Excellent post Shuggy.
Rosa | 08.06.06 - 2:51 pm | #

> And I really think some on the left could be doing with considering whether what they hold to be self-evident is in reality a creed that resembles a religion more closely than is often supposed.

I hold to Lacan's view that 'the true formula of atheism is God is unconscious'. (I suspect, also, that God might have a wooden-leg---that's why He moves in mysterious ways.)
Jim Buck | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 3:07 pm | #

Great post. The left has more than its share of people whose sense of righteous truth shines just as brightly as a Patrick Henry graduate.
luis enrique | 08.06.06 - 3:49 pm | #

>The left has more than its share of people whose sense of righteous truth shines just as brightly as a Patrick Henry graduate.

Or, just as brightly as God's pubes, after a skillful application of Ockham's razor?
Jim Buck | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 4:03 pm | #

Good for you, Shuggy. That was a fine essay.

Hari is quite right to come to Tatchell's defence, and most of Hari's observations and arguments are useful and necessary, especially for us in Canada at the moment, with the arrest on terrorism-related charges of 17 Muslims in Ontario over the weekend.

But you're not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the tendency to conflate superstition, fanaticism, and scripturalism with otherwise benign religious devotions and cultural eccentricities. It tends to tar Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress with Aly Hindy of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre, for one thing.

I've noticed a lot of plain old snobbery infecting these discussions as well, in all those clever intellectuals sneering at people who go to mass or mosque or synagogue. Trying to discern the rational from the irrational in religiosity won't get anybody very far, but we should try to distinguish between even obviously irrational behaviours. It seems to be there's a big difference between lighting candles for your ailing auld granny and picking on the gay kids at school. And one does not lead inevitably to the other, either.

I don't know that I've ever read or listened to any of Hitchens' "antitheist" tirades that I haven't found tremendously entertaining, but at the same time I'm always left wondering whether this preoccupation of his isn't a waste of his talents. The hyperbole is great fun, but it leads to this kind of thing kind of thing: "I think religion is a deadly threat to the survival of the species and to the continued evolution of the brain."

That's Mencken. But I don't think it's Darwin.
Terry Glavin | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 4:34 pm | #

The degree of hostility behind these anti-religion comments is comical whenthe commnets come from self-styled champions of rationality - the buzzword is "they have issues."

How far do these people expect to get in their politcal analysis with such a superficial dismissal of what is obviously a fundamental component of the way human beings behave? They might as well decide to ignore lion's hunting behavior because they themselves happen to be vegan.
Jim | 08.06.06 - 6:01 pm | #

>They might as well decide to ignore lion's hunting behavior because they themselves happen to be vegan.

Or, you might as well decide to ignore the malignancy in your liver because that organ is a 'fundamental component'. Of course there are benign forms of religious belief; but, at present, the malignancy in all 3 Abrahamic religions is so far gone that what Hitchens said is correct.
Jim Buck | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 6:44 pm | #

"but, at present, the malignancy in all 3 Abrahamic religions is so far gone that what Hitchens said is correct."

Now don't be sad,
'cause two out of three ain't bad.
Meatloaf | 08.06.06 - 8:17 pm | #

I agree with Jim Buck (apart from it applies to *all* supernaturalist forms of thought).

All the Hitch is being is a champion for militant materialism and a consistent one at that ie, he doesn't 'just fight against phrases' by using phrases. Unfortunately, being unsubtle is as far as you can go today in this age of dormant rationality - just as Engels was militantly materialistic against the mechanistic idealists and liberal philosophers of his own day. That's all you can do for now really. It's a defensive team formation (to use a World Cup analogy). Fighting against the apostles of irrationality - anything more subtle doesn't get through. Non-receptivity don't you know. Good job, well done Hitch.
Will | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 11:19 pm | #

Oh - and while I'm on - just to display the more subtle take from a Marxist standpoint of obscurantist thought and superstition here's a *****(warning - quote alert)***** good quote:
Marx - The German Ideology:
Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly "world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against "phrases". They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world.”
Will | Homepage | 08.06.06 - 11:40 pm | #

If religious belief is a universally observed phenomenon and religious belief a unique characteristic and capability of human kind, we should conclude it has an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps the atheists are lagging in the evolutionary stakes?
Jeffrey Mushens | 09.06.06 - 12:12 am | #

So you're a bit of an agnosic then!

no problem

you'll be in hell with big athiest me though - I will be happy to share a cell
SP | 09.06.06 - 12:16 am | #

"If religious belief is a universally observed phenomenon..."

