Fraser on Thought for the Day

I'm not convinced by Giles Fraser's arguments as to why atheists shouldn't be allowed on Thought for the Day. His basic points seem to be:

• contributors need to be respectful but because atheism is purely negative doctrine, atheist contributors will, necessarily, insult the religious viewpoint;
• that the existence of a particular thesis does not require the broadcast of its antithesis;
• that atheists only want to be able to contribute because they are aping the religious;
• that atheists are individuals, while clerics and vicars represent billions of believers.

None of these concerns seem to stand up to even a cursory examination.

It is not necessarily the case that, because atheism is define in terms of its disbelieve in God, that is necessarily going to adopt an attitude designed to insult the religious. I rather think that any good contributor would try to emphasize the moral and rational aspects of atheism, demonstrating that it is possible to be a good — a better? — person despite not believing in God.

While not every argument requires a counter-argument, it is not clear religious thought falls into this category given the extent of, and influence granted to, religious beliefs. Merely by being allowed to express a particular moral viewpoint on a regular basis, believers are able to undermine the idea that it is quite possible to live a moral, valuable, fulfilled life without a belief in God. Therefore, an atheist counter is required in order to provide a balanced view of what it means to be an autonomous moral agent.

While it is undeniably true that individual atheists disagree with each other, it is equally true that many religious believers disagree with each other — after all, Fraser himself famously said, "Evangelicals have misunderstood the Bible. They turn it into some bloody Ikea manual." So it is clearly not the case that believers represent a unified, single tradition, even with a single religion like Christianity. That individuals disagree with each other on some points does not prevent them from holding some views in common and should not disqualify them from speaking about them in public.

In my view, Thought for the Day should be just that: a thought. A place where both atheists and believers can investigate what it means to be moral, to lead a good life, to be human. Those who want Fraser's moment of gentle (but religious!) reflection can still have it simply by waking up in time to catch Prayer for the Day.