Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, April 30, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

by Cal McCrystal

Reposted from:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article2494615.ece


Being of a religious bent, I happen to worship the jellyfish. It is attractive to the eye. It patrols our beaches protectively, reserving a stinging chastisement for those who would deny its powers. Unlike the Christian Holy Trinity, its three divine parts are bonded visibly: Ectoderm, Endoderm and, in between, Mesoglea. It is universal, and those of us who commune with it do so clad in a respectful vestment, vestis umidus or wet suit. Our name for the jellyfish is Juju.

That is not to say that other religions are inferior. I am well aware that jealousy between faiths can lead to unnecessary bloodshed, so I rarely proselytise on behalf of my own silent god. Praying to Juju, I recite the uplifting words: "Allow me to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters."

On the other hand, always open to conversion, I am impressed by Anthony Grayling's idea of forming a religious group "based on belief in the divinity of garden gnomes". Virtually everything in Grayling's little book (64 pages; small enough to be a Sunday School catechism) makes sense, particularly when he asks if he should be entitled to public money for a school in which children can be brought up in garden gnomism, "together with a bishop's seat in Parliament perhaps?"

Grayling, a renowned philosopher and prolific author, is a non-believer (he prefers the word "naturalist" to "atheist"). I long ago chose reason over Romanism but, although I am often impatient with the outlandish claims of faith and the zeal of the superstitious, I seldom feel tormented by them (Humanists might adopt the plea, "Forgive them for they know not what they do").

Here, though, one senses a fury behind Grayling's polemics. This is perfectly understandable since, as he observes, the debate "has become an acerbic one - and worse". Apologists for faith, he says, are an evasive community in a "mist-shrouded domain" of sophistry. Fair enough, but much more dangerous than religious faith is how the faithful are prepared to defend their beliefs ("faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for").

Should we naturalists respect the supernatural? No, says Grayling, for "to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect."

This, along with other recent excitations against religious taboos, faith schools, et al (notably Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion), raises a few holy heckles, but I'm not sure that it will make much difference to human gullibility, which has continued to fuel faith from an antedeluvian age. Besides, other factors often come into play, as in Northern Ireland where people gain religious strength and fervour from their adversaries. Likewise in Britain, a dramatic or belligerant swelling of the ranks of fundamentalist Islam would almost certainly prompt a Christian rush to the altar for those lethal dogmas.

It can be argued that religion is massively punitive and grotesquely mutilative. That certain gods insist on circumcision, clitorectomy, dunking in water and speaking in "divers" tongues, or impose codes based on brute-man's tribal spirit of vendetta or reprisal ought to be well behind us. Surely it's as much beyond human acceptance that we be tyrannised by invisible and intangible things such as gods and devils, than that we should genuflect to garden gnomes - or jellyfish. To dress our bodies, decorate our heads, adorn our dinner tables in celebration of the belief that a god "chose" us for special benediction; to scourge our flesh with whips in an annual abbatoir; to yield to the mystical and nasty imperative of caste; to stone to death hapless "sinners" in expiation of their "sins" - all fly in the face of intelligent, contemplative humanitarianism.

If steaming Islam (for example) gives you the vapours, then please turn to Grayling's conclusion for your sedative. "What we are witnessing is not the resurgence of religion, but its death throes," he says. Having begun to use their newly assertive elbows, Muslims are being mimicked by Sikhs and Christian evangelicals. Although Grayling doesn't mention it, there also are intimations of increased twitchiness among Jews and Roman Catholics.

An abreactive and abrasive period lies ahead. The author predicts that "as a factor in public and international affairs [religion] is having what might be its last - characteristically bloody - fling."

AC Grayling's book 'Against All Gods' is currently only available in the UK with a US release date of September 2007. To order your copy, please use one of the links provided on this website.
submit to delicious Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, April 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 48 of 48 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #36068 by wagnerpe on April 30, 2007 at 5:31 am

In the name of the Ectoderm, the Endoderm, and the Holy Mesoglea...

And the FSM,
RAmen.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

2. Comment #36069 by Eureka Step on April 30, 2007 at 5:34 am

avatarI always suspected that the woman on the next street with all the gnomes in her garden had chosen the right religion. The reason all the bad stuff is happening in the world today is because we took the gnomes out of our schools.

