Print
Belief in Belief
by Christopher Hitchens, Council for Secular Humanism
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_28_1
A question that interests me very much (and always has) is this: I know that I do not believe in either any god or any religion, and I can give my reasons in a manner that the other side can at least understand, but can the same be said for those who claim that they do believe? A shorter way of putting this is to ask whether our antagonists in this ancient argument truly mean what they appear to say.
The recent disclosure that Mother Teresa had for almost half a century been unable to feel the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the ear of God listening to her prayers, is of great importance here. (See the recent book of her despairing letters, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.) Not even her most fervent admirers regarded this woman in any sense as an intellectual, and she evidently struggled to combat her doubts in a highly traditional way—namely, by making ever-more extravagant and even masochistic professions of "faith." This would be superb confirmation of Daniel Dennett's hypothesis about "belief in belief"— the strange idea that, though faith itself may be ludicrous and incoherent, the mere assertion of it may possess some virtues of its own.
Even though I have sometimes described her as a fraud (for her collusion with rich oppressors of the poor like the Duvalier family in Haiti and for her other corrupt dealings), I would now hesitate to put Mother Teresa in the same category as a Falwell, a Haggard, a Sharpton, or a Robertson. These men have never done a day's real work in their lives and are or were simple parasites who pinch themselves every morning at their good fortune at living the easy life of exploiting the gullible. For them, religion is nothing more than a trade, or a racket.
The same, I think, can be said of the numberless clerics convicted of child-rape (why on earth do we allow ourselves the silly euphemism of "abuse"?). Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism.
But the racketeering and exploitative side of religion, as with its no-less-marked tendency to generate wars, atrocities, and repressions, isn't the whole story. What of those who try their best to help others and lead a decent life, attributing this conduct to their belief in a Virgin, a Prophet, or to the story of Exodus, or any other such fabrication? I never cease to wonder, in dialogues with such people, whether they are really saying what they mean or meaning what they say.
To any humanist, for example, it's perfectly obvious that the city of Calcutta would benefit from an influx of volunteer nurses, doctors, inoculators, sewage experts, and others, just as it would not benefit from the attentions of people who regard poverty and death as a secondhand share in the "mystery" of the Crucifixion. There are actually quite a good number of activists of the first type (I spent some time there once, watching the great Brazilian photographer Sebastiao Salgado do his work for UNICEF documenting the massive campaign for vaccination against polio), but for some weird reason the only person anyone can name is a woman who spent her entire life campaigning against birth control—a stupid campaign that Bengal most definitely did not and does not need.
Is it not possible that the missionaries of "faith" regard the objects of their charity as mere raw material—human subjects for a tortured experiment in their own psyches? It seems that, the more Mother Teresa lost conviction in the teachings of her religion, the more energetically she silenced her doubts by ostentatious crusades against divorce, abortion, and contraception using "the poorest of the poor" as her backdrop and her excuse. And does this not degrade such work as she actually did? For her, the helpless beggar was just that—helpless, to be sure, yet for that reason easily available for her own exhausting propaganda. The case for assisting starving Bengalis is complete on its own terms, but most of the money raised for the "Missionaries of Charity" went—as Mother Teresa herself happily admitted—to the building of convents that were consecrated, in effect, to her own ambition and her own very extreme teaching of Catholic dogma. These preachings went dead against the only certain cure for poverty—the emancipation of women from the status and condition of breeding machines—that the human race has ever discovered.
In other words, "faith" is at its most toxic and dangerous point not when it is insincere and hypocritical and corrupt but when it is genuine. At that point, its energy of certainty and self-righteousness can be used, not only to reinforce the Church but also (as Mother Teresa's continuing reputation demonstrates) to impress even the secular. The evidence now is that this is how she and her confessors squared the circle. Repress your misgivings, overcome your despair, redouble your efforts, and we will make you a saint and later claim that you cured the sick even after your death. It's at this point that the cynical loops round to meet the naïve and say in effect that anything is permissible as long as it keeps the illusion alive. Again, one has to stand amazed before a clergy who can use, as a recruiting sergeant, a wretched old lady whose own faith, as they well knew, had worn to a husk.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of God Is Not Great. His edited anthology of ungodly classics, The Portable Atheist, will be published in November.
Reposted from:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_28_1
A question that interests me very much (and always has) is this: I know that I do not believe in either any god or any religion, and I can give my reasons in a manner that the other side can at least understand, but can the same be said for those who claim that they do believe? A shorter way of putting this is to ask whether our antagonists in this ancient argument truly mean what they appear to say.
