If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him
Martin Rowson just doesn’t buy the ideology that comes with God. Even a personal appearance by the Almighty wouldn’t do the trick, he says
The syphilitic atheist German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whose career in philosophy came to a sudden halt when he couldn’t stop himself cuddling a carthorse outside St Mark’s Basilica in Venice, believed the death of God was an enormity from which mankind could only recover by willing itself to stand in God’s place. I don’t quite see it like that.
Despite the best efforts of warring religions to stake a claim to a universalist monopoly, each one of them has always been part of a teeming multitude of rival ideologies, which include the kind of atheism I believe in and the kind Richard Dawkins subscribes to. In the frequently mad marketplace of ideologies, an ecology operates, so religions come and go, mutate, adapt or become extinct.
I’ve come to believe in the rightness of my ideology for all sorts of different reasons. And although I thoroughly endorse my son Fred’s and his friend Rory’s rather brilliant comment, ‘Saying atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair colour’, I square my belief in atheism with any contradictions the use of the word ‘belief’ might suggest by believing religion is merely an ideology too, although one that has a dimension mine doesn’t.
That’s where I part company with the scientific secularists, who seem to base their atheism solely on the weight of verifiable empirical evidence, which can always be countered, and always is, by the argument that they’ve failed to factor in faith, just because they can’t pin it down in the agar dish. That doesn’t bother me because I don’t believe in God, not because I can’t but because I don’t want to.
I believe you should deal with the political dimensions of religion in political ways, whether it’s over faith schools or Creationism or demanding special laws or special treatment denied to other equally sincerely or passionately held opinions, or any of the other aspects of religion’s totalitarian imperative to control us and our lives. By and large, that political struggle is being lost by the religionists, and their current ferocity is, to a large extent, proof of the fragility of both their arguments and their position, and belief, in the strictly spiritual sense, doesn’t come into it.
More articles from: Martin Rowson | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Labour’s U-turn on social housing for non-immigrants is welcome but too late
Rod LiddleRod Liddle says that metropolitan liberal ideology is too deeply ingrained in local councils, social services and the judiciary to be overturned by one panic measure driven by Labour’s sudden fear of the BNP
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with
Cass SunsteinCass Sunstein — co-author of the hugely influential Nudge and an adviser to President Obama — unveils his new theory of ‘group polarisation’, and explains why, when like-minded people spend time with each other, their views become not only more confident but more extreme
Who would have thought a herd could moonwalk?
Mark EarlsThe acclaimed web theorist, Mark Earls, says that the death of Michael Jackson unleashed the extremes of collective action: mass mourning and sick jokes
A splendid lunch with Jimmy McNulty
Deborah RossIn the first of an occasional series of interviews over meals, Deborah Ross talks to Dominic West about The Wire and the challenge to an Old Etonian of playing an American cop
What Jacko needed was someone to say ‘No’
Uri Geller
My defining memory of Michael Jackson — vulnerable, brilliant, otherworldly — is of watching him dance to the soundtrack of a movie.
You know it makes sense
James DelingpoleLet’s not get too worked up if Guy Gibson’s dog ends up with a PC name
Low Life
Jeremy Clarke
Unkindness to strangers
Discreet charm
James DelingpoleI’ve got this brilliant idea for a Sunday night TV series.
Shared Opinion
Hugo Rifkind
All that has really changed is that we’re all angry now. It isn’t just students who are cross
Low Life
Jeremy ClarkeBest laid plans
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
beeboyblue
March 6th, 2008 3:51pmIs it just me or is this mad as a bag of spaniels?
John Bull
March 7th, 2008 1:12pmAlmost profound in its thinking, but sadly only understandable in a rejectionist life-style. Not to worry, Martin, if I know anything at all, it is that my God will, on your day of judgement, forgive you your silliness - as long as you do no harm to others along the way. Go in Peace.
Marc Silver
March 7th, 2008 3:29pmEVEN GOD HIMSELF COULD NOT BELIEVE IN THE GOD WHICH MARTIN ROWSON REJECTS, BECAUSE GOD IS BY DEFINITION THE HIGHEST GOOD IN MAN'S CONSCIOUSNESS. GOD IS THE PERSONIFICATION OF HUMAN IDEALS, THE FIGURE OF ALL THAT IS WORTHY OF WORSHIP AND EMMULATION. WHY DON'T THESE INTELLECTUALS HAVE THE BRAINS TO SEE THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER GOD EXISTS, BUT WHAT KIND OF GOD EXISTS. THINKERS LIKE ROWSON MAKE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES WITH THEIR CLAUSTROPHOBIC REACTIONS TO THE IDEA OF A COSMIC INTELLIGENCE. HEY ROWSON, DO YOU BELIEVE IN LOVE? ST. JOHN SAID GOD IS LOVE, THAT GOD LIVES INSIDE WHOMEVER LOVES THE CREATION, INCLUDING YOU. OR ARE YOU TOO CYNICAL FOR EVEN THIS SIMPLE, INTIMATE DEITY?
