Atheism on stage, review play On stage

door FLoris van den Berg

Review of On Religion seen in Theatre de Poche,

Brussels

Belgium

February 16^th, 2008

Much of religious ceremony is theatre. A Christian celebration is a participatory drama, like an opera with colorful costumes and over-the-top symbolism. Atheism has always been a cerebral activity, mostly of armchair philosophers. With the play On Religion atheism comes on stage.

Director Mick Gordon experiments with ‘theatrical essays’ which ‘explore fundamental preoccupations of modern life’. ‘On Religion’ is one of these theatrical essays. Gordon invited philosopher Anthony Grayling to co-author the play.

 

The play would have been completely different if Gordon had, for example, invited Roger Scruton or John Gray. Gordon, courageously, has invited the atheist, humanist, philosopher Anthony Grayling. To accompany On Religion, a selection of Grayling’s essays about religion has been published: Against all Gods.

 

The play is neutrally called On religion, but ‘against religion’ would better describe the content. The play is about Grace and her family: Tony, her husband, Tom her son, and Ruth, her son’s fiancée. Grace is a staunch non-believer, who dislikes to be called atheist because it is a concept which is negatively dependent on god; she prefers to be called naturalist.

 

The play is framed within a scientific experiment in which neurologists try to induce in Grace a religious experience. But, alas, it doesn’t work for her. Grace is a scientific naturalist who thinks all religion is dangerous and infamous nonsense. It comes to a great shock when her son announces he wants to become an Anglican priest. Grace can’t understand why her son makes this decision. When she asks him explicitly about his reasons for this leap of faith, he cannot give a coherent answer. Tom says people just want religion and cannot do without, he wants to have a better, more liberal religion.

 

The family represents an interesting part of the scale of belief-nonbelief. It runs from Grace, the ‘atheist’ on the one end, to her son Tom, the liberal believer on the other. In between is Tony, Grace’s husband, who is a secular, atheist Jew, who doesn’t care all that much about religion, but he doesn’t see the point in taking atheism too seriously either. He is more pragmatic. Shockingly, against his wife’s will he had his baby son circumcised to prevent ‘embarrassment in the bathroom’. Ruth, Tom’s fiancée, is agnostic. She doesn’t know for sure whether or not god exists. When Ruth turns out to be pregnant, Tom and she discuss how they should raise their children. Ruth insists that Tom should not impose his religion on their children. Tom considers his religion to be part of his identity and as something of fundamental importance. They cannot reach agreement. The story has a dramatic turn because Tom is killed ‘just because he was there’; presumably by the bombings in

London

by Islamic terrorists. Ruth and Grace quarrel about the funeral. Tom had stated he wanted a religious service. Grace is pertinently against it and strongly prefers a nonreligious private funeral. The quarrel ends in a split up between Ruth and Grace for two years. When they finally meet again, Ruth speaks about the importance of kindness. Though Grace is unable to make apologies, they reconcile.

 

The moral of the story is that human kindness is fundamental and essential for the good life and a good and just society. And, of course that religion, even in its liberal form, is completely bullocks. There is a lot of philosophy in the play: the major arguments pro and contra religion are well presented and it should be overwhelmingly clear that religious moral and epistemological claims cannot stand rational scrutiny. The dialogues reminds me of the Socratic dialogues by Plato. The theatrical setting makes philosophy come to life.

 

Will this play play a positive role in the public discussion on atheism and religion? Will people gain understanding and even loose their religion during the performance? On the one hand I doubt it that this play will have such a direct impact, but the play is part of modern culture.

 

Atheism is out. There is a flood of New Atheism books, of which Dawkins’ The God Delusion is prominent. Atheism is also on the internet; stand up comedian Pat Condell for example, posts vidcasts with spoken ‘atheistic sermons’ on YouTube and reaches an audience that is usually out of reach of the philosophical literature on atheism. And Dawkins’ documentary The Root of All Evil, is also part of this New Atheism culture.

 

Religion in its diverse representations still has a strong hold on the lives of many people and is a hindrance to individual freedom and wellbeing for many. And, equally important, religion is just not true. A lively cultural scene of atheism and, more importantly, humanism can, hopefully, help to overcome religion.

Comments

[Geplaatst door: klaas de vries]

ik heb een boek(je) geschreven (als atheist): EINDE VAN TERRORISME, ALLEEN ZO MOGELIJK. IK WIL ADRESSEN OM HET NAARTOE TE STUREN VOOR COMMENTAAR.WIE ZOU ME DAARBIJ KUNNEN HELPEN? Heel graag antwoord!
Ik woon nu nog in het buitenland en hoop als ik dit jaar terug kom voor mijn stichting te gaan werken. , Klaas deVries.