April 26, 2007
Hitchens Weighs in, Now On The Religion Debate
In Slate, excerpts from Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything:
The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning—but not the end—of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning—but by no means the end—of all disputes about the good life and the just city. Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:28 AM | Permalink
Comments
"Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."
Wow. That's the most eloquent way I've ever seen it put!
Another book added to my to-read list!
Posted by: beajerry | Apr 26, 2007 11:23:08 AM
"And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything."
Sorry, but this requires a very narrow view of religion.
Posted by: John | Apr 26, 2007 12:58:53 PM
"As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. "
I honestly don't know how to begin to describe the incredibly concentrated level of retardedness encapsulated in this sentence.
Nor, I think, in the general thrust of the article. Okay, holy books are of dubious origin. We knew that. We knew that many religions have terribly violent, sexist, repressive histories. In many, this is no longer the case (the large majority of Canadian christians, for example, are afilliated with churches that have openly disavowed the old hellfire-and-torment approach, and instead focus on nasty things like community-building).
Kant claimed to have derived things like duty, respect, moral worth and communal obligation from the dicates of pure reason alone. It is generally accepted that he failed, and hordes of meta-ethicians are hard at work trying to rescue his project, in the hope that reason, and reason alone, might provide intrinsic worth to human life.
Kant was much smarter than they are. In the absence of results, it seems like we might tentatively conclude that this cannot be done.
I am a card-carrying atheist. But dammit, I am getting sick and tired of the book-writing atheist idiots who are making a fortune with tirades like this. They are not addressing the issue. How nice for them that reason and the natural world provides them comfort. This doesn't change the fact that, in the population at large, depression is aggravated by atheism (http://www.mental-health-today.com/articles/spirituality.htm). That most are constituted in such a way as to require something more than just the laws of logic, physical experience and means-ends reasoning for their mental well-being. Where does THIS come from?
In short, they are committing what might be called Marx's Fallacy: criticizing a system without a viable altenative. Hitchens: don't expect the rest of us to listen to your angry, destructive ranting just because you're still angry at mommy and daddy for making you hate your genitalia.
Posted by: Ol' Jimmy | Apr 26, 2007 1:12:05 PM
While most Bronze Age Fiction dealing with creation tales is childish and embarrassing to anyone with a developed forebrain, most "liberals" still cling to "A belief in the belief of religion" and defend it in the market place of ideas. They are the ones who enable the fundies to carry out their 12th century actions that would make Kafka blush.
As long as the "liberal intellectual" supports these views, we are stuck with the poison that religion is.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Apr 26, 2007 2:39:05 PM
To the commenter above who used the word "retardedness" as an insult ... are you aware that this usage is considered outdated and offensive? Would you casually say "that's so gay" or "I got gypped?" I hope not.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 26, 2007 5:59:21 PM
Anonymous, I'm attempting to construct a parody of your comment, but it parodies itself so wonderfully that I can't top it. Well done.
Please, if you have an actual rebuttal, let's hear it.
And Scott, I would also love to hear an actual rebuttal from you, as opposed to the near-incredible proposal that well-educated people who have thought deeply about religion and its place in the world are, in fact, the true force behind Fred Phelps. Please, enlighten us further, this is cracking stuff.
Posted by: Ol' Jimmy | Apr 26, 2007 10:23:33 PM
Dear Ol'Jimmy,
Hitchens arguments stand or fall on their own. What you call "marx's fallacy" is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what Hitchens(or Marx)says.
For example, I have frequently critiqued the idea of Santa Claus without being able to come up with a viable alternative, but I still think the critique holds.
'nuff said...
Posted by: Thomas | Apr 26, 2007 11:40:26 PM
Hey, leave me out of this.
Posted by: Santa Claus | Apr 27, 2007 5:33:39 AM
Always this tired old argument that the masses (never us clever folks like Ol' Jimmy) need religion (even though it's divorced from reality) to keep them moral. As though the only reason everyone doesn't turn into raving, killing, raping, thieving maniacs is that they believe in an imaginary universe-creator that tells them to behave right or else.
Be honest. How many raving, killing, etc., atheists do you know? How many do you think there are in the general population? Now consider how many raving, killing, etc., believers in god there are. Quite a few, I would say.
Kant is not the only ethical theorist.
