Bah, Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens spreads a little holiday cheer today with an essay denouncing Hanukkah. Like all Hitchens' work on religion, it's smart, witty and totally frustrating. Hitchens, you see, is at heart a fundamentalist. I don't mean that in the way people usually do: that he is so dogmatic and evangelistic about atheism that he's the equivalent of a religious fundamentalist. Hitchens has countered that attack persuasively -- or mostly persuasively -- in several outlets since the publication of his book God is not Great.

Rather what I mean is that Hitchens' ideas about the religious faiths he rejects are based entirely on fundamentalist interpretations of those faiths. For him there is only one true form of any religion -- the one handed down by God as transmitted by ancient religious authorities. Any variation on that is a false or deluded form of religion worthy only of dismisal. That's just what the fundamentalists say.

So when it comes to Hanukkah, Hitchens tells the true and rarely heard, during this season, story of the Maccabean revolt and concludes that, "The display of the menorah... has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason." [emphasis mine] He outright rejects liberal rabbi Michael Lerner's reinterpretation of the holiday.

But here's where Hitchens' own powers of reasoning fail him. Hanukkah has never had a single precise meaning. No religious holiday -- hell, no religion -- ever has. As an atheist, Hitchens must affirm that religion is a human construct that evolves according to human needs. To traditionalists who say, "but that's not what God meant," the response is simple: God doesn't make the rules. Hanukkah provides an ideal demonstration of this phenomenon. It began not as Hitchens claims, with the Maccabees, but earlier, as a winter solstace celebration, Nayrot, that was probably little different from the celebrations of the surrounding cultures of the era. Later, this merged with the celebration of the Maccabees' victory and became Hanukkah. Six hundreds years after that, as Jewish society had become more theistic and introspective and less militaristic, the supposed supernatural intervention of Yahweh became the most important thing about the holiday-- as seen in the newly evolved story of the miracle of the lamps. In the 19th century, Zionists adapted Hanukkah to their nationalistic idea of Judaism. In 20th century America, Hanukkah became, for all intents and purposes, the Jewish Christmas -- or more precisely, the secular Jewish alternative to a secular Christmas. In some ways it came full circle -- a winter solstace celebration once more -- but the millennia of history now attached to it made it all the more rich and more meaningful.

It is still common to hear some Jews (even secular ones) say that Hanukkah is "not a major holiday." But that is experientially false. It may be a minor holiday for Orthodox Jews, but it is a major one for the rest of us, and there is nothing inauthentic about that. If there is no God, how can a religious holiday, or any religious custom, have an external meaning outside of human culture and discernment? Meaning must be conferred by our observances and our celebrations. Obviously, this is not a matter of individualistic, conscious redefinition -- though that can play a part. Nor am I saying that holidays "can mean whatever we want." Rather, customs evolve along with the human cultures and societies that nurture them. Only an organic change that reflects the needs and values of large groups will resonate in our hearts.

And Hanukkah has undergone that kind of organic change, as has everything else about the wonderful, awful, human-created phenomenon of religion. Humanists should light their menorahs proudly tonight. Say an extra secular blessing for Christopher Hitchens.

Comments

[moderationsmuse]

And do not forget that Christopher Hitchens is a pisseur de copie.

[eddiestardust]

But what if God really does exist?
What if, when we die, our consciousness doesn't die?

Ever think of that?

[chinohillster]

I have read some of the works of Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al - I've read them for the same reason why I listen to both Amy Goodman and Rush Limbaugh - to understand the thoughts, feelings and perspectives of others.

I've read the theories about belief being neurologically-based, even "hard-wired".

I know that there is a TON of problems with religion and the religious, faith and the faithful, belief and believers - yet, somehow, even though I think I'm a fairly educated and technically aware person (Oracle/SQL Server/DB2 Database Administrator with UNIX SysAdmin experience), yet, "In the beginning, there was a region of infinite density which exploded in a Big Bang" doesn't quite do it for moi.

