Oh, she’s on about atheism again…
A few things are making me a bit cross today. One of them I will write about tomorrow. In the meantime, I’d like to give this article a bit of a skewering. I don’t know why I’m bothering really, because he skewers himself quite nicely, with what is an outpouring of overblown, fantastically generalised, badly argued rhetoric, but I’m cross, so I will.
Apparently, according to Theo Hobson, ‘Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming…to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is’. In addition to this all atheists fundamentally object to religion, and are on a mission to eradicate it from the face of the earth. He is taking as his example Christpher Hitchens, who has just publisehd a book entitled “God is not great: How religion poisons everything”.
He makes these pronouncements, and then negates any reasonable argument (for example on the grounds that an atheist is godless, or denies the existence of god, and doesn’t necessarily conform to any ideology surrounding that denial) by saying, in essence “Well, atheists would say that”. That’s mature, Theo - I haven’t used that kind of argument since I was in primary school. Would you please explain to me why that makes me wrong, or why it vindicates your ignoranct generalisations?
He then goes on to say that atheism in itself is a faith. I actually don’t understand how he can have arrived at this conjecture. Just because Christopher Hitchens believes that standing up to dogma will encourage people to use their brains does not mean that all atheists have faith in the fact that this will make the world a better place. My personal beliefs are about a lack of faith in a God. If I agree with Hitchens, does that mean I take his book and those of all other atheist philosophers as my bible? That I am therefore by default on some kind of anti-religious crusade? I don’t think so. I’ve been accused here before of laughing at people’s faith and of thinking it stupid. Perhaps to some extent I do, but people are entitled to believe what they want - although when it comes to things like honour killings and violence against abortion practitioners and faith-based conflicts I’ll hold my hands up and say that I think this aspect is harmful. It’s not just atheists who think so.
And as for the feeble joke about ’sexual repression’, shame on you Theo. You should know better than that. Women have been repressed by the pronouncements laid down in religious texts for thousands of years. It happened. Accept it.
And finally, he says “I consider the atheist’s desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty.” Oh bravo. I completely agree. Would you care to reread the what you just wrote? I know he says he’s talking about militant atheism, but it doesn’t sound that way to me.
It’s not religion that I have a bug bear with. It’s people like Theo who presume to tell me what I do or don’t believe, because believe me, they couldn’t be more wrong.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Well said!
June 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
inhalation, exhalation…inhalation, exhalation…
June 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I agree with you completely. It seems to me that in desperation theists will throw all kinds of false accusations against atheists.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:38 am
As with most thorny issues, the problem here is partly definitional. Whilst it appears your atheism is primarily about a personal lack of faith, many religious theorists deduce a more general, and provocative, claim. This is not helped by the strident tones of Hitchens, Onfray, Dawkins et al. whose academic vigour (and occasional arrogance) simply appears to many of the opposing camp to represent a certainty interpreted as devout. After all, since the central theological question is taught to be categorically ineffable, surely any possible statement is ultimately one of belief, rather than empiricism? Hence the (often rabid) defensiveness of doctrinaires who implicitly sense a potential turf invasion and an upset to their existential monopoly.
As a side note, why couldn’t Hitchens just have stopped at “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”? His recent shambolic, sophistic commentaries reveal a mind increasingly divorced from reality. Clearly the attempts to reconcile the world with neo-con philosophy present too great a paradox even for his remarkable brain. His apologia for disgraced World Bank chief Wolfowitz was nothing but cringe-inducing.
No greater zealot than a late convert, I guess.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Careful now - discoursing about faith or lack of it in the public forum is a sign of zealotry. Zealots tend to have an overblown opinion about themselves. In the case of the religious zealot, that they have the ability to determine the mind of God, and it the case of the atheistic zealot they are the mind of God - Prof. Dawkins I mean you!!!!
There is too much unfounded certaintly in the world already - so lets hear it for the Agnostics
June 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hi Rach - perhaps you should create a new ‘Grinds My Gears’ category x
June 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Kathleen, thanks!
Mel - I am, I am. Goddammit.
