Print
We need a more intelligent religion debate
by Theo Hobson
Reposted from:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5634
For years I wished that the intelligent media would show a bit more interest in religion. Be careful what you wish for. The resurgence of the discussion of religion has come, sort of, but forgive me for failing to rejoice in it. Now it is Christopher "Hitch" Hitchens' turn to join a new wave of 'religion bashers'. Behold the jowly prophet, staring from endless features and book pages, tremendous in his certainty, unflinching in his regard for his own intellectual courage.
Surely Hitchens is a cut above Richard Dawkins - surely his literary mind has more room for nuance? In many things, yes. In religion, no. The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.
All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism of the kind they espouse is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God irreducibly entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is.
Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, will doubtless come the reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism of this sort is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. It therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.
Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous as far as its latest apostles go. The Graylings', Dawkins' and Hitchens' have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that is hated so much? What is religion? It seems to me that anyone who claims definitively to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally.
Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".
It will be replied that religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals. Well, yes. But also no.
The fact is that the relationship between religion, morality and politics is infinitely various and complex. But the generalising critics insists that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always. It follows that if people shared his or her total rejection of God, then the world would be a better place. The anti-religious person needs to believe this. It provides grounds for hope. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.
So Hitchens calls religion: "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."
Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible. Likewise he grandly pronounces that there are: "... four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is the both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system. And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
This desire to generalise about religion is a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty, 'us good' over 'you bad'. Informed debate deserves better.
-----
Theo Hobson is a freelance writer and theologian. This article is adapted from one of his regular Guardian pieces.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5634
For years I wished that the intelligent media would show a bit more interest in religion. Be careful what you wish for. The resurgence of the discussion of religion has come, sort of, but forgive me for failing to rejoice in it. Now it is Christopher "Hitch" Hitchens' turn to join a new wave of 'religion bashers'. Behold the jowly prophet, staring from endless features and book pages, tremendous in his certainty, unflinching in his regard for his own intellectual courage.
Surely Hitchens is a cut above Richard Dawkins - surely his literary mind has more room for nuance? In many things, yes. In religion, no. The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.
All three are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism of the kind they espouse is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God irreducibly entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is.
Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness? Both, will doubtless come the reply: religion is false and therefore it is harmful. But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up. Atheism of this sort is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. It therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.
Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous as far as its latest apostles go. The Graylings', Dawkins' and Hitchens' have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that is hated so much? What is religion? It seems to me that anyone who claims definitively to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally.
Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"? What about a performance of a requiem? What about Hitchens' own belief in the saving power of literature? In practice, "religion" cannot really be separated from "culture".
It will be replied that religion, in the full and harmful sense, exists when people cringe under the illusion of a celestial being, and when people propagate teachings that are not true. This leads to superstitious ignorance, and to immoral actions, for example the persecution of homosexuals. Well, yes. But also no.
The fact is that the relationship between religion, morality and politics is infinitely various and complex. But the generalising critics insists that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always. It follows that if people shared his or her total rejection of God, then the world would be a better place. The anti-religious person needs to believe this. It provides grounds for hope. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.
So Hitchens calls religion: "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."
Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible. Likewise he grandly pronounces that there are: "... four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is the both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system. And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
This desire to generalise about religion is a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty, 'us good' over 'you bad'. Informed debate deserves better.
-----
Theo Hobson is a freelance writer and theologian. This article is adapted from one of his regular Guardian pieces.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, September 7, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 64 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #68434 by Philip1978 on September 7, 2007 at 7:10 am
Oh really Mr Hobson! They don't know what they are talking about? Intellectual cowardice? I call yelling and pleading to the invisible and highly improbable for help intellectual cowardice!Utter drivel!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
3. Comment #68435 by Icculus on September 7, 2007 at 7:17 am
More of the same garbage. Hobson ignores the arguments that his alleged "cowards" make. Yoga and music can be perfectly moving and transcendent without religion. Also, while religious people have certainly contributed to society, it's nothing more than a totally secular person could have done. Keep setting up those straw men and knocking them down, Theo.Other Comments by Icculus
4. Comment #68437 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 7:24 am
So, Hobson is still worrying about Hitchens being "sexually liberated". You'd think that Hobson would do better to engage with the irrational sexual asceticism in the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, and the whole tradition of Christian orthodoxy (whether to try to defend it in some way or to distance himself from it). The attempt to trivialise - and personalise - an important issue makes him appear simultaneously shallow and churlish.Actually ... after Hobson made such a fool of himself on this topic last time, you'd think he'd slink off and opine about the most suitable material for making lamp shades, or the price of cat food, or something equally likely to keep him out of trouble.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
5. Comment #68438 by Mango on September 7, 2007 at 7:26 am
If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.
