What Hitchens got wrong: Abolishing religion won’t fix anything

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/07/what_hitchens_got_wrong_abolishing_religion_wont_fix_anything/

SATURDAY, DEC 7, 2013 05:30 AM MST

Hitchens believed atheism would end world conflict. But the world's wars are about politics, not religion
SEAN MCELWEE


Christopher Hitchens (Credit: Twelve Books)

Religion has once again become the “opiate of the people.” But this time, instead of seducing the proletariat into accepting its position in a capitalist society, it lulls atheists into believing that abolishing religion would bring about utopia.

It is rather disturbing trend in a country whose greatest reformer was a Reverend — Dick Gregory has said, “Ten thousand years from now, the only reason a history book will mention the United States is to note where Martin Luther King Jr. was born” — to believe that religion is the root of all evil. And yet this is what the “New Atheism” (an anti-theist movement led originally by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the late — and great — Christopher Hitchens) movement asserts.

The fundamental error in the “New Atheist” dogma is one of logic. The basic premise is something like this:

1. The cause of all human suffering is irrationality

2. Religion is irrational

3. Religion is the cause of all human suffering

The “New Atheist” argument gives religion far, far too much credit for its ability to mold institutions and shape politics, committing the classic logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc — mistaking a cause for its effect.

more at link

[JoePhilly]

1. Religion is politics, but with God on your side.

[immoderate]

2. Straw man.

None of the atheists cited is quoted as saying that eliminating religion will solve all political problems. And he jousts at a dead man.

--imm

[skepticscott]

3. And the "logic" he attempts to attribute to atheists

is just idiotic. Talk about blatant intellectual dishonesty. He could not name one atheist, alive or dead, who has ever tried to justify the conclusion "Religion is the cause of all human suffering" in that way, or in ANY way, for that matter.

Leave it to Salon. Hack magnet.

[rug]

6. This comes pretty close.

"I know some religious people of all faiths that really are spiritual but religion overall has been poisonous to mankind."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218102067#post19

And right in this room.

Of, course, there's always this chestnut: "Religion poisons everything".

[immoderate]

9. Seems quite different to me.

Doesn't have that "exclusivity."

--imm

[rug]

12. Yes, "everything" seems rather limited.

[immoderate]

16. Well, it is everywhere, but it's not the only "thing."

But you knew that.

--imm

[Silent3]

22. Even saying religion poisons everything...

...is not the same as saying religion is the only form of poison, that all poisoning would end when religion is gone. That's the big unjustified leap, NOT being made by any prominent atheist, nor any other atheist that I've ever known, required for the OP to me anything more than beating on a straw man.

[rug]

23. Saying religion poisons everything is hyperbolic pap.

[Silent3]

24. So the only way to properly point out hyperbole...

...is to distort what you consider a distortion even further?

[rug]

25. No, one can also rephrase that to which one objects in such a fashion as to suggest that what

one objects to is patently ridiculous.

Some call it twisting words.

[Silent3]

26. Rather than archly referring to what "one" can do, and vaguely...

...to "that to which one objects", why not just f*cking say what you mean? I've done you the courtesy of being pretty straightforward and clear about what I'm talking about, even if you don't agree.

[rug]

27. Thank you for that courteous post.

Civility is always appreciated.

[Silent3]

28. My civility only lasts until you pull that kind of smug bullshit.

Then it ends. And you're still in error trying to connect the straw man of the OP to that unrelated bit of hyperbole, which you deflected from dealing with by continuing with more smug bullshit.

[rug]

29. I'll tell you straight.

The only smugness I see here is the Hitchen apologists trying to deflect what the OP stated. In typical fashion, selecting from the logical fallacies app, I see cries of "Strawman! Strawman!" "He never said the elimination of religion will cure all mankinds's evils!"

Ho hum.

Read it again. The entire thing. This is what he wrote:

The “New Atheist” argument gives religion far, far too much credit for its ability to mold institutions and shape politics, committing the classic logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc — mistaking a cause for its effect.

He's right.

I've seen far too many of these shallow screeds to give any credence, let alone respect, to those arguments.

If you don't like it, if it makes you uncomfortable, so what. I'd have more respect for an actual argument than recycled bullshit and "Strawman! Strawman!" It reminds me of Gomer Pyle shouting "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!"

[Silent3]

30. That quote you quote isn't anything Hitchens, or any other atheist I know, wrote.

It's a characterization by an anti-atheist about atheists. Even if it correctly identifies some atheists giving religion too much "credit" for the evil in this world, that still doesn't amount to any atheist saying that taking religion away would end all world conflict.

