Ill with cancer, outspoken "unbeliever" Christopher Hitchens was unable to appear at the American Atheist Convention, and instead sent a letter attacking the "lethal delusion" of religion. This letter was both unspeakably sad and distressingly naive.
In his missive, Hitchens equated religion with the actions and proclamations of bullies, tyrants and "nuclear-armed mullahs," all of whom promote "sinister nonsense" and carry out unspeakable crimes while claiming that God is on their side. Hitchens has done this many times before. There is nothing new in these claims and neither do they have any merit. He is not attacking religion but extremism carried out in religion's name, often as a cover for political and ideological radicalism.
Any system of belief or action can be distorted or carried to extreme lengths. But if one washes oneself a hundred times a day, one is not discrediting soap; rather, one is raising questions about its obsessive and inappropriate use.
The sad and surprising part of the letter comes when Hitchens moves from the public to the private sphere. Facing the specter of death himself, he assures us that he has not sacrificed his principles by embracing the "false consolations of religion." Rather, he draws strength in his illness from humankind's "innate solidarity," which -- rather than religion -- is the source of both our morality and our sense of decency.
But this idea of "innate solidarity" is deeply problematic. Everywhere we look we see the exact opposite of "innate solidarity." Tribalism -- blind, unquestioning allegiance to one's group -- haunts the world; it has nothing to do with solidarity, morality or decency. Here in America, neither the right nor the left appears committed to a view of life rooted in solidarity. Conservatives preach free market capitalism and the "self-reliance" (which is mostly selfishness) that is advocated by Ayn Rand and her disciplines. Liberals emphasize doctrines of individual rights, which may be admirable but focus on individual concerns and not communal support.
As a religious person, I believe that human beings have a tendency toward solidarity -- and indeed, that it is divinely implanted. Nonetheless, it is no more than a tendency, and a rather weak one at that. (The word used by Judaism is "inclination.") By itself, it is incapable of impacting our behavior in a significant way or of creating strong moral bonds. The purpose of all major religions is to cultivate and strengthen this tendency and to develop it into compassionate concern; compassion, after all, is the basis of moral thinking and the foundation of that fundamental decency to which Hitchens refers. But the point is that it is a mistake to speak of solidarity as "innate." Solidarity is not the starting point; it is the result of systems of belief and behavior that have been developed and practiced by communities of common concern -- and without question, it is religious systems of belief and religious communities that are the most effective vehicles for developing solidarity and offering compassion over time.
In claiming that our solidarity is just "there," Hitchens shows himself to be strikingly naive. He may not like the God that I worship, but it turns out that he has created a god of his own.
Hitchens is ill. I sympathize with his situation, and I wish him a speedy return to good health. It goes without saying that he is entitled to find consolation in any way that gives him strength. But since he takes upon himself the task of giving advice to others, I suggest he remember that for the bulk of humankind, consolation in the face of illness and grief comes from a solidarity that specifically emerges from religious communities, creeds, rituals and liturgies. And thank God for that.
Facing Death, Christopher Hitchens Affirms Atheism, Christian News ...
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens: The Moral Necessity of Atheism (1/8)
Can you prove God doesn't exist? - By Jim Holt - Slate Magazine
'God Is Not Great' Author Christopher Hitchens on Religion, Iraq ...
I applaud Hitchin's courage in the face of death - he's making his point right to the end.
I could give a royal flyin' flip if someone is a godist or an atheist - y'all can believe what you want and disbelieve whatever you don't want to believe - it's all the same to me. Go for it.
But to be militant about it, to rail against religion, is to accuse humans of being human, then convict them of it. What's the point?
Religion does not come out of left field and select us, and do something to us. It is not an independent evil that alters human nature. IT IS human nature. We select our purposes, our communities, our sources of inspiration, or we select none. And then we work our wants and needs into the framework of these contextual paradigms which we have selected. Some of us even hide behind these frames. Some delude themselves with the frames. That's not the fault of the frame.
To blame religion for anything is to declare there is a force (religion) superior to human will. But is not the primacy of human will the very crux of atheism? You can't have it both ways.
The point, as Hitchens himself has said, is that religion poisons everything. You may not agree with that, but it's a quite supportable position. People who can accept sky fairies as real can accept ideologies as real, although religion isn't necessary for this it's a good start in the wrong direction.
A number of America's founding fathers would agree with him in this regard, some as vociferously as Tom Paine who wrote two volumes while in a French prison denouncing organized religion.
The social impulse of mankind, though heavily corrupted and degraded by modern living, is innate, and it is strong.
It is probably, in most ways, the source of religion (a form of social adhesion) rather than the other way around. Followers of "mystical forces have more power over your life than you do" religions are such, out of the need to belong, the fear of being different, and the fear of rejection by the community - one's best resource in the struggle for survival.
"Tribalism -- blind, unquestioning allegiance to one's group -- haunts the world; it has nothing to do with solidarity, morality or decency"
It would be funny, if it wasn't so utterly terrifying, that they can't see the hypocrisy in making such proclamations. That they cannot, or perhaps choose not to, see their own "unquestioning allegiance" to a religious group in the same way as he describes tribalism is what really "haunts the world".
There is no greater danger to solidarity, morality and decency, than unquestioning allegiance to anyone or anything, and in that I can agree with the Rabbi. If only religious leaders would honestly apply such standards, and criticism to their own beliefs.
It makes me really angry to continue to be told by the religious that my mind is not my own, but something that has been infected by some being there is no evidence to support exists. How rude.
Actually, they do the very opposite by separating the world into the saved and unsaved, believer and unbeliever, Jew and goyim, Muslim and Kuffar. The "Divine" religions promotes solidarity only among the fellowship, the brotherhood, the ummah.
"He is not attacking religion but extremism carried out in religion's name, often as a cover for political and ideological radicalism. "
Is childhood indoctrination into the false belief of eternal torture for sinners "extremism?" Is the Catholic Church holding you and your fellow Jews (until recently) responsible for Jesus' death "extremism?" Is the belief in the transubstantiation and claims of its desecration, which led to thousands of Jews being murdered by their credulous Christian neighbors "extremism?" Is the view of women as naturally twisted and corrupted creatures "extremism?"
These beliefs, as alarming as they are, are not extreme. These beliefs are perfectly mainstream in Catholicism, for example. One does not to look hard for misogyny in Islam as well.
I could go on and on, the admiration for Abraham's willingness to murder his child out of obedience to God, the slaughter of Amalekites (man, woman and child), the demand that women submit to men. This is mainstream stuff, not "extreme" as you would like us to believe.
One should be a wishy-washy believer, then?
Eh?