Doubting Dawkins
Between the Monster and the Saint: Reflections on the Human Condition
Richar
By Stephanie Merritt Published 11 September 2008Between the Monster and the Saint is the latest in a series of meditations on the nature of morality by the former bishop of Edinburgh - a man who, for many conservative Christians, has stretched the definition of liberal theology past breaking point, while remaining for many non-believers the most humane and persuasive apologist for faith. In this extended essay on the nature of good and evil and the evolution of the religious impulse, he offers a tangential contribution to what he calls "a very ugly debate" raging between fundamentalist religious thinkers and those he calls "neo-atheists" - clearly Dawkins, Grayling, Hitchens et al, though he politely declines to single them out by name, referring to them only as "some of the ablest thinkers of our time".
Holloway's new book is a valuable addition to that debate, based on a plea for more understanding and less dogmatic foot-stamping from both sides, but he walks a difficult tightrope between faith and reason and invites the criticism from his detractors on both sides of simply wanting to have his cake and eat it. He also lacks the controversial, strident tones of a Dawkins or a Hitchens, so one fears that his still, small voice of tolerance will fail to make the impact it deserves on public awareness of the debate.
Here he considers the place of human beings in the universe, the processes - in particular the response to death - that led us to create the myth of the immortal or transmigratory soul, and the evolution of religious thought to its present position, which he divides into four subsections: "strong" and "weak" religion, a third category he calls "after-religion", and the modern "neo-atheists", who preach that religion is the root of all evil. The terms are deliberate; Holloway is not the first to observe that "in their evangelical intensity they bear a marked resemblance to the religious protagonists they most despise". He also states that faith "gathers strength from what the world deems to be its absurdity, which is why the apostles of secularity are wasting their time trying to challenge its adherents on the grounds of reason". Here he has pinpointed the inherent flaw in all the many books produced in the past few years by writers in both camps: because each side has already made its mind up definitively, their arguments can only appeal to those who already agree with them, and are unlikely to persuade the opposition. Holloway's own book seems to be aimed principally at those entrenched atheists who view all religion as pernicious and primitive, and to be aimed at them in the hope of persuading them to appreciate some of the enduring values of faith.
It is the after-religion category that most clearly defines his own position, one he set out in his previous book, Looking in the Distance. "People in this position see religion as an entirely human construct, a work of the human imagination, but one that carries enduring meaning." Religious narratives are potent myths, he argues, because of what they reveal about human nature. He goes on to quote Richard Rorty's argument that the New Testament and the Communist Manifesto are flawed, but that both are valuable texts because they inspire us to believe that our future could be better. "It is possible to respect religion," Holloway concludes, "because, at its best, it challenges our brutish selfishness and our cultivated sadism, as well as offering us the hope of a better future for the world and its children."
Holloway is an accomplished literary stylist and the book is studded with references to Nietzsche, W H Auden, John Berger, Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault and Robert Browning, to name but a few, as well as his own rather beautiful images: he speaks of being "more comfortable with the cloudy glimmerings of myth than the diamond-sharp clarities of religion or science". But at times he also speaks with a voice of colloquial frankness, reminding the reader that these reflections are the fruit of a personal journey rather than dry theological research. Nowhere is this clearer than in the introduction, where he relates a disturbing incident from his childhood when he joined a gang of men and boys in holding down a young woman at the shop where he worked so that another man could grope her. As an illustration of how the individual conscience can so easily be submerged into collective force, it seems particularly shocking coming from a former prelate, but it is these personal anecdotes and admissions of fallibility that make Holloway's writing so engaging and honest.
Whether or not you are persuaded by his perspective on matters of faith, it is hard to resist his conclusion about the human condition and our relations with one another; ultimately, this is an exhortation to pity, empathy and, at the last, gratitude. "It shows ingratitude and a lack of imagination to spend the life we've been given stamping, literally or metaphorically, on the lives of others, or sneering contemptuously at how they have chosen to make sense of theirs," he says in the final chapter. It is an almost identical conclusion to that of A C Grayling's recent essay Against All Gods, though reached by a different path: more important than the beliefs that divide us are kindness, and compassion for the common humanity that binds us together.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


21 comments
People fail to see that rationality is only one part of the mental filter that helps us to understand our world. Psychopaths are people that are so rational they actually become irrational, as scientific tests have showed that irrational or emotional intelligence is a balancing force that we require as human's. We live in such a super-rational world, that we are cut off from this intuition and source of knowledge. Unfortunately it is this part of our intellect that we require to move beyond and above our understanding of the material, which is sadly a barren land of meaninglessness without it. Faith exists in the intelligence of emotions- in the heart- if you stop using your heart and creative faculty, you stop seeing the different shades in life's rich and varied tapestry.
This will sound like gibberish to a super-rationalist who doesn't wish/ is unable to use these faculties. To others it might make sense, as they experience life on this level in some way, shape or form- whether it is through the symbolism of myth and literature, art, dance, music or spiritual observance.
I feel sorry for people who choose not to learn to trust another part the intuitive and imaginative part of themselves...it can turn you into a very one-dimensional and mechanical individual.
What you believe is what you become....
The militant atheists as Richard Dawkins calls them violate the prime religious teaching which according to Karen Armstrong is the keynote of the Axial Age. "Do not do unto others what one does not want done to oneself." Their intellectual coldness, cruelty and contempt is especially practiced by Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
They would be wiser if they were a bit kinder, and chose as their 'intellectual opponents' not the most ignorant and foolish of the 'believers' but those in the Teillhard de Chardin, Strawson, class.
That's right. All we can hope for from other human beings is to be treated fairly. A simple enough thing, it would seem but why isn't it? No science could explain that nor glib numinism practised by so many non-believers. Surely attitude counts even if we want to leave others to believe what they want, how many paths to enlightenment can there be?
It is interesting and baffling how difficult it is to discuss religion. If I assert that I went over to a local park yesterday and took a walk on the water, I think it is safe to say that no one, including the most ardent Christian believers, will believe my assertion for one second. I think it also safe to say that no one will criticize those who express unbelief in my assertion. However, if I express unbelief of an assertion that Jesus walked on water without some objective evidence to support the assertion, I risk criticism or worse. As far as I am concerned, all that Dawkins or Hitchens or myself, for that matter, have done is demand that, as long as believers exempt religion from the normal rules of social discourse and argument, we stop permitting believers to establish rules governing my non-religious behavior. How is this not a reasonable demand?
What frightens me is that this book is a quiet voice in a storm of cacophonous, unreasonable, and dogmatic discourse. We need honesty. We need openness. We need to hear the words this book seems to be saying, but I fear that subtlety and honesty are dichotomous with loudness.
Can anyone think of a voice in any public discourse that has been both loud and subtle?
Those who argue that religion's place is made more secure by its good effects ignore its weak foundation. It matters not at all to me how much good is accomplished by believing if that belief is ill-founded. If the core purpose of my life is to seek out truth/goodness and align myself with it as much as possible, then my cause is poorly served by resting it on a myth whose adherents require belief in its literal 'truth'. Yes, my personal belief that god does not exist renders the search for truth somewhat more grueling but the knowledge that I am not laboring under a delusion makes it much more worthwhile.
Escape into your imagination if you must but don't expect any kind of deferment because of it. Only a fool would believe your compassion plea given the over-the-top militarism of the overclass. What you want is more gullible marks! Come back when you've learned how to control your greed and rampant self-delusion. Most of us have had them under control since infancy and don't need mythical misdirection.
If Halloway says faith "gathers strength from what the world deems to be its absurdity, which is why the apostles of secularity are wasting their time trying to challenge its adherents on the grounds of reason"
then Halloway is nothing but a cynic given up on humanity--an anti-humanist. And he also either hasn't read or hasn't internalized Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris when he says they're only preaching to the choir. The title of Harris's book was "Letter to a Christian Nation," for gods-sake.
And to state that he's "more comfortable with the cloudy glimmerings of myth than the diamond-sharp clarities of religion or science". demonstrates he doesn't understand how science works. Certainty is a symptom of the faithful, skeptic vigilance of the science-minded.
"he considers the place of human beings in the universe, the processes - in particular the response to death - that led us to create the myth of the immortal or transmigratory soul, and the evolution of religious thought to its present position"
Well isn't that special. Begin your thesis purposed to bring harmony between dual worldviews by stating that at least one of them - whose adherents take with the utmost seriousness - is based on fantasy.
Not hard to see that this approach is doomed to fail. I give the bishop of Edinburgh an A for effort though.
When atheists engage in rational argument it's "a storm of cacophonous, unreasonable, and dogmatic discourse." But when religious believers kill each other, that's OK, is it? At least five people every day die in acts of violence promoted by an organised religion. How many people have atheists killed lately?