Overestimating the potency of a cause is not equivalent to identifying that cause as the sole cause of a given effect, in this case the cause being "religion" and the effect being all "world conflict".

The charge of "straw man" is being evoked simply because this is a perfectly applicable case for it to be evoked. That people are crying "straw man" frequently is not due to it being an invalid charge, but rather the frequent deployment of this invalid rhetorical technique.

[rug]

31. OK, we now agree it's not the sole cause. Let's quantify and test that.

How much of the Mideast situation is the result of religion version nonreligious factors?

[Silent3]

33. I certainly don't think the Mideast would suddenly be at peace if religion went away.

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 10:30 AM - Edit history (2)

I think it would be easier, however, to diffuse tensions and strip away some of the self-righteous excuses given for odious behavior and blind allegiance. How you'd quantify that and test it... that's quite another matter, no matter how much influence or lack thereof you think religion has.

At any rate, plenty of atheists would agree that religion isn't the sole cause of conflict in the world. If Hitchens were alive, and in a mood not to be pugnacious just for the sake of being pugnacious, I suspect he'd agree with that too, knowing full well that power, territory, resources, and non-religious cultural conflicts are also common excuses for bloodshed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. He also wrote that atheists believe "abolishing religion would bring about utopia"

and that atheist dogma is "religion is the cause of all human suffering". He, or his sub-editor, wrote "Hitchens believed atheism would end world conflict".

One doesn't point out a 'strawman' by ignoring the actual quotes, and using a less extreme part of what is under attack to say "see? What he said wasn't like that".

[cbayer]

37. Have you not seen similar things said here?

I often see posts that say that all religion should go away, that the world would be a much better place were religion abolished, that religious organizations should be prohibited from providing care to the needy, that religion is at the root of almost all (if not all) conflict.

They are following the dogma of Hitchens and his ilk. Saying things like "Religion is a disease" are absolutist statements that lead to prejudice or even outright bigotry against believers.

One might argue about this author's somewhat extreme statements, but, imho, they pale in comparison to what some of the leading anti-atheists have said.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. 'end world conflict'? 'the cause of all human suffering'? 'bring about utopia'?

No, I don't think I have seen people here go to that extreme. And we're effectively anonymous people on a fairly fringe website, rather than someone getting published (and probably paid) on a website with a reputation as thoughtful - at times, at least. Still, looking him up, I see McElwee was an intern at reason.com in 2011, and for John Stossel at Fox. We can't expect much of him. He's had some crappy teachers.

[rug]

41. The author also paraphrased the Communist Manifesto.

The meaning is perfectly clear if one wants to engage in a discussion.

"Strawman!" does not trump rhetoric, it attempts to stifle it

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. So, after telling us to 'read the whole thing', and quoting just one part of it

as if that was all it had said, you're now saying that the point is that making the argument that immoderate called a straw man 3 times is just 'rhetoric'.

You're moving the goalposts. After the goal was scored. Better luck next time.

[rug]

43. Not at all. If you want to know what I said, read my words, not yours.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Except that Hitchens goes on to demonstrate it for things that one might not otherwise assume

to be problematic, or worse, might assume to be a 'good' portrayal of the effect of religion on people's behavior.

I was quite surprised to learn several (documented, referenced, sourced) things about Mother Teresa that are not flattering at all. Would have never guessed. Didn't know much about her beyond the media/pop culture portrayal.

[rug]

63. He didn't demonstrate his premise it all.

Pointing to egregious examples does not at all demonstrate his claim.Particular descriptions rarely describe the whole.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. He supplied an entire book supporting the premise.

I can find not one subject that I cannot find an exception to.

[rug]

69. He supplied an entire book (which is the perfect way of putting it) but it does not support it.

[gcomeau]

32. Those don't mean remotely the same thing.

It's the equivalent of if Hitchens had said "All uranium is radioactive" and the hack article writer had then come along and said Hitchrns claimed all radiation was caused by uranium.


Religion can poison everything without being the *only* "poison". Hitchens at no time, ever, made the argument that getting rid of religion would magically solve all problems. I can think of no atheist who has ever made such a ridiculous argument.

[rug]

34. I see. Exaggerated rhetoric is only for Hitchens.

Unless you indeed believe what he said.

You're really missing the point of the article. Conveniently so.

[gcomeau]

38. You know the difference between...

exaggeration and just plain lying right?

The claim being attributed to Hitchens is not an exaggeration of one he actually made. It is something that is not even in the nature off anything he ever said.

The point of the article is to argue about how wrong a claim nobody has ever made is... thus making the article basically pointless.

