The following post was written over a period of a couple of weeks.
There is a saying Mary Doria Russell uses in her novel, The Sparrow about turtles on fence posts. It goes something like this, if you're driving along and see a turtle on a fence post, you have to figure that someone put it there. I finished reading The Sparrow last night just before finding out that Christopher Hitchens had died. For bedtime I continued with Contact and found myself at the point in the story where the religious zealots have begun speaking out against the message from Vega. Interesting.
Hitchens had a lot of fans and followers. His writings and speakings were thoughtful, meaningful and prolific. The title of his book, God is Not Great, was turned into a trend on twitter to the derision of those who didn't get the reference and to the enjoyment of those who did. Looking at the feed brought to mind silly jokes that begin in some form similar to "ahomosays what?"
I should reveal that I have not read Hitchens - at least, not that I know of- yet. I knew the name and I've since seen or heard excerpts from his interviews and panels. I have read Sam Harris and Penn Jillette's latest, God, No! so I feel that I have some exposure to the arguments. I point this out to allow that I am not really qualified to talk about or against Hitchens with any authority; however, I believe I have some ground to stand on when addressing some of the arguments I heard him make.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. At the age of six, against the initial judgment of my parents and pastor, I felt it was time to be baptized. I was already reading scripture and my family was regularly engaged in church activities and I wanted to initiate formally into the faith. I have fond memories from that time of my life. My family moved a few times in my childhood and entered new congregations. We took part in mission trips where we helped build new churches for existing worshipers and I witnessed an awesome display of care given to those less fortunate than ourselves. I prayed often and was reverent when doing so.
As a young teen, I knew which organizations and individuals gave off corruptive or malevolent vibes and so steered clear of them. I was bothered by certain, typical and cliché questions that arose in my mind. It caused some concern for my parents when I, in the process of reading Jack London's Before Adam, asked why it was that we did not want to believe evolution. Only as an adult looking back do I realize certain wrongs I took for granted as a child. These were mainly the vilifications of other denominations and certain scientific processes. You can look through previous posts to find references to several. I don't believe that there was any malice intended and I don't hold anyone accountable. I can now choose my own path and pursuits.
I am no longer particularly religious, though I don't consider myself atheist either. This change happened in waves. I know it was in part due to experience and observation and partly due to gained knowledge. Once the curtain was pulled back, so to speak, it was hard to unsee what I had seen. I wish those of faith were able to acknowledge certain fallacies or incongruencies within their doctrine and still retain the comfort of their faith, but I understand that this is harder for some than others. I say this because, unlike Hitchens, I don't think religion is poisonous.
I think religion is as natural a human condition as awe at the stars. I think ignorance is poisonous. I think certain people are poisonous. For instance, my acquired knowledge of evolution hasn't eroded my faith, my knowledge that others in religion have attempted to suppress my evolutionary understanding has. Likewise, hypocrites don't bother me. The priest who baptized my children - yes, my wife is Catholic - once told me that his response to those who say that they didn't attend church because there were too many hypocrites was, "That's okay, there's always room for one more."
I think what ultimately decided my current church non-attendance was boredom. One Sunday morning as I sat with my wife and children in a pew I looked around at the parishioners and thought, "How many times do you have to hear the same thing in a lifetime to actually 'get' it?" See, I was at that time retaking Calculus and determined to not repeat that again. Now, before someone suggests that if I had been listening to the Word of God instead of looking at others, it may have made a difference. Well, that was partly the trouble, I had listened. Many times. I also counter with this; perhaps God was telling me, "You don't need to be here."
In The Sparrow Russell has Sandoz struggle with the choice between a God who allows horrible experiences for His faithful or doesn't care and that there is no God at all, leaving one completely alone. I saw Hitchens propose a very similar option. This is what I find fascinating and is why I consider religion, at its purest, to be more philosophy than simply theology. One shouldn't discount faith simply because of an either/or scenario. For every argument against, there are many more for religious belief and most won't be turned by pointing out discrepancies or despicable instances of its history. I think most people feel there has to be a certain separation between their individual belief in God and the religion that they follow, whether they know it or not.
Fans have talked about what a wonderful voice of reason Hitchens had. I agree, he had a great presence. Very sure and quick and clearly knowledgeable. I can respect that. I am troubled by the way people seemed to dismiss his alcohol abuse and how he could skewer his opponents even after a day full of drinking. There was an episode of Friends devoted to a character who was a recovering alcoholic. The guy, they found, was completely dull when sober. The show was funny, but the issue is not funny or respectable. It is tragic. Christopher Hitchens died at the age of 62. What a waste.
Christopher Hitchens was clearly intelligent and well-spoken. His arguments (many which I share) seem sound and just to those who thought similarly and may have been able to convert some to his side. He was passionate about his beliefs and that is often an honorable trait. As an outsider to the Hitchens' camp, I noticed something that his followers may have chosen to over-look. Though he was ironic or sarcastic when it served his purpose, he skewered his opponents for the same if they employed similar tactics. He sobered the mood of the audience and panel perceptibly whenever he developed his argument and created an environment where one couldn't mount an appreciable counter-argument without coming off as an insensitive buffoon. And even though he developed a consistent and unwavering position to present his stance, he didn't allow for others to hold theirs. His views against religion were well presented but as good as his reasons were for why he didn't believe in God, they really weren't good reasons for why others shouldn't. I don't think it was his voice of reason but rather his great use of rhetoric that made him so successful.