Posted by: JonJ | Apr 27, 2007 8:04:01 AM
Yes, I ignore the jimmies until the talking snakes and flying horses are adequately addressed--
Let's be honest- you take the "thees" and "Thos" away, and there really is not much there other than superstition and delusion.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Apr 27, 2007 1:28:07 PM
Jon, Kantians are the only ethical theorists who claim to derive moral worth from reason alone. Since it is reason that these self-styled anti-religious crusaders claim to live by, Kant is the most relevant theorist. I am well aware of the others, but since they're generally not rationalists, the point is moot.
The argument is not just "we need religion to keep the masses in line". It's that a large percentage of people seem to be happier when they are religious. This does not mean that religion is necessary for a good life. It just means that any anti-religious zealot needs to include some sort of alternative system of value.
"we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason." says he, and then goes on to claim that ethics is best resolved by reference to literature and other great works of art. He may be at least partially right, but surely it is just as irrational to base an ethical judgment on tolstoy as on the bible. Why the worship of the nebulous "reason"?
Posted by: Ol' Jimmy | Apr 27, 2007 1:31:01 PM
What I want to know is this:
Given that Christopher Hitchens got a war here on Earth so wrong, why should we listen when he tells us he's got things right on the matter of *God*?
Kent
Posted by: Kent Johnson | Apr 27, 2007 3:14:58 PM
CH writes leagues better than Dawkins, Dennet or Harris, but he gets the same thing wrong as the rest, restricting the definition of religion to include only that which is based on servitude, obedience, fear, and superstition. When he finds a theologian he respects--like Bonhoeffer--he must recast him as a "humanist," because there's no room in "religion" for decency, nobility and scarifice.
When one comes on strong at the outset with "four irreducible objections" to something, they had better not miss the side of the barn altogether. But to hear Hitchens tell it, no religious person believes in scientific cosmology, exercises free will, entertains doubt, or enjoys their sexuality. Are we on the same planet? Why keep reading after this statement?
It is interesting to read that
considering that all five writers, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, were devout Christians.At times CH's argument seems much more nuanced than the Dawkins/Harris line, neither of whom one can imagine making a statement like "Religious faith is ... ineradicable... For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could."
But by the end of that paragraph the bile has risen in him again, tamping down that seasoned approach, because of course it all comes back to 9-11:
Remember the episode early on in the war when CH raved about how bravely he and his wife were going about thier daily lives, while the demonic Islamist threat was all around? It is at this point we may recall his earlier words: "How much vanity must be concealed—not too effectively at that—in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan?"
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Apr 27, 2007 3:58:02 PM
Kent--
This is the most rational response to Hitchens yet, based on fact and observation. A bright spot of reality based analysis.
Hitchens is a opportunist, and, in my opinion, ethically challenged.
I have followed his career for almost 20 years, and have listened to him extensively of KPFK in LA. He may be taking this slam dunk case to take the heat away from a bad roll of dice with the Iraq Occupation and resource grab.
I would not be surprised if we will addressing him in the future as Christopher Khamenei .
That said, he is right on on this one--
But as stated above, anyone with a well developed forebrain will come to the same conclusion.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Apr 27, 2007 4:01:39 PM
Chris-
Well Chris, what do you believe? Until we find out, this playing with the net down. We can't have it up on the return can we? That would not be playing fair. Do you believe in talking snakes? How old is the earth? Come on, until we know, this is carp fish on valium.
Posted by: scott Ahlf | Apr 27, 2007 4:09:40 PM
Chris, you have introduced several important points here -- thanks! Less often cited than it should be is how badly Dawkins, Dennet and Harris write, whether in comparison to the always charming CH, or to some of their better-qualified critics -- Terry Eagleton, for instance. I've often been bothered by this, although it may be nothing more than a demonstration that reason's mighty engine will not get a prose style off the ground -- an old lesson. I am saved from being truly irritated by it, however, by reflecting how poisonous a thing it would be if they wrote really well. That would suggest inspiration, or "lift" at work, and an inspired atheist is fodder for an SNL send-up. Doubtless they know this, and are suitably dialed down. It could be fruitful for these discussions to focus not only on what is said but on the world view implied by the choice of voice.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Apr 27, 2007 4:38:44 PM
Scott,
I believe it's implicit in my criticism that I don't believe "religion" as such is directly responsible for humanity's many barbarisms. If anything I believe religion is as often as not a foil against our worst behavior. If I were to attribute man's inhumanity to man to a single source, it would be something like tribalism, which even the most massively endowed forebrains cannot provide complete immunity to.
I also believe a humungous amount of "religious" activity in this world is small, bitter, and, yes, poisonous.
