God is not Great, a book by Christopher Hitchens

[blp]

I'm a non-believer, but I've been wary of anti-religious books by the likes of Richard Dawkins, assuming a certain pomposity and tilting at windmills. I actually feel a bit stupid now. What I thought were windmills really are giants and Hitchens does a devastating job of showing how overwhelmingly destructive they are.

A number of points I think Hitchens is making:

Proponents of religious belief repeatedly offer proofs until all are debunked. At which point they state that the proofs against are irrelevant because the divine does not operate according to the logic of this world, normal human understanding etc.

Religion all over the world repeatedly shows itself to be hostile to the intellect and to the senses, both the evidence of the senses and the pleasure that may be derived through them.

Religion is frequently defended on the grounds that it instills morality and provides comfort, when, in fact, it instills a far from comforting terror of punishment and perpetually creates a veneer of morality for acts and persons that are extremely harmful.

Scientific knowledge, even when described as theoretical, is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed testing and re-testing of the available data. Theories are so described because they may be superceded by new and better information. They are not so described because they are based, as religious beliefs are, on no evidence at all.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm a non-believer, but I've been wary of anti-religious books by the likes of Richard Dawkins, assuming a certain pomposity and tilting at windmills. I actually feel a bit stupid now. What I thought were windmills really are giants and Hitchens does a devastating job of showing how overwhelmingly destructive they are.

An atheist evaluating religion is like a man afraid of heights evaluating the sport of rock climbing: there is already a built in bias that precludes any objective examination. Religion cannot be objectively examined because one is either a believer or not (agnostics are non-believers waiting for sufficient "evidence"). Is it really a surprise that an atheist wrote a book hostile to religion? Is that supposed to be news? Care to qualify what religion is "destructive" of or to?

A number of points I think Hitchens is making:

Proponents of religious belief repeatedly offer proofs until all are debunked. At which point they state that the proofs against are irrelevant because the divine does not operate according to the logic of this world, normal human understanding etc.

Christians enter this trap when they try to argue with atheists on the atheist's own playing field of Naturalism; instead of beginning from the conclusion that God is real, many Christians who try to argue with atheists will try to establish their position in terms of "reason" and "logic" that the atheist agrees with - but at some point, the apologist finds himself in trouble because he gave away too much ground in the beginning by conceding to the atheist's ideas of "reason" and "logic" and "evidence." Both Christians and atheists begin by begging the question: the Christian begins by assuming that God is real and looks for "proofs" - the atheist begins by assuming God doesn't exist and then he looks for his "proofs" - BUT: since the atheist is confined to Naturalism/materialism, he feels he has plenty of "ammo" because the Christian acknowledges an unseen reality that informs his vision of the world - so he appears to be at the disadvantage - but only because he is trying to play on the atheist game field, by the atheist rules. Don't bother telling me about how atheists start out objectively to examine the evidence to make their decisions - no: their quest is already begging the question by deciding to seek "evidence" that only a naturalist would accept.

Religion all over the world repeatedly shows itself to be hostile to the intellect and to the senses, both the evidence of the senses and the pleasure that may be derived through them.

Not "hostile" to the intellect - but suspicious of how it can be manipulated; the spiritual has to guide the intellectual because the devil deals primarily with "logical" arguments when it comes to tempting people towards evil. There are plenty of intelletual arguments for genocide, bigamy, even bestiality (cf. Princeton's head of ethics dept. Pete Singer's articles).

Religion is frequently defended on the grounds that it instills morality and provides comfort, when, in fact, it instills a far from comforting terror of punishment and perpetually creates a veneer of morality for acts and persons that are extremely harmful.

Religion's job is not to "instill" terror so much as it is to inform people of the consequences of their choices and actions. When teens take drivers ed or traffic school, or a sex-ed class, we generally show them some of the frightening realities connected to driving and sex so that they understand the gravity of their choices in these areas. Religion - if conducted properly - is doing the same.

Scientific knowledge, even when described as theoretical, is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed testing and re-testing of the available data. Theories are so described because they may be superceded by new and better information. They are not so described because they are based, as religious beliefs are, on no evidence at all.

The "evidence" that religion "doesn't" have is classified as such because it doesn't fall into naturalistic science; but there are other ways of "knowing" in this world besides "I see it, I hear it, I touch it, I taste it, I smell it." (By the way, all of our senses can be fooled/manipulated).

[blp]

Care to qualify what religion is "destructive" of or to?

