Does religion, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, “turn the world into an agglomeration of vindictive mobs”? Look at the brutal, medieval ISIS, the competing religions in Northern Ireland, or the way that in rural America, if you don’t attend the local megachurch, you can be snubbed, excluded and treated as a pariah.
While Epicureans might regard the supernatural aspects of some organised religions with dismay – the doctrine, inflexibility and intolerance – no one will quarrel with the good “works”. I am referring, for instance, to the huge efforts of the current Pope to reach out to the poor and excluded; the voluntary effort of thousands of christians to help and support thousands of moslem Syrian refugees; the nationwide effort of the churches of different persuasions to distribute food to the British poor; and the drive by moderate Israelis to counter the extremists and work with Palestinians (just four examples). You have to admire the courage and selflessness of these people who quietly care for their fellow human beings with compassion and no judgement. Epicurus would have heartily approved. Epicureanism cannot be reflexively dismissive, like Hitchens, or it becomes as disagreeable and heartless as the faiths is it reacting to.
An excellent post which concludes with the strongest attribute of Epicureanism as we’re using the term. “Epicureanism cannot be reflexively dismissive.” Truth-seeking can’t “reflexively” dismiss anything without first examining the larger context which is closer to the truth.
I would amend Hitchens’ arrogant comment, i.e., that religion can “turn the world into an agglomeration of vindictive mobs.” It dismisses a more inclusive and realistic truth: religion, politics, philosophy, ideologies, economic systems, armies, social systems can ALL POTENTIALLY create “vindictive mobs.” History is full of such cases.
Of course it’s great when people of faith do acts of kindness. But Hitchens and the so called ‘New Atheists’ never denied that. The point of contention is that whether religious doctrine inspires more acts of good than it does acts evil. However kind the Pope may act, his belief in compassion is not a uniquely Catholic or religious principle. What distinguishes Catholicism, the Pope notwithstanding, is its moral absolutism on abortion, euthanasia and contraception, the past support for fascism in Europe, its dark history of religious persecution, and its belief- as eloquently expressed by Mother Tesera- that poverty is a gift from God. The Pope is a generous man, but no more generous than many others.
As for religion generally, the same line of argument applies: religious people frequently act with love and care, but they do so because they are human, not because they are religious. But the distinguishing features of religion: the supernaturalism and gnosticism, the moral absolutism on a plethora of issues, the often occurring violent sectarianism, and the belief that the individual should submit his autonomy to the religious authorities- are all tendencies that any principled Epicurean must vehemently reject.