We ALL grapple with mystery, be it angels, demons, Higgs bosons, dark matter, or what have you. I am NOT saying that angels and quarks are equivalent - I am saying that the Universe is a mystery that ALL peoples have attempted to understand and to come to grips with - some through the acceptance of belief, others through scientific method.

I believe in God, and I have no problem with evolution or evolutionary processes - what is 12-16 billion years to an eternal, N-dimensional Being? I admit to my belief being formed from design - the Earth being in the correct zone to retain liquid water, with plate tectonics, internal radiation, a large Moon in tidal lock and a large Jupiter to keep most Extinction-Level Objects from hitting it. I do think there was conscious thought behind the creation of Earth and the beings that inhabit it (I also have a hard time believing that glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase just got here all by itself...)

[WilliePilgrim]

Well just in case the writer is ever interested in making an impact I would remind him of this line from this work:
"Hitchens' work on religion, it's smart, witty and totally frustrating." Why not take a cue?

[Horst]

Some years ago a chain of Japanese department stores decorated their store windows with crucified Santa Claus figures in the hope of attracting December shoppers. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

[moderationsmuse]

Oh, by the way, Christopher Hitchens is a pisseur de copie.

[gulopartisan]

Thank you for the discerning observation that atheism is essentially a fundamentalist religion. My contact with "true atheists" -- as a person who wants nothing to do with any gods or the religions that follow them, I seem kindred before they meet me -- has uniformly resulted in conversations just as dogmatic and meanspirited as any conversation I've ever had with an angry entitled Baptist.

Hitchens is one of the burdens of the New Left. Like Dowd, he is essentially about himself and his own self-importance. Dowd tromps around in Molly Ivins' shoes like a four-year-old being Mommy. Hitchens is the sneering kid next door whose contribution to the community is to try to spoil everyone's fun.

Maybe they could spend the solstice together somewhere?

[rboylern]

Does anyone really give a damn what Mr. Hitchens has to say about anything? How can you give serious attention to a rude man who always has a chip on this shoulder?

[Tulka2]

As a practicing Buddhist, i am a de facto atheist too. Buddha said there might be a Being or Beings superior to humans, but so what? It is a moot point when it comes to getting wise.

But... (and every one has a big butt as Pee Wee Herman used to say), My question to Hitchins is this:

"Does any question, face or mystery give you goosebumps, Dude?"

Always being the cleverest boy in the room has its eventual downside. Hitchens has the worst case of "monkey mind" ever seen.

[moderationsmuse]

Mommamia526

Thank you for your comments. I was trying to point out the fundamental difference between reality and make-believe that we're all familiar with in childhood. Children see things that aren't there. (I'm a mom of a young kid whose young enough to still be troubled by the resident monsters hiding in the closets.)

Notably Hitchens tacitly acknowledges this difference that as children we think imaginatively, but then we become adults and "put aside childish things."

Christians, Muslims, Jews, various others are not children. Their adult belief in God is similar to but also profoundly different from a child's imaginative fantasy.

And just as the child's fantasy serves a purpose (though we may not be exactly sure what all the purpose is) so too religion reflects a profound human need.

I don't care particularly what Hitchen's beliefs are, but I do dislike his influence and the way it discourages people from looking at these things with genuine curiosity and open-mindedness. This is part of our fundamental humanity. We don't have to understand everything about it to be made richer by it. Anyway, there have been intellects over the centuries (Newton, to name one) who believed in God and were very much Hitchen's intellectual superiors. If for no other reason, he might have the humility to tip his hat to his betters.

Best wishes, moderationsmuse

[thinkbridge]

Most attachments to holidays are more about nostalgia, emotions, communities, and of course parties, than religion. Condemning them in the name of rationality, therefore, may do some good in terms of making people think about rote or meaningless activities.