[rug]

39. Yes. Hitchens' statement is a flat out lie, designed to rally the peanut gallery.

[gcomeau]

45. Oh fun, now we're going to play the intentionally obtuse game.

I think this is where I get off. Enjoy being a juvenile.

[rug]

47. Merry Christmas.

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages

You may enjoy page 46.

[gcomeau]

48. Aww, that's cute.

...you actually think having your juvenile behavior called out is an ad hominem argument.

Hint: I wasn't making an argument.

[rug]

51. I agree. You clearly were not making an argument.

Whatever you were trying to do, it was not an argument.

[gcomeau]

52. Congratulations!

Your understanding of what's going on has at least marginally improved over where it was in your last post then.

Perhaps if you keep this up we'll be able to engage in a grown-up conversation without the juvenile little games. But until then, as I mentioned before... bye.

[rug]

65. Don't forget page 47.

Oh, I'll just do it for you.

[gcomeau]

71. Aww, you regressed. :( -eom

[rug]

76. Page 44.

[gcomeau]

79. Now you're not even trying.

Appeal to the bandwagon? Really?

Are you having fun playing this silly little game? Because it isn't exactly doing wonders for any attempt you may make to claim the juvenile label isn't warranted.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Wrong. Not even close.

"Religion poisons everything" is not the same in any way to the analog that you would require to defend the salon article: 'Everything poisonous is religious'.

[rug]

64. Tha's been answered above.

But let's look at the real point of the article and not this diversionary back water.

Do you think capitalist political economy or religion is the greater poison?

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Inadequately answered.

Personally, religion. Hard to think of an actual capitalist society. The US is a mixed market economy.

[rug]

67. So, your priority is the elimination of religion over a capitalist political economy.

[cbayer]

70. Well religion does poison everything.

Everything.

[rug]

74. I'd better check my refrigerator.

[cbayer]

77. Yep! You better make sure there's no religion in there or you could die tonight!

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Corporate cronyism is a problem, certainly.

But there are elements of our economy (as I said, it is mixed market) that are perfectly valid and wonderful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_corporatism

As a source of infringement on my personal liberties, I consider religion to be a much larger, more immediate threat.

[rug]

75. Marx's critique of capital went far beyond cronyism.

The U;S. economy is mixed only in the sense that there is water in shit. No one mistakes shit for water.

There is a also a very thin line between basing a political stance on personal liberties and libertarianism.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. I'm not aware of any corporations that want to ban any of my activities.

Not so, for religions. There are some that spend millions every year lobbying against things I enjoy, and claim the open right to do.

[rug]

83. That's because you're not trying to form a union.

Thousands of others are.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I also want to keep the ACA in force of law

how many corporations are suing to block it on corporate freedom grounds?

Sub 'religions' for 'corporations' and 'religious' for 'corporate' and suddenly that sentence is a knocking-on-the-supreme-courts-door reality.

[rug]

85. A handful. The insurance industry on the other hand is preparing for a windfall.

While others are using it as an excuse to cut workers' benefits.

You really are immersed in a parochial issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. I deal with the biggest threat first.

It's how I work.

[rug]

87. And you picked the wrong one.

It doesn't work.

You can complain about religion all you want on your way to fascism. Don't be upset if people find more important things to do than listen.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Wrong one in your estimate.

I stick with my assessment.

[rug]

89. When one bases political action on the adage that religion poisons everything,

there is only one group that will win.

It's the group that has always thrived on divisions.

It ain't us. Feel free to disassociate. I wouldn't want to impinge on your personal liberty.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. The RCC has infringed on my life in ways that can never be repaid.

However, it will never happen again, as the church's power wanes, so there's that.

[rug]

91. Politics is not based on your life. Or my life, for that matter.

I hope you have an alternate plan if your prediction proves false.

[rug]

4. Well, he jousted at a dead woman.

[immoderate]

10. A really horrible woman. Can saints be dead?

--imm

[rug]

11. Then he was a good match.

[immoderate]

14. Except that he wasn't a scam.

--imm

[rug]

15. Discounting his cheerleading for the Iraq War.

[immoderate]

17. No discount. He fails there. But that's not the issue.

--imm

[rug]

18. Neither are post mortem critiques.

[immoderate]

19. Which is what this thread is for!

--imm

[rug]

20. Nah, three of the four of them are still alive.

Along with myriad less skilled imitators.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. He did start while she was alive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position

[rug]

40. And poceeded with relish after her death.

I suppose the criticism of Hitchens must stop after his death.

[cbayer]

5. That is not what he claims they said.

He claims they have said the religion is the root of all evil. When people make statements like "Religion Poisons Everything", that's a pretty broad and sweeping statement.

