Religion – it shouldn’t matter
Christopher Hitchens
This was my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, 1 January
The death of Christopher Hitchens last month was an irksome reminder that some of the people who are most preoccupied with the idea of God are those who don’t believe in any such thing.
It is the unbeliever’s conundrum that the knowledge that God does not exist is not sufficient for personal peace. It often comes complete with a messianic zeal to rival and even beat that of true believers.
Nobody who has ever been caught in the conversational crossfire between proselytizing believers and unbelievers, intent on scoring points and on the conversion of bystanders, can fail to know this.
Try interrupting the flow of argument with the rejoinder that you couldn’t care less either way because the existence or otherwise of a God makes no difference to your life or behaviour, that you would be pleased to have definite proof of God but not unduly disturbed to have definite proof of the contrary, and you will find that believers and unbelievers are united in a rare moment of incredulity as they chastise you for your indifference.
You would assume, in that position, that somebody who doesn’t believe in God or religion would be indifferent to both, just as you are, but this is not quite the case because what we are talking about here is not so much lack of belief in God and religion as opposition to both ideas.
And opposition, by definition, is not indifferent. It is passionate and committed, and that is why so many unbelievers find themselves engaged in battle after battle, trying to win people over to their cause.
Christopher Hitchens was possibly the most attractively eloquent unbeliever of our times, acquiring an enormous following even among those who singularly failed to agree with him. There is something unfailingly compelling about arguments which are so well made, which are so strongly rooted in reason and logic.
Hitchens tended towards the liberal in his thinking, but he was championed and lionised by the illiberal, the authoritarian, even the fascistic, who glossed over the distinction between arguing against religious faith and arguing against the continued existence of religion.
To say that somebody is credulous to believe in the tenets of religious faith, that religion is responsible for many of the world’s ills, is not the same thing as saying that there should be no religion.
The truly liberal view is the ‘live and let live’ approach: whether you are a believer or an unbeliever does not bother me as long as your beliefs, either way, do not impinge on my own choices or those of others. That has long since come to be my own view. Discussions for or against religion bore me and I think that by now we should have moved way beyond that.
In contemporary democracies, religion is not a threat to individual choices, life and liberty and so it should not be treated as though it is one. Similarly, unbelievers should not behave as though they would, if they could, pose a threat to the fundamental human right of freedom of religion.
Some unbelievers fall into the trap of being just as illiberal and domineering as extreme believers, wishing to impose their views and beliefs (for passionate opposition to religion is a belief system in itself) on the rest of society, while realising that they cannot do this.
I cannot agree with their opinion. While being not at all religious myself, I enjoy various manifestations of religious belief and think that they add to, rather than subtract from, society. This is all the better and more interesting if the religions are multifarious.
I do agree that the over-riding domination of society by a single religion which shapes most aspects of life is unpleasant and poses a threat to human rights and liberty, while also stifling growth, but secular democracy guards against this and we live with no such worries even though we can observe them elsewhere.
The president of the Malta Humanist Society said, when Christopher Hitchens died, that Hitchens showed us that a world without religion can be a better place. I don’t think that statement was quite accurate, and might be a misquotation. Embedded in it is the implication that Hitchens wished for the eradication of religion, when his arguments were all to do with the futility of belief. He argued for the falling away of that belief, through persuasion.
Even so, we have no way of knowing that a world without religion would be a better place. It would certainly be a far less interesting place.
Societies where religion was forcibly eradicated – in the Soviet Union, for instance – were certainly not better, but that is mainly because of the concomitant totalitarianism which is a prerequisite for such a ban.
Societies where interest in religion has fallen naturally away over the course of the 20th century – Europe and North America in general – are certainly better than they were when religion dominated the state of play, but then again, that is mainly because of the concomitant secular democracy which is a prerequisite for free decisions on whether to be religious or not.
Rather than arguing for or against God, for or against religion, I think it makes far more sense – even at a personal level – to reason instead in terms of honesty.
When people work hard at convincing others about these subjects, whether it is for or against, I can’t help thinking that it is themselves, first and foremost, who they are trying to convince.
People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.
75 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Brilliant. As always.
“When people work hard at convincing others about these subjects, whether it is for or against, I can’t help thinking that it is themselves, first and foremost, who they are trying to convince”.
You couldn’t have said it better!
JC.
Then the Pope must be the greatest agnostic.
This one is, he happens to be one pure theologian who doesn’t mind delving into doubt as the reinforcement of faith.
@ Jozef:
There are three motives for seeking evidence:
1. To vindicate your views through the evidence.
2. To discredit other people’s views through the evidence.
3. To form your opinion to wherever the evidence takes you.
Now, if one delves into doubt as a reinforcement of faith, one would fall into category 1. Such people can hardly be called agnostic.
My mention of the Pope was made in reference to the claim that “when people work hard at convincing others about these subjects…I can’t help thinking that it is themselves, first and foremost, who they are trying to convince”.
