Having had a number of highly intelligent, and well-read readers of late I put this question before you...
Christopher Hitchens labels his beliefs as "anti-theist." His argument is that even if god was real and religion(s) were true, who would want it? Here is a video of a recent speech. Do you subscribe to this view, the "atheist" view (no god belief), both, or neither? The more I listen to him and read further into his book (God is NOT great), the more I really think I am an Anti-theist.
I look forward to your thoughts.
HH
p.s. if you follow the link above, you really need high-speed since it is a real player video.
14 comments:
I guess if the thud was the shoe dropping, this is must be the other shoe. ( a much smaller thud!) I listened to Hitchen's (aka Korihor!)presentation. All of it. Even though my connection wasn't great. I've been thinking about it. For some reason, it has been hard to formulate a response. There were a couple questions I had and I was going to to back and listen to parts. Unimportant side points actually. (did he give Jefferson credit for antislavery views? I thought Jefferson owned slaves?) I thought he was very intelligent and very well read, funny and articulate. Sometimes he was kind of abrasive and offensive, it was a little uncomfortable. (that American's are necessarily materialists for example) Fallwell, another example, I'm no fan to be sure, but I think there should be some respect for the dead, at least for his family's sake. (I'm sure they weren't listening). Again, side point. Besides why judge someone's ideas based on their personality? So...on to his ideas.
It was hard for me to see his views as purely anti-theist, they seemed more anti-religion. Didn't he say, it's not really God's fault but the blame belongs to the people who do these awful things in God's name? I am not sure what I believe with this idea of God. I think it's pretty unlikely that such a higher power exists and my agnostic views definately have a atheist bend. I think the question of how the concept of God could be useful is excellent, like he said...I'm not sure why and how anyone would want to believe. Especially in this concept of a celestial dictatorship. Not very appealing. I certainly don't believe that I was born into debt thatI should devote my lifetime to repay.(and yet still come up short). But, I can see how this idea of a diety, some higher power, can be helpful to some people. I work in the hospital and see people all the time who are dealing with some ugly realities... the concept of God seems actually can be very helpful. It provides hope and comfort. It gives an answer, even if this answer is faith based and untestable. Sometimes any answer, even if it is fantasy, feels better and helps us cope more than the limbo of the inexplicable.
I agree that we possess intrinsic morals, that (I might add)this is as natural as our capacity to learn language and that religion gets their morals from us, not the other way around. I completely agree with him that religion has been used to manipulate and dominate others. I think the interpretation of God and his laws by the ones in authority (church leaders)is plain wrong. I think that when this concept of God is used to control others, it is very wrong. But the idea of God, or the belief in this higher power, may be far more benign and potentially helpful than Hitchens would admit.
I am with him in his antireligious opinions. But antiGod goes too far in my book. Even if this concept of God is just a metaphor. Santa Claus is a metaphor too, but I don't see much harm in it either.
Shelly,
Of course no one that I've heard threatens to kill you for being an unbeliever in Santa Claus--well accept for my mother who wanted my kids to believe untill they were like teenagers.
I can't anything serious as I haven't yet listed to Hitchens but I mean to soon.
exactly. But it always comes down to the people...it's the people who misuse this concept of God. The question is whether this concept of God is useful or not. I think it can be yes. It can also be used as a tool for people who set up this dominated/dominator paradigm in God's name. I'm not trying to defend God...I'm just not so sure that you can categorically dismiss the concept of a higher power as callow piffle. I think I'm wary of anyone putting something out there in such a all or nothing way. This is all right (theist) or this is all wrong (anti theist)
Life isn't that simple.
SE: I have one question. Can you name any "good" behavior that a god believer (based on his/her god belief) has engaged in that an atheist couldn't for purely rational reasons? If not, then god is not useful in the equation, IMNHO. I justs don't see god as a useful concept because it does not follow that god belief has any merit over a non-god belief. It's just not parsimonious enough for me.
Secondly, I hate the thought that I am a second-class citizen in the universe and that I exist only at the whim of some other mind.
I have a bit of a funny. I came across a saying that proves god is not omniscient. "mitt der dummhiet kamfen die gotter sebst vergebens." I means "not even god can hope to conquer stupidity.