The recent disclosure that Mother Teresa had for almost half a century been unable to feel the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the ear of God listening to her prayers, is of great importance here. (See the recent book of her despairing letters, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.) Not even her most fervent admirers regarded this woman in any sense as an intellectual, and she evidently struggled to combat her doubts in a highly traditional way—namely, by making ever-more extravagant and even masochistic professions of "faith." This would be superb confirmation of Daniel Dennett's hypothesis about "belief in belief"— the strange idea that, though faith itself may be ludicrous and incoherent, the mere assertion of it may possess some virtues of its own.
Even though I have sometimes described her as a fraud (for her collusion with rich oppressors of the poor like the Duvalier family in Haiti and for her other corrupt dealings), I would now hesitate to put Mother Teresa in the same category as a Falwell, a Haggard, a Sharpton, or a Robertson. These men have never done a day's real work in their lives and are or were simple parasites who pinch themselves every morning at their good fortune at living the easy life of exploiting the gullible. For them, religion is nothing more than a trade, or a racket.
The same, I think, can be said of the numberless clerics convicted of child-rape (why on earth do we allow ourselves the silly euphemism of "abuse"?). Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism.
But the racketeering and exploitative side of religion, as with its no-less-marked tendency to generate wars, atrocities, and repressions, isn't the whole story. What of those who try their best to help others and lead a decent life, attributing this conduct to their belief in a Virgin, a Prophet, or to the story of Exodus, or any other such fabrication? I never cease to wonder, in dialogues with such people, whether they are really saying what they mean or meaning what they say.
To any humanist, for example, it's perfectly obvious that the city of Calcutta would benefit from an influx of volunteer nurses, doctors, inoculators, sewage experts, and others, just as it would not benefit from the attentions of people who regard poverty and death as a secondhand share in the "mystery" of the Crucifixion. There are actually quite a good number of activists of the first type (I spent some time there once, watching the great Brazilian photographer Sebastiao Salgado do his work for UNICEF documenting the massive campaign for vaccination against polio), but for some weird reason the only person anyone can name is a woman who spent her entire life campaigning against birth control—a stupid campaign that Bengal most definitely did not and does not need.
Is it not possible that the missionaries of "faith" regard the objects of their charity as mere raw material—human subjects for a tortured experiment in their own psyches? It seems that, the more Mother Teresa lost conviction in the teachings of her religion, the more energetically she silenced her doubts by ostentatious crusades against divorce, abortion, and contraception using "the poorest of the poor" as her backdrop and her excuse. And does this not degrade such work as she actually did? For her, the helpless beggar was just that—helpless, to be sure, yet for that reason easily available for her own exhausting propaganda. The case for assisting starving Bengalis is complete on its own terms, but most of the money raised for the "Missionaries of Charity" went—as Mother Teresa herself happily admitted—to the building of convents that were consecrated, in effect, to her own ambition and her own very extreme teaching of Catholic dogma. These preachings went dead against the only certain cure for poverty—the emancipation of women from the status and condition of breeding machines—that the human race has ever discovered.
In other words, "faith" is at its most toxic and dangerous point not when it is insincere and hypocritical and corrupt but when it is genuine. At that point, its energy of certainty and self-righteousness can be used, not only to reinforce the Church but also (as Mother Teresa's continuing reputation demonstrates) to impress even the secular. The evidence now is that this is how she and her confessors squared the circle. Repress your misgivings, overcome your despair, redouble your efforts, and we will make you a saint and later claim that you cured the sick even after your death. It's at this point that the cynical loops round to meet the naïve and say in effect that anything is permissible as long as it keeps the illusion alive. Again, one has to stand amazed before a clergy who can use, as a recruiting sergeant, a wretched old lady whose own faith, as they well knew, had worn to a husk.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of God Is Not Great. His edited anthology of ungodly classics, The Portable Atheist, will be published in November.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 152 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #117267 by Jab on January 28, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Superb essay.(And thank you for those video links Andr3w.)
Other Comments by Jab
3. Comment #117293 by manolo007 on January 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm
It's at this point that the cynical loops round to meet the naïve and say in effect that anything is permissible as long as it keeps the illusion alive.
There are the deluded ones and those who knowingly take advantage of their condition...do you want a saint? you got it! do you want two saints? you got them too!
