Some responses to Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens has recently been in Sydney, appearing on the ABC's Q&A program, and being interviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, as well as being a speaker in the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

I have responded mainly to the interview in the Herald, addressing some of Hitchens' errors and those of his followers:

ILLOGIC

First, Hitchens argues from particular wrongs committed by some religious people to a general blanket condemnation of religion. This is a breach of simple logic. It is in the same class as the false syllogism, "My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black."

Yes, some religious people do evil. And some doctors are paedophiles. Is medicine evil? Religion is a framework: how people use it varies. Paedophile doctors can use the internet as a framework for a paedophile circle. Is the fault in the framework, or in how people use it?

There is probably some truth in the idea that some religions are more prone to harbouring a particular kind of evil than others are. Catholicism's tendency to attract paedophiles possibly indicates that a celibate priesthood provides a good disguise for such people, while Islam's early spread through military campaigns almost certainly fuels the terrorists who hide within that religion. Some forms of Protestantism are influenced by the belligerence of people like John Knox and are prone to intransigence and argumentativeness. But even these concessions do not demonstrate that all religious people are like that, in fact they weaken Hitchens' arguments even further.

IS ATHEISM A RELIGION?

In the various discussions of Hitchens, debate arises over whether atheism is a religion or not.

As a teenager, I was a theist in that I believed it most probable that God exists, but it had no consequences for how I should relate to him, to other people, or to the environment. Therefore I was a non-religious theist.

So it is true, but disingenuous, to claim that atheism is not a religion, because "Hitchkinsism" - and most modern atheism - is a far more worked-out philosophy than the mere atheist statement, "God does not exist." This is clear from the writings of people like Hitchens and Dawkins (hence "Hitchkinsism"). They believe that atheism is at the heart of saving the world, socially, environmentally, intellectually... They believe that atheism must conquer all other worldviews. They believe that their brand of atheism is the key to unlock world peace, and that believers must be removed in order for this to happen.

LEGITIMATION OF PERSECUTION

It troubles me that followers of Hitchens, Dawkins and other radical atheists push these negative descriptions of believers so fervently. And their leaders don't ever seem to correct their calls for the removal of belief with any kind of appeal for toleration of the kind I regularly see from, say, Christians, when talking of atheists.

I hasten to add that most atheists I know are unlikely to murder believers in their beds. They are, like most believers, moral people. In fact, it is mainly those of a Hitchensesque bent -- strident atheists -- who use against religious people, particularly Christians, similar arguments to those used against Jews 70 years ago. It may seem mere intellectual debate to describe believers as war-mongerers, unintelligent, paedophiles, suicide bombers, circumcisers of females and so on. But it is actually far more sinister.

From a sociological viewpoint, what they are doing is isolating a group or groups in order to define them as non-persons. And history demonstrates that this is often the prelude to violence against the isolated group. Good people will deplore the violence, but, "...after all, these people sort of bring it on themselves." Aggression towards believers is legitimated by this use of language.

The movie, The Fisher King, demonstrates how legitimation works. Geoff Bridges' shock jock character didn't pull the trigger, he just made it possible for a deranged shooter to justify his own actions.

We all must take responsibility for our words and accusations, the more particularly if we have a wide audience.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Hitchens claims that religious people believe that religion is the sole key to knowing right from wrong.

Contrary to Hitchens, this is actually (from an evangelical Protestant point of view) a mark of false religion and erroneous thinking, St Paul specifically addresses it in his letter to the Romans. Some Jewish Christians in that church considered themselves superior to Gentile Christians because Jews have the law. Paul points out that the law does no more than make us aware of our failure.

Let's think about this false view. If God, the creator of all, is the source of morality, then human beings should have an innate moral capacity. It is part of our human nature quite apart from whether or not a person believes in God. Empirically, we can see that unbelievers mostly act ethically, and so do believers. The reason is that it is built into us. In addition, we know that society goes better if we do right rather than wrong.

So it is in our own interest to act ethically. Doing good is good for ourselves and those close to us, at the very least. And how can self-interested action gain us heavenly rewards? That idea treats God as a celestial whore, dispensing favours to the one who does most good, to the one who is the best payer. Trying to gain heaven through doing good is just plain unethical!

Hitchens should admit, though, that religious thinkers have often been at the forefront of ethical thinking. Jesus, for example, corrected his Pharisaic co-religionists by pointing out that the mere fact of refraining from an evil deed when one really wants to do it does not make a person truly holy. Christianity was moving towards an anti-slavery position even before Lanfranc (Bishop of Canterbury) tried to repress it in around 1100AD, or the Quakers (about 1650) decided to disfellowship any member holding slaves.

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not about doing right to gain points with God. It is about how a loving God has stepped in to rescue from despair, failure and destruction all who, acknowledging their sin and failure, repent and trust in Jesus Christ's finished saving work.

CHURCH, STATE AND ATHEISM

Hitchens is reported in the Herald article as arguing that Church and State must be separated. The link between the Church of England and the English Government is certainly a lot closer than the links between any church and the Australian Government, nevertheless, I mainly agree with him.

I hasten to add that total separation is neither possible nor practical. Believers live within and participate in their States.

To remove their voting rights or to prevent their holding Government positions or being elected to Parliament would be undemocratic and probably lead to civil war.

To prevent religious people from commenting on social and political issues would rob the State of vital information for the running of Government, just because churches, synagogues and mosques are in touch with what people think, what is happening in their communities, what the vital issues are.

To force religions out of welfare, education, health care, and half a dozen other fields would cause the collapse of the institutions in these fields, many of which are run by religious bodies.

However, I point out that the Anabaptists, from their beginnings in 1525, tried to live out radical separation of church and state. In England, the Baptists, in 1612, began campaigning, through pamphlets, preaching, and other methods, while the Quakers (1640s) followed the Anabaptists. That great scholar of The Enlightenment, John Locke, in his post Glorious Revolution (1688) writings perhaps did little more than copy his religious antecedents.