Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness

Citation

Dennis, C. (2009), "Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 104-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750910927241

A.C. Grayling is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London. He has written a number of books including others, like this one, on (or against!) religion. This is an unusual topic for review in a marketing journal but potentially relevant to the currently‐resurgent topic of marketing myopia (the special issue of Journal of Marketing Management on the topic and especially the editorial: Wright et al. (2008)). The book has potential relevance for marketing researchers as it implicitly addresses religion or more to‐the‐point, its alternative (according to Grayson) of “humanism” from a standpoint akin the marketing concept, thus opening up the possibility of applying techniques such as those of market research to the topics. Implicitly echoing the marketing concept, Grayling argues that there is nothing wrong with the pleasures and possessions of the material world; they are what people naturally seek and even need. Supplying pleasures and possessions that people want is, of course, the job of marketers. Grayson espouses the concept of having a good time but is oddly silent on people's spiritual needs and wants. Is it within the remit of qualitative market researchers to identify and satisfy those intangible needs as well as the more tangible ones?

In this book, the author exposes the unreason that he sees at the heart of religious faith and highlights the urgent need to replace it with a set of values based on reason, reflection and sympathy. Grayson sees this position as stemming from ideas from ancient Greece holding that there is no conflict between having a good time and a life that is morally good. He sees this as reflecting the human race's existence as a part of nature (naturalism, which he equates with atheism), contrary to the typically religious view of something above nature (supernaturalism) that sees goodness and having a good time as mutually exclusive. Marketers might see Grayling's position as the postmodern or 21st century marketing myopia: runaway consumerism that blindly follows the desires of consumers without thought for the societal consequences like the carbon footprint and global warming.

This short but powerful book is subtitled Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness. The word “polemic” in this context is apparently intended to be understood in its sense of “vigorous attack” (rather than its alternative meaning of “vigorous debate”). The introduction argues strongly and, on the face of it, convincingly, that religions are a bad thing. It is difficult to balance this with an opposing viewpoint (Grayling does not try) because, of course, there are so many different religions and presumably, many different viewpoints. In the introduction, Grayling appears to favour a “humanist ethical outlook” over religions (p. 8). But is not the humanist ethical outlook that he espouses based on and derived from Judeo‐Christian/Abrahamic traditions? The main basis of Grayling's position comes from the statement that religions “have done and continue to do much harm in the world” (p. 9). But surely, these harms are done in the name of religions rather than by religion?

In Chapter 2 (presumably the first polemic), Grayson considers whether religions are respectable. He acknowledges that “everyone is free to believe what they want, providing that they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others” (p. 16) but suggests that no one is entitled to respect simply because they are religious. Grayson is making the point that it is short sighted to rely on faith (which he defines as “commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason” rather than scientific fact (p. 15). Nevertheless, it could be argued that it is human nature to rely on faith and even dogma and this is no doubt the cause of firms continuing to manufacture and sell products in which they have faith rather than responding to customer wants –, i.e. marketing myopia.

In the second polemic, Grayson questions whether an atheist can be a fundamentalist? He prefers the term “naturalist” to “atheist” “denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws” – implying that nothing supernatural exists, including any fairies or goblins (p. 28). In support of “naturalism” (atheism), which Grayson equates with science, he rightly points out that “no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics”. But is Grayson right to equate atheism with science? Some scientists would not agree but rather, prefer to believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Lord Winston, world leading geneticist and fertility scientist, makes this point publicly and explicitly both in his BBC television series and book “Human Instinct”, declaring his (Jewish) spirituality (Winston, 2002).

The third polemic is a “Rectification of names”, pointing out first that “secularism is the view that … religion and … government should be kept separate” which Grayson considers to be a “good thing” and the opposite of “what we might revealingly call Talibanism” (p. 32). Although he does not explain the point of the chapter title, I understood it to be correcting the commonly held misconception that “secular” means “concerning state rather than religion”.

The second “name” that Grayson seeks to “rectify” is (presumably) “humanism”, which he defines as “the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world” (p. 33). It is unclear why there is a need to “rectify” these “names” but I understood the chapter to be subtly setting the scene for Grayson's own personal belief system, humanism. It is somewhat ironic that an extension of the semantics investigation of this chapter to the term “religion” (something that Grayson abhors) in a modern context might have come up with something along the lines of “a personal belief system” (something that, in the form of what he describes as “humanism”, Grayson advocates strongly).