Female genitalia in parts of Africa and the Middle East; Male genitalia under Judaism; the lives of baby boys whose circumcisions by orthodox Jewish mohels have gone wrong; the lives of Kamikaze pilots who believed they were dying in the service of the divine Emperor; the lives of Islamic and buddhist suicide bombers and their victims; the lives of the numerous children raped by members of the Catholic clergy who were not investigated because their position of religious authority was thought to make them unimpeachable; the life of Galileo; the followers of charismatic religious leaders who gave up families, possessions and sometimes lives under their influence; the victims of Italian fascism and Nazism, the actions of which were supported by the clergy (with a few, very few, notable exceptions); the victims of the Rwandan genocide who mistakenly sought shelter in churches and were handed over to their killers by the clergy; the works of the great Greek philosophers, which were deemed irrelevant by European Christian authorities for having predated Christ and only survived because copies were kept in Baghdad; the victims of the Spanish Inquisition; the women who are continually imprisoned, beaten, stoned and hung in Islamic countries under Shariah law for sins of impropriety such as sitting in a car unchaperoned with a man; the numerous people who died on both sides in the internecine conflict between Irish Catholics and Protestants; the same in the Israel/Palestine conflict; the freedom of Salman Rushdie to live and write without fear because of a fatwah imposed by the Ayatollah of Iran and not condemned by leading European and American religious leaders, including the Pope; Catholics persecuted by reforming Protestants; the people who gave their money to Jim and Tammy Bakker; the American blacks whose persecution and segregation was justified by the idea that they were the descendants of Ham, who was condemned to servility.

instead of beginning from the conclusion that God is real, many Christians who try to argue with atheists will try to establish their position in terms of "reason" and "logic"

Why start from that position? Starting from a conclusion is getting things a bit backward here in the real world.

Don't bother telling me about how atheists start out objectively to examine the evidence to make their decisions - no: their quest is already begging the question by deciding to seek "evidence" that only a naturalist would accept.

Oh well, I guess we can discount all the evidence at the top of this post then too. Still, it was you who asked. You wouldn't have been 'seeking evidence that only a naturalist would accept' would you?

Interesting that you use the word 'naturalist'. I guess you'd say it was dumb of Darwin to have wasted so much time with the Galapagos, but he did do it thinking he'd be able to maintain his religious belief - but at the end of his life he realised he couldn't. Are you saying that religious people shouldn't look at anything at all in the natural world at all in case it shakes their faith?

Not "hostile" to the intellect - but suspicious of how it can be manipulated; the spiritual has to guide the intellectual because the devil deals primarily with "logical" arguments when it comes to tempting people towards evil.

How do you know this and, anyway, isn't your denigration of logic couched as a rather simple logical argument itself?

There are plenty of intelletual arguments for genocide, bigamy, even bestiality (cf. Princeton's head of ethics dept. Pete Singer's articles).

Sounds like a catalogue of activities carried out by the heroes of the Old Testament.

Religion's job is not to "instill" terror so much as it is to inform people of the consequences of their choices and actions. When teens take drivers ed or traffic school, or a sex-ed class, we generally show them some of the frightening realities connected to driving and sex so that they understand the gravity of their choices in these areas. Religion - if conducted properly - is doing the same.

Those teen education examples you give depend on your despised 'evidence'.
No such evidence for hell exists.

The "evidence" that religion "doesn't" have is classified as such because it doesn't fall into naturalistic science; but there are other ways of "knowing" in this world besides "I see it, I hear it, I touch it, I taste it, I smell it." (By the way, all of our senses can be fooled/manipulated).

What are these other ways of knowing and why do they appear to be unavailable to so many of us?

[Dark Star]

I haven't read his text and I don't intend to, except for 'fun reading' perhaps. Not something I'd take seriously. There are many texts on atheism and the problems with religion...based on what I've seen, Hitchens paints with an extremely broad brush. Nice to see a prominent neo-con with no interest in a theocracy, though.

[blp]

I don't think he's a neo-con, but it's a great flaw in his position that he didn't have the sense to oppose the war solely on the grounds of the bozos who were perpetrating it. Rather undermines his profession of rationalism, I admit.

But yeah, go on, read it for 'fun' then. I was as skeptical as you, but it's great. A damn site better and more interesting than Bertrand Russell's 'Why I am not a Christian' for starters.

[Redzeppelin]

Female genitalia in parts of Africa and the Middle East;

Unacceptable behavior (and I'd need you to verify which religion condones this behavior.)

