Part two of a two-part reaction to Christopher Hitchens's Common Hour talk on Friday, March 28.
My last column ("Responding to Hitchens's ethical challenge," Apr. 4, 2008) looked at Christopher Hitchens's challenge to theists: "Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." Basically, I concluded that Hitchens misses the point of religion. The purpose of adhering to religious beliefs is not to be better than nonbelievers, it is to improve oneself and find meaning for moral actions that were otherwise absent. Hitchens' claim that "religion poisons everything" can be simply refuted by one person claiming that religion has bettered his or her life.
This week, I address his statement that religion is immoral. However, I wish to make a few points before I begin discussing this sensitive subject. First of all, as Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist, I am not an anti-atheist. Nowhere in my column last week nor this week will I suggest that atheists need to undergo a mass conversion. I did not say that we all must have religion to function and I will not claim that atheists should become theists.
At Bowdoin, I have encountered some antagonism between religion and intellect. This animosity has not been universal; I have had some very positive experiences with professors and students with whom I do not see eye-to-eye. However, having Hitchens speak at Common Hour epitomized the tension. I am merely defending the intellectual validity of religion because Bowdoin brought in one of the world's best-known evangelists of atheism. I view theistic evangelism in a different light than I did a year ago. My column last year, "Nietzsche said 'God is dead.' Is a world without religion better off?" (Apr. 27, 2007) stepped on some toes. I apologize for that and if I could do life over again I would not have written it. In a subsequent response, I stated that God is necessary for morality to have meaning. This was way off base and, quite frankly, arrogant. I now recognize that people find meaning in places that I do not, and I cannot argue with where people find their own meaning. I have come to recognize that there are limits to human knowledge and what we are able to know about each other. Beliefs are beliefs, not provable, particularly when it comes to finding meaning in our individual lives.
This week I had planned on discussing morality, specifically Hitchens' point that religion itself is immoral. I would like to thank Garrick Sheldon '10 ("Religion not the root of moral reasoning," Apr. 11, 2008) for responding to my piece, as his argument echoes Hitchens' sentiments. He claims that morality grounded in religious beliefs is "insulting," for it "suggests that one's sense of morality cannot stand on its own; that it needs divine support."
Does morality need divine support? Before I tackle the question, I will define a couple of terms. In the field of philosophy, there is a difference between necessary existence and existence. The classic example of necessary existence was articulated by the French philosopher Descartes, who stated, "I think, therefore I am." Something is necessary when it simply has to be true. In order to think, we must exist. Thus, because I think, I necessarily exist. Other things do not necessarily exist. "I run, therefore I am fast" does not have a necessary connection. One can run quickly or one can run slowly.
How does this relate to morality? Morality can exist without God. Hitchens, Dawkins, Sheldon, and a myriad of others who do not believe in God can live moral lives. Atheists devise systems of ethics to which they adhere. Even if God does not exist, morality still can exist for those who want an ethical code.
So why invoke a deity? If God does not exist, and someone simply does not care if their actions exploit others, or care about right and wrong, there is no philosophical, knockdown argument that will cause that individual to act morally. If an uncaring individual asks, "Why should I?" and "So what?" over and over again, we reach a philosophical dead end. There simply is no ultimate reason why the person should behave a certain way; there are proximate reasons such as societal pressures and laws, but for me, the only ultimate reason is God's existence.
If there is life after death, and if we are somehow, someday, accountable for our actions, then morality necessarily exists. If there is a deity whose perfect essence determines the moral laws, then morality necessarily exists. Such a God is perfect and unchanging (meaning he cannot deviate from his perfect nature), the essence of which is defined by love, giving morality a perfect, loving foundation. Only if God exists is there an ultimate argument to the apathetic individual who does not care about wrong and does not care about others. Thus, morality can exist outside of God, but, what Sheldon considers a "fatuous connection" of morality and the divine is, for me, the nexus that makes the practical aspect of morality philosophically necessary.
There are things I would not care about as an unbeliever that I do as a believer. The ancient Hebrew writers were very familiar with this concept. In multiple examples in the Old Testament, people acted in just manners because they believed they were accountable to an entity beyond themselves. Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sheldon might not find meaning here. If one is insulted by this idea, then leave it alone. We live where one is free to believe what he or she wishes regarding the meaning of life. I'm not trying to say you need to have it. However, it is philosophically sound to believe in a deity to whom we are accountable (unless we want to consider Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and Louis Pasteur irrational fools).