Since the Pople presumably does work hard at convincing others that Jesus is God (among other things), does this mean that it is himself, first and foremost, that he is trying to convince (that God exists)? I don’t think so.
I think you may be confusing faith with evidence. Faith is nothing without doubt. If anything, evidence reduces faith.
The believer is aware he can lose it, which is why it requires greater strength than that gathered by reason alone.
A dogma of the faith is exactly what it is. There is no further derivation in its semantic, or better, it exists when and because it cannot be explained.
Paradox, much like Schroedinger’s cat, or Adam’s non-negative number, (the one which is anything other than itself). Does this exist in ‘reality’?, of course not, can you conceive it? yes.
The atheist, alas, by definition, lacks the courage to foment doubt against his conviction, preferring the safety of Newtonian reason. Especially when scientific evidence became contradictory to hold itself.
This pope holds regular sessions with declared atheists to uncover a fleeting material truth. Material in this case as derived from ‘materia’ which is nothing but the manifestation of perception.
One of the most interesting theories being developed is the so called pixel reality, where it is being theorised that light and its converse, matter, behave pretty much like pixels on a computer screen. You can see where this could lead.
All I’m saying is that doubt is necessary for an inkling of a greater beauty, which is after all what we’re concerned with.
@ Jozef:
Faith is belief without evidence (or in spite of contrary evidence).
@ Jozef:
“The atheist, alas, by definition, lacks the courage to foment doubt against his conviction”.
False. The atheist, because he holds no dogmatic faith, will change his convictions when presented with new contradicting evidence.
Let me clarify this further. No atheist I know has ever vowed to remain atheist for the rest of his life. So the atheist is an atheist only at this point in time…at this very second. He may stop being an atheist the next second. Atheism is only a declaration of disbelief in God at this point in time.
Therefore, the assertion that an atheist “by definition” lacks the courage to foment doubt against his conviction is false because it rests on a non-sequitur – that to disbelieve in something at this point in time implies that one cannot change his mind another time.
Unfortunately many people fail to understand the distinction between wishing there were no religion (if that is one’s personal opinion) and actively wishing (or actively attempting) to ban religion.
I know many people of the former persuasion (who privately or publicly wish that people would voluntarily forego of religious and/or superstitious beliefs), but none of the latter (expemting despots such as Stalin, whose reason for attempting to ban religion were because he perceived it as a threat to his power).
“…the rejoinder that you couldn’t care less either way because the existence or otherwise of a God makes no difference to your life or behaviour” seems to be a cop out.
An atheist who may still be grappling with his/her upbringing would say that.
[Daphne – Actually, it’s the opposite. Those who swerve most fervently into the belief that there is no God, with a compulsion to tell everyone about it, tend to be individuals who have had rather too much religion in their lives (there are exceptions, of course). I didn’t have a religiously oppressive upbringing at all. I’m relaxed about it because that’s how it’s been all my life. My opposition has never been to religion itself, but to the imposition of religious rules.]
In the main I see religion as being divisive, even in countries where it does not play such a major role in society.
[Daphne – You can’t ban something or object to it on the grounds that it is divisive. Politics are divisive. So is football. So, for that matter, is popular music or possessions. Life is not a Coca-Cola advertisement from the early 1970s. Divisons and fights are normal. You just need the control systems in place to make sure things don’t get out of hand.]
And furthermore, progress / affluence of any nation per se is absolutely no guarantee that it will not play a highly influential – nay, invasive and oppressive – role in the society in that country, or threaten to, even via a democratic process.
No need to take a cliche’d look at the likes of Saudi Arabia, just take much of the American Midwest and South where the extreme religious fundamentalism (and ignorance) of many is rampant. It’s not an impossibility for someone of the likes of Rick Santorum, if not necessarily him – opposed to contraception – to become the president of the US.
The zeal that some atheists display is only a result of a desire to improve humanity by causing it to dispel ancient beliefs that are causing harm to it, not to mention harm to the planet itself.
Apathy “couldn’t care less either way” implies acceptance of the current highly deficient state of affairs.
“An atheist who may still be grappling with his/her upbringing would say that.”
[Daphne – Actually, it’s the opposite. Those who swerve most fervently into the belief that there is no God, with a compulsion to tell everyone about it, tend to be individuals who have had rather too much religion in their lives (there are exceptions, of course). I didn’t have a religiously oppressive upbringing at all. I’m relaxed about it because that’s how it’s been all my life. My opposition has never been to religion itself, but to the imposition of religious rules.]
I wrote that rather badly. Rather than upbringing in itself, upbringing and family. In a country such as Malta “coming out” as an atheist may be considered as “bad” as “coming out” as a homosexual. Note that the “bad” is of course not my take on it, just that of a large part of society. Hence some people just fence-sit.
“In the main I see religion as being divisive, even in countries where it does not play such a major role in society.”
[Daphne – You can’t ban something or object to it on the grounds that it is divisive. Politics are divisive. So is football. So, for that matter, is popular music or possessions. Life is not a Coca-Cola advertisement from the early 1970s. Divisons and fights are normal. You just need the control systems in place to make sure things don’t get out of hand.]