Male genitalia under Judaism; the lives of baby boys whose circumcisions by orthodox Jewish mohels have gone wrong;

Statistics please: how many are "going wrong" these days? As many as young people with serious complications from having their tongue pierced?

the lives of Kamikaze pilots who believed they were dying in the service of the divine Emperor;

What religion would that be?

the lives of Islamic and buddhist suicide bombers and their victims;

You conveniently pick the radicals and ignore the mainstream.

the lives of the numerous children raped by members of the Catholic clergy who were not investigated because their position of religious authority was thought to make them unimpeachable;

Horrific behavior - but not unique to religious people; Christians are human beings - nothing about adhering to a religion implies perfect, sinless behavior; the same God that these men have sinned against holds them VERY responsible for their behavior. They too shall be judged.

the life of Galileo;

There were a lot of backwards attitudes back then - from all walks of society, not just religion.

the followers of charismatic religious leaders who gave up families, possessions and sometimes lives under their influence;

Cf. comment about Catholic priests.

the victims of Italian fascism and Nazism, the actions of which were supported by the clergy (with a few, very few, notable exceptions);

Ditto. That religious people are guilty of the same atrocious behavior doesn't negate the value of religion per se - it means that people who claim religious affiliation may not necessarily be adhering to it properly, or they have allowed their beliefs to be manipulated.

the victims of the Rwandan genocide who mistakenly sought shelter in churches and were handed over to their killers by the clergy;

Can't comment on this one - don't know enough about it.

the works of the great Greek philosophers, which were deemed irrelevant by European Christian authorities for having predated Christ and only survived because copies were kept in Baghdad;

Hardly even in the same class as the other things you've listed; Irish monks also preserved classic Greek manuscripts - if it weren't for the European monks, much of antiquity's greatest writings would have been lost.

the victims of the Spanish Inquisition; the women who are continually imprisoned, beaten, stoned and hung in Islamic countries under Shariah law for sins of impropriety such as sitting in a car unchaperoned with a man.

The inquisition was an ugly error of the first order; Islam is WRONG.

An impressive list - but banish religion and guess what? None of these behaviors would disappear. As such, while it is a terrible stain on religion to have these truths said about it, they are not unique to it, and as such, cannot be blamed for their existence. People commit sin and evil in the name of religion - but people can do so in the name of government, of philosophy, of "love."

Why start from that position? Starting from a conclusion is getting things a bit backward here in the real world.

All reasoning is ultimately circular in nature because human beings cannot approach any issue totally unbiased or objective; we are subjective beings - I know I won't get anywhere with this line of arguing, but go look up "presuppositionalism" and it will explain my position much better than I can.

Oh well, I guess we can discount all the evidence at the top of this post then too. Still, it was you who asked. You wouldn't have been 'seeking evidence that only a naturalist would accept' would you?

You have not responded accurately to my post - your evidence up above is sufficient; I was referring to the idea that atheists like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are clear-minded, objective thinkers while we believers are "brain-washed," unable to "think for ourselves." I'm challenging that ridiculous idea by contending that atheists have settled into their own limited world view and that they chose that world view because of a conclusion they'd already come to even before they started "investigating" God.

Interesting that you use the word 'naturalist'. I guess you'd say it was dumb of Darwin to have wasted so much time with the Galapagos, but he did do it thinking he'd be able to maintain his religious belief - but at the end of his life he realised he couldn't. Are you saying that religious people shouldn't look at anything at all in the natural world at all in case it shakes their faith?

"Naturalism" is the dominant philosophy in the modern world - it basically stipulates that only what is material and observable/measurable is real; that there is no such thing as a spiritual world, no such thing as God.

We can look at the natural world, but the scriptures make it clear in many instances that the world offers illusions - that sight is one of the easiest of the 5 senses to be tricked, manipulated.

How do you know this?

I've spent many years reading the Bible and other Christian thinkers. I have experienced this reality.

Sounds like a catalogue of activities carried out by the heroes of the Old Testament.

Ha ha. Bestiality was never committed by a biblical hero. As far as genocide and bigamy - well, those did happen, and those occurred for various reasons - sometimes due to God's will, sometimes against His will. The Bible is full of human beings, and no human (aside from Christ) can be utterly without sin.

Those teen education examples you give depend on your despised 'evidence'.
No such evidence for hell exists.

