Aeons ago the Heresiarch posted about the 'debate' between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens in Toronto on whether religion benefits the human race, the world, and the universe. I hadn't bothered with it until a few days ago when I heard it broadcast on Radio 4; even then I couldn't manage more than the opening statements by both participants before boredom got the better of me. You know exactly what the protagonists are going to say in these circumstances; the only interest lies in discovering exactly how it's going to be said and, as the Heresiarch points out, Mr Hitchens's contribution was far more elegant.
My main conclusion was that the discussion was not merely sterile, but entirely wrong-headed. I find myself continually insisting that there are such things as 'religions', ideological structures and traditions based on various propositions, but 'religion' is usually too vague a category to be helpful. And the outset of this debate made the point. The core and heart of Mr Hitchens's argument was this, wonderfully modulated and beautifully delivered phrase:
"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well."
The repetition shows how important it is in Mr Hitchens's thinking. But it seems to me that it's a criticism not of religion in general, but of Christianity. The tension in Christianity between the doctrine of the inevitable human tendency to sin and the command to be holy generates huge theological difficulties and, it could be argued, psychological stress which human beings can do without. But it is, I think, unique to this particular religious tradition. Allah, for instance, demands only that human beings follow a few easily-enumerated rules; the deities of many animist traditions make no moral demands on their adherents at all; Buddhist or Daoist traditions again have very clear statements of what human beings have to do in order to live the good life which fall well within the bounds of possibility. Only Christianity has this inescapable tension between divine perfection and inborn human frailty, and even then there have been Christian heretics who've thought differently.
Religions are different and teach different things. Atheist campaigners prefer to tackle a single phenomenon, 'religion', but what they think religion is seems usually to be their own creation drawn from real ideologies - Christianity, for instance - and arguing about that construction seems to me to be the merest pointlessness. It's as sterile as discussing whether 'politics' is good for the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
ReplyDeleteThis is what the Buddha is reputed to have said, and there is plenty in similar vein within the Pali canon. Not an easy requirement, nor one that is mentioned much in western popularisations of concepts such as mindfulness, etc.
The Buddha recommended different courses of action depending on what he was asked, and the capacity of the listener. Living a good life will generate better kamma, and is recommended. But the requirements for total deliverance from the conditioned and the corruptible are usually expressed in terms similar to those used by Christianity.
Well, yes, but the point is that in the Buddhist system the emphasis is on the practitioner's own efforts at combatting desire in its different forms. It's assumed that it's *possible* to liberate oneself from desire by consistent effort; even if the ideals are high, they are within the bounds of possibility. Christianity continually emphasises that it's *not* possible for us to match the righteousness and holiness of God, and that, in more extreme traditions, we need his help in being virtuous at all. As far as I can see Buddhism and Christianity are almost polar opposites in this matter, despite how similar the language sounds. So Mr Hitchens's epigram doesn't seem to me to be an accurate description of Buddhism, where it is of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure of the theology here, but do Christians have to equal God in righteousness and holiness? Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect", but isn't there forgiveness if we can't manage this?
ReplyDeleteThe Hitchens quote is originally from Fulke Greville's "Mustapha"; the only thing that he is remembered for these days.