Christopher Hitchens' Latest Argument
Faith and Philosophy
| September 29, 2007
| Tim
I like Christopher Hitchens.
Unable to sleep, I've been listening to a rebroadcast of a debate or interview (variously) between Hitchens and Michael Medved. Hitchens leveled a challenge, which he said he'd never heard answered:
Name for me, he argued (I'm paraphrasing from memory), one ethical act or stance which comes out of religion which isn't also done or advocated by some secularist. And if you can't name one such distinct act, doesn't that show that religion isn't necessary or valuable at all?
Before we go on, think about it a while. What would you say?
There are several flaws lurking in this question.
The first involves the word "ethical." For example, I might offer: "Well, Christopher, Jews or Christians might pray for you and atheists don't do that" -- and Hitchens would of course protest that prayer doesn't do anything. Or one might say: "Christopher, religious people try to inspire people to get closer to their creator!", to which he would say, in his droll manner: "Well, that's the whole problem now, isn't it."
My point is that the question itself is rigged: You can't possibly name, for Hitchens, one "ethical" act performed by Christians which secularists don't also perform precisely BECAUSE if it were unique to Christianity (for example), it would be based on some Christian doctrine or ethic rejected by secularists. The only acts both groups can agree, together, are ethical, are the acts which are based on ethics shared by both groups.
It's a bit like asking I serve you a "delicious" fruit which I like, but you don't. If I liked it and you didn't, you could never agree it was "delicious". It's also a bit like asking God to do the impossible -- it's yet another question whose form prevents any rational answer.
But Hitchens apparently never noticed that, in the weeks he's been contemplating the question.
The second problem is that Hitchens ignores the question of frequency. He feels as long as one person from each camp has done something at least once, the two must have equivalent value. It's a bit like saying a dime and a power screwdriver are just as good because both can drive a screw into wood. Pit two carpenters against each other, one armed with a nice electric screwdriver, and one armed with a dime, and we'll soon put lie to that idea.
Similarly, the irony is that Hitchens is running around saying that "religion poisons everything", yet study after study shows that religious people in the US are happier, healthier, and contribute more money and time to public charity and good works! (And not just religious causes, but secular ones as well, such as the Red Cross or Walk for the Cure.)
That's certainly an odd sort of "poisoning" -- the toxin must be purely philosophical, since in the realm of visible fruit, religious people are running circles around the secularists.
The third thing I'd point out is that there's a network effect.
Christopher Hitchens, for example, strikes me as a brave and ethical man. For example, he risked his own life to protect and shelter his friend Salman Rushdie. That's considerable, friends.
Yet, for all his ethics, when people who subscribe to the same belief system Hitchens advocates have ascended to majority control of any nation, bloodbaths have universally ensued. That isn't to say Hitchens, or other atheists, are bad: just that atheism, writ large, hasn't had a very good track record.
To state the converse, I'm sure I could produce a good many "Christians" (purported or real) who are considerably less ethical than Hitchens. Yet despite that, and despite the many failing we know of European Christianity, Judeo-Christian beliefs nonetheless made Europe fundamentally unlike every other region of the world, and gave us many things (such as science) which never arose elsewhere -- and arguably couldn't have arisen elsewhere.
Had, say, Newton been an atheist, he never would have sought those "laws" which he felt must govern the universe. Indeed, there were Taoist and Confucian Chinese scholars by the droves, who were essentially atheistic, but they never sought such things -- there was no reason from them to believe they were out there in the first place. Their philosophy prevented such a quest.
Same goes for hospitals, insurance companies, and windmills.
So while you can find both good and bad religious people and atheists -- there are also things which happened in the large scale within one belief system which didn't happen in the other -- things we should consider.
So there's three reasons Hitchens' question is misbegotten: First, as stated, it's internally contradictory, and thus unanswerable. Second, even if it weren't contradictory, it would reduce all measurements down to a yes/no, when "good" can be judged as a scalar, in degrees or frequency, not just as a boolean.
And finally, his question assumes there are no such thing as "emergent" effects -- things which can only be seen when whole systems are at play. As if you could only judge ants by looking at individual ants, never noticing anthills. Christians build anthills, atheists haven't, and don't. (You can't even get them to join atheist clubs, typically.)
This last failure is particularly odd, given how comfortable he is leveling broad-brushed, pan-systemic attacks: "religion [as a whole, all of it] poisons everything." He can imagine there might be systemic problems, but never thinks to put this particular challenge in terms of systemic advantages -- a form in which it would lose.
And what's striking is that this is apparently a key challenge being offered by atheism's current public intellectual champion. Oh well. Can't win 'em all, I guess.
But then again, it may not matter: Like Dawkins, Hitchens admits a big part of his goal is to encourage other atheists. (In fact, most atheist material strikes me as being for this purpose, since it's often rather easily debunked by people who know the belief system in question.) I expect they also won't notice these holes, so I expect it'll be effective, for that purpose.