He may be jousting with a dead man, but he is also taking on his disciples.

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Again: Straw Man

Hitchens may have argued religion was the single, most significant and historically consistent contributor to human suffering, but by no means did he ever claim it was the sole source of evil in the world.

Either the author is deliberately misrepresenting Hitchens or he hasn't read very much of the man's work. Neither, in my opinion, are excusable.

[cbayer]

8. I think the straw man here may be nit-picking the concept.

You are trying to take him to task for making an "absolute" statement. I don't think he does that… but Hitchens came close enough, imo.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. He certainly does

Hitchens believed atheism would end world conflict.

Sounds fairly absolute to me.

And I do not agree that taking a commentator to task for improper attributions is nit-picking. There's plenty of disagreeable things Hitchens actually said that one need not make shit up to repudiate him.

[skepticscott]

21. Sorry, false.

I mean seriously…do you not think everyone can read what's written JUST ABOVE?

He claims they have said "Religion is the cause of all human suffering". Actually, he doesn't just claim they have said it…he claims they have reached it by some fucked-up steps of logic that he ginned up but which no intelligent person would ever use.

When you say "He claims they have said the religion is the root of all evil" that's not remotely the same thing, and you know it. So why would you make that claim?

[AtheistCrusader]

55. There is no logical correlation between

'religion poisons everything'

and

'everything evil is religious'

or 'everything poisonous is religious'.



Making the claim that the root of all evil is religion would be analogous to either of those two latter statements. It is not, in any way, analogous to the first statement.

[cbayer]

60. The author doesn't use the word everything in the entire article - not once.

He does say that these anti-theist leaders say that religion is the root of all evil. I will agree that may be an exaggeration of what they have actually said, but not much of one.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. It is a complete exaggeration, because it would require them to say things along the line

of the analogue I offered.

Something none of them are stupid enough to do.

[trotsky]

73. Here's something for you to do, cbayer.

You're so adamant that the evil New Atheists have declared religion to be THE CAUSE of evil and want to destroy it - how about you conjure up some quotes? You know, some quotes that show your author's exaggeration (which you now admit - good job backpedaling!) isn't "much of one"?

Can you do this, or will you respond with silence and a passive acknowledgment that you have nothing to back up what you say, only assertions because by gosh you just KNOW those evil atheists want to eliminate all religion (and commit genocide to do it, too!)?

[trotsky]

93. Just checking in.

Find any quotes from these "anti-theist leaders" proving that it's "not much" of an exaggeration yet, cbayer?

[NoOneMan]

13. Religion just makes the politics of war easier

Getting rid of religion wouldn't eliminate war. It would just make it a bit more difficult to justify and believe in

[trotsky]

46. What a pathetic attempt at an article.

But, it bashes the hated "New Atheists," so it's understandable why you love it and will defend it despite all its flaws.

[LostOne4Ever]

49. Gotta love how...

the author bashes a deadman over something he never said.

[trotsky]

57. Fortunately Salon commenters have taken him to task.

Countless posters have mentioned that Hitchens didn't say what this author is attacking him for saying. But that matters not to those who believe the "New Atheists" are a bigger threat to humanity than any religion.

I mean, totally, just look at how many suicide bombers act in the name of Hitchens or Dawkins...

[AtheistCrusader]

56. How much war/strife in the Middle East these days if Judaism and Islam weren't at loggerheads?

How much in Iraq, if Shia and Sunni not at loggerheads?
Or shia/sunni versus Kurds? That's not just a 'political' issue.
How about in Kosovo?
Afghanistan/Pakistan?
Between Pakistan and India?

etc.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. I find the religion/politics distinction specious myself

By definition, religion is politics.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. It's certainly an element of it.

If your point is that they are inseparable, sure, I totally agree.

[Act_of_Reparation]

62. Well, they are separable in one direction only

Religion is a system intended to direct, or at least influence, civic or individual behavior. Ergo, by definition religion is a political enterprise. Politics, on the other hand, is not necessarily a religious enterprise. So, you can take the religion out of politics, but you can't take the politics out of religion, if you catch my meaning.

[Cleita]

78. Considering the Marxist Soviets tried it and Stalin brutally,

they couldn't stop it. They should have taken a lesson from history from the Romans who also tried it. Hitchens needs to learn the lessons of history. One of the best ways to perpetuate a religion and bring in followers is to persecute it and create martyrs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

92. Hitchens isn't learning anything

He's dead.

Not that it matters particularly, because--despite what the author of this hack-piece suggests--Hitchens never advocated persecuting believers in the first place. No one is. That may have something to do with all of the atheists around here screaming "straw man" every other line.

