Two or three decades ago, in a High Holiday sermon, my Reform but conservative rabbi focused his ire on Peter Singer. He railed against Singer, disgusted with his views on, among other things, infanticide. Intrigued, I went out and bought some of Singer's books. I met with the rabbi a few months later to suggest that Singer's ideas could serve the religious community by showing where radical utilitarianism leads. Pro-choice atheists, for instance, tend to recoil at the idea of infanticide, just like everyone else. Yet infanticide and abortion are of a piece, according to Singer. Since Singer wants to be pro-choice, he must also be pro-infanticide. There are pages of details elided here, but the equivalence presides. So Singer winds up creating two camps: Pro-Life & Anti-Infanticide vs. Pro-Choice & Pro-Infanticide. That's a win for the former. Have you read Caitlin Flanagan's Atlantic piece, "The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate"? It's the best thing out there about the complexity of the issue.
First, thank you for this response, Randy. You’re absolutely right. On a very different—but in some ways related—note, I became a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens’ work, despite the fact that he, too, was an avowed atheist. I noticed that much of his writing around “religion” focused on Christianity and Islam. He seemed to leave Judaism largely untouched. In fact, it was only later in life that he discovered he was actually Jewish.
Hitchens—far the wiser of the two, in my opinion—never arrived at the dangerous conclusions that Singer did.
But the point you make is important. Both men’s work forces so-called “religious” people to examine their beliefs more deeply—and hopefully, to refine them. I felt that with Hitchens’ death, we didn’t gain by losing an anti-religionist; we lost something vital—the presence of a wise whetting stone on which to sharpen (and expand) our ideas about God and faith.
Just like a teenager, a person without God is pulled by his hormones. Even more so by his prejudices. Like a tree, growing wild, overgrown… its fruits will not ripen to their maximum sweetness. In fact, they may end up being quite bitter.
Perhaps the best perspective I have is from my eyes as a father and grandfather. I desire the health and perfection of my offspring. It is so much greater than the care I showed myself as I was growing up. Now that I know how much support I needed in the way of guidance by teachers and direction by sages and foundation through God’s Torah I care so much more for other beings in the universe.
Two or three decades ago, in a High Holiday sermon, my Reform but conservative rabbi focused his ire on Peter Singer. He railed against Singer, disgusted with his views on, among other things, infanticide. Intrigued, I went out and bought some of Singer's books. I met with the rabbi a few months later to suggest that Singer's ideas could serve the religious community by showing where radical utilitarianism leads. Pro-choice atheists, for instance, tend to recoil at the idea of infanticide, just like everyone else. Yet infanticide and abortion are of a piece, according to Singer. Since Singer wants to be pro-choice, he must also be pro-infanticide. There are pages of details elided here, but the equivalence presides. So Singer winds up creating two camps: Pro-Life & Anti-Infanticide vs. Pro-Choice & Pro-Infanticide. That's a win for the former. Have you read Caitlin Flanagan's Atlantic piece, "The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate"? It's the best thing out there about the complexity of the issue.
And yes, I read Caitlyn Flanagan’s article when it first came out. Not surprisingly, it made many people uncomfortable.
First, thank you for this response, Randy. You’re absolutely right. On a very different—but in some ways related—note, I became a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens’ work, despite the fact that he, too, was an avowed atheist. I noticed that much of his writing around “religion” focused on Christianity and Islam. He seemed to leave Judaism largely untouched. In fact, it was only later in life that he discovered he was actually Jewish.
Hitchens—far the wiser of the two, in my opinion—never arrived at the dangerous conclusions that Singer did.
But the point you make is important. Both men’s work forces so-called “religious” people to examine their beliefs more deeply—and hopefully, to refine them. I felt that with Hitchens’ death, we didn’t gain by losing an anti-religionist; we lost something vital—the presence of a wise whetting stone on which to sharpen (and expand) our ideas about God and faith.
I’m honored to read this thoughtful discussion as well as your previous article. Thank you.
Well, I’m honored that you’ve taken the time to read and respond. It’s what makes the whole Substack enterprise worthwhile Kathy.
Just like a teenager, a person without God is pulled by his hormones. Even more so by his prejudices. Like a tree, growing wild, overgrown… its fruits will not ripen to their maximum sweetness. In fact, they may end up being quite bitter.
Perhaps the best perspective I have is from my eyes as a father and grandfather. I desire the health and perfection of my offspring. It is so much greater than the care I showed myself as I was growing up. Now that I know how much support I needed in the way of guidance by teachers and direction by sages and foundation through God’s Torah I care so much more for other beings in the universe.