My problem with atheistic evangelists (not all atheists, just the evangelists, similar to how the unbeliever typically feels about the believing evangelists) begins when someone is actually arrogant enough to think they know my mind or what I need to find meaning. An atheist could find a secular inspiration for acting like Tom Skinner, improving my relationships, or a C.S. Lewis life change. However, that is not a necessary connection. Tom Skinner said that he needed God to not retaliate against the racist. C.S. Lewis stated he needed God to open up to others. I am saying that I need to recognize God's grace to better forgive. One cannot argue with testimony. To claim that another worldview would have the same effect on me is unfounded arrogance. If one's atheism is sufficient for him, by all means, go ahead and live above the "fatuous connection" that intellectuals throughout history such as Kant, Bach, Milton, Lewis, and Osler needed.
Life after death is something that cannot be proved nor disproved. It takes faith to believe in an afterlife or its absence. I find that belief in a resurrection brings ultimate meaning to life. Many don't. But since it can be neither proved nor disproved, we really have no right to tell each other what to believe. There is no logical reason why atheism or secular inspiration would have necessarily made me a better person. It could have. But guess what? A religion did. It may be just as likely that, without religion, Skinner's, Lewis's, or my life could have been worse. Not every atheist sees the world through the rose-colored glass of Hitchens. Jean Paul Sartre struggled deeply with his atheism, considering suicide a legitimate action to take based on existence in a godless world. I tend to agree with Sartre. I find this current life being the end of it all rather hopeless. It may not to everyone, and that is fine. Since we cannot prove transcendence one way or the other, we have no grounds for telling others where we must find meaning.
But Hitchens would argue that we need to get rid of religion because religious individuals' convictions affect the lives of those around them. However, the convictions of atheists implicate the lives of their neighboring theists. E. E. Ehrhardt articulates this point: "The effects of religion in politics and everyday life cannot be separated. Politics consists of the actions of individuals. Religion poisons politics through its effects on individuals" ("Religion not the root of moral reasoning," Apr. 11, 2008). For those who are bitter toward religion because of a negative experience with "intolerant" religious folk, I'm sorry that had to happen. No one is perfect. Perhaps we should all be paragons of tolerance and open-mindedness like atheists such as Hitchens (again, I know not all atheists are evangelical about their beliefs). I believe religion mainly becomes a political poison when it gains the power of coercion. For Ehrhardt's claim to be valid, secularists would need to come to one conclusion regarding a moral problem or political position, and religious individuals would have to come to the opposite. However, this rarely, if ever, is what we observe. I know Christians, who, because of their religious convictions are at the far left of the political spectrum and the far right. I know atheists, who, because of their secular beliefs are at the far left and far right of the political spectrum. Also, in order for her argument to be valid, atheists would need to be free of bias in the political arena. Can anyone claim that?
I know religious individuals and secularists who are for the death penalty, against the death penalty, pro-life, pro-choice, in support of an inheritance tax, against an inheritance tax, pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, etc., etc., etc. Secular ethicists do not always come to a consensus on what is right and wrong in public policy. For example, the Kantian thinker may be for the death penalty, the utilitarian against it. Thus, without a secular ethical consensus, how can they criticize religious individuals for coming to their same conclusions?
Finally, I wish to reiterate one truth. God can be neither proved nor disproved. Religious individuals and atheists alike need to remember this fact. If the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you, is innate to humans, then both sides need to remember this when trying to tell the other how to live. The Orient editors disallow multiple responses, so this will probably be the last I write on religion. If theism is lambasted in letters to the editor next week, remember that very, very smart people are atheists and very, very smart people are theists. If science is capable of "disproving" God, how is it that a good portion of the nuclear physics faculty at MIT meets weekly for a Bible study? Worldviews stem from premises that simply are not provable. For those reading who are theists and were troubled or intimidated by Hitchens's comments and other atheistic evangelists who are so insistent that religion is immoral, insulting, or needs to be eradicated for the good of mankind, take comfort in a rich tradition of inspiring intellectual theists who did not find the connection between morality and the divine fatuous. Among many others, consider Copernicus, Baqli, Spinoza, Arabi, Akiva, von Braun, Pascal, Eliot, Kant, Wilberforce, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King, Jr.