Christopher Hitchens: The Orthodox Protestant Atheist
by: Be Scofield on February 9th, 2010 | 97 Comments »
Despite having engaged in numerous debates with Christians, Muslims and Jews across the liberal/conservative spectrum Christopher Hitchens still holds to an amazingly ignorant understanding of the liberal religious heritage. His understanding of who is and who isn’t a Christian is perhaps the most disappointing and surprising piece of evidence for his myopic interpretation of religion. While rejecting conservative Christians’ theological claims about God, the Bible and Jesus, he accepts their understanding of who is and is not able to be considered a Christian. In a recent interview with Marilyn Sewell, a Unitarian Universalist minister and self-professed liberal Christian, Christopher Hitchens paraphrased C.S. Lewis to explain the boundaries of who constitutes a Christian. It’s not surprising then that a recent blog post by Dr. Ray Pritchard of “Keep Believing Ministries” for a conservative Christian site called Crosswalk was entitled, “Christopher Hitchens Gets it Exactly Right.”
During a recent trip to Portland, Oregon, noted atheist Christopher Hitchens laid down some seriously good theology… In one of the delicious ironies of our time, an outspoken atheist grasps the central tenet of Christianity better than many Christians do. What you believe about Jesus Christ really does make a difference.
What did Hitchens say?
Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?
Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.
Why is Hitchens so quick to accept such an orthodox interpretation of the boundaries of Christianity? His brain seems to short-circuit when he has to think about religion in complex ways. He wants to hold firmly to an either/or dichotomy–the very same one which he is critiquing fundamentalism for. In debates he has stated that he is “Protestant atheist” meaning that he recognizes the validity of the various reformation movements which liberalized, expanded and diversified Christianity. But which denomination of protestant atheist is he? This isn’t clear but it is apparently not one which falls outside of his or C.S. Lewis’s orthodox boundaries of inclusion/exclusion. Isn’t is shocking that of all people, Christopher Hitchens is in agreement with the many forces in history which have led to the extermination, torture and destruction of “heretics” for simply believing the “wrong” form of Christianity? Since when is Hitchens so concerned about who is and isn’t a Christian?
Any first-year seminary student could tell Hitchens about the incredibly contested history of inclusion/exclusion within Christianity. These debates go back to the early days of the religious movement and continue to the present day. And many post-reformation denominations have rejected the orthodox claim made by Hitchens. Liberal Christians have articulated their expressions of faith in powerful and meaningful ways while many of them don’t pass Hitchens’ litmus test. One wonders if he has ever read the great American Unitarian, Universalist and liberal reformers, William Ellory Channing, Hosea Ballou, Clarence Skinner or Theodore Parker. Or perhaps the German theologian Frederick Schleiermacher and the English Romanticist Samuel Taylor Coleridge. How about Paul Tillich, Henry Nelson Weiman and other process theologians? The Transcendentalists, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Margaret Fuller among others? Or the Christian New Thought movement which produced Unity, Religious Science and Church of Divine Science? How about contemporary feminist theologians such as Rebbecca Parker, Rita Nakashima Brock, Rosemary Radford Reuther or Mary Daly? Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong or Elaine Pagels? Liberation theology? I’m leaving so much out but I will lastly mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I recently wrote an article for Tikkun which describes in detail how Dr. King rejected the orthodox divinity of Christ, didn’t believe in heaven/hell, saw the Bible as myth and saw Christianity as a mix of paganism, Judaism and religious cults of the time. And what of the millions of Christians who choose this label but don’t accept the orthodox or fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity? For some reason Hitchens sides with C.S. Lewis and joins the religious forces of exclusion, domination and institutional control.
