God Is Not Great?

[Lumino_Christi]

I've just started reading "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by an author named Christopher Hitchens, an avid atheist. As a seminarian and philosophy major in college, it's important to me to view all sides of an issue, regardless of my initial opinions.

With that said, has anyone read this? Or are currently reading it? If so, I'd like to discuss some of the areas he touches upon (religion's effect on government, physical health of individuals, etc.).

So, without further ado, fire away!

[hellsapoppin]

Hitchens said that recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto had an electra complex which means she sought to murder her mother in order to screw with her father.

You simply cannot take his type of idiocy too seriously.

[aeroport]

I've just started reading "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by an author named Christopher Hitchens, an avid atheist. As a seminarian and philosophy major in college, it's important to me to view all sides of an issue, regardless of my initial opinions.

With that said, has anyone read this? Or are currently reading it? If so, I'd like to discuss some of the areas he touches upon (religion's effect on government, physical health of individuals, etc.).

So, without further ado, fire away!

Greetings, and welcome, Lumino Christi. I've recently begun reading it (though I've been slowed down, now that classes have resumed), and would be happy to discuss.

[NikolaiI]

The effects of religion...

You could say that it is a bad thing, that it causes war...but this is not addressing the issues of religion.

And that is just this one person's opinion, their judgment, over religion and its effects on society-- it is not absolute truth. Though it almost seems like the person with that opinion thinks that it is.

Regardless, and regardless of this opinion, many people pursue religion and live in, factually, and entirely different dimension from this person, and all of his ideas. For me, for instance, religion is on another dimension from anything this person could think or imagine. It is the body of knowledge which I navigate to find my way to the spiritual path, upon which making progress I cultivate my body and mind, aiming myself towards truth; and as I make progress guided by true ideas, I come to a more true understanding of myself and my religion, and by making a covenant with God, I am able to have faith in myself, and continue making progress towards the goal, which is full realization of reality, and myself, in the light of faith, and being completely at peace-- on a spiritual level, which is another dimension from the material world, from sensations, phenomena, desires, pains, duality and time. And as I observe my own self and philosophy, and as I see that it has arrived at an advanced place, and has progressed along true ideas, therefore I am completely separated from this person's ideas-- about religion, God, society, and all of that.

Q.E.D.

[Orionsbelt]

Haven't read the book but I am interested in the discussion. Obviously, it has a big impact on current events that we won't discuss but more importantly, it has the potential to provoke thought. I'm not an atheist but no one is going to ordain me any time soon either. What are some of the things that he asserts?

[Kent Edwins]

Haven't read the book, but saw a few interviews. I will say that he did not hold up very well on the Colbert report. His arguments seemed very simplistic and based on semantics. Like saying that faith is overrated and everything, when in reality all beliefs, even those in skepticism, boil down to faith.

He also seems out of touch with what people really believe. For example, he ridicules God for being anti-female based on Biblical and historical citations. But what he does not do is offer the opinion of most people that currently believe in some kind of God.

The only thing I've heard Dawkins say that holds any weight is that Religion has had a pretty bloody and not so perfect history. That is true. But everyone knows it.

[Dark Star]

Hitchens said that recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto had an electra complex which means she sought to murder her mother in order to screw with her father.

You simply cannot take his type of idiocy too seriously.

Source?

[Dark Star]

Haven't read the book, but saw a few interviews. I will say that he did not hold up very well on the Colbert report. His arguments seemed very simplistic and based on semantics. Like saying that faith is overrated and everything, when in reality all beliefs, even those in skepticism, boil down to faith.

I find it odd that you accuse him of using simplistic arguments based on semantics then use the one in bold. Could you elucidate on that and explain what you mean in more detail? As is, its a statement made with a very wide, sweeping brush that fails to even take into account the different types of faith (E.G. there is a large difference between having faith in God and faith that your roommate isn't lying to you when he says he didn't steal the money off of your dresser).

He also seems out of touch with what people really believe. For example, he ridicules God for being anti-female based on Biblical and historical citations. But what he does not do is offer the opinion of most people that currently believe in some kind of God.

It should be obvious that he ridicules God for being anti-female based on the grounds that many religious believers currently worship that same God and think he is correct, even if he doesn't say it. Since there are no polls out there indicating exactly how many people still believe in the alpha-male God that wants its people to slaughter the unbelievers and oppress women opinions on this manner are going to vary based on a person's own religious bias. That said, its quite obvious that many, many people in the US and in particular in the Muslim world still believe in this sort of God.

The only thing I've heard Dawkins say that holds any weight is that Religion has had a pretty bloody and not so perfect history. That is true. But everyone knows it.

