More on Religion

To me the most interesting aspect of the critiques of recent spate of atheism books by Richard Dawkins, Hitchens and others was the part where the critics accuse the authors of philistinism, smugness and putting forth a rival school of thought which is as shallow, as comforting, and as free of all doubts as doctrinaire religion. I agree with this claim but I don't think it is in any way a substantive critique of the content of the books. Only because their aims in writing these books are far narrower than what these critics attribute them to be. The first thing, and this is more prominent in Dawkins' attack, is the way religion encroaches on science's (or more generally any evidence based intellectual enterprise) turf. As Dawkins rightly argues this should be resisted and ridiculed with all vehemence by all sane people for reasons too obvious for me to list here. The other part is religion's encroachments in the domain of law and politics. The case here is comparatively more complex, but only slightly. What we need is just a very elementary course in history to convince us why religion inspired political movements are such a bad idea. (Hitchens is very knowledgeable on this topic and very entertaining too.)

What people of more refined sensibilities contend is that this portrait of religion, as an unwelcome meddler in affairs outside its territory, is not only inaccurate and mischievous in intent but also unfair and deliberately fabricated to malign the "true" religion which is more interested in probing serious questions confronting all of us. Questions like how do we find a firm and universal grounding for our values and a sense of what is good and bad? The problem of freedom, and concomitant existence of evil and suffering? And perhaps the most important of all -- the problem of Death. Or rather, the problem of how to live with the presence of death all around and how to prepare to die. This of course doesn't belong to science's domain and Dawkins' and his cohorts' attempts to add mystical touches to the scientific enterprise (the beauty of nature, glory of the universe etc) ring as hollow as the sermons of the next door priest. Science can explain the source of morality and freedom (or the illusion of it) but the answers can never be satisfactory.

Personally I find it very admirable the way religion insists on the centrality of these important questions for any meaningful human life, even though often it soon muddles up everything by providing ridiculous solutions to these questions. (Immortality of soul, Original sin, the carrot and stick theory of morality etc.) Here religion's rival is not science but art and literature. (Hitchens in his book does mention repeatedly that we should turn to great works of literature rather than canonical holy texts to look for answers to these grave questions confronting all of us.) What we now need is a different kind anti-religion writing. The writing that comes not from scientists or rationalists but rather from writers and artists. Basically we need heirs of Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard. And may be a few descendents of Bergman, Dreyer and Bresson too. A few more in the line of Mouchette, Ordet and Winter Light should be enough to silence these critics.

Liberation Theology (and a very funny joke)

I was reading this article on the Guardian comment is free site. In short, the Pope recently said that only the Roman Catholic Church is "the proper church" (whatever that means). I couldn't care less but in the comment section I came across this very funny joke which really settles everything. (On some googling I found out that some people voted it the best religious joke in 20 years. Details here.) Here it goes:

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic scum!", and pushed him over."

*******

Now for something serious. I was slightly annoyed when Christopher Hitchens casually dismissed liberation theology as "an oxymoron" in his book. While I don't think religious faith is anyway necessary for the development of a communitarian ethos and commitment to social and political justice, it is still an admirable first step towards transforming the church from being an agent of obscurantism in the modern world and wholly reactionary institution into a secular, respectable one committed to progressive ideals of justice and freedom. In the process perhaps it can also atone for the historical crimes it has committed directly or indirectly or just stood by in silence when crimes were being committed (like during the Holocaust.) Hitchens basically recounts the history of the church's collusion with tyrants and dictators and concludes that even when it is on the right side, it is not very effective, often muddles up the whole thing, and in the end we would rather do without it. (Isn't it interesting how throughout the history the priestly classes, of all religions, have managed to wield so much power without ever having gone to battlefields themselves! Just invent some theological justification for the tyranny and then you get to do whatever you want! What a disgusting con-job!!)

Hitchens is even condescending towards the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer, a hero of the anti-Nazi German resistance and actually a rare face-saver for the religion during the whole dark time, by calling his philosophy, "admirable but nebulous humanism." Bonhoffer was also an early and important Christian thinker to expound on the theology of liberation. He even put it into practice by participating actively in the anti-Nazi resistance activities. He was hanged after a plot to kill Hitler was exposed and his part in the conspiracy came out. Surprisingly he is not a very well-known figure. He really deserves more renown. Some information on Wikipedia and BBC.

Now one would think that the church would encourage and wholeheartedly endorse these heart-warming ideas and celebrate Bonhoffer as a true martyr and a hero. But no, the Pope says that liberation theology is “a fundamental threat to the faith of the church.” His predecessor was even more forthright. “The theology of liberation is a singular heresy,” declared the fundamentalist. (And to think that there were people who wanted a nobel peace prize for him! But then Henry Kissinger got it too and so did the Israel-Palestine trio, he would have really found their company suitable.)

