A CRITIQUE OF 'GOD IS NOT
GREAT'
Written by Christopher Hitchens; Atlantic Books, London
Mahinda Weerasinghe-Author
of: The Origin of Species According to the Buddha
Presently bookshops are inundated with works denouncing the idea that
a monotheistic Judeo-Christian 'God' as being the creator. In that sense
Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great has not offered any original
insight on the subject. Yet if nothing else his acerbic presentation
may help open some eyes.
For instance, he roundly ridicules Jesus' mother Mary's much proclaimed
virginity. In the middle Ages he would have been excommunicated and
dispatched to burn in hell for such a base blasphemy. But such mumbo-jumbo
pronouncement only exists in the imaginary world of Catholic believers,
and the world at large would take this sort of Popish bull with a pinch
of salt. Hitchens mocks such make believe superstitions of the Holy
Church without mercy. He writes:
"Then there is the extraordinary matter of Mary's large brood.
Matthew informs us (13:55-57) that there were four brothers of Jesus
and some sisters also.
In the Gospel of James, which is not canonical but not disowned either,
we have the account by Jesus' brother of that same name, who was evidently
very active in religious circles at the same period. Arguably, Mary
could have 'conceived' as a virgo intacta and delivered a baby, which
would certainly have made her to that extent less intact. But how did
she go on producing children, by the man Joseph who only exists in reported
speech, and thus make the holy family so large that 'eyewitnesses' kept
remarking on it?"
As for the other major Judeo-Christian sect, Islam, as expected, it
has not fared any better. For he claims; "Islam is at once the
most and the least interesting of the worlds monotheisms. It builds
upon its primitive Jewish and Christian predecessors, selecting a chunk
here and a shard there, and thus if these fall, it partly falls also.
Its founding narrative likewise takes place within an astonishingly
small compass, and relates facts about extremely tedious local quarrels."
Naturally, if the origins of Islam are rooted in the myths of Judeo-Christian
ideology, how can he expect any sophistication from such an offshoot
of the desert?
Then he takes on Buddhism and we are in for a jolt. For it seems it
is no better than any of those Judeo Christens clubs.
Curiously, Hitchens has made an original discovery! The Buddha it seems
was also of 'virgin birth'. He informs with glee that "The God
Buddha was born through an opening in his mother's flank". Anyone
who knows something of Buddhism would have told him that it is the anti-thesis
of theism. Buddhism was born as a revolt against theistic doctrines
of India. Indeed the fundamental doctrine of impermanence goes against
the very concept of a permanent and unchanging god. Hitchens total lack
of scholarship is exposed when he attempt to equate the Buddha to a
God.
Post canonical comments mind, not scriptural ones, elaborate that Queen
Maya, the mother of the future Buddha, had a dream in which she saw
a white elephant entering her womb through the right side of her body.
It was an auspicious sign to her for the white elephant was the symbol
of greatness. Then, she knew that she had conceived a child who would
be unique. So how did this legendary dream metamorphose into that of
a virgin birth? Hitchens should have cross-checked his facts before
letting his imagination jump off the track.
Nowhere in the scriptures we find that the Buddha, the most rational
and logical teacher known to man, had a virgin birth. Nor did he proclaim
that his father was divine. He had an acknowledged father on earth and
that was King Suddhodana. What's more, Buddhists are not dependent on
a virgin birth of a Man-God to find the way to get a peace of mind.
The Buddha was just another mortal who attained enlightenment through
his own endeavours without any sort of divine intervention.
Hitchens also goes off the rails when he characterises Buddhism as
a war-like doctrine by referring to the Japanese conduct during the
Second World War. He writes;
"I excerpt this passage From Brian Victoria's exemplary book 'Zen
as War', which describes the way the majority of Japanese Buddhists
decided that Gudo was right in general but wrong in particular. People
were indeed to be considered children, as they are by all Faiths, but
it was actually fascism and not socialism that the Buddha and the dharma
required of them."
And enlarges this in the next paragraph "His study of the question
shows that Japanese Buddhism became a loyal servant---even an advocate
- of imperialism and mass murder, and that it did so, not so much because
it was Japanese, but because it was Buddhist."
He conjectures a lot when he makes such off the cuff pronouncements.
Japan is not a homogeneous Buddhist enclave. Japan has been influenced
by many creeds pre and post Buddhist. Shintoism played a big part in
Japanese life and culture from pre-Buddhist times. When Buddhism was
introduced into Japan in the sixth century, it started to have an effect
on the Shinto beliefs, and vice versa. Indeed Confucianism and Taoism
are also integral parts of the Japanese culture. In fact we find that
Japan is a mishmash of creeds. Notwithstanding such realities Hitchens
ask all Buddhists to take responsibility for the Japanese imperial adventure.
Japanese did what they did under the war which no one can deny, but
Hitchens got his wires mixed up when he blames Buddhism for Japanese
war crimes or crimes against humanity.
He wraps up his assessment of Buddhism with the following dire warning.
"A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches
submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient
thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by
conventional 'Bible' religions, and seek "enlightment" by
way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana
in any form, had better take warning." By casting such callous
brickbats his ignorance on the subject becomes glaringly evident.
Buddhism, far from despising the mind, goes all out to focus on the
mind as the sole instrument available to man to free the individual.
Also if life is not a transient thing then Hitchens has to provide proof
of it being the ever permanent thing in creation providing unlimited
happiness too sentient beings. The essence of Buddhism is in cultivating
the mind critically to find a way out of samsara.
He condescendingly discloses his own 'evolutionary' journey, or should
I say revolutionary one to enlightenment. For:
"When I was a Marxist, I did not hold my opinions as a matter
of faith but I did have the conviction that a sort of unified Field
theory might have been discovered. The concept of historical and dialectical
materialism was not an absolute and it did not have any supernatural
element, but it did have its messianic element in the idea that an ultimate
moment might arrive, and it most certainly had its martyrs and saints
and doctrinaires and (after a while) its mutually excommunicating rival
papacies. It also had its schisms and inquisitions and heresy hunts.
I was a member of a dissident sect that admired Rosa Luxemburg and Leon
Trotsky."
Presently we find that his Marxist religion has ended up in the dustbin
of history. But as a Marxist and a 'secularist' we find he has immense
faith in Darwin's 'natural selection' religion. But he shy away from
enlightening us how this Darwinian creed can aid humanity to creep out
of this hell hole that was created by such absurd religions and untangle
and free the human species' sprit.
Unfortunately here too we find he has been slipshod in his home work.
History documents how 'Social Darwinism' came to encourage and promote
egoism in individuals and groups. Its impact on the human psyche was
so insidious that most people were conditioned by its pre-conceived
notions without even realizing it.
Darwinism granted nations, groups and individuals a "survival
of the fittest" mandate, which effectively justified the suspension
of their ethical disposition. It sponsored selfishness, as a prerequisite
for survival, with ghastly consequences for the global society.
In fact Social Darwinism's chequered history can be traced back to
the chief Guru himself. Charles Darwin's work, On The Origin of the
Species by means of natural selection, (subtitled and note) The Preservation
of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life laid the foundation for the
questionable theories that were to follow in its wake; such as Arthur
J. de Gobineau's manifesto, 'The Inequality of the Races,' or the Communist
Manifesto of Karl Marx. These were all pure Darwinian spin offs. Naturally,
'Survival of the fittest' paved the ideological path for 'race struggles'
and 'class struggles' in societies.
Unwittingly Darwin had applied his biological selection process to
the historical social process. What emerged soon was a pseudo-science
called 'Eugenics'. Eugenics can be defined as applied Darwinism. The
founder of it was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, and the author
of several highly influential works on heredity, especially National
Inheritance (1889). Shortly after Galton published this work, a group
of so-called 'racial scientists' became active in Germany.
In time this catalysed and validated Hitler's scientific 'biomedical
vision'.
Indeed knowledgeable historians easily deciphered the concoction: Darwinian
biology led to the evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism to God's patronage
and blessings for only the fittest; and indeed 'Eugenics'. All built
on a solid 'scientific' edifice for 'racial prejudice', 'racial discrimination'
and 'racism' was a natural outcome. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional
conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust,
colonisation, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.
Genocidal crusades are not something Morden. They occurred prior to
the holocaust; and they are occurring even as we speak. What differentiated
Nazi 'race purification' programme from other genocidal campaigns was
that, it was built on solid 'scientific' (Darwinist) findings.
Reading GOD IS NOT GREAT leads to the conclusion that it is Hitchens
who is not great or truly secular. He is totally clueless as to what
promoted such narrow minded club mentalities of groups and nations.
He should have first gasped the essentials. The vital point that eludes
him is that Judeo-Christian sects are nothing but clubs fashioned for
grabbing power by exploiting ignorance, fears and weaknesses of individuals
due to their conditioned state of being.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, the subject is way over his head.
If he had done the basic research he would have grasped that Buddhism
is anti-creator. Nor does it recognise a soul as something attached
permanently to an individual. Indeed Hitchens should understand that
2400 years prior to Darwin's descent on the planet earth, the Buddha
had pronounced the universal doctrine in which change is the only permanent
factor determining species or any compounds as such. Of course, he did
not use the word 'evolution' to explain this complicated process. He
used the subtle and dynamic term 'becoming' to define the complicated
universal process.
Contrary to Hitchins illusion, Buddhists are asked to question everything
that is told them. This explains why no one has been able to incite
Buddhists to wage a Holy Crusade against other faiths.
Sadly Hitchens is not acquainted with Kalama Sutta, also known as 'The
Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry' stated two and a half millennia ago.