It is on one level but not on another level (work it out knackerdan).

And wherever the level of development of productive forces increases there is a corresponding drop in religiousity (expressed in practice or proclaimed adherence). Err I think. (USA may be an exception? Not sure). Anyway - it just goes to show that the seperation of church and state is not enough to abolish religion (which would be a good thing).
Will | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 1:12 am | #

Although I find some of Dawkins' militant atheism annoying (I have no problem with those who keep religion in their private sphere and can accept that good can come from religion), I have to take issue with your contention that fundamentalism is a modern religious phenomen.

Aside from the fact that many smaller occurances of fundamentalism may be lost in the mists of history, there are larger markers for it in the form of crusades, jihads, and inquisitions throughout recorded history. Even the Muslims of Granada rebelled against what they viewed as fundamentalism imposed upon them by their rulers at one point.

I suspect that if you go back far enough you'd find Ug was murder by Stig for not worshipping the "one true tree" in the correct manner. Unless you have convincing evidence that mankind's capacity for fanaticism has changed.

Your points about secular fanatical beliefs are on the money though.
Eric | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 8:55 am | #

Jim Buck: Of course there are benign forms of religious belief

More like pre-cancerous.

Shuggy: Al-Qaeda and their imitators are the enemies of Muslims in exactly the same way they are the enemies of Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, homosexuals, women, democrats and socialists: because they are the enemies of all humanity.

And this is the sort of thinking that you cannot reach from a position of religious or nationalistic or whatever factionalism without it being somehow colonial or missionary.

Confusing tolerance with respect is as bogus for mainstream religion as for political extremism. And calling for it for reasons of realpolitik wrapped up as principle simply adds weight to the argument that atheists lack of principles makes them untrustworthy and should not be dealt with by the faithful.
dirigible | 09.06.06 - 10:04 am | #

I totally agree Shuggy, Hari talks a lot of sense on many issues, but he seems to lack an ability to empathise with people or respect different opinions, and instead comes across as incredibly arrogant, which is a shame because it puts off even those of us who agree with him most of the time. IMO "fundamentalist" atheism is as intolerant and dangerous as any fundamentalism, and to blame religion fr the actions of human beings is as ridiculous as blaming gangster rap or violent movies. Doesn't Hari realise that many of the worst murderers of the last century were aggresively secularist? Maybe he thinks Hitler, Stalin or Mao are preferable to the Dalai Lama?

Think again Johan.
Tim | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 11:23 am | #

"If religious belief is a universally observed phenomenon and religious belief a unique characteristic and capability of human kind, we should conclude it has an evolutionary advantage. "

No we shouldn't. religion is, if anything, the side effect of evolution *without* knowledge. We are only evolved enough to know that we don't know something, and some people insert a man into the sky to fill the void. You're actually arguing for more knowledge there, not more religion.
CB | 09.06.06 - 12:21 pm | #

People who drone on about their rightness are fairly boring for a start, so that's out, from whatever angle it comes. People who then insist that only that which may be approved by their particular fixation may be done are blethering idiots as well as potential tyrants and should be resisted. Neither of these points of view is an argument for or against religion or atheism. It's an argument about the resistance to a) someonetaking up undue mental space, and b) going on to dominate both mental and physical space on pain of punishment.
George | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 2:36 pm | #

Bloody hell, you go on a bit, don/t you? Good subjetc though. My rule of thumb, is never to excuse anything in the name of Islam that you would condemn in the name of Chritianity or any other religion.
Left Hook | 09.06.06 - 7:59 pm | #

"Hitchens and Hari conflate theocracy with religion but shouldn't the history of the Soviet Union - and that of the twentieth century in general - give us the understanding that it is not religion per se but it's marriage to the state that is particularly oppressive and destructive?"


Its nice to see more people pointing this out.

The problem is that the best word we have - "Religion" - is all bound with connotations of "God", but the behavior and world-view we are trying to describe is not limited to creeds with "God"s in them.

So far I think the most crucial element of it is a Viral, or Universalist credd - where a core element of the creed is a command to convert others. The motive can vary from "I love you too much to just sit back and let you burn in hell" to "All must obey my master", but, regardless, its a crucial imperative to get others to agree.

Some hostility to religion comes from the mistaken beliefs that all religions are like this, but thats an illusion caused by the massive success of the small number of religions like that (their gain was "our" pain).

