Christopher Hitchens, whom I find perpetually annoying, even when I agree with him, has made a mission of evangelizing among the believers, showing them the folly of their ways, bringing them into the fold of the one true non-God, that vast, empty space that doesn't exist except among the fidels who wreak such evil and chaos in the House of Peace.
I've always thought that we are all different shades of agnostics. Those who profess absolute certainty of the divine are just as intellectually dishonest as those who profess absolute certainty of the absence of the divine. We just can't know for sure, one way or another, and the evidence we find to support our views is at best circumstantial.
But atheists struggle with an additional dilemma. If you accept the premise that there is no God, then you are left with the empirical truth that humans need religion in much the same way we need water, or intimacy, etc. To denounce religion as something inherently wrong is a bit like denouncing sex as somethoing inherently wrong. You can only do it by denouncing an important bit of human nature.
Of course, the deep need that religion appears to satisfy can find non-religious outlets, but these generally don't do better and rather more often worse. Any society that discouraged reliigion ended up cultivating something much worse.
I can understand that Hitchens (and others) are disgusted by the dysfunction of many if not most religious systems. The rank hypocricy, insufferable superiority, and intolerance of rigid religions taxes our own tolerance. These are groups that victimize people, cause neuroses among many and psychoses among more than just a few. They seem to cause more conflict than peace. Etc.
But it's childish to ridicule all religious sentiment because (surprise!) religious life is compromised by human weakness. Most religions don't promise perfection, but rather a framework for self-improvement. Yes, several of them confuse conformity and virtue, but the same can be said about every army and many organizations.
I think it's more useful to ask practical questions: given its cosmic goals, is the religion successful? Does the Roman Catholic church save souls from spiritual misery? Do Lutherans effectively promote piety through confession of faith? Does Islam facilitate submission and mercy? Does Hasidism create joy and tikkun olam?
The answers would be involved, but instructive. Hitchens preaches to the choir with his polemics, to the few who have seen the light. But what we really need in this shrinking world of ours is accountability about convictions.
Comments