I had the pleasure of seeing the Blind Boys of Alabama at the Grand Opera House last week, and what a show it was. The only negative point about the night was the rather odd Argentinian guitarist & Irish accordion player duo singing songs mostly in Spanish, prompting my rather bigoted father to remark, “For God’s sake is that why we fought the Falklands War, so these cunts could come to our country and make us listen to their music? 25 years ago we’d have shot that guitarist!” As you might have gathered from that quote, he didn’t care much for the support act.
But then on came the Blind Boys. Four of us went: my atheist father, my new age mother, my devout Christian grandmother, and me: a cautious theist. A pretty diverse bunch. And to the credit of the Blind Boys we all loved it. From the start it was superb. Jimmy Carter is the leader of the bunch, a man as old as my grandmother who had as much energy as I do. What made them so fantastic was more than just the music.
In Britain apparently 1 in 5 people has a registered disability. That’s absolutely shocking - and surely tells us something of the proportion of British people who are bloody liars! You see, when you have a disability you get all manner of nice government hand-outs and benefits and I personally know a number of people registered as disabled for ailments I can’t detect. The Blind Boys (4 out of 7 of them are blind) don’t ask for pity or sympathy because of their disability. I’ve seen people with lesser disabilities moan and whinge about their lot, about how hard life has been to them. Not so the Blind Boys. They don’t do self-pity. For them their disability is seen as a blessing, and even a source of humour. Getting up from his chair and reaching for his microphone Jimmy Carter had wandered slightly sideways and was left groping aimlessly in the air before finally laying his hands on it and remarking (with an Alabama accent that made it all the more humorous): “Well, I suppose that means you all know I can’t see. No hidin’ it now.” They’re a great example of disabled people getting on with their lives, enjoying themselves, and supporting themselves without the need for hand-outs. They certainly put 1 in 5 British people to shame.
Not only are the Blind Boys fantastic musicians and vocalists, they also know that they are and aren’t afraid of saying so. But, somehow it never comes across as arrogance. The only thing that irks me more than brazen arrogance is false humility - which seems to infect much of the music industry these days. The Blind Boys have a remarkable genuine humility blended wonderfully with a massive dose of self-confidence. Telling us all how great they are at singing, Jimmy Carter quips: “Blind Boys don’t brag. They just state facts.” They are great singers: fact. So, I guess Jimmy would be right on the money there.
As you may know the Blind Boys are also unashamedly religious, but they are so without many of the excesses of modern day Christianity. They aren’t preachy. They never tell you that you’re going to hell for disagreeing. Their gospel message is one of joy - a joy that springs from a sure faith in God, and a delight that one day they’ll sing for Him in heaven (no doubt informing God about just how good they are: stand aside angels and arch-angels, eh?). All they want to do is make people happy. Jimmy Carter announces from the start: “All we want is for you to go home feeling uplifted.” Their theology might come across as a little bit trite at times: “no matter what trouble is going on in the world, God is in control,” but they aren’t theologians. The manner of their religious expression has a far greater impact than any amount of traditional preaching. No matter how clichéd their religious pronouncements sometimes sound you’re more inclined to agree because of the manner in which it’s said. The aurora of joy and peace that surrounds them is something that I rarely see these days. Disagree with what they say, but they make you smile when they say it. And that’s a rare gift.
This joy and happiness that the Blind Boys exude also jars with the manner of many of our “New Atheists,” and reminds me of one of the problems I see in that movement. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens get labelled “atheist fundamentalists,” and not without good reason. They tend to share many of the same character traits as the worst religious fundamentalists, including the often shrill and manic nature of many of their pronouncements. And just like religious fundamentalists they make little effort to understand the object of their criticism: for instance Dawkins’ intellectually pedestrian book “The God Delusion” shows little more understanding of religion than you would expect from a High School student of Religious Education. And often they aren’t motivated by anything other than hatred of the other side: a fact beautifully illustrated by Christopher Hitchens who calls anyone with any hint of religion about them evil or stupid or both. Frankly, he’s a horrible little man and his manner turns me off greatly. They strike me as terribly bitter, men with nothing to offer humanity other than vitriolic damnations of all who disagree. It seems as if they have lost any belief in progress and purpose to life and are simply bitter at those who still have some vision of good, some sense of meaning and purpose. They need to smile a bit more. Is atheism something that cannot be enjoyed? Looking to the current crop of “New Atheists” I’d have to say that’s true.