Why would Hitchens take sides on a issue that he is obviously ill-prepared to discuss? Again, the complexity and diversity within liberal Christianity is too much for Hitchens and his either/or way of thinking. Christopher Hedges explains this clearly,
The new atheists, who attack a repugnant version of religion, use it to condemn all religion. They use it to deny the reality and importance of the religious impulse. They are curiously unable to comprehend those who found through their religious convictions the strength to stand up against injustice…The new atheists, like all fundamentalists, flee from complexity. They can cope with religion in its most primitive and abusive form. They are helpless when confronted by a faith that challenges their caricatures. [When Atheism Becomes Religion p. 33-34]
Any serious engagement by Hitchens with the liberal Christian tradition would force him to admit that the premise of his thesis is wrong. And this of course cannot happen because Hitchens is as tied to his perspective as Pat Robertson is to his. By signing on to the orthodox version of inclusion/exclusion in Christianity Hitchens makes it more likely that he can protect his narrow-minded fundamentalist interpretation of religion. And aside from the liberal Christian tradition, Hitchens critique also ridicules and bashes atheists. He very likely does not know that Unitarian Universalism is made up of 19% of people who identify as atheist and agnostic. Yet they feel very comfortable expressing themselves in a religious tradition that is based on community, social justice, music and inclusion.
In order to discredit any practical function of religion he frequently returns to the question, “Name a moral action that a religious person can make that I can’t.” This is a great question for all of those dogmatic fundamentalists that he debates. But he poses the same question to Marilyn Sewell in the interview. But of course Sewell, myself, and many liberal religious people don’t believe that religion or God is necessary to be moral. But it certainly can inspire people to live a more ethical life. But simply because Hitchens and other agnostics/atheists are capable of the same moral actions this doesn’t mean that religion is irrelevant. And it seems that Hitchens was trying to make this point in his interview with Sewell.
Another interesting aspect of the Sewell interview was his admittance of “something beyond our selves” and his discussion of the soul. Via Religion Dispatches:
It’s innate in us to be overawed by certain moments, say, at evening on a mountaintop or sunset on the boundaries of the ocean. Or, in my case, looking through the Hubble telescope at those extraordinary pictures. We have a sense of awe and wonder at something beyond ourselves, and so we should, because our own lives are very transient and insignificant. That’s the numinous, and there’s enough wonder in the natural world without any resort to the supernatural being required….everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter….It’s what you might call “the x-factor” — I don’t have a satisfactory term for it — it’s what I mean by the element of us that isn’t entirely materialistic: the numinous, the transcendent, the innocence of children (even though we know from Freud that childhood isn’t as innocent as all that), the existence of love (which is, likewise, unquantifiable but that anyone would be a fool who said it wasn’t a powerful force), and so forth. I don’t think the soul is immortal, or at least not immortal in individuals, but it may be immortal as an aspect of the human personality because when I talk about what literature nourishes, it would be silly of me or reductionist to say that it nourishes the brain.
I know many liberal religious people who find great familiarity and agreement in what Hitchens is saying. They agree with him wholeheartedly but yet choose to use religious language to express this.
Hitchens’ orthodox Protestant Atheism is hypocritical and his either/or critique of religion is childish. He fails to provide a definition of what religion is. Who does he consider religious? Who decides within each tradition who has the power to include/exclude? How about all of the liberal religious thinkers mentioned above? His thesis “religion poisons everything” sold books but just one example of how religion positively influences the lives of people refutes his entire premise. Needless to say this has been demonstrated time and time again.
Religion is merely a tool, like a knife which can be used to save a life in surgery or murder someone. Perhaps one day Hitchens will convert from his Orthodox Protestant Atheism to a more tolerant, inclusive and loving tradition.
Open challenge to Christopher Hitchens: Come debate myself and fellow students at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA. You wouldn’t be afraid of a few young seminary students would you?
—————–
Hitchens has debated at least three liberal religious thinkers. Chris Hedges, author of When Atheism Becomes Religion, debated Hitchens in San Francisco in 2007. In December of 2009, he appeared on Bloggingheads.tv to debate/discuss God with Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God. And Marilyn Sewell is the latest. In my opinion these are some of the most interesting debates that Hitchens has engaged in. Click here for a link to over 500 religious debates, including more with Hitchens.
And now we get to the crux, Keddaw.
