The death of Hitchens stirred a handful of pro and con commentaries, which suits well the style of his own interventions in political and cultural matters. Two of his traits seem to gather coincidence: the quality of his English writing (which I’m not able to judge) and the integrity of his adherence to his atheism in the face of the coming end.
To me his parable, from the extreme left to the support of the genocidal intervention in Iraq, posed a conundrum. The same I found in the “New Atheism” in general and the militant Darwinism in particular. Some time ago I received an aggressive reaction to a post with mischievous remarks on the Third Culture and the Edge cultural enterprise. Such reactions forced me to try to understand a phenomenon absent of the cultural debate in my country (Argentina) where the Theory of Evolution has no religious defiance in the public educational system. It should be something linked to the political role of the North Atlantic countries and the Global Capitalism model.
After a while I found the answer in a series of lectures given in Chile celebrating the 200th anniversary of Darwin. The most transparent expression came from the “evolutionary psychologist” Leda Cosmides who, after describing the human behavior in modern capitalism (and pretending it reflects our hominid origins), concluded with an advice to the audience: follow after Adam Smith’s steps instead of Marx. Darwin, I realized, was instrumental.
Alongside the century after “The Origin of Species”, the Evolutionary Theory was embraced by the socialist movement as a scientific foundation for its commitment with progressive change in human society. Religion remained the cover for the reactionary demagoguery of the hypocrites. With the imperialistic colonial expansion a change occurred: increased benefits could be dripped onto the working class of the North while pretending to comply with a civilizing mission towards the “backward peoples”. A privileged elite in the colonies benefited from the compulsory modernization at the expenses of their exploited peoples.
In time, intellectual groups in those countries developed transactional ideologies aimed to re-appropiate the technological advantages with nationalistic aims. Two ways where open to oppose the servitude imposed by the ruling capitalistic elites: a socialism of some sort or a religious control over modernization. Nowhere those options clashed more clearly than in the Middle East. During the 50’s and 60’s the secular nationalism of the sort of Mossadegh and Nasser was battled and defeated by the Western intervention; in some cases, religious radicalism was encouraged against it (e.g. Israel founded “the brotherhood” clerics, which form Hamas now). The offspring of the defeat of the secular nationalism was the rise to power by Khomeini, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc. In turn, the new “menace” gave the excuse for a “Clash of Civilizations” ideology of entrenchment in the West.
People like Hitchens and the “New Atheists” became honestly horrified by the perspective of being engulfed by the wave of religious fanaticism arousing in the West, struggling to rescue the Enlightenment promise of the early days of Capitalism, while taking sides in practice with the imperialistic offensive. That’s the rationale after Hitchen’s opposition to the first Gulf War against Saddam (when he seemed to be the dam against the Ayatollah’s expansion) and his approve, later, of the Neocon’s Grand Plan of a complete redrawing of the M.E. with the excuse of reinforcing Democracy. He personified the impossible intellectual’s dream of battle “islamofascism” while keeping their own society safe from religious fanaticism.
The failure of the “New Atheists” is that of those who want to eat cake while keeping it whole. That is: to enjoy the privileges of Global Capitalism without losing their own freedom of thinking in the process.
GLORIA MUNDI 
danmillerinpanama
December 18, 2011
You contend with reference to Hitchens and other “New Atheists” that
A mere Agnostic rather than an Atheist, new or otherwise, I can’t speak to the views of anyone other than myself. Some religious groups have enriched our cultures and our lives, some have harmed them. The Roman Catholic Church engaged in some pretty brutal stuff but also preserved useful aspects of former cultures. Radical Islam, today, has far more malign influences on freedom than do Roman Catholicism or any other religions of which I am aware.
Imperialism too has been a mixed bag. Some nations have become too big for their britches and have attempted, by military force, to conquer others — not due to perceptions that the nations sought to be conquered were dangerous to them, but rather to annex their territories, natural resources and people. Germany, during the late 1930s and forward into the next decade, tried to do just that. Only through the perhaps “imperialist” actions of the United States and much of Western Europe were those advances successfully resisted and further such advances in the future at least postponed. The imperialist advances of Europeans into South, Central and North America indeed brought hardship to the indigenous populations. Still, I wonder how much better or worse off those populations might be now had such advances not occurred.
From my perspective, freedom is the most important quality we can have. It trumps democracy; they are often allied but often opposed. “Democratically” incinerated witches and adherents to “false” religions are neither more free nor otherwise better off than those murdered undemocratically. Take this if you will as a metaphor for the current Middle East situation. Perhaps it is imperialistic, as you might define it, to seek the advantages of freedom for others lacking it. If so, it strikes me as a quite benign and worthwhile sort of imperialism.
