God is not (so bad after all)

[Ecurb]

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you. .

“The Atheist” is in fine form here. While it is true that the Atheist “probably can’t help” darkshadows, the remainder of the sentence is ridiculous. “Fantasy ” IS “fiction” (although not all fiction is fantasy). In addition, most fantasy bears a “resemblance to reality”, including, but not limited to: describing the adventures of human characters; when human characters are not included, the characters often resemble humans in that they speak some modern, human language; many of the characters can see, hear, and speak…..etc., etc., ad. infinitum.

The Atheist’s post is malarkey, EXCEPT THAT he “probably can’t help” darkshadows, or anybody else. On that single point, perhaps, we can find agreement.

One question, what are the “historical points” on which so many stories are based? The sharpened tips of halberds?

The atheist continues:

“ The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.”

Now The Atheist can read minds. Not only does he dismiss the Bible as third rate literature, but, through some uncanny psychic power, he is able to discern that the historical “bits are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables.” Perhaps he has channeled Moses, and thus learned his intent. Or maybe he has used his psychic powers to determine the purpose behind all that troublesome history in Kings. In any event, we should all exercise caution. Doubtless these same supernatural powers will enable The Atheist to determine the motives behind our posts, and we can be certain that he won’t be shy about revealing them (making them up?).

[The Atheist]

god made you and so how could he be bad?

Well, I'd dispute that myself.

It does raise the old conundrum that a god must have created evil along with the good.

[cacian]

Well, I'd dispute that myself.

It does raise the old conundrum that a god must have created evil along with the good.

ah well you see I personally believe god does only create the goods, people, and evil is the breed that has gone sour ie the bad seed.
one god does not make two bads
meaning evil is the root cause of something else.
god is the root cause of good.
one has to dissociate bad with god for the simple reasons that there are causes obvious that breed evil and one must look into finding out what the causes are.
let's keep god out of it ie
god is a concept that is neither proven nor disproven and so to implicate a concept with something we do not like is simply passing the bucket and washing our hands of it. burying one's head in the sand or so to speak.
what is good is obvious it is simple and manageable there is no reason specific for good to exist it is simply is and does. it is natural to be good that is the norm. evil is abnormal or unusual let's say odd.
whereas evil comes from a something that has gone badly wrong and so one must look it for it and then get rid of it simple as that. god is nothing to do with logically speaking
also one must understand the meaning of evil it has many facets. evil/bad is a defect or an unoccurence that does not fit within the norms.
for example too much heat or too much cold can be described as bad.
too much swearing is bad.
too much rain/tsunamis/space exploration is bad.
bad transcends beyond a personne and therefore to implicate god which is a concept in that is simply ignoring the root causes of these misfortunes.

[The Atheist]

meaning evil is the root cause of something else.
god is the root cause of good.

This is an odd kind of religion you follow.

If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?

space exploration is bad.

Why?

[cacian]

This is an odd kind of religion you follow.

lol well I do not have a religion. I do not believe in following any. but I do regulate my own thoughts by thinking things through and god is not immune of it since its concept is available for scrupules.

If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?

indeed. the seven deadly sin is the indicator of what evil is about and why it is about. greed/ anger/jealousy are to name just few these are all a precipitator for bad to commit bad.

Why?

space is an unknown territory and not be to fouled with in my opinion. space exploration is pure pollution, anything we do up will affect us down in earth. if we damage the up ie put pressure on it, then we lower the down. ie what goes up must come down. we are already seeing the results. tsunamis earth quakes and lack of water all these are signs that space is not well heat condensation and industrial damages is being trailed on its paths. not good.

[Phocion]

I read "God is not Great" when it came out -- and quickly, so I don't remember all the details, just my general impression (which was in agreement with White's Salon article). I'll agree that while Dawkins' and Harris' arguments may be simplistic, it would be a stretch to call them "intellectually dishonest", as White calls Hitchens' arguments. Hitchens was a public intellectual, who should (at least) have been aware of (as just one example) Kierkegaard when he was bashing the Isaac and Abraham story.

I'm sorry, but what is this crap? Why should someone have to read what some guy wrote several millennia after the supposed events for it to be a valid critique? Is Bertrand Russell's critique of Christianity invalid also because he hadn't read Kierkegaard at the time? That makes no bloody sense, and nor does most of the rest of that pathetic article which constructs straw-man arguments left, right, and center, while clearly being ignorant of the actual premise of Hitchens's book. The guy acts like Hitchens claimed to be writing some philosophical treatise: he wasn't, the book was supposed to show the pernicious influence of religion, and to convey it in a way that could be understood by the masses (because this was obviously the audience he was intending to reach). Would his book have been more valid had he spent several hundred pages deconstructing the thought of Aquinas, Augustine and Jerome? Of course not: what those people thought all that time ago is irrelevant to the premise of the book.