Mr. Scofield appears to wish to join the ranks of those sophisticated ‘believers’ who don’t believe in Christian doctrine, yet want to stand at the front of a big room and tell ‘simple people’ to believe in silly things which he tossed out of his believe bag in second year of Bible college. Some kind of Will to Respectability or something seems to be at work. I’m not a good enough psychologist to diagnose the condition from this distance… but the answer I’ve gotten from various ‘athiest clergy’ is always a variant of ‘but I’m helping people to make sense of their world… besides, how else do I make a living?’
The churches are full of such creatures. Nietzsche said something like, ‘… they know not what nonsense is spew they from pulpits who go always or never…’ And so, fellow atheists, stop in to your local church or synagogue to hear the nonsense. Take the preacher out for lunch and ask if he believes in virgins having babies, or zombie Jesus, or 72 virgins as a reward for murder of Jews. He will almost surely start using the word ‘metaphor’, a word you won’t hear much in the hall of ignorance where he preaches gobbledygook.
You will hear the same thing from Muslims who don’t believe in thier comic book stuff, too. The will talk about a religion of peace which calls for the death of Jews, or Atheists, or various other of us who don’t believe in a book written by an illiterate caravan robber. (an illiterate writing a book is a proof that the book is divine, don’t you know. Kierkegaard’s Climacus would be proud.) They talk a lot about ‘peace’ and ‘inner jihad’ and whatnot, and they DO believe in peace; they simply don’t believe in Islam in any meaningful way. Same as the ‘Liberal Christian’ who is agnostic… or the Unitarian Atheist Christian whatever that might be.
I guess I’m a dunderhead. I still like to have intellectual discussions with people who believe in imaginary friends…
Be Scofield said, “I just sent him another email titled: “Your Game Is Up Hitchens” ”
Again you infer that Hitchens might be worried about a debate with you. Judging by your fragile performance here, this comment comes across as empty bravado – nothing more.
I will debate him tomorrow, next week, next month…etc. Anytime. At this point in our dialogue he has explained that he has a very busy schedule and that he will try and make something happen as he spends part of his time in Berkeley each year. And he gets lots of requests to debate-I’m certainly not at the top of the list. I totally understand his position.
But again, I will debate him anytime-in front of 5 people or 50,000. If you want to encourage him to debate me, please do.
I agree with many of the vitriolic commenters here that there is a semantic problem.
That said, knowing many “liberal Christians,” I realize that a great many people pray daily, volunteer with their church, attend services, and identify both as Christian and agnostic (or even, in some cases, atheistic).
Most of these individuals would score themselves as Dawkins does on his sliding scale of certainty; that is, somewhere short of certainty that G-d does or does not exist, but trending toward confidence that there is no “sky bully” or “cosmic tinkerer.” (In response to one of the early comments here, though, I have to ask what’s wrong with metaphor? Mythology is deserving of study and it informs our world view. Liberal Christianity is the book club version of The Society for Ethical Culture. I don’t mean this disparagingly; it attracts well-educated individuals who marry their ethical practice to a narrative framework. Sometimes scripture, that framework, provides them with something to react against, to respond to. Other times, scripture provides them with lovely poetry that nicely complements the numinous quality Hitchens describes. I’m not a liberal Christian, but I am a liberal religious person, and I do find G-d in the pictures Hubble sends back. I also find It in a lump of coal, much to Dawkins’ chagrin. But, again, his chagrin is a semantic one.)
But, while the semantic issue does beg to be addressed by an intellectual rigor that most liberal religionists and atheist pundits lack (or chose to ignore), I’m saddened that so many of the comments above are so aggressive. I feel similarly distressed every time I skim another thread of atheist ranters who frame the conversation (which they insist must be a debate) as a black-and-white affair. I distrust relativism, yet also acknowledge that most conversations will explore territory that is some shade of grey. Even Dawkins acknowledges that his own atheism is grey (i.e., that it’s really agnosticism). Why, then, the tenor of stridency and nastiness? We’re in this together, like it or not. We’d better learn to sit at the same table, or face potentially cataclysmic conflict.
