A Rejoinder to A C Grayling.

The public debate about the role of religion in British society has not been so heated for a long time. For some, such as the philosopher A C Grayling, the battle against primitive superstition is never won and the prominent space given to Islam in the media since the Salman Rushdie Affair of 1989 has re-ignited passions about religion.

One thing that secular atheists seem to hate more than anything else is the claim that their outlook is, actually, somewhat similar to a belief system, as opposed to a simple statement of rational facts against which those who disagree have had their minds perverted and shackled by religion.

The following exchange is typical of the tedious and somehow parochial nature of these spats by people who can't see clearly the connections between religion and politics or who conflate terms like 'atheist' and 'secular' to defend a particular worldview from having its underlying assumptions challenged.

For example in the Guardian, Andrew Brown wrote about,'

I was listening on Friday morning to a confused debate in the Conway Hall among atheists and secularists about what to do about Islam. Although it was billed as organised by the Council for Ex-Muslims, the crowd of about 300 was overwhelmingly white and middle-aged and looked to me more like long-standing members of the British Humanist Association'

Brown then went on sarcastically,

On the platform were a couple of Iranian refugees who really have been threatened by a fascist theocracy; there was a Dutch defender of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who thought she had done entirely the right thing in moving to an American rightwing thinktank; there was A C Grayling of this parish, who called her a friend but doubted her wisdom in going to America. From the sporadic clapping and counter-clapping, it was obvious that sentiment in the hall was deeply divided over whether home-grown fascism was a greater danger than religion.

Grayling retorted tartly like a C of E vicar with his knickers in a twist,,

What a travesty of a report, Andrew; perhaps meditating what tendentiousness you could muster in response to the extraordinary courage of some dozens of people there who had chosen to think for themselves and free themselves from the superstitions that oppress so many of their ex-coreligionists - and at considerable personal risk to themselves.

You are a perfect example of a person whose zeal to defend fairy stories makes you dishonest and mean-minded. Once upon a time your sort did to those who think for themselves what the mullahs would like to do to the brave men and women at that conference: confined now to snideries, your essential poverty of outlook is on magnificent display here.

The florid hyperbole of this is so wonderfully fruity and over the top that I had to respond, though I usually stay clear of atheism debates which are dominated by splenetic middle aged men how are still stuck in some mindset from the high point of secularism and liberal social democracy from the 1970s.

Rather like Francis Wheen they seem to think the world as they knew it somehow ended from around 1979-1980 and that reason has been on retreat, instead of on a steady advance, since the Thatcher and Reagan came to power and Islamic fundamentalism was kick started by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

My response to this nonsense this morning was,

Secularism should not be conflated with atheism. Yet secularism itself is part of a Christian cultural inheritance and started off with the need to seperate political and religious authority that began in Britain in the seventeenth century.

The flaw in AC Grayling's thinking is turning secularism into some progressive crusade of militant Enlightenment that can become very puritanical, squeamish and intolerant.

The fact that Grayling takes secularism as the starting point with which atheism is must be the historical end point and that this must be accelerated at all costs is bound to create conflict because it conflicts with deeply held needs.

Religion is more than simply a set of superstitions but reflects the human need for myth and to make sense of human experience. No less than Grayling's faith in secular progress which acts in the same way to an extent.

Now it is absurd to push this too far and suggest Grayling is some secular equivalent of a religious fundamentalist because he does argue from the standpoint of reason and evidence.

That's why Brown's piece comes across as silly because, as Grayling points out correctly, people are being tortured and killed in the name of religion in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

However, the crusade for militant Enlightenment can also dovetail with a belief in liberating people from the tyranny of theocratic totalitarian regimes, where politics is religion, by invading nations such as Iraq.

Grayling will, no doubt groan at this and wave it aside as of marginal relevance when compared with the intentional and brutal killing that goes on in the name of religion.

Yet it cannot be because it was opposition to some seamless totalitarian religion that led Christopher Hitchens to support the invasion of Iraq and to believe that all conflicts in the Middle East are caused primarily by religion.

God is not Great How Religion Poisons Everything is a statement of such a belief that if the toxin of religion were cleansed away then somehow conflict stricken zones would be far less likely to exist.

Yet most conflicts are political in origin to which end fundamentalist strains of religion simply 'up the ante'. Sophisticated writers on politics and religion like Malise Ruthven in his A Fury for God can take that on board.

To suggest all religion is just inherently prone to corruption ignores the fact that humans themselves are inherently corrupt. Any belief system can be used to rationalise killing if taken too far.

Secular atheist progressivism is merely yet another example where those who are so barbaric and deny human rights are so demented that we need not stick exactly to the UN conventions on torture.

This is essentially the position of Christopher Hitchens whose book Grayling regards as the 'definitive' and most 'comprehensive' treatment of the 'anti-religion' case.

The inhumanity done in the name of religion by fundamentalists makes the case for the seperation of religious from political authority. That case needs to be pressed against Islamists and their 'political religion'

What it does not do is make the case for trying to cleanse public life of religion entirely and to do so on the false premise that this will remove conflict rather than inflame it further.