I agree with Ron, god is a dangerous concept (and at times santa too) because people use it to justify cruelty as well as thier benevolent behavior.
Love this thread.
hh =)
I guess I would have to agree with you if you are basing the worthiness of this God concept purely on the utility of making us good girls and boys which I think it is pretty clear that it has demonstrated failure in this regard. There isn't any good behavior that an atheist could not equivocally follow and uphold as any believer could. What I'm saying is that there is probably some good that can be had in faith in the unknown for some people, to give them answers to metaphysical questions, to give them hope, to connect to something larger then themselves...but not to shape their behavior because we already come equiped with what we need to live moral lives without the fear or reward of heaven. I've never thought about the concept of God forcing us mortals into a second class citizen role. Hmmmm.... I don't know. I guess that is one way of thinking about it. But not necessarily the only way to think about this.
I think my main point, was not to stand as a defender of faith but to open the door to acceptance of another person's belief. Not to accept the belief myself but to accept that there might be some good in it that they have found and for them I say...good for you. Live as you choose. I won't judge you. Don't judge me either. I've lived in Mormonism long enough to smell intolerance and Hitchen stank of it.
SE: You are an optimist! I love that. I don't relate to it, but I love it. ;)
Best,
HH
An optimist? I just thought I was naive!
nice little thread here. i still don't have full internet access (i'm in new york now) but more than i had in guatemala, so....
i'm going to take a swiss approach and agree with both sides here. i agree with trav and ron that belief in god serves no useful purpose. like travis, said, any non-theist can engage in the same productive (and unproductive, for that matter) behavior as a theist, for rational or other reasons. And i agree that the concept of God is dangerous and is used to justify oppressive behavior. in fact, i don't think the concept of god ever drives people to become better than they are; i think it's limiting.
at the same time, i agree with Shelly that some people have a concept of god that is helpful to them. actually, i don't think the concept itself is helpful. but i think that certain people really don't know of another way to categorize the "unknown", so they use the concept of god to explain anything that is mysterious, beautiful, etc. i don't think these people are a threat. i think, if we got rid of the god concept, they'd live the same way they do now and find another concept to describe their "spiritual" yearnings.
okay, gotta go to the east village to buy theater tics. i'll be back home late next week--with some travel stories i may or may not blog about.
later amigo!
Um, let's not forget that fundamentalism and poopy behavior are not wholly owned subsidiaries of god and his religious minions. As I recall, Stalin and Saddam Hussein were both secularists and they did some naughty things.
One thing a believer can do that a non-believer couldn't purely for rational reasons...hmmm. I resent the presupposition that doing is the shit. What about feeling? Experiencing? I might name a few things there. How about transcendence?
Saddam Hussein was a Shea Muslim, and Allah was his leader. He used his religious belief to justify the killing of Kurds.
Stalin was an asshole,yes, but did he do what he did in the name of "atheism?" No. Or, was his motivation, according to his own words, socialism and a better world order? I'd take it from the horses mouth.
I notice that you couldn't answer my question Tim. As far as feelings, experiencing, and transcendence the question remains the same. Show me that the Atheist is unable to achieve these things without the myths, ceremony, and lies.
Best HappyExmo
Sorry, just got back to the post to check responses. With regards to Stalin and Saddam, I only intended to point out that religion doesn't have a monopoly on human atrocity. Saddam may have been a believer, but he did not do what he did as part of a religious campaign, though I suppose that's debatable. I thought your comment about Stalin was interesting. It sounds like you turned my comment into an attack on atheism, which wasn't my intent. Some of my best friends are atheists and baby killers (that was a joke!). Stalin did what he did for whatever reason, my point only being that it was a horrible atrocity that was not religiously motivated.
I'm fully on board that religious fundamentalism makes for bad shit.
On to transcendence. I can't. You win.
Had to correct a type so I deleted my last post. Here it is, corrected:
I just had another thought. I threw transcendence out there because the challenge was to find something that couldn't be done by an atheist for purely rational reasons. I took rationality to mean intellectual, and my personal experience (beware of subjectivity!) leads me to the conclusion that whatever that thing is that we call a transcendent experience, is not a product of the reasoning or intellectual mind.
Yet I remain yours in surrender,
Tim
Typo typo typo! Sheesh!
Post a Comment