With that in mind, can we have a civil conversation about our different beliefs? I’ve struggled to talk to religious fundamentalists about religious nuance, but many fundamentalists are victims of indoctrination and a lack of education. By contrast, most atheists suffer no shortage of education and consider themselves open-minded and thoughtful. Good. As an outspoken atheist who, in recent years, has embraced religious practice (though not of the Christian variety) and theological rumination, I’d assumed that it would be with my philosophical brethren, the atheists, that I would find the rich, edifying dialogue. No such luck. Where the religious fundamentalist bemoans my future in the flames of some hell, the atheists online simply call me ignorant, stupid, or some such thing. I’m begging you, atheists, as a former card carrier….do the label justice, for all of our sakes.
And, Be, I encourage you NOT to “debate” Hitchens. For one thing, having listened to a number of his recorded debates with various religious representatives, it’s clear that he is not interested in conversing. He is a brilliant entertainer, and has a gift with the bitingly funny jab; I laugh often listening to his parody of the more easily pilloried aspects of the Bible and of religious belief. Still, he isn’t actually addressing what liberal religious people have to say. He is only interested in tearing down fundamentalism, not in actually telling us what he thinks of the full range of religious belief and practice. I admire your idealism, but I fear that Hitchens would simply be having another conversation altogether, as he did with Christopher Hedges.
Im curious what is your definition of God? Do you also find God in all the suffering/evil?
which is what exactly? I suppose just like the religious , liberal religious people dont have one voice and one message. What consititutes a liberal religious person?
Religious folks (liberal or otherwise) love saying the *new* atheists are uncivil,strident, nasty. Can you give concrete examples of Prof Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett being any of the above? (Hitchens tends to use some 4 letter words which may be construed as uncivil, but is normally polite in most cases).
In most cases the act of disagreement or criticism is treated as being nasty.
If religionists all accepted that what they’re doing is engaging in metaphor, there’d be no problem. But I don’t actually believe that’s true–even for liberal Christians who say they recognize it all as metaphor.
For one thing, it must be a minority of churchgoers who would admit that they view it all as metaphor. I suspect you’d get very few self-described practicing Christians to endorse the statement “There is no compelling reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth–who may or may not have actually been a person–rose from the dead.”
For another, how does a liberal Christian who says it’s all metaphor keep themselves practicing? If you really thought it was all metaphor, it’s hard to see how you’d keep up your enthusiasm. My intuition is that in those moments when you get that ‘transcendent feeling,’ you have to convince yourself that what you’re doing correspond to something that actually exists and is not just metaphor.
I have to agree with Hitch here–in what sense are you a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Christ?
Honestly, I think Hitchens and the rest of us don’t have much care for the metaphorists. If you want to believe the earth is made of ricotta, that isn’t hurting other people. If you want to waste all your mental energies defending a position that you already know to be very likely false, that isn’t such a big deal. Sure, it might get really annoying in a discussion when people like you decide ad hoc what is literally true and what is metaphorical, but I think we can all agree that in the end, metaphors are just useful falsities. Like drawing a cube on a piece of paper.
But there is little to be gained from a semantic game of “define the Christian”, and honestly, I tend to agree with Hitchens here. If you don’t take the tenet that has been central to all forms of your choice religion since its inception except as a useful lie, then you probably shouldn’t be calling yourself anything but a Cultural Christian (or Cultural Th_ist in the hyaena’s case. The ‘_’ is silent).
What is a big deal is that there are people who take your metaphors very literally, and follow those literal interpretations to their disgusting conclusions. If all Christians were Unitarians, or whatever, then I think all of us New Age Vitriolic Evil Card-Carrying Atheists would be much happier people, secure in the knowledge there aren’t any more of these assholes.
We don’t really care that we come off as rude, offensive and aggressive. There are more important things at stake than ego massages. Being open-minded is like not having an immune system. You are begging for infection by something bad. You may have lucked out and gotten a benign strain of the virus, but it just might mutate into a more violent strain of credulity in the next generation of believers you pass it on to. I don’t call sophisticated believers stupid or ignorant, but have definitely fallen under the programming of a meme, and you have some clear evidence for the bad things this meme can lead people to do. If you choose to dabble with it despite this knowledge because it makes you feel good, then I suppose that’s just a risk you’ve decided to take.
I am a christian.
I do not believe in god(s).
I have never read the bible.
