Ch. 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:09 pm
God is Not Great
Ch. 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False
Ch. 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
They may seem to be such metaphors to you, Robert, but I will still never see, I'm afraid, how Christianity remains after the supernatural part is drained out. What you then are left with is something from which to draw inspiration, maybe at best christianity with a small "c." I don't think, either, that Hitchens ignores those who fought for more enlightened beliefs while still being in the Christian fold. It's important to understand that he doesn't trash everything associated with Christianity. He admires, for instance, the power of theologians such as Newman and Pascal.Robert Tulip wrote:But why does Hitchens ignore the extent to which religion contains an internal critique? There are various calls in the gospels to religious authenticity, for example "woe to you scribes and pharisees for you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" and "build your house upon the rock rather than upon sand". 'Swallowing a camel' and 'building on sand' seem to be metaphors for accepting the lies of supernatural belief. Building upon rock means having a solid foundation for our lives and beliefs. In modern terms this can only mean using the evidentiary principle of science.
But where does he call for the abolition of religion? "I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could" (p. 12). His argument is geared toward establishing the irrelevance of beliefs associated with a creator God..Hitchens later derides liberation theology as laughable and incoherent, because he is so fixated on his critique of religion as a source of oppression. My view here is that the task should be the reform of religion, along liberationary lines, rather than its abolition. However, in my own idiosyncratic way I see it as liberation through capitalism rather than against it, but that is a separate issue.
Again, one might draw inspiration from aspects of the gospels, on the way to a synthesis of sorts that should not take the name Christianity.The hypocrisy is that if we actually used the gospels as a basis for life then we would be on a liberatory path for the world. A starting point for such a liberatory ethic is that we need to apply the evidentiary principle in formulating our beliefs. The grossly unethical and corrupt nature of traditional religion seems to me to derive primarily from its theory of faith, ie that some statements should be believed even though there is no evidence for them, and in spite of evidence that they are false. Once this corruption of faith is accepted people will believe anything because they will put the political authority of the institution before the evidence of science.
Stuart Kauffman, in Reinventing the Sacred, equates God with the creativity in nature. He makes a case for the use of the word God, even though this is for him actually a purely naturalistic concept. Christ is nowhere present, thus his concept is no more Christian than it is Buddhist. He is suggesting a synthesis of faiths.Logically, if faith is to become something good, it needs to be based on truth rather than lies. Hence a theory of God that is a lie (or has been proven false) is not good. As Einstein argued in support of Spinoza, this means the replacement of the personal God of traditional religion by the pantheist vision which equates God and nature.
I think you're right that Hitchens will get few believers or even weak believers to read the book by seeming to be so over the top. But I've argued that behind this pugnacious stance is a quite reasonable man who is hostile when it is appropriate to be hostile, but not hostile about every manifestation of religion. He has a firm sense of proportion. Where in the book does he go after the people filing into the Methodist church on Sunday? Sure, this religion is distasteful to him, and he is unsparing in exposing the fallacies of Christian doctrine, but he does believe in leaving people alone who are not forcing their beliefs on the rest of us or causing havoc.johnson1010 wrote: Hitchens does have a more emotional way to evaluate religion, even hostile. I admit that my own stance has gone beyond atheist to anti-theist. I think that belief in the supernatural is not just pointless but harmful, however the way that Hitchens engages the reader has a polarizing effect and thereby is a style that will reach fewer minds.
He is passionate, and I admire the passion. I agree that he sets himself apart in this way in the book. Dawkins and Harris are very capable writers as well, but Hitchens has them beat in my opinion.All the same, this book contributes and expands on the argument against religion precisely because of this passionate writing.
It is not just me that uses these biblical metaphors as a basis for rational critique. “Swallowing the camel” is the name of a blogspot with the mission of “examining hoaxes, scams, controversies, rumours, schemes, bizarre ideas, bogus products, disinformation, misinformation, impractical jokes, literary fraud, and anything else that smells bad.” They take their scepticism straight from the mouth of Jesus. Building on rock rather than sand has a similar philosophic role of demanding rational foundations for thought.DWill wrote:They may seem to be such metaphors to you, Robert, but I will still never see, I'm afraid, how Christianity remains after the supernatural part is drained out. What you then are left with is something from which to draw inspiration, maybe at best christianity with a small "c."Robert Tulip wrote:.. strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" and "build your house upon the rock rather than upon sand". 'Swallowing a camel' and 'building on sand' seem to be metaphors for accepting the lies of supernatural belief. Building upon rock means having a solid foundation for our lives and beliefs. In modern terms this can only mean using the evidentiary principle of science.
Of course Hitchens is generous in his liberal pluralist tolerance, but the steel fist in the velvet glove is in the idea that the world should not tolerate intolerance. The claim that metaphysical religion is intrinsically intolerant, through its fundamentalist claim to unique access to absolute truth, therefore holds the implication that such pre-modern arrogance should not be tolerated. That which we cannot tolerate should be outlawed and abolished, as we seek to prevent all illegal activity. It is about Hitchens’ vision of an ideal future of an atheist world. My trouble with this vision is that I believe the concept of God remains a helpful way to synthesise a vision of an ultimate purpose and meaning for human life. The fact that this synthetic vision has been articulated badly and incorrectly by fundamentalist religion does not invalidate the idea of a creator.where does he call for the abolition of religion? "I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could" (p. 12). His argument is geared toward establishing the irrelevance of beliefs associated with a creator God.
