British expatriate journalist Christopher Hitchens’ new book is a sort of amalgamation of his entire life’s work. Titled “God Is Not Great”, the book posits just that: Religion does more harm than good.
Now, I’ll be honest. I haven’t read the entire book. I’ve read very little of it. I have, however, read a number of Hitchens’ articles on the subject of religion – I consider it an unfortunate phase in my life. His anti-religiosity has begun to grate on me, though, as it tends to rely on evangelical techniques, thus positing positions directed solely at like-minded “believers”.
Of course, there are several things separating Hitchens from, for example, a teenage atheist, writing angry missives on LiveJournal about, like, how stupid religion is and how stupid religious people are and how morality comes from within and not from some crusty, antiquated relic of the Bad Old Days. But not much.
That is more or less the level of discourse utilized by Hitchens. This is not at all groundbreaking or even terribly controversial, much to Hitchens’ dismay, I’m sure.
To his credit, and what distinguishes Hitchens’ arguments from other anti-theists, is that he treats all religions more or less equally. Muslims often raise his ire.
“I will not be told I can’t eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis,” wrote Hitchens in an article for Slate.com. “I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object.”
Hitchens and I share this. Admittedly, I too am an atheist, by choice as my father regularly attended Baptist church. I have strong beliefs about religion – disavowing it as an ontological crutch. Where we disagree is that I respect the philosophical revelations of religious thinkers like Aquinas or the 19th century Unitarians of New England, who helped weave the intellectual fabric of a nascent nation (I don’t necessarily agree with everything, mind you, but I do respect the level of thinking).
I still resent the evangelical religion – the kind of religion to which the Dobsons, Robertsons and Falwells of the world subscribe. I still resent any religion that forces individuals to deny their humanity for the sake of securing a place in the afterlife. If someone chooses this, that’s one thing, but to force it, through a sort of conscripting evangelicalism, is something entirely different.
But denying the importance of religion, culturally and philosophically, is sophism gone made. It is an argument predicated on the ignorance of religion, religious practices and philosophy in general.
Like many of Hitchens’ unyielding beliefs – the Iraq war is necessary, to cite his odd obsession with neo-con policies – he uses his dry British wit and colorfully pugnacious language to mask a rather superficial level of discourse, unconvincing in the sense that the lack of nuance in his articles is intentional. He speaks “truth” to those who already believe.
He has a brother, named Peter, to whom he does not speak. His brother is also a journalist. If music has the Gallagher brothers and the Davies brothers, then journalism has the Hitchens brothers.
Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a lengthy review of his brother’s book. “Christopher is not tentative about his view on God. He describes himself as an ‘anti-theist’, so certain of his, er, faith that he wars with bitter mockery against those who doubt his truth. Well, I wish I were as certain about any of these things as Christopher is about his anti-creed,” writes Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail. “He reminds me rather more of the bearded Muslim sages of the Deoband Islamic university in India I met last year, than of the cool, thoughtful Anglicanism that we were both more or less brought up in.”
The point is that the more vociferous, even evangelical atheists co-opt the tactics of the odious elements of religion to make their points. Although one could view this as fighting fire with fire, I do not hold this view. Just because a group of people are acting like complete jerks, does not mean you have to do the same.
Religion will always be a touchy topic, but it is important, for atheists and their bastard cousins agnostics, to dispassionately, historically, and intellectually discuss how religion has shaped all cultures around the globe. If they become too fire-breathing, too evangelical, too insulting and condescending, then they only add to the cacophony. I know they truly believe that they are right, and maybe they are, but they are not making an argument intended to convince anyone. Sort of like the faith-based programs, books and rhetoric with which they disagree.
[email protected]