Oh no that’s not the main reason although a good one nonetheless. But you read my other post so I’ll not repeat. Nevertheless – Politics is essential, so we have to live with it’s negatives; And the other comparisons – those are enjoyable pursuits that do not lead to obsessive, irrational behaviour. We could live happily ever after without any religious beliefs and not miss a thing except the problems that religions create. Unfortunately “control systems” can not be relied upon, ever. Why? Because these can be put in place and removed by the very people who may also have irrational beliefs.
Agree that in a free and liberal (in its real sense, not as used locally) society, no one should be trying to convince anyone else about her beliefs or lack of them.
However I suspect that the main reason why people without religion find themselves defending their position, is that for hundreds of years, in this part of the world at least, you would be hanged and quartered for showing such emotions. And in Malta the situation is probably amongst the worst that still exist, in terms of “persecution” for showing a non-religious allegiance.
It’s like when female equality activists needed to be very vocal to be heard or the black community in the US needed to convince the white majority about their rights, not that in principle anyone should have needed to be convinced.
It’s about having to fight to gain your space in an unbalanced situation, fighting for the right to be able to enjoy your beliefs freely, rather convincing others to follow your beliefs.
And if anyone in this country needs to step back in their crusade of conversion, I would argue it’s the Catholic establishment. And then we can live and let live, happily ever after.
“When people work hard at convincing others about these subjects, whether it is for or against, I can’t help thinking that it is themselves, first and foremost, who they are trying to convince”.
Alternatively, they could be people who are so much passionate about the truth that they work very hard to try to convince others of their perceived truths. I consider myself to be one such person…although admittedly, I know when a discussion has reached an impasse, and often know when to stop. I also tend to be the kind of person who will engage in a debate, but seldom start it myself.
But enough about me. I get the gist of your article, and I mostly agree.
“People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat”.
I would substitute “because” with “if”.
“When people work hard at convincing others about these subjects, whether it is for or against, I can’t help thinking that it is themselves, first and foremost, who they are trying to convince.”
I need no convincing (about the inexistence of any god), believe me, but will debate this with a believer till the cows come home (if I’m in the mood of course!).
“People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.”
Come now Daphne – NO THREAT? Again, no need for cliches such as the nevertheless very real threat of being blown out of the skies by some fanatic – Was it not primarily others’ religious beliefs that, closer to home and still fresh in the mind, resulted in Malta being the penultimate country in the world to introduce the civil and totally secular right to divorce?
There can be no such thing as a completely secular state as long as a number of inhabitants of that state are not secular.
They still have a right to vote for anyone who promises a non secular way of living that fits in with their beliefs and that will be imposed upon others, so yes, others’ beliefs are and always will be a threat.
Sitting on the fence is not an option, fences are wobbly and one may fall on either side.
Atheism, at least the militant form esposued by the late Hitchens, and by the other three so-called “Horsemen of New Atheism”, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, IS a religion.
An atheist, as opposed to an agnostic, takes sides on the issue.
The existence or otherwise of God is a proposition which cannot be proven or disproved, as Dawkins himself argues. Taking a position on this question, is, therefore, a personal decision which, by definition, cannot be based on reason alone.
Same thing as saying that the world without religion “would be a better place”. How can we ever prove this empirically? We might “believe” that it would be a better place, but there we are, talking again about “belief”. I believe I have made my point.
@ Albert Farrugia:
“Atheism, at least the militant form esposued by the late Hitchens, and by the other three so-called “Horsemen of New Atheism”, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, IS a religion”.
Define “militant” and “religion”. I am certain that Dawkins, Harris and Dennett neither proposed physically attacking believers, nor banning religion. So you need to define what you mean by militant. Its pejorative sense requires this. As for “new” atheism being a religion, again, you need to define what you mean by religion. If you mean being passionate about real or perceived truths, then maths (or anything else) could be a religion.
“An atheist, as opposed to an agnostic, takes sides on the issue”.
So does anyone who does not believe in fairies or Santa Claus.
“The existence or otherwise of God is a proposition which cannot be proven or disproved, as Dawkins himself argues”.
It depends on what version of God one is speaking of (there are millions). Some versions are easily disproven through logic and science. In any case, one cannot disprove fairies and invisible unicorns, but I assume you don’t believe in either. So while I understand and can accept that you might believe in God, disbelief in God is not an unreasonable position at all, especially when one holds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“Taking a position on this question, is, therefore, a personal decision which, by definition, cannot be based on reason alone”.
Yes, it is a personal decision everyone has the right to make (as long as it is not imposed). But tell me, by what means other than reason can that decision be made?
“Same thing as saying that the world without religion ‘would be a better place’. How can we ever prove this empirically? We might ‘believe’ that it would be a better place, but there we are, talking again about ‘belief’. I believe I have made my point”.