Bob Row
December 18, 2011
Daniel: I appreciate your response and comment to my post. In spite of being a Marxist and atheist from my youth, I understand agnosticism as a transitional skeptic epistemological stand. I even prefer the Spanish word “ateo”, as it lacks the militant nuances of the English word.
As a longtime History reader, I don’t neglect the role religions had in the organization of societies, but I value each one in connection with the role accomplished by each one at its specific time. I refuse to accord any religion any transcendent value and find fixed formulae dysfunctional when blocks necessary and progressive social changes. So it was with Christianity in face of the nascent modern science in Europe and so is with radical Islam today. But the Imperialistic foreign intervention usually have the effect of turning a sectarian, militant group into a popular defensive movement. If something, the War on Terror in Iraq proved so. I don’t think the hundreds of thousands Iraqis victimized by the chaotic violence that ensued would regard the American intervention as a “mixed bag” of benefits and inconveniences; besides the illegality and hypocrisy of its foundations. How can I believe Hitchens’ passion for Freedom when he sided decidedly with such a crime against Humanity?
danmillerinpanama
December 18, 2011
Rob, as seems to have become our pattern, I am replicating this comment here, with an addition or two.
You say,
Probably not; many now seem quite happy to see the U.S. forces leaving and I rather doubt that there will be more freedom after we have left than there was before we arrived. Will they eventually be happier under the Iranian domination that seems likely? I doubt it but will lurk with interest. Still, it should be noted that Saddam Hussein managed to slaughter many in Iraq and, when the U.S. had a significant presence, that slaughter was at least tempered for a brief, in historical terms, time.
As to religion in the United States, our Jewish and Christian traditions have been important and, I think, generally beneficial during my lifetime. As an Agnostic for well over half a century, I felt quite free to behave and to speak as I pleased while there. Even as a student at an Episcopalian high school (1957 – 1959), where before enrolling I had made my views known to the headmaster, an Episcopalian priest, and often commented during the mandatory sacred studies class he conducted, I felt no need to shut up. We had some quite enjoyable discussions. The same remains true at the conservative blogs where I now write. It may well have been different at different times.
Fortunately, here in the Republic of Panama — ostensibly a Roman Catholic country where my wife and I have lived since 2002 — I feel that I have comparable freedoms. I neither make an issue of, nor intentionally conceal, my views on religion and sense no reason to do so.
Your situation in Argentina may be different or similar; never having had the pleasure of traveling there, I don’t know. Venezuela, when we were there often between 1998 and 2001, was not greatly different from Panama now — although Venezuela was then perhaps more advanced in medical technology. I understand that there have been many changes for the worse under Chavez, though not particularly affecting religious matters.
Addition to my earlier post:
When in college, 1959 – 1963, my room mate for two years was a self-proclaimed Trotskyite; I was a conservative. We had many enjoyable discussions, though I doubt that either convinced the other of much. He was Irish and had been, and maybe remained, a Roman Catholic; I don’t recall any discussions of religion. His dad was then the station master at the local railway station, and I learned from my room mate of their disgust at the filth left in Fidel Castro’s railway car when Castro disembarked from the train that had brought him to New Haven during his tour of the United States.
Ideological disagreement can be, and should, be conducted as between rational people. I look forward to many such discussion with you on our blogs.
Bob Row
December 19, 2011
Dan, while Argentina inherited a Catholic majority from its Hispanic roots, the wealthy elite that organized the country as a food provider to Great Britain in the 19th Century was adamant to receive European workers and capitals. Besides, they believed firmly on the cause of liberal progress and science (the Positivist credo). So, they radiated the Church from the key posts of the State; the Public school system especially.
The crisis of the 30’s changed that with an increase of the Catholic nationalism influence (you call your old friends when your privileges are in peril). In the 60’s and 70’s there was a return of skepticism but now together with a boom of leftist ideas and violence (as you probably know) which ended in bloody dictatorship (baked and instructed by the USA services).
Since the recovery of Democracy (1983) we have problems of any kind but not from religion. There were advances regarding divorce, same sex marriage, etc. The sole community that suffered an increase in religious fundamentalism was the Jewish one because of the Lubavitch branch of neo-orthodoxy.
I hope you’ll tour my country some day; but be sure to spare a deal of time: Argentina is “a bit” bigger than Panama with a great variety of landscapes and places to visit.