Christopher Hitchens on the Essential Stupidity of Religion
Well, our tenure on this planet is very fragile weve [known] that ever since nuclear physics was discovered. In my view, in case I didnt make this clear enough in the book which, actually, I think I didnt outgrowing the supernatural and the superstitious is not sufficient for emancipating the human race. Its only the beginning. All our big discoveries and big arguments are ahead of us, but the one that has to be subtracted is the fanatical one that prays for the end of time.
Most of the religious people I know dont adhere to some ancient, antiquated text, nor are they afraid of spending eternity burning in hell if they misbehave. Dont you think that religion, for some people, simply fulfills the same purpose that literature might for others, as a way to quantify ideas of right and wrong?
Thats why I say, in many ways, that [religious inquiry] is a literary question; its about ethics and the origin of ethics, and the best way in which theyre expressed is a dilemma ethical dilemmas are in literature and myth.
Theres a basic question that I seldom see included in this discussion, and that is the question of the viability of human consciousness itself, and whether or not it perceives reality or just perceives itself perceiving reality. In other words, can consciousness even perceive the truth or does it only interpret a version of the truth relative to a persons mood, opinion, ideology?
No school of philosophy has ever solved this question of whether being determines consciousness or the other way around. It may be a false antithesis. Heres what I do know: Those who claim that they do know this are bound to be wrong. The argument is not equal between us and the supernaturalists. They dont just claim to know there is a supernatural that can be miraculous as a designer; they dont just claim to know that, which is more than they can know. They say, No, no, you can! Not only that, you can know Gods mind. Not only that, you can know what he wants you to do about food and sex. If we start by excluding those who say theres no point in the argument, who say they already know the truth, if we drop them, then we may get some progress. Then were left with an argument among grown-ups.
Do you find that an argument against the existence of God is not unlike an argument against the existence of obscenity? Weve developed this habit of using the incontrovertibility of physical reality to give incontrovertibility to our imaginations, therefore were capable of making our imaginations seem real, so God can seem real. You can see it when you look at the words cuntand vagina. Both words refer to the same exact thing, yet one is considered obscene. The difference between the wordscuntandvagina is imaginary.
I know what you mean. However, cunt is a hate word
But it was invented to be such.
Its true that obscenity is a matter of taste and in the eye of the beholder. The real objection to obscenity, in my opinion, is the result of our makeup, specifically that the urinary/genitary/excretory is mixed up. Thats what makes children laugh and whistle and grin. If that were not the case, wed be a lot better off, perhaps. Obscenity comes from grime. Free education is a gift to the poor, it raises them out of the gutter. It teaches the girls to write cock on the door and the boys to write cunt on the shutter. Its the relationship between the spiritual and urinary, thats where obscenity comes from.
Thats my point: Is obscenity or God something we can even have a rational conversation about if weve only been conditioned to react to it? Is consciousness an evolutionary flaw?
The situation is, were mammals, we leak and we excrete and then were told to forget about that or to deny it. Religion is totalitarian because it demands the impossible. [Like religion], obscenity shuts you down. The secular argument, or the liberal argument, is to as much as possible remove taboos so things do not become unmentionable; to let some air into the discussion.
That reminds me of my favorite Lenny Bruce quote: Knowledge of syphilis is not instruction to get it.
[Chuckles.] It was easy to argue this kind of thing in the 60s, against censorship, against bans on homosexuality, et cetera. Now you do run into people who say, Then why would you forbid pedophilia? Would the same standards hold for this? Or snuff movies? Or third-trimester abortions? This argument takes place among rationalists and humanists and sociologists. We dont say that if you allow [these things] we would be comfortable with obscenity. I do think there are lots of things you dont have to be taught. Most people dont have to be taught not to eat dead human beings, let alone to kill them in order to eat them. You dont have to drill this into children. You dont have to drill it into children that if one of their parents wants to go to bed with them that they should go and stay at the neighbors for the night. You could say that thats an argument for a Creator with a benevolent view, but then youd have a huge rational argument about why we are programmed to kill and torture and so on. It does show that morality precedes religion, that ethics precedes religion, not the other way around.
Still, I wonder if our survival as a species is something we can will, given a consciousness that is able to make its imagination seem real?
We cant stand far enough outside of our dilemma to think it completely through. Its like the mind/body distinction. There may not be a distinction. The mind is clever enough to consider the distinction, but its not clever enough to get far enough outside the body to arbitrate it.
And thats the rub.
We dont know that were not dreaming. Look, we cant resolve these things today. We are having quite a high-level discussion, about things that are fairly imponderable to combat, ??>?up against a phalanx of people who say, Whats the point in having this discussion? We already know the answer. Whats the point of struggling and arguing and researching? This is what I find hateful.
Some people might accuse you of asking everybody to be comfortable living in a Godless universe that is completely indifferent to them. How do you imagine people will go about satisfying their own sense of purpose?