I do not believe in Jesus Christ.
I think the bible is pure fiction.
I never go to church.
I do not practice any rituals.
I have never talked to any other christians about our shared religion.
All I know and believe about my religion is that I am a part of it.
Anyone that says I am not a christian obviously has no idea what religion is all about. I am a christian and anyone telling me otherwise should go back to skewl.
Thank you for the thoughtful replies.
Deepak, your first question is very fair, though a comprehensive response to it would, I’m afraid, lead us into another thicket of semantic problems. Beginning a lecture in early 2009, Dawkins insisted that he takes no issue with those people who “find G-d in Planck’s Constant or poetry.” (I paraphrased, but he used those two examples.) I appreciate his point. For the purposes of the New Atheist’s arguments, the definition of G-d should be restricted to that considered most universally accepted (i.e., the theistic, omnipotent, omniscient male). But that conception of G-d doesn’t work for me (it has no place in the cosmology that I hold dear), yet the arrogance and aggressiveness of most New Atheists offends religious liberals or moderates like myself, and we are called upon to defend our perspective. (I often liken it to the socialist being attacked because of the sins of communism. Religious fundamentalism is a possible mode of religious belief/identity, not the necessary mode.) That religious liberals feel offended, I feel, is terribly unfortunate, because we share with the New Atheists a common enemy, the religious literalist/fundamentalist.
As to the question of theodicy (“G-d in all the suffering/evil”), yes, I believe that G-d is present in all. That is to say, you are part of G-d, I am part of G-d, quarks are part of G-d, the extent of this universe and whatever lies beyond (material and immaterial) is part of G-d. G-d is, to use a popular phrasing drawn from Hinduism’s notion of the Brahman (and akin to that expressed in various mystical or holistic traditions), “the Ground of Being.” There are names for this conception of divinity in all faith streams, even in some traditional Christian denominations (most especially, as I understand, in Quakerism). In any case, theodicy is irrelevant to this perspetive. If we are part of G-d, as cells are part of the greater human body, then we can no more decry G-d’s causing earthquakes than we can decry healthy cells turning cancerous. We can target these cells (the analogy works well with the contemporary climate) and work to heal the body. We can also call those “flipped” cells “bad,” but we can’t condemn the body that hosts the cancer. Certainly such notions are most commonly found in “Eastern faiths” such as Taoism and Buddhism, but they have been a part of the Abrahamic mystical traditions for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. These mystical strains are more potent than ever in contemporary Western religion, further evidence that religious belief, like culture, evolves, and that Orthodoxy, in any religious stream, is a reactionary and potentially dangerous trend.
Your point about the diversity of “liberal religion” is well taken. We are a varied bunch, and we’ll often disagree with one another about theological specifics. I don’t think, though, that such diversity means our protests should be ignored because they are too nuanced. To condemn religion while ignoring the wide range of religious belief and practice is reductive, akin to ignoring the wide-ranging history of socialism because of the gross missteps of communism (many of the moderate socialists have good, practical ideas).
Hitchens is certainly the most “colorful” of the New Atheists, but the dismissive arrogance demonstrated by all four of the principals troubles me. Even in very serious disagreements, I believe strongly that good leaders should cultivate civility toward and some semblance of respect for (not to be confused with toleration or agreement) the representative of the other side. This is no less true even if you believe that representative’s perspective cretinous.
I agree with Beruikay that too many religious folks “follow [...] literal interpretations [of religious texts] to their disgusting conclusions.” As I suggested above, I feel strongly that the New Atheists and liberal religious people share a common opposition, and that’s precisely why the tenor of these online exchanges usually disappoints me. That’s why I think that you should care if you “come off as rude, offensive and aggressive.” You might not call me stupid or ignorant as some others have done, but you call what I “have” a “virus.” While I agree that the human predilection for spiritual pursuits is a meme (that is, it “catches” or is “passed” from one individual to another), why not frame it that way: it is a meme that can be corrupted by weak, ignorant, or deviant individuals? Why couch the meme as a virus from the start, a term that implies parasitic behavior?
Finally, Beriukay, thanks for the laugh about the silent ‘-’ in th-ist! I got a kick out of that.
