Attitudes
Tom Freeman at Fisking Central also disputed with Theo Hobson and his rather idiosyncratic account of what atheism is. He points out that Hobson isn’t altogether consistent.
This atheist, believing that religious claims are factually untrue, is naturally likely to prefer others to reject these untruths. It is also possible, though, for an atheist to believe that (some) religion can (in some circumstances) have (some) social or cultural benefits. And Hobson knows this: less than a week ago, he wrote about the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini, who “agrees that dogmatic atheism is unattractive: ‘to think there is nothing to be learned from religion is extremely arrogant,’ he says. And he acknowledges the appeal of religion, even to a hardened atheist.” If Hobson still accepts – as he did a few days ago – that Baggini is an atheist, then this rather undermines his current argument that atheism is a matter of intolerant zealotry.
He wrote about the atheist philosopher Julian Baggini? thought I. He did? I was unaware. I was also amused. ‘The atheist philosopher Julian Baggini’ – mmph – that’s no the atheist philosopher, that’s just Julian. No no, no no, I don’t mean it (Julian doesn’t read this, fortunately, so I can tease a little); I know he is the atheist philosopher really; it just sounds funny. It’s the ‘the,’ I suppose.*
So I was inspired to read Hobson’s post. Here’s the bit he quotes from an interview of Julian in a Christian magazine:
For example, there are certain things that I think are quite valuable which the religious mindset finds easier to accommodate. I’d call them ‘religious attitudes’. Thankfulness is one example. I think it’s very good to have a sense of gratitude – for being alive, for being well. I think that the lack of it lies at the root of a lot of modern dissatisfaction. People no longer feel a sense of gratitude, they feel a sense of entitlement, and so they’re always unhappier about what they don’t have than they are thankful for what they do … I think [thankfulness] comes more naturally in a religious mindset. For a start, you have an object of gratitude. There’s nothing for me to feel thankful to. And also you have rituals of gratitude. A religious person can say grace, they can pray. Now, you can try to create these little rituals in atheist settings if you like, but I tend to think they wouldn’t work.
I agree with most of that, and I’ve been thinking about it lately. I have this idea about a possible connection between irrational or arational belief or faith, and certain qualities like generosity and compassion. I think there may be a sense in which irrationality can be a kind of virtue – because it may be better at selflessness, at not being calculating and cautious, at just going all out for other people. That could be considered a religious attitude. I want to jaw about that some time; meanwhile, I completely agree with the part about ritual, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said that here. I think the ritual problem is really regrettable.
But once we get off Julian and back onto Hobson, things don’t go so well.
Baggini is right to move the discussion away from the tired philosophical argument over the existence of God, and to think about the attitudes that define faith. For faith in God is not a matter of believing certain unlikely propositions about the universe. The question of whether or not he exists is a massive category error. It is the supreme non-question. In practice, to have faith in him is to be involved in a certain way of speaking and feeling. And gratitude is a key aspect of this rhetorical tradition. The believer learns to feel indebted, grateful, dependent. He or she learns to see God as the source of all goodness, all life, and to see him or herself as infinitely lucky.
Uh…how do you go about seeing god as the source of all goodness, all life if you don’t believe god exists? How can god’s existence be a non-question if you’re going to have gratitude to that god for being the source of all goodness, all life? Sorry, but I don’t quite follow.
*Oh honestly. I no sooner type that than I read a comment on my previous post on Hobson, which takes a jokey comment I made on Julian’s comment with deadly seriousness and tells me to hold off on the snark, so I guess I should spell out that that stuff is [loudly] jokey. No doubt it’s all very unbecoming of me to make jokes about atheist philosophers and everything, but dang, it’s just Notes and Comment, it’s not the front page of the Times. I make the odd joke now and then. I mean no disrespect. I deeply respect all philosophers without exception, I promise.
“Uh…how do you go about seeing god as the source of all goodness, all life if you don’t believe god exists? How can god’s existence be a non-question if you’re going to have gratitude to that god for being the source of all goodness, all life? Sorry, but I don’t quite follow.”
A lot of people in the non-realist tradition think something like this. I think Robin LaPoidevin makes this kind of argument, for example (check out my interview with him in New British Philosophy) – though my memory could be faulty, and I might have spelt his name wrong. Also, there’s the whole Sea of Faith lot.
I’m not saying that it’s not a batty view. Just saying that it is argued for. Not saying these arguments are good. Though they can be sophisticated!! :)
I have this idea about a possible connection between irrational or a rational belief or faith, and certain qualities like generosity and compassion.
I’ve met enough religious who were not particularly generous or compassionate, c.f. the growing right wing Christian “I’m rich cause God obviously loves me” entitlement theology.