Alas, some imbecile academics like the fool that wrote that article are incapable of understanding this. Why should a book be any more true because it is published by Oxford? The Oxford press will publish many books that openly contradict one another - they cannot all be correct! The guy clearly has an unerring faith in authority (which would explain why he hated Hitchens's book so much) and clearly so do you. You find an article online published by some mediocre academic, find it echoes your sentiments, and then post it with glee as if it is some kind of affirmation that your view is correct. Thus you viewed it with a completely uncritical eye and were somehow incapable of noticing that his argument is riddled with so many holes that you could write 10000 words deconstructing that piece of garbage.

Btw, just googled the guy who apparently wrote 'an admirably restrained review' of Hitchens's book, and he is a mormon for Christ's sake. And you'd take his opinion as fact? Jesus...

edit: and also: the bible is as much of a historical book as the Iliad.

[papillondemai]

I didn't read all of the Salon article but I did read God Is Not Great. Hitchens biggest criticism is not of God but of the way the Bible portrays Him and in the way people implement Him. Hitchens wanted to believe in the Biblical God but his education got in the way. He learned that men distorted the true nature of God in the Bible in order to control and manipulate other men. He wanted to believe that God loves us and made us superior to the animals, the plants and the minerals. But God doesn't. Atheists would rather think that there is no God than think that we are not first in God's heart. The question is not whether there is a God but: What is his true nature? After creating it all God stood back and watched and after a while He realized that the things that think ended up being the most vile, despicable and destructive of all his creations. God exists but He doesn't care for us any more than he cares for a pebble on a mountainside. In fact I think God derives a lot more pleasure and satisfaction from the pebble. Don't you? (You certainly do if the pebble is made of gold) So God is now pouring out His true love on a world somewhere across the universe inhabited by creatures that turned out to be truly noble of character and spirit. That place is still a paradise. God has abandoned us. He has left us to our own devices. He is allowing us to destroy ourselves and is doing it on his timetable, on geologic time not on human time. Slowly and painfully in this Sodom and Gomorrah where there is no Lot and no righteous creature to justify saving it. We don't realize it because we "see through a glass darkly" and want to think we are special. Like the William Holden character, Shears, in Bridge on the River Kwai, who said "sometimes I even think I'm Admiral Halsey." Sometimes we even think we are God.

....Sounds of laughter, shades of life
Are ringing through my opened ears
Inciting and inviting me.
Limitless undying love, which
Shines around me like a million suns,
It calls me on and on across the universe ....
Across The Universe
John Lennon

[The Atheist]

lspace is an unknown territory and not be to fouled with in my opinion. space exploration is pure pollution, anything we do up will affect us down in earth. if we damage the up ie put pressure on it, then we lower the down. ie what goes up must come down. we are already seeing the results. tsunamis earth quakes and lack of water all these are signs that space is not well heat condensation and industrial damages is being trailed on its paths. not good.

I think you'll find there have been tsunamis, earthquakes and water shortages long before there was space travel.

edit: and also: the bible is as much of a historical book as the Iliad.

Very good post, and great spot that the guy's a Moron.

Atheists would rather think that there is no God than think that we are not first in God's heart.

Congratulations! You just won the award for "Most Outrageously Nonsensical Sentence About Atheists".

Well played.

[papillondemai]

Congratulations! You just won the award for "Most Outrageously Nonsensical Sentence About Atheists".

Well played.

Sentence? The entire paragraph is "outrageously nonsensical." A product of my imagination. But at least I tried to come up with an original idea so I could express my disgust with "humanity" instead of just regurgitating a bunch of pretentious "high falutin" slightly modified intellectual gibberish I read somewhere else. The objective reality is probably that "we live and we die." Period. And I say probably because I am not so arrogant as to think that I "know" because I read a bunch of obscure books at a rich kid snob school.

[SFG75]

I have to say that I really enjoy Hitchens and his work. I just recently finished Mortality and I have to say that I found it to be very refreshing and honest, even in the face of impending death. He had a number of pithy, funny comments as well, typical Hitch style. I would agree with the Salon critic that Hitch picks and chooses his evidence. He is the kind of guy who would go on about religion and slavery, lord knows there are plenty examples of how it was used to justify the practice-Hamitic curse theory being one of the big "reasons." At the same time, Hitch wouldn't mention the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, or other religiously motivated abolitionists that religion was a huge part of. The Unitarian and Quaker movements have a lot of positive contributions to society and have been a source of goodness throughout the years, though the latter sectarian group did give us Richard Nixon.