Obviously, its not possible for people to do that all of the time, but it is possible for them not to draw any conclusions from their belief that the universe is all about them. If a huge rusted fridge fell through the ceiling and obliterated you without warning, I would think, well, that was lucky. Presuming that the fridge was directed at neither of us, its not lucky at all. But I would not be human if I didnt think it was a bit of luck. This is why religion cant be beaten, because it does derive from all these forms of selfishness, self-centeredness, fantasy and so on. Fine, I concede to that, but then why do people keep saying that I have to respect it? I dont have to respect any belief, nor do you, that a rusted fridge that killed you and didnt kill me was a piece of luck. You do not have to respect that. You can recognize it and see where it comes from. You can analyze it, you can even sympathize with it. You cant really say that I insist also that you respect it.
There is in religion, however, some practical application. Take, for instance, the very radical notion that the meek have some intrinsic value. African-Americans, just to take an obvious example, were told for centuries that they were something much less than human, so for them to have access to a Bible that tells them that they are significant, that white society doesnt determine their worth is, well, significant. For them it was a belief system that acknowledged, and still does in large part, that they were mistreated human beings. Respecting that aspect of religion doesnt demand that you also kowtow to superstition.
Of course, of course; since theres no justice in this world there better be some justice on offer in the next. Again, you can see where it comes from, fine. Its the same when Karen Armstrong [author of The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions] writes about Islam. Arabs were being teased by Jews and Christians, You havent had a prophet yet. Well, they were going to get one, werent they? Then you have the Archangel Gabriel appear to some fucking peasant merchant who cant read, exactly borrowed from the [Judeo-Christian] faith. Yes, of course I understand that, but its too much to ask me to believe it. Its too much to ask me to respect it. Its too much like I would be, too much like myself. I cant respect something that follows my own wish fulfillment. I dont. The last time I prayed was for an erection. Dont ask me if I got it or not.
Having had just enough Sunday school to know the story of Lots wife and how to recognize an unhealthy temptation when I heard one, I struggled hard to keep my eyes above c-level and asked Hitchens a final question about whose existence was easier to disprove, Henry Kissingers or Gods. He laughed and said that it was the same process for eviscerating each high-profile Jew in print and that, essentially, the quantitative differences between nonexistent entities was not measurable, the difference between the hole in a very old bagel and the hole in a relatively recent one.
When he stood to say goodbye, I did not stand to shake his hand, not because I was trying to be disrespectful, but rather because I figured a greater disrespect mightve been expressed had I fallen down on him clumsily while vomiting out my eye sockets. (Remember the Merlot.) Waiting until I was sure he was a safe distance away, I stood slowly, stacking my vertebrae like hermit crabs beneath a bowling ball, and zigzagged to the mens room, the whole way thinking how much shorter Hitchens book couldve been given its basic premise that stupid people whose stupidity manifested itself in theism had no right to implicate other people in their stupidity. With the right editor, I told myself, the new version of the book would be small enough to fit comfortably into the palm of ones hand, specifically as a coiled middle finger ready to spring upward in an instant at the first sign of an approaching beatific expression, circumcised penis or Osmond.
In fact, his refusal to expand his hatred of stupidity to include even the most glaring and uncontroversial secular examples made his middle-finger assault on religious idiocy seem at times as pandering as the worst sort of prejudice; you either assume that everybody has a right to a different opinion, just as everybody has a right to a different favorite color, or you recognize the ludicrousness of such a charitable notion and you say that nobodys opinion is any more or less useful to the comprehension of life than anybody elses and, therefore, everybody is supremely fucked.
At least thats what I thought before I walked into the mens room, which was lit dimly, in a Kenny G/Hai Karate sort of way, and found myself surrounded on all sides, ceiling too, by several hundred interlocking 10-inch square mirrors. Allowing the mirror-covered door to close behind me, I shuffled forward holding my hands out in front of me and, miraculously, found a urinal. Unpacking myself and engaging gleefully in what Emerson called an intelligence served by organs, I noticed eight-thousand versions of myself doing the same thing all around me, all from a slightly different angle.
It then occurred to me that if I considered all the mirrors surrounding me as having an equally viable perspective of the universe as myself, with each perspective being an incontrovertible statement of fact, the majority of mirrors, I noticed while craning my neck around sufficiently to momentarily corrupt my aim, not containing me at all, Id never be able to find my way out, nor would I be able to corroborate my existence in the first place.
I recognized, despite having skin as light as a nightgown and a face as anchored to my skull as an omelet is to a nonstick pan, how much integrity there was in assuming something less than omniscience in the?infinitely schizophrenic honesty surrounding us all.
GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything | By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS | Twelve | 320 pages | $25 hardcover
Hitchens appears in conversation with Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten at the Los Angeles Public Library, 630 W. Fifth St., downtown, on Monday, June 4, at 7 p.m. (213) 228-7025. Hitchens also appears at Barnes & Noble, 1201 Third St. Promenade, Santa Monica, on Tues., June 25, at 7:30 p.m. (310) 260-9110.As Mr. Fish, Dwayne Booth is a regular political cartoonist for L.A. Weekly. Click here for a slideshow of his most recent cartoons.
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you’ll never miss LA Weekly's biggest stories.