It will not necessarily get better, but the evidence from the most atheistic and theistic countries shows a clear societal improvement with increased atheism. I do not claim cause-and-effect, but it's an encouraging correlation.
The author asserts that concerts and yoga classes might also be "religious" experiences so we atheists have no idea what we're talking about when we address religion. I think we are quite explicit in our criticism of religion as a belief system predicated upon the supernatural.
So A.C. Grayling is brilliant, except when he touches upon religion? Like how a comedian is hilarious until he jokes about fat people, and you're 400 pounds and so quickly change the channel.
Other Comments by Mango
6. Comment #68444 by cjs1892 on September 7, 2007 at 7:44 am
I love the logical fallacies that he uses to misrepresent Hitchens position. For example "religion is false and therefore harmful". NO! Religion is false because it is false and harmful because it is harmful. To link the 2 and then demolish the strawman is intellectual cowardice of the highest order.This bloke really is a one trick pony. I would love to see a theist actually address just one of the arguments that Dawkins, Hitchens or Grayling actually makes. But i guess thats wishful thinking. Theo and Bunting would make a lovely (if sexually repressed) couple.
Other Comments by cjs1892
7. Comment #68446 by Jiten on September 7, 2007 at 7:47 am
We need a more intelligent religion debate
There is no such thing and anyway even if there were we're not going to get one from you,are we?
Other Comments by Jiten
8. Comment #68449 by hungarianelephant on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 am
This tactic of redefining "religion" to include all sorts of unobjectionable cuddly stuff appears to be on the rise.The otherwise sane John Waters wrote a very odd piece in The Irish Times some months back, declaring that:
Disparaged it may be, but tradition knew something about us that we seek to deny: there is a religious dimension inherent in the human being, faith comes from within, and without these we are less than human.
When challenged on this, he claimed that he was not dehumanising atheists. What he actually meant was that
it is not possible for a human being to successfully deny the religious dimension. Because God is our identity and our destiny, denying His existence makes approximately the same sense as a daffodil denying the sun … I shared with [one atheist correspondent] my favourite definition of religion, from the writings of Fr Luigi Giussani. Imagine, he demanded, that, at this very moment, you have just been born - but with all your faculties, emotions, intellect and other powers of apprehension intact. What, he asked, is your response to reality?
The answer: an intense and radical attraction to reality, combined with a profound sense that you have not yourself created one atom of it. That, he said, is religion.
I wrote to the author pointing out that this definition does not require the existence of God, and suggesting that he read Unweaving The Rainbow. Needless to say, that is where the discussion rested.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
9. Comment #68451 by Zaphod on September 7, 2007 at 7:53 am
We need more intelligent unicorn debate. Other Comments by Zaphod
10. Comment #68457 by oxytocin on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 am
Courtier's Reply!! [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php] Other Comments by oxytocin
11. Comment #68458 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 7:57 am
Hobson insists:"We need a more intelligent religion debate"
..what he really hopes to see is:
"We need the atheists to admit they are wrong"
...then attempts to define the concept of 'religion' off the playing field as Hitchens, Dawkins et al perceive it to be--obviously knowing it's getting a whuppin' where it is now. He must realize this tactic will not go unnoticed, and will in fact attract even more critcism from all these horrid atheists who now are easily recognizing and rendering inescaple all the manholes the theists are attempting to pop out from when defending their position.
Try again, Theo--it's been said before.
Other Comments by PeterK
12. Comment #68460 by Quetzalcoatl on September 7, 2007 at 8:01 am
Zaphod-We need more intelligent unicorn debate
Unicorns are extinct. The Hippogriffs ate them all.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
13. Comment #68471 by PrimeNumbers on September 7, 2007 at 8:23 am
As soon as the side of religion looses, or feels that they're up against the wires, they back off into playing the "definition game". I think we atheists know very well what religion here. I'm sure many of us were innoculated at an early age with a mild dose of CofE. To say the kind of god we don't believe in is not the kind of god that those who are in the UK who believe, believe in is a very intellectually dishonest way to argue.It's the "inverse straw man". In a straw man, you deliberately argue against an easy target. In the inverse straw man, after dealing a "winning" argument against your opponent, they change their point of view so that the try, through slight of hand and sophistry, your winning argument now lands on the straw man they have just created.
