Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 17, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


For the Love of Scotland




On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar

Sutton

By J.R. Moehringer
$27.99

more items

 
Arts and Culture

For Christopher Hitchens

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 17, 2011
Mr. Fish

By Mr. Fish

(Page 2)

Can a person be spiritual without being religious?

I suppose so. Everybody, whether they’re laying a brick wall with a trowel or shearing a sheep, has experienced the transcendent, that’s one thing. It’s quite another to believe that the universe is directed towards you. The holy texts do actually say what they say and they do mandate a lot of incredible stupidity. I’m rather proud of the chapter [I wrote] about Dr. King. Many people, at least ostensibly, have been motivated to do grand, good things by faith, but why is that necessary? You don’t need the supernatural to be in favor of abolishing the condition of slavery, for instance, whereas you do need the Bible to keep slavery going so long. Subjectively, do I really know whether Dr. King was a believer or not? I don’t. Did he actually think that the story of the Exodus was true? If so, he contradicted it at every turn because he did not promise black Americans that they could kill everyone who disagreed with them.

It could be argued that the threat to humanity posed by religion pales in comparison to the threat posed by science and technology—napalm didn’t come out of the Vatican, it came out of the chemistry department of Harvard University. One could feasibly make the point that at least God doesn’t require 30 billion barrels of oil a year to keep his halo glowing.

No, but then if you look at what could be very frightening you would have scientific knowledge plagiarized by unscientific people who have contempt for both science and reason. That’s now been made possible by our global internationalized civilization. Surely, to most people, that’s the most scary thought; in combination is apocalyptic technique in the hands of messianic forces. Let’s be honest about it, there is an advantage to the rational mind as opposed to the fanatical one—the fanatical one is not very good at science and, so far, this advantage has played out in our favor.

Still, does science bear no responsibility when they create, essentially, a doomsday machine and then say it should only be used for peaceful purposes?

I would think it was a bad thing if the species was destroyed by an apocalyptic weapon, but I can’t see how any religious believer would think it was such a bad thing. To them it’s not a tragedy, it can’t be. They’ve repeatedly said so. And, sure, a secular power with a nuclear weapon could make the mistake [of ending the world] and several times nearly has. Nothing stops that. The idea that we could die as a species is obviously very high. The fact that we’ve survived this very brief time is rather surprising. It would be ironic if it were something that arose from our intelligence that got rid of us.

Maybe intelligence is the wrong word.

Well, we’ve been used to that ever since nuclear physics was discovered. This kind of thing seems to be common sense, our tenure on this planet is very fragile—goddamn. By the way, in my view, in case I didn’t make this clear enough in the book—which, actually, I think I didn’t—outgrowing the supernatural and the superstitious is not sufficient for emancipating the human race. It’s only the beginning. All our big discoveries and big arguments are ahead of us, but the one that has to be subtracted is the fanatical one that prays for the end of time.

Most of the religious people I know are not religious because they’re adhering to some ancient, antiquated text or because they’re afraid of spending eternity burning in hell if they misbehave. Do you think that religion, for some people, simply fulfills the same purpose that fiction and literature might for you or I, [as a way to quantify] ideas of right and wrong?

That’s why I say, in many ways, that [the question of religious inquiry] is a literary question; it’s about ethics and the origin of ethics and the best way in which they’re expressed is a dilemma—ethical dilemmas are in literature and myth, yeah, sure. The difference is that I can step outside of it and as soon as you can see it from the outside you can see that it’s man-made. Being man-made isn’t the worst thing. It’s just you can’t then make it into a transcendent law that everyone must obey. And that’s what I object to and that’s what has to stop.

There’s a basic question that I seldom see included in this discussion and that is the question of the viability of human consciousness itself, and whether or not it perceives reality or just perceives itself perceiving reality. In other words, can consciousness even perceive the truth or does it only interpret a version of the truth relative to a person’s mood, opinion, ideology, [et cetera]? 

No school of philosophy has ever solved this question of whether being determines consciousness or the other way around. It may be a false antithesis. Here’s what I do know, those who claim that they do know this are bound to be wrong. The argument is not equal between us and the supernaturalists. They don’t just claim to know there is a supernatural that can be miraculous as a designer, they don’t just claim to know that, which is more than they can know. No one can know that. I admit that I can’t. They say, ‘No, no you can! Not only that, you can know God’s mind. Not only that, you can know what he wants you to do about food and sex.’ If we start by excluding those who say there’s no point in the argument, who say they already know the truth, if we drop them then we may get some progress. Then we’re left with an argument among grown-ups.