Just to be clear, the only reason im continuing this discussion is as an intellectual exercise. If you are indeed a liberal(my definition) religious person then I really have no argument with you and you can believe whatever it is you want.
So in fact , Prof Dawkins(the so called prophet of the new atheists) has no problem with liberal religious(i.e. deistic) people correct? He says something similar in the God delusion , that you can call God the sum of all the laws of nature, but it then doesn’t make any sense to pray to such a God.
Leave aside the question of arrogance, why shouldnt you be asked to defend your perspective? Just because your beliefs are harmless, doesn’t make them valid. I suppose the arrogance claim depends on whether or not you agree with Carl Sagans “What can be introduced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. You have introduced a definition of God for which there is no evidence and which in my opinion is indistinguishable from a universe in which there is no God. Since I agree with Sagan, I would dismiss your claims, and hence be called arrogant. from my perspective , I simply would ask you why you believe as you do, and what proof do you have and how your proof would be falsified if you posit a universe without God. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable query. Similar accusations of arrogance are made when we say well your God couldnt possibly have turned water into wine or flown on a horse to heaven.
It is interesting that all your examples of suffering are naturall caused examples.If God is universal and present everywhere and in everything, is he/she/it also present when a paedophile priest abuses the child? Because that does taint the universal wonder.
You can appreciate wonder in the universe , without needing to introduce an ambiguous being.
And I still dont know whether you are or you arent , for sure.
You can read about what constitutes a liberal muslim (See for e.g. some muslims in the United Kingdom are called liberal because dont think we should be killed because we are non muslims , you can ofcourse indoctrinate your children, mistreat your wives and figure out ways and means to make Islam the dominant force).
From my biased perspective , their arrogance is normally reserved for people who deserve it.
Should you really show civility when the Pope claims that the use of condoms increases aids? Should we show civility when our childrens education is in danger?
Civility is not for the wilfully ignorant. Its not for habitual liars. When a young earth creationist keeps repeating his claim for the 100th time, what point is there displaying civility. If however you have concrete examples where the three (I leave out Hitchens) have been uncivil to an undeserving victim , then please point it out.
But that does not mean that your position is valid. My experience is that most would be happy to leave the liberals alone, the only time we argue is when we have time to spare and semantics to debate
Hi, Deepak.
You write:
“Just to be clear, the only reason im continuing this discussion is as an intellectual exercise. If you are indeed a liberal(my definition) religious person then I really have no argument with you and you can believe whatever it is you want.”
Understood and appreciated. Thanks for continuing anyway.
You write:
“you can call God the sum of all the laws of nature, but it then doesn’t make any sense to pray to such a God.”
That depends on how one couch’s prayer. My understanding of prayer rejects petitions in favor of a practice of gratitude. It’s akin to meditation, I suppose, though there is certainly an irrational component that includes annunciation and celebration of the totality, the Everything, Ayn Sof, the Ground of All Being, or what name have you. In any case, I find it very valuable, though prayer is nothing if not an individual affair! ;)
You write:
“why shouldnt you be asked to defend your perspective?”
I should be, certainly, but I didn’t intend to balk at accounting for my beliefs or practices, but rather meant “defensive” in the reactionary sense. I think that you’ve misunderstood my complaint. I do not call you arrogant for agreeing with Sagan’s assessment. In fact, you haven’t been at all belligerent or obviously patronizing. The folks who call me stupid or poisonous, however, are. Theirs is the behavior that I find problematic.
You write:
“If God is universal and present everywhere and in everything, is he/she/it also present when a paedophile priest abuses the child? Because that does taint the universal wonder.”
Yes. G-d is not some tinkerer. There is very little theistic legacy in my panentheistic/panendeistic conception of the universe(s). The pedophile priest is responsible for his actions, not G-d.
You write:
“some muslims in the United Kingdom are called liberal because dont think we should be killed because we are non muslims.”