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
14. Comment #68472 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 8:24 am
"Behold the jowly prophet" "pretentious and muddled"
"jaw-droppingly naive"
"disingenuous"
"intellectual cowardice"
Notice how kind-hearted and charitable these Christians are. What happened to turning the other cheek?
Other Comments by aitchkay
15. Comment #68473 by mero on September 7, 2007 at 8:25 am
The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.
Other Comments by mero
16. Comment #68478 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 am
Hitchens calls religion: "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges.
Yet Mr. Hobson, you fail to name any of these other manifestations that remain guilt-free. While your point may be accurate, I cannot take it on "faith" sir and therefore make some citations next time. I would also try to ammend your definition of religion, it seems a bit broad, and you are including such things as sporting events and raves. While there may be something of the religious in each of these experiences, it would greatly improve your argumentation if you were clear about what it is you mean. To imply that Richard Dawkins and his anti-god squad are attempting to do away with sporting events and the like is simply ridiculous.
A requiem? I've attended several Mr. Hobson and I assure you that my deficiency in superstition and wishful-thinking has not had an affect on the solemnity and respect I show for the dead. Your statistic about British Christians and Creationism may also be accurate, but that isn't the only false story hanging around is it? I think many more Christians might believe in life after death. This belief is the one I find to be the most dangerous.
Normally I do not respond to many articles posted on this site, since many do so and show a competence in such matters far superior to my own. So I congratulate you Mr. Hobson. This piece of trash has inspired me to write something of my own. Tighten your definitions down so that things like "religion" are not so relative and flexible to the point where it could mean anything you want it to mean. Add some citations to your work, so that readers can attach some kind of credibility to your arguments. To be honest I've seen more defensible position papers written by 10th graders. Lastly, do not insult the intelligence of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest with your whimsical fancies and half-assed arguments.
Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot
17. Comment #68481 by drive1 on September 7, 2007 at 8:40 am
there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally.
and then
This desire to generalise about religion is a case of intellectual cowardice.
hahahaha! Priceless.
Other Comments by drive1
18. Comment #68483 by PeterK on September 7, 2007 at 8:55 am
Defenders of Theism Definitions:"arrogant"
—He obviously knows more than we do and is very calmly methodically and reasonably telling us stuff we don't like—i.e. things that are clearly showing our beliefs are a crock.
"shrill"
-We don't want to listen to him anymore—i.e. he's saying way too many things that are clearly showing our beliefs are a crock.
"militant"
—He is always 'shrill', and there's nobody from our side that can even come close to defending him.
Other Comments by PeterK
19. Comment #68485 by DerrickB on September 7, 2007 at 9:05 am
From Hobson's Wiki entry:"His principal interests are the relationship between Protestant Christianity and secularism, which he believes is more positive than is generally understood; the relationship between theology and literature; and the post-ecclesial renewal of worship. He thinks that large-scale carnival-style celebration must replace church worship."
Yet another "you are attacking a version of religion that is not my kind of religion (which is obviously superior)"
sigh ......
Other Comments by DerrickB
20. Comment #68493 by bamboospitfire on September 7, 2007 at 9:57 am
When I saw the author's name I expected to find a desperate, intellectual cluster-fuck of an article, and boy did Theo deliver!Religion may be harmful because it is false, but it is worth pointing out (since Theo seems to have missed this point) that religion is not harmful ONLY because it is false.
So what is hated about religion so much? Well, its falsity comes pretty far down the list. I'd say that the (mass) murder; mutilation; guilt; fear; sexual discrimination, repression and deviancy; servility; arrogance; and general bigotry that it engenders are more serious, tangible problems than whether god actually exists. (As atheists are continually at pains to point out, none of us care what people actually believe - it's what they do because of those beliefs that is the issue.) So if people didn't believe in gods, would these problems (to the extent that they are caused by religion - and they are) go away? Obviously. So would the world be a better place without religion? You do the maths, Theo. It wouldn't solve all the world's issues - no atheist ever said it would - but it would certainly help.
