A. C. Grayling - Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness

AGAINST ALL GODS

First published in 2007 by Oberon Books Ltd.

Reprinted in 2007, 2008

This electronic edition first published in 2012

Oberon Books Ltd.
521 Caledonian Road, London N7 9RH
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7607 3637 / Fax: +44 (0) 20 7607 3629
e-mail: info@oberonbooks.com
www.oberonbooks.com

Copyright (A C Grayling, 2007)

A C Grayling is hereby identified as author of this work in accordance with section 77 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The author has asserted his moral rights.

You may not copy, store, distribute, transmit, reproduce or otherwise make available this publication (or any part of it) in any form, or binding or by any means (print, electronic, digital, optical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

PB ISBN: 978-1-84002-728-0

EPUB ISBN: 978-1-84943-311-2

Visit www.oberonbooks.com to read more about all our books and to buy them. You will also find features, author interviews and news of any author events, and you can sign up for e-newsletters so that youre always first to hear about our new releases.

D OES RELIGION DESERVE RESPECT? I argue that it deserves no more respect than any other viewpoint, and not as much as most.

Is religion really resurgent, or is this an illusion masking the real truth, that we are witnessing its death throes? I argue that, all appearances to the contrary, we might well be witnessing its demise.

What are the real meanings of atheist, secularist and humanist? The words denote importantly different concepts, but get bandied about as if they were synonyms. I seek to explain them properly here.

Religious apologists charge the non-religious with being fundamentalist if they attack religion too robustly, without seeming to notice the irony of employing, as a term of abuse, a word which principally applies to the too-common tendencies of their own outlook. Can a view which is not a belief but a rejection of a certain kind of belief really be fundamentalist? Of course not; but there is more to be said too.

And: what is a humanist ethical outlook, apart from being one that does not start from belief in supernatural agencies? I sketch the outlines of this rich, warm and humane view in the concluding essay here, to offer the alternative to a religious outlook, an alternative that comes from the great tradition of Western philosophy.

Public debate about matters of moment takes place mainly in newspapers and magazines and on radio and television, and the nature of these media imposes limits on how long (not very long), how detailed (not very detailed) and how complicated (not very complicated) contributions to the debate can be. This often has the effect of over-simplifying and polarising matters too far, but it need not: it is not impossible to make ones case economically and clearly, though it is inevitable that those who cannot tell the difference between a concise and intelligible expression of a view, on the one hand, and on the other a merely simple and even simplistic view, like to call the former the latter if they disagree with it. Such is life.

The six polemical essays to follow, and the concluding essay outlining what a non-religious ethics looks like, all began life as journalistic contributions with aspirations to concision and clarity to the debate society is currently having with itself about religion. I subscribe to a non-religious outlook, and criticise religions both as belief systems and as institutional phenomena which, as the dismal record of history and the present both testify, have done and continue to do much harm to the world, whatever good can be claimed for them besides. The debate has become an acerbic one and worse: some contributors to it have their say with bombs but the following thought governs my own part in it: that all who have secure grounds for their views should not be afraid of robust challenge and criticism; if they are confident in their views they should be able to shrug off satire and mockery. The more insecure people are, the less confident they feel, the less mature their outlook is, the angrier they are made by what they label offence to their religious sensitivities even to the point of violence. They undermine and refute themselves thus.

Apologists for faith are an evasive community, who seek to avoid or deflect criticism by slipping behind the abstractions of higher theology, a mist-shrouded domain of long words, superfine distinctions and vague subtleties, in some of which God is nothing (no-thing, not-a-thing) and does not even exist (but is still the condition of the possibility of existence one could go on) in short, sophistry, as it would be called by those who have attempted a study of real masterworks of philosophy, for example in the writings of Aristotle and Kant. But those who would escape into clouds of theology for their defence miss the point made by religions critics. The great mass of religious folk believe in something far more basic and traditional than the vaporous inventions of theology, and it is on this that they repose their trust, and for which some too many kill and die (faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for). Moreover, the deeply forested hideaways of theology start from the same place as ordinary superstitious faith, so laying an axe to this root brings it down too.

But religion is not theology; it is the practice and outlook of ordinary people into most of whom supernaturalistic beliefs and superstitions were inculcated as children when they could not assess the value of what they were being sold as a world view; and it is the falsity of this, and its consequences for a suffering world, that critics attack.

This applies also to those who point to the comfort and solace religions bring to the lonely, the old, the fearful and the ill, even they sometimes say if it is false. Well: leave aside the comfort and solace brought to the suicide bomber who thinks he has earned all his family a free pass to heaven, and himself the posthumous ministrations of seventy-two ever-renewing virgins, and think only of the comfort religions provide even if false. Would we tolerate the government telling us comforting lies about, say, an accident at a nuclear plant, or a spillage of deadly viruses from a laboratory? No? Then comforting lies have their limits. More importantly, is truth less important than comfort, even for the lonely and afraid? Are there not truthful ways to comfort them from the resources of human compassion? There certainly are. Given the crucial, inestimable, ultimate value of truth, would these not be far better than lies, however comforting? They certainly would.

And art Raphaels Madonnas, Bachs sacred cantatas, exquisitely decorated psalters and Qurans, York Minster and the Blue Mosque of Istanbul where would art be without religion? It would be exactly where it is now. Art is the outpouring of the human heart; its skill is human skill, it is the effulgence of the creativity, delight, passion and yearning of the human mind. When our gods were dogs and cats, in Egypt, people made exquisite effigies of dogs and cats, and painted them in their elegance on tomb walls. When gods lived in the clouds on Olympus, people built wonderful temples with marvellously wrought reliefs around their pediments, depicting Athene and Hermes, Zeus and Apollo. Since the Renaissance when patrons other than the church were wealthy enough to commission nudes, landscapes, portraits, hunting scenes, records of battles and still lifes, people enlarged the scope of art and celebrated everything everything human, everything about the world inhabited and enjoyed by humanity. People have never really done anything else: Handels oratorios and the