Yes, you’re right, to a certain extent. Happiness is so subjective, and depends on so many factors other than beliefs, that 100% certainty that the world would be a better place for everyone if there were no religion, would be unreasonable. One can only speculate and base his thoughts on probabilities. The problem is when utopians of any kind (religious, atheist, political), through their militant (in its proper sense) zeal to create what they believe would be a better world, impose their worldview through force. And we all know where that leads to (Inquisitions, concentration camps, etc). But none of the so-called “new atheists” are of this kind.
Albert,
If only everyone were as gentle.
I am agnostic. The existence or otherwise of God plays no role in my everyday life. I just don’t care.
I would have thought that the people who are most aggressive towards my position would be people who have beliefs. Believers usually don’t flinch when they hear my point of view.
Probably because most believers, deep down, know that most of what they believe in is hocus pocus anyway. When they try to pursue the argument with me, they are usually cordial not aggressive in the arguments.
Funnily enough, I usually get the most aggressive reaction from atheists.
Their staunch disbelief in the existence of a divinity makes them more obsessed with the divine! I believe some of them are still attached to the Sistine Chapel image of an old bearded man, sitting on a cloud, overlooking the actions of each and every one of us, and its this fantastical image of god that they really can’t stomach.
A well written and worth reading article. An article that provides the reader with much food for thought. Surely one of the questions that some people have been trying to come to grips all their life: Has God created man or man created god?
I am more inclined to believe that it was man’s work but I totally agree with you that everyone has the right to his beliefs.
I don’t fully agree with your point of view. While you do have a point that atheists do tend to get overly worked up about things, especially when arguing with a believer, I do not think that atheists in general push for the eradication of religion by forceful or authoritarian means.
On the contrary, my experience of these arguments are, in your words, arguing “.. for the falling away of that belief, through persuasion.”
When one is absolutely convinced of his own world view, be it through logic and deduction, or be it by indoctrination and tradition, it is not surprising that furious arguments ensue.
I would argue that such arguments are actually, on the whole beneficial, in the same way that the national issue of divorce was.
I can’t agree with you more on this. One’s religion or lack of it should be an entirely personal matter. The moment it becomes somebody else’s business it departs from from being a religion (or an absence of religion) and becomes a matter of control, of power.
That is not to say I disagree with organised religion. If any number of people want to share the same beliefs, meet and pray in a mosque, temple or church, or anywhere else, that is fine by me. Even better if their religion promotes the creation of foundations and charities that improve the human condition such as Caritas and id-Dar tal-Providenza. A lot of good has come out of religion.
But I simply cannot believe that any human being really knows who God is and what she/he/it wants, if indeed she/he/it really exists.
As long as I am content with my beliefs and everyone else is content with theirs and we leave it at that – without trying to impose our beliefs on each other – then religion wouldn’t matter.
A very well written article. Enjoyed reading it. I strongly agree with the fact that no one should impose their beliefs on anyone else. Live and let live as they say!
A fascinating article, Daphne.
I watched a debate (Is religion good or bad for the world?) between Hitchens and Tony Blair in Toronto in late 2010. Hitchens had been diagnosed with oesophagal cancer earlier in the year and was unrecognizable–hair lost due to chemo, coughing, thinner, UNTIL he opened his mouth.
The debate lasted one and a half hours. Well moderated, civil, courteous, no blasphemy, no shouting or screaming etc (just like the rock).
Both presented their case. Hitchens starting with his cogent argument. Blair rebutted, but it was instantly understood that he was out of his depth when facing the master of wit, humour and reason.
We, in the audience, overwhelming voted for Hitchens. He is a great loss.
[Daphne – I read about that debate. It made all the London broadsheets. Lucky you to have been there.]
Spellbound for one and a half hours.
Read ‘God is not Great’, Daphne.
Orthodox atheism failed in its quest to quell the irrational. The intention might have been noble, the premise, however, false.
It relied on scientific determinism and logic until the instrument used, mathematics, resulted inadequate out of its own conclusions. Religious orthodoxy, when intertwined with a design for an ideal society, preceded it down the same path.
What is fascinating is how theoretical physics, atheism’s prerogative until recently, turned metaphysics to allow itself a future, abandoning both postulations to uncertainty.
In other words both the believer and non-believer ask the same question. It doesn’t matter who’s right.
Very simply – humanity does not understand everything.
Believers fill in the gaps with made up stories with no basis whatsoever.
Non believers don’t.
Anyway, C Nicall did a better job of it.
I do hope that there is a God and that there is some sort of afterlife because I wouldn’t dream of having people like Hitler, Stalin etc and Mother Teresa ending up in the same place.
Why not? It would certainly be more interesting than having Dun Gorg, Adeodata Pisani and Nazju Falzon all in the same place and agreeing on everything.
Very funny, Baxxter. Even chuckled out loud. (no one heard, I hope).
@ GiovDeMartino:
If there is no afterlife, none of the people you mention will end up anywhere, let alone in the same place.