Other Comments by manolo007
4. Comment #117294 by ClemIsMe on January 28, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Since coming out of the haze I have come to regard faith as the problem at all times. A somewhat strict use of the word where better terms are not preferable. Willful credulity? The unexamined and jealously protected demand that you know something you can't. Religion is just a symptom.Other Comments by ClemIsMe
5. Comment #117315 by ricey on January 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Thanks to Andr3w for the Hitchens links (comment 1). This speach was good the first time I heard it, but set to that visual background it was profoundly moving. I urge all readers to follow these links.Other Comments by ricey
6. Comment #117322 by Matt7895 on January 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Wow, great article by Christopher, and those are two great videos too, I'll pass them on to my theistic friends :) Other Comments by Matt7895
7. Comment #117323 by Sally Luxmoore on January 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Great.I also love the 'illustrated' links - lucid, exciting, challenging and funny, as always.
I very much enjoy Mr Hitchens' expansive and interesting vocabulary.
Is there a transcript somewhere?
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
8. Comment #117337 by Phil T on January 28, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Terrific stuff - as always - from the wonderful Mr Hitchens and the videos are brilliantly illustrated. Other Comments by Phil T
9. Comment #117345 by MelM on January 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Faith is a vice; reason is a virtue.Other Comments by MelM
10. Comment #117351 by SPS on January 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Good article. Modern day religionists seem to be willing to go to any degree of trickery and deceit, including self-deceit, to hold onto their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. If I remember my bible right, you can pretty much do anything and get "forgiveness". This is a questionable and troubling path to morality given religion's myth as reality anchor.Other Comments by SPS
11. Comment #117352 by tybowen on January 28, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I think one of the most ludicrous arguments I heard being raised mormon was that "miracles don't convert" (aka seeing an angel wouldn't make you change your ways and follow god) and that you have to "believe before you can have faith" and that if you didn't seriously want to believe then you wouldn't be blessed enough to receive a conformation of your faith. The conformation was supposed to come after the trial of your faith. Pure insanity, yet that is what they tried to hoist on me growing up. Other Comments by tybowen
12. Comment #117362 by LorienRyan on January 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Wonderfully written by Hitchens of course, inspirational. It's unfortunate such enlightened reasoning can only be understood by the enlightened. Other Comments by LorienRyan
13. Comment #117401 by Michael B. on January 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Long time lurker on the site - first time poster. I sure do love the way Hitchens writes. Mencken reincarnated (if such a thing were possible), both in the way he develops arguments and the way he uses language.Thanks for the resource and all the posters who regularly contribute.
Other Comments by Michael B.
14. Comment #117430 by epsilondelta on January 28, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@tybowen: I was also raised mormon, and that was a big problem for me as well. I never understood how people could tell me that I had to profess belief in something before knowledge of its truth could be given to me. It's basically saying that if you lie and say you believe, then you'll know it's true.Regarding the article, I thought it was extremely well written and thought out. Gotta love Hitchens.
Other Comments by epsilondelta
15. Comment #117431 by chuckgoecke on January 28, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Brilliant stuff! Hitchens always makes me feel that I'm proud to stand with him, and that I am on the moral high ground, keeping myself in the rational world. I'd like to see more discussion of the whole discipline of theology, how it is an empty intellectual endeavor, just a bunch of old men, stroking themselves and rehashing tired old topics. Other Comments by chuckgoecke
16. Comment #117437 by 43alley on January 28, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Hey all ... it was a pleasure to see you guys complimenting the Hitchens videos I did. I'm a lurker here, and read all the articles and follow all the discussions in the comments. Imagine my surprise in seeing links to my videos. Though they originated on YouTube, I see they're making their way to other sites (Google, milk&cookies, and even one person's MySpace blog). Maybe I should have put my name on them somewhere, maybe as a watermark or something. I didn't at first because it wasn't an ego thing, I just really could visualize what Hitchens was saying and thought that maybe, just maybe, a religious person would stumble upon it and watch just enough of it to pry loose one of those square pegs in the round hole in his or her brain.
These videos really aren't difficult to put together, so if anyone has any ideas or suggestions for other specific speeches, etc, please let me know.
A fun one I'm thinking about doing is one of Eddie Izzard's routines ripping on the Bible. That should be fun.
