At the Melbourne airport on the way home from Adelaide where I attended a conference at the University of South Australia, and spent some time with my wife's family, I purchased this anthology and I'm glad I did. I'm still reading it and will probably continue doing so for some time, selecting this or that as I see fit.
It is a remarkably comprehensive and convenient collection of material by thoughtful nonbelievers. It includes things from legendary figures such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Marx, Darwin and Freud. It also offers reflections by some of the most eloquent and energetic doubters of our time: Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and Hitchens himself.
I strongly recommend it as a useful resource for all who are interested in religious belief, whether pro or con. Although it offers few new arguments, it is a handy compendium of the existing ones.
Hitchens' emotional intensity exudes from his "Introduction" to the book as a whole as a well as from his shorter ones to particular authors. On his first page, with many similar outbursts to come, he refers to religious beliefs and practices with expressions such as "useless prayers," "bogus 'miracles," "idiotic ceremonies of hysterical thanksgiving, "primitive stupidities and "old superstitions." He depicts the writers with whom he agrees as "great" (Dennett) authors of "elegant contributions" (Shermer) who write with "courage and humor and intelligence in the face of dumb and sinister religiosity" (Dawkins).
We usually tiptoe around such excess in order not to disturb talented but troubled people. We should take Hitchens more seriously than that, however. Although he is more shrill than most, his voice is representative of a growing number of citizens who are alarmed. Most of these are unbelievers, but quite a few are believers. I am a member of the second group.
We believers know that we can flourish with unbelievers who laugh at us but do us no greater harm. We cannot survive with other people of faith who would compel all of us to believe and do what they require.
This is why I share the concerns of Hitchens and his comrades even though I disagree with their atheistic conclusions. We live in an era of increasing religious strife despite, or perhaps because of, the powerful secularizing forces of the last several centuries. These developments should bother all of us.
Hitchens and his colleagues would probably be nonbelievers in more favorable times; however, I doubt that their atheism would be as devout and fervent. Eschewing the still small voice, they scream "Beware!" "Look out!" "Danger ahead!" We should all take heed.
There is something these atheists know but perhaps do not take seriously enough. This is that we human beings are "pattern-making mammals," to use Hitchens' apt expression.
One of the ways we differ from other animals is that we conceive the most comprehensive accounts of all things that we can and then we pinpoint our little lives within them so as to give us some sense of who we are, what we should admire [worship!], how we should live, when we are out of line and whether we can do anything about it.
Providing comprehensive schemes in which we meaningfully locate ourselves is the primary business of religion. Explaining unusual events, advocating this or that deity or gluing societies together isn't. Neither is some combination of these. Serving the needs of "pattern-making mammals" by mythos creation is what religion is all about. Some religions do it better than others, all things considered.
It will not do to tell people again and again that their lives have no purpose other than what they can give them, that there are no standards of right and wrong other than what they prefer, and that there is no future other than what they can create.
Even this is an implicit religion or mythos, of course; however, it is one that has very little staying power. One exception might be the earliest form of Buddhism that invites us to embrace total meaninglessness and inescapable suffering and gives us ways to cope. But even it was not able to remain this austere among the masses for very long.
In saying this I am not trying to promote any particular mythos or religion even though I am a Christian of sorts. Because I believe that they rest upon a false dichotomy, I am not even holding out for the usual forms of supernaturalism. I am only trying to depict human life as I think it actually is. The horrific failure of every society so far that insisted by the force of arms upon complete secularism supports my claims, I believe.
Let us say it again: The antidote to bad religion is not no religion but good religion.
If faced with the necessity of choosing between absolutely no religion or mythos at all, on the one hand, or religious fanaticism, on the other, most people will choose the second and some of them will be very bright. And yes, I do use the term "bright" advisedly.
Hitchens and company rightly criticize much religious belief and practice and it easy to find in them an abundance of credulity and cruelty. So far, so good. Yet this is not enough.
They or others who share their convictions must also propose some explicit comprehensive scheme and place our lives within it . They must offer their own religion or mythos so that we can compare it with others.
We are doomed if we try to live without any at all.