Christopher Hitchens' Moderate View of Religion

[DWill]

Most people wouldn't associate the word "moderate" with Christopher Hitchens, but I believe he stakes out a reasoned, moderate position in God Is Not Great. This is despite the scathing subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens says we have finally come to the stage in our history where we can say that religion is optional and private. A combination of scientific, material, philosophical, and political progress has made this possible. It wasn't that long ago that not believing in the creator God of Christianity (to cite only that one religion) wasn't an option. Even people as far ahead of the curve as Jefferson and Paine held to the basic theistic belief. It took another 50 years and the revolutionary ideas of Darwin to light the way down another path.

Hitchens has no animus against this optional and private faith--really, he doesn't. It is only when religious people speak and act as if their beliefs are not optional but have potency over any other kind of belief that Hitchens comes out swinging. To me his stance is manifestly the right one. The stupidity of the Pat Robertsons and those who want to force creationism on school kids is blatant. I think it won't be long before the audience for this nonsense dries up. As to what people want to believe or worship, it's all a thing of indifference to me otherwise.

On one point, I disagree with Hitchens and others who tend to think that "private" should mean not talking about religion in any kind of public way. Religion is a very human thing, so I think there's nothing wrong with it being discussed openly (with certain ground rules observed). I note that a good number of atheists and agnostics maintain a lively interest in religion despite having no belief in God.

[Robert Tulip]

Most people wouldn't associate the word "moderate" with Christopher Hitchens, but I believe he stakes out a reasoned, moderate position in God Is Not Great. This is despite the scathing subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens says we have finally come to the stage in our history where we can say that religion is optional and private. A combination of scientific, material, philosophical, and political progress has made this possible. It wasn't that long ago that not believing in the creator God of Christianity (to cite only that one religion) wasn't an option. Even people as far ahead of the curve as Jefferson and Paine held to the basic theistic belief. It took another 50 years and the revolutionary ideas of Darwin to light the way down another path.

Hitchens has no animus against this optional and private faith--really, he doesn't. It is only when religious people speak and act as if their beliefs are not optional but have potency over any other kind of belief that Hitchens comes out swinging. To me his stance is manifestly the right one. The stupidity of the Pat Robinsons and those who want to force creationism on school kids is blatant. I think it won't be long before the audience for this nonsense dries up. As to what people want to believe or worship, it's all a thing of indifference to me otherwise.

On one point, I disagree with Hitchens and others who tend to think that "private" should mean not talking about religion in any kind of public way. Religion is a very human thing, so I think there's nothing wrong with it being discussed openly (with certain ground rules observed). I note that a good number of atheists and agnostics maintain a lively interest in religion despite having no belief in God.

The trouble is that the 'optional and private' stage is hardly 'final', but is merely a staging post as modern societies seek to reconcile their archaic religious heritage with modern observation. As Robert Wright argues in The Evolution of God, the history of religion sees steady evolution towards a transcendent universal ethical God. Stuffing Yahweh back in his box, and stamping this box "optional and private", ignores the claim to universality. Where the tectonic plates of cultural drift will bring a spiritual earthquake is in the role of religion in legitimising the state. A state that lacks any sense of the transcendent is not sustainable. Today, science provides a quasi-transcendent vision through empirical cosmology, but the rejection of religion as entirely inconsistent with the scientific vision is a false assumption. What is needed is a melding of the myths of science and faith. The pantheon needs a God called Consistency.

[DWill]

The trouble is that the 'optional and private' stage is hardly 'final', but is merely a staging post as modern societies seek to reconcile their archaic religious heritage with modern observation. As Robert Wright argues in The Evolution of God, the history of religion sees steady evolution towards a transcendent universal ethical God. Stuffing Yahweh back in his box, and stamping this box "optional and private", ignores the claim to universality.

What needs to be brought out is that this "optional and private" category is itself a a sign of religion's progress toward a universal, ethical God and away from archaism. This refers to a humanistic, universalist sort of religion that does not feature what Hitchens calls a "religious God." The Yaweh-istic brand of world-conquering religion is not in this box and Hitchens doesn't look at it in any sort of friendly way. But he does look at least neutrally at those whose own attitudes about their faith is that it is for themselves and not to be imposed outward.

Where the tectonic plates of cultural drift will bring a spiritual earthquake is in the role of religion in legitimising the state. A state that lacks any sense of the transcendent is not sustainable. Today, science provides a quasi-transcendent vision through empirical cosmology, but the rejection of religion as entirely inconsistent with the scientific vision is a false assumption. What is needed is a melding of the myths of science and faith. The pantheon needs a God called Consistency.