Other Comments by 43alley
17. Comment #117445 by Upgrade01A on January 28, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Free will is an illusion. The other side cannot help what they believe any more than us non-believers cannot help our lack of belief. Christopher Hitchens had to write what he wrote because of the state of his mind just prior to the writing which can be traced back to the books he has read, and many other environmental conditions, including his upbringing, genetic makeup, sibling and friends.
If one tries explaining how free will can possibly exist, they find themselves getting tied up into strange loops and layer of patterns looking for "wiggle room" that does not exist. Perhaps Mr. Hitchen's comments will collide with a believer in such a way as to cause them to change their mind.
We do what we want, but not what we will. One should not take one's self, nor others too seriously.
Atheists are merely lucky to have collided with logical, rational, and objective concepts - meme patterns that are not viruses of the mind. Others are not as fortunate.
On the other hand, Mr. Hitchins is confused about foreign policy, whereas Mr Ron Paul, a Christian, has a better grasp of both foreign policy and economic theory, but has no chance of winning the presidential election. JS Bach, a religious Christian, was fortunate to have collided with musical patterns far superior to either Hitchins or Paul.
Nice article overall, but I am starting to get bored with the topic, but then I do not make my living as a writer.
I do not think people's religion is as important as people's views on authoritarianism. As both a libertarian and an atheist, I place more value on a person's view on the golden rule and on taxes than I do on their mistaken belief of the age of the universe or the god of Abraham.
I do not believe most religious people perceive their beliefs in anyway close to what is often depicted by Hichins, Dawkins, or Harris. Some of them do. I think that especially Hitchins misunderstands foreign policy, the cause of 9/11, and the optimal solution.
Other Comments by Upgrade01A
18. Comment #117447 by righton on January 28, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Videos are awesomeOther Comments by righton
19. Comment #117451 by dragonfirematrix on January 28, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I enjoyed Christopher Hitchens article. It is great!My post is not to discount any good that Mother Teresa may have done in any humanitarian sense, but to comment on the unfortunate reality of her beliefs…
Quoting the article…
"The recent disclosure that Mother Teresa had for almost half a century been unable to feel the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or the ear of God listening to her prayers, is of great importance here."
And...
"she evidently struggled to combat her doubts in a highly traditional way—namely, by making ever-more extravagant and even masochistic professions of "faith." "
I believe this part of the article does an excellent job showing god does not exist.
In my opinion, Mother Teresa's dilemma illustrates how believers will engage in acts of desperation to prove the existence of their god even after years of reality that bears no truth in their god's existence. The believer goes to their grave with no answer from their god, no cures for their ailments, no heavenly rewards, and no comfortable room awaiting them in their god's house, simply because their god does not exist. Mother Teresa might as well been praying to Thor, Zeus, or Neptune because the results would have been the same. Believers spend their lives, education, and money seeking a god that is, of course, a fraud.
Maybe only at the end do some of the religious begin to question their beliefs.
"God is imaginary."
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
20. Comment #117455 by October Mermaid on January 28, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I'm not about to compare myself to Mother Teresa (since I don't know a whole ton about her), nor will I say I'm in any way representative of most Christians, but I know that when I WAS a christian and i had major doubts, I would begin trying to do more charitable things and redoubling my efforts to "convert" friends and strangers because I thought that was what a real Christian was supposed to do.I would ask Christian friends and "superiors" and they would say "Well, it's not that you feel obligated to do it, no. When you're a Christian, you just WANT to." Well, I never really wanted to. I found it uncomfortable and unpleasant, and yet I still did it because I thought this would prove I really WAS a Christian and I was doing the right thing. It was a really unpleasant time and led to many embarassing apologies later to friends I had hounded with my religious beliefs.
Even as bad as all that was, I'm still finding myself wishing I could still believe in a God. Maybe I'm just one of the weak or ignorant people that can't get by without one, but it's caused me some serious and profound distress just in the last few weeks trying to deal with my new almost certainty that there is NOTHING after death. I haven't gotten over it yet and I wonder if I ever will.
Other Comments by October Mermaid
21. Comment #117459 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 9:57 pm
EpsilonDelta:@tybowen: I was also raised mormon, and that was a big problem for me as well. I never understood how people could tell me that I had to profess belief in something before knowledge of its truth could be given to me. It's basically saying that if you lie and say you believe, then you'll know it's true.
Me too. BTW, why do Mormons always start crying in church when they profess their "testimony"? Is it common for other religious people to become this emotional? (I'm not being sarcastic. I really am curious to know.)