Easy does it there - I don't "despise" evidence and I'd prefer you don't misrepresent me as you attempted to do; empirical observation and the scientific method are very valuable - but I'm not ready to simply brush off what God said simply because science appears to have contradicted what I believe. When one acknowledges the existence of a spiritual world, then many things become possible.

What are these other ways of knowing and why do they appear to be unavailable to so many of us?

Philosophy, intuition, "gut instincts." They're available to all.

[NikolaiI]

Red, the whole point of your long paragraph was not simply to show disrespect for others' beliefs, but in fact to get others to feel the same way. I have seen other people say they support you and agree with you and are glad of what you write, but Red, I am no longer a believing Christian, but if I were, you would surely unconvert me in a quick minute. You sadden me.

[Redzeppelin]

Red, the whole point of your long paragraph was not simply to show disrespect for others' beliefs, but in fact to get others to feel the same way. I have seen other people say they support you and agree with you and are glad of what you write, but Red, I am no longer a believing Christian, but if I were, you would surely unconvert me in a quick minute. You sadden me.

1. I disrespected nobody's beliefs here. Show me where I've disrespected somebody here.

2. I'm allowed to challenge positions I disagree with as much as an atheist is allowed to do so. Why my status as a Christian is being made an issue by you strikes me as a veiled ad hominem attack. Instead of discussing my argument, you evaluate what kind of Christian I am based on a discussion forum posting. You do not know enough about me to make the judgment you are making. I do not recall judging your character by your posts.

[NikolaiI]

An atheist evaluating religion is like a man afraid of heights evaluating the sport of rock climbing: there is already a built in bias that precludes any objective examination. Religion cannot be objectively examined because one is either a believer or not (agnostics are non-believers waiting for sufficient "evidence"). Is it really a surprise that an atheist wrote a book hostile to religion? Is that supposed to be news? Care to qualify what religion is "destructive" of or to?

I was talking about this. And I wasn't saying anything about your being a Christian.

An atheist cannot be open-minded? Wow. I mean, just wow. An atheist cannot be objective? This blows my mind. And yes, that is what I would call disrespecting someone's beliefs. And you go on to warn people not to be swayed by these horrific and hostile atheists.

I wasn't going to get into it with you, but where do you get...????? What kind of Christian you are? I said I am no longer a Christian etc... I didn't judge you...???? We weren't in a debate, and I really wasn't using an ad hominem argument.

Okay, maybe you thought I was juding you when I said "You sadden me." Perhaps it was better to say "The main gist of your post saddened me," what I meant was you sadden me by the act, or words, of that post.

[MaryLupin]

Female genitalia in parts of Africa and the Middle East...

blp...nice to meet someone who both demonstrates understanding and practical familiarity with both evidence and logic.

So have you read Dawkins as well? You mention him and I assume you are referring to The God Delusion.

[NikolaiI]

The God Delusion is a good book. I was a Christian at the time, and I didn't find his counter-arguments to proofs terribly convincing usually, but soon I realized the God I believed in wasn't the Christian God, or even pantheist, so that developed my own belief a lot. I would recommend the God Delusion to any Christian, because there's a lot of truth in it, and if it doesn't convert you to atheism, it will at least hone your belief a lot. And, it's hardly hostile in any way, trust me.

My dad's a big fan of Dawkins, and he says some of his other books are great. We had some talks about the Ancestor's Tale, and I'd like to read it sometime.

[kiobe]

I haven't read his text and I don't intend to, except for 'fun reading' perhaps. Not something I'd take seriously. There are many texts on atheism and the problems with religion...based on what I've seen, Hitchens paints with an extremely broad brush. Nice to see a prominent neo-con with no interest in a theocracy, though.

Hitchens is no neo-con.

[kiobe]

