“Religion Kills”

“The terrible religious wars that inundated the world with blood tended at least to bring all religion into disgrace and hatred. Thoughtful people began to question the divine origin of a religion that made its believers hold the rights of others in absolute contempt. A few began to compare Christianity with the religions of heathen people, and were forced to admit that the difference was hardly worth dying for. They also found that other nations were even happier and more prosperous than their own. They began to suspect that their religion, after all, was not of much real value.” – Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Gods”, 1872  (Atheist)

One of the fundamental experiences that every human being shares amongst each other is the reality of violence. The atrocities that people are willing to carry out upon their fellow man is heart wrenching, and we are left staggered with the question: How do we make sense of all of this? I am currently reading through a book by Christopher Hitchens entitled, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Mr. Hitchens is a self-avowed atheist whose public appearances, spirited debates and sharp-tongued polemics seeks to champion the atheist cause within the public square.  I would consider it accessible to the general reader and pointed in its castigation against any religious establishment.  I take it that in order to be fair, Mr. Hitchens spares no criticism and harbors no favorites when dealing with religion.  I personally think that Hitchens would have been better served to use the subtitle as the title of his book, but sales seems to dictate that a more provocative title enlists more interest.

I would like to draw my readers’ attention to the second chapter of his book entitled, “Religion Kills”.  As the title indicates Hitchens seeks to draw out one of his complaints against religion: its adherents willingness to carry out acts of violence upon those whose faith or beliefs do not agree with their own.  I think that two questions crop up as one proceeds through the chapter: 1) How does a religion whose precepts and teachings that claim to expound virtue and godliness produce people willing to do violence?  2) Is not the act of violence good reason to disregard religion as merely that which “poisons everything”?

I think that these two questions are honest questions.  The searching for the even ground by which we all can reconcile ourselves tries to come to terms with the differences and plurality we experience everyday.  What should I make of the person who agrees that a patient has a right to die or the person who wishes to prolong life to uphold the dignity of the dying individual?  Democrat or Republican?  Capitalist or Socialist? Rich, middle-class or the poor? One thing that reality affirms is the differences, but the similarities are often harder to see.  I would like to begin by going a step further than what I think Hitchens did.

What Do You Mean?

I believe that it was the philosopher Martin Heidegger who said that it is with words that we create the world.  When I was little I remember the effort it took to sit at the dinner table and for hours on end I attempted to read a quaint little book titled,  I Can Read.  It hits me now with humor and irony that at the time I was doing anything but read.  I could slowly sound the words out, but they were sounds that signified nothing.  It is  not until my mind began to realize the sounds that one makes corresponds to something one may see or hear. It is this discovery that makes the world of words come alive and it is then that we learn that words have meaning.

I could not help but ask myself as I read through Hitchens numerous illustrations of religious violence the questions: How could Hitchens justify framing the problem of religion (in this case violence) in terms of “good” and “evil”?  What measure could possibly lend force to his illustrations if the categories one appeals to are themselves relative?   In the atheistic worldview why not relegate such actions to mere instincts and natural behaviors rather than couch them in moral judgments? As I worked through example after example the issue cropped up again and again: evil.  Religion incites acts of evil upon society. I remember it said by a journalist once that one man’s violence is another man’s justice.  I think that the comment was to show that when men are left to determine for themselves what makes up “justice” and “violence” the terms themselves lose their meaning,and are at the mercy of whatever viewpoint one wishes to sympathize with.  How does an atheistic worldview give meaning to its argument of evil?

Atheist Kill Too Right?

I am reminded often of the date April 20, 1999 and the significance that it holds in the hearts of many Americans.  It was to be a day like any other.  The hustle and bustle of busy parents trying to get themselves to work and while simultaneously attempting to goad their kids to get to class on time.  Parents dropping their kids off at the busy curb and other students rushing to get the latest gossip before the bell rang signaling another long day of study.  All in all a normal day.  “Massacre” would never have crossed the students’ minds.  This would be the day that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would take the lives of 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School; the scene ultimately ending with both kids killing themselves.  This act of hatred would set the nation into rethinking the security measures it would take to safeguard kids in the classroom (unthinkable only a decade or two ago).  These acts of violence would not be the logical out working of a god-crazed fanatic, but an atheistic angry adolescent.  While in the library the shooter would point his gun in the face of the students hiding beneath the desks and ask, “Do you believe in God?”  One girl, Cassie Bernall would answer, “Yes” to that question which resulted in her losing her life.  No violence. No hatred.  Just a simple answer.

I give this illustration to point out two things: 1) violence is not only “religious” problem, but could also be leveled on atheism.  2) Whereas Christianity does not condone killing, and that violence done in its name do not reflect its core values, atheism seems (at least to me) to have no way of preventing violence which can logically flow from such a system.  I am not saying that all atheist are a-moral or evil (I am thankful that my atheist friends do share common values that I hold), but how can one support those values given that the system cannot cohere with itself?

Why Do Good?

I also thought that Hitchens overstated his case.  Not once does he cite instances where the person’s faith had led them to do acts of charity, but rather Hitchens is quick to point out that any acts of charity are carried out on the part of “humanism” (no explanation as to what this means). If Mr. Hitchen’s can feel proud that his daughter is doing acts of charity, why assume those acts to be good?  Why not irrational?  Why not meaningless?  What grounds give us reason to believe that altruism is a good things when even Ayn Rand thought it a social evil (The Virtue of Selfishness)?  I am not saying that all atheist believe that altruism is evil, but how do we stop someone like Ayn Rand from coming to that conclusion given atheism?

If Hitchen’s answer to all these illustrations is to remove God from the picture, what grounds can establish any significance to these atrocities if we are nothing more than time plus matter plus chance?  Why be appalled when a natural life-form does what comes naturally by wiping out another life-form?  Is mere dirt worth getting excited about?  No, I am afraid that religion does not poison everything.  The misappropriation of Christianity’s principles and teachings by misguided individuals who use it carry out acts of violence are not good grounds to rid ourselves of Christianity.  The problem rests with the individuals not the worldview.  If violence were deemed to be sufficient enough to dismiss Christianity, then even atheism would have to go given that many of its adherents have likewise carried out acts of violence.

All Must End

Hitchens has touched on something that is common to all men, that men are capable and do carry out acts of violence.  I would think that if violence is the litmus test for the validity of something we would quickly find ourselves insane: “Freedom, what violence is done in your name.  Justice, what violence is done in your name.  Love, what violence is done in your name.  All must go.  All must end.”  Such virtues would be missed I am sure and their going, absurd to say the least.  I am not avoiding the violence that has been done by “Christians” and I admit that it is a dark mark upon the church’s history.  I only ask if the fault is with the principles of Christianity or the people that distort them to serve their own ends? In the end, people kill people.

I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality… we will train young people before whom the world will tremble.  I want young people capable of violence – imperious, relentless and cruel.  -Adolf Hitler, Auschwitz (Atheist)

It is not wise to judge a philosophy by its abuse. -St. Augustine (as referenced by Dean Mischewski)