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
22. Comment #117460 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I think it's easier than most of us suppose to instill doubt. I've noticed that theists become very nervous whenever a secular argument was made, almost as if they were in denial. Perhaps they don't believe as strongly as they think they do. Other Comments by AtheistAspy
23. Comment #117461 by Andr3w on January 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Another brilliant article by Hitchens.Awesome Videos 43alley! Your picture selections were pure genius.
Other Comments by Andr3w
24. Comment #117463 by Hypoluxa on January 28, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hitchens NEVER never fails to impress. :) Other Comments by Hypoluxa
25. Comment #117466 by robotaholic on January 28, 2008 at 10:42 pm
the truth is: we are physical organisms, we believed in invisible stuff for so long, but now it's time for honesty, truth, and realism- there are no invisible gods, there are no demons or angels, WE are in charge of our own lives, and we are the only ones who will SAVE US! We have to take care of ourselves, we have to be good to each other and we need to realize religion is terrible, faith is a bad thing,and we need to love each other because we are all brothers and sisters!-those links are absolutely AWESOME - HEAR HEAR CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!
edit- (after hearing the hitchen videos 2x) HOW DARE anyone believe that fallacy- If you directly think about it - it proclaims that we who don't believe are EVIL. It's judgemental. It's horrible. The three monotheisms are absolutely abominable!
Other Comments by robotaholic
26. Comment #117473 by Dinah on January 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Atheist Mermaid – One of the reasons why Christianity and Islam have lasted so long is that they have promised their adherents an afterlife provided they toe the line and obey the instructions of their respective clerics and holy books. It is one of the (if not the) greatest cons ever inflicted on the human race. Hard though it may be, in order to become adults in the true sense of the word we have to shed the infantile beliefs that we have a special place in the universe, that we are loved and matter to an invisible being, and that we will survive the death of our own bodies. It is probably even harder to accept that the people we have loved and who have died now only exist in our memories, but I personally would rather accept this than exist in a state of perpetual delusion.Other Comments by Dinah
27. Comment #117475 by ranman55 on January 28, 2008 at 11:05 pm
AtheistAspy: A Mormon friend of mine once invitedme to a service. When it came time for individuals
to testify, each person broke down sobbing, if not
outright crying, and it extended to the other
church members just sitting there. Half the church
was crying. This same thing happened at an evangelical service that I attended. It reminds me
of the kind of blubbering that takes place at an
AA meeting when people are telling their personal
histories. Just a lot of pent-up feelings, I guess.
Other Comments by ranman55
28. Comment #117476 by AtheistAspy on January 28, 2008 at 11:10 pm
AtheistAspy: A Mormon friend of mine once invited
me to a service. When it came time for individuals
to testify, each person broke down sobbing, if not
outright crying, and it extended to the other
church members just sitting there. Half the church
was crying. This same thing happened at an evangelical service that I attended. It reminds me
of the kind of blubbering that takes place at an
AA meeting when people are telling their personal
histories. Just a lot of pent-up feelings, I guess.
But what are they emotional about? I still don't get it.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
29. Comment #117478 by kram50 on January 28, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Great stuff...How could a thiest read something like this and not agree? It is so crystal clear and right to the truthfull point. I would assume that not agreeing to Mr. Hitchen's essay would be for the same reasons many needy, down-and-out, gullible, exploitable, tell me and I'll beleive it people who get sucked in by parasites like Haggart, Robertson, Baker, Popalot or whatever his name is, et.al. who are in the position of great influence, much like in the Jesus era...not to mention Constitine and his mob.Other Comments by kram50
30. Comment #117484 by William Kaiser on January 29, 2008 at 12:04 am
Response to October MermaidYou said:
"Even as bad as all that was.................... it's caused me some serious and profound distress .................... trying to deal with my new almost certainty that there is NOTHING after death."
What all converts to rationality should learn from October Mermaid's dilemma is, don't waste your precious time thinking about the fact that there is NOTHING AFTER DEATH, spend your time doing good things while you are STILL LIVING!
William Kaiser
P.S. Would anybody ever worry about the fact there is also NOTHING before birth?
Yeah, yeah, I know.... conception and all that, hopefully you get my point.
P.P.S. Oh yeah... I forgot..... they've got before birth covered too. That insanity called "original sin", whoever came up with this religion crap really knew how to f**k up the Human race!