MOST religions, throughout history, have NOT been like this very much. They lost to the viral ones just like some species lose to competitors that outbreed them - with the occasionall mass murder tossed in for good measure.
r4d20 | 10.06.06 - 2:07 am | #

One thing I noticed years ago was the way many Anarchists/Socialists/etc. respond when someone says "It's not pratical". The response was always along the lines of "The only reason it doesn't work is because people like you wont get on board". Disagreement becomes Heresy in moments like those.
r4d20 | 10.06.06 - 2:32 am | #

"Hitchens and Hari conflate theocracy with religion but shouldn't the history of the Soviet Union - and that of the twentieth century in general - give us the understanding that it is not religion per se but it's marriage to the state that is particularly oppressive and destructive?"

This criticism misses the point. The inherent nature of religious organisations as authoritarian and expansionist makes it necessary to attack them precisely before they reach state power. The aims, not the capability need to be countered.

One cannot simply assume that religious bigots will apply "reasonable" limits to the amount of public life they wish to enslave with dogmatic moral reasoning.

The pluralist, secular state has no significance, no real existence if civil society and culture are dominated by religious thinking, whether determinist marxism or christianity.
Jaakko | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 1:26 pm | #

The inherent nature of religious organisations as authoritarian and expansionist makes it necessary to attack them precisely before they reach state power. The aims, not the capability need to be countered.

I don't agree. To express itself theocratically is only one of the three ways in which salvation religions have accomodated themselves to the fact that, in their cosmology, the world is fallen.

Furthermore, religions are more likely to switch to this mode if they believe it is essential to their survival. Attacking the religious simply for being religious is not only illiberal and wrong - it may well be counter-productive.
Shuggy | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 4:17 pm | #

Furthermore, religions are more likely to switch to this mode if they believe it is essential to their survival.

Wher is your evidence for the validity of that assertion, Shuggy?
Jim Buck | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 6:03 pm | #

"Furthermore, religions are more likely to switch to this mode if they believe it is essential to their survival."

People make religion,
religions do not themselves switch to anything.

"Attacking the religious simply for being religious is not only illiberal and wrong"

I was talking about institutionalised religion and religious thinking, not attacking religious people ad hominem. The problem however is that many religious people, like other political fundamentalists, reserve the right to get personally insulted if their arguments are refuted.

"it may well be counter-productive."

So one should be afraid speak against violence, sexism, homophobia or cencorship (just to begin with) on the grounds that they may get worse?
On this issue I agree with the Hari/Hitchens approach.
Jaakko | Homepage | 10.06.06 - 6:57 pm | #

So one should be afraid speak against violence, sexism, homophobia or cencorship (just to begin with) on the grounds that they may get worse?

I don't understand why you think I made my argument on these grounds - it did not rest on the fear of disutility. You seem to have made two separate arguments. One has to do with criticising religions when they practice violence, sexism, homophobia or censorship. You have completely misunderstood what I've said if you think I'm suggesting this shouldn't be done for fear of making it worse.

But in the previous comment you were advocating something different: attacking religion on the grounds that it was inherently 'expansionist' in a political sense. This is simply historically and sociologically untrue.

Furthermore, if 'religious thinking' is to be opposed, we really could be doing with people of more subtlty than either Christopher Hitchens or Johann Hari. One problem is neither of them have a very good grasp of the religions they are attacking. In particular, Johann Hari's attempts at biblical exegesis are painfully bad.
Shuggy | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 12:15 am | #

"One problem is neither of them have a very good grasp of the religions they are attacking."

Instead of 'grasp' I'd say they have a healthy doubt about religion. That's not a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing (incidentally, how do you 'grasp' religions other than by being a 'follower')? It's not about 'grasping' it's all about doubt.

There are two sides to doubt; religious (superstitious, obscurantist, discipleship etc...) and epistemological and consequently is important.

Doubt has the potential for serving two functions, one positive the other negative. Of the two functions (positive and negative) the first presents a disillusioning factor which permits us to separate false belief from the truth.

On the other side, negative doubt produces scepticism, agnosticism, and nihilism.

Each in their turn...

Firstly, nihilism. It is self-evident that nihilistic critique whose point of departure is total negation, opposes arguments from all sides. Such 'bare critique' is useless. Negation (if it is to be useful) must conceive the negative as a moment of evolution which conserves everything positive.

