Somewhere, Anywhere, Leave, Remain: Thoughts between two stools

I could probably pass for a member of the Metropolitan Liberal Elite, if I had to spend an evening undercover at Tate Modern for a Gilbert & George retrospective, or attend one of those famous Islington dinner parties (although I must say that the one and only time I have ever been to a dinner party in Islington, almost everyone there was ferociously right-wing and made me feel like a hand-wringing wet). I went to a pretty good university, I work in the public sector in London, I read and write poetry for pleasure, I like ballet. I favour a redistributive welfare state. I am strongly supportive of public transport, cycle superhighways, car-free cities and renewable energy. I would even call myself an environmentalist, albeit one who owes more to Roger Scruton than to George Monbiot. And of course, at about 9.30am on Thursday June 23^rd 2016, in a now-demolished Croydon youth centre, I put a cross next to a box containing the words “Remain a member of the European Union”.

Speaking from experience: a note on mysticism and religion

In a recent Twitter exchange I was asked to clarify a distinction that I suggested might exist between religious experience and mystical experience. The context was a tweet by the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat suggesting that personal experience was an underrated argument for the existence of God.

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue (that is, the persuasiveness of personal experiences as an argument for theism; I’m pretty confident about the existence of God). I’m keenly aware of the limitations of citing one's own subjective experience of a thing as a reason why someone else should accept the reality of that thing, and uneasy about putting too much store in such experiences.

I do, however, want to tentatively make the distinction mentioned above. When people think of religious experiences, they tend to think of an experience that is in some sense supernatural; a vision, perhaps, or a voice in one's head, some great flash of insight or knowledge that seems to have no earthly source. I am sure that such experiences do happen. Those who take seriously the metaphysical and historical claims of Christianity must in principle be open to the idea that God sometimes gives people a glimpse of a world or a reality outside this one, outside the normal world of thought and sensory experience.

Book review: "Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction", by Eric H Kline

I enjoyed this, a well-written canter for the layman through an absolutely vast field. The book is divided in two. First, a summary of the development of Biblical archaeology over the last two centuries, from resourceful but not always very expert amateurs seeking to prove the historical truth of Scripture to the hi-tech and professional multi-disciplinary teams of twenty-first century archaeology. These MDTs are no longer primarily interested in establishing the veracity or otherwise of the Bible, but in answering a huge range of questions about how people in the Holy Land lived, fought, worshipped, ate, moved and died between approximately 2000 BC and the late first century AD.

Second, Kline gives us a brief survey of what exactly archaeology tells us about the reliability of the Biblical accounts, with a particular focus on the Old Testament, which is more amenable to archaeological proof or disproof as it covers a much longer span of time and is concerned with kings, conflict, migrations, settlements, conquests etc., in a way that the New Testament isn’t. The NT is mostly concerned with ideas and speech, and with a relatively small number of people who were for the most part socially and politically unimportant by contemporary standards. There are important NT details that can be checked archaeologically – the existence of Pilate was confirmed recently via a contemporary inscription, for example, and a plausible though not definitive identification has been made of the bones of Caiaphas the High Priest – but they are relatively few.

The general impression given is that the OT histories are relatively well supported by the archaeological data, e.g. the Tel Dan Stele that seems to confirm the existence of the House of David, though there is (as yet?) almost no evidence that the Exodus happened in the way that the Bible says, nor does the Israelite settlement of Canaan seem to have occurred quite as narrated. There is still a considerable scholarly debate about how and over what kind of timescale the people now known as the Jews came to inhabit the region in such numbers. That is not to say that the Biblical accounts of those events are entirely unreliable or false, merely that they must be read alongside the historical evidence and with a sensitivity to genre (for example, ancient accounts of battles were not intended to be read as literal descriptions of what had happened). It would also appear, as one might expect, that the Bible accounts become less well-evidenced archaeologically as you get further back into the past, and to semi-legendary figures like the patriarchs.  

                

The book ends with an entertaining and cautionary coda looking at some of the controversies around Holy Land archaeology, inevitable in such a politically and religiously contested region. One example is the incredible long-running saga of the Ossuary of James, the supposed last resting place of the supposed brother of Jesus. Kline warns us to be wary of non-specialists who come to Biblical archaeology with a clear agenda, as well as the charlatans and conmen only too happy to fake inscriptions.