Did I miss something? Have we started burning atheists at the stake again? Because otherwise, I don't understand this guerilla war so many of them seem to be waging.
I routinely log onto a Yahoo! Answers site called Religion & Spirituality, supposedly a question-and-answer site for anyone who believes in some form of God; we even have pagans on there. (Yes, the followers of Zeus and Odin are
alive and well.) Not a place you'd expect would have much interest for atheists. But there they are, showing up for the specific purpose of ridiculing the rest of us, calling us stupid, moronic, deluded. Asking "questions" that are nothing more than vitriolic, abusive rants.
The thing that I don't understand is the hostility they project. Like the Muslim extremeists who can't get past the Crusades, the atheists on R&S act as if they live in fear of being dragged off to the Inquisition at a moment's notice.
Frankly, I just don't understand. Is there some agenda I'm not seeing, or do atheists really believe the propaganda that lays all the problems of the world at the feet of anyone who believes in God? They seem to have forgotten about the many repressive atheistic regimes the world has suffered under.
I don't understand this guerilla war so many of them seem to be waging.
That's a question I've been wondering about also, Linda: what is their ultimate end goal? Other than talking about the need to give other atheists "courage" (against what, precisely?, as you say) what is it that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens wish to see? They certainly aren't forthcoming when I've heard them in interviews.
Do they (Harris and Hitchens, anyway, the two Americans) wish to see the First Amendment stricken? Do they wish to start having religious tests for office? Have they found their Constitutional protections somehow inadequate?
Will they (or their successors) be burning non-secular heretics "at the stake again"? Hitchens is openly saying he wants to see a "war" with his opponents. I'm not sure he's been paying attention, but such a war has been waging for quite a while, and he's doing just fine.
We religious conservatives are pretty open about our goals: smaller government, strong defense and borders, making sure voluntary worship is protected, not re-interpreting the Constitution, not redefining marriage, not erasing our history. These are not big secrets, nor are such goals all that radical.
But since these are rather mundane ideas, the left/secularist consortium must lie and say we want to create a "theocracy". (You can't control people with non-fearful predictions after all.)
And yes, I'm sure some of them actually believe it.
The thing that I don't understand is the hostility they project.
Odd, isn't it? So many questions which would seem to be about religion or politics really seem to involve questions of what we'd call "psychology." But I think that's because, deep down, man is a religious animal, above all other things.
I'll give you a theory: Much leftist behavior and angry-atheism arises from a fear that God does or might exist. By the way, I first heard this from a non-angry atheist -- I think he has a valid point.
I had a friend who was so angry at God that he would scream, out his dormroom window: "I am the Antichrist!!!" (He was born with a broken body, into a dysfunctional home, so one could totally understand his rage.)
I confronted him: How could he be an atheist and also be so angry at God? Isn't that a bit like being angry at the Easter Bunny for not leaving any chocolates, when you're 20? He thought for a few moments, and admitted he was actually an agnostic towards the question of God's existence, but that his attitude towards the idea of God was one of anger and fury.
I think he was being honest and wonder if that isn't true, deep down, with many others, in a "me thinks the fellow doth protest too much" sort of way -- others who are less frank and self-knowing than my friend.
The orthodox Judeo-Christian "God" after all, represents the idea that we might not be right at the core, that one might have to answer and be judged. CS Lewis, a former atheist, described his first realization of God's existence as a feeling of being profoundly "meddled with" and intruded upon.
Again, I think these are honest admissions, and are not utterly unusual.
Even Hitchens and Bertrand Russell take special umbrage to the idea that others thought they might be "going to hell" -- which makes as much sense as me worrying a Hindu thought I might re-incarnated as a bug. If Hell is a mere fantasy, you feel sorry for the deluded one, not angry about something which cannot bother nor harm you in this world and lifetime.
But it does touch on the notion of judgment and responsibility, doesn't it? And now we see the animating principles behind most leftism again: a war on making any judgments, a war on any notion of personal responsibility.
Hence, I believe, the big angry-left/angry-secular overlap. Same animating fears.
Frankly, I just don't understand. Is there some agenda I'm not seeing, or do atheists really believe the propaganda that lays all the problems of the world at the feet of anyone who believes in God?
Do some of them really believe it? Yes, some do. Some don't of course, or shouldn't: Sam Harris says the atheists who created those oppressive regimes were more like religious believers.
But of course, since they were also Atheists, he's indirectly admitting that being an atheist doesn't inoculate one against "religious" fanaticism. (So what good, then, is atheism?) But he can't or won't notice that: I'm convinced this is a form of ego-generated blindness.*
(* By this, I mean that we are set up so that our egos can literally prevent us from seeing the obvious, in order to protect itself. It's a bit like the child who cannot believe their parent is abusive because the shock would be too great.)
Is there some agenda I'm not seeing...
I'm not sure they themselves fully understand what they're doing an why, Linda. I don't think they're consciously deceptive, but I also don't hear them able to answer simple questions. Undoubtedly, they have a large number of short-term reasons.
