I’ve come across some speeches by British/American author Christopher Hitchens via the net. I have found his mix of pragmatism, objectivity, and sarcastic wit quite compelling. I guess when one is late to humanist… atheist… chain of logic there is much to read and digest by those that came before me. I’m still early in my discovery, but something registered pretty quickly. One’s beliefs do not make it true. This is an objective truth. It makes me reflect, and rightly so. How much of what I surmise of this world is belief and how much is based in objective truth?

I consider myself pretty objective. I know my biases. I know my ideals. I know there is plenty to discover and learn. Yet, there isn’t enough time in the day to digest it all and have a balanced life. What I haven’t considered is how much is objective and how much is a belief based on partially objective sources that I have read or witnessed in the form of speeches, videos, documentary films, and the like. Where does one draw the line between objective and reflective belief as the authenticity of so many sources are questionable. This is what Hitchens has done for me. He is making me question and reflect yet again, but in a thoughtful way rather than an embarrassing way.

I find this whole reflective play interesting in the timing. All of this has occurred in the past two weeks ironically. While many are seeking sources of a podcaster to know what he believed or supported, I’m seeking sources that are encouraging me to focus on my objective truths and values. Hitchens arguments or objective truths are diametrically opposed to the podcaster in just about everything based on a small sample size. I guess my algorithm is better off somehow. I get to avoid him and focus on enlightening myself with real philosophy…

The first argument I saw of Hitchens was a debate regarding ethics, kindness, and morality. How does an atheist develop a moral compass without religion? An atheist does not need the fear of a hell or retribution from a god to have a moral compass. It is a choice one comes to through education and socialization. It requires no motivation from an outside mystical source. We all have the ability to develop a good moral compass. He then goes on an attack on religion citing the numerous ways religion (in an effort to be moral) uses the bible to justify murder, discrimination, and slavery. Religion is a ploy to control the masses using fear guised as hell to force a manufactured morality.

The second source I saw was on the development of religion from the perspective of evolution or Darwinism. Various subspecies of human have lived on this planet over the last 10,000-12,000 years. During this time where was god? The humans killed each other for food, territory, etc. Where was the morality created by religion? There wasn’t any until much later in the development of our species. It wasn’t until people’s consciousnesses seeked a meaning to their existence. Then our species development thousands of gods to justify a way of explaining the unexplainable. This led to a system of social control through religious culture.

Atheists are free thinkers. They do not need a spiritual guidance system. They can follow a moral compass based on science, social science, logic, statistical mathematics, and objective truths not beliefs. I found this line of logic and historical reflection hard not to argue with. Where was god when the first subspecies of human existed? God didn’t appear until something had to be made up to satisfy curiosity. When science proved something wrong or against a religious belief the scientist was persecuted. Remember Galileo?

The last source I viewed of Hitchins was the discussion of religion within politics and how it is used to corrupt the governance of the people based on belief rather than logic. Hitchins brought up suicide bombers, cult leaders, and Christian Nationalism as corrupting influences on governance within the world. Religion is a violent practice within his viewpoint. It causes more harm than objective science and atheism. Morality does not need to come from a belief, faith, or some mythical punishment under movable rules from a pope or other religious leader.

Keep in mind, I am paraphrasing. I’m not saying these are Hitchins’ direct conclusions either. These are my reflections based on viewed speeches of Hitchins. I may have to purchase a book or two to explore his philosophy more deeply. After I read the stack of materials I already have. I have been pretty lousy on my goals list from the New Year. Side note: I wonder if Gene Roddenberry had a similar philosophy when he created Star Trek?

As I have reflected on these issues, I feel that I am justified in saying the following. You can believe anything you want. If you want to worship a chair as your sacred god; knock yourself out. If you want to believe that your mystical being has gifted you power over the undead; knock yourself out. If you want to pretend that your beliefs are pure and sound; knock yourself out. But!!!! You can’t force the United States to willingly be governed by those beliefs. Governance is about objective and statistical truths, not beliefs.

I get it. You want to have everlasting life upon your death. I understand that gives you hope. You can be reunited with your pets that have crossed the rainbow bridge. You can be reunited with your family. I completely understand. It gives you hope. But that belief is not objective. What is objective is how your family and pets live on through you. Their memories are within you. Their love lives on within you. As long as those exist, these loved ones have eternal life within you. That is objective. That is hope. Even with the pain of loss. Belief does not make it so.

I dissent with this current way of governing in the US where a minority believe in exceptional entitled nationalism passed off as Christianity. Their belief is not objective. I do not want it to continue as a philosophy of governance. ….so it goes…