Why do we believe in right and wrong? Atheists such as Richard Dawkins seem to believe morality comes naturally. “It bubbles up, it’s instinctive, not taught as part of a cultural tradition.” But this lands them in a muddle, says Theo Hobson. If morality is natural, how can they also subscribe – as most do – to the idea of moral progress? For Dawkins the solution lies in the educative power of biological science: it teaches us about our common humanity with other races, he argues. But this won’t wash: biological science can also be invoked to justify eugenics and racism. Nor does it help to point out that the Golden Rule – “do as you would be done by” – predates Christianity: the secular humanism that defines our age offers “a far more extensive moral code” than that, notably its assumption that all humans are of equal worth. That assumption, as Francis Spufford notes in his book, Unapologetic, is rooted in the Christian emphasis “on people being loveable to God irrespective of what they deserve”. It is from this we derive our concept of rights being owed to people. “The reality is that the energetic universalism of modern humanism is rooted in Christianity.” (Theo Hobson, The Spectator).

Where to start? The several non-sequiturs and selective arguments would take a book (oh, no, not another book!) to explode the points made by Mr. Hobson. Suffice to say, Epicureanism is a tolerant belief. It doesn’t aspire to be a universal church or belief. It accepts that for some people, mainly poor, with little now and even less to look forward to, the idea of christian salvation, etc is very attractive, even if it offers more wild hope than real expectation. So be it. As long as these people and their advocates don’t torture me, burn me at the stake and disadvantage me before the law, let them believe what they like.