I'm not entirely sure of your meaning. I tend to think the state should have nothing to do with being transcendent, however that would look.

[lindad_amato]

Hitchens seems to have arrived at this 'moderate' point of view as he reached middle age. According to his memoir, Hitch 22, he discovered that his mothers' family was Jewish and had hidden it for obvious reasons. Over the years he has investigated this and spent time in the Israeli, Arab and Eastern European countries. He appears to have mellowed on the religious question at least as far as realizing that some people need God in their life to have some explanation as to why we are here. However, he still holds that those religious beliefs are completely unnecessary.
I'd be interested in discussing any of his books here. Let me know if you're so inclined.

[Interbane]

What is needed is a melding of the myths of science and faith.

That would do a disservice to science and to mankind as a whole. If by faith, you mean that we have faith 'in something', meaning pseudo-scientific of supernatural. We have no need for such things.

[DWill]

Hitchens seems to have arrived at this 'moderate' point of view as he reached middle age. According to his memoir, Hitch 22, he discovered that his mothers' family was Jewish and had hidden it for obvious reasons. Over the years he has investigated this and spent time in the Israeli, Arab and Eastern European countries. He appears to have mellowed on the religious question at least as far as realizing that some people need God in their life to have some explanation as to why we are here. However, he still holds that those religious beliefs are completely unnecessary.
I'd be interested in discussing any of his books here. Let me know if you're so interested.

I am interested. I wouldn't mind discussing GING again. We tackled it a year or so ago here. But I've not read any of his other books and would be open to any you might recommend.

[lindad_amato]

I really enjoyed his argument in GING. I just finished his autobiography and found it very insightful. He wrote a scathing book about Bill Clinton which could be entertaining and interesting. Can we post this idea somewhere on the site and see if anyone else is interested and has suggestions?

[Robert Tulip]

My first encounter with Hitchens was when I read his biography of Mother Teresa which basically attacked her as a hypocritical fool who was the cause of needless suffering through her extreme dogmatic Roman Catholicism. His book on Henry Kissinger attacks the former SoS as a war criminal.

As I mentioned at my booktalk.org blog, there is a good review of Hitch 22 in the NY Review of Books: "A fine review by Ian Buruma of Hitchen’s new memoire Hitch 22 is at nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jul/ ... /believer/. Buruma concludes “The man who emerges from this memoir is … clearly intelligent, often principled, and often deeply wrongheaded, but above all, a man of faith.”"

[Robert Tulip]

the state should have nothing to do with being transcendent

Your view here represents the liberal suggestion that the US Oath of Allegiance to "One Nation Under God" and the statement on the US currency "In God We Trust" should be amended to delete the references to the Lord Almighty.

I'm currently reading The Evolution of God, where the unity of religion and politics is emphasised as a main theme up until the modern liberal breakdown.

I think we will find that the secular rational model is deficient as a means to provide ethical vision, which require a sense of the absolute and transcendent. The challenge is to find a sense of the absolute that will support modern values. The sense that America has been blessed by Providence has supported the expanding optimistic vision that has enabled American growth. Today there is a crisis of confidence about Providence, and a feeling that people should switch to Sustainability.

My view on this derives partly from the traditional Chinese concept of mandate of heaven, which is that a state will retain power while it maintains a convincing sense of a transcendent justification for its authority. There is a paradox in seeing this spiritual tradition as supporting the current Chinese atheist state, yet this gradual return to Confucian absolutes has been a big part of Chinese success.

[Robert Tulip]

What is needed is a melding of the myths of science and faith.

That would do a disservice to science and to mankind as a whole. If by faith, you mean that we have faith 'in something', meaning pseudo-scientific of supernatural. We have no need for such things.

I agree with you Interbane that supernatural faith is obsolete. What is needed is natural faith. Science is incapable of presenting a convincing theory of change that will hold the trust of religious people while it excludes the language of faith from rational discussion. Science needs to make concessions to religion, to negotiate worldviews, by using religious language to formulate an ethical vision, while ensuring that the previous obsolete supernatural meanings that people saw in religious language remain open to contestable dialogue. For example, Einstein and Spinoza laid a foundation for the melding of the myths of science and faith through their theory that God is nature. This theory sets a foundation for dialogue, respecting the religious sense that talk of God is valuable, while also respecting the atheist observation that we have one natural universe and our ideas must be consistent with evidence. We should look at the modern enlightenment as one view on religion, not as the sole absolute explanation. By making concessions to mythical language, enlightenment can resonate more broadly and achieve its goals of a rational society.