What Hitchens got wrong: Abolishing religion won’t fix anything – Salon.com
2013/12/10 1 Comment
While I like a lot of what Hitchens wrote, I agree with the tenor of this article that Hitchens and the other “extreme” atheists have it wrong, that religion cannot explain all conflict in the world.
… I would like to suggest a truce — one originally proposed by the Catholic church and promoted by the eminent Stephen J. Gould. Science, the study of the natural world, and religion, the inquiry into the meaning of life (or metaphysics, more broadly) constitute non-overlapping magisteria. Neither can invalidate the theories of the other, if such theories are properly within their realm. Any theologian or scientist who steps out of their realm to speculate upon the other is free to do so, but must do so with an adequate understanding of the other’s realm.
Religion (either secular or theological) does not poison all of society and science should not be feared, but rather embraced. Both can bring humanity to new heights of empathy, imagination and progress. To quote the greatest American reformer, “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”
“New Atheists” believe that religion threatens progress and breeds conflict and that were religion eliminated, we would begin to solve the world’s problems. But abolishing religion is not only unfeasible, it would ultimately leave us no closer to truth, love or peace. Rather, we need to embrace the deep philosophical and spiritual questions that arise from our shared existence and work toward a world without deprivation. That will require empathy and multiculturalism, not demagoguery.
What Hitchens got wrong: Abolishing religion won’t fix anything – Salon.com.
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
I agree that science cannot ‘disprove’ religion; and that religion is not the source of all conflict in the world; and that any attempt to abolish religion would be in vain and would be counter-productive as people – we – will probably find something to worship and as neither science nor a pluralistic liberal democratic society are designed to give meaning to life, to answer the ethical or metaphysical questions we all must face and, if we think about it, ask, nor tell us how we ought to live (though science plus philosophy can do quite a bit of that – Stoics, Epicureans, non-sectarian mysticism and humanistic values) However, various religions do often invade the domain of science – denial of the theory of evolution for example, or, often, denial of the conclusions of climate science – and religion does invade the political domain – anti-abortion crusaders, to name just one example – and, since religion does lie beyond the realm of hypothesis and proof and falsification – the authority of religions leaders, who are very frequently mischief makers of the first order – is based, fundamentally, on nothing that can be proved, disproved, or discussed rationally. You either accept this tradition or that, or you don’t. The only way to judge between religions traditions would be to appeal to some ethical criterion that lies outside those religions (even if historically the criterion in question had been promoted and incarnated by one or both of them) Where rational discussion is not possible – or cannot be effective – power becomes the arbiter. Thus fanaticism is always a temptation. It is difficult for ‘good’ religious leaders to attack the ill deeds of the fanatics, as in all absolutist ideologies, because, in absolutist ideologies, religion and communism, just to take two examples, ‘purity of faith’ or ‘purity of doctrine’ – hence radicalism and fanaticism – are very attractive. You can always be outflanked on the left or on the right. Thus we have conflicts around the world exacerbated, and sometimes created, by religion. Rabbis who espouse the takeover of the West Bank; imams who promote terror. (See the film “The Gatekeepers”) The whole Middle East, much of Asia, parts of North Africa, can witness to this. Science does invalidate – and has invalidated – many of the traditional myths and beliefs of religion. So religion strikes back. It is no coincidence that the most reactionary political figures in the US and Canada are often those who have had a strong religions education – evangelical, fundamentalist, or Catholic. It is no coincidence that the death penalty and attacks on women’s rights – and attacks on science and the Cult of Ignorance – overlap quite neatly with intensely religious areas and counties and states in the US for example. Religion has a lot to answer for. Essentially, religious leaders claim, by proxy, an authority which gives them great power, but for which they have no justification, and to which they have no right except the self-proclaimed right of their partners in whatever particular set of myths they adhere to. And then, of course, since this is the Absolute Truth (otherwise what is it?), they often try to impose their beliefs on others – to disastrous effect. In Western societies religion was tamed – and is largely a tamed beast – but only after several centuries of religious warfare. The more serious you take your religion, the more dangerous it, potentially, becomes for civil peace and coexistence with those who believe, equally fervently, other things. Religion is extraordinarily powerful; it is also, often, extraordinarily repulsive and very dangerous. But, my approach is live and let live. If people want to worship, it is their right. It is also my right, if I wish, to say, if I feel and think this, that many of the beliefs are unfounded and pernicious.