Secondly, scepticism. This is useless because it can be transformed into a religion as the sceptic tends to become a dogmatist, who is ready to doubt all knowledge in advance of any knowledge of any subject matter. The skeptic can easily conjure up a 'God' that alone is able to possess and judge the truth.

Thirdly, agnosticism. The view that ultimate reality is unknowable, therefore we cannot know truth. However, this overlooks the fact that knowing the truth is possible on the condition that we come to believe something of a higher calibre which does not contradict the truth. For that reason positive doubt unchains human capacities and favours liberation from superstition and obscurantism.

It's also necessary to conceive doubt as a kind of criticism or opposition to naive conviction or superstition. In this case doubt becomes criticism which aims to facilitate an approach to truth and instigate a solution to a problem. In this sense doubt serves human progress and contributes to a deepening of our knowledge.

Shorter version: Go Hitch! Fuck all obsurantists.
Will | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 1:11 am | #

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs. http://www.humaneventsonline.com...le.php? id=15363
Dittowitto | 11.06.06 - 4:17 am | #

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions

Hawk your wares somewhere else fuckwit.
hakmao | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:02 am | #

Hawk your wares somewhere else *******.
Typical Liberal invective. You cannot muster a rational argument so you attempt to close down the debate by resorting to obscenity.
Dittowitto | 11.06.06 - 9:22 pm | #

There is no rational debate to be had with your sort nutjob. If it's liberals you're so worried about then how about some Marxist invective then?

Go and use your ugly slutty face to poke in the fat hemorrhoid arse of your filthy mother. And while you're on, how about getting your father to clean his dick cos your breath stinks you shit in your hand then slap yourself in the face mutherfukka.

I think this thread has now ended.
Will | Homepage | 11.06.06 - 11:51 pm | #

(edited by Me)

some crap about nothing by religious nutjob


Dittowitto | 12.06.06 - 1:00 am | #

blah blah blah by god-bother nutjob again
Dittowitto | 12.06.06 - 1:52 am | #

Indeed, there is no rational debate to be had with the irrational.

PS - I'm not a liberal, so what Will said.
hakmao | Homepage | 12.06.06 - 7:40 am | #

incidentally, how do you 'grasp' religions other than by being a 'follower'

Oh I don't know - maybe by actually knowing something about them in an academic sense? Bit of theology and history wouldn't go amiss, particularly in young Mr Hari's case because he engages with, for example, a version of Jesus' kerygma that doesn't actually exist anywhere except his imagination. Given this is so, whether he doubts it or not is surely irrelevant? Straw men, Will, straw men.
Shuggy | Homepage | 12.06.06 - 1:36 pm | #

he engages with, for example, a version of Jesus' kerygma that doesn't actually exist anywhere except his imagination.

Please could we have a direct link to what you are referring to? Otherwise, you are merely asking us to take your word on Hari's misunderstanding.
Jim Buck | Homepage | 12.06.06 - 4:10 pm | #

Without wishing to nitpick - fuck it though, I will - yes, you can 'grasp' religion in an academic sense - ie. in the sense of comprehending (that's what I'm quoting fucking Marx for), but the point about religiousity is that to fully 'grasp' the essence of the 'thing' is to prostrate yourself before faith and belief. That's the get out clause for all forms of ideological thought. Just have faith. Bollox to that.
Will | 12.06.06 - 11:03 pm | #

Bit of theology and history wouldn't go amiss,


Here is some:

http://www.infidelguy.com/module...view& video_id=3
Title: Deconstructing Jesus - Bob Price
Description: Dr. Robert Price (infidelguy's The Bible Geek) speaks with Marie about his book "Deconstructing Jesus". Dr. Price has quite an extensive background in theology and an expert understanding of the "Jesus Myth" and how it all began. To learn more about Dr. Price please visit http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ Total Time 25:16 min * Provided by the media department over at: http://www.atheistvoices.com
Jim Buck | Homepage | 13.06.06 - 1:46 pm | #

Excellent article.

I agree with Hitchens on religion - I am a materialist atheist. There is no God, no Goddess, no Force, no Dao, no Spirit of Nature - nothing but us. (unless life on other planets etc...). I also think that much religion has been a leech on human wealth and a shackler of the human mind.

I do not agree with the way he makes fun of religion. And I would not push my opinions at a general forum, or at a public meeting - It's not my place to insult the people we need to win over.