Christopher Hitchens took such a stance against religion due to the fact that religious people continued to be so vocal about their beliefs. He had said that he would prefer not to know what people believe and that religion be kept as a purely personal issue.
Atheists who engage in discussions with religious people do so in an attempt to try and get them to realise how utterly dumb they are being. As for atheists attempting to convince agnostics, that makes no sense at all. Let me put it thus: Atheism is akin to saying there is no werewolf hiding under your bed ready to bite your foot off as soon as it slips from under the duvet. If a person does not believe there is a werewolf under the bed, there is nothing to convince them of.
Atheism as opposition is not a Left vs Right debate. It is simply saying that religious people are talking bollocks. There is no counter argument. There is only “no, that’s rubbish” as a reply. Let’s try something:
“Hey, there’s a werewolf hiding under my bed ready to bite my foot off.”
“No, there isn’t. Look under the bed and you’ll see for yourself.”
“The werewolf is invisible.”
“Right. You are an idiot.”
At this point the awerewolfist leaves you alone to dribble in a corner. But the “believer” now has to go around trying to tell everyone about the werewolf…and then raises children with the same fanatical belief in the non-existent. Now, department stores selling beds are burned down to drive the werewolves out. The awerewolflist is now surrounded by loons. Wouldn’t life be so much easier if the “believers” sat down for a moment and thought about how thick they’re being? Yes.
“The truly liberal view is the ‘live and let live’ approach”, you say. And all right minded people would agree with that statement. The problem with religion (not just the Judeo-Christian flavours) is that they attempt to dominate every aspect of the lives of others. Just look at the recent debacle introducing divorce to Malta; people claiming some Jewish terrorist from 2000 years ago didn’t want it? Holy shit, if that is not religion interfering in my life, then you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Religion was not eradicated in the Soviet Union. In 1917 the Bolsheviks separated the church from the state. Church officials don’t like being removed from wielding power. Then the Russian Orthodox church was at various times from 1918 subjected to persecution. That the members and clergy were siding against the revolutionaries, some might say they were going to be treated as the enemy.
Conversely, let us consider countries where religion is part of the state: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think I’d rather live under the Soviet system.
Religion retards people and societies. If you want to believe in fairies, that’s your business. But don’t go round telling everyone about your fantasies and don’t think that your delusions command any form of respect. Your religion, like sex, should be a purely personal matter that you keep private.
“People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.” You ever hear of Islamic suicide bombers?
In closing, I would like to ask if you have read any of Hitch’s work? He was a remarkably eloquent writer.
If there is no counter argument, how does the argument exist?
Could not agree more with Daphne and Tim Ripard. It is a choice which everyone has a right to make.
While agreeing in large in your article I would disagree in one sense. What people like Christopher Hitchens and, in a tiny tiny way, people such as myself criticise isn’t personal beliefs.
If you want to believe in God, be my guest.
What we criticise is the excessive power and influence given to religious institutions and, more unfortunately, religious ideas.
We can’t exclude the fact that religion is an extremely strong force in large parts of the world and, in my book, I think the negative far exceeds the positive – although that can be debated.
It’s also very different between societies, even western democratic ones. Growing up in Sweden, religion was just never an issue, as it really is a personal belief. I don’t think you can say the same about the United States, or many southern European nations such as Malta (or perhaps, especially Malta).
If someone wants to believe in God I wish them all the best and I truly hope and trust it makes them happy.
If they want that belief imposed on others they can, figuratively speaking, go to hell.
In no way does that mean I think neither religious or non-religious people should stay out of the public sphere with their ideas, just keep it away from legislation and state affairs.
I agree that religion is an entirely private matter, and as I get older, I get less worked up or bothered about discussions about religion. Having said that, can I lead anyone into temptation to join Kopimism?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
You wrote that “People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.”
Catholics cannot just wish salvation for themselves. Of course they (we) are solely responsible for their (our) “individual” salvation, but they (we) cannot pass up any opportunity to be helpful, as it were.
Belief is necessarily a “collective” effort, whereas lack of belief – being a negative “entity” – is necessarily individual. This is not the place for going into this, but I had to point out that qualitatively belief on lack of belief are entirely different animals.
What an amazingly well written article! It was such a joy to read.
While Hitchens wasn’t pushing for the eradication of religion as such, he did consider himself an anti-theist, rather than an Atheist. That can give the general impression that he was against religion in such a way as to push for its eradication.
I consider myself to be an Atheist in that I do not believe in any supernatural deities, or anything of the supernatural sort.
Atheism has been marketed, for the past couple of decades, as the “religion” of choice for the smart and intelligent. Unfortunately, this has attracted a large number of absolute idiots who want to look smarter than they really are.
As an Atheist, I absolutely shun pulpit warriors who accuse non-believers and try to influence governments into “following the word of God”. I equally shun some half-witted dumbass (excuse my language there) who accuses religious people and work towards eradicating all traces of religion.