And it is this that “New Atheism” would need to capture. They need to move far beyond their rather unimpressive critique of religion that’s long on polemic and short on decent arguments. They need to give humanity something more positive, something to live for, something to give people meaning and purpose to their lives. Something to be celebrated. Disagree with every religion on earth, but there’s no denying that religion excels as providing this to people. What will “New Atheists” offer humanity in place of religion? Hitchens offers: “Probably the most daunting task that we face, as partly rational animals with adrenal glands that are too big and prefrontal lobes that are too small, is the contemplation of our own relative weight in the scheme of things…the awareness that our death is coming and will be succeeded by the death of the species and the heat death of the universe is scant comfort.” Is that it? It doesn’t mean atheism is false, but if it’s true and if this is the best it’s defenders can offer then it’s pretty bad news for humanity.
One might be forgiven for thinking that such an over-the-top crusade against religion is a ruse: a way for “New Atheists” to avoiding any reflection on the lack of popular appeal of their own agenda, with their revelling in causing offence to religious people bordering on the self-indulgent. And I think people will soon tire of it. What next for them?
Anyway, who would I rather sit in the pub and have a pint with? I’d choose the Blind Boys any day over fundamentalist Christians - who wouldn’t go to a pub anyway - and fundamentalist atheists with little sense of joy and purpose, who’d probably sit and sneer at everyone else until someone throws them out for boring the tits off everyone. The Blind Boys are sure. The Blind boys are happy. And that sense of happiness is wonderfully infectious. They have a sense of meaning and purpose to their lives that I envy, and they absolutely delight in it.
The high point of their concert was “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “House of the Rising Sun.” One of the lines of Amazing Grace says: “I once was lost, but now I’m found; Was blind, but now I see.”
And that sums up the Blind Boys of Alabama: they’re blind, but they sure as hell can see.
Stephen
14 responses so far ↓
1 Quinney // Nov 4, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Although I’m an atheist I love the Blind Boys, I remember hearing Run On a few years ago, before Moby made a chopped up version with a dance beat. Great spunk and a great attitude…. even if it does come from an illogical worldview!
2 Stephen // Nov 5, 2007 at 1:58 am
Since I’m a theist I guess my beliefs are closer to their than yours are, but I still disagree with a lot of what they said. What was marvellous was that they made me smile even though I disagreed. Disagreement doesn’t normally cause that reaction in me. I would walk past street preachers yelling out tired old cliches and feel annoyed and a serious dislike of them. But the Blind Boys make you like them regardless. My father is an atheist and he LOVED them. I’ve never thought Christian music was up to much, but the Blind Boys are an exception. When I watched and listened to them I found myself wishing I had that joy, that sense of purpose and meaning. Alas, I don’t.
S.
3 WTK55 // Nov 5, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Someone at libertarian reason has a heart? Amazing! Warm, Stephen.
4 Stephen // Nov 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Thanks. But I may remove it for my next article,
S.
5 Dave Powell // Nov 6, 2007 at 8:50 am
Some people may take the “life is ultimately meaningless” point of view that some atheists give as depressing. I don’t - I think we need to give life our own meaning - because that is the only meaning there is.
It may not make them popular, but I’m sure they don’t see it as their job to give other peoples lives meaning.
Having said that though - maybe if they want people to listen more to what they have to say then they do need to offer an alternative. Isn’t that what secular humanists like Paul Kurtz try to do though?
Some other new writers have tried to push this respectful disagreement view as well, such as Stephen Gibson who believes we should be engaging the religious movements in discussion around areas where we agree.
“New” Atheism is still a fairly new phenomenon and people have been unused to this level of public discourse on fundamental beliefs that they hold, so people are still trying to define the battle lines and find ways to move this discussion forward. I think Dawkins has recognised this in the way he now conducts himself in interviews.
I must admit though – I do enjoy hearing Hitchens speak. I might not agree with all he says, but he’s good at winding people up.
With regard to the music - i’m not averse to a bit of christian music. My Twin brother is a born again christian and plays in a christian pop/rock band. Not exactly my taste - but its bearable untill people start raising their arms which I find a bit cringe worthy - especially when they are white and middle class for some reason.
6 Harlem44 // Nov 6, 2007 at 10:01 am
HA I’m really enjoying this conversation, because it’s such a clash of culture, I personally love The Hitch for his calm damnations of people and his total honesty, I think we need more of it,
I honestly think that people like The Hitch don’t have to offer any alternative, what if he’s right? Should he not say it in case the Blind Boys have a better message?
