You say that "Hitchens was no fool." And yet who but a "fool" would set himself up as the prime criterion for the judgment of what is "harmful to modern society?"
And that he can infallibly tell you what is "superstition," and what is not?
To say that something is "harmful" or "beneficial" implies that there is an a priori criterion of judgment, according to which the truth of Reality can be reliably perceived. Hitchens simply locates this criterion in himself.
Please explain to me how he is warranted to do this, dear magritte. And then explain to me how, if Hitchens can be such an infallible (albeit "self-selected") criterion, on what basis are we to conclude that the same privilege cannot apply/extend to anybody and everybody else?
If the truth of reality resides only in our own minds, from our very partial perspectives, then it seems to me there's no sense in talking about Reality at all.
IOW, if everyone is his own "criterion," this is tantamount to saying that there is no criterion; there is only "opinion." And one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's.
Is this your position?
If anti-birth control is a religious superstition and is harmful to society, then birth control must be helpful to society, and it must be truth in some form, whether religious truth or general truth.
In terms of anti-birth control, that advocate is saying that God is a better determiner of those who should live.
In terms of birth control, that advocate is saying that individual humans or human groups are better determiners of who should live.
Would I rather have existence in the hands of God or in the hands of a human group?
I must side with the writer of the Declaration of Independence: “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life...”
I would not want humans to think in any capacity that they are the arbiters of life. Too many horrendous examples of those who have grossly abused power.
Tons of strawmen in your response, but I’ll address a few points.
Hitchens never claims to be the grand arbiter. It was his opinion, which is equally valid in such matters to those of the religious bent. Infallibility is only for Popes, if I recall.
Hitchens believed religion is superstition. As David Gibson said “The problem is that one man’s superstition is another man’s religion, and vice versa. Many Protestants today still see Catholicism as being rife with superstition, ... while atheists and agnostics would see bien-pensant Protestants as worshiping an equally absurd form of the supernatural.
”
Something being harmful doesn’t require an a priori criterion of judgment. He didn’t like poor Indians dying in the rathole hospitals of Mother Teresa. Some people thought it was just fine. Both positions are valid.
I’m of the opinion that the true God is the incorporeal God of Abraham. “I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the Lord, that does all these things.” (Is. 45:6-7). I believe God is incorporeal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and immortal. I understand that my belief is based a lot on the fact that I was raised in the Judeo-Christian culture, therefore giving me a pre-disposition to accept it as more truthful than say Baha’i. An open-minded analysis of most religions shows that all have there own internal logic and could just as easily be as true or as false as say Christianity or any of its many flavors. They all have their particular holy books, icons, after-life beliefs, creation beliefs, supreme beings and the like. We may find out after death the truth. Or not.
Here’s a few quotes to sum up:
“What we call reality is an agreement that people have arrived at to make life more livable.” Louise Nevelson
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius