Registered user login:

Doubting Dawkins

Stephanie Merritt

Published 11 September 2008

Between the Monster and the Saint: Reflections on the Human Condition

Richard Holloway Canongate, 240pp, £14.99

Between 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.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

21 comments from readers

ramesh1
12 September 2008 at 04:22

Reason is also bad faith. When Einstein roared God is not playing dice,at that time he expressed his bad faith.Reason and faith two sideof same coin.

It is futile to fight on reason against faith. It is rearlly westeof time.Every man live on faith.Faith is base of his living.Hope is another name of faith, how can man survive without hope?

jonjermey
12 September 2008 at 08:56

If 'each side has made up its mind definitively' then why do Australian census figures show that 150 less people every day claim to believe in God? There is a very large middle group of people who believe what they were told to by their parents and teachers: once these are encouraged to think for themselves they rapidly move away from religion and towards rational thought.

Jubliana
12 September 2008 at 11:23

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....

Shalom Freedman
12 September 2008 at 11:46

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.

Magnus
12 September 2008 at 12:39

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?

showme1946
12 September 2008 at 14:51

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?

dbacks
12 September 2008 at 14:57

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?

maggie88
12 September 2008 at 15:28

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.

Pancho Angry
12 September 2008 at 17:41

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.

JA Gill
12 September 2008 at 19:49

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.

Guanipa
12 September 2008 at 21:32

"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.

jonjermey
12 September 2008 at 22:33

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?

Scrutator
13 September 2008 at 03:47

The slight uncertainty in my mind derives from the publication of this book by the commercial sector for profit, conceivably suggesting Mr Holloway remains within the confines of the 'hopes, fears and self-interests' that denote an egocentric mind.

If it was truly a work of compassion for humanity, as it appears to be, might it not have been better to publish on a webpage funded by the author?

Douglas Chalmers
13 September 2008 at 04:20

"...the nature of good and evil and the evolution of the religious impulse..."

People do not seem to understand that duality is a false concept of religion. There is ultimately no such thing as "good and evil' and particularly "god and the devil". That it applies to Western and essentially Abrahamic religions says something about their own falseness.

There is only one creation and there is only one "creator" thus there is only one power in the Universe. It is not gravity and it is not "the devil" - it is Karma, the law of action and reaction. Above all, there is only the simplicity of Reality and that can only ever be discerned through Truth, not lies.

As for a god, call it what you like but science has had to accept that the "big bang" was the original Creation and that it must have been initiated by some Original Cause. That, of course, is not to say that evolution has/is not still occcurring on Earth.

Bruceeverett
13 September 2008 at 12:27

"...and the modern "neo-atheists", who preach that religion is the root of all evil."

Aside from the obvious disingenuous term "neo-atheist" (it's like saying "black is the new black" or "brand new feature - differs in no way from the original!"- how does non-belief in God differ from non-belief in God?) I'd like someone to actually demonstrate that Dawkins believes that religion is the root of all evil (when he has clearly stated otherwise).

Stating the name of a series he hosted won't do it. He outwardly criticised the title The Root of All Evil, a title he didn't chose mind you, simply because he doesn't agree with it.

This misrepresentation has been dealt with over and over again for the past two years. It's hard to credit anyone who has been paying attention with ignorance to canards like this.

Do the people making these claims actually know what they are on about, or are they deliberately misleading? Are they misleading people intentionally by pretending to be familiar with the debate?

I haven't enjoyed the acrimony surrounding this debate. Really I haven't. Does anyone really think that "neo-atheists" are happy to wake up and be told that they hate their country, shouldn't be citizens and that magically, they all think alike so Hitchens can speak for all of them?

Does anyone like watching people being told that they believe things that they don't?

Believe me. I don't like the acrimony. But...

How can one take seriously, someone who claims to disavow the acrimony and divisiveness of the debate that has been going on, while at the same time being an exemplar of some of its more sordid tactics (even if unintentionally)?

Very few of the "neo-atheists", the published ones at any rate, actually think or argue that religion is the root of all evil. In fact, not only can I not think of a single "neo-atheist" author that does think that evil exclusively originates within religion, I can't think of one that thinks religion necessarily precipitates evil (the passage about the taxi driver in God is Not Great shows that even Hitchens doesn't think this).

But these and other demonstrably false claims are doing the rounds. "Absolutely sure in their position", "reason alone", "social Darwinist", "scientism", "see no value in the cultural achievements of religion". Blah, blah, blah-dee-blah-blah. Canards that have been repeatedly and popularly shown to be false by the simple practice of referencing what people have actually written!

If someone wants to take a middle ground. If someone wants to tone down the rhetoric and the acrimony, they have to set themselves apart from this kind of patent dishonesty. Not just in being honest, but in being careful enough not to do these things as an honest mistake.

Seriously, if you wanted to make the debate more friendly, would you risk it with obviously untrue criticisms?

I want to see more moderate authors on the scene, not un-scholarly bumbling nor thinly veiled religious bigotry dressed up as the middle ground.

stateswoman
13 September 2008 at 23:11

...because it challenges our 'Brutish selfishness' and our 'cultivated sadism'. This is where Holloway's argument appears to be flawed. I haven't read his book and this article is a kind of critique of Holloway's sentiments, therefore, I may be jumping the gun. His words may have been misinterpreted. Thus, based on the above assertion, made in the name of Holloway, I feel prompted to make my comment.

'cultivated sadism' as well as 'masochism' are qualities all too frequently found in faith groups, the religious, and the Church hierarchy. It is rich to suggest that rationalists who deny common or garden faith are 'brutishly selfish' or refined sadists of a kind.

Likewise, living the life of a cynic, contributing little if anything to society, leading unambitious lives of layabouts in the hope of a 'Life Everlasting' in the hereafter, in the opinion of any right thinking and socially scrupulous person is, indeed, 'brutishly selfish'.

Moreover, throwing one's weight about, preaching dogma and forcing it on populations is even 'more brutish'. This is more often done on the minds of the youngest, tender children, the uneducated, lowly educated and under educated which makes it more repugnant.

While I personally deplore Dawkins' , Grayling's et al's apparent arrogance at almost disallowing the need for Faith which brings Hope to those less scholarly or scientific, or, indeed, to those who sincerely and, legitimately, have Faith, one can understand their frustration.

In my youth, I was blessed with having been brought up in an open, tolerant society where if religion had a place, it was 'sweet', dare I say it. It is a shock for my generation, too, to find ourselves battling our life in this growing intolerant atmosphere of extremism of every description.

I remember listening to a learned local priest saying quite cheerfully that 'Faith was a Gift!' Not everybody had it and for those who thought they had it, they shouldn't boast about it. He had gone on to stress, however, that to those who had 'The Gift of Faith', it came with an equal share of responsibility. To do evil, while 'firmly believing in God and the Will of God' was a sin of far greater intensity than a parallel sin committed by a non-believer.

Alas, the shame! the uncountable cases of abuse and horrific criminal behaviour carried out by priests, bishops, religious and nuns throughout history and up to the present day and the despicable secrecy, dark veils and vile hypocrisy condoned by the Vatican and by those in authority has only helped create a generation of non-believers.

Douglas Chalmers
14 September 2008 at 01:59

"Religious narratives are potent myths, he argues, because of what they reveal about human nature..."

This is interesting and timely because we are now facing the rise of a new religious enthusiasm in America which is rapidly spreading. It is called "Alaskan Palintology" and brings evangelical Christianity right back front and centre to mainstream life and politics in particular.

It fills a long unaddressed void in both religious and political thinking in the West. In fact, applied correctly as a positive motivating force, it gives the Anglo world a chance to catch up with the more 'active' religions in the East. It is no use going on irrationally hating Islam as that is not a justification in itself.

Thus Palintology has evolved and it also has roots in native American Eskimo tribal heritage if you study the background of its pro-genitor. It is also a kind of feminist Crusaderism although their agenda is not to rule the oil states of the Middle East (West Asia) so much as to shatter some fabled glass ceiling.

http://palintology.com/

emansnas
14 September 2008 at 06:36

As a rational thinker I find no other conclusion than agnosticism. I find it useful to muse on the comparison of a group of chimpanzees sitting suitably puzzled before a tome of Shakespeare as we humans sit before the incalculably complex story of our universe. Although it may be distasteful, the human brain may indeed have prohibitive limits of comprehension. Perhaps with time we'll evolve to a level capable of understanding, perhaps not. In the mean time it seems most beneficial to be tolerant of the beliefs humans use to cope with life, when those beliefs do not result in harm to others, but completely intolerant when they do.

bumchum
15 September 2008 at 04:21

The Church apologizes to Darwin! What is that makes the comparison between the genteel Victorian religious comfort zone, the same as the comparison with the rabid Inquisition.? Gallileo, himself was no innocent. Furthermore, what was the Pope supposed to say, right ok, Jupiter has six moons lets dismantle the Catholic Church, worldwide. The same attitude and mentality persists to day even with enlightment, with regard to overpopulation and its ultimate doomsday message. Very few hard Scientists even today, truly understand the magic simplicity of Darwin's message, but at least Dawkins does. In fact the difference betweeen then and today is that it was enlightened clergy man of the Anglican Church with time on their hands and a natural curiosity about pure truth that helped Darwin overcome his own religious antipathy to his own theory.

Suresh Dogra
15 September 2008 at 07:42

Faith has endured despite scientic assault.It has,nevertheless,undergone radical changes.Meaningful life is unimaginable without the support of faith but it must pass through strict scientific scrutiny.Trouble arises when faith fanatically holds on to what is shown to to patently false.In America large sums of money are spent on preaching,propagating and perpetuating totally discarded shibboleths.If faith can't shed literal belief in the Flood and Noah's Ark,how is it going to inspire anybody?But without the support of faith,I am not even able to sacrificially love my wife more attractive than whom I see women everyday.Faith is ultimately the foundation of all values.It should only be enlightened faith.

subho
15 September 2008 at 14:26

Faith is the foundation of some value which may not enlighten but darken our hope in future. Here comes

ugly side of faith that is organized religion. The latest proof---The church of England will apologize to Charles Darwin. After 150 years ? What a pity !

Anyway , we are to be reasonable about the pros and cons of faith. We are to be selective as to objective reality of faith whether it earns trust . belief and hope of maximum people.

Before criticizing neo-atheists and Dawkings, please

look into yourselves whether you are not to apologize again .

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?