Well, I can’t account for why that alone would allow them to be called “liberal.” I know observant Muslims who are wonderful people, professionally active in medicine, the sciences, the arts, philosophy, and other realms, who have no connection to militant Islam or extreme interpretations of Jihad. I assume that most New Atheists would insist that these individuals are exceptions to the rule, but hundreds of thousands of them exist nevertheless. This, I think, makes it impossible to condemn Islam in entirety. Distinctions must be made.
You write:
“Should you really show civility when the Pope claims that the use of condoms increases aids? Should we show civility when our childrens education is in danger?”
My opinion (and it is simply an opinion) is that, yes, civility is always necessary, even if the other’s perspective enrages you. Civility doesn’t require you to back down from your stance, and it more often than not gives you the moral high ground, eroding others’ confidence in the reactionary party. One reason that I lost faith, if you will, in the New Atheists is because so many of them write such hurtful, mean-spirited comments. (See the comment just below.) Their nastiness suggests a flailing to me, an uncertainty (not of the scientific mystery variety) that makes me deeply skeptical of their position.
You write:
“But that does not mean that your position is valid.”
You’re entitled to disagree, and we can discuss it (I’m happy to), but because we’re turning over realms that are neither verifiable nor unverifiable, I fail to see how one can determine what is and is not valid.
Of the thank you god , for food (though others may starve) or for my job in the recession (though others may be jobless) variety or thank you that the earth continues to rotate round the sun ?
Agreed. But then we aren’t talking about the leaders of the so called new atheists are we. Their ire seems targetted to people who I think deserve it (more on this later). Yes some commenters will insult you , but this is true of most internet forums ,where the anonymity encourages vile behaviors. Its nothing to do with being an atheist/non believers old or new.
Correspondingly when humans show amazing acts of compassion, they are responsible for their behavior too, correct? Is God only found in nature then?
Only to illustrate , that someone calling themselves liberals , doesn’t make them so. Bill Oreilly can call himself independent and get away with it , because the extremes have shifted so far right and left that anyone can call themselves ‘moderate ‘ or independent or liberal (in the non political sense).
It isnt the enraging part , it is the actively harmful part. For years I suppose media has been civil to the Pope. It hasn’t achieved anything. The catholic church(for e.g.) continue actively harmful policies, and they have no excuse of ignorance. It is perhaps time to try a new tactic, which is shame and ridicule. To illustrate that these aren’t misguided folks but are evil. I suppose calling the Pope evil will earn me the being nasty / uncivil tag (by catholics anyway) because Im insulting an old man who likes to play dress up. And then we come to Catholics who while privately are in favor of birth control (and even gay rights) but will not speak , will not raise their voices when evil is done in their name. How civil can you be. I’d much rather P.Z. Myers mock them thoroughly (I only choose Catholics because that is the branch of Christianity Im most familiar with).
Some are, Some aren’t. Also depends on the place, Comments on Richard Dawkins’ forums/Russel Blackford are generally less mean spirited than on P.Z. Myers blog.
Thats because we believe that Russel’s teapot and Sagan’s dragon in garage have taken care of those sort of arguments. If it is unverifiable, or mysterious or unknown , you have no special way of making any assertion or knowing(Or else i will have to quote the Rubbaiyat), and the onus is always on the one making the proposition. You don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster do you? and you would laugh at someone making the argument that the flying spaghetti monster is neither verifiable nor unverifiable, so you cannot determine the validity or invalidity of it.
No, many of us Atheists do not care in the least if we come off as rude arrogant and aggressive. ( If that offends some, though!! ) First it is not true, it`s legitimate anger ; and second, “spiritual people” , even out of the mainstream, are like the “civil and polite” bourgeoisie of the mainstream…boring ,holier-than -thou ,self-righteous ,and patronising to us supposed “negative” people: all my life I have had to put up with the middle-class crap, and now, even progressives who have gone “spiritual” are laying it on us with their “virtuous” calls for “civility”, whether here or in progressive movements. (Well, FUCK “civility” , don’t get it on me!!) It would not bother me so much if I had not had negative experiences over the years with various spiritual types, but I have had, mainly New Age and AA, and my sister`s Mormon Church. And now again, having in good faith come to Tikkun, thinking I would find something different, I find the same sanctimonious phony pacifist love-your enemies bullshit. Well I will not belabor it, you will not see me here battling you guys regularly, but I am wondering if it is worth coming here to check out some of the good articles, because at the same time I encounter all these interfaith spiritual progressives who piss me of with their goddamm spiritual attitudes and their G-D (peace unto him) bullshit.
