even off by about a hundred years too late for the concensus of receiving the Torah by Moses at Sinai, which was definitely not the beginning of Judaism. While the wording in the above timeline states "Judaism developed from...,etc. a cursory glance would tend to see that date as the origin, rather than a reaffirmation and renewal of the covenant nation in it's emancipation from the bondage of polytheism, idolatry to man/gods and a culture obsessed with the afterlife as well as from their physical bondage.
A more commonly accepted timeline for Jewish history regarding it's origins and development may be viewed at http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_Histor...
or from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/context.html
In addition, I wish to note that the use of the word Palestine to refer to Judea in the !st century CE is controversial at best.
According to Thomas McCall, the name "Palestine" was not used until the early second century CE. The Romans continued the use of Judea and called the northern regions Galilee. McCall wrote: "When Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Roman government struck a coin with the phrase 'Judea Capta,' meaning Judea has been captured. The term Palestine was never used in the early Roman designations." 3 After Bar Kochba's unsuccessful second Jewish revolt against Rome in 135 CE, Emperor Hadrian ordered that all Jews be exiled from the Holy Land. "He took the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, Latinized it to Palestine, and applied it to the Land of Israel. He hoped to erase the name Israel from all memory."
Some sources claim an even later common usage origin to the early 4th century. I cannot find any reference dating to the first century calling the Holy Land by the Latinized reference to the Phillistines of Palestine.
Dear dratsie
I have spent the last 20 years of my life considering what life is all about and the effect balance plays in it.
Your comments are not thought through properly and come from a scientific bias.
When you talk in a less then glowing term about religion remember that religion is not responsible for global warming - as science is not responsible for continuous human conflict
This is fine as life comprises of opposites (as I mentioned) and is the means by which learning is obtained - even scientific learning!.
How else can quantifiable information be evaluated. So keep up the good work of biased and limited opinion - we all learn from this.
I'm not so much concerned with what type of "God" but what his/her purpose is, which answers for me the who what and why - try this for size:
Suppose at the beginning of time there was only Intelligence – and nothing else!
Who is it - What is it?
Who knows - because there is nothing else with which it can compare? As comparison is the only means by which measurement, analysis, knowledge and understanding are achieved, what is to be done?
By its very nature intelligence is inquisitive. So how does this Intelligence begin the mighty task of establishing who and what it is all about?
The answer I would suggest is to “Create” an infinite number of different aspects of it. Through the experiences created by these differing aspects interacting with each other in a constantly changing environment, this Intelligence can gradually build up a picture of who and what it is and its capabilities. "Balance" is the means by which this information is created, assessed, retained, refined or discarded.
This is my personal slant on what Science refers to as “The Big Bang” and Religion calls Creation, in which a vast amount of energy was applied to an immense task of investigation and understanding.
As time has passed many and various aspects that have been created have been retained, refined or obsoleted, depending upon “what works” and “what does not work” in a process of comparison and balance that we call Evolution.
If we look at the shark for example, it reached perfection millions of years ago. It continues to operate within this thing called life without seeming to endanger the subtle balances in its own environment – it works!
Conversely the internal combustion engine reached perfection 100 years ago and through its interaction with the atmosphere is now contributing to unsettling the balance of the environment. This imbalance cannot be remedied unless it is obsoleted, or dramatically changed from its present form – it doesn’t work!
These two examples have one thing in common – their ability to function within an integrated and evolving universe – a “living and working” universe - and in so doing add another piece to the vast jigsaw puzzle that is Creation.
Similar experiences on every new and diverse aspect of life are generated continuously as this “Intelligence” goes about the business of gaining knowledge and understanding. Evolution is the direct result of this generation of information, which also fuels new experience and knowledge.
Ancient (and modern) Wisdoms extol us to “live in the present”. The past and future are two aspects of life over which we have no control. If the purpose of life is to experience then the past has served its purpose and the future is waiting to do its job. By living in the present we too fulfil our role as elements of this Intelligence, experiencing every moment of our lives to the full.
Time (in human years) offers some idea of the magnitude of the task, and the miniscule and detailed level of understanding that is sought. It is at this point that I find human values are totally inadequate to try and even begin to estimate the magnitude of information gathering that is going on and the manner in which it is happening. However the simplicity of this description of what life is all about answers for me the “paradox, pain and perfection” that is life.
"The last census showed that more than 72 per cent of British people called themselves Christian,"
I can't vouch for the other religions in the UK, but it's my experience that that many British people consider Christianity to mean 'British' and therefore are Christian by default if they're British (unless they're another 'foreign' religion).
So the fact the 70% consider themselves Christian is no way surprising. Ask how many of them are actively religious (ie go to church once in a while, even if only at Christmas) then you'll get another result altogether.
The 'natural parameters' of Nature which determine, for instance, how strong gravity is, cannot (strangely) be calculated. But in fact they have been set exactly so as to make the Universe fit for living things to exist in. If they were a bit bigger or smaller the universe would be a complete wreck or at any rate uninhabitable.
In consequence, being open-minded, I deduce the obvious - the universe was devised by an external 'rational designer' which must ever lie beyond our understanding and is unlikely to have any animal characteristics or to have identified with any of the thousands of Deities that human animals believe in.