In this chapter, he makes a point that must have resonance for many readers: “to believe in the existence of … a benevolent and omnipotent deity in the face of childhood cancers … tsunamis and earthquakes” (sadly, even more apt and topical since Grayson wrote those words) is seriously irrational (p. 37). The chapter ends by drawing attention to the tragedy of socialising young children into putting up barriers with others on the basis of gender, ethnicity and superstition. This may well be a worthy idea but I would dearly like to know whether Grayling's own children (if any) believe in Father Christmas! Considering Grayling's implicit support for the marketing concept, banning children from Christmas might be well be a myopic policy!

The next chapter, entitled “The Corrosion of Reason”, is a familiar polemic against UK higher education policy: creation of the “new universities” without extra funding; expanding numbers of students; falling “A” level standards; poorer literacy and numeracy of students. Grayling draws attention to a survey claiming that 30 percent of UK students believe in creationism or intelligent design – both propositions that are rejected as “unscientific” by many scientists. This chapter ends with a number of calls for action: return religion to a private activity rather than carrying public recognition; stop promoting and segregating religion in education; uphold intellectual rigour in education; and get more students enrolling on science courses. Whilst many might consider these to be worthy objectives, this chapter confounds Grayling's marketing myopia. Single faith schools are popular because they are wanted by parents; educational standards in universities are subject to competitive pressures and the laws of supply and demand; and students enrol on the courses of their choices based on their abilities, preferences and perceived vocational opportunities. Attempting to change these based only on Grayling's opinion is in itself a form of the totalitarianism against which he rails! In a free society, we expect major changes to be broadly democratically acceptable. Single faith schools were set up by a democratically elected government. Rather than banning them, perhaps it is more likely that legislation ensuring that all schools teach, tolerance of all peaceful religions and cultures (including humanism!); and the benefits of peace between nations, cultures and religions might be more democratically acceptable? Marketers might tackle the need to change the behaviour of minorities for the benefit of the majority by utilising marketing communications in the attempt to change attitudes, for example to religious intolerance. Actually, this is not an easy task but even so but there may be a parallel with the many years of expensive marketing campaigns, in which public attitudes to, for example, drinking and driving have been positively changed. The downside of religious intolerance is so great that surely, of the many billions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent on fighting wars; it must be cost‐effective to divert funding into the battle for hearts and minds? All of this is not to claim that marketers have the answer to world peace, just that the application of a scientifically planned campaign (something that Grayson would approve of?) is likely to have more effect than simply haranguing those who want to practice religion and education in peace.

Sadly, even though we might take on world peace, neither this reviewer nor Grayson (in the book, at any rate) have the antidote to falling standards in universities and falling enrolments on science courses but, fortunately, these challenges are beyond the scope of this review and should in the reviewer's view, be considered as beyond the remit of the book.

This chapter also poses a pertinent question about comparing religions. Why, for instance, can a Christian claim to have the correct beliefs solely on the grounds of faith therefore holding that a Muslim's beliefs are incorrect; and vice versa. Take, for example, the story of God impregnating a woman who bears a child who performs heroic deeds. Why does a Christian hold this to be true for Mary and Jesus but false for Zeus as the father of Hercules?

Chapter 6 is a short but telling chapter, drawing attention to evidence recently appearing that supports the theory of evolution and indicates some of the molecular biological mechanisms by which it operates. The author correctly points out that evolution is relentlessly supported by an increasing weight of scientific evidence – something that is unlikely to be claimed for creationism and intelligent design.

The final polemic, Chapter 7, is entitled “The Death Throws of Religion” but starts by examining the opposite case: an upsurge. Considering the influence of fundamentalist Christian religion on US politics vs militant Islamism, this is a strong and disturbing argument. Grayling, however, considers this to be a “reaction to the prevalence of its opposite” (p. 54), citing the statistic that only 10 percent of the UK population regularly attend a place of worship. He concludes that religion will not be eliminated (surviving as private observance for minorities) but will lose its influence as a major public factor in international affairs.

