Is Christopher Hitchens a Religious Apologist?

[rug]

You know that Christopher Hitchens is not a fan of religion. If you had any doubt you can read his best-selling book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, watch him debate leading Christian and religious theologians (on one occasion four of them at a time) or read any of the numerous articles he’s written on the subject. Yet, despite his public outcry and comparison of religion to child abuse and labeling it a “menace to society” readers may be surprised to discover that he is actually indifferent to religion as long as it produces good behavior. Shocking I know. Furthermore he’s admitted that he’s not arguing “religion should or ever would die out in the world.”

In God is Not Great Hitchens describes a story of how a Muslim cab driver went to great lengths to return a large sum of money that his wife had left in his cab. When the the cab driver told him that it was his religious duty to return the money and refused a generous reward that Hitchens had offered it seems to have sparked a unique moment of shared humanity for Hitchens with a religious person. In response to the Muslim cab driver’s act of selfless service Hitchens makes a shocking admission, “And if all Muslims conducted themselves like the man who gave up more than a week’s salary in order to do the right thing, I could be quite indifferent to the weird exhortations of the Koran” (p. 188). Hitchens is essentially saying that as long as religion produces good behavior the strange and peculiar commandments, beliefs and ideas are not a problem. He could have said as he has said elsewhere that religion is not needed to do good or to know right from wrong. Or he could have acted on his statement, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” But he didn’t. There was no ridicule for the cab driver. Instead, like many of us progressive religious people Hitchens demonstrated tolerance and a level of respect to this religious person and his beliefs.

The irony here is that when religious people make the same arguments as Hitchens they are attacked as religious apologists and face scorn from many in the atheist community. Why the double standard?

Being surprised by Hitchens’ response I asked the popular Alternet.org atheist writer and blogger Gretta Christina to comment on his line of thinking that if religion produced good behavior it’s ok to be indifferent to the “weird exhortations of the Koran” (without telling her it was Hitchens who actually said it). She stated,

It’s a terrible argument. People do act on their beliefs — and when those beliefs are mistaken, the actions are more likely to be problematic. Garbage in, garbage out.

What’s more, the very idea that it makes sense to believe things we have no good reason to think are true, in itself, does harm. It leads people to rely on wishful thinking in other areas of their lives – not just religion. And the more moderate and tolerant versions of faith lend credibility to the more extremist and intolerant versions.

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2011/05/29/is-christopher-hitchens-a-religious-apologist/

[AmericaIsGreat]

1. If you know Hitchens

You know that the overall argument is NOT "if Muslims returned some property once in a while I'd have no problem with Islam." Like Gretta Christina, Hitchens has often argued about the harm of believing things for which there is no evidence.

What he's really saying is that if religions were NOTHING like what they are, he could be INDIFFERENT. And who wouldn't? If all Christians said, "I believe purely on faith and based only on personal experience and I don't expect anyone else to believe because of that" and we didn't have the Family Research Council (et al) and they weren't against gays and trying to pass laws to "challenge" evolution and all the rest of it, if all Christians in America acted that way, who would not be indifferent to Christianity?

And I don't get the reference to the double standard. When do religious people say, "If religions were nothing like they are, we'd all better off"? I mean, I'd love to hear them say that, but they don't. What they and other apologists claim is that people acting badly on the basis of their beliefs are misinterpreting holy texts even though they are extremely clear. Apologists also turn genocide into non-issues or start down some bullshit metaphysical path or talk about historical/cultural context and this is another thing Hitchens gets insanely heated about; the excuse of infanticide, rape, slavery, and murder in the name of a holy plan we "can't understand" or whatever.

So, no, Hitchens is not a religious apologist.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. grasping at straws makes for a poor argument.

Whenever an essay attacking the statement of some person has to resort to rewording that statement, one's skepticism ought to go on high alert.

"Hitchens is essentially saying that as long as religion produces good behavior the strange and peculiar commandments, beliefs and ideas are not a problem."

No really that is not what he is saying. What he said was quite clear and spoke to his potential for personal indifference, not to the problematic nature of religion.

"And if all Muslims conducted themselves like the man who gave up more than a week’s salary in order to do the right thing, I could be quite indifferent to the weird exhortations of the Koran”.

When an argument is constructed by extracting one phrase from a book in order to pillory the author, at least stick to the meaning and intent of that phrase. The point of that sentence is contained in the phrase "all Muslims", which ties back to the individual act of one muslim, and the stark contrast of that to the actions of many muslims and other religious fundamentalists around the world. Hitchens cannot be indifferent to religion because it is quite obvious that religion and religous fundamentalism is a huge problem. Atheists are speaking out because we see this problem: it is quite obvious, and we have a moral obligation to do something about it. We cannot be indifferent. We do not have that luxury.

[provis99]

3. Hitchens has a bet going.

the bet is to name something good that a religious person has done that could not also be done by an atheist. No one has won the bet yet. An atheist driving the cab could also have given the money back, simply because it was the moral thing to do. So religion is essentially useless as an explanator of good behavior.

Religious fervor does explain on the other hand, how religious people could do something bad that an atheist couldn't. Like burn someone as a witch because they were a member of a rival religion.

Hitchens believes that even in its most benign form, religion is at best unnecessary. He is just arguing that if all religions were at their best, he would complain less, but still see them as unnecessary.