And let's not try to bring enjoyable secular passtimes within the scope of "religion". It's just pathetic. And whilst religion may be linked strongly to culture, culture does not necessarily have a damn thing to do with religion.
Seriously, I can't believe people are paying this man to write this crap. It's just embarrassing.
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
21. Comment #68494 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 10:01 am
"Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system."So what are there thoughts on how the universe works? If it wasn't Jehovah, do they believe it is evolution? So who was Jesus Christ, if he wasn't Jehovah's eldest? Do Christians actually believe the bible has any significance, value, advice, etc and if so what form does it take? Do we need the bible to further develop our moral leanings? The questions go on and on and on and on. Please explain this and the rest Mr Theo Hobson. Like the name.
Other Comments by Prufrock
22. Comment #68495 by Arcturus on September 7, 2007 at 10:03 am
Mr. Hobson needs a dictionary to remember the definition of religion, it has everything to do with supernatural "beings". Don't try to make it broader and then hide under this big umbrella. He might call this "intelectual cowardice". Other Comments by Arcturus
23. Comment #68498 by zcrazed1 on September 7, 2007 at 10:12 am
So basically he wants a religious debate minus the debate part. Yet he has the gall to call atheists cowards. I'll just chock this one up to another failed cry for help. Other Comments by zcrazed1
24. Comment #68499 by cincyatheist on September 7, 2007 at 10:13 am
#68449In my opinion that is a good thing. I think the reason it is on the rise is because they know their arguments don't hold weight against ours, so they must fall back on that.
Other Comments by cincyatheist
25. Comment #68501 by ft77 on September 7, 2007 at 10:21 am
I think the point is that of course religious people can and do do good. But when they do they are acting from the same moral reason that the rest of us are.Hobson should try answering Hitchens' question. What moral act could a religious person do that an atheist could not?
Other Comments by ft77
26. Comment #68504 by Michael P. on September 7, 2007 at 10:39 am
Seems that what Mr. Hobson is longing for is not a "more intelligent" debate regarding religion, as his title suggests, but a more insular, limited one - on his own terms. "Atheism of the kind they espouse," "[a]theism of this sort" - yet Mr. Hobson never introduces a brand of atheism with which he would be comfortable; quite the contrary, his later statement regarding "the atheist system" would indicate that he lumps all atheists together, thereby indicting himself for the same broad strokes with which he condemns atheists. It would appear as though there is no room in his religious system for those of no belief; or, perhaps, he would accept an atheism that respects and plays second fiddle to religion in the public sphere - well, thanks, but no thanks, Theo.Mr. Hobson is infatuated with the very idea of religion in and of itself, without being too concerned with all of the prickly, nasty parts, such as what adherents actually believe. He is proposing a metareligion whose central tenet is "faith in faith." Raves, requiem performances, yoga classes - why not NASCAR races or American Idol? Anything that rallies the masses in a wave of good vibes? If this is religion, then what to say of the sparsely attended, apathetically performed, hollow downer of a Catholic mass I had the misfortune of attending recently?
I feel for him a bit, though: as a professional theologian, he feels his career is at stake... and it is. He would be wise to recognize, however, that he and his co-believers may end up being their own worst enemies. As far as his own one-note take on atheism, perhaps it would be best to twist his own words a bit: This desire to generalise about atheism is a case of intellectual cowardice.
Other Comments by Michael P.
27. Comment #68529 by mr harry on September 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm
We need more intelligent unicorn debate
Unicorns are extinct. The Hippogriffs ate them all.
God just hates freaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3V9pI-6NSk (Funny)
Other Comments by mr harry
28. Comment #68533 by Martin S on September 7, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty
... which is exactly what ALL scientists do - Occams Razor. So by Hobson's reasoning Einstein was an intellectual coward. Whereas the Pope, believeing as he presumably does in his extra cosmic sky daddy, is a brave intellectual hero.
The sad thing is these people seem to really truly believe this nonsense they all spout.
