KEY POINTS:
Three cheers for Ernie Barrington in his call for respect for atheists. I would go further and seek to remove the word from our vocabulary.
Far better that people be defined in terms of what they do believe rather than what they do not. Humanist is a better word for those who believe in human wellbeing but do not source their commitment from a religious base.
Atheism is understood to mean a denial of belief in a particular image of God as supernatural creator. Richard Dawkins' thesis that there is no proof of such a being as a scientifically verifiable entity is quite correct.
In terms of the existence of such a being, an atheist is construed as a non-believer, an agnostic as one who feels it cannot be proved one way or the other. By that measure, I regard myself as an agnostic.
To seek proof of the existence of God in scientific terms is a category mistake. Much of the language of the Bible is to be read in categories of poetry and image, not as a scientific textbook.
The concept of God is linked to timeless realities of human existence, such as compassion, reconciliation and relationship.
Barrington highlights the difficulty of leading a funeral service in a church context. It is always helpful when those who died indicated the type of service preferred.
One of the biggest challenges for clergy is in a situation where a family say they are not religious but want a service in a church because they want something that will address underlying questions such as the understanding of life and death, and how to come to terms with grief or the trauma of sudden death.
Such trauma is accentuated in the case of the untimely death of someone who is young, and questions of "Why?" arise.
In such circumstances people are seeking insights on matters that are broadly spiritual in nature, even if those insights are not expressed in the categories of traditional religious belief. As an example, a man dying of cancer told me he was an atheist in terms of traditional views of God, but that as he reflected on life he felt part of something bigger than himself, and this gave him comfort.
In such a context the expression by Prime Minister Helen Clark of a desire for a National Diversity Statement takes on added meaning. We live in a society where the affirmation of belief, be it religious or non-religious, is important, but the nature of that belief is not uniform.
Neither the suppression of belief, nor a search for some bland amalgam that satisfies no one, is a viable solution.
The proposed diversity statement seeks to affirm the rights of all New Zealanders to hold such religious, philosophical or humanist world-views which are theirs by conviction, to hold them without threat or attack, and to hold them in a way that does not threaten or attack the rights of others.
The statement is being developed by a small group of religious and human rights leaders as a basis for discussion, and is part of the broader search for inter-faith understanding being pursued at this time by Asian and Pacific nations.
Attacks on Jewish graves and Islamic mosques make such a statement timely as a reminder of what we aspire to as a nation.
The issue of the parliamentary prayer is also under review, as is the nature of the prayers used at Anzac Day services.
As a church leader I feel uncomfortable leading prayers in public that have an exclusively Christian ending, thus excluding people of other faiths.
There are prayers that are couched in more inclusive language, as well as a variety of other writings of an aspirational nature, that can catch the spirit of those values we share in common as New Zealanders.
* Richard Randerson is Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell, and assistant Anglican bishop of Auckland. He is a member of the drafting group of the proposed National Diversity Statement.