P.P.P.S. I just realized who might have made up all this religious crap to screw up the Human race. It must have been the Neanderthals! They knew they were a dying species so they made up all this nonsense to make sure the Human race would end up destroying itself fighting over who's deity was the best. Very clever Mr. OGG and Mr. UgWump, you cheeky devils.
Other Comments by William Kaiser
31. Comment #117491 by Paul42 on January 29, 2008 at 12:39 am
"The same, I think, can be said of the numberless clerics convicted of child-rape (why on earth do we allow ourselves the silly euphemism of "abuse"?). Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism."Aren't we lucky to have someone on our side who can cut through the bullshit and use searing language to devastate those who would happily lead us into oblivion?
How many of us use these words at a later date to help us in our struggle against the forces of unreason?
What would we do without Hitch?
Brilliant as usual...
Love.
Other Comments by Paul42
32. Comment #117516 by clatz on January 29, 2008 at 2:49 am
43alley I salute you!Great stuff, keep em coming.
Other Comments by clatz
33. Comment #117519 by Biblebeltheretic on January 29, 2008 at 2:55 am
Upgrade01A"I do not believe most religious people perceive their beliefs in anyway close to what is often depicted by Hichins, Dawkins, or Harris. Some of them do."
It's quite clear you have never spent time in the Bible belt!!
Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic
34. Comment #117528 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 3:58 am
Atheist Aspy : But what are they emotional about? I still don't get it.People often weep quite copiously when they pluck up the courage to confess to embarrassing things in public. Mormon "testimony bearing" sessions can actually be quite hilarious - to the non-believer. If you've got a Mormon church near to you, and there's nothing interesting being shown at the local cinema, give it a try.
Less amusing is hearing little kids of 8 or 9 saying "IknowthatJosephSmithisaprophetofgodinthenameofjesuschristamen."
And everybody is sooo proud of them.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
35. Comment #117529 by Incredulous on January 29, 2008 at 4:00 am
I know there are a number of people who do not like Christopher Hitchen's style and some of the things he says appear on the surface a little contentious or contradictory, but I think he is a very perceptive and creative writer on all subjects.This article is great!
Other Comments by Incredulous
36. Comment #117537 by BigginHillbilly on January 29, 2008 at 4:32 am
I'm with Upgrade01a on this one - the arguments get very tiresome after a while, because, just like certain economists, these arguments make the assumption that human beings are autonomous, rational, self-interested agents of their fate and miss the point of religion in their attempts to address it. From a logical point of view, of course religion is a load of garbage! But I think there is a marked difference between the social structures and traditions that religions generate and their initial impulse, an impulse that I think is a deeply innate part of us and is in many ways beyond the scope of our reason. I feel that all of us have a deep need to foster a sense of connection with the rest of the cosmos, and a deep sense of the uncanniness and mystery of human existence, or, for that matter the existence of anything at all. Any purely rational take on existence would surely do nothing but justify suicide; we live with a sense of faith in ourselves, our loved ones, our lives that supports us and encloses us. Any rational take on humanity must surely conclude that we are largely creatures that exist in a state of unreason, and no explanation, ultimately, will remove that sense of mystery and resonance that subsumes the limitations of our minds. Any attempt to persuade needs to focus on this; rational argument is a square peg that blunts itself on the round hole of our humanity.Other Comments by BigginHillbilly
37. Comment #117541 by Gymnopedie on January 29, 2008 at 4:40 am
I still don't get why people worship that old hag Mother Theresa.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
38. Comment #117542 by Adam Morrison on January 29, 2008 at 4:41 am
Emancipation.Hitchen's use of the word in this speech is especially apt. Imagine the acceleration in humanity's growth were we to free ourselves, not from morality, philosophy or ethics, but the systematized and dogmatic oppression of irrational belief systems. This can apply to non-religious dogmatic beliefs such as facism or fasco-communism, but, and the but is exceptionally important, throughout the recorded history of humanity the primary perpetrator of systematic devaluing of human existence has been primarily due to organized religion.
Were we no longer saddled with iron age doctrine cheapening our terrestrial existence, a vast wealth of humanity, who once spent their time converting the unconverted, butchering their neighbours and abusing their children could have used their zealous energy in the construction of a world where humanity genuinely sought to end human suffering, oppression and misery.
Imagine the advances in medicine, physics, palaeontology and a host of other disciplines had individuals not had to avoid those subjects for fear of religious persecution. Instead of living the self-examined and bettered life, most of our species have sought to inflict suffering through continuation of abhorrent belief systems and the search for heresy in one's neighbours.