Where there is ‘goodness,’ it is not necessarily innate in the religious, but rather an obligation many feel they are under, or have been scared into. This is not to say that the effects of that ‘goodness’ is not real or not often worthwhile. However, that generosity comes at a price to those that accept it, or have it forced upon them (Magdalene Sisters anyone?)
Sometimes the meme is benign, sometimes malign; that says nothing about it’s value as truth.
Truth probably is ‘a non-question’ at point of sale. But Hobson seems to be suggesting that faith per se, regardless of the existence of that in which faith is held, is adequate justification for faith because it may have benign consequences.
That might work for homeopathy, but…
“Also, there’s the whole Sea of Faith lot.”
Ah yes, them – I haven’t seen that old gang for ages, how are they, the bastards?
snicker
It’s okay about the batty sophisticated arguments – I understand about it now!
“I’ve met enough religious who were not particularly generous or compassionate”
Yeh yeh yeh – I didn’t mean to claim it always works that way. God no – it so obviously doesn’t. No, I was just straining every nerve trying to see some point to the idea that belief can link up with goodness in some way. That was one I came up with. I don’t even know if it’s true; it’s just a guess.
the idea that belief can link up with goodness in some way
I believe it does actually, because the religious have simple ideas of ‘goodness’ strongly enculturated (is that a word?) into them from an early age.
The point I was trying to make was that the religious are not uniformly good (even by their own definition) and that often that goodness comes at cost to those done good to.
I know. But – well, come at it from the other angle. Extraordinary generosity or compassion or helpfulness or self-sacrifice – altruism, to put it more dully – is fundamentally irrational. Rationality is beside the point; something else is going on. So I was considering the possibility that a habit of ‘faith’ – of belief without evidence – may train some people in the ability to be extraordinarily, irrationally generous. The possibility that the leap of faith is the same kind of thing (cognitively, emotionally) as the leap into extreme altruism.
“Non-realist tradition” ?
Uh?
How can one be a non-realist, except by being …
(a) A mystic – and therefore off your head….
(b) On intersting substances, and therefore …..
(c) Just off your head …..
OB, you’re showing superhuman generosity and compassion here. God’s existence a category mistake? Oh, I see, god is something people (and spiders) do, or not, like patience; not an entity that exists or not?
If that was the official line of the big religions, we could all save a lot of time. But it isn’t. Their gods are born as men, and die, and come to life again, or dictate in a cave deriverative thoughts about holiness and misogyny, etc.
For my (so far) health, I’m grateful to my mother and my wife. For the riversides of Oxford I’m grateful to the generations who shaped them and didn’t build on lots of them. For your wonder at a rainbow over Puget Sound you can be grateful to poets and the teachers who encouraged your aesthetic sensibilities (for example).
Agree with OB. I think that Hobson is the one engaging in a category error by regarding the question of the value and the benefits of religion as attitude and the existence of God as somehow wholly unrelated. The existence of God is a thorny enough matter philosophically, but it *is* one of believing in a proposition about the universe. Which does not make it an empirical proposition, or a scientific proposition – but nonetheless a substantial (and challengeable) one. And even in a kind of faith which eschews philosophy, it’s still there – as a kind of trust, perhaps, rather than belief, in the absence of knowledge.
I simply do not see how one’s answer to that would necessarily vacate regarding religion as beneficial (in some respects) or perhaps non-beneficial (in other respects). But the danger of subsuming the existence question under this one would be to neglect the question of the truth of religious propositions in favour of some kind of utilitarianism. Does OB regard the arguments that personal religion is good for you as a reason to adopt it? Don’t think so. Does she need it to be a good person, for altruism, and even leaps of faith? Doubt it. Do I regard the arguments that religion is bad for you as sufficient to reject it? Nope. In the end, it does come down to whether we believe there is someone there, or not.
I should reiterate that I feel very itchy with evolutionary accounts of beliefs, memetic or otherwise; or utilitarian “does it make you a better person” ones. Because it seems to me, they always run into the danger of involving some kind of relativism regarding the truth of those beliefs.
“because it may be better at selflessness, at not being calculating and cautious, at just going all out for other people.”
Depends on whether you see selflessness as being irrational really; I’d have thought that for much of the time the converse was as likely.
“He points out that Hobson isn’t altogether consistent.”
Well, wasn’t THAT a surprise!
“OB, you’re showing superhuman generosity and compassion here.”
Well I’m such a lovely person, you know!
“But in the sense of thinking logically about what follows from what and how best to achieve a given aim, I don’t think so at all.”
No, agreed. (I’ve been having a rather interesting discussion about that on another blog with someone who pointed out my frequent use of the word ‘disgusting’ in a moral sense despite repudiation of disgust as moral judgment.) But there’s a third factor, I think, or a territory between economic rationality and rational judgment. Motivation, perhaps. The actual performance of extreme demanding generosity. I do think that tends to be similar to a leap of faith. That’s not to say it requires ‘faith,’ especially not religious faith; I just think there may be a connection between the two ways of thinking.
altruism, to put it more dully – is fundamentally irrational
I’m with Tom. I’ve never bought into the ‘rational man’ economic model where we are all simple utility maximising robots in all situations. Humans don’t actually behave like that. Well some do, but such behaviour is generally considered to be psychopathic.