Other Comments by Martin S
29. Comment #68539 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Well, I suppose some congratulation is in order for Mr. Hobson as he seems to have managed to slightly moderate the shrieking, panicked hysteria of his recent, astonishingly pisspoor Guardian piece - probably, at least in part, because of the thorough kicking it took in the comments section. Unfortunately he seems unable to entirely conceal this aspect of his genetic makeup, which seems to be as firmly ingrained in him as his receding red hairline (oh - I'm sorry Theo! Was that unfair? You know, a bit like calling your opponent "jowly"? Excuse me while I entirely fail to apologise.) As a result he finds himself unable to resist repeating the absurd "pretentious" and "cowardly" insults, even if he does moderate the latter to refer rather more accurately to the religious than to atheists (...one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty, 'us good' over 'you bad').He repeats the lie - roundly debunked in the aforementioned Guardian row - that "Atheism of the kind they espouse is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does." It is becoming increasingly clear, is it not, that the faith heads are becoming more and more guilty of simply paying no attention to rebuttals of their fatuous statements, preferring to simply repeat them over and over again like well-trained parrots. And yet they shriek and thrash like throttled chickens should we have the temerity to point this out and use it to suggest that their intellectual probity might be somewhat lacking.
He makes claims - for example, "But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up." - and then offers not the slightest support for them. He has the utterly comical self-blindness to call atheism - or at least one particular straw man version of it - "naive". How blackly humorous to be called "naive" by someone who believes in incredible things without proof!
Next he attempts a standard faith head tactic - redefining religion as something so wide, so shape-shifting, so thoroughly general as to be meaningless. He drivels on, in his balding, gingery way (sorry!) about raves and sports and rallies... and tries, desperately, to suggest that these are all somehow "religious", in the vain hope that this means we will turn our attention and attacks away from the primitive dimwits who grovel in pews and on prayer mats; who bob and nod like silly little budgie toys in front of wailing walls; who condemn contraception, and who actively and effectively seek to restrict its availability in the third world and beyond; who pontificate daily about morality on the basis of patent fantasy and ancient superstition.
Sorry Theo. In case you haven't got it yet, we're smarter than that. Much smarter. Unlike benighted souls like you who, apparently, struggle to distinguish a yoga class from a catholic mass.
Next, the goggly-eyed ginger madman (Christ! I'm sorry Theo! I'm just following your lovely Christian example!) trots out playground tactic no. 37 - the "I know you are but what am I?" shtick. He claims that the anti-religious person needs his anti-religious "beliefs"; that they are a "faith". He states this as precisely what it is: an opinion. No attempt to back it up whatsoever. But as I say, it is more than an opinion; it is a tactic. It is the same tactic as that used by those who try to damn us as fundamentalists. They think, in their pathetic naivety (oh no! I can do it too!), that by turning our criticisms of them back against us, they will silence us. Oh dear. They seem unable to detect that when we call them naive, or needy, or driven by faith rather than reason and evidence... we provide examples and reasons of why we are saying that. They also seem to struggle with the idea that this makes any difference.
I wonder if it's time to re-link the evidence that shows religious people tend to be of lower IQ and lesser educational achievement than atheists? Possibly not. :-)
Finally - why on earth did he put that mystifying "sic" after Hitch's use of the word "man" in "...it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos"? Is the moon-faced rustnut (damn! stop influencing me, Theo!) unaware, perhaps, that "man" is a widely accepted term for "mankind", and that it includes women too? Is he, perish the thought, trying to score a cheap shot against Hitch for quite rightly pointing out that religion has been, and is, responsible for the most egregious sexism and repression of women? Is that a measure of how desperate he is? Surely not!
Hey Theo? Have you considered hair dye? Or a toupee? Sorry! I can't help myself! I'm too easily led!
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
30. Comment #68540 by the_assayer on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 pm
"Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous as far as its latest apostles go. The Graylings', Dawkins' and Hitchens' have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion."- HobsonWell actually who's not on a moral mission? Isn't Hobson trying to 'improve the world' by calling for better debate? The tricky word here is "eradicate". It gives the impression that Dawkins et al are determined not to engage in debate with the oppostion, which we know is false. Also, there is no "forceful" deconversion, not even political force. Its only an academic issue and only those who want to scrutinise or argue for their beliefs need to get involved in the tussle.
Other Comments by the_assayer
31. Comment #68543 by rcphelan on September 7, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Surely we will find at least one of these many commentators of TGD that have actually read the book....someday. My fear is that they have all read it, but cannot understand it, much the way a partisan football crowd can see, but not accept, a foul committed against their beloved. They come by their considerable mendacity honestly.These "critics" reviewing any of these recent books must surely see that the reason anyone bothers with attacking the absurdities of religion at all is squarely because many (probably most) believers are determined to spread their particular theological world view to others, with often disastrous consequences. Otherwise there would be no reason to bother writing TGD at all and Prof. Dawkins could continue his astounding career of enlightening and astonishing us in a variety of areas, uninterrupted. I personally know no atheists who give a damn about spreading that world view...they just prefer the planet to be what it actually is, in all its many splendors, not what someone wishes it to be. And, oh, they don't want to get blown up in the bargain.