So Bill, you argue that the deluded, the frauds and the liars of Christian tradition have a monopoly on interpretation of that tradition. This is just another example of the invalid argument by authority. You seem to be trying to hold Christianity into a small pre-modern box, insisting that effort to find meaning in it for the modern world is invalid because it is irrevocably fossilised in false past conceptions. Such ‘inspiration from aspects of the Gospels’ is precisely what the Gospels themselves demand, for example in the parables of the wheat and tares.One might draw inspiration from aspects of the gospels, on the way to a synthesis of sorts that should not take the name Christianity.
Kauffman’s equation as you describe it may be incompatible with traditional faith in God as a supernatural entity, but I suspect his deletion of Christ from his cosmology is more about his pain at the delusory behaviour of the church than any effort to engage with the question of whether the idea of Christ can be rehabilitated.Stuart Kauffman, in Reinventing the Sacred, equates God with the creativity in nature. He makes a case for the use of the word God, even though this is for him actually a purely naturalistic concept. Christ is nowhere present, thus his concept is no more Christian than it is Buddhist. He is suggesting a synthesis of faiths.
Robert, I have not expressed myself well at all if you think I believe that the efforts of the past to understand human life and to live morally were all nonsense just because a large part of these efforts involved gods, demons, and spirits. As a humanist, I MUST believe that at the basis of such attempts were good faith and wisdom, and that in our age we have not necessarily gone any farther toward enlightenment than they did. There are true kernels in all Western mythologies, including the Christian. However, I would disagree with you if your thinking is that we should select particular kernels to delcare as ultimate truth. This is not the way forward, in my opinion.Robert Tulip wrote: Bill, your argument amounts to saying that Christianity must be entirely false by definition, and any effort to find a true kernel amongst the dross is doomed to failure, that the whole enterprise is for nothing and an irredeemable fraud. My view is that the ignorant ancients were, at least in part, pointing towards something real, dressing it up in terms they could understand. The idea of the incarnation, even though largely historically false, expresses a deeply valid philosophical conception of the meeting between human life and eternal truth.
However, it is you yourself who castigate belief in the supernatural, which is the same as "magical content." It is really not that I have such an animus toward a belief that can't be explained rationally. Given the ability of the human mind to compartmentalize, it is common for people to say they believe in impossible things while remaining quite normal to all appearances. Not all belief in the supernatural makes people act crazy, far from it. My criticism of your proposal to make a newly reformed Christianity the ultimate truth is simply that it seems a bit arbitrary to elevate one tradition which-- for you-- has a rich metaphorical validity over all others. Yes, Robert, this is where relativism comes in again! To many other minds, I daresay what you find so compelling in the ressurection and incarnation simply doesn't resonate. So your insistence that others must accept this as the ultimate truth strikes me as quixotic.The archetypal question of the gospel is ‘what would happen if a man lived purely by the will of God?’ The answer, crucifixion and resurrection, though larded by mythology, remains of high psychological human importance even when stripped of all magical content. Your insistence that this Christological essence of faith is ‘supernatural’ implies that the Christian message has nothing to say to modern rational humanity.
When you talk about "the concept of God," or using the name in some way, you are not speaking about the same God that Hitchens takes apart in his book. This is also true of Dawkins in his own book. I know you have read Hitchens' book, but you apparently disagree with me that Hitchens makes a distinction between "god" and a "religious god." The notion of god that you are promoting is one that can exist in "societies that [have] learned to tame and sequester the religious impulse" (p. 280) I'm sure that Hitchens doesn't personally subscribe to even these "tamed and sequestered" versions of god, but he does not jump on people who do (well, okay, other than to imply they're irrelevant). In short, I think that your disagreement with Hitchens might not be so fundamental.My trouble with this vision is that I believe the concept of God remains a helpful way to synthesise a vision of an ultimate purpose and meaning for human life. The fact that this synthetic vision has been articulated badly and incorrectly by fundamentalist religion does not invalidate the idea of a creator.
I understand your feeling that irrelevance is not such a mild charge, either. But here again, you use the words "myth of a creator God," which is far different from belief and places this myth in the optional category, however intensely you believe it should somehow serve us. I do not even know what you mean by 'the core idea of Christology." If I did, I suspect it would not resonate with me.It would be hard for religion to maintain itself if the whole world rejected the idea of a Creator God. My view is that this simply will not happen because far from being irrelevant, the myth of a Creator has a powerful and useful purchase on human psychology. Again, the core idea of Christology, that entities in our lost world can be in tune with ultimate reality, establishes a theory of creation with an intensely ethical resonance.
No, "finding meaning in it" is simply entirely different from acting as though "Christianity", which is undeniably a product of history, should be our reference point. If we have to make excuses and apologies for much of the foundational literature, what is the point?So Bill, you argue that the deluded, the frauds and the liars of Christian tradition have a monopoly on interpretation of that tradition. This is just another example of the invalid argument by authority. You seem to be trying to hold Christianity into a small pre-modern box, insisting that effort to find meaning in it for the modern world is invalid because it is irrevocably fossilised in false past conceptions. Such ‘inspiration from aspects of the Gospels’ is precisely what the Gospels themselves demand, for example in the parables of the wheat and tares.