Do you find that an argument against the existence of God is not unlike an argument against the existence of obscenity? Or, how about this—this is the equation:  There’s a difference between a cent and a penny. The cent is the imaginary value of the penny, it isn’t real, yet when we see the penny we see the cent because we’ve made them interchangeable. The cent is what we react to, but [we] have to believe it exists first.

I think I know what you’re saying—go on.

We’ve developed this habit of using the incontrovertibility of physical reality to give incontrovertibility to our imaginations, therefore, we’re capable of making our imaginations seem real, so God can seem real. You can see it when you look at the words “cunt” and “vagina.” Both words refer to the same exact thing, yet one is considered obscene. The difference between the words cunt and vagina is imaginary.

I know what you mean. However, cunt is a hate word.

But it was invented to be such.

It’s true that obscenity is a matter of taste and in the eye of the beholder. The real objection to obscenity, in my opinion, is the result of our makeup, specifically that the urinary/genitry/excretory is mixed up. That’s what makes children laugh and whistle and grin. If that were not the case, we’d be a lot better off, perhaps. Obscenity comes from grime. “Free education is a gift to the poor, it raises them out of the gutter. It teaches the girls to write cock on the door and the boys to write cunt on the shutter.” It’s the relationship between the spiritual and urinary, that’s where obscenity comes from.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By papabird, December 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a vote of approval for a great journalist who had the courage of his convictions inspite of his flaws He has made his mark by exposing the foolish supernaturalism that has and continually erodes rational thought.

Report this

By John Poole, December 20, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Leefeller: I have no business disparaging the fellow but I guess I DO have a
need to say he did not necessarily lead a heroic life in my opinion.  He had a clear
and deep need to fly his atheism banner while exposing and mocking the toxic
ignorance and monstrous mendacity of the overwhelming majority of our species
who hide under the slimy rock of dogmatic religion. That is way too intellectually
easy to do in these times but if it made him happy then fine. I just do not find it
heroic or even notable.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

A most memorable quote by C. Hitchens which emulates my thoughts on the topic of Religion as I prefer to see them!

” I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves.”

“?Hitch-22”

Report this

By Joe the unlicensed plumber, December 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

I have not written to praise CH or to bury him. I only wish to make a few comments as a person of faith. Now all who worship at the altar of ‘Hitchens’ can pronounce me a fool and get on with their day.

I have not made a thorough study of Hitchens books and philosophy but base my comments on hearing his debates and interviews on TV and u-tube. I just finished reading his bio info on Wikipedia. Very impressive!

He has challenged my beliefs and ended up strengthening them. His vivid examples in the error of strict literal Bible interpretation in particular have helped me to understand the mistakes made by many fundamental Christians. But to throw out the entire text on this basis seems a drastic measure.

Hitchens always gave me the impression of blaming all evil in the world on religion while ignoring any good works done by the institutions.  This demonstrates a huge blind spot in his understanding. The people who carried out the crusades and burned witches were no more devout Christians than Osama Bin Laden was an accurate representative of the Muslim faith. Everything done in the name of religion cannot be blamed on religion. Ten minutes listening to a GOP political debate should be conclusive evidence of this.

I always found him to be intelligent and his arguments compelling. But the same can be said of Newt Gingrich. Both are considered to be skilled debaters and able to sway the audience initially. But will their ideas hold up to close scrutiny over time?

Hitchens with his incredible gifts and intellect could have been a force for constructive positive action but chose instead to spend his time in an attempt to destroy the faith, character, and reputation of others who believe a supreme intelligence does indeed stand above this universe and our limited human intelligence, yes even CH’s.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 20, 2011 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

John Poole,

Though it may be prudent not to fly a personal banner in the face of the dangerously ignorant if one is planning to educate them, I do not believe Hitchens was attempting to teach the ignorant, he was far to enlightened.  He was showing the ugly under belly and exposed the rather hairy ass of ignorance for what it is!

Firefly, yes Hitches was just as enlightening in disagreement as he was caustic in agreement, I will miss his wit! I would loved to have been in Mr. Fish’s shoes drinking ‘whatthefuck’ with Sir. Hitchens!

Report this

By firefly, December 20, 2011 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

I think Hitchens was an incredible man with
unbelievable insight. He’s the kind of man I would
have loved to talk to, have debates with and learn
from, even when I didn’t agree with him (which was
often). I agreed with him about religion, although he
picked on Islam more than any other religion which
was unfair because it was based on the politics in
the US, 9/11 and the build-up to the Iraq war.

He had a fascinating debate with his brother, Peter
Hitchens, who is a devout Christian. I ended up
agreeing with one on one topic and the other on
another: Christopher on atheism, Peter on his stand
against war! And in one sense, Peter proved the true
teachings of Christ by being anti-war, forgiving and
merciful (something that the US war machine
definitely is not!)

