You may remember British philosopher AC Grayling.

I’ve shared his views before – perhaps most notably on March 27, 2005; April 24, 2007; and Feb 8, 2008.

Here are some of his most recent comments – followed by a few responses from his critics:

 

—– The Empty Name Of God (AC Grayling/New Statesman; April 9)

What religious people mean by “god” means nothing to me beyond an incoherent cluster of concepts from which the aforesaid folk choose the subset most convenient to themselves.

But the word brings to mind the man-made phenomenon of religions, whose net effect on humanity now as throughout history has been, by a considerable margin, negative. It would be so just because of the falsity of belief; and the consequent absurdity of behaviour premised on the idea that there exist supernatural agencies who made this very imperfect world, and who have an interest in us that extends to our sex lives and what we should and should not eat on certain days, or wear, and so on. But it is worse than false: it is far too often oppressive and distorting as regards human nature, and divisive as regards human communities.

It is a frequent source of conflict and cruelty. Monstrous crimes have been committed in its name. And more often than not it has stood in the way of efforts at human liberation and progress.

Apologists for religion point to the Sistine Chapel and Bach’s Mass in B minor as some sort of justification for it. I answer: first, the church had the money to commission these things; second, lots of wonderful art is about naked women and bowls of fruit, and required no belief in deities to prompt its production; and third, the existence of religious art does not excuse burning people alive at the stake for disagreeing with some doctrine or other.

[I would add a fourth point: Religion has also prompted people to destroy vast amounts of art. The Iconoclasts were Christians who destroyed Christian art. Christian colonizers often destroyed the art of pagan cultures. Islam has generally condemned and thus pre-empted representations of humans. Saudi Arabia in recent years has demolished important artifacts associated with Mohammad lest they become icons that distract people from Allah. Religious-motivated censorship has curtailed artistic expression in countless ways. And of course some great religious art (such as that of the Egyptian pyramids, the Aztec pyramids, and the Gothic cathedrals) came at the cost of lives and unimaginable effort by what amounted to slave labor. These things ought to be pointed out whenever anyone pulls out the old "Religion has motivated great art, therefore religion is good!" argument.]

Apologists for religion point to charitable works as some sort of justification for it. I answer: non-believers perform these, too, out of simple fellow feeling, not requiring the idea of pleasing a deity or getting into heaven to prompt them to it.

[And of course these "charitable works" of theists are often self-serving and greatly exaggerated, constituting as they do a *very* small part of what churches and religion are all about. See the entry I posted on Nov 18, 2005 for the details.]

Apologists point to Stalinism and Nazism as murderous ideologies, as if their existence made Torquemada and the Taliban somehow acceptable. I answer: all monolithic ideologies, claiming to possess the One Great Truth and demanding that everyone to submit to it on pain of penalty, with their prophets and pieties and shibboleths and sacred cows, come to the same thing when allowed to go to their all too natural extremes – which is precisely my objection to religion. This does not stop me having the same objection to Stalinism and Nazism, which I very much do.

The basic doctrines of the major religions have their roots in the superstitions and fancies of illiterate peasants living several thousand years ago. It is astonishing that these superstitions, in the partial guise of sophistical successor versions, retain any credibility. The reason they do is proselytisation of the very young, the institutionalisation of religious sects, and certain psychological factors.

I would wish people to live without superstition, to govern their lives with reason, and to conduct their relationships on reflective principles about what we owe one another as fellow voyagers through the human predicament – with kindness and generosity wherever possible, and justice always. None of this requires religion or the empty name of “god”. Indeed, once this detritus of our ignorant past has been cleared away, we might see more clearly the nature of good, and pursue it aright at last.

(AC Grayling is professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London)

Of the 19 comments that people have left in response, most seem to praise Grayling.

Here are the comments that offer a different point of view:

“Prof. Grayling, the illiterate peasants living several thousand years ago received revelations. How can such illiterate peasants conceive such ‘Holy Books’ who contents are being studied, scrutinised, debated and producing phDs from so many universities? Is there any man-made literature and manual post-the ‘Holy Books’ era have so much impact on human beings?” - nawawimohamad

“If religion is invented by humans which it is then the logical question to ask yourself is ‘why did humans invent it?’. Atheists claim that the theory of evolution somehow negates religion. If things came into existence through evolution then so did religion… hence atheists must ask themselves: ‘if religion is a product of evolution then what biological function does religion serve in society?’. The fact that religion employs fantasy and superstition is not a reason to dismiss it. It is possible that fantasy and superstition that exist within the bounds of reason are things which serve some sort of beneficial biological function in peoples lives. When I speak of fantasy and superstition existing within the bounds of reason I am not suggesting that fantasies and superstition are entities which are entirely composed of reason-styled thought.” - Patrick

“Aaah Yes, once religion is fully out of the way we will be in the broad sunny uplands of reason and being good for er well…. the sake of goodness. Articles like this always remind me of John Gray’s observation that atheism is a late Christian cult, based on the supremely Christian (and Marxist) idea that by changing people’s beliefs, you change their behaviour.” - sandwiches

“I can of course see the point, but it all sounds a little like the self-righteous and omniscient adolescent who knows the secret of putting the world to rights, and despairs of the crass stupidity of adults. If we are to be governed by reason alone, where does that put entirely irrational notions like love – love of one’s partner, love of nature, love of art? I defy anyone to live a life determined by rationality, and it’s rather silly to suggest that such a possibility exists. But then that’s philosophers all over. They are jolly good at analysing ideas, but don’t always understand what makes people tick, and why people behave in the way they do.” - penruddock

“For most people belief in god is necessary for emotional stability; the intellectual rationale is nearly irrelevant. And, there’s no evidence that religious people are in the main any more intolerant than non-religious. The aggressive and murderous wars of the 20th century were fueled by non-religious and often ’scientific’ ideologies: fascism, communism, nationalism. It seems no-god can be as destructive as god.” - DC Alec

“Granted that the doctrines of religions ‘have their roots in the superstitions and fancies’ of persons who lived long ago. We have to discard those superstitions. But those superstitions grew out of a compelling urge to answer certain questions. And if we throw away the questions along with the fanciful answers, we end up with a poorer, shallower Weltanschauung. I admit that those questions cannot have definitive answers: neither empirical science nor pure reason can provide those answers. Ask Kant. So, shall we give up? No!

“Religion is a ‘man-made phenomenon’, but it is equally a man-making phenomenon. Those old superstition-mongers were seeking a meaning to their world. They were wrong in thinking they were finding that meaning in the world, but they were wiser than they knew in putting meaning into the world. We must keep puzzling about ultimate reasons, meanings, values, and keep creating myths about all that. Plato is the greatest philosopher because he gave no answers but made myths that keep the wonder and the puzzlement alive.

“By all means pull down the edifices of dogmatic religions, but don’t tell me to live in a wasteland. Leave me the metaphysical dimension, Spinoza’s God-Nature, Schopenhauer’s Will and Idea, Whitehead’s organic vision of process: these are all myths, but they are myths that enable me to live in a rich, meaningful world, albeit a world that I know to be of our own making.

“Plato spoke of a battle of Gods and Giants. What is wrong with the war waged by atheists against religion is that the atheism they advocate is equated with a narrow empiricism: they want us to accept the limits of objective science as the limits of all thought. I want to live in a meaningful world, and meaning is not to be found in the world but is only to be infused into the world by creative thought, by poetry, art, and a philosophy that dares to wrestle with ultimate, unanswerable questions.” - D.R. Khashaba

 

Which comment of Grayling or his critics impresses you the most?