Christopher Hitchens: Religion belongs to the fearful childhood of the race
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Speaking about the premise of his latest book, God is Not Great, renowned author and prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens describes religion as belonging to "the superstitious, fearful childhood of the race", in an interview which takes in Hitchens' concern over the influence of religious groups over the education system and his fears over a growing global tide of theocracy. "There would be cruelty, violence and warfare even if there was no religion", Hitchens claims, "but what I mean to say is that the religious part of our brain is part of the less highly evolved bit".
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Children earn little enough as it is - despite the governments fanciful statistics showing that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds - so they should not be wasting there time on something which has no closer relationship to reality than Harry Potter.
Whether you have Faith or not, it is hard to argue with the fact that, with the fall of religion, society seems more and more devoid of ethics and morals. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that one must have Faith to be ethical or moral - clearly such a stance would be absurd as many atheists are decent, moral people, but it is folly to allow religion to disappear without something to fill it's place.
Modern Science, whilst filling us in on many facts, can be cold and uncaring, and sadly lacking in philosophy. In the absense of religion, what do the anti-theists propose to fill the moral and ethical vacuum left behind?
Aesop's fables, perhaps, give a starting point - they are moralistic without resorting to religious beliefs and ideals. Interestingly enough, the teachings of Jesus Christ, once the religious aspects have been stripped away, are also good moral guides even for the Godless.
I reiterate that I am an atheist, but it concerns me greatly that the void left behind by religion is being allowed to be filled with such destructive sentiments as greed and selfishness. Our entire civilisations have been built upon the marolistic teachings and guidance that religions offer, and, whether you believe in the supernatural or not, you cannot deny that the human race needs moral guidance as morals are evidently learned and not inherent.
For some reason, the current generation always feels that previous generations were more law abiding and so on. It just isn't true. "In my day we never...".
We don't get our morals from religion. Which do you propose: a) an eye for an eye; or b) turn the other cheek. We don't follow either of these all the time and most of the time neither, (revenge or passivism). Which of the many versions of religion or even of the same brand of religion do you want to draw your morals from?
The only abiding moral principle I can find in the bible is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you. This is nothing new and is a pretty good one but doesn't always apply. (How would a masochist or psychopath apply it.)
It scares you that destroying religion might leave a terrible vacuum. It scares me that we will never grow up and shake off these stupid superstitions.
"Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again."
www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11768
"Neither do I decry the work of humanists, who give gladly of themselves for
others and who can often shame the avowedly religious. Those who do God's
work are God's people.
I only say that there are limits to humanism and beyond those limits God and
only God can work. The phrase "fear of God" conjures up the vengeful God of
parts of the Old Testament. But "fear of God" means really obedience to God;
humility before God; acceptance through God that there is something bigger,
better and more important than you. It is that humbling of man's vanity,
that stirring of conscience through God's prompting, that recognition of our
limitations, that faith alone can bestow.
We can perform acts of mercy, but only God can lend them dignity. We can
forgive, but only God forgives completely in the full knowledge of our sin.
And only through God comes grace; and it is God's grace that is unique."
End of quote
His conversion to Catholicism,perhaps influenced by his scouse missus, reveal a sadder and weaker side - the need for approval from some remote 'father; figure. This depressing need for approval may shed some light on his fawning to the detestable, cretin George W and the debacle over Iraq. If only he had the Wilson guts, re Vitenam, to tell the Yanks that they were way out of order in invading Iraq - but then it would require self belief not the cowering submissiveness of the religious convert.
As for your idea that religious people are 'simple superstitious people' does not fit with the evidence of the numbers of Christians, Jews and Muslims who are intelligent, highly questioning people.
According to many sociologists don't think religion is dying, quite the opposite. Secularism is a particularly Western notion.
That observation may be too true, but now the means to restart that 'less highly evolved bit' is spreading on the web as a completely new interpretation of the moral teachings of Christ. It redefines both the character of Faith and the nature of the Resurrection; and it that isn't enough, it meets all the criteria or enlightenment, evidence based knowledge. In short, for the first time in history, a spiritual/moral tenet exists, offering access by faith, to absolute proof for its belief.
It would appear as if it has been established religion that has kept humanity in ignorance of ultimate reality! So HItchens was right about one thing, religion has nothing to do with God. Check the link: http://www.energon.org.uk
Is not one of the central arguements against religion that is aggressively targets "threats" to its legitimacy?
Is not one of the central arguements against religion that it is based on a philosophy of codifying single methods of thought in literature?
Is not one of the central arguements against religion that it requires intelectual hostility towards an opposing set of beliefs?