I was actually reminded of all these things because I remembered reading this report about the Pope's recent visit to Latin America. Apparently it was one of the main agenda of his visit! It is shameful, the way they prefer the Jesus who oversees the carrot-and-stick morality to the Jesus the idealist and political activist.

God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

I didn't even bother to read the reviews of Christopher Hitchens's new polemic against Religion, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Another book about atheism? Yawn!! I am already hostile enough to religion and its many manifestations, innocent and not so innocent, and I don't need another book to convince me of the same. Anyway, I just picked it up on a lark and I am glad I did. It is a hugely entertaining book, at almost every page I was nodding in agreement and in indignation, laughing at the ridiculousness of it all and marveling at Hitchens's wit and his skill at phrase making. It is great reminder of what a fantastic writer and a dazzling polemicist Hitchens is or can be when he is not carping about Iraq. So in the book we learn about "the moral terrorism" and "organized hypocrisy" of the Vatican. The Japanese emperor Hirohito gets the wonderful moniker of "a ridiculously overrated mammal." He calls Calvin "a sadist, a torturer and a killer". According to him Pascal's theology is "not far short of sordid." And the Koran? "A rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms.” He is no less harsh and funny on Judaism. I am not even going to get into the adjectives he has for creationists, mormons and other assorted idiocies.

I was specially excited after seeing a chapter titled: There is no "Eastern" Solution. It is something which interests and also perplexes and annoys me -- the way crap is being sold as a packaged spiritual product by spiritual hucksters. These new age superstitions are real travesties of religion. They may look harmless, even fun at times. All those crystal balls, magnetic therapy and tarot cards but they are equally dangerous, just that their effects are more insidious. One problem with the criticism of Eastern religions is that how easy it is to shift goal posts, or actually there are no goal posts at all. The monotheistic religions at least talk in the same language, the language or arguments and logic. The eastern religions with their hostility towards the language and indeed thought itself leave you without any foundation from which you can criticise their tenets. (For example the possibility logical contradictions and ambiguities inherent in human language is used by Buddist teachings (Koan) to discredit the idea of language and intellectual thought itself.) He also recounts his experiences at the so called "Bhagwan" Rajneesh. The sign that greets him before the ashram says, "leave you shoes and minds at the door." I don't know whether I should laugh or feel indignation.

Hitchens knows a great deal about Christianity but when it comes to eastern religions he is more or less clueless. Add to that the reason I mentioned above, the chapter is a disappointment. He more than makes up for it in the next chapter where he answers the claims of the critics of atheism that Stalin and Hitler's regimes where atheistic regimes or can we link to horrors of twentieth century authoritarianism to the "death of God" concept. He takes this charge very seriously, and indeed it deserves to be taken so, and convincing refutes each and every argument. He knows a great deal of the history of 20th century dictatorships too. Surely it is not hard to see the religious impulse behind most of the dictatorships--secular or religious. The cult of personality, the sourcing of moral laws from a divine authority or his representative on earth, the messianic hope of transcendence and redemption in the form of Utopia, the sacralization of myths of race, creed and nation. These are all religious impulses in their essence. Hitchens has a lot more to say on this. And he is very good at it. As expected from a fervent admirer of George Orwell.

Now to some objections and problems. Not necessarily with this book but in general with the doctrine of "secular humanism". It is understandable why Hitchens and company would give atheism a rosy humanist image, a "positive" way of life. They are after all writing pamphlets and propaganda and are trying to win converts and the version of the atheism based on negation, doubts and self-mortification will not make a very good copy. (Though there is a good deal of misanthropy in Hitchens's book.) Though personally I am drawn to exactly this line of thinking -- the tradition of thinkers like Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Kafka and if one talks of films, Bergman, Dreyer and Bresson. Ivan Karamazov doesn't doubt the existence of God or the possibility of Salvation and redemption. He rejects them because he says the whole religious edifice is built on the tears of innocent children. In fact it was reading the speech of Ivan Karamazov which changed my own personal views towards religious faith--from an indifferent intellectual annoyance to a deep moral disgust.

Another irritating feature of these new atheism propaganda is their faith in human exceptionalism. Ironically this is something that gives it some continuity with religious dogma. This is where I agree with the critiques of thinkers like John Gray. (Though he goes too far in his neo-apocalypticism to make much sense after a while.) Gray says that not just enlightenment humanists but even philosophers like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger who shook every foundation of the entire western philosophy, even they couldn't relinquish and let go their faith in human exceptionalism, this vile and ridiculous remnant of religious belief. Human consciousness, freedom and rationality are NOT absolutes, but rather contingent concepts, mere by-products of our evolutionary history. The refusal to acknowledge this obvious fact makes a few sections of these atheism books sound positively religious.

In conclusion let's not be too harsh on ourselves and our fellow humans. If you want to read one book about religion, let it be this one. Five out of five stars. Two Thumbs up. And all that.