I believe religion need not be a matter of beliefs, but can be a matter of attitudes. One can decide to regard certain pieces of space and time as "sacred," and in fact I believe one will probably do so whether one is conscious of it or not. I think the true definition of religion is this hierarchy of meaning that all humans need to act in the world. It doesn't rely upon "supernatural" beliefs; The Taoists have none, for example, and neither do many schools of Buddhism. Hindus believe in a much more subtle sense of divinity than Western thought is accustomed to, in which everything is an emanation of an infinite "godhead"—a proposition that is not in conflict with the most materialist orthodoxy, since this divine aspect is just one more characteristic in addition to all the scientifically observable ones.
I believe that as finite beings we can never know ultimate reality in any complete or truly accurate way, and hence "fairy tales" are often as good as it gets about the big questions. I believe it's important that we remember they are just fairly tales, but inportant that we forget sometimes too; depends on the context. I believe intelligent people can hold contradictory ideas in their heads without freaking out about it, and that different kinds of information are useful for different occasions.
This I believe. Now, is that enough of a net for you that we can get back to our fucking tennis game?
Chris
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Apr 27, 2007 6:12:03 PM
Elatia,
Dawkins sometimes turns a masterfully clever phrase. And he deserves all the praise he gets for clear science writing (even where I find him theoretically suspect). But there is something literal-minded in him that weighs down his prose, isn't there.
Also, he often seems very prickly to me. He has such a reputation as a gentleman and a scholar, I wonder that people don't pick up on his defensiveness. Perhaps because his perfect Oxford diction passes for gentility?
Still, given a choice between him, Dennett and Harris for a dinner conversation, I'd pick Dawkins.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Apr 27, 2007 6:21:00 PM
Chris-
Well stated. I agree. We are not that far apart--
Anyone who "knows" with complete certainty does not have a well developed forebrain.
However, things are not "Relative", and we should not sink into a Post Modernist absurd world.
Every time you fly at 50,000 feet you have fully accepted basic views toward reality that are constant enough for you to trust your life to.
As I stated, we are essentially in agreement, I believe
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Apr 27, 2007 7:19:21 PM
"I believe intelligent people can hold contradictory ideas in their heads without freaking out about it, and that different kinds of information are useful for different occasions."
Absolutely. Contradictory ideas held concurrently in one head are a mark of thinking agility, whereas Scott's insistance that you must not change the height of the tennis net is an attempt to restrict thinking to a game format. Games like tennis are defined as sub-sections of reality, in which parameters like net height and court size are fixed and unchangeable. If human discussion of an issue were truly bound to similar fixed rules (a state of affairs which not a few philisophers have tried to impose) then this list of comments would have been much shorter.
I also agree with Chris on his other point, concerning the varying definitions of belief itself. As a Jew who grew up in secularized Christian Britain, it has always struck me that Christians and atheists from a Christian background, like Dawkins, are always preoccupied with 'what ' one believes (virgin birth, resurrection, holy ghost etc) whereas Jews are far more interested in what one practices: do you eat kosher, drive on the Sabbath, make chicken soup, light candles and so on. Because for the Jews the Deity is remote and untouchable, not like the Mel Gibson S&M hero who lets you eat his tortured flesh, so most Jews, whether religious or secular, take the existentialist viewpoint that places far more emphasis on practice than belief.. I'm generalizing, of course.
Posted by: aguy109 | Apr 28, 2007 10:19:57 AM
aguy--
I agree Jews are into practice (i was a member of a Jewish Community Center, and spent 2 years daily interacting with Jewish events, etc. I have some insight into the Jewish "practice")
That said, a "Remote and Untouchable Deity" often times even prevented form saying the name of this Deity ,is just meme protection. Now is that protection or what? If you can't say the name, you can't examine or question the deity- the more remote, the safer the parasite is from the host getting ride of it.
It's ability to replicate and spread is enhanced
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Apr 28, 2007 11:27:11 AM
Scott:
The notion of memes as “culture genes” is shaky in itself, because, as you know, a culture is alterable by the people who follow it, which would mean that “culture genes” are inherited in Lamarkian fashion. To call religions a ‘parasite’ or a ‘poison’ is to claim that they are entirely detrimental to the survival and reproductivity of their protagonists, which is doubtful if you consider the high birthrates of many religious communities. What you really mean by ‘parasite’ or ‘poison’ is that religions restrict human rights or free thought and speech. The fact is that many types of human society have, down the ages, featured restrictions on behavior, suppression of women and many other features that one would today consider highly illiberal. That does not mean that such societies were/are not able to function, and many indeed have built thriving economies beautiful cities, churches, mosques and temples. The use of biological and evolutionary terminology to discuss the affects of religion requires the use of biological criteria such as reproductive rates and biomass, not ideological /political ones such liberalism or social equality.