Anders, I’m sure that alot of atheists are deserving of accusations of this kind - it’s the generalisation that I’m objecting to. He just pissed me off.
Andrew - Hitchens supported Wolfowitz? My god. I had no idea. The man is clearly mad. And I know what you mean about dawkins et al, and their certainty - I can see that. I wasn’t defending Hitchens as such, I was more trying to get off my chest how Theo’s equal certainty made me see red.
ph - Oh lord, I’m not a zealot, am I? I find discoursing about faith fascinating actually, so maybe I am. I also wondered about whether I’d consider myself to be an agnostic, but however much unfounded, I’m still pretty certain that there’s no god. Maybe theo has a point about faith. Oh, and welcome!
Gord - brilliant idea. I think I will.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Agreed.
In Nicaragua I seem to be surrounded by missionaries. I am bored of enjoying people’s blogs until one day they post about God and it all gets a bit ick. Also after every setback they become holier than thou (ie I broke my finger nail, their are no manicurists here, but I guess I can manage, it is God’s will etc)
I read one recently that prayed for the safety of all the missionary workers. Fuck the poor locals then.
I’ll take my chances of burning in hell. Hopefully Christians will turn the other cheek and let me.
By the way, don’t you yearn for the first PM/president etc who actually admits to atheism. None of this getting your picture taken going to church bollocks. I mean, why do they bother? Most voters don’t.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I wonder, is it possible to be absolutely certain about one’s agnosticism?
Anyway. Don’t be apologetic, Rachie. You’re right and not a zealot in the slightest.
I’ve just finished reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion. It was mildly enjoyable in places but, really, while he may be an excellent evolutionary biologist, he isn’t much of a writer. I’m much more interested in reading Hitchens’ latest. He could write about the phone book and it would be worth reading. Unlike Theo Hobson.
Hobson’s piece is a well-worn argument, especially of late. Firing accusations of militancy and fundamentalism back at the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, AC Grayling etc, is really rather lame. Dawkins, for example, doesn’t ever categorically say “There is not a god”, he says that there is no evidence to support the notion that there is. If such evidence arose he would re-evaluate his opinion. That is NOT fundamentalism.
This spurt of “anti-God” literature is simply part of a reaction against subjugation to supernatural gibberish that has been going on for thousands of years and is still has a ruinous influence wherever it propagates in this troubled world. I, for one, applaud them all. Hobson is an intellectual pygmy compared to the likes of Hitchens. Oh, and he’s ginger too.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Nicely put. Until the ginger thing.
Not even funny during rampant anti gingerism of the Heliwell and Evans era. Now just a little sad and somewhat outdated.
I remember Hale & Pace doing ginger gags. They your favourites then?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Oh what fun!!!
June 8th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It’s not atheism that I have a bug bear with. It’s people like Dawkins who presume to tell me what I do or don’t believe……..
June 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Hmmm. Fair point. A lazy snipe on my part. I stand by everything else though.
As for Hale and Pace, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with their oeuvre. You seem to be though. Perhaps you can elucidate?
June 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Our man - religion’s a pretty big thing here too. Missionaries are a bit redundant though - everyone here is a fervent Lutheran. One of my colleagues asked me if I’d enjoyed going to church the other day, and I told him I didn’t go because I’m not religious, and he was quite shocked. And surely if you don’t believe in God, you automatically go to hell? I’ll see you there.
Citizen Sane - I agree. he’s an excellent writer. I’m not actually aware of exactly what Hitchens is trying to say with his book, as I only found out he’d written it this week, but I’m sure he’s probably saying it alot more convincingly than Theo Hobson. His seems to be a knee jerk reaction to an opinion he disagrees with, rather than a considered deconstruction of the points in hand.
ph - But does Dawkins tell you what you believe?
Hald and Pace - I remember them. A bit puerile, as I’m sure we’ll all agree. Won’t we?
June 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
H & P - come from Chislehurst - ’nuff said
June 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Great post Rachael!
June 30th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Sounds like this would be best directed at the author himself and/or his publisher. I’m sure you can find them online.