Polemics

I'm not sure why Norm goes to such lengths to criticise A C Grayling's anti-religion piece at CiF, "A force for evil?".

Grayling writes disparagingly of the apologists for religion, who like to concentrate on the "pleasant folk who shake hands with each other in an English country church on Sunday mornings - a much dwindled and still dwindling rump of folk, true, but harmless and even admirable for the cakes they bake for the Saturday fete, raising money for developing world children and other good causes".

The complaint is that Grayling fails adequately to document the ways in which people can be motivated for good by religion. "But a serious assessment can't be made in the way Grayling goes about it here, by mockery".

But this is an avowed polemic from Grayling, on CiF, where comments are expected and encouraged (even if they may be censored). It's part of an ongoing debate. There can be very few people following the debate unaware of the arguments in favour of religion as a motivator for good actions, just as there'll be very few people unaware of the argument that some of the 20th century's greatest evils were perpetrated by atheists like Stalin or Mao - another point not covered by Grayling. But why should he? It would be tedious in the extreme if every contributor to a debate were required to list all the points for the other side.

If Grayling had written a book about religion, where some form of comprehensive coverage of a topic might reasonably be expected, then I could understand Norm's criticism, but as directed at a short polemic I have to say it seems like taking the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Update: see here.

Comments

[dearieme]

Ah, the sheer physical courage that's required to mock the CofE.

[Noga]

It's not what Grayling says that I find disagreeable. I probably would agree with his basic sentiments about God etc, if it weren't for the mockery and lack of compassion he chooses as means of delivering these sentiments. This method is meant to belittle and frankly, to enrage. I am reminded of something Cass Sunstein wrote some time ago:

"The antonym of respect is disdain or (better) contempt; the antonym of charity is selfishness or (better) stinginess. It is much worse to be disrespectful than to be uncharitable. Politicians who show respect--Senator McCain is a good example--tend not to attack the competence, the motivations, or the defining commitments of those who disagree with him. Politicians who show charity as well as respect--Senator Obama is a rare example--tend to put opposing arguments in the best possible form, to praise the motivations of those who offer such arguments, and to seek proposals that specifically accept the defining commitments of all sides."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=73194

[Francis Sedgemore]

Critics of religion such as Christopher Hitchens can be trenchant, but unlike Grayling and Dawkins, for example, they generally avoid belittling individuals who hold religious beliefs unless the individuals concerned have a high public profile, and are thoroughly deserving of public scorn owing to their (negative) influence in public life.

I'm not sure why Grayling behaves as he does. I'd like to think that he's simply going along with CiF culture. I still continue to write for that site (mostly when commissioned), but I find that culture very difficult to cope with. CiF brings out the worst in me, and that may apply also to other writers such as Grayling. This is not to damn the whole exercise, which has a lot going for it.

[Mick H]

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I don't see why Grayling merits such criticism. So he patronises the C of E - "harmless and even admirable for the cakes they bake for the Saturday fete, raising money for developing world children and other good causes." In the great cut and thrust of debate over the question of religion, is that really so contemptible?