God Is Not Great?

[aeroport]

I read the Benazir Bhutto article with baited breath waiting for the description of her desire for her dad etc but it never came about! What a wastage of time. He used 'electra complex' figuratively implying that she fascinated her father's 'politics', yeah, only politics, nothing more nothing less. Taking things out of context and screwing their meanings is the oldest trick in the book. I must confess that I have not read God is Not Great yet although it is waiting on my bookshelf and will be read within a week or so. I finished The God Delusion yesterday and it is very, very impressive. Although Dawkins shows more respect for Sam Harris (also on my reading list) still I will not skip Hithchens. We, all of us, should accept that we have not read God is Not Great and we are discussing it, arguing its merits, authors faults, his theory etc without even reading the book. How intellectually honest..... NOT!

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who didn't see that as literal...

[El Viejo]

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. I jumped into this thread without realizing we were supposed to have read "God Is Not Great" first.

I have not read the book. I apologize for wasting space.

[aeroport]

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. I jumped into this thread without realizing we were supposed to have read "God Is Not Great" first.

I have not read the book. I apologize for wasting space.

Best I can tell, most of the participants have not - me included. It seems it doesn't matter so much...

[NikolaiI]

Well, okay, but I was discussing things people were already discussing.

[hellsapoppin]

''electra complex''

Such images rarely are a fitting description of one's inclinations and do not serve to give one much credibility.

As for Hitchens' he deserves a small measure of credit for defeating Schmuley Boteach as to the merits of his recent writing:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fai...ns-v-bote.html


Boteach is even more hostile to Muslims than is Hitchens so I won't give him any sympathy for being made a fool of in public.

[blazeofglory]

God is something that has nothing to do with attributes and since he exists in our minds or projections to say he is good or bad great or small are simply our imaginative faculties and nothing else.

[slobone]

I read part of the book, but didn't have the patience to read the whole thing. He tries to cover too much ground, and he clearly is not as well-informed as he would need to be to be convincing.

Just as one example, on p. 112 he says "The book on which all four [gospels] may have been based, known speculatively to scholars as 'Q', has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have 'inspired' it."

This is a pretty elementary mistake. For those of you who don't know, Q refers to a hypothetical early document that's believed to have been the source of those sections of Matthew and Luke that are worded similarly, but that don't match anything in Mark. So by definition it wasn't a source for Mark, and most scholars wouldn't call it a source for John either.

Anyway, he's confusing two kinds of Christians here: 1) those who are interested in tracing the history of the composition of the gospels, who generally consider themselves objective scholars (mostly liberal Protestants), and 2) those who believe the New Testament was inspired by God and don't accept the existence of intermediate documents (most fundamentalists). So Hitchens is trying to simultaneously attack two groups who don't agree with each other anyway.

As you can tell from the snotty tone of the sentence I quoted (which is absolutely typical), Hitchens is pretty arrogant, not particularly funny, and seems to be stuck in a rather adolescent stage of intellectual development. All of which may make him an effective blogger and polemicist but not somebody who's qualified to write a book on a subject of this magnitude and depth.

His contempt for religion is evidently so great that he doesn't even consider it worth his time to study enough to refute it effectively.

[Trystan]

It's a good book by a great iconoclast who isn't afraid to voice his opinion. I liked it better than 'The God Delusion' - Dawkins is a little too pompous in my opinion, and most of the arguments in his book are not his own but those of Russell and other philosopher and scientists. Hitchens is a great advocate for enlightenment principles, the book being a great exposé of their enemies.

[NikolaiI]

It's a good book by a great iconoclast who isn't afraid to voice his opinion. I liked it better than 'The God Delusion' - Dawkins is a little too pompous in my opinion, and most of the arguments in his book are not his own but those of Russell and other philosopher and scientists. Hitchens is a great advocate for enlightenment principles, the book being a great exposé of their enemies.

What are enlightenment's principles? Principally, no God?

[Trystan]

What are enlightenment's principles? Principally, no God?

Principles of freedom, and anti-tyranny etc. As Hitchens points out, the idea of God is antagonistic towards these.

[Redzeppelin]

Principles of freedom, and anti-tyranny etc. As Hitchens points out, the idea of God is antagonistic towards these.

Might I ask how he frames his argument on this point?

[Trystan]

Might I ask how he frames his argument on this point?

He calls God a 'celestial dictator'. He watches us at every move, he can even listen to our thoughts; constantly scrutinizing us. Hitchens uses North Korea as an analogy - but, he says that at least you can die in North Korea and escape that tyranny.

[blazeofglory]

God is something we imagine based on our mental frames. But God, if he is the one to set everything in order is far from our understanding.

Different religions frame their own pictures of God.

A projection is not God.

The name is not God.

Your imagination can not delimit God.

Your prayer has nothing to do with God. And just because you pray God does not take your side and God does not thwart them just because they do not pray.

[Redzeppelin]

He calls God a 'celestial dictator'. He watches us at every move, he can even listen to our thoughts; constantly scrutinizing us. Hitchens uses North Korea as an analogy - but, he says that at least you can die in North Korea and escape that tyranny.

I hope Mr. Hitchens can do better than this. God's existence is not confined to our 4 dimensions - that He is omniscient and omnipresent does not in-and-of-itself = "tyrant." Where does Hitchens get the idea that God is "constantly scrutinizing" us? The North Korean analogy is silly - North Korea is a repressive government - God gives us complete freedom of will.

As I've said before, why would a tyrant or "celestial dictator" suffer Hitchens and his criticism to continue existing? North Korea's tyrant would not suffer the likes of Hitchens and his criticism very long.

Certainly Hitchens can do better. I'll assume you've oversimplified his argument, because this is hardly compelling.

[Hypercrit Htd]

main reason is in agreement with posters here...Hitchens thinking too derivative. The man should give up try to convert sinners, write poetry instead