But at this point, I'll also go nonlinear and say this: I do believe in a transhuman "evil". By which I mean that supporters, and even leaders, of the worst movements in history haven't generally realized the role they were ultimately playing. A bit like a pointalist painting, where the details make no sense up close, but where a pattern emerges as you step back.
Even Hitchens and Bertrand Russell take special umbrage to the idea that others thought they might be "going to hell" -- which makes as much sense as me worrying a Hindu thought I might re-incarnated as a bug. If Hell is a mere fantasy, you feel sorry for the deluded one, not angry about something which cannot bother nor harm you in this world and lifetime.
It doesn't seem that unreasonable for an atheist to take some offense at the notion. It's possible for atheists to think that spiritual beliefs have real-world consequences, just as Christians do. I can imagine John Q. Atheist interpreting the assertion that he's going to hell as an invalidation of himself and his worldview, and for reasons that seem entirely unfair based on the materialistic game he believes he's playing.
Hindu beliefs might seem more relevant to someone who lived in a predominantly Hindu society, particularly if those beliefs were used to justify actions, social rankings, laws etc.
If you were an untouchable in India or a devadasi, people's spiritual beliefs would matter quite a bit. And while The US is pretty good in this regard (quite possibly because of its religious background), many nations in history, Christian nations included, have had their own versions of 'the untouchables.'
It's possible for atheists to think that spiritual beliefs have real-world consequences, just as Christians do.
I agree completely!
But note, I only talked about the foolishness of a being "angry about something which cannot bother nor harm you in this world and lifetime."
I didn't say it was impossible for beliefs to harm people. I just don't think the Christian belief in hell, in American society, has any serious harmful consequences for, say, atheists like Christopher Hitchens.
(Other than hurt feelings. Which I address above. There are dozens of cults which think *I'm* in the wrong or evil group. How do I feel about that? I could care less. As long as they don't try to kill or hurt me, they're more than welcomed to think that. And hand out all the tracts their little hearts desire. Like "Voltaire", I stand up for their ability to do so.)
Now one could certainly argue otherwise. Of course! But to make that argument, one would have to focus on an actual negative effect -- which is not what I've heard them doing, in this particular case.
For example, I'm totally good with the following kind of argument, when it's plausibly true:
Religion X teaches that if you want to be sure you can be sure to avoid hell, you have to die fighting infidels in order to spread the faith. And this seems to be happening with some frequency. Therefore, Religion X's belief in hell is harmful and dangerous.
See? That's an argument that "belief in hell", at least in Religion X, causes some significant bad outcome. (It doesn't prove religion X is wrong, though -- just that outsiders should generally be concerned.)
But in the case of the aforementioned parties, the thing they take umbrage at, at least from what I've heard them say, is merely the idea that someone else is merely thinking (or saying) that.
So the obvious answer would seem to be, of course, we must stop them from thinking or saying that. I certainly hope that isn't what they mean, but I haven't heard much reassurance to the contrary.
Hindu beliefs might seem more relevant to someone who lived in a predominantly Hindu society, particularly if those beliefs were used to justify actions, social rankings, laws etc.
You're entirely right: they certainly do. And people who know me in person know I often make that exact argument, and other similar ones. (And I have made it here, too, I believe.)
But I would, even in a Hindu society, again point out that the answer isn't to try to control people's thinking. I would argue persuasively for (for example) Judeo-Christian values, and approve of civil protests like walk-outs, etc. And perhaps that's the same sort of thing the New Atheists think they're doing. But some arguments by Hitchens (for example) imply otherwise -- for example, he was frustrated that you apparently couldn't directly go after Islam (by which he seemed to have meant legally) because people were too cowed by respect for religion, in general.
I agree that all sorts of negative arguments about effects can be made. (And some might actually even match the evidence.) But I'm only referring to one particular one here, as I've generally heard it made -- and not making a blanket statement.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Open Comments Thread |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Are Girls Going Through Puberty Earlier? »
|
Did I miss something? Have we started burning atheists at the stake again? Because otherwise, I don't understand this guerilla war so many of them seem to be waging.
I routinely log onto a Yahoo! Answers site called Religion & Spirituality, supposedly a question-and-answer site for anyone who believes in some form of God; we even have pagans on there. (Yes, the followers of Zeus and Odin are
alive and well.) Not a place you'd expect would have much interest for atheists. But there they are, showing up for the specific purpose of ridiculing the rest of us, calling us stupid, moronic, deluded. Asking "questions" that are nothing more than vitriolic, abusive rants.
The thing that I don't understand is the hostility they project. Like the Muslim extremeists who can't get past the Crusades, the atheists on R&S act as if they live in fear of being dragged off to the Inquisition at a moment's notice.
Frankly, I just don't understand. Is there some agenda I'm not seeing, or do atheists really believe the propaganda that lays all the problems of the world at the feet of anyone who believes in God? They seem to have forgotten about the many repressive atheistic regimes the world has suffered under.
Posted by: Linda on September 30, 2007 08:20 PM