Tag Archives: Theo Hobson

Demons Do Not Help Explain Terrorism or Mental Illness 

Theo Hobson latest piece is “Secularism’s view on violence is less humane than Christianity’s.” How the separation of church and state, the liberty for us all to live by our conscience in matters of faith without being subject to any violence by anyone, has anything to do with this misses his purpose. That you need faith to be more humane, being a humanist cannot match it, is the claim.

The use of the word secularism here is to attack the secular minded society as less caring. Hobson does this without obvious irony by using what is one of the most cruelest ideas that exists in the New Testament. The idea that people are possessed by demons. “I think that the old-fashioned language is still largely fit for purpose.” We will come to how it is not in a bit, but he goes on to conclude about those killing for terrorism or because of mental illness:

We should see them as possessed by demonic forces. In fact, this New Testament view of the matter underlies the vague orthodoxy I have just described. And this model can also be applied to terrorists – they are possessed by a demonic idea. The French priest whose throat was slit knew this – he died saying ‘Get away from me, Satan’ – he understood the terrorists not as intrinsically evil but as agents of evil. The old religious view of these things is actually more humane than any newer one: it sees the human agents of these horrors as redeemable, but the acts as utterly evil. A secular view either denies the full scale of the evil or, in tabloid headline fashion, over-identifies it with the perpetrator, who is human like us.

If you remember the New Testament, the people possessed by demons were not inherently evil. They had the hallmarks of epilepsy, learning disabilities and mental illness. Jesus did not bring a secular understanding to these things. He cured a few people, sometimes casting the supposed demons into the nearest pigs, but the science or care these people needed (the modern “secular” approach if  we must) was not part of his plan when saving others. So for hundreds of years, exorcisms and treating them as possessed was very much a Christian perspective. 

I would have to call this evil – exorcism really was not the way forward in caring for one another. We might excuse a primitive people; the Son of God playing to that ignorance (or to be more accurate, the gospel writers) a little less so. 

There is no excusing Theo Hobson on this. In trying to defame humanists and secularists (who are not necessarily the same thing) he reminds us that ideas can be evil in the Good Book. Possession is one of them, an idea in the bible we need to move away from rather than a language to make use of to convey ideas today. If we are going to understand why people take the lives of priests and others while shouting “God Is Great” we are going to have to use an investigative approach.

That might suggest looking at the link between violence and religion as a starting point. We should not need violence to make us give the care and attention the most vunerable  in society need. The risk is more often from society, as the President of The Royal College of Psychiatry said in the wake of the Russell Square knife attack today in London:


No Amen is necessary to take that advice.  

The top photo comes from this blog post with more quotes on casting out demons.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Email: JSargeant78@gmail.com

Leave a comment

Filed under British Society, Religion, Secularism

A neo new atheist?

Theo Hobson in The Spectator has written Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists whose arguments will not be too new for those familiar with this blog. That Dawkins is crude (see Mein Kampf/Boteach blogs), creating caricatures of religion rather than looking at the religious experience that a believer has.

Hobson holds up a different sort of atheist thinker from those that brought you the literary success of The God Delusion and God is not Great. That of Alain de Botton who stresses the religious roots of secular humanism, and the human condition that benefits from rituals and community.


Thing is these ideas already existed before that – Sea of Faith stresses the human creation of religion but welcomes people of all faiths that value the practise and heritage in the 1980s. It started from a book, TV programmes to gathering of like minded thinkers.

No doubt we could go back even further. The thinking is not new nor is it a generational thing either as Hobson suggests which looks for complexity and nuance. Anyone that read Dawkins before The God Delusion knew this book was in him waiting to come out. It’s success blazed a trail for others to follow, and detractors a set of coat tails to cling on to.

Now the gravy train is looking for something new, a halfway house, and the spotlight has come onto others. I also think the death of Christopher Hitchens left a void that opponents are trying to fill. However, there is a new horseman in the form of Lawrence Krauss, appearing in a film with Dawkins out soon. The box office will tell us if there is still life in the old Darwin Rottweiler.

Thing is we atheists have never been a homogenous bunch. The herding cats metaphor exists for a reason regarding organising atheists. No one wants to be a follower or disciple of anyone. We have a non belief in the existence of god having been proved by theism – that is as much as can be said of knowing someone is an atheist. The sliding scale Dawkins uses of 1-6, and the humanist percentage quiz, simplifies a wide range of views on religion, the nature of a secular state, religious freedom, whether utopian or realist regarding the end of faith.

Where we are critical of fellow free thinkers, it is an honest debate over issues and how to debate. The hammer or feather approach. With others like Sam Harris, it is philosophical in nature.

The biggest problem is often a lack of understanding of religions and what makes people religious (beyond parents’ faith and geography). An impartial examination is in order to fully understand these things. That was what made it surprising that Dawkins had not read the Koran. If Islam really is a threat beyond Christianity to enlightenment values, then it pays to study, weigh and consider. To be as informed as you can be on the issue without necessarily setting yourself up as an authority.

As my blog states very clearly – condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78


Filed under atheism, Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, secular