On the death of Christopher Hitchens I find myself reflecting upon the thing that seemed the most passionate within his philosophy, and that was his position as an antitheist. Spell check may be suspicious of such a word, but the meaning is plain enough. It was not enough for Mr. Hitchens to say that he was a non-believer. He put forward the proposition that religion was something evil and should be combatted at every opportunity. In our society that prohibits the establishment of a government sponsored religion while at the same time allowing the free exercise of religion, this may seem extreme and unworkable. To him it was a natural progression of logic built upon modern scientific techniques. His assertion , “Religion makes good people do bad things” is hard to refute within the history of any religion. While this is a general observation of religion, he does take the time to specifically point out, with clarity, issues he has with all the major religions. While his logic is not impenetrable, there is far more truth in it than most would care to face. One must also concede that his logic is stronger than most religious doctrine, particularly if one were to take religious words literally and not allow for metaphor.
So why is this important? If I consider myself a man with a spiritual component, why would I consider the writings of this man profound?
Perhaps the answer is that I believe that any person of faith should address truths rather than leave them unheard. Can your faith offer an alternative to the reason used to dispute it? Are we, as spiritual beings, prepared to engage in the discourse and explain ourselves to those who blame us for most of the world’s ill? I would say that most are not prepared for such a thing, and many will react violently whenever unkind truths are spoken that may cast disdain upon their belief. It would be much easier if my internal computer could not calculate with quite so much clarity. Indeed, I may sound arrogant in the saying, but many religious folk simply cannot and will not look outside the consensus that gives them the warmth they need to continue to believe. Logic does not matter to them as it does to me.
If logic is an overriding axiom of truth, as I believe it should be, how can anyone believe in anything spiritual? This is one of Hitchens primary assertions. It is tough to hear some of the truths he speaks and I am sure he has won many converts to disbelief and derision of religion. In point of fact, he has had an effect on my own perspective on spiritual faith. I will leave it to the reader to pursue the things that may seem profound to each individual, but I do personally feel that 95% of what he says is really indisputable. It is in that other 5% that I feel I have room for spirituality in my life.
Many times, those who hold religion in disdain tend to use the evil actions of the men who hold prominence within that faith as a reason to hold the precepts of that religion culpable. This is, in my opinion, one of the weaknesses in the manner in which Hitchens attacks religion. I just do not believe that man has the ability to rise above his innate frailties regardless of effort and predisposition. It only takes one transgression to erase a lifetime of careful adherence and good works, and this appears to be too great an obstacle to be overcome by human beings. Regardless of the nature of the adherents, I think that truth still makes an immortal claim. This concept allows me to disregard the more ignoble acts of pious men, but does not clear up the question of what is true.
One thing that seems duplicitous to me is when someone claims to believe something that is impossible to prove without moments of doubt. I make no claim of such and indeed I have doubted every concept put forth to explain the unexplainable, unless it had a solid foundation of logic and reason. So where do I end up coming down on religious truth? I feel somewhat ashamed to say that at this point in my life it is down to a few of the more provably propitious concepts that seem to be a large part of the Christian faith. Life, Love, Forgiveness and Charity are the primary reasons I allow latitude to Christianity for some of its more obvious flaws. Because Christianity is an absolutist faith in which you must believe some very key things enumerated in the Holy Bible, and since almost none of it is provable outside the philosophy, I am sure the prominent figures in the church would tell me that I do not qualify due to my recurring doubts of some of the stories contained therein. I would counter that even the most pious among them would not contend that the Bible is to be taken literally in all places, but more accurately, that the line between truth and metaphor is more clearly defined by them than me.
I make no claim to being a biblical scholar, nor do I feel the need to be. A cursory examination of these texts expose some of both obviously true and obviously false notions created in a time prior to modern science. I am fully capable of discerning the logic behind certain concepts and deciding how much stock I put into the metaphysical explanations of the universe. I do feel free from coercion when I say that I tend toward thinking that almost all of the stories in the Bible were meant to tell a story of meaning and as such are probably much more metaphor than literal truth. That places me in the tenuous position of being a faith of one. I know that I still pray, and I say the name Jesus when I do so, but my meaning may not be the same as those around me.