Other Comments by rcphelan
32. Comment #68547 by PaulJ on September 7, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Ho hum.This article is the same old stuff: "Not my religion," and "Theology is too deep for the likes of you," plus the occasional ad hominem attack just to spice things up.
Other Comments by PaulJ
33. Comment #68556 by crazy4blues on September 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm
From the theist's manual for debating Richard Dawkins:Step 1. Don't read TGD. Or just read the first 10 pages or so . . .
Step 2. Say Richard Dawkins lacks a "sophisticated view of religion".
Step 3. Simply make up shit that Dawkins never said and refute that.
Step 4. Keep smiling while you're lying . . .
Other Comments by crazy4blues
34. Comment #68558 by AdrianB on September 7, 2007 at 3:26 pm
This is just tedious now. But positive to realise from the repetition of the same Old Thesist arguments that they are on the ropes.Careful though, people on the ropes can get real dangerous, so it shouldn't be long before they turn to the courts to try and shut us up.
What gets me is that despite the thousands of pro-religious books that we have had to live with over the years, we get 4 or 5 atheist books in a couple of years and without exception ALL the authors are in 'militant atheist' mode.
So once again the real underlying message is, "please please just shut up and don't upset my delusions or I will call you nasty names."
Other Comments by AdrianB
35. Comment #68559 by Nails on September 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm
But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up
such as?
It is too easy to generalise and not give evidence or citaition!!
Is this an act of intellectual cowardice?
Every single one of us one here knows how the bible has influenced morals, but is not the cause of them - and its morals are 3,000 years out of date.
Please come up with something a little better next time.
Other Comments by Nails
36. Comment #68561 by D'Arcy on September 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hobson asks:What is this thing that is hated so much? What is religion?
He doesn't answer his own question, so let me have a stab.
Religion is organised superstition.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
37. Comment #68570 by Henri Bergson on September 7, 2007 at 4:06 pm
We need a more intelligent religion debate ... he grandly pronounces that there are: "... four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos, that because..."
Why the '(sic)'? This is an unintelligent addition.
Firstly, 'man' means both male & female (from the German 'man' meaning one: "One does what one can."). It is not sexist. Thinking it is betrays a bad education.
Secondly, '(sic)' should be in square brackets, otherwise it looks as if Hitchens put it there himself.
So let's begin our 'intelligent debate' without unintelligent basic errors.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
38. Comment #68573 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Where was Hobson when the religious were openly scornful of atheists?You know what "Hobs", almost all of my heroes have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed by Christians; all for simply saying publicly that they don't believe in your god. But then what should we expect from a religion that glorifies the horrific death of it's most central figure. Now, religious apologists like Hobson, Bunting, and Cornwell want to "crucify" my contemporary heroes. They may find it strange to know that I do not consider it a compliment.
Other Comments by ChrisMcL
39. Comment #68577 by Jolly Wally on September 7, 2007 at 4:15 pm
What a joke. Another who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.Other Comments by Jolly Wally
40. Comment #68580 by Zaphod on September 7, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Quetzalcoatl-Zaphod-
We need more intelligent unicorn debate
Unicorns are extinct. The Hippogriffs ate them all.
LULZ
Other Comments by Zaphod
41. Comment #68582 by HappyPrimate on September 7, 2007 at 4:30 pm
That article was such utter nonsense, drivel and the most unintelligent thing I have read is quite a while. I hope he is not supposing to head up any sort of line of debate. My eyes are still rolling around in my head. Is he saying that atheists cannot argue their points because there are too many varieties of religion to fill any sort of hole in the falsehoods we explain? What? Has this man ever met a Xian fundamentalist or a Muslim? or an Orthodox Jew? or a Morman? or a Jehovah's Witness? Other Comments by HappyPrimate
42. Comment #68590 by Theocrapcy on September 7, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Red hair. No future. Other Comments by Theocrapcy
43. Comment #68603 by ksskidude on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 pm
"The anti-religious person needs to believe this. It provides grounds for hope. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith."How can the nimrod be serious? Anti-religious don't hope it will work, they know it will work. Why, because the evidence of countries that are more non-relgious speaks for itself. Even if there were no evidence at all at this time, it doesn't mean that evidence through observation can not be gathered.