[Phocion]

A reply was posted in Salon that, i think, adequately takes to pieces the article posted at the start of this thread:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_...is_not_a_liar/

It really was a disgraceful piece of writing.

[Ecurb]

Thanks for posting the Salon response to White’s article. It’s more carefully constructed than most of the critiques of White posted here (not surprisingly, since it’s written for publication). In addition, Delora’s complaint that White has failed to “closely read” Hitchens’ book definitely applies to me – I remember reading it in a book store when it came out, over a 2 hour period. Nonetheless, Delora is guilty of many of the same intellectual sins of which he accuses White.

Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.” However, if the above is true, wouldn’t it be equally correct to state: “…If you want to make wicked people do good things, you’ll need religion.”? Why the one, and not the other?

Besides, the claim that religion “functions” ONLY to make good people do evil things defies common sense. The moral precepts of Christianity include the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, the parables of Jesus, etc. How do these “function” to make good people do evil things, but not the reverse?

The “school” of anthropology that developed at Oxford in the mid 20th century (not long before Hitchens attended) is called “structural-functionalism”. Its developers included A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E. Evans-Pritchard – perhaps the most famous Oxford anthropologists (identifiable as such by their hyphenated last names). Their notion was metaphorical – just as the organs of the body “function” to maintain the whole body, the institutions of society (political structures, religious structures, economic structures) “function” to maintain the whole society.

Structural –functionalism has fallen out of favor in anthropology. The evolutionary assumptions upon which it is based are dubious (as are similar biological evolutionary assumptions). We cannot assume that because an institution (or an organ) exists, it “functions” to preserve the society (or organism) as a whole. That is assuming the antecedent (if that’s the right name for the logical error). Nonetheless, it’s reasonable to think it LIKELY that religion serves a social function. Indeed, if religion serves ONLY negative functions (as Hitchens appears to suggest), it is likely that evolutionary forces would not have allowed it to be so persistent and pervasive in human societies. Clearly, if nothing else, religions create group solidarity among adherents – ritual behaviors (for example, calling fellow believers by kinship term such as “brother”) suggest that religion can help create a kin-like relationship among non-relatives.

Delora continues:

Yes, here White is correct. We should understand what made up Hitchens’ irreligious principles and ethical framework. How can we possibly be expected to trust a man who decries religion yet offers very little in the way of a description or framework of ethics as an alternative? Except, he does. On the very same page, in the very same paragraph that White quotes, Hitchens succinctly and brilliantly outlines his own version of an ethical and principled kind of reason: “Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

Very well. I respect free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas just like Hitchens does. But what is Delora getting at here? Respecting open mindedness hardly constitutes any kind of complete ethos. The open-minded can murder and steal and lack respect for their fathers and mothers, just like the close-minded can. The extent to which religion is valuable (to us atheists) is the extent to which it has helped form our own set of ethics, and the extent to which it has functioned to maintain and develop our society, and inform our culture. Clearly, inasmuch as ethics are culturally constituted, Christianity has informed and influenced the Western ethos. No doubt Christianity has also led (in part) to crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Immorality must involve something other than “contradict(ing) science or outrag(ing) reason”. “Open-mindedness” itself suggests that our “reason” ought to be occasionally “outraged”, because, like the reason of our superstitious and benighted religious ancestors, it probably leads us into a great many mistakes, errors, and delusions.

The debate continues on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/hitc...a_philosopher/

[papillondemai]

Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.” However, if the above is true, wouldn’t it be equally correct to state: “…If you want to make wicked people do good things, you’ll need religion.”? Why the one, and not the other?

Besides, the claim that religion “functions” ONLY to make good people do evil things defies common sense. The moral precepts of Christianity include the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, the parables of Jesus, etc. How do these “function” to make good people do evil things, but not the reverse?

We cannot assume that because an institution (or an organ) exists, it “functions” to preserve the society (or organism) as a whole. .

It is easier to manipulate a "good" family man into killing in the name of God, than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life at the expense of his own personal power and wealth. The good man is brainwashed with propaganda about how it is necessary to kill to preserve his family, home and nation; But how do you manipulate a wicked man to do something good when it will diminish his wealth and power? The vast majority today unfortunately falls into the "wicked" category. They selectively ignore the moral precepts you talk about when it interferes with their acquisition of more things. The vast majority is out there lying, cheating, stealing and pimping themselves because they have been brainwashed by evil corporations like Nike and Apple into wanting outrageously expensive IPhones and gaudy shoes.