Report this

By John Poole, December 20, 2011 at 7:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Defining oneself as an atheist to me is a veiled macho boast and as juvenile as
claiming there IS a bigger tougher alpha male hovering above. It is using a
negative to explain oneself and suggests a combative temperament. Enlightened
minds don’t fly such a personal banner while trying to educate those who they
consider dangerously ignorant.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, December 19, 2011 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

One thing Hitchens wasn’t was Liberal nor Progressive if he ever was one at all. Not in my book is he anywhere close to me in those areas of war, peoples’ rights and woman’s right to control their body he is on the other side with those gaggle of dangerous goofs running for office of the president today. If it weren’t for his flagrant Atheism he’d have been embraced by the tentacled octopus that is the fascist theocratic right wing. He fits all their parameters but the religious part. So in that he was still called “Liberal” but I for one would never count him so. And any who do are either willfully blind or ignorant of him and his works.

Report this
Oceanna's avatar

By Oceanna, December 19, 2011 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

“Couple of comments, first I apprentice the interview Mr. Fish, it provides an
enlightening insight into the real Hitchens!”

Huh—apprentice as in Trump’s?  I think APPRECIATE was intended. 

Sorry, but HItchens is a far cry from George Carlin or Gore Vidal when it comes
to atheist spokespersons.

What do you find mentally deficient about the views here, especially the ones
that give Hitchens accountability for endorsing the Iraq War and others? 

I won’t say who your intolerance and inflammatory rhetoric against views
contrasting with your own remind me of.  But thanks for illustrating one of my
earlier points!

Report this
miroslav's avatar

By miroslav, December 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

and here is Katha Pollitt on the Hitch, I’d agree with
most everything she says: http://www­.thenation­.com/blog/­
165222/reg­arding-chr­istopher

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 19, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Couple of comments, first I apprentice the interview Mr. Fish, it provides an enlightening insight into the real Hitchens!

Reading most of the other posts here, I am not hard pressed to ask ‘who let the barking Dogmas out?’..... so tis posters sound to be…. ‘It is always about me’, inseminating from these same annoying mental deficient posters,  obviously suggests Hitchens comments flew right over their butt licking heads!

Thanks Mr. Fish for sharing, yes a toast to Hitch and many more to come!

Report this
Oceanna's avatar

By Oceanna, December 19, 2011 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

“Behavior is as important as any other trait we or any life form has.”

True that.  More often than not, ideology is not in sync with a person’s actions. 

Hitchens presented himself on the left along with the media.  Despite plenty of
evidence to the contrary—e.g., joining the right with Clinton impeachment
attempts, kowtowing to the neocons in the Bush admin, supporting the
oxymoron of humanitarian intervention, etc. 

RIP, Hitchens.  Your feet obviously weren’t well coordinated with your mouth, 
but you deserve credit for maintaining your faith in the face of death.

Report this

By ACT I, December 19, 2011 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Two points:  (1) I’ve never read one of his books—and don’t think that I’ve missed anything.  (2) Granted that religion has been an evil force in the past; today (in the U. S. at least) it is merely irrelevant—which, though, is a type of evil

Report this

By GoyToy, December 19, 2011 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Said it once before on this site, and will say it again: the guy was a total dick

Report this

By tony_opmoc, December 19, 2011 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

So, the front page of Truthdig is crammed with
articles about Christopher Hitchens. The fact that no
one doubted his intelligence, made his position even
worse when he became a neocon cheer leader for the
war on Iraq. In my view this makes him and his small
army of fellow writers even more guilty than the
soldiers in the US army who committed the most
grievous atrocities against completely innocent, men
women and children (documented and photographed - but
not investigated) that I have ever seen.

You won’t want to see this video so don’t watch it.
This is simply an example of the truth.

“On the Dark Side in Al Doura - A Soldier in the
Shadows” “As Troops Pull Out of Baghdad, Secret
Killings and Massacres by US Come to Light”

http://vimeo.com/33755968

This slideshow is much gentler, but still horrific.

Baghdad Before and After

http://www.slideshare.net/Peety/baghdad-before-after

The devastation to the morality and financial future
of ordinary Americans is nearly as great. This is
what the deployment of the views of Christopher
Hitchens has left.

Tony

Report this

By Nap, December 18, 2011 at 11:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In a shower?  And why not “jesus doesn’t want me for a sunbeam”, But the prophet of atheism was a NeoConTortionArtist with disdain for the barbarians organized religions? And spit shine for the love and humanity in the empires, so enough of this moping now, get another glass of whatthefuck and I will leave you alone.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, December 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

When it comes down to it it is the human factor that is important. Though the religious, or ideological framework from which they operate is very important to their command and control. Blame evolution for it. Behavior is as important as any other trait we or any life form has.