[cbayer]

96. No one?

Sorry. Saying that some people are diseased simply because they have religious beliefs is pretty bad.

[Act_of_Reparation]

101. That's right: no one.

The shirt addresses ideas, not the people who hold them. Do you honestly think this is an endorsement of persecution?

[cbayer]

102. I think that argument could be made.

I think that saying that religion is a disease which must be cured is expressing hostility towards a group based on their beliefs.

[Act_of_Reparation]

104. An argument could be made for any conceivable idea...

...but that doesn't mean the argument is valid. If you're going to claim Dawkins advocates persecution of believers, I think providing a direct quote would be the honest thing to do. What you're doing now is drawing flimsy conclusions from a vague quip printed on a cheap tee-shirt, a quip which relates specifically to ideas and makes no prescriptions whatsoever towards anyone who holds them.

This is a bush we've beaten around more times than I care to count. Here, conservatism is treated like a disease. Conservative ideas are met with hostility, when they are even permitted. Does this constitute persecution of conservatives? Do you really think anyone here advocates the systemic abolition of conservatism?

[cbayer]

105. You may disagree with me, but that does not mean I am wrong.

When Dawkins calls religious beliefs delusions, he is calling believers delusional.

When he says faith is an excuse not to think, that he is "against" religion, says that children are being brainwashed, calls believers infantile, say that belief is just "sucking up", and that faith is "very dangerous", he is attacking religious believers. While he may not advocate persecution, his repeated attacks on believers meets the definition of persecution. He does advocate for the systemic abolition of religion.

This is a board for progressive and democratic liberals. There is a defined "other" on this board. They are not welcome here and it is permissible to freely attack them.

This board also is composed of both believers and non-believers. Were someone here to say the kinds of things about atheists that Dawkins says about religionists, that would violate the community standards. Same goes for saying those things about believers.

There is no valid comparison with conservatives on this site.

[trotsky]

106. Words mean things, cbayer.

Calling an idea a delusion is NOT the same as calling a person delusional - no matter how much you really, really want it to be the case. And even calling someone delusional doesn't mean they are being called mentally ill. Smart, sane people can be delusional. It's not an insult or - as clearly you think it is - a call for GENOCIDE. Understand words and how they can be used before you start ripping into others, hmm?

Now - A_o_R made a very good point with some questions he asked. Your insistence that conservatives aren't welcome here, so we may freely attack them, doesn't address the questions at all. They are completely valid even though conservatives aren't welcome:

1) Does the criticism of conservative ideas on this board constitute persecution of conservatives?
2) Do you really think anyone here advocates the systemic abolition of conservatism?

Why won't you answer those simple yes-or-no questions? Readers can only assume that your silence means you realize what a crumbling foundation your position rests upon.

[longship]

80. Huge straw man!!!!

Does this author really think that people are so ignorant that they cannot see through his patently straw man logic claim?

Certainly, Hitchens would not have made any such claim.

Once I saw that, there was no need to read the rest of what this person has on their mind.

In other words... Meh!

[pokerfan]

81. Fails Philosophy of Logic 101

1. If it rains, the street will be wet
2. The street is wet.
3. Therefore it rained.

QED?

[trotsky]

94. Well, cbayer thinks it's a fantastic article.

She believes the author makes a great point, and is accurately relaying the statements of noted atheists.

I take it you disagree with her?

[longship]

95. I think cbayer can speak for herself.

And I don't get upset with people just because they disagree with me.

That's something a few people around here could learn.

[trotsky]

97. Excellent!

I await her response as well! Dialog and discussion are a good thing, don't you agree?

[cbayer]

98. While I agree that the author takes some liberties and exaggerates some of

what this particular group of "leaders" have said in order to make his point, I do agree with his overall point (as you probably know).

The hostility towards religion and all things religious expressed by some people is misguided. I have seen it said here that things would be much better if only religion were eliminated. Not only do I disagree with that and see religion as a strong societal asset when used correctly, I also believe it's just never going to happen.

Nice to see you longship. Hope you are staying warm.

[longship]

99. Pretty hard to stay warm outside here.

It's about 10F today. Four inches of snow on the ground. A little early for this shit.

Warm enough inside, though.

[cbayer]

100. I have one word for you -

Mexico.

[trotsky]

103. So basically you admit he lied,

but that's OK because it confirms what you want to believe.

That is unfortunate, cbayer. You keep attacking those straw men - in the meantime, I'm going to worry about what people are actually saying and doing. Like the Catholic church continuing to oppose reproductive freedom, equality of women, and LGBT rights.

You are free to view imagined versions of what a dead atheist said as a bigger threat, of course.