Confessions of a Failed Athiest

Alongside Hitchens's book, I've also been reading 'In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist' by John Humphrys, a broadcaster and journalist for the BBC.

Humphry's is probably best described as someone who deeply wants to believe in a God, but find himself unable to reconcile the idea of a loving being with the indifferent and often cruel world around him.

In an attempt to learn more about how others deal with this issue, he set up a series of interviews with religious leaders (the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams; Professor Tariq Ramadan, Muslim academic and author; and Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi) in which he essentially challenged them to make him believe.

While none of the three were successful, the interviews, along with Humphrey's own experiences form the basis of this book.

As noted above, Humphry's is basically an agnostic theist. He wants there to be a God and rejects conventional evolutionary explanations for morality in favour of something more transcendent, relying on a slightly confused version of CS Lewis's argument from morality to back this up (apparently the best evidence for an unchanging moral law is that morality changes). It's a generally emotional position, as he explains towards the end of the book (referring back to a news story at the time of writing):

an image of a man stained with the blood his wife, carrying his own children downstairs one at a time to slaughter them, is infinitely more powerful than any number of profound doctrines produced by any number of brilliant theologians. The cry of a child resonates more than the elegant argument of a learned man.

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of the book (the other being his mischaracterisation of atheism), where he supports or rejects arguments he does so largely on the basis of what “feels” right to him.

It's perhaps a little much to expect any profound philosophical or theological statements from, as he describes himself, a layman. Where the book does succeed however is in portraying the nature of religious belief in the UK. We have not only Humphry's beliefs, but also the opinions of three important religious figures and – most interestingly – the response of the general public to the series. The 'Letters' section of the book was the one I found most interesting. As Humphry's notes, there are a few explaining why he's condemned to Hell for his doubts, but most are from people struggling with their own belief and disbelief, offering him sympathy and accounts of their own religious “awakenings”. Most, when trying to tackle the questions raised by Humphry's, offered up exactly the same response as the religious leaders: We may not know the answers, but it's still important to believe.

This for Humphry's is simply not enough. Sadly, he seems caught between a rock and a hard place – he can't accept atheism but can't believe in God either. I suspect he's not alone.

For the most part I found myself sympathetic to his arguments. It's hard to look at the day-to-day supernatural beliefs held by a large number of people as a real problem, let alone a threat. But his plea for moderate religion to be left alone and spared intellectual criticism is a troubling one. The average C of E member may be unlikely to blow themselves up, but it seems impossible to argue against those who do without tackling the beliefs that moderates and extremists have in common. Nor is the idea of treating irrationalism with respect particularly appealing. After all, as the saying goes, the sleep of reason produces monsters – where and how do we draw the line between a belief being merely comforting and being dangerous?

Nobody should begrudge people their comforting beliefs, and there's a time and a place for argument, but the likes of 'The God Delusion' and its ideological stable-mates aren't just to be tolerated, they need to be encouraged in their defence of rationality, it's one of the most useful tools the human race has discovered.