The final chapter presumably constitutes the “essay on kindness”. Here, Grayling points out that those who are not religious “have available to them a rich ethical outlook … whose roots lie in classical antiquity” (p. 59). This chapter is the great strength of the book, outlining Grayson's view of humanism as “premised on humanity's (non‐religious) best efforts to understand its own nature and circumstances” (p. 60). In this chapter, Grayson must be referring to the “humanist ethical outlook” mentioned in the Introduction. The benevolent view of humanism can be interpreted as embracing striving to live a good life, kindness and justice in society. At the same time, he also recognises the other side of human nature that is “unkind, angry, hostile, selfish, cruel … ” characteristics connected in the same sentence with “superstitious” (p. 61). Grayson uses the term “humanism” to refer to people “whose ethical outlook is non‐religiously based” (p. 59). Rather than being based solely on human nature, surely Grayson's brand of “ethical humanism” is a belief system based on faith in the gentle side of human nature (rather than the all‐too‐prevalent cruel one), probably stemming directly (at least in part) from the Judeo‐Christian/Abrahamic cultural traditions followed by half of the world's religions (Smith, 1998) – making it, in effect, a religion, albeit devoid of superstition? Richard Dawkins has been reported as taking a similar position to Grayling's in blaming “religions of the Abrahamic kind” for the wrongs of the world such as the tragic events of 11 September 2001. Countering this view, Winston (2002) points out:

Do you not see that that “the religions of the Abrahamic kind” … are possibly what formulated for you the society in which you live and the very framework you rightly respect so much – to protect life, to uphold justice, to accept human equality, to believe in mercy? (p. 307).

The key weakness of the book is that Grayling equates religion with superstition. Many modern people, scientists such as Lord Winston and others from all walks of life, are religious in the sense of holding a consistent belief system and observing various rituals such as marriage and funerals, even though not necessarily believing in the supernatural. Some are, for example, Christians (at least celebrating Christmas and Easter), some Jews (celebrating Hanukkah), Muslims (celebrating Eid) and so on. I wonder if Grayson observes any of these? Winston draws support from Wilson (2002) who uses evidence from today's hunter‐gatherers and modern religious groups to demonstrate that religions have enabled people to achieve by collective action what they never could alone. At least a minority of scientists are supportive of religion and, perhaps more prevalently, religious rites and values.

Despite accepting the theory of evolution (in order to reject religion by rejecting creationism and intelligent design) there is an important aspect of evolution that Grayson markedly ignores. That is the evolved need for ritual and spirituality. During the period when (according to evolutionary psychologists) the human brain was evolving, little scientific research had by then been published that the evolving apes could refer to and use in order to plan their survival strategies. Rather, those who followed certain rituals would have been more likely to survive and reproduce. For example, marriage (a female receiving protection and resources, particularly in pregnancy and nursing, from a committed male whose genes would be more likely to be reproduced by looking after partner and offspring); celebrating a baby (both partners committing to protecting the survival of their genes); adolescence (improving the chances of the offspring reproducing); and funerals (hygienic disposal of remains making survival and reproduction of the living more likely). In more recent times, knowledge of other important topics would have entered ritual: when to sow the crops (spring festival); when to harvest (harvest festival); and mid‐winter (pacing the use of stored resources). Knowledge of when and how would not necessarily have been available to everyone but rather, may have been passed down by elders (in their role as “religious” leaders). Of course, we do not live our modern lives in these evolutionary conditions but our minds may still work the same way. According to this argument, we are genetically programmed to observe rituals, respect and obey the head people with the knowledge of the rituals. Indeed, most of the rituals mentioned are so‐called “cultural universals” – appearing in one form or another in most of the world's cultures and religions (Levi‐Strauss, 1966). Even in Chapter 7, where Grayling argues the “death throws of religion”, he concedes that over half of the UK population claim to “believe in something”. He rather discounts this on the grounds that it “includes feng shui and crystals” (p. 56) – although no evidence is presented as to why these might be less satisfactory than any other ritual. As an aside, it is interesting to note that, according to McGoldrick, the principles of feng shui guide the design of modern, successful, shopping malls. For instance, “crystals, art and bright colours add vibrancy and reflectivity” (McGoldrick, 2002, p. 457). If this is correct, it is an example of marketers basing their consumer‐orientated activities on ritual (perhaps unknowingly)! Are marketers being myopic in basing strategies and tactics on ritual? I think not but rather, consider that this is an example of ritual performing its true purpose: the “guru” guiding actions in a positive and beneficial way based on past success.