Marco
My latest post: “Why Atheists Choose Religion”
http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2010/02/18/why-atheists-choose-religion/#more-10243
So if I understand correctly, you argument boils down to “Christianity could mean anything or nothing and therefore is such a useless and meaningless term that no intelligent person can argue against it.” Seems like a somehow hollow argument to me, weaken the meaning of a word until it is so bland anyone can accept it. You might as well claim that “up” is “down” for some definitions of “up.”
Also I suspect you are in the minority in defining Christianity this way, why should your definition of Christianity be accepted over the more orthodox definition provided by C.S. Lewis? Besides, Hitchens is arguing against Christianity as he defined it, if you think this definition doesn’t apply to you then he isn’t arguing against your world view. So since he apparently isn’t even talking about you why are you so upset? I’m sure you agree that there are millions of Christians who would accept the Lewis definition of Christian so you can’t claim he is arguing against a straw man. And claiming that some Christians could be Atheists and still deserve to be called Christians seems like an odd defense of Christianity.
“Leave aside the question of arrogance, why shouldnt you be asked to defend your perspective?”
How about … because it’s none of your business? I’m not asking anyone to share my beliefs, or defend their own. Too many atheists (at least on the net) really are like too many fundamentalists – pushing their belief/disbelief on others with the “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude. I wish the whole lot of ‘em would buzz off.
Excellent article, btw. I get the feeling Hitchens et al really don’t want to find themselves in the position of having no argument with someone with religious beliefs. And the whole “Oh but that’s not real Christianity” is definitely arrogant, and, dare one say, fundamentalist, too. Who is he to define someone else’s beliefs?
” I get the feeling Hitchens et al really don’t want to find themselves in the position of having no argument with someone with religious beliefs. ”
Obviously untrue as you can find many video and/or audio examples of them across the net doing precisely that.
Coming to this late, but I thought this needed saying (and after an admittedly quick look through the comment it doesn’t really seem to have been said yet).
When Hitchens says “I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.” He is (briefly) sketching the essence of the Nicene creed. It’s not a very direct paraphrase, but there’s nothing Hitchens says here that is not included in the Nicene creed (and quite a bit in the Nicene creed that Hitchens doesn’t mention).
The Nicene creed is hardly an extreme position as standards for Christianity go. For most the history of the term Christian (it may be undergoing redefinition now, I’m not sure on that one) this has been one of the accepted standards for being thought Christian. Though argument from personal experience proves nothing, I would have to say I would be very surprised, based upon past experiences, to meet anyone calling themselves a Christian who did not accept the Nicene creed.
The Nicene creed is also still the official position of (at the very least) the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and various Lutheran churches. This list is by no means exhaustive, but its official numbers already include some 1.5 billion of the world’s 2.2 billion Christians. While it is impossible to say whether all of them actually believe this, it would seem to be a non-trivial definition of Christianity based on the official numbers at least. Certainly rather more than just “Orthodox Protestant”.
Atheist is a bad word. Atheists are bad people.
Christian is a good word. Christians are good People.
There are millions of people that DO NOT believe in an actual God, but rather than labeling themselves more honestly as Atheist or Agnostic, they instead come up with some variant on “Non Christ Believing Christian”.
This has little to do their God belief and more to do with either not wanting to let go of the label “Christian” regardless of how inaccurate it is or not wanting to accept the “Soulless” label of Atheist because it’s perceived negative connotations.
The truth is the undoubtedly many “Liberal Christians” are actually just “Atheists in the Closet”.
If you don’t fit into the “Christian” box, don’t try to redefine it to make yourself fit, just accept that it ain’t your box.
What belief of yours would you be debating, if you debated Hitchens? I guess I somehow missed that.
Wow! Thank you! I always needed to write on my website something like that. Can I include a part of your post to my blog?
let’s play game Click here