7 John // Nov 6, 2007 at 11:25 am
Well I’ll certainly weigh in on this. I do like Hitchens and Dawkins. I disagree with their ultimate conclusions but agree wholeheartedly with much of what they say along the way.
I must admit I’m not huge on atheists ‘appealing’ to theists’ sense of purpose any more than I’m a libertarian who cares to appeal to socialists’ sense of collectivism: the style with which this blog advances libertarianism is actually rather similar, it seems to me, to the style with which Hitchens and Dawkins advance atheism: it doesn’t intend to dress up, sugarcoat, or make the message more attractive - it advances the message by sheer, brutal, honest, aggressive rationale.
In this sense I agree with Dave that I don’t think it is the job of atheists to tell anyone what the purpose of life is: the message is simply “There is no God, deal with it whichever way works for you. And yet again it might be worth appealing to an individualist approach: come up with your own purpose.
However, this doesn’t mean that there is no use in adopting a different, more palatable style to appeal to people whose worldview is diametrically different to your own. Apparently you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And I know that, for Stephen, his critique of Dawkins and Hitchens is the lack of logically coherent arguments they utilise: here on this blog we proceed by argument and use polemic, as Stephen says the new atheists rely on polemic and avoid real argument. That’s their mistake, if you ask me, not the style of their message or the fact that they don’t give people reason to live.
8 Stephen // Nov 6, 2007 at 2:22 pm
DAVE:
Thanks for your comments. I don’t think there’s any coherence in the notion that “we need to give life our own meaning - because that is the only meaning there is.” I honestly don’t know what this actually means. Here’s my position: Life IS meaningless. Your life doesn’t matter a great deal, and nor does mine. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow it really doesn’t matter. What I loved about the Blind Boys was that they made me forget that fact for 90 minutes last week and that’s why I was drawn to them. I envy them for their belief that life has meaning and purpose, and for the joy that belief gives them. I don’t have that because I think life is devoid of meaning altogether - and that from someone who believes in God.
My point of contrast between the Blind Boys and New Atheists was that the former have an incredibly attractive manner. The latter bore me. Their arguments are tired, their manner boring, and their entire aurora a turn-off. They don’t make me want to listen to them. I’ve heard enough.
I agree that Dawkins manner is changing, and that’s a positive thing. I think part of the reason is the thumping he’s taken from theists and atheists much smarter than him over his intellectually pedestrian God Delusion book.
As for Hitchens, he’s good at winding people up, but what purpose does that have? He’s not remotely thought-provoking, and his literary offers on the subject much worse than what Dawkins gives. Frankly I’d cheer if I woke up tomorrow and found out he’d been hit by a bus. He’s a blob of humanity than which none lesser can be conceived.
HARLEM:
“The Hitch”?????
JOHN:
I agree that this blog, and many of my own articles, are similar in style. But, are we doing nothing more than preaching to the converted and trying to offend opponents for it’s own sake? That’s not what I’m trying to do. Shouldn’t I also appeal to socialists?
But, I digress. My point of comparing the two isn’t to say the Blind Boys are right and atheists are wrong. The point was that the Blind Boys made me listen to their message. New Atheists are a bit tiresome, like Christian fundamentalists. I’ve heard it all before and they’re still a million miles away from persuading me of their case. They’re turning themselves into an irrelevance. Fine by me. I have yet to find a single atheist who could tell me just what is meant to be persuasive about The God Delusion. Perhaps Dave might have a go.
What I loved about the Blind Boys was that for a short time they made me lose sight of the fact that my life is utterly devoid of meaning and purpose. Their happiness and joy rubbed off on me if only for little over an hour and a half. Now, a few people have spoken here of making your own purpose and meaning. But, what does that mean? As an egoist I live my life in a way that makes it as pleasant as possible. This isn’t “meaning” or “purpose.” It’s simply a human desire. My life is generally pleasant, but it’s no less devoid of meaning and purpose: there’s no reason why I exist.
S.
9 John // Nov 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Stephen- Indeed, and we’ve heard from people who were critics of our position who’ve been persuaded of it. I don’t think you or I believe that our tone need be particularly evangelistic to accomplish that, though, and I think Hitchens intends to persuade by the same straightforward polemic that we do rather than by any sweetness of style. I find that people can be just as effectively swayed by merciless critique and mocking rationale as by anything else.
On purpose, I think we exist to exist, and the way I choose to do it is to do it as an end to myself: for my own happiness. But I agree with you: there’s probably no greater reason for my existence than to propagate my genetic code - certainly not a discernible one - and therefore not one we could act to enhance or comply with in any way.
I’ve never seen the Blind Boys live, but I know how infectious their peaceful and contented attitude is. Ironically, though, one of my favourite songs was the Blind Boys and Solomon Burke, None Of Us Are Free, a song whose lyrics I disagree with on a fundamental level but which is groovy and mesmerising. (Yes I did just use the word groovy.)
10 JD Davis // Nov 7, 2007 at 5:16 am
Hey look real political news - imagine that ?
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int2.pdf
11 Jon // Nov 7, 2007 at 5:36 am
“I think part of the reason is the thumping he’s taken from theists and atheists much smarter than him over his intellectually pedestrian God Delusion book. ”
Much smarter than him? Or much better informed and capable when talking about this particular topic? I’d be interested in them using their greater ’smartness’ - whatever that is - to teach us about genetics.
Your compadre’s comment below doesn’t suggest Dawkin’s work is quite so moribund…
“…But I agree with you: there’s probably no greater reason for my existence than to propagate my genetic code - certainly not a discernible one - and therefore not one we could act to enhance or comply with in any way.”
12 Stephen // Nov 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm
John:
“I don’t think you or I believe that our tone need be particularly evangelistic to accomplish that, though, and I think Hitchens intends to persuade by the same straightforward polemic that we do rather than by any sweetness of style. I find that people can be just as effectively swayed by merciless critique and mocking rationale as by anything else.”
OK. I think we’re starting to depart from the point of my original article in this regard. I’m simply comparing the manner of the Blind Boys to the manner of the so-called “New Atheists.” Dawkins and Hitchens are way more persuasive than the trite cliched theology of the Blind Boys. No doubt about it. That’s not my point. My point is simply that their style turns a lot of people off - including me. Have you ever seen Hitchens crack a smile? They depress me, and then when I persevere to hear them out I find their arguments aren’t much use either. I disagree with the Blind Boys too, but they make me smile regardless.
I’ve still to hear an atheist give me one good argument fom the God Delusion that should be troubling to a theist’s belief in God.
“On purpose, I think we exist to exist, and the way I choose to do it is to do it as an end to myself: for my own happiness.”
I agree. You and I are egoists, so shouldn’t atheists be egoists too? Maybe Dave could weigh in here.
JON:
Thanks for your comments.
My use of the word smarter: I thought the context made it relatively clear that I was talking about this specific topic. Oh well. Maybe not, in which case you got me there. To clarify: I didn’t mean “smarter generally” I meant “better informed and capable on this topic.” It was a bit sloppy I suppose. Touche.
However, you go on to say: “I’d be interested in them using their greater ’smartness’ - whatever that is - to teach us about genetics.”
Well, that’s because they stick to their area of expertise, no? The God Delusion is not a work of science generally let alone genetics in particular. It’s an attempt - and a pretty bad one - to discuss matters primarily philosophical and theological in nature. And the thumping he has got testifies fairly well to the fact that he’s over-stepped the limits of his expertise. Philosophers such an Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew, Michael Martin, JL Mackie (deceased), never wrote anything about genetics because they’d take a thumping if they did - probably from Dawkins.
I’ve discussed the God Delusion with a number of atheists (including a lengthy debate with Brian McClinton of the Ulster Humanists) and I have yet to find one single argument that should bother theism. I’m not sure if you’re an atheist or not, since I don’t know you, but if you are perhaps you might like to have a go (assuming of course that you’ve read it).
Lastly, I don’t believe Dawkins work generally is moribund…I was talking specifically about the God Delusion. It’s taken quite a pounding.
I actually fully agree with John’s comments that you quoted above (in fact HE was agreeing with ME if you check the context). I’m not sure what relevance it has though to the success or otherwise of Dawkins atheism. Perhaps you might enlighten me further.
Cheers,
S.
13 Quinney // Nov 7, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I agree with Stephen that the quality of Dawkins when he moves to theology is not as great as when he sticks to science. The Blind Watchmaker was a stunning book. He needs to stick to the point! Preach evolution and genetics and biology, and forget this obsession with proving theists wrong. Theists are great fun to argue with but only if you know what your talking about, I and Dawkins do not.
14 ‘The Virtue Of…’ // Feb 28, 2008 at 11:09 am
[…] 11/4/2007 - The Virtue of the Blind Boys (read) […]
Leave a Comment