I also kind of agree with you about extreme generosity, in the sense of causing real damage to the giver, it is rare and takes a huge degree of motivation. Not sure I’d call it “faith” in all cases. For example, accounts of war often relate cases of people giving their lives to save comrades, which is about as generous as you can be, but “faith’ has little to do with it. More a case of ‘I know you would do the same for me’.
‘Not sure I’d call it “faith” in all cases.’
No no, I’m not calling it faith either – I’m considering the possibility that the two are linked. That they have a common ancestor, so to speak.
“I think they’re simply in our nature”
Sure – but not in the nature of all of us, and not all the time, and not reliably, and so on. I think these spikes on the graph are quite interesting.
Francis, your last point was something I was thinking of raising, bit with a slightly broader scope. How do you create the secular, if not actively humanist equivalents of what the Churchy types do. Not just charities, but a broader set of institutions and ethics about how you should live the good life. It goes beyond claiming Dawkins-like to be a Bright (eek I hate that word, I like the idea though).
I have a feeling with that being there are quite a few ways you can cut that cloth and before you can say “People’s Front of Judea” you’d get splitters and fights. No holy wars though :)
Oxfam is a good model for the charity front (and something I actively support), however I’m not sure what for the rest of it all. An actively humanist/progressive set of schools would be another good idea. Though I hate the very idea of the new English Foundation(?) Academy(?) Schools, they’re here to stay, so if a bunch of progressive minded folk could be convinced to part with £2M collectively, we could start our own institutions to counter the ones folk like Vardy are establishing.
OB, I think I get what you are on about now.
That was the shorthand version, so it’s no doubt cryptic, or baffling. I’ve been meaning to write a couple of paragraphs about it, but haven’t gotten around to it. In any case it is just a…suggestion, a thought; I have no particular evidence for it.
OB,
please do. I’d be interested.
Goodness my grammar is worse than usual today, I blame the head cold.
Oh – and any chance of someone putting the interview online?
Well, of course secular people do an awful lot of good works, both individually and collectively. Is Medicins san Frontiers, for example, a secular or a religious organization? Certainly not the latter. Similarly for all the human rights organizations. Their members and workers are both secular and religious, I would say.
It’s just that we secular types, up to now, at least, haven’t felt much like putting up headquarters buildings with “Secular” or “Atheist” plastered on the front of them, like “Catholic” or “Baptist” or “Jewish” charities do. Or putting the magic words on the letterheads and press releases. So the public doesn’t think of secular people as being particularlly charitable.
Perhaps this kind of PR might be a good idea. But who will organize it? As is often mentioned, organizing secular folks is like herding cats.
Sorry, “Medecins sans Frontieres” (with the appropriate accents. My French spelling is atrocious.
“I deeply respect all philosophers without exception, I promise.” – OB
Are you sure about that?
Whose philosopical work was it that Adolf carried around with him – “The World as WIll and Idea”?
Or the Ultra-reactionary Catholic “Enemy of Human Freedom” Maistre(?)
Or the rest of those enemies of freedom?
Perhaps not ….
Good work, GT; you and JD can share the irony-missing prize.
Jon and Francis,
I couldn’t organise a pissup in a brewery, as they say, so beggsies not me doing the hearding!
I’m comfortable with secular aid organisations like MSF and Oxfam, and see not practical point in creating avowedly Humanist ones, as it would exclude others would might contribute and saving peoples arses is more important to me than grand standing on who exactly does it.
As I mentioned above, its creating other Humanist institutions I’m more interested it. Especially educational ones.
Oh dear, Ophelia – did you really think I’d missed the point?
I just thought I’d push the handle a little further round, to see if it came off – and it did!
we secular types, up to now, at least, haven’t felt much like putting up headquarters buildings with “Secular” or “Atheist” plastered on the front of them, like “Catholic” or “Baptist” or “Jewish” charities do. Or putting the magic words on the letterheads and press releases. So the public doesn’t think of secular people as being particularlly charitable.
One of the tricky things about secularism – like tolerance, or freedom, or even prose style – is that when it’s working well, it’s often not directly visible.
“Well, of course secular people do an awful lot of good works, both individually and collectively.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying ‘faith’ is necessary for good works or generosity; I’m just suggesting that it’s one possibility among others, and that that may be one reason people tend to link ‘faith’ with goodness.
But it’s tricky even to talk about it without seeming to give ammunition to all the people who do indeed think ‘faith’ is necessary for good works or generosity. I have zero desire to give further ammunition to such people.