“Philosophers of the caliber of Nietzsche made the effort to understand what animates genuine religious belief… These days, philosophical acumen has been replaced
by cheap jokes about the sexuality of nuns”
[1]
—Giles Fraser
No wonder Sigmund Freud was asked what a cigar means. Considering that he appeared to tie all human behavior to sexuality (desires for the mother and aggression against the father and such) and considering that he was always chomping on a cigar, perhaps wanting to escape his own phallic obsession, he famously responded, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
The New Atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, et al appear to suffer from a sex crazed obsession. No, I am not addressing their personal libidos. I am addressing the fact that they are obsessed with the idea that God is obsessed with sex. They find it impossible to believe that an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent God would have nothing better to do than being concerned with the sexual activities of individual human beings living in the backwaters of a tiny corner of the universe.
As Michael Shermer stated it during his debate with Dinesh D’Souza (On God, Religion, Morality),
…the creator of the universe’s biggest concern is what consenting adults are doing with their sex organs in the privacy of their bedrooms.
In his debate with Alister McGrath, which was entitled Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World, Christopher Hitchens stated,
…every religion that’s ever been is distinguished principally by the idea that we should be disgusted by our own sexuality. Name me a religion that does not play upon that fact.
I will be glad to name two: Judaism and Christianity when they are biblically based. Moreover, Tantric Hinduism is, shall we say, the extreme opposite of disgusted by our own sexuality.
Yet, being aware that Christopher Hitchens possesses a rare gift (or curse) for concocting tightly wound combinations of a great number of confused and non-related issues with phantasmagoric results, one can only wonder what he is actually stating or asking.
For instance, what does he mean by “our own sexuality”? If he means do what thou wilt sexually then religion or not, sexuality must be restricted to a certain degree—this is self evident.
The Judeo-Christian scripture restricts damaging sexuality but honors and glorifies normative sexuality. God did, after all, invent sex.
One can only wonder which, if any, sexual acts Christopher Hitchens opposes. Moreover, I would imagine that he has fallen for a very common misconception which is to confuse biblical teaching in and of themselves with what occurred later in history when these were comingled in the western church with Greek philosophy and or Gnosticism. These held to body / spirit distinctions to the point of declaring the body unclean as opposed to the spirit (you may want to read Some Gnosis of Gnosticism). If this is the case, then when he states “religion” holds that we should be disgusted by our own sexuality, he may have a point if he is referring to “religion” as a manmade ritualistic hierarchical authority.
The Bible is very level headed about sex in the real world and oft describes marital sexual bliss. For example, the entirety of Song of Solomon is, shall we say, “Hot!”
Proverbs 5:18-19 states,
rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love.
1st Corinthians 7:3-5 seeks to encourage both husband and wife to be sexually fulfilled with each other,
Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband…Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again.
As I pointed out in Ecce Homo’s Commandments, one of Richard Dawkins’ “new ten commandments” (of which there are fifteen) reads as follows,
Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.
Certainly, this is an unfounded assertion. In that essay I commented on the issue of what “damages” may mean.
Richard Dawkins’ statement is a precise and succinct version of many people’s concept, “I’ll do my thing and you do yours. Don’t bother me about mine and I won’t bother you about yours,” or, as they say in common parlance, “It’s all good!” This sentiment is very appealing in that it encourages us to not really bother with the whole sensitive and complex issue of sexuality. It is very liberating and is viewed as tolerant (except that that it makes you intolerant when you do not tolerate the intolerant).
However, this sentiment is simplistic, inadequately generalized and morally bankrupt. In short, this sentiment is far too narrow and shallow to be the least bit useful in the real world of sexuality in—and this is the key concept that I will be addressing—all of its forms. It is an invitation to cease from making very difficult and important decisions.
Even if we would concede that God is obsessed with sex, or with people’s sexuality, we ought to note that God invented sex. The sentiment also seems to ignore the fact that sex is very, very important. Sex affects the lives of virtually every single human being who has ever lived and has done so in very, very many ways. Sex is not at all unimportant enough to ignore as an issue since sex is greater than the individual. It is more important than mere enjoyment. It is also about more than procreation, which Richard Dawkins claims is the only Darwinian reason for sex.[2]
God would be neglectful if He did not address sexuality in its many, many forms from procreation and enjoyment to abuse.
We must take careful note that many New Atheists have a fascinating way of conveniently narrowing arguments so as to facilitate concocting self-serving conclusion. However, once they reach their conclusion we realize that they have not dealt with the arguments as they would be readily discussed and identifiable by the hoi polloi. Rather, they tend to offer a simplistic caricature of what is, in reality, often a complex multifaceted issue.
Consider the simplistic concept as set forth above: enjoy your sex life.
This certainly is easy to understand and practice, in fact, far too easy. Why should God be concerned with scrutinizing sexuality? Because this simplicity does not take into consideration that sexuality deals with the following issues, and surely many more:
Adultery Abuse Abortion Adoption Abandonment of children Bestiality Children being forced to live out of a suitcase, shuffled between un-cohabitating parents Consent Control Federally funded STD research Federally funded welfare programs (such as for single parents and abandoned children) Healthy, happy families Incest Intimacy issues Prostitution Forced prostitution Rape Sexually transmitted diseases Single parents Teen pregnancy Pedophilia
Psychological problems
Even if someone such as Richard Dawkins attempts to broad-brush many of these issues as being done away with by the qualifier “damages” it still leads to many unanswered questions. Does an animal consent to bestiality? Did a baby in the womb consent to the sexual act that conceived it? How then was the sexual act a private matter between two consenting adults? Is tax money forced out of your wallet in order to fund research for STDs wrought by the irresponsible sexual activities or others? How then was the sexual act a private matter between two consenting adults? Etc., etc., etc.
Yet, most importantly the point that I seek to make is that the reason that God is concerned about sex appears to be that the above mentioned and many other issues are attached to it. It is not enough to simply assert that God, and by extension “religious” people, ought not to be concerned about it. It is one thing to completely ignore it, another thing to kick people’s bedroom doors down and quite another still to face the issue full on.
The New Atheist movement is neglectful in this realm, God is not.
If God’s will was followed none of the problem associated with sexuality would exists.
If the New Atheist’s will was followed we would have—well, we would have precisely what we have now.
Moreover, it is invalid to argue that God’s will is irrelevant since some people will not follow it because God’s will takes that into consideration and because the deeper issue is: for what shall we strive?
Striving for the New Atheism is going to get us more of the same and worse. Striving for God’s will can repair and prevent much of the damage that is done by human abuse of God’s gift of freewill and sexuality.
[1] Giles Fraser, “Face to faith – Secularists who dismiss Christianity as the choice of the stupid should turn their critical gaze a little closer to home,” The Guardian, Sat. Oct. 22, 2005
[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 221
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