Report this

By siddhanta, December 18, 2011 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Apart from the numerous fanatical religious leaders who
have misrepresented their faiths by imposing dogmatic
and draconian practices on their naive followers, there
is definitely a ubiquitous earthly presence of pure-
hearted, morally upright and magnamimous folk that
subscribe to the spiritually pure teachings of prophets
and divine personalities who have provided all of us
with the indispensable mores and ethics through which we
find meaning and order in an otherwise chaotic world.

Please don’t throw out the baby with the bath water by
attempting to discredit all mystic traditions and their
wonderfully transcendent wisdom and miraculous pastimes
based on the aberrant and insidious movements of those
who used religion to gain political power over the
masses.
For every harmful religious dogma and religious fanatic
there is an equally damaging atheistic dogma or leader
of a secular movement that has perpetrated horrific
crimes on humanity.

Without creating a score card or Venn diagram to
illustrate this graphically, we can point to several
phenomena of the past few centuries as evidence that
secularism in society is catastrophic for all living
beings on this planet. First, the emergence of
capitalism with its most insidious by-products, the
industrial revolution, mass production, environmental
pollution, consumerism, unsustainable economic growth,
and unequal distribution of wealth is due to the
preeminence of materialism and science born of the
enlightenment which replaced the supremacy of religion
as Europeans occupied the Americas and annihilated the
aboriginal peoples and their earth-friendly, humane,
spiritually-based life principles and practices.
Then in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as
greed-inspired capitalism, bereft of the moral and
spiritual guidance of the church, morphed into
communism, socialism, fascism and Keynesian monetarism,
we witnessed the horrors of two world wars, and
countless other armed conflicts with no end in sight.
So when people like Christopher Hitchens, God bless his
soul, rampage against God and religion, we need to be
reminded that humanity’s only saving grace in these dark
times is a reawakening of our spiritual consciousness by
rediscovering the mystic traditions of our ancestors and
adhering to the pure teachings without falling victim to
the dogma and demagoguery of false prophets and
preachers.

Report this

By siladas, December 18, 2011 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

It is a sad, but telling, sign of the times when the only people left to revere are alcoholics who have lived their lives repressing their real human vulnerability and trauma in favor of egoistic ranting. Mr Fish, what are you numbing in yourself, that allows you to revere the work of a man who lived in complete dissociation from the brutal effects of his actions and speech - poignantly, those you portray with such clarity in your cartoons?

Report this

By balkas, December 17, 2011 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

it had been reported a decade or so ago that mother teresa
said that she stopped believing in god.
i agree that charity or any personal dogooding only helps
perpetuate crime against people that mother teresa was
supposedly helping.
it shld have been their inalienable right to get food, shelter,
medicine, medical care, etc. tnx, bozhidar balkas. vancouver

Report this

By balkas, December 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

yes, the word “cunt” and “vagina” are cut in our brains or part of the brain
that controls the words and/or their meanings.
the first label had been imbued with much unknowledge and the latter not
at all.
no matter how hard i try to consider the word “cunt” as a good and
inoffensive label, i cannot do it unless i excise that part of the brain which
controls the meanings of that word.
it is just like a song cut into a CD or record disc; their melodies cannot be
changed.
too bad, but that’s how it seems to be. belief or knowing that god exists
and knowing what he wants us to think/do is also embedded in our brains.
i was spared that operation; thus, the word god means to me
prejudice/ignorance. tnx

Report this

By rumblingspire, December 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

thanks mr fish for a invigorating discussion.

“Still, I wonder if our survival as a species is something we can will given a consciousness that is able to make its imagination seem real?”

I agree with Hitchens, that we need to laugh at and dismiss the superstitious.  I’ve heard both Hitchens and Hedges, within the last two days, say that morality and ethics are in the Heart; our imagined heart.  Religion did not free the slaves.  the heart did.

The Electric Prunes - Wind-up Toys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8adXtEIY8I&feature=related

Report this

By thedancinmachine, December 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

thank Hitchens for exposing what an evil monster mother thersea was.getting tens of millions a year for her"clinic, which didnt have doctors or nurses or medicine or beds or decent food or clean water or electricity.she should have been indictied for fraud. if your kid was dyin of cholera she didnt have an iv drip. she and her nuns layed him on a dirty blanket and prayed for his soul. but she went to the finest hospitals in the world. also like the last 2 popes she told women in areas of aids ground zero if you use a condom youll go to hell.[knowing this caused aids]. nice. maybe thats how you act if ya dont get layed in 90 years.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.