I’ve had some of these pseudo-Atheists accuse me of being a hypocrite for using “Oh my god”, “Bless you” or “Alla jbierek”. Yes, some of these people have gone to such lows as to attempt to eradicate religious elements in language.
Although I don’t actually wish God to bless anyone when someone sneezes, this is a remnant of hundreds of years of history, and part of our common heritage.
I hold this issue at heart for simple reason: Thanks to these idiots, I am now ashamed of calling myself an Atheist. Empty vessels make the loudest sound, and they have certainly deafened everyone with their antics, tainting everyone’s idea of what an Atheist really is.
I can relate to what you’re saying, although I do think that the idiotic atheists you are referring to are a tiny insignificant minority (although they might be the “loudest”). I also have a theory (that admittedly I cannot prove) that this kind of “atheist” is the kind that is only passing through a rebellous phase, and that atheism to them is just a banner to display their rebellion.
But being ashamed of calling yourself an atheist because of them, makes as much sense as being ashamed of calling oneself a Christian because of the Ku Klux Klan (to give an extreme example).
http://youtu.be/yH7K5mrZnFo?t=8m
You write that “People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.”
I strongly disagree with this, I myself am an atheist who is not indifferent to the beliefs of others – Because the religious beliefs of others are almost always to some extent imposed on everyone in society. Examples include the recent divorce issue (now resolved but it took many decades), not teaching children science which contradicts religion, female genital mutilation and so forth.
Although in the utopic secular society you propose nobody enforces their belief on others, this never happens in practice as people who sincerely believe that their Truth is the only One Truth are too often compelled to impose this Truth on everybody.
People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat.
Kliem l-Imghallem: ”Morru u aghmlu appostli mill-gnus kollha.”
If anybody is without spirituality he is without supernatural power. Only those who have an excellent relationship with the living God can attest to this. I have witnessed many miracles in my life and still do. Those who do not believe are missing a great deal in their life but it’s amazing how I really enjoy speaking to such.
Name one miracle then.
Hitchens has been variously been called a devout atheist and a fundamentalist atheist and he disagreed with both.
He was against such sobriquets and he gave the same reasons you, Daphne, have so eloquently written in this blog.
“People who are content in and convinced of their belief, or the lack it, are indifferent to the beliefs of others because they pose no threat” (DCG)
In my opinion God believers are only being faithful to the teaching of Christ to spread their gospel good news all over the world, otherwise they would expose themselves to the charge of being selfishly “indifferent to the unbeliefs of others. A sort of “I am all right Jack…….”
In our newspaper blogs it is usually lapsed Catholics, and atheists residing in Australia, the U.K. Canada etc that feel the urge to ridicule and to scorn the Christian practice in Malta and to force their atheism/agnosticism down the throats of Malta Catholics. Perhaps it is they who feel the need to convince themselves!
Catholics in Malta are provoked to react and to defend themslves from the scorn,the sarcasm and the contempt for their religious beliefs, often imported from abroad.
I am not aware of any counter intensive proselytising campaign by Malta Catholcs to force their belief in God on foreign atheists by flooding the columns of foreign newsapaper with derision for their agnosticism/atheism.
Dr Saliba, we invite derision because ours is a peasant, unsophisticated and uncouth form of Catholicism.
The Maltese display a worrying correlation between the degree of idiocy of their statements and the intensity of their faith.
We are the American Midwest of Europe, thick with evangelical zealots and creationists. Anyone planning a keyboard riposte should have a look at the giant anti-abortion billboard overlooking Birkirkara Bypass.
And signs prohibiting topless bathing in all possible languages on our beaches……
@ Francis Saliba MD:
“…and to force their atheism/agnosticism down the throats of Malta Catholics”.
So would you say that anyone writing any opinion in any newspaper or blog, is forcing their opinion down the throats of others, or does this only apply to atheists and atheism?
@Kenneth Cassar
Of course not. Expressing an opinion is a fundamental human right that I respect fully.
What I find objectionable is the disdain, the sarcasm, the scorn and the supercilious contempt adopted to force that opinion on Malta residents and their official religion – especially if the attempt is being made by atheists or agnostics insisting that we change our Constitution when they do not even have the right to vote.
Francis Saliba:
You have been playing that card for aeons now. In what sense is atheism being forced on anyone? Because someone comments in a newspaper?
But then again, isn’t that the problem. A theist needs to blow stuff up to be called militant, while an atheist simply needs to voice his opinion.
Voting right or not, the suggestion of many that Malta change its constitution is a validly held opinion that in no way is an attempt to force anyone into anything.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
I did not comment on your expected objection to disdain, sarcasm and scorn by some people towards religion. I’m not even mildly interested in that. It’s your opinion, and I know you’ll never change it.
My question referred to your claim that some people “force their atheism/agnosticism down the throats of Malta Catholics”.
I really would like to know how this could possibly be done except through phone calls, pamphlets distributed to personal home addresses or private emails.