We need more articles like this one, that promote a serious strategic view of how we might actually reach some of the goals we agree on. Unless we want to end up old bitter leftists, habitually scornful of our enemies, but not understanding why we never beat them.

I think Jim summed up the correct attitude:

How far do these people expect to get in their politcal analysis with such a superficial dismissal of what is obviously a fundamental component of the way human beings behave? They might as well decide to ignore lion's hunting behavior because they themselves happen to be vegan.

I think the word 'Scripturalism' would be a better word for the Left to use than 'Fundamentalism'. 'Fundamentalism' has become a shorthand "swear" word, used by lazy leftists who don't want to think the issue through. 'Scripturalism' forces us to think about what they actually do.

However we also need to find a way to talk about the fact that the most successful 'scripturalist' churches have generally described themselves as 'spirit-filled'. That is, they are Christians who place a special emphasis on the power of the Holy
Spirit to shape human action to God's will in the world. The best known Australian example is the 'Hillsong' church, in the outer-Western Sydney suburb of Baulkham Hills, and another branch in inner-city Waterloo.

Typically their services are informal , using exciting music, and upbeat,
charismatic preaching - they are magnificently structured performances designed to make church the most powerful and exciting place that the members ever go.

Another point that Shuggy raises is that humans are just of capable of using ideas other than 'gods or spirits' to hang inflexible, dogmatic, oppressive behaviour on. It appears to be a potential weakness of humans when it comes to any way of understanding society.

Shuggy develops the point to say that and I really think some on the left could be doing with considering whether what they hold to be self-evident is in reality a creed that resembles a religion...

I agree, in one sense:

I am a Marxist, but cannot "prove" that being a Marxist is the correct political stance. I can try to convince people of my position by the strength of my argument, but in the end my decision to be a Marxist (and an athiest) is based on something I cannot prove.

Everyone believes in something. Even cynics belive that there is nothing good to believe in. Even nihilists believe there is nothing. So I look at the reality of the world around me, and materialism, athiesm and Marxism seem like pretty good beliefs to me. And I think I have a responsibility to
a) Not let my minority viewpoint get in the way of getting a hearing for my ideas.

b) Contribute now to a society where people are used to standing up for themselves and working things out. No matter which idea (if any) turns out to be true, that sort of society is the best sort of one for humans to live in, because it gives them the best chance to resist someone who believes too hard.

Any materialist leftist who is aware that religion is irrational, should also be aware of this observation, made plain a thousand times a day in everyday life:

People do not generally abandon beliefs just because someone says, or even conclusively proves, that those beliefs are 'irrational'.

Leftists who sneer at religions should also consider the fact that many religions manage to provide some sort of poor relief, no matter how sketchy and patronising. (I was homeless once long ago, do not lecture me on the ameliorative, anti-revolutionary nature of this charity, I'm well aware of it. [Just getting my retaliation in first.])

If the churches are the only people providing solutions to social problems, where does that leave us? Not even in the game.

I tend to think that we'll never be listened to at the time of a revolution if we don't have a track record of success and help before then. Since we have no idea when a revolution might be, we should start finding some local problems to get stuck into, so that we look like reliable allies.

If you are Left but don't agree with me on revolution, the point is the same - social democrats can't get what they want either, without people feeling, in their guts, that you are part of the solution.

Instead of scorning the churches, we should seriously study the functions they perform and plan on how we could provide an alternative structure.

Are we not confronted with a deadly enemy? Of course we are - and all the more reason to ensure one's aim is true.

Well called.

The pro-democratic-revolution-in-the-Middle-East-Left is uniting. Everyone from the Eustonites, the New Labourists at Harry's Place, to the Marxist-Leninists at Last Superpower and the self-labelled Trotskyites [accurate? not sure?] here are uniting on this issue, despite our deep differences on almost every other matter.

One of our key strategic goals is to unite with anti-fascist Muslims. Respect is prepared to engage with...oh...um...how to say this? how about 'communalist' Muslims...we should be prepared to engage just as closely with Muslim believers who are prepared to fight for a woman's freedom, and the freedom of any human to speak freely.

If we don't make this engagement with our natural allies on this issue, then the job becomes much harder.

We certainly should not make the job of our believer allies harder by making religion the issue.

The issue is what people are prepared to do here and now in this world. If you really are a materialist, nothing else matters.
David Jackmanson | Homepage | 15.06.06 - 5:12 pm | #