This article has almost made me share Grayling's sense of optimism about this being the last throes of religion. It looks like it is a well written intellectualy cheeky taunting of religion. I need a copy!

Other Comments by Eureka Step

3. Comment #36070 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 5:35 am

More of the usual sanity. However, Grayling should be careful of announcing religion's "death throes". Our good friend McGrath cites the flurry of atheist books as a reaction to religion not dying. Don't need him piping up with more of his unreasonable scorn.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

4. Comment #36072 by Luthien on April 30, 2007 at 6:06 am

avatar
However, Grayling should be careful of announcing religion's "death throes".


I think Grayling is right. Think about how religious "communities" are going to greater and greater lengths to isolate themselves and their children from the real world. Why? Well, I think that exposure to the real world is now all it takes to see through any religion, and the only way to combat it is to make their "flock" increasingly paranoid. We have gone from Bertrand Russell's "teapot" scenario, to one where people know what a teapot is, and where you should and shouldn't find them.

Other Comments by Luthien

5. Comment #36074 by Cool on Oolon on April 30, 2007 at 6:11 am

I think Grayling is right: the big religions are losing respect and credibility and are getting jittery as we enter the "Emperor's got no clothes" phase. But I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Other Comments by Cool on Oolon

6. Comment #36075 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 6:14 am

"We have gone from Bertrand Russell's "teapot" scenario, to one where people know what a teapot is, and where you should and shouldn't find them."

Russell's teapot is 80 years old, and doesn't seem to have affected the average believer. In fact, with the rise of the internet, we now seem to have more crackpots, citing "evidence" for literal creation, hell and all sorts of rubbish.

I wish I could be as optimistic.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

7. Comment #36077 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 6:18 am

By the way, while you are on, Luthien. That avatar made my day when I first saw it. where can we get the T-shirt!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

8. Comment #36078 by DV82XL on April 30, 2007 at 6:20 am

What Cool on Oolon said

Other Comments by DV82XL

9. Comment #36081 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 30, 2007 at 6:26 am

avatarWhat we need is a video about the end of religion. Tag it onto something controversial on youtube and push it from here and elsewhere. Any ideas for subject material?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

10. Comment #36082 by Cdat on April 30, 2007 at 6:29 am

Nobody gnomes the troubles I see.....

Nobody gnomes but Cal.....

Other Comments by Cdat

11. Comment #36083 by cybercoma on April 30, 2007 at 6:30 am

avatarJellyfish look like the flying spaghetti monster, coincidence? Maybe, but chances are they were made in His noodly image as a hint to His existence. The FSM works in strange ways and although He has worked tirelessly to throw us of his trail, He also left just enough hints for us to find Him if we so choose.

Garden Gnomes look like midgets and we all know the FSM has a special place in His meatballs for midgets. This is all a testament to His power.

I'm with the first poster!

Touched by his noodly appendage!
RAmen!

Other Comments by cybercoma

12. Comment #36084 by cybercoma on April 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

avatarBrian,

About your end of religion video. Make a compilation of some of the most horrific things that have occurred in the name of religion shown against some of the most humanitarian scientific discoveries and other types of secular generosity. All played to the tune of Imagine by John Lennon.

Just an idea for 3 mins of impact.

Other Comments by cybercoma

13. Comment #36088 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 30, 2007 at 6:56 am

Brian,

I think cybercoma has a really good idea there, but I was thinking more along the lines of showing a man tortured, beaten, whipped and then nailed to a cross all in the name of religion and maybe have John Lennon's "Imagine" playing in the background....wait a minute...scratch that, it has been done before. Sorry about that Brian I thought I was on to something good.

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

14. Comment #36094 by bitbutter on April 30, 2007 at 7:29 am

avatar
Apologists for faith, he says, are an evasive community in a "mist-shrouded domain" of sophistry. Fair enough, but much more dangerous than religious faith is how the faithful are prepared to defend their beliefs


This is a false, or at least very problematic, distinction. Faith can tell people that particular (otherwise abhorrent) actions are justified if done in service of their god. We have to acknowledge that religious faith is itself responsible for just how far some people are willing to go to defend their beliefs.