     

A note on the “New Atheists”

In recent years, we have started to hear a lot about the New Atheism. This is a term used by a lot of people involved in the debate about religion, atheism, secularism etc. Generally it’s used to describe the more aggressive atheist polemics that began to appear in significant numbers in the middle of the last decade, books like Sam Harris’ The End Of Faith, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great.

Some non-believers take objection to the phrase. This cartoon, for example, does the rounds on social media from time to time...

If I have understood the implied argument correctly, the suggestion is that religious believers use the term New Atheist to disparage confident, knowledgeable, courageous atheists whom they can no longer compel to keep silent and whose arguments they otherwise have trouble rebutting.

No doubt there is a grain of truth to this charge. Perhaps there are religious believers who use the term to shut down debate or change the subject. There are undoubtedly religious believers who are too quick to complain of “persecution” or “silencing”, or mistake strong opposition for oppression.

However, I do think that New Atheism is a useful term. I personally use it in quite a specific way. To me, it refers not to atheism in general, but to a particular, sadly common, style of atheist polemic: belligerent, ignorant, snarky, dismissive, and imbued with an unshakeable and unearned sense of moral superiority. It need hardly be said that this is not the only form of atheist polemic in existence. Thomas Nagel is an example of an atheist writer who eschews easy sniping against religion in favour of clear-eyed and mature reflection on how to make sense of a godless universe.

I appreciate atheism. I enjoy (if that is the right word) reading and hearing intelligent, well-informed, morally serious criticism of religious belief. Scepticism of religious claims is an immensely important current in Western intellectual culture, not least because religious obscurantism, like ideological dogmatism of all kinds, has often stood in opposition to important scientific and social advances.

My problem with modern atheism is not that I feel intellectually insecure in the face of its “fearless” barbs, or that I regret the loss of the Church’s ability to counter its foes with violence, social pressure or various kinds of state coercion. Rather, my objection to most modern atheist polemic is that is really, really bad; neither interesting, nor thoughtful, nor serious-minded. Books like The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens’ ludicrously overpraised God Is Not Great are riddled not only with errors of fact, but with tendentious and incoherent arguments made in bad faith.

Intellectual sins abound. Straw men are knocked down with gay abandon. The focus is generally on the weakest possible version of arguments for theism, made by their least articulate and credible adherents. There is no charity in interpretation of ambiguity and uncertainty. The wickedness or stupidity of opponents is assumed. The rightness of modern received wisdom about sexuality, society and the individual is taken for granted in an immensely complacent and self-righteous way. 

  

It is noticeable that the New Atheists tend, with exceptions, to be dismissive of philosophy and to cling to an outmoded logical positivism which believes that the only real truths are material facts. This is a shame, as a humble reading of some philosophy might lead them to write better books.

This is not really a polemical blog, so I will draw these brief thoughts to a close with a suggestion for some points that atheists might wish to bear in mind to keep their writing free of the faults mentioned above:

1. An atheist worldview raises serious moral, epistemic and metaphysical problems, in the same way as adherence to most religious creeds does.
2. There are good reasons for belief in God, and strong arguments for certain Christian truth claims.
3. Modern attitudes to sexuality, gender and other issues are not so self-evidently correct, coherent and conducive to happiness and flourishing that it is outrageously wrong even to question them.
4. The Christian with whom you’re arguing has probably thought about these issues just as deeply as you have, and perhaps even more deeply.
5. Whatever your objection to Christianity, it has almost certainly been considered, reflected upon, written about and examined by people cleverer and more perceptive than you. Look at what such people wrote.
6. Consider, from time to time, the possibility that you are wrong, and/or that you don’t fully understand something.

A Bad Book About "Religion"

Marcus Brigstocke does not believe in God. But he is not one of the aggressive Hitchens/Dawkins school. No, he is a Thoughtful, Reflective Agnostic Who, Like, Totally Understands Why Some People Need Faith.

