Theo Hobson: He's a Christian Because Life Sucks?
An intense bout of undergraduate angst sent me to the father of "existentialist" theology: Kierkegaard. I accepted his idea that despair is the normal modern condition, from which only faith can rescue us. "All things are possible with God" - I needed this sense of possibility, of hope. It had previously seemed that a religious worldview was something to grow out of; suddenly it felt inescapable. The acquisition of faith is tied up with psychological trauma, and with psychological need. ...
So my attraction to Christianity is two-fold. It comes from the sense that without faith there is despair, that the highest form of psychology is faith-based. And it is rooted in the quasi-socialist ideal of the Kingdom of God.
Source: Guardian
Setting aside Theo Hobson's socialism, I find this admissions very interesting. Let's review exactly what they logically entail. First, Hobson doesn't say that he is attracted to Christianity or is a Christian because it's true — he doesn't say that any of Christianity's empirical or historical claims are in any way correct, accurate, or true. Instead, he finds them attractive because they help him have hope. It's hard not to see this as an admission that one has adopted a philosophy because they like the way it makes them feel, not because it has any chance of being correct.
Second, what is it that Theo Hobson likes about Christianity? Basically, he says that he finds life to be full of despair but Christianity offers some psychological relief. He suffered serious angst as a college student (him and millions of other college students) and he needed some way to alleviate that angst. Some turn to alcohol or drugs. Some turn to religion. Some just realize that there was no sound basis for all the angst in the first place and move on with life. Theo Hobson seems to fall in the second category, but even worse he really seems to believe that everyone should see the "angst" he felt and, moreover, that only a faith like his can help us.
How arrogant. Lots of us are able to life happy, fulfilling lives without being filled with angst and despair. We don't suffer from psychological trauma — just because he thinks life sucks doesn't mean that everyone else has to as well. How is it again that atheists are the arrogant, intolerant ones?
So that's my Easter offering: a glimpse into the idealism, psychological realism, and institutional dissent that is one man's Christian faith. I apologise if it doesn't conform to what Dawkins has told you Christian faith is about.
Is Theo Hobson's description of his beliefs really different from what Richard Dawkins has said about Christianity? I don't know, but I have my doubts. If Theo Hobson really believed this accusation, then why didn't he expend the effort to write a single sentence stating at least one way in which they are different? Why didn’t he expend the effort to link readers to where Richard Dawkins explains what he thinks the "Christian faith is about" so people could see for themselves how the two are different?
I wonder if Hobson notices that possible contradiction in his own words: he's specific that he's only offering a glimpse of one man's Christian faith, not Christian faith generally, but then accuses Dawkins of incorrectly describing "Christian faith" — that would be Christian faith generally, not Hobson's specific and personal faith. It's entirely possible that Dawkin's description could be different from what Hobson describes, but only because Hobson's faith is so personal and idiosyncratic that it is very different from traditional, orthodox Christianity. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, I'm merely pointing it out as a possibility — one which a sincere writer should have been able to explore.
It's ironic that Theo Hobson would accuse Richard Dawkins of inaccurately describing "Christian faith" when Hobson himself consistently fails to accurately describe what atheism is or what atheists believe.
Christians tend to be bad at explaining themselves in a clear, intelligent way. This is because faith is highly personal, and rather complex: to speak about it goes against the grain of media discourse, where personal writing is fine as long as it's trivial, affected, "witty". Those of us who want to see a more intelligent religion debate should risk the charge of self-importance, and try to explain ourselves.
Well, I think that Theo Hobson's explanation is fairly clear, but is it intelligent? Or, perhaps more importantly, does the Christianity he describes sound very intelligent? Did he adopt his religion for reasons that can be considered very intelligent, reasonable, rational, or appropriate? Is this sort of belief system one about which an intelligent debate is even worth trying to have? If people aren't even going to make a pretense of saying that their belief system is true or offers an accurate description of reality, isn't it a waste of time and effort to try to debate it? Why not just say "OK, I'll accept that it's false" and move on to something more interesting?
Comments
I would be very interested to see how this “faith” choice has affected this person politics or actual worldview and whether this choive changed any previously held beliefs.
Now that he has adopted Christianity is he pro-life? Does he not eat meat on Fridays during Lent? Is he more likely to vote for a Republican who might be more willing to promote a Christian world view in their politics? How have their veiws changed on the separation of church and state.
He said that he basically chose this religion because it felt good not necessarily because it is true in way to him. So it would seem to be a sham to actually promote the world view.
An intense bout of undergraduate angst sent me to the father of “existentialist” theology: Kierkegaard.
I’m not all that up on Kierkegaard, but didn’t he come to the conclusion that since the world is absurd, and that Christian faith is absurd, it’s thus appropriate to be a Christian?
Anyway, I’ve always said that I’ve never met a person whose faith runs contradictory to his desires. That means that faith is self-serving and, to me, makes it immediately suspicious. Maybe that’s why people who talk faith “risk the charge of self-importance.”
If Theo Hobson accepts Christianity because it gives him hope in a world that he thinks sucks, then he also has to explain why he has chosen Christianity over other hope-generating religious perspectives.
dougs question,
why did you become an atheist?
Short answer: I only ever believed in one god — the Christian god. I ceased to believe in that god because I gradually realized I had no intellectual or emotional reasons to continue believing: The concept of Christian god is internally inconsistent; there is nothing anywhere in my experience to suggest the existence God; the concept of God neither helps me make sense of the world nor offers me comfort. When the mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace was asked what place God had in his theory of celestial mechanics, Laplace replied that he had no need for that hypothesis. Same goes for me.
I’ve never been a christian (or other religion)
>>
Simply amazing. We get a great exhortation that suggests that the elevation of testimonials (as to mere feeling no less) is “more intelligent” than the expectation that an actual explanation be forthcoming.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Most stupid people like certain ideas because they give them pleasure. They do not like them because they have met tests of truth.
“…because they give them pleasure.”
Religeon as dopamine precurser. Sort of like, what was it? Oh yeah…an opiate.
Being an atheist, but having been forced to go to Catholic high school, I remember my friend and I saying that religion was like a holey rubber - it gives you a false sense of security while you’re being screwed.