Female genitalia in parts of Africa and the Middle East; Male genitalia under Judaism; the lives of baby boys whose circumcisions by orthodox Jewish mohels have gone wrong; the lives of Kamikaze pilots who believed they were dying in the service of the divine Emperor; the lives of Islamic and buddhist suicide bombers and their victims; the lives of the numerous children raped by members of the Catholic clergy who were not investigated because their position of religious authority was thought to make them unimpeachable; the life of Galileo; the followers of charismatic religious leaders who gave up families, possessions and sometimes lives under their influence; the victims of Italian fascism and Nazism, the actions of which were supported by the clergy (with a few, very few, notable exceptions); the victims of the Rwandan genocide who mistakenly sought shelter in churches and were handed over to their killers by the clergy; the works of the great Greek philosophers, which were deemed irrelevant by European Christian authorities for having predated Christ and only survived because copies were kept in Baghdad; the victims of the Spanish Inquisition; the women who are continually imprisoned, beaten, stoned and hung in Islamic countries under Shariah law for sins of impropriety such as sitting in a car unchaperoned with a man; the numerous people who died on both sides in the internecine conflict between Irish Catholics and Protestants; the same in the Israel/Palestine conflict; the freedom of Salman Rushdie to live and write without fear because of a fatwah imposed by the Ayatollah of Iran and not condemned by leading European and American religious leaders, including the Pope; Catholics persecuted by reforming Protestants; the people who gave their money to Jim and Tammy Bakker; the American blacks whose persecution and segregation was justified by the idea that they were the descendants of Ham, who was condemned to servility.

Darn, too big for a bumber sticker, maybe I'll try to put it on a T shirt. Well done.

[NikolaiI]

But you forgot witches? The Pope in 1252 made it okay for the use of torture in those cases. I forget, is it if you float tied down with weights you're a witch, or if you sink?

[kiobe]

Unacceptable behavior (and I'd need you to verify which religion condones this behavior.)



Statistics please: how many are "going wrong" these days? As many as young people with serious complications from having their tongue pierced?



What religion would that be?



You conveniently pick the radicals and ignore the mainstream.



Horrific behavior - but not unique to religious people; Christians are human beings - nothing about adhering to a religion implies perfect, sinless behavior; the same God that these men have sinned against holds them VERY responsible for their behavior. They too shall be judged.




There were a lot of backwards attitudes back then - from all walks of society, not just religion.



Cf. comment about Catholic priests.



Ditto. That religious people are guilty of the same atrocious behavior doesn't negate the value of religion per se - it means that people who claim religious affiliation may not necessarily be adhering to it properly, or they have allowed their beliefs to be manipulated.



Can't comment on this one - don't know enough about it.



Hardly even in the same class as the other things you've listed; Irish monks also preserved classic Greek manuscripts - if it weren't for the European monks, much of antiquity's greatest writings would have been lost.



The inquisition was an ugly error of the first order; Islam is WRONG.

An impressive list - but banish religion and guess what? None of these behaviors would disappear. As such, while it is a terrible stain on religion to have these truths said about it, they are not unique to it, and as such, cannot be blamed for their existence. People commit sin and evil in the name of religion - but people can do so in the name of government, of philosophy, of "love."



All reasoning is ultimately circular in nature because human beings cannot approach any issue totally unbiased or objective; we are subjective beings - I know I won't get anywhere with this line of arguing, but go look up "presuppositionalism" and it will explain my position much better than I can.




You have not responded accurately to my post - your evidence up above is sufficient; I was referring to the idea that atheists like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are clear-minded, objective thinkers while we believers are "brain-washed," unable to "think for ourselves." I'm challenging that ridiculous idea by contending that atheists have settled into their own limited world view and that they chose that world view because of a conclusion they'd already come to even before they started "investigating" God.



"Naturalism" is the dominant philosophy in the modern world - it basically stipulates that only what is material and observable/measurable is real; that there is no such thing as a spiritual world, no such thing as God.

We can look at the natural world, but the scriptures make it clear in many instances that the world offers illusions - that sight is one of the easiest of the 5 senses to be tricked, manipulated.




I've spent many years reading the Bible and other Christian thinkers. I have experienced this reality.



Ha ha. Bestiality was never committed by a biblical hero. As far as genocide and bigamy - well, those did happen, and those occurred for various reasons - sometimes due to God's will, sometimes against His will. The Bible is full of human beings, and no human (aside from Christ) can be utterly without sin.



Easy does it there - I don't "despise" evidence and I'd prefer you don't misrepresent me as you attempted to do; empirical observation and the scientific method are very valuable - but I'm not ready to simply brush off what God said simply because science appears to have contradicted what I believe. When one acknowledges the existence of a spiritual world, then many things become possible.




Philosophy, intuition, "gut instincts." They're available to all.

Red my friend, if you were bowling and trying to get a strike the ball would have ended up 8 lanes over and on someones foot. The explanitions you have given to blp are a bit like trying to cut a hanging rope in half and have the now cut part still somehow hang in mid air. You know me and I am being honest, your replys continually skirt the point blp is making. Maybe if you 2 dial in on one or two issues. Just a thought.