But perhaps, in view of your explanation that you consider the expression of opinions to be a fundamental human right that you respect fully, you might wish to explain how posting atheistic comments in blogs and online newspapers could in any way be described as forcing atheism down the throats of Maltese Catholics, be the atheists Maltese residents or otherwise.
As for people verbally (through comments) insisting we change our Constitution when they do not have a vote, doesn’t that fall under “free speech” too? Or shall we revert to the “indhil barrani” (foreign interference) mentality of the Mintoff and KMB days?
@Kenneth Cassar (6 Jan at 11:39am)
I do not relish answering commenters who pretend not to understand simple English, so please do not be surprised if I will ignore you in future.
I did not object to the expression of any opinion for, or against, the existence of God. As I have told you already my objection is to the tone of disdain, the sarcasm, the scorn and the supercilious contempt adopted by foreign atheists in an attempt to force their atheist demands on Malta residents. That is what I consider to be ““forc(ing) their atheism down the throats of Malta Catholics”.
.
I do not deny to atheists, or lapsed Maltese Catholics residing abroad, their right to “free speech”. I insist on my equivalent right to free speech by protesting that we, Maltese residents, be permitted to manage our own affairs, e.g. as far as amending our Constitution, when we are the only people empowered to do that.
I think what Francis finds objectionable is the atheist posit, declared in no uncertain terms as truth, leaving no space for the plausibility and purpose of religious belief.
I’m afraid the Constitution invites such attack, mostly from those who tend to make the greatest racket, distorting any dialogue.
This doesn’t mean religion and its influence should be shunned from public discourse to pacify matters.
Personally I think it more healthy to have a Catholic Church antagonising secular institututions within a state, even more so considering its experience with the fragility of men and power.
@ Kenneth Cassar.
I anticipated that you would avoid commenting on my clear contention that pouring disdain, sarcasm and scorn on people, because they choose to believe in God, is not a simple civil and unobjectionable “expression of opinion” in the exercise of acceptable “free speech”.
I would not even dream of applying to you, and to atheists in general, the derogatory labels used by Baxxter (5 Jan 2012 at 7:58) to insult Maltese Catholics. Most certainly I do not pretend that I have any right to be uncivil in that fashion under the pretext of “free speech”.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
Oh, I do understand your English. You wrote:
“…and to force their atheism/agnosticism down the throats of Malta Catholics”.
Now, pray tell, how is this done? Through comments and letters? Are you forcing your opinion down our throats by commenting here?
You may have it so easy in The Times, with its amateur moderators. Here it’s different. Here we are allowed the right of reply.
So enough of your beating around the bush and reply to simple questions written in plain English, which I hope you are able to understand.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
By chickening out and refusing to answer my simple question (how is anyone ramming atheism down anyone else’s throat?), while pretending you are ignoring me, you prove H.P.Baxxter right.
Is it so hard for Christian fundamentalists to admit a simple mistake, even one that does not question their faith?
@ dominic : the divorce issue was won because of religion, the Church’s worries were and still are the negative effects of divorce on society.
Buddhist friends in Thailand always told me that if you find that your religion satisfies you then you’re OK. They never try to convert you – all they expect is reciprocal respect towards their beliefs.
You shouldn’t laugh at the dab of ‘cream’ or paste they put near the car rear view mirror for example or never ever touch their head.
Muslims in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia try to impose their religion on you subtly and not so subtly.
Indonesians would take you to restaurants which don’t serve alcohol and serve Halal food only. In Saudi you rarely see a face of a woman, forget about an alcoholic beer after supper and you have to put up with beef bacon for breakfast.
In Italy I used to be accosted by the same Bible Babtist (?) fervent missionary, a twenty-something American young man who used to offer me a Bible for free. After being stopped for the umpteenth time by this young man, I told him to reason things out with me: “We both believe in Jesus, now if we just do what Jesus told us to do and love our neighbour as we love ourselves, we would surely meet in heaven”.
From that day onwards we just nodded and smiled at each other when I happened to pass by his ‘area’.
In Communist or ex-Communist countries like China, Vietnam and Russia, from what I experienced, I think that ruthlessness is the order of the day. The reason for such behaviour could be that the values imposed by religion were just obliterated by communism and were not replaced with some set of other ‘good’ values.
When one lives in a country in which the majority of people believe or don’t believe in something, it goes without saying that the majority are imposing on the minority. You would have to put up with the Muezzins’ prayers from each Mosque at five in the morning in a Muslim country and the Church bells ringing the Angelus at eight or a death knell in a Catholic country.
@H P Baxxter.
Please leave me out of your wild generalisation that my Malta’s Catholicism is “peasant, unsophisticated and uncouth” or a display of “idiocy in (my) statements and the intensity of (my) faith”
The foreign atheist derision expressed in our media is not directed restrictively to any local practice – it is a basic and fundamental derision for the belief in God by the millions who belong to some deist religion or another!
Francis, (may I call you Francis?). I have yet to detect any foreigner casting ‘derision’, either on this thread, or in the media. Could you please cite an example?