That, at least, is how he presents himself – as a genuine seeker after truth, willing not only to listen to the claims of religion, but to think carefully about them and not simply reject them out of hand. After reading his book "God Collar", I remain sceptical about this self-description. My doubt on this score is only heightened by the fact that he has not, as far as I am aware, expressed any regret over his extraordinarily mean-spirited, ill-informed rant against the Abrahamic faiths during an episode of The Now Show several years ago.

Defenders of Brigstocke might counter that "God Collar" is an account of one man’s struggle, not a contribution to the heavily polarised atheist/theist debate, and indeed he freely admits to being a non-specialist who has not read especially widely in theology, ethics or comparative religion. It is certainly true that there is a personal and emotional core to this book, for it is the untimely death of a close friend and the joys and tribulations of parenthood that led Brigstocke to re-examine his conviction that there is no God. And he is honest about the fact that he does feel the impulse to believe, despite finding himself unable to do so.

But I’m not sure I really buy that. "God Collar" is not a personal memoir that just happens to occasionally touch on religious themes in a ruminative, exploratory way. It is, indubitably, a book about faith, with a polemical and hostile edge. It contains mean-spirited, and often ill-conceived, attacks on numerous aspects of religious belief. He cannot try the old comedian’s argument of pulling back when challenged, and just saying “oh, I didn’t really mean it, I’m just trying to make people laugh” or “I’m only a non-specialist”. By publishing this book, Brigstocke has entered the arena of public debate about faith. In that arena, bad and unfair arguments get challenged. And boy, are there some bad and unfair arguments here.

What I think about the situation in the Holy Land

I unequivocally support the right of Israel to exist within secure borders

BUT I know that the creation of Israel involved the dispossession and exile of the many thousands of people who lived there before 1948, and that Israel now holds territory that was not part of the original lands granted to it in 1948

BUT most of those territories are only occupied by Israel because they were captured in defensive wars against neighbours who wanted to wipe out the Jewish state, and their surrender would compromise Israel’s ability to defend itself

BUT that doesn’t mean that those territories are Israel’s, either legally or morally

BUT Israel is the historic homeland of the Jews and where else could a Jewish state be created?

BUT even that was based on wars of conquest in the early part of the first millennium BC

BUT if we go back far enough no country or people really has a secure title to land

BUT that doesn’t solve the problem of what to do with Arab refugees from pre-1948 Israel – both Christian and Muslim

BUT we can’t allow an unqualified right of return for the dispossessed of 1948 and their families because it would completely undermine Israel’s status as a Jewish state and a haven for the Jews from the violent hatred that the world often turns against them

BUT where does that leave those people and their descendants, who are often the victims of monstrous injustice and who have seen their land and people further crushed by Israeli settlement and have special reason to hate Israel?

BUT Israel is one of the most successful and admirable states in the world and basically a free liberal democracy

BUT the Israelis often behave extremely badly e.g. in building settlements in the West Bank and not taking sufficient care to avoid civilian casualties

BUT Hamas place weapons launches and ammo stores near or in schools and hospitals

BUT that doesn’t entirely excuse the IDF from responsibility for the consequences of attacking such locations and killing women and children

BUT what would you have Israel do in response to Hamas rocket attacks?

BUT Hamas rocket attacks, while dangerous, cause relatively few casualties in Israel, which is much more sparsely populated than Gaza and has much more sophisticated defences

BUT these attacks still cause massive disruption to ordinary life in Israel

BUT the Israeli occupation of the West Bank also causes appalling disruption, oppression and indignity in the lives of Palestinians living there

BUT Israel lives in a very tough neighbourhood and faces an existential threat not just from Islamist extremists but even from relatively “moderate” Muslims who do not accept its right to exist and hold violently anti-Jewish views

BUT Israel has its own share of religious chauvinists and extremists and has a very patchy record of looking after the antiquities and holy sites of other faiths

BUT that record is pretty good compared with most other countries in the Middle East

BUT that’s damning with faint praise, surely?

BUT if you’re going to take a side in the Middle East surely you have to side with the one country that has the rule of law, freedom for minorities, a free press, and due process?

BUT do those things give a country carte blanche to behave recklessly and violently against people under their control?

Etc. etc. etc.