Confused prat makes mistakes
Can I nominate this article to be the worst ever written on Comment Is Free? That's a large assertion I know, but it's so goddam awful it can't just pass without comment.
Theo Hobson is concerned at the rise of "Militant Atheists" like Hitchens, Dawkins et al. Which is understandable, seeing as he believes in God and all that. So what is his beef? Well, atheism is "pretentious and muddled". Furthermore:
Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.
No Theo old fruit, I think you're confusing "Atheism", where someone believes there is no God, with "Antitheism", which asserts that religion is essentially bad for the world. They are two different things. Strange that someone who says that atheists don't understand the nature of religion should then not understand that there are different strands in the non-believing 'church' as well - agnostics, atheists and antitheists. But then, as I will contend, this is because he is a prat. Theo goes on:
Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.
Yes, the militant atheists do, but other atheists don't, as said above. This is the equivilent of saying "Muslim fundamentalists commit acts of terrorism, therefore all Muslims are terrorists". Abhorrent, in other words.
Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer.
..."but I'll carry on writing anyway..."
Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It's a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.
But religion is surely worshipping some supreme being - if not what are Christianity and Islam? Cults? Gentlemen's clubs? Anyway, the article plods on...
In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion". For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class "religious"?
This is just ridiculous. He's confusing religion with hobbies - like yoga. Religion can have connections between stuff like football, for instance - whole books have been written on the subject. But there is a difference between me being an Oldham Athletic supporter and being religious. I don't think Joe Royle created the universe, for instance.
Also confusing is this little throwaway:
Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists
Well in that case what do they believe in? And what does this make the Bible; a sacred text or just a bunch of things that can be ignored at will? Theo doesn't say. He just goes on being a little too hypocritical for his own good:
I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice.
Not a charge that could ever be levelled against Theo Hobson, who did not once generalise about atheism. No, sir.
And looking at his CiF profile, there's more incoherence. It doesn't make sense to me anyway, but that could be because it's nearly 4am and I can't get to sleep:
For a few years now Theo has been trying to ‘come out’ as a post-ecclesial Christian theologian. He says we have to reinvent this religion away from its institutional past. A truly postmodern theology will serve this end. So far, so-called postmodern theology has been neo-orthodox, a highly erudite dead-end.
What the frig is postmodern theology? Does it think, as some postmodern historians do, that are all texts are fiction? How does the Bible come into that? No wonder it's hit a dead end.
I am sure there will be more literate critiques of Hitchens' book, but this sure ain't one of them.
Cory