I did not restrict my criticism to “this thread”. I referred distinctly to “foreign atheist derision in our MEDIA.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
“I referred distinctly to “foreign atheist derision in our MEDIA””
So did Harry Purdie.
I don’t generalise. I gather data and then construct models.
Now you may be the outlier on the graph, but if you want to challenge my point, then go ahead and name a few examples of Enlightened Catholicism on this benighted island of ours.
The divorce ‘debate’? The abortion question? The prayers for rain? Angelik? Festi? Firework factory accidents as an act of God?
I am not in the habit of involving other people or mentioning names on the orders of somebody else. I will speak for myself and I plead that as a Maltese Catholic of “intense faith” I have the right to adhere to the official Catholic belief regarding divorce, abortion, euthanasia and the efficacy of prayer when respectfully carried out as instructed by Christ.
It is my humble opinion that I have the fundamental and the constitutional right to practice Catholicism – or any other religion of my choice – without being derided as an idiot.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
You do have the fundamental and the constitutional right to practice Catholicism – or any other religion of your choice. But I don’t see anyone deriding you as an idiot. Perhaps you could be more specific and tell us who exactly you are referring to.
I am not a lawyer and I despise them, so don’t talk to me like one.
I distinguish between faith, ritual and hamallagni. If you believe that a virgin can give birth and still remain a virgin, I will laugh inwardly but I will not think of you as an idiot.
If you clap along to some white-suited celeb evangelist, I will think of you as an idiot, because you are being duped, and because that sort of activity is a stain upon European civilisation and only belongs in hillbilly country.
If you claim that your patients should not take medicine but only rely on Dun Gorg’s shoe laces, then yes, you would be an idiot, and a dangerous one.
There is a certain ostentation of one’s religion which is ridiculous if not done in style. Think of Filipinos crucifying themselves, and of shawl-clad Russians kneeling before an icon and thrice kissing the ground. A world of difference.
Think of the solid wisdom of John Henry Newman and the shamanism of Paul Cremona.
Besides which, Dr Saliba, idiocy will find any excuse to cover its sorry arse. In Malta it is often religion.
H.P. Baxxter, I don’t think it’s fair to include ‘festi’ (fiestas) and fireworks in the religious equation.
They are secular events which everyone including myself, a lapsed Catholic, enjoy.
I agree with you on the divorce, abortion and Angelik issues.
I don’t always get to agree with what you write, Daphne, but this time you were spot on.
Why is God less liberal than Hitchens?
Libby Purves
October 23 2007 9:26AM
A sharp article in the American Spectator reviews Christopher Hitchens’ recent debate on the existence of God. “The Hitchens argument in essence boiled down to this: if God existed, He would have to be as much of a liberal humanitarian as I am. Since the misery in the world and the violence in the Bible show that He obviously isn’t any kind of a liberal humanitarian, it must be equally obvious that He doesn’t exist. Q.E.D.”
@ Kenneth Cassar (6 Jan at 11:45 am)
I was referring “exactly” to H.P. Baxxter (5 Jan at 7:58) when he accused us Malta Catholics, who have an “intensity of our faith”, that we are “peasant and uncouth” and that he considers that a “degree of idiocy”.
@ Francis Saliba MD:
HP Baxxter was obviously generalising, and not referring to each and every Maltese Catholic. I hope you understood that much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ZUXyGWvJY&feature=player_embedded#!
I am a practising Catholic but I always found Hitchens very refreshing and challenging.
I devoured his columns on Vanity Fair and Slate. I never felt offended by whatever he wrote for I always found a sliver of truth even in his most savage attacks on religion. I miss him greatly.
@ H P Baxxter. (6 Jan at 12:33 pm)
Thrice in your comment you accuse me of being an idiot but only IF I believe certain things that you arbitrarily attribute to me. Forgive me if I ignore your attributions and your insolent vulgar tone. According to my “peasant and uncouth” nature (your words, not mine) your insolent tone does not contribute anything to logic.
Your original comment was an insult specifically aimed at us Maltese Catholics, not to Filipinos and Russians and not to the way that they incorporate their religion into their own different culture. Please stick to your original subject, chosen by you.and, please, do not treat me as some puppet on your string, to be manipulated wherever your fancy takes you. That is the type of idiocy that would be adopted as an excuse to cover (your) “you know what”.
I am more of a Richard Dawkins fan than Christopher Hitchens, albeit both eloquent at different levels. I am an atheist myself and have no problem with religion or any other folklore as long as they do not affect secularism that is the separation of state and religion, in a way that a religion is imposed or shoved forcibly down ones throat.
One can argue that in Malta we have not reached the desired level of state, religion separation and this is outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution where, whilst it advocates freedom of worship, conflictingly ‘imposes’ a religion on the state, by stating that Malta’s religion is the Roman Catholic one.
This might sound harmless to Catholics but in reality, since the Constitution influences laws passed in Parliament, this could be translated as impinging on people with different beliefs or no religion.