Let's start with a
disclaimer.
I'm a big, big fan of the
Hitch.
Books like God Is Not
Great were sources of
information and inspiration to me when I first came to identify as a
non-believer, far more so than any works by Dawkins or even Dennett,
so it's safe to say that the late and great Christopher Hitchens
remains someone I admire to this day. I'm not keen on hero worship,
but he'd be a strong candidate if I was. I sure as shit didn't agree
with a lot of his politics, but I greatly respected his willingness
to speak up on matters he considered important, and to hold to his
beliefs even when they made him unpopular.
So
yes, big fan of the Hitch, love his work, miss his insights on
matters.
I
still cannot help but disagree with him on one of his major
arguments, however.
What
I'm referring to is this idea put forward in the very subtitle of God
Is Not Great, “religion
poisons everything” (unless you live in the UK like me, in which
case the subtitle had to be changed to “the case against religion”,
likely due to the bullshit libel laws of the time). You might say
that this was just a catchy little phrasing used to garner attention
to the book, but it comes up frequently throughout and is referenced in many of his speeches (which are
master-classes in oratory skill, by the by, and you should watch as
many as you can get your hands on).
Hitchens
liked to cause a stir, to trigger debate and discussion, and this
could partly account for what he was trying to achieve with this
statement. But I do believe that he thought there was merit in this
idea of religion as the source of the world's problems and issues.
Yet
the tutor for my dissertation this year (writing on the topic of
non-belief in early twentieth century Britain), a man I have come to
admire and respect considerably, who has aided me time and time again
and provided considerable support with what was a difficult task to
complete, is a deeply religious man. He holds convictions that are
completely different my own, but this did in no way poison the
rapport we built up over the last year or the help me gave to me; if
anything my dissertation benefited from it, for he offered a
different insight onto the matters being discussed, something that I
could never hope to provide.
Religion
causes problems, yes. I don't think anyone could look at some of the
events occurring across the globe today and come to any other
conclusion. Does it cause all
the world's problems, though?
No,
it doesn't.
Christopher
Hitchens was on to something with this idea of religion poisoning
everything; I just think he needed to go a step further. Ignorance is
what we should all be concerned by, whether we are religious or not,
for it is the root cause of many of the world's current predicaments.
Religion can indeed be considered an off-shoot of ignorance, but not
always. To say that religion has had absolutely nothing of value to
contribute to the world would be an over-statement so massive you'd
be able to see it from orbit; the great Islamic nations of the Middle
Ages helped to preserve texts of antiquity, and anyone who sees
nothing beautiful or inspiring about a centuries-old Cathedral,
steeped in history and a monument to ages past, needs to have their
heads examined.
This
isn't a criticism of Hitchens, and I am not another parasite in the
guise of a commentator scuttling out from the shadows now that he is
unable to retort to leech of his reputation and memory. This is
merely a disagreement. I'd like to think that atheists are capable of
respectfully disagreeing with one another, of debating matters that
are important to us all.
We
can disagree about things but still respect one another, and that's
exactly how I feel about Hitchens on this topic.
Ok it is what you mean but to measure something you have to take some reference as initial point otherwise you wouldn't measure.
ReplyDelete