If he had, he would not go off at a tangent smearing Buddhism. Buddha
advises here his listeners how they should go about analysing and dissecting
information as we now do Hitchens own ranting.
According to Kalama Sutta:"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt,
to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful.
Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing;
nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture;
nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor
upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's
seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things
are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and
observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."'
We find that prior to Hitchens and such fashionable 'secularists' who
wish to call themselves forward looking 'secularist' in modern times,
Buddha has been an atheist and rationalist for two millenniums. Commenting
on this fact in the 1880ies, one of Hitchens's compatriots, Professor
Rhys Davids, was stunned to discover his unique and original departure
in history. And he comments in his introduction to the sutta as follows:
"However, that may be, it is certain that all the religions, and
all the philosophies, the existing records show to have existed in India,
in the time when Buddhism arose, are based on this belief in a subtle
but material 'soul' inside the body, and in shape like the body. It
would scarcely be going too far to say that all religions, and all philosophies,
then existing in the world, were based upon it. Buddhism stands alone
among the religions of India in ignoring the soul.
The vigour and originality of this new departure are evident from the
complete isolation in which Buddhism stands, in this respect, from all
other religious systems then existing in the world. And the very great
difficulty which those European writers, who are still steeped in animistic
preconceptions, find in appreciating, or even understanding the doctrine,
may help us to realise how difficult it must have been for the originator
of it to take so decisive and so far-reaching a step in religion and
philosophy, at so early a period in the history of human thought.
Nearly a quarter of a century ago I put this in the forefront of my
first exposition of Buddhism. The publication, since then, of numerous
texts has shown how the early Buddhist writers had previously followed
precisely the same method. They reserve, as is only natural, the enthusiasm
of their poetry and eloquence for the positive side of their doctrine,
for Arahatship. But the doctrine of the impermanence of each and every
condition, physical or mental; the absence of any abiding principle,
any entity, any substance, any 'soul' (anikkatâ, nissattatâ,
niggîvatâ, anattalakkhanatâ, na h'ettha sassato bhâvo
attâ vâ upalabbhati) is treated, from the numerous points
of view from which it can be approached, in as many different Suttas."
Darwinism we find is devoid of an ethical principle. To embrace its
version of determinism as advised by Hitchins, is to kneel down and
await the unfolding of blind impersonal material forces. Individuals
under those circumstances are compelled to bow down to a philosophy,
which notifies 'now you are here, now you are not'. While Darwinians
advocate 'survival of the fittest' what we notice about those who are
surviving are the 'luckiest'.
Currently, a certain Judeo-Christian sect is bent on conquering the
world through procreation and terror. And naturally for this they have
been following the good old Darwinian dictates. The lunatic fringe of
this creed is using militancy in order to fulfil 'their' God's will.
The opponents of these fanatics, have stamped them as 'terrorist', and
are hunting them down, with extreme prejudice.
In reality, this unique Judeo-Christian sect is doing nothing extraordinarily
un-Darwinist. As a human sub-species they are multiplying their prototype
so that their kindred with their 'locked-in, intolerant beliefs' can
go on further in time and space, and take control of the human progeny.
Indeed if by chance they survive such un-ethical methods, and be successful
in their objectives, then they will certainly end up as truly the 'fittest'?
If we go along with such 'hare-brained' Darwinian logic, then we would
naturally end up in blind alleys of extinction.
Indeed we find that the Buddha was the first documented secularist.
He was the first to assault the concept of God, or a soul to any creature.
He denounced a hell or heaven in some unknown coordinates. Only he did
it so subtly that Judeo- Christian dogmas were unable to expunge Buddhism
for the last two and a half millennia. Through Hitchens own religion
'Marxism' is already waning. A similar fate too awaits Darwinist mechanist
explanations of life. But Buddhism would limp on further as it has his
feet are embedded in reality.
Owning such empty Darwinian 'secularist' mechanistic views of existence,
Hitchens should campaign to dismantle the UN human rights commission
and international human rights tribunals, and release groups and tribes
to perpetuate wars of survival. So the fittest will survive and go on
to procreate. Or does Hitchens and other 'secularists' feel that 'survival
of the fittest' should only be applied to none human species and leave
out his human kith and kin? Then are we to assume the species that he
is affiliated to, is a 'unique creation' of God. Hence Darwinian 'natural
selection' should make 'human types' the exception. With such half baked
mechanistic 'secularist' pontificating, little wonder, these mindless
'we love God and God loves us' fundamentalists are wining the battle
for rationalism.
The thing is I was quite taken up by his two earlier works. The Trial
of Henry Kissinger and the Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory
and Practice. And now we confront such hollow revelations!
Hitchens should realise, when a shabby slipshod job is executed as
is the case with 'GOD IS NOT GREAT' all of his earlier efforts will
also be flushed down the toilet.
Pity!
Mahinda Weerasinghe
22-03-08
Author of: The Origin of Species According to the Buddha See web page:
www.evolution.becoming.com
|