And yet, this is how so called "Prominant Atheists" set about trying to convince people the error of religion. The problem is though, they are preaching to the converted. Any religious person reading will be doing so expressely to counter his anti-theism. Any "Atheist" reader will be doing so to justify themselves, and to gain a smug sense of satisfaction that such pre-eminant arseholes agree with them.
Why must this be a prerogative of the "Prominant Atheist"?
Why should someone see their Atheism as a chief point of their "Prominance"?
And if they should seek to premote their Atheism, why must it be directed against Theists?
I myself feel no compulsion to justify my "Atheism". I'm quite comfortable with both the concept of mortality which religion can often act as a source of solice for. In fact, I choose Atheism because I'm actually attracted to the finite nature of life; it encourages to make my mark, however small, a positive one, regardless of whether it adheres to the tenants of someone elses morality. And this is where "Prominant Atheists" really bring forth my ire. Religion is essentially a debate of morality; and generally most religions actually have a consistantly similar sense of morality: Killing is bad, don't sleep with your best friends wife, and so on. My morality comes from within myself. The "Prominant Atheist" however chooses to justify his via the method of denouncing the Theist morality for its hypocrisy.
And the irony is basically that Atheism has no logically better sense of morality than Theism. I am certain that for every Ivan the Terrible, there is, or will be (Atheism, is in its modern inception after all, "young") a self-professed Atheist ideologically driven tyrant. Communism already took this, building on an enforced sense of Atheism, and look at where that lead its followers.
I suppose in summary, my argument is very, very simple. "Prominant Atheist's" give genuinely meta-physically acute Atheists as I consider myself to be a bad name. They consistantly demonstrate hypocrisy as vehemently visible as the religions they denounce. And worst of all, they actually make money off these horribly ill-informed rants they deem "literature".
And who is imposing their will? Usually it is the religious who say that their god says blah blah is wrong with no evidence to support it except an old book. Atheists simply say, show us the evidence. And of course there isn't any. And if there is none then why do I have to take you seriously?
some people NEED god. they NEED to believe and have to have faith. i am truly glad i am not one of these people, but we as atheists need to sympathise with the millions of people who have been tricked into believing into nothing more than a grown-up version of santa claus. if we attack these people then they will reject us, hell, they'll even turn on us. banning religion is bad idea, would be a complete disaster. besides, living in a faithless society would put us more under the authority of the state, as the government wou
The fact is he constantly tells us not to believe in god means he has self doubt himself.
The fact is he is obssessed with the concept of god, enough to write a book.
The fact that this book will make him money and he will be able to sustain himself.
The fact that without god he knows he as nothing to do with his time.
The devil turned his back on god and tried to convince the rest of us he did not exist.
Hitchens - Next time you think there's no god and you are working through convincing yourself - keep asking - how did that happen. Eventually you'll get to god. Start with a tree and work backwards.
Why should we not be allowed to think our own thoughts and stop there?
This link explores athiesm in a little more detail than i can within this word limit.
http://www.atheistfaq.com/2008/02/doesn
There are an infinite number of things that no one believes in and no one can prove that none of them don't exist. The reason no one believes in them is because it doesn't occur to them to because there is no evidence.
Take a religious person, then on the other end of the balance they have the one thing they believe in which also has no evidence.
Atheists are merely pointing out this inconsistency in logic. Where is the religion in that?
Therefore, I think that religion should be kept out of the government and educational establishment.
The only way I can see out of this is:
1. Separate church from state
2. Remove charitable status from all religions
3. Remove faith schools for children
This way, people can practise their own religious beliefs without inflicting it on others.
On the other hand, in largely secular countries like Britain, Sweden and etc, religious people face no such persecution and are able to practice their religion with relative freedom.
Personally I no longer call myself religious (ex - Baptist) because in my perception (might be naive) of history and the present, religions have done far more damage than good.
One can trie other placegos. Reason is the real medicine! It saves, not that fanatic dead Galilean!
Google skeptid griggsy to see Kord Griggs threads and posts the world over, which reveal the absuridty of natural theology and faith, thw we just say so of credulity.
No god has the right to contmen us or want us to worship as it is a one way-street in that it would have the duty to place us in a safer place as the problem of Heaven so reveals Google]. We rationalists' revelaitions base themselves on Nature rather than sand castles in the air of theologians.
Religion is mythinformation.
Logical error!!!
To say you don't believe something is true, is NOT the same as saying you BELIEVE it is UNTRUE.
Atheism incorporates the position of weak-atheism - that is that you don't believe anything. Perhaps because of the very good reason, that there is absolutely no justification, to claim most ideas of god, either exist or not.
Quite frankly if any idea of a personal god turns out to be true, it will be patently coincidental.