The emancipation from religion has the potential to do for morality, philosophy and science what the suffragette movement has done for women's rights. Our inclusion of women into society as equals, into the workforce, into the public and private spheres and into cognitive discourse has tremendously enriched our society and been a factor in moving our species towards a more benevolent future. Should we do the same for homo sapiens as a whole by denouncing dogmatic belief, especially in the case of religion, we could earnestly begin the creation of a humanity striving for the peak of its potential.
(Or that's what I think!)
Other Comments by Adam Morrison
39. Comment #117552 by Duffski on January 29, 2008 at 5:13 am
An incredible article; my only complaint is that when it comes to me arguing with theist friends, I am incapable of the intellectual vigour and lucidity of Hitchens or Dawkins... Other Comments by Duffski
40. Comment #117555 by GoneGolfing on January 29, 2008 at 5:28 am
Comment #117537 by BigginHillbillyAny purely rational take on existence would surely do nothing but justify suicide; we live with a sense of faith in ourselves, our loved ones, our lives that supports us and encloses us. Any rational take on humanity must surely conclude that we are largely creatures that exist in a state of unreason, and no explanation, ultimately, will remove that sense of mystery and resonance that subsumes the limitations of our minds. Any attempt to persuade needs to focus on this; rational argument is a square peg that blunts itself on the round hole of our humanity.
Where's your evidence that a rational and logical take on existence is justification for suicide ????
GG
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
41. Comment #117556 by nanaj on January 29, 2008 at 5:28 am
Hitchins talk -best I've heard in years - well done on pics 43alleyOther Comments by nanaj
42. Comment #117558 by Duff on January 29, 2008 at 5:38 am
Testimony bearing in Mormondom is a great device they've hit upon to facilitate the brainwashing of the young and re-wash the established members. It is embarrassing to watch, but when one participates it has a endorphin effect that makes you feel good and makes you want to someday have that feeling again.Mormons, and others, claim they've been touched by the holy ghost, but it's really just a flood of emotion you get by exposing your feelings in front of a crowd.
As a former mormon, I look back and chuckle at how it effected me, but at the time it gave me a good feeling a couple of times.
That is the problem with being poorly educated. You don't have enough information to recognize these things for what they are. Brainwashing, pure and simple.
Other Comments by Duff
43. Comment #117577 by BigginHillbilly on January 29, 2008 at 6:24 am
Hi GoneGolfing - what I mean is that, faced with the eventual running down of the cosmos as entropy increases and life becomes impossible, the only purely rational option is to conclude that all action is ultimately futile. I don't personally believe this, but then I don't consider reason to be the sine qua non of my existence. Forgive the reference to suicide - perhaps a bit too melodramatic. The point I was making is that what makes life worthwhile to me generally has nothing whatsoever to do with my faculty of reason, and that this alone (assuming I am a regular human specimen)legislates against the tiresome call to reason that many non-believers seem to think is the string in their bow. Ultimately, no one cares enough about reason alone for such arguments to have as much of an impact as some would like.Other Comments by BigginHillbilly
44. Comment #117598 by Dinah on January 29, 2008 at 7:57 am
T S Eliot said (in the Four Quartets) that 'Human kind/Cannot bear very much reality.' This (I think) is what Bigginhillbilly is talking about. And yes the reality is that our bodies are subject to decay, damage, disease, death and decomposition, we are doomed to non-existence, we live in a cold and indifferent universe and life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. Many, if not most, of us spend our lives trying to evade that reality. Some refuse to think about it at all, some take drugs or alcohol, some take refuge in the arts and music, some indulge in hedonism to the exclusion of everything else, and others turn to religion. Religion is the ultimate way to evade reality. It is the biggest lie ever invented.Other Comments by Dinah
45. Comment #117607 by GoneGolfing on January 29, 2008 at 8:18 am
BigginH, Thanks for clearing up your thoughts.I could see how an individual could hold to this belief but I too distance myself from it.
I guess the only thing that I would say additionaly is that I view my faculty of reason as the main ingredient of many which makes my life worthwhile. It gives me the courage and the ability to view things with both appreciation and a degree of skepticism, to ensure that my understanding of this world is as close to the truth and as enjoyable as possible. It helps protect me from the dangers of irrationality and delusion. Lastly, it compels me to go forward with gratitude and the realisation that this is the one life that I will enjoy and that others too will enjoy. It's a responsibilty to myself and my family and to our world and also the Cosmos to use the incrediblly wonderful ability to reason. I'm sure you feel the same way.