There is another, less fortunate, aspect of evolutionary psychology that is relevant to Grayson's arguments. Evolving humans were more likely to survive by co‐operating in groups; trusting and helping members of the group. The flip side is that they were also more likely to survive by mistrusting other groups and, if necessary, fighting to defend the values of their own group or steal the resources of other groups (Buss, 1999). The groups that fought most successfully were the ones that survived. According to this evolutionary psychology argument, humans are pre‐programmed to have loyalty to their own groups, mistrust and even fight those who are different. Again, this is not a happy disposition in our modern world but nevertheless, one that we still observe. In Chapter 7, Grayson derives a cause‐and‐effect reason for current world conflicts fought in the name of religion. Sadly, from the evolutionary psychology perspective, where groups perceive each other as different, they are likely to be instinctively motivated to fight each other. Grayling states that Islamism is “resisting the encroachment of a way of life that threatens it”. Rather than encroaching and threatening, surely Grayling's interpretation of humanism will preach tolerance and knowledge? Here, marketing has a part to play. Not in trying to make cultures and religions more alike but rather by drawing attention to the cultural universals, the benefits of alternative cultures and improving communication between cultures. As this book speaks from a purely UK perspective, it is apt here to mention the sterling (but under funded) work along these lines that is carried out by the British Council. Surely, it is worth diverting funds from the war budget to support and expand this work? And similarly for the United Nations?

The book ends by emphasising humanism in terms that will be attractive to many readers:

Espousal of hope for the future, […] real things, real people, real human need and possibility, and the fate of the fragile world we share. It is about human life; it requires no belief in the afterlife. It is about this world; it requires no belief in another world (p. 64).

Grayson's humanism will appeal to readers who have themselves been socialised into western cultures, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be religious. Setting aside his anti‐religious stance, the belief system that he proposes is one that I imagine is likely to sit happily with many moderate, modern Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. This is only to be expected as the key tenets have no doubt come from the background of those cultural traditions. Has Grayson himself reached this position based on his own cultural background?

Only atheists (naturalists?) will agree with most of this book. Nevertheless, I recommend it to general readers as an antidote to the unpalatable aspects of religion in which many of us do not wish to believe! Grayling's alternative, humanism, is likely to appeal, at least in part, to many who wish to eschew supernaturalism and fundamentalism. Nevertheless, few are likely to be “converted” to the extent of rejecting the rituals of their nominal religions, such as Christening, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, marriage, funerals, celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Passover and Easter.

Marketers can take away an unwritten message of comfort from this book. Whilst Grayling points out that some religious organisations, particularly in the USA, have applied vast funds to their own marketing budgets, most religion holds that suffering is good, whereas the hedonistic consumption of products and services is sinful. This book is a powerful antidote to such religious marketing myopia! Grayling's brand of humanism will allow ethical marketing to flourish, providing people with pleasure, achievement and material comfort in their lives. It is ironic, though, that such a large part of our western material consumption relates to festivals and rites that are (at least nominally) based on religion! This reviewer considers that the author's emphasis on hedonistic products and services gives insufficient emphasis to spiritual needs and wants, which may be just as real as the tangible ones and therefore, may be expected to be amenable to elicitation by market research techniques, particularly in depth, qualitative ones. Consequently, such needs and wants can be satisfied by marketing‐orientated religions, therapists, alternative practitioners and so on. Grayson's humanists, on the other hand, lack the recognition of these needs and wants and also appear to lack the products, services and organisation to satisfy them.

About the author

Charles Dennis has a PhD and is a Senior Lecturer at Brunel University, London, UK. His teaching and research area is (e‐)retail and consumer behaviour – the vital final link of the marketing process – satisfying the end consumer. Charles is a Chartered Marketer and has been elected as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing for work helping to modernise the teaching of the discipline. Charles was awarded the Vice Chancellor's Award for Teaching Excellence for improving the interactive student learning experience. Charles's publications include Marketing the e‐Business, (1st and 2nd editions) (joint‐authored with Dr Lisa Harris), the research‐based e‐Retailing and research monograph Objects of Desire: Consumer Behaviour in Shopping Centre Choice. His research into shopping styles has received extensive coverage in the popular media. Charles Dennis can be contacted at: charles.dennis@brunel.ac.uk