Other Comments by bitbutter

15. Comment #36098 by Friend Giskard on April 30, 2007 at 7:34 am

avatar
vestis umidus or wet suit

This is incorrect. Vestis is feminine. It should be vestis umida.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

16. Comment #36099 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

I feel that religion is certainly on the retreat in the first world (excepting the USA of course), but I regret that it is alive and kicking in the third world. (I'm a British atheist married to a Kenyan Christian & I can tell you, religion is pretty rampant over there)

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

17. Comment #36100 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:46 am

Further to my previous posting - my wife is a well-educated woman, but is a literal believer when it comes to the Bible ... believes in the letter of the garden of Eden tale, the Noah's ark tale, etc. Will not discuss her faith, thinks that people should respect each other's beliefs and so on. Tried to watch Dawkins TV Root of Evil series with her, but she walked out after 5 mins.

Now it is my 50th birthday later this year & she is bound to ask me what I want for a gift. I'm thinking of asking her to read an atheist text as her special present to me!

My question is therefore - which text? TGD? End of Faith? Letter to a C. Nation? Breaking the Spell? God isn't Great? Or another?

Any suggestions gratefully received!

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

18. Comment #36101 by Feuerbach on April 30, 2007 at 7:48 am

Religion attaches itself to misery and poverty like a tick on a beaten dog. It would do well to wish the dog live long, but ultimately its primary concern is its own survival.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

19. Comment #36105 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:51 am

Feuerbach - nice one! Your own or is this a quotation from somewhere?

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

20. Comment #36106 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 7:52 am

16. Comment #36099 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

"I feel that religion is certainly on the retreat in the first world (excepting the USA of course), but I regret that it is alive and kicking in the third world. (I'm a British atheist married to a Kenyan Christian & I can tell you, religion is pretty rampant over there."

I spent some time in Uganda a few years ago. I was asked by two people (who worked for a "big four" accountancy firm over there, and therefore certainly not uneducated) what religion I was. When I said "none" they laughed at me incredulous. They asked me to explain in that case what I thought happened after death and when I said as far as I knew nothing, they again laughed. They had never heard anyone say anything so "crazy" before. Africa has a long way to go before we can talk about "death-throes" at least there. Nice as they were as well they finally said to me that I needed to get to church quickly and that I should be careful saying things like that in that Country!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

21. Comment #36107 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:53 am

Weefree - your offensive remark about Grayling smacks of desperation and is frankly not up to your usual standard of argument on here.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

22. Comment #36108 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:54 am

Peacebeuponme - sadly, very similar to my experiences in kenya, mate.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

23. Comment #36109 by Damien Trotter on April 30, 2007 at 7:56 am

avatarSuffolk Blue, try and get your wife to read The Demon haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's very gentle, yet persuasive.

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

24. Comment #36110 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 7:59 am

Peacebeupme - I've also sat with a group of kenyan christians while they chuckled in a superior fashion about those africans who clung to their traditional "primitive" beliefs (animism, ancestor worship etc). I didn't know how to begin pointing out the irony.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

25. Comment #36112 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 8:03 am

avatar
Is this not another case of yet another flea jumping on Dawkins back trying to make money?


What? like you? I think you will find he has been bashing God for a while - do some basic research.
Found any avidence for God yet David?

Na, didnt think so.

Other Comments by BillySands

26. Comment #36114 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

Suffolk Blue - I think Dawkins mentions a similar story about a conversation with an Oxford theologian in TGD(?)

If you had pointed it out to them, they would have considered you ready for the asylum!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

27. Comment #36116 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 8:10 am

Peacebeuponme - you are probably right.

I have begun an email debate with one of my in-laws which is proving quite interesting. We are in the early stages right now, but I'll keep at it. :-)

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

28. Comment #36117 by Luthien on April 30, 2007 at 8:14 am

avatar
7. Comment #36077 by Peacebeuponme on April 30, 2007 at 6:18 am
By the way, while you are on, Luthien. That avatar made my day when I first saw it. where can we get the T-shirt!


www.jesusandmo.net

Other Comments by Luthien

29. Comment #36122 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

avatarComment #36109 by Damien Trotter
"Suffolk Blue, try and get your wife to read The Demon haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's very gentle, yet persuasive."

I agree. It doesn't sound like she'll tolerate a book like TGD that essentially says, "This belief is wrong, and here's why." DHW instead raises awareness of how we come to our beliefs about the world, which is a crucial starting point if our basic assumptions are to be challenged.

