On Divine Inspiration

I think the argument that religion is bad for humanity, put forth by Christopher Hitchens and others, is faulty. Religion is of positive benefit to us all.

Of course, there's a good instinct behind the blame of religion for world problems. Peoples of the world use religion to harm others. They say that because God spoke to them, they have the right to kill others. Christopher Hitchens said that such a belief is essentially totalitarian. It puts ultimate truth in a single person, or a single book, at the exclusion of others. But I say this is nonsense.

To understand why this is nonsense, we should unpack the ideas at play here. One is of an ultimate power, or God. There is also the idea that this ultimate power can inspire others disproportionately. Then, there is the idea that this ultimate power having given divine charter to individuals over others leads to violence.

It is at this last point where the idea fails.

Think about it. This is not an argument against religion; it's an argument against power. It is the divine charter itself that people have a problem with, not the fact that it is divine. And I say this is wrongheaded. People need power. Power is part of what makes us who we are.

I think this is the time to lay down some working definitions. When I'm talking about "divine inspiration," I'm talking about the product of religion. Many religious texts claim divine inspiration. They say, essentially, that this particular text came from God and has the authority of God in a sense. There are also many people in the world who claim to be divinely inspired, and claim the authority of God in a sense. What they are saying is that God has transferred some of His power to them. What I'm saying is that, contrary to many people's belief, this idea of having been divinely inspired is not at fault when these people choose to behave negatively. It's like having a car. Having a car gives you a great deal of power, and enables you to do things you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. However, of course, you may choose to drive drunk, and as a result, kill people. You wouldn't be able to kill people if you were just walking around drunk. Having the car gives you the ability to choose foolish actions which harm others. But I don't think that's an argument against cars. It's an argument against stupid decisions. Same goes for religion.

Suppose anti-religious people had their way, and God never divinely inspired anyone. There would be no change in human nature. Individuals or groups claiming inspiration leading to a better world would have no ability to garner public support and effect change, because, by definition, they would have nothing these other people didn't have. On the positive side, you'd never have people resorting to heavy-handed or desperate tactics in the name of this inspiration. But I'd rather humanity at least have the choice to effect change, even if the choice can be corrupted.

And that is the essence of my argument in support of religion. People who are inspired by God have a choice to behave positively or negatively. If there were no divine inspiration, there'd be no choice. And nothing would ever change, for good or bad. The fact that a huge number of people choose to use their inspiration as reasons to behave badly reflects badly on us, but not on religion.