However, there's an important rational point Hitchens misses, generally speaking. Human beings need to be more "awake" and observant of their natural universe and relative position in it, and of their relative weakness vis-a-vis, say, the stars, galaxies or even pulsars. Those religions that have "universal" content, and connect with the natural universe, and at the same time have practical advice in dealing with the human universe, do have value. Plus, the point he missed is this:

What if humans did NOT create the idea of "God"? What if, in spite of man's convoluted understanding of it, there really IS a God, but not totally within the scope of our lesser understanding? What if all our thoughts cannot make God's existence and of course, power, any less true, powerful, etc.? It might then be well worth to examine everything with that in mind. The consequences of denying truth are often very, very horrible. But of course, God knows humankind is rational, in that case, and would not proscribe irrational religions as a form of "worship"...

[moderationsmuse]

Wondering,

The planet can take care of itself, thank you. I think your hubris is showing. I was surprised that you haven't mentioned evolution, but since you haven't I will.

We have "evolved" (its said) and have various animal traits that lead some of us to kill and do the other things you mention as so distasteful. Religion is also a part of that "evolution," if you like. Religion exists because it obviously answers a purpose. It mitigates some of that killing, it adds restraint. At the very least, it sets limits to the carnage. Think how much more bloodthirsty we might be without religious purpose.

Given that every high culture on the planet has been accompanied by a rather robust religious culture, I am not inclined to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

I'm a Christian, but I am very concerned about the protection of the other religions. Their freedom is mine also. Their religious wisdom enlarges anyone who is curious enough and respectful enough to look deeply into other cultures.

I know nothing about Islam, for instance. But -- gee whiz, one has only to look at the architecture or even something as ordinary as a carpet to see that a great depth of beauty and intellect is "encoded" in Islam.

If Hitchens is somehow of the opinion that we don't need all this stuff, he's just a bore, a pisseur de copie.

[moderationsmuse]

Maddogbitesback (and others weigh in as well)

Lots of things are beliefs, indeed much of science amounts to little more than belief. Religions are ideas before they are anything else, and quite possibly (if one wanted to be rational) one could inquire whether some or all of them might be true. They can be partially true, you know -- just as Newton's laws are partly true (they account for much about the universe, but not everything).

To dismiss ideas in one capricious gesture is just intellectual laziness. Shall we dismiss the writings of St. Augustine? What about Milton? You cannot understand Shakespeare without recourse to the Bible. Michelangelo's Pieta -- just forms, abstract art? When Wordsworth writes, "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,/ Hath had elsewhere its setting,/ And cometh from afar:/ Not in entire forgetfulness, /And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come/ From God, who is our home" he means something. His poetry has content, Christian content. If Hitchens has persuaded you to dismiss the contents of Western culture (or Eastern, or African, or Polynesian, or Whatever) because of religious belief then, baby, you aren't going to have many choices left for ideas and meaning. I guess you're left with the Huff Post for your reading!

But this is too large a topic for a little post. My more concise point is that, au fond, Hitchens is a bore. Not very Christian of me to say so, but there you have it. Fact, not belief.

[UnLinked]

Perhaps the underlying thrust behind Hitchens' criticism is against the mindset of religious people. Devotees of any religion, no matter how sectarian, agree on certain fundamental truths.
For Christians, one belief is that you must accept Jesus as your personal saviour in order to be admitted to heaven.
This belief, if sincerely held, creates in the individual an urgency to try to save people -- to help them discover Jesus. This can manifest itself in a stereotypical motherly figure wringing her hands and worrying over her sinning children's souls.
It can also manifest itself in a fire-and-brimstone preacher screeching damnation.
It can also manifest itself in a world leader making decisions not for the good of a given country, but to satisfy some basic tenet of their religion.
This, obviously, can lead to the deaths of thousands.
This mindset that accepts ultimate truths in the murky realms of the unkowable and wishes to foist the belief upon others is Hithchens' main target.

[AristophanesJones]

Non-fundamentalists are religious aberrants who are beginning to come to their senses and are, hopefully, on the path back to the tabula rasa of atheism--they just can't quite let go yet.

We, the sane people of the world, will be waiting for them when they get here.

Could've fooled me....