Other Comments by ksskidude
44. Comment #68607 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 9:06 pm
This is what I don't get: Hitch aims a shotgun at religion, which he defines as claims to know the mind of God, what God likes and dislikes, and so on. Then some religionist jumps up from behind the bushes, shouting, "but that's not how I see religion..."Wouldn't the proper thing for said religionist to do be something more like keeping quiet and laying low?
Mr. Hobson, if Hitchens isn't shooting in your liberal and fuzzy direction, why are you trying to draw his fire? Are you lonely? Masochistic? What?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
45. Comment #68618 by monkey2 on September 7, 2007 at 10:55 pm
In J.M.Barrie's Never Never Land, Tinker Bell was dying because people had stopped believing in fairies. The only way to sustain them was to have children shout out "I believe"In the real world it is God that is dying and Hobson, Bunting et al. are now being encouraged to 'shout out'. They don't care what they say in their articles. It's just an opportunity to shout "I believe".
Other Comments by monkey2
46. Comment #68623 by prettygoodformonkeys on September 8, 2007 at 12:01 am
Oh god; everybody wants to say something.What a ghastly bit of typing.
(the article, I mean)
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
47. Comment #68640 by dvespertilio on September 8, 2007 at 1:38 am
So any touchy-feely, we're all one sittin' here around the campfire singing Kumbaya my Lord kind of experience is religious or quasi religious?Yeah, so we have this emotional limbic brain thing goin'. So what? So that every demagogue from Hitler and Mussolini to George Wallace and G W Bush can attempt to manipulate us by pushing our "feeling" buttons? (Although G W Bush is pretty much a piker when it comes to demagoguery, a joke, really!!) Raves sound potentially dangerous (like soccer fans out of control) At best, why not call all of this arousing and sometimes aesthetically pleasing. So that makes good "religion" an art form, not necessarily true in the empirical sense, but art nonetheless. But one man's Mona Lisa is another man's......garbage?!!?? Sounds pretty subjective and solipsistic to me.Other Comments by dvespertilio
48. Comment #68642 by RascoHeldall on September 8, 2007 at 1:56 am
Yet another article by an apologist where the substance [sic] of the piece falls massively short of the argument promised by the title. Are religiopologists simply competing with each other to see who can come up with the better headline? Clearly, being religious apologists, they do not care for evidence or argument (that much is taken as read - they presumably wouldn't be religious apologists otherwise) but why continue to do our work for us in this way?Or am I wrong? Is there a decently-argued pro-religion article out there somewhere? Can I read it, please?
Other Comments by RascoHeldall
49. Comment #68663 by GBG on September 8, 2007 at 3:24 am
Unfortunately to make religious debates more intelligent they would have to not include a religious person. As this article demonstrates, There is a direct link between a belief god and the inability to have a well thought out reasoned opinion.And i have no idea what hobson sees in a rave or sporting event that would make it "religious". Seems he, Like most apologists, is simply trying to cloud the water around the definition of what religion is. He is trying to turn the definition of religion in to something he is better suited (smart enough) to defend with some degree of success.
Other Comments by GBG
50. Comment #68724 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 9:53 am
Theo Hobson saidThe same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.
Presumably. Presumably! Can't you be bothered to look him up? Some level of journalism Theo is:-
a) showing
b) admitting to
Theo, do some research. Even if you don't want to wade though all of his work (some of which is routinely used by students) you might like to check out the following:
1) Against All Gods, (a short book - no excuses that you don't have the time), with an interesting chapter on why atheists are not fundamentalists.
2) Or maybe The Meaning of Things (a lovely book full of short essays concerning the definition of commonly used words and concepts, like "love", "hope" and "reason"). You might want to note how "christianity" and "faith" are filed under "Fallacies" and the justification given for this attribution.
N.B. Guys. This individual irritates me no end, and I share the frustration expressed, but please, less ginger prejudice. Thanks.
Other Comments by Corylus
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."
Voltaire
Other Recommended Reading
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #68432 by The author on September 7, 2007 at 7:08 am
Yet another piece of ever-the-same-garbage from our theologian friends.
Other Comments by The author