C. Hitchens makes these arguments because it is a fact that we are indeed autonomous, rational and self-interested beings. However, it's not that we miss the point of Religion because we are blinded by these these assumptions, but that we do indeed get the point of Religion and we adamantly refuse to be irrational at any time because of this ability to reason.
I'm not sure if we have a "deep need" or "inante impulse" to connect to the cosmos but I think the truest way to attempt such a thing would be to do so through Science and reason. We've seen over the centuries many individuals who have taken these inate impulses that you refer to and turn them into deadly irrationaities. The only way to avoid any possible delusions are to pass them all through the powerful light of reason.
The sad fact is however, that irrationality has the ability to trump reason and it's so very evident in our world.
GG
Other Comments by GoneGolfing
46. Comment #117610 by GodMyArse on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 am
Hitch is such a legend. And those videos were terrific, thanks Andr3w, really enjoyed them. Trouble is, whenever I try to get other people to watch things like this I get accused of preaching! How can we engage believers and apathetic non-believers without coming across as being as bad as religious evangelists? Wish I had an answer because we have a powerful enough argument but if people won't listen...Other Comments by GodMyArse
47. Comment #117612 by irate_atheist on January 29, 2008 at 8:29 am
I believe in belief in the same way that I believe in murder, rape, theft and larceny. I know it's out there, but I don't want it anywhere near me. Other Comments by irate_atheist
48. Comment #117630 by Mitchell Gilks on January 29, 2008 at 9:11 am
Sends shivers down my spine.Your portrait matchs your character irate-atheist. I like that.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
49. Comment #117683 by notsobad on January 29, 2008 at 11:24 am
Maybe I'm just one of the weak or ignorant people that can't get by without one, but it's caused me some serious and profound distress just in the last few weeks trying to deal with my new almost certainty that there is NOTHING after death. I haven't gotten over it yet and I wonder if I ever will.
Isn't that actually comforting?
Other Comments by notsobad
50. Comment #117734 by NormanDoering on January 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I explored the question "Do pedophile priests really believe?" here:http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-pedophile-priests-really-believe.html
Here's a taste:
Remember, in Christianity people are saved by faith, by believing, not by how they act in this world. Jesus forgives sins, as long as you believe in Jesus.
Also, many forms of Christianity define "sin" very broadly. It's not just the things we do that might harm others (or ourselves), it's every primitive emotion, from jealousy to anger to lust (even merely "lusting in your heart" as Jimmy Carter would say) to pride to being selfish, that is also a "sin." Since we can't control how we feel, we are all sinners. You are also supposed to "love your neighbor as yourself" which is almost an impossible dictate if you take it literally. Obviously my Christian neighbors don't love me as much as much as they love themselves else they'd buy me one of those high definition TVs too or, if not me, at least go off to India or Africa and help all those poor people who really need it. Very few Christians do this even if the religion does produce a few who go that far.
Every bit of selfish self interest in your thoughts and actions, such as taking any pleasure or pride in having done something good rather than an egoless pleasure in the fact that good was done, is sin. Some forms of Christianity create as much guilt as possible because it intends to exploit feelings of guilt and thus people with more genuine guilt to feel are going to be more attracted to the religion.
I can brush off that kind of extreme guilt tripping and not feel guilty about my pride, anger or jealousy. Those emotions are just human and they usually serve a useful function. For me, a more or less normal heterosexual male, there's not much sexual guilt to exploit (I'm more inclined to feel guilty about not feeling sexually attracted towards nice people who are attracted to me which is something Christianity doesn't even acknowledge) but if you're out of the normal loop, such as a homosexual or worse, a pedophile who can't help but possibly damage kids should they give in to the desire, then there is more real guilt to exploit.
If you're a pedophile it's a lot harder to brush off the guilt tripping when your desires give you something to really feel guilty about. Thus you'll be more attracted to the cure Christianity promises. The New Testament explicitly promises to change you once you accept Christ and that's something we atheists can't honestly promise yet with all our scientific knowledge.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."
Unknown
Other Recommended Reading
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #117236 by Andr3w on January 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=686395031938504543&q=Christopher%20Hitchens%20ILLUSTRATED&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Christopher Hitchens ILLUSTRATED 2 of 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3584321335933032995&q=Christopher%20Hitchens%20ILLUSTRATED&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Other Comments by Andr3w