I'm just going to point out that judging someone based on a comedy show interview is not a good way to get a feel for their arguments or the points they make as the format is ridiculously short for any kind of serious argument to be made, or for that matter for anything other than empty rhetoric. Try looking for some lectures on YouTube, or some debates that the person participated in. On that note: You mentioned Dawkins; this thread is about Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. Did you perhaps mistake that for The God Delusion and meant to deliver a critique of Dawkins rather than Hitchens or did you just get the names mixed up?

I'll also note that 'everyone knows it' is something that can be contested. I've met more than one religious apologist that claims that everything from the Crusades to 9-11 had little to nothing to do with religion and was really just politics masquerading under the guise of religion. That said, even if it is something that 'everyone knows' the historical damage religion has done is still a salient point since the past can and does (at times) inform us about the present.

[crazefest456]

Q.E.D.

Wha--? Are you referring to the thing I think you're referring to? If you are, right on!

[Kent Edwins]

On that note: You mentioned Dawkins; this thread is about Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. Did you perhaps mistake that for The God Delusion and meant to deliver a critique of Dawkins rather than Hitchens or did you just get the names mixed up?

You've got me. I won't try to defend any of my statements. But I will say that though, generally speaking, Hitch and Co. make good points worth knowing, from the little I've heard I see nothing really new or interesting. I see a lot of brash statements like "religion poisons everything", but I fail to see a truly analytic look at religion. I fail to see a real measure of pros and cons, and I see a lot of these sweeping statements made based on arguments that are true of only a particular denomination. I see a lot of preaching to the converted, and aside from that shock value. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, and like I say I have not read the book, but I just don't take this wave of in your face atheism seriously. I think it's shock value and maybe an attempt to make some money of philosophy on most levels.

I'll admit, this might be because most of my experience with Hitchens comes from defending religion (though I'm no big believer in it myself) against his, as well as Dawkin's and other's, extreme followers (get rid of religion and let's have a society based on pure science!). If I'm too far off the mark, then let me know and I'll stand corrected.

[aeroport]

Welcome to you as well, Kent Edwins. (Excellent avatar )

I fail to see a real measure of pros and cons, and I see a lot of these sweeping statements made based on arguments that are true of only a particular denomination. I see a lot of preaching to the converted, and aside from that shock value.

There is plenty of that, to a point that it really is beginning to annoy me (and I’m a supporter); nevertheless, there is more, and it really wouldn’t hurt to have a look at the books, just to investigate. So far, I’m finding that Dawkins seems to deal a little bit more directly with religion itself (in The God Delusion) than Hitchens is doing so far in his book. But then, the subtitle of CH’s book – “How Religion Poisons Everything” – really kind of suggests that it will be a lot of gruesome examples, perhaps meant to some degree for shock value, but still important. I’m not too far though – I’m on chapter 3 or 4, “A Note on Health, to Which Religion can be Hazardous”, or something like that – and it’s primarily a lot of terrifying information about what representatives of various religions have done. Obviously, because a lot of the events described are disturbingly recent, I wouldn’t be too dismissive of it, but I do hope the enumeration of terrors lets up a little soon…

If I'm too far off the mark, then let me know and I'll stand corrected.

It is only reasonable to subject the proponents of reason to rational argument.

Source?

http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/fr/rss/

"The fact of the matter is that Benazir's undoubted courage had a certain fanaticism to it. She had the largest Electra complex of any female politician in modern history, entirely consecrated to the memory of her executed father, the charming and unscrupulous Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had once boasted that the people of Pakistan would eat grass before they would give up the struggle to acquire a nuclear weapon. (He was rather prescient there—the country now does have nukes, and millions of its inhabitants can barely feed themselves.)"

That's basically all he says, though, so for my part I assume he doesn't expect us to take it literally; all the same, I wouldn't dismiss as "idiocy" the ideas of someone who met and - as he puts it - was personally deceived by B.B. *ends political strain of discussion here*

[nobrainer]

Pardon my ignorantly conceived post, but is it going too far to suggest that atheism, agnosticism, or even total apathy toward religion is a kind of religion in itself--that religion is inescapable?

[hellsapoppin]

Source?

Log on to his web site.

[aeroport]

Pardon my ignorantly conceived post, but is it going too far to suggest that atheism, agnosticism, or even total apathy toward religion is a kind of religion in itself--that religion is inescapable?

Personally, I would say so.

[Dark Star]

The problem with this idea is that something must involve a belief system to constitute a religion. A lack of a belief or disbelief (atheism) or a claim that you lack knowledge (agnosticism) is only, if we wish to put it in these terms, ONE belief. One belief doesn't constitute a system by any means, so no, those aren't religions.