Abu Nudnik
March 7th, 2008 4:47pmThe first thing that strikes me about the "thoughts" of this author is how extraordinarily shallow he is. The second is that he has made sweeping assumptions about what others think. What ideologies “come with” God is entirely a figment of the author’s imagination. Apparently a god that is omniscient is impossible but the author's omniscience is unquestionable. I guess he doesn't like the competition to his vanity. His insistence on religion as politics is really a bad analogy and shows the limitations of his mind, a mind made up long before it was open. His knowledge of even the basic facts of history is poor. For example, Judea didn't exist till Roman times. Even the Kingdom of Judah came into being at the cusp of the Bronze and Iron Ages (which is the meaning of the Goliath metaphor since the Philistines had a monopoly on iron). But what is most glaring is the seemingly unnecessary comment regarding the carthorse and Nietzsche near the beginning of the essay. It’s correlative comes later, in the passionately angry paragraph defending sodomy, once considered sacred. Here, strangely, the author has appealed approvingly to the holy for the first time. Seems a bit queer to me to reject the whole notion til it comes to sodomy. Which brings us to the point: The town of Sodom was destroyed because of an attempted gang rape, not homosexuality per se: because the men of Sodom thus stated that their will was the law that all others must obey. Sounds like all the ideologies since the death of God that have licked their hair and stumbled and staggered onto the world stage where their ideologies murdered more people in one century than all the religions could have in eternity.
Al Frick
March 7th, 2008 5:11pmIt is not your place to deny the existence of the Almighty. Your main problem is the inability to acknowledge anything greater than yourself; you hate the possibility of you being a creation of another and being indebted to God. Well get over it cause your waste of a combination of atoms and molecules is a creation of 1) a biological father and mother and more importantly 2) God.
ozynol
March 8th, 2008 4:22amThe best piece I have seen on the subject. Martin Rowson, I salute you.
Daniel McCormack
March 8th, 2008 9:29amWhich rational person bases his beliefs (ie. what he regards as being true) on what he wants to believe (ie. what he wants to be true)? I could believe the world is flat but unfortunately it would remain round.
Allen Khodabash
March 8th, 2008 12:32pmDid the editors pass on this after a long, liquid lunch?
Abu Nudnik
March 8th, 2008 7:05pmI was wrong to say "The first thing that strikes me about the "thoughts" of this author is how extraordinarily shallow he is." I should have said "The first thing that strikes me about the "thoughts" of this author is how extraordinarily shallow they are."
Liz Babcock
March 9th, 2008 11:36pmBlah, blah, blah, blah. Which of the multitudinous definitions of divinity are we talking about here? Couldn't the author has taken a minute to define this "God" word?
Martin Kalinin
March 11th, 2008 5:04amSpeaking of Gods, mankind is blessed with 3 major Gods at present, each claiming superiority and exclusivity over the others. Before these Gods came into being, which happened relatively recently, we had a plethora of other Gods, whole legions of them. And Godesses. So what makes one God superior to another... what is the difference between, say, Huitzilopochtli or Odin or Ra or Zeus or Yahweh...who is to say which is more worthy of worship than the other. Rather confusing, the whole thing...
Jonathan Wilton
March 13th, 2008 2:33amMore to the point, does God believe in Martin Rowson?
Robert Landbeck
March 14th, 2008 2:11pmToo bad for Martin, for a proof of God's existence is now circulating on the web, pure ethics 'without baggage'. Anybody want to test it?
http://www.energon.org.uk
God's child
March 21st, 2008 7:31pm"God mocks proud mokers, but gives grace to the humble." --Proverbs 3:34
Richard Dale
July 30th, 2008 7:18amI believe Nietzshe tried to prevent cruelty to the aforementioned horse in Turin, in the Piazza Carlo Alberto, not Venice.
Tanaduke Wylie
December 13th, 2008 10:00pmRichard Dale is right. The incident took place on January 3, 1889 in Turin. If Rowson can be so cocksure (and wrong) about Nietzsche, why should we pay any attention to what he says about God?