Also, and this is the true tragedy, he was clearly someone with turmoil. It's pure speculation, but I can't imagine any person who smokes and drinks to such renowned excess, someone who is estranged from family and is as combative as Christopher Hitchens was said to have been and not find that the person has some inner issues. I think he was certainly someone to listen to, perhaps even to help. He made it clear that he didn't desire Christian charity and I certainly don't propose that he needed pity, but I don't think that kind of person is the right kind to follow or iconize.
I have my own internal conflicts, of course, but I allow that they are mine and mine to battle. I try not to take away others' peace. Though I have moments of great frustration at what I see from religion, namely the suppression of women or a self-imposed ignorance about science and a changing culture, I am not on any crusade. I don't feel any need to remove anyone else's beliefs. This does not mean that I won't get heated in an argument; I enjoy going toe-to-toe with someone who holds a differing view. It simply means that I don't go out of my way to push my beliefs on others and I expect the same in return. I am not naive enough to believe that this works. It's in my face every day, but I feel that I can't expect better if I don't perform better. I also don't mean to imply that I allow for obvious misuse of religion. I have called out individuals for their actions, but I don't think it is the religion because religion is mostly just a thing.
My Catholic in-laws allow for evolution and state that there is no limit to what God can do. I can accept this since it shows a living faith which can adapt to new knowledge. This is different from the religion itself. (I am very aware of other problems concerning the Catholic church.) I don't respect many of the denominations where it appears that they find it necessary to dig in their heels against any appearance of challenge. Fundamentalists receive no compassion from me. Likewise, this also applies to people who simply fall into their beliefs. On the flip side, I have little patience for atheists hold their beliefs in a similar manner or who seem to carry them like fashion statements.
Currently, it appears very fashionable to be an atheist. Though Penn Jillette has some good arguments in his book, God, no!, he missed his mark with his assertion that a person who doesn't know whether they believe in an omnipotent God is an atheist. I don't think that one must have unquestioned faith to be faithful. Penn says that at the root, he doesn't know, but I'd argue that he does. He knows that he doesn't believe and it would take some pretty strong evidence to convince him otherwise. I think that's okay. Skepticism is a healthy part of our society because it keeps us investigating and advancing. We need skeptics but if everyone were the same intense level of skeptic, we would never get anything done because no one would ever accept what others had discovered.
Additionally, I truly feel one must actually put thought to one's beliefs, but one shouldn't do it in a way that acts as if there is nothing else. The greatest correlation to one's own religion is the parents' religion. This by itself suggests there are options and this should be acknowledged. If you are born as an African-American, you will always be of African descent (race, as ambiguous as it is, remains one of the few things left that we cannot choose to alter). This is not the case with religion any more than it is for where you live. "Being" catholic is as arbitrary as "being" Texan.
Something I really liked about The Sparrow was the community of the characters. There were believers and non-believers of varied educational backgrounds living together and respecting each other and able to discuss their positions on faith and religion. The struggle in the end for Sandoz was reconciling the horror of his experience with his personal notion of a God who he trusted and counted on. His faith, as shown, was not simply a reflection of God but it was also a reflection of himself.
Today as I dropped off my wife and sons at Mass, I took notice of those making their way to the church. There was a lot of coordination. People dressed in their Sunday best, finding close parking, wrangling children out of the closely parked cars and bundling them up for the cold. I thought, "There sure is a lot of effort going into this. Isn't there something that these people could better use their time toward?" Then I saw the elderly patrons and realized something. Religion should be left to the aged.
In essence, religion is supposed to be about finding a deeper understanding of the world outside and inside us. It is supposed to answer the "why" to all of the how of the universe. Some people also try to say that it serves as a moral compass, but if one relies solely on religion for that, there are greater issues in their life. Religion, at its core, is philosophy and that is for those with life experience.
It bothers me to see young women at church more than for me to see young men because there are so many more restrictions placed on the females of our societies. I think that our young should not needlessly be burdened by guilt or shame. The "we're not worthy" mantra that underlies most of the modern religions disturbs me since it's pretty clear from at least the Christian texts that it is the complete opposite. Jesus says that everyone is worthy and should not be overlooked or forgotten. His first stone analogy points to our unifying sinfulness (or wrong choiceness, if you prefer) but that we are all welcomed into His kingdom. However, this is often overlooked and especially young women are taught a sense of shame that I cannot fully understand as a man. No, I think religion should be left to the old like monks who give away their possession late in life to retire to contemplation. That appeals to me.
Now I know that these statements probably won't jive much with either camp of the belief spectrum. I don't feel particularly drawn to any one view though I remain partial to Judeo-Christian teaching. I know from experience that there are more questions raised from modern religion than actually answered. I know that too many people use religion to assert some pretty crappy viewpoints. I have also known some wonderful, generally good, people who feel completed by their faith. I have similarly known some wonderful, generally good atheists/agnostics. Religion doesn't make a person good or bad, it is merely a tool.
I think there is a design to the way life functions. I don't believe that there are mysteries that will forever remain so. I think there are coincidences that are so extreme that it appears a plan is guiding them. I think that sometimes turtles end up on fence posts. Part of life is finding out how and part of life is finding out why.
Enjoy the Show!