Institutions exist to protect the one percent and control the 99%. Preserving society is the propaganda. Thomas Hobbes says the "life of man is short, brutish and nasty." Because that is so man lives in terror. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov says that the masses give up their true freedom to the "institutions" in exchange for a slave job, some semblance of security and the promise of Heaven. But the institutions really only protect the property and safety of the one percent.

In "Matin" (from Season In Hell) Rimbaud says "When shall we go beyond the mountains and the shores to greet the birth of new toil of new wisdom, the flight of tyrants, of demons, the end of superstition .... Slaves let us not curse life." Never. That's when.

[MorpheusSandman]

The debate continues on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/hitc...a_philosopher/

Excerpt:

Hitchens’ informal style, the sort of brilliant uncle talking at a party, causes trouble because it appears that he skipped generations of important philosophers and certain intellectual traditions. How do you talk about religion and truth and knowledge without bringing in explicit questions of epistemology, of what we actually say about truth? All of these questions make some of Hitchens’ argument feel amateurish, like late-night dorm room philosophizing, which can be brilliant, but rarely precise. Not that academic jargon always matters one way or the other, but to discount countless theories on what it means to know, on the meaning of truth, makes Hitchens’ arguments sound simplistic.

To give a small example, at no point does anyone question the ability to know and learn anything specific from history. What historical events, especially trends that span many centuries, are ever so clear as to point to any sort of lesson. Let’s say we did sit down and judge the value of religion throughout history. How do you go about truly gauging the effects of religion on society? What counts as variables, as evidence, even as religion? History, as all historians of today will tell you, is not a science in that sense. How do you know what to put on the scales, and how much everything weighs? To begin to use point systems attests to the impossibility of this attempt. Moreover, how do you begin to assess cause and correlation? Does religion engender evil or provide an outlet? Couldn’t any system of government or societal makeup serve as an outlet for our violent tendencies? Again, I don’t agree with any of these positions, but not to flesh out these ambiguities makes Hitchens polemical and not philosophical. Polemics, while interesting, enlightening and often compelling, rarely further the conversation.

I think this hits the nail firmly on the proverbial head when it comes to my complaints about Hitch.

[Ecurb]

It is easier to manipulate a "good" family man into killing in the name of God, than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life at the expense of his own personal power and wealth. The good man is brainwashed with propaganda about how it is necessary to kill to preserve his family, home and nation; But how do you manipulate a wicked man to do something good when it will diminish his wealth and power? The vast majority today unfortunately falls into the "wicked" category. They selectively ignore the moral precepts you talk about when it interferes with their acquisition of more things. The vast majority is out there lying, cheating, stealing and pimping themselves because they have been brainwashed by evil corporations like Nike and Apple into wanting outrageously expensive IPhones and gaudy shoes.

Institutions exist to protect the one percent and control the 99%. Preserving society is the propaganda. Thomas Hobbes says the "life of man is short, brutish and nasty." Because that is so man lives in terror. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov says that the masses give up their true freedom to the "institutions" in exchange for a slave job, some semblance of security and the promise of Heaven. But the institutions really only protect the property and safety of the one percent.

In "Matin" (from Season In Hell) Rimbaud says "When shall we go beyond the mountains and the shores to greet the birth of new toil of new wisdom, the flight of tyrants, of demons, the end of superstition .... Slaves let us not curse life." Never. That's when.

Anthropology informs us that this is dubious. Why? Many simpler societies (especially hunters and gatherers) are economically and politically egalitarian (or at least reasonably egalitarian). The political and economic institutions that may facilitate the continued authority of the 1% don’t exist in these societies, because the 1% don’t exist. However, religion exists. Is it reasonable to claim that religion (i.e. supernatural claims about causation, afterlife, etc.) functions in one way in these simpler societies, and in a completely different way in our society?

Of course religion has changed over the centuries, and modern religion differs from the religions of hunters and gatherers. However, if we want to look at the ESSENCE of religion, then we must see the commonalities as well as the differences.

Also, I disagree that it is easier to “manipulate a good family man into killing… than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life….” Why would it be? This seems to assume that man is essentially self interested, which is clearly incorrect. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals routinely act against their own self interest by giving scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring. Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way.

Finally, the notion that we are all “brainwashed” by corporate “propaganda” seems elitist to me. It may condemn the economic 1%, but suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing. Somehow those who think Nike and Apple (or the Catholic Church) have “brainwashed” the masses have inevitably escaped these pernicious influences themselves. But why should they be better than the rest of us? Or (perhaps) are they simply “brainwashed” by different influential sources (Marxism, etc., etc.)?

Regarding the Salon article and Morpheus’s comment, it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents in the debate than in actually pursuing the issue with any depth or subtlety.