Gullibility fuels faith

Being of a religious bent, I happen to worship the jellyfish. It is attractive to the eye. our beaches protectively, reserving a stinging chastisement for those who would deny its powers. Unlike the Christian Holy Trinity, its three divine parts are bonded visibly: Ectoderm, Endoderm and, in between, Mesoglea. It is universal, and those of us who commune with it do so clad in a respectful vestment, vestis umidus or wet suit. Our name for the jellyfish is Juju.

That is not to say that other religions are inferior. I am well aware that jealousy between faiths can lead to unnecessary bloodshed, so I rarely proselytise on behalf of my own silent god. Praying to Juju, I recite the uplifting words: "Allow me to order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters."

On the other hand, always open to conversion, I am impressed by Anthony Grayling's idea of forming a religious group "based on belief in the divinity of garden gnomes". Virtually everything in Grayling's little book (64 pages; small enough to be a Sunday School catechism) makes sense, particularly when he asks if he should be entitled to public money for a school in which children can be brought up in garden gnomism, "together with a bishop's seat in Parliament perhaps?"

Grayling, a renowned philosopher and prolific author, is a non- believer (he prefers the word "naturalist" to "atheist"). I long ago chose reason over Romanism but, although I am often impatient with the outlandish claims of faith and the zeal of the superstitious, I seldom feel tormented by them (Humanists might adopt the plea, "Forgive them for they know not what they do").

Here, though, one senses a fury behind Grayling's polemics. This is perfectly understandable since, as he observes, the debate "has become an acerbic one - and worse". Apologists for faith, he says, are an evasive community in a "mist-shrouded domain" of sophistry. Fair enough, but much more dangerous than religious faith is how the faithful are prepared to defend their beliefs ("faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for").

Should we naturalists respect the supernatural? No, says Grayling, for "to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect."

This, along with other recent excitations against religious taboos, faith schools, et al (notably Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion), raises a few holy heckles, but I'm not sure that it will make much difference to human gullibility, which has continued to fuel faith from an antedeluvian age. Besides, other factors often come into play, as in Northern Ireland where people gain religious strength and fervour from their adversaries. Likewise in Britain, a dramatic or belligerant swelling of the ranks of fundamentalist Islam would almost certainly prompt a Christian rush to the altar for those lethal dogmas.

It can be argued that religion is massively punitive and grotesquely mutilative. That certain gods insist on circumcision, cli-torectomy, dunking in water and speaking in "divers" tongues, or impose codes based on brute-man's tribal spirit of vendetta or reprisal ought to be well behind us. Surely it's as much beyond human acceptance that we be tyrannised by invisible and intangible things such as gods and devils, than that we should genuflect to garden gnomes - or jellyfish. To dress our bodies, decorate our heads, adorn our dinner tables in celebration of the belief that a god "chose" us for special benediction; to scourge our flesh with whips in an annual abbatoir; to yield to the mystical and nasty imperative of caste; to stone to death hapless "sinners" in expiation of their "sins" - all fly in the face of intelligent, contemplative humanitarianism.

If steaming Islam (for example) gives you the vapours, then please turn to Grayling's conclusion for your sedative. "What we are witnessing is not the resurgence of religion, but its death throes," he says. Having begun to use their newly assertive elbows, Muslims are being mimicked by Sikhs and Christian evangelicals. Although Grayling doesn't mention it, there also are intimations of increased twitchiness among Jews and Roman Catholics.

An abreactive and abrasive period lies ahead. The author predicts that "as a factor in public and international affairs [religion] is having what might be its last - characteristically bloody - fling."

Copyright 2007 Independent Newspapers UK Limited. All rights owned or operated by The Independent.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.