Don’t get me wrong, I think secularism is great and has helped make life far more pleasant, but I recognize that modern Western liberal secular society rests upon a capacity to produce vast surpluses in food, goods and services (at a high energy cost) In pre-industrial society, work was hard, food scarce and people were meaner, because there was far less to go round. Religion, church going etc represented a framework a set of moral values, Holy Days, rites and festivals which helped to keep communities and societies together and blunted some of the anguish of poverty. So Religion does deserve a degree of respect.
Posted by: aguy109 | Apr 29, 2007 8:43:22 AM
Notes to Ol'Jimmy
To call someone or some idea "retarded" is to degrade it, of course. It's hard to say then that you are not also degrading the class of people originally referred to as "retarded", that is, the unfortunate and innocent group of people that are now (but still euphemistically) called "developmentally delayed". Sorry, this is not a good thing to do.
As for Kant and rationalists, the people you dislike so much that "worship reason" are not rationalists in the philosophical sense, but (admittedly self-styled) rationalists in the simple season of sane and rational and, they would say, *scientific*. In terms of morality, they are more likely to be naturalists than Kantians or some other flavour of rationalist. So Kant is not the most appropriate moral thinker to bring up here.
You also seem to have too high an opinion of Kant.
Posted by: Ol' Sally | May 18, 2007 5:26:49 PM
Elatia,
Not only is Daniel Dennett a fine writer, but I'll bet he would spell your name correctly, also.
Posted by: Ol' Sally | May 18, 2007 5:32:38 PM
Ol' Sally,
Moral Rationalism is the theory that reason is the origin of all genuine morality. When Hitchens and his ilk brashly proclaim that we can get all we need out of life from reason, you'll have to forgive me for thinking that this entails moral rationalism.
If, as you say, their use of the word "reason" is to suggest "sanity", they are merely begging the question against religion.
If, as you also say, their use of the word "reason" is meant to suggest "naturalism", then they are not only guilty of an extraordinary false equivocation, but they have an enormous burden on their shoulders, given that a quick glance through the Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (2004, under "naturalism") reveals that "ethical naturalists are mainly concerned with being consistent with naturalism, not with constructing an ethical theory from the bare tenets of scientific practise".
This is especially true because most moral naturalists are Aristoteleans, believing in an essentialist, teleological picture of humanity which directly conflicts with our oh-so-precious evolutionary theory.
Finally, on the issue of retardedness, it is YOU who associates the term with the developmentally delayed. I'm 28, and throughout my entire life-span, it has never been acceptable or even accurate to refer to those innocents as "retarded". The entire english-speaking world under 30 lives under this reality: retarded does not mean "disabled". It means "stupid".
However, I will be willing to compromise. Can I just call hitchens "differently pleasant to be around"?
Posted by: Ol' Jimmy | May 20, 2007 1:47:26 PM
Look Jimbo,
Sal is right, on both main counts. "retarded". "delayed". See the similarity? Google "retarded" and see if you get "stupid" coming out at the top. You do not. Read the first entry, the wikipedia one, to see that term is still used, even by groups like the AAMR (thats the American Association on Mental Retardation).
As for "reason" and "rationality", please listen a little more closely to how people use these words. You are confused on this point, trying to import philosophical terms of art into everyday discourse. Your references to Kant remain irrelevant in this context.
The "rationalists" here are indeed generally naturalists (or Humeans/Bernard Williams style internalists -- the two positions that they take to be compatible with science) and "reason" means "science and its kin, as opposed to irrational religion". Indeed, one can argue that they are begging the question against religion, and that they are scientismists. But claiming Kant doesn't back them up is irrelevant. They don't like Kant, generally.
One of the arch modern "rationalists" in this soi-disant sense is Richard Carrier. You can google to find his account of morality in an mp4 video lecture, in which he takes on Kant, and shows that Kant actually didn't even understand what he was saying and that his categorical imperative was really a hypothetical one.
If you want to compromise, just call Hitchens a pompous jerk. (And talk about "religion pollutes everything"! He literally pollutes practically wherever he goes).
Posted by: indifferentist | May 26, 2007 4:11:27 PM
Well said, indifferentist!
Posted by: Sam | May 26, 2007 4:28:10 PM
Post a comment