I think Breaking the Spell is a good follow-up, because it is somewhat less offensive in that it allows people to see their faith as a natural, if unfortunate, outgrowth of their humanity rather than mere stupidity.

I'd save TGD for the next stage. After a couple of books demonstrating how we're prone to false beliefs, then you can give her a book that deals with the mac-daddy of them all.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

30. Comment #36123 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 8:37 am

There is a psychological bent that when an individal's "life's belief" is proven wrong, that individual, for some time, continues to fervently cling to the delusion before accepting that it is one. Those who have come out of cults know this. There is that moment "It cannot be! I have made critical decisions based on a falsehood--it cannot be!" somewhat in the same fashion as one who has just been told they have a terminal disease---denial. What can occur in an individual, can occur in a social group.
Grayling is therefore, quit likely to be correct. However, what is also chilling is the lack of time we need to become sensible.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

31. Comment #36126 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 8:42 am

By the way, some can turn to killing in defense of their dogma, another chilling thing, if for no other reason than they don't ever want to lose their delusions. Some psychotics refuse to take their meds because they miss talking to God (or whatever).
Interestingly, I read a study that indicated that Jehovah Witnesses are a very depressed group of people. My friend, who is one, once told me that the number of sisters that left their religion was astounding once they started taking anti-depressives. It took a great deal of will for me not to say anything.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

32. Comment #36127 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 8:44 am

Fishpeddlar & Damien - many thanks!

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

33. Comment #36128 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 30, 2007 at 8:50 am

avatar24. Comment #36109 by Damien Trotter on April 30, 2007 at 7:56 am

Suffolk Blue, try and get your wife to read The Demon haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's very gentle, yet persuasive.

Great suggestion, better yet, get the COSMOS television series. Wonderful stuff, not attacking, just teaching you stuff with a great sense of wonder.

Sagans' pale blue dot is also wondrous, this is one of the most moving things I've ever seen. If you can get her to spend 4 minutes on something, make it this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

34. Comment #36150 by whupper on April 30, 2007 at 10:09 am

However, Grayling should be careful of announcing religion's "death throes".

If we are indeed seeing the death throes of religion, then it's like the death throes of the Roman Empire. It will span multiple generations and we won't see it in our lifetime. Only with the benefit of hindsight will there appear a clear delineation of when religion ended.

I feel bad for what our children, and their children, are about to go through.

Pessimistic, but hopeful (if that makes sense),
Whupper

Other Comments by whupper

35. Comment #36155 by Vinelectric on April 30, 2007 at 10:27 am

avatarBelief in a personal God could be on the way out but untill atheists can persuade us that 'Why' is 'How' (as suggested by Peter Atkins) then people will always ask Why the hell are we here!! Why did the big bang occur and why does evoultion work at all.

The only attempt at an answer is that provided by Vic Stegner in his latest book. He aruges that the natural state of affairs may be of existence rather than non-existence. Nice answer but who can ever prove that Stegner is absolutely right. Who can ever perusade RD to score a full 7/7 on his belief/disbelief scale?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

36. Comment #36159 by Steven Mading on April 30, 2007 at 10:48 am

In response to:
34. Comment #36128 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 30, 2007 at 8:50 am

I agree about Sagan. And the other useful thing about COSMOS is that it stands as an excellent counterexample to the mean-spirited, nasty, villifying claim that belief in God is a requirement for a sense of wonderment and awe about life and existence. The claim that atheism is somehow less pleasant, less emotionally satsifying, or less humble than belief in god is debunked quite fully by looking at COSMOS.

And Pale Blue Dot is far more wonderment-invoking than anything written by bronze-age sheepherders.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

37. Comment #36163 by Steven Mading on April 30, 2007 at 11:04 am


36. Comment #36155 by Vinelectric on April 30, 2007 at 10:27 am
Belief in a personal God could be on the way out but untill atheists can persuade us that 'Why' is 'How' (as suggested by Peter Atkins) then people will always ask Why the hell are we here!! Why did the big bang occur and why does evoultion work at all.

Ask yourself what the actual difference is between the word "how" and the word "why". I think the difference is this: "How" asks what the process was that made something happen, while "Why" asks what the motivation for it was. But here's the thing - If you're asking for what the motivation behind the creation of the universe was, and ending up later on with the answer "God did it", then you're committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion before you begin. In other words, for the question "why" to even be relevant in the first place, one must assume a creator. Otherwise there's no sentience and therefore no motivation to even be asking about and the correct answer to the qeustion "why" would then be "mu".

As soon as you make the assumption that "why is the universe here" is even a valid question in the first place, you've already assumed a creator before you even get started.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

38. Comment #36165 by Big T on April 30, 2007 at 11:19 am

My recommendation would be for The Demon-Haunted World. Sagan's gentle but repeated question "How good is the evidence?" and his skillful debunking of pseudoscience, religious visions of the Virgin Mary, etc. can be very persuasive without necessarily offending a religious person so much he or she refuses to read the book.

Other Comments by Big T

39. Comment #36170 by kaiserkriss on April 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

avatarSulfolk Blue: Try the Science light approach.. A good book and an easy read is Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything". It is an excellent primer at putting all the different Science disciplines into context with one another
I have suggested it to several friends and associates, who ALL moved on to TGD or similar works. JCW

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

40. Comment #36176 by paulcaira on April 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Vinelectric: I am very interested in this idea of existence being necessary when applied to such things as universes and minds. What could it mean for the universe not to have existed? There isn't really a choice is there? Likewise for my mind never to have existed is impossible. (For this last sentence to make sense, you have to read 'my' yourself, not substitute 'his'... Perhaps I should have written 'one's'.)

Other Comments by paulcaira

41. Comment #36281 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm

How about, if there were no consciousness, the universe would not exist. As one philosopher put it, the mind is a means by which the universe can understand itself.
Imagining a universe with no consciousness doesn't count because a consciousness is trying to imagine it within the context of how it understands it.
All things dead--no ants, no people because all living things have some sort of feeling it is alive. Take it all away as if all were dead. Where's the universe?
Perplexing problem. Back to the old philosopher's statement.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

42. Comment #36282 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 7:35 pm

And if there was not once single life form in the universe, it wouldn't matter whether there was a universe or not. Without light, the eye would never evolve. Without the eye, light doesn't exist.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

43. Comment #36347 by Suffolk Blue on May 1, 2007 at 1:13 am

KaiserKriss - interesting suggestion. thanks.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

44. Comment #36408 by oeditor on May 1, 2007 at 3:59 am

40. Comment #36170 by kaiserkriss on April 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Sulfolk Blue: Try the Science light approach.. A good book and an easy read is Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything".

On the other hand, the book is praised by the "Truth in Science" creationists. Probably because Bryson, a non scientist, has fallen for some fallacies and over-simplifications.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/128/57/
Brian

Other Comments by oeditor

45. Comment #36429 by Feuerbach on May 1, 2007 at 5:15 am

@Suffolk Blue

all mine, ;)

Other Comments by Feuerbach

46. Comment #36669 by TeapotTheist on May 2, 2007 at 1:33 am

avatar@Ghostbuster
"Without the eye, light doesn't exist."

Why not go the whole hog and say e.g. "Without the eye, galaxies don't exist"? Nonsense.

Other Comments by TeapotTheist

47. Comment #36841 by Michael on May 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm

I like the jellyfish but I think I prefer the butterfly. No wetsuit.

Steve Mading raises the confusion of the 'how'/'why' questions because why so readily leads to nonsequitors, particularly with science.

Just occasionally why is appropriate. For example why did Caucasians lose their skin pigment and retain the infantile ability to handle lactose, in the short time our species migrated from Africa. The powerful driver was the need to maximise vitamin D absorption, in sunless climes, because a rachitic pelvis was lethal to mother and baby.

I wish religion was in its death throws. This week I learned from a Sri Lankan UN economist that the good christians, of all shades who are running tsunami aid in Sri Lanka, are exchanging the aid for conversion. A bag of rice and you must come to church! Muslims are just sticking to their coreligionists. Don't waste time on the infidel. Nice one. Get them while they are down.

Other Comments by Michael

48. Comment #36937 by Vardu on May 2, 2007 at 9:03 pm

ghostbuster wrote: "Without the eye, light doesn't exist".

This is, as TeapotTheist wrote, nonsense.

Light perception takes place in many single-celled animals, such as the amoebae and Euglena, and neither of these have 'eyes'.

Eye's evolved as a response to light sensitivity.

Other Comments by Vardu
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: