A few days ago, I was busily engaged in other matters at home, and was listening with ‘half an ear’ to the evening news. My attention was then, quite suddenly, drawn to an item on the news concerning a town council in Devon, and the objections of one ex-councillor to the practice of holding prayers before a council meeting. His objections prompted discussions among the members of the council and were eventually over-ruled. All this has now resulted in the National Secular Society (NSS) taking the matter to the High Court, on the grounds that the holding of prayers, as an integral part of council meetings, breaches the human rights of those who do not wish to take part. The case was heard by Mr Justice Ouseley, who gave his judgement to the effect that prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. However, he said prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.

The judgement was being seen as a test case which could affect local councils across England and Wales. Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers as practised by Bideford Town Council had been unlawful because there was no statutory power permitting them to continue. The judge acknowledged the case did raise issues of general public importance and gave the council permission to appeal.

The NSS, which said prayers had no place in ‘a secular environment concerned with civic business’, argued the ‘inappropriate’ ritual breached articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual’s right to freedom of conscience and not to face discrimination. The case, however, was not won on human rights grounds, but on a point of statutory construction of local government legislation.

The councillor who raised the issue was an atheist, and, with no question raised as to his sincerity or integrity, he had argued that the place for prayers was in church, and not at council meetings. He had resigned from the council because the council’s decisions had gone against him.

My first reaction on hearing this news item was that here was news of another attack on God, and God’s territory, and further evidence of movement towards the greater secularisation of society.

Since listening to this report, I have thought further about the matters raised within this Devon council. To my way of thinking, it seems common sense to argue that, should the council continue to hold prayers before their deliberations, (in the absence, perhaps, of those who object), then one of two scenarios is bound to be true:

a) If the council meeting was NOT the place for prayers before the discussions that were to follow, then the members had wasted perhaps a couple of minutes in asking God for help with what was to follow. Certainly no bad thing could come of it.

b) If it should be found to be right that prayers were an advisable course of action, and that their offering could only result in God’s help, then certainly no one could reasonably argue that supplication had been a waste of time and effort, and asking for God’s help could only result in good for the meeting, the councillors and the results for the whole community.

 However, in all of this there are surely much wider issues at stake. I refer to the question of ‘atheism’, which lies at the root of these discussions.

The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12) on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as “[those who are] without God”.

 ‘Atheism’, a word that comes originally from the Greek word ‘ATHEOS’, meaning ‘without god’, is defined in a broad sense as the rejection of belief in the existence of any deity – that there is no such thing as a supreme being – that no deities exist. People who follow this philosophy – and most are sincere in their beliefs – tend to be sceptical of all supernatural claims and argue that there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a god – or gods.

The question of the existence of evil, is used as one of their strong points, arguing that, given that evil exists in the world we know, then this ‘flies in the face’ of all that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, god would stand for – for such a god would stand for good against evil and destroy it at source. Then there is the argument from inconsistent philosophies – the widely differing and contrasting views held by the different religions, theologians and other authorities – the argument being that one religious argument defeats another, and, certainly, not all the differing views held, can be correct. The safe way then is stand back and reserve judgement. Thirdly, there is the argument from the standpoint of ‘non-belief’. The premise of the argument is that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against god’s existence.

Overall, it would seem that, perhaps, a majority of atheists hold to the view that it is not for them to show that a supreme being does not exist; rather it is for the believer to show that there is evidence for his existence.

 Going back to the two scenarios described under discussions on the council meetings, I think there is room for a projection of the two possible outcomes, to the basic question of atheism:

1. Take first the unbeliever. He does not believe in the existence of a supreme being – a god to whom people can pray and ask for help in their lives. There is no one ‘up there’ that can help in any way, and when we die, as die we all must, then there is nothing – no further existence – no supernatural life – no heaven (or hell) – and certainly no life of happiness to anticipate. Everything comes to a complete nothingness – the largest ‘black hole’ one can think of – if you like. He has never said a prayer in his life – in his life, he has not wasted his time on such frippery. But what if this man is wrong – just think about the waste of his whole life, and the possible awful consequence?

 2. Then take the believer. This man has lived a life believing in the existence of God – of a supreme and loving supernatural entity, who has listened to his prayers and who has helped him in his life. Certainly, there will have been difficulties and problems along the way – some of them most upsetting – but with God’s help these have been overcome. When this man comes to die, assuming he has loved God and dies with such love in his heart, he can look forward to a life with God – a life of eternal happiness. OK – assume there is no god – and so this man is then proved to be wrong. If this man is proven wrong and there is no such thing as God, heaven and all the rest; if there is just total blackness, then in reality, he has lost nothing. He has still lived a good life, helping others, doing the right thing, and that cannot be a bad thing.

 To my oft-befuddled brain, there is only one winner here – and it’s not the first man. He started the race, giving himself no chance of winning – and just consider the value of the prize lost for coming nowhere in this most important race. The worrying aspect, you may agree, is that this is the position chosen by all too many people in the increasingly secular British society of today – and, perhaps, of most of the ‘developed’ western world. OK, the atheist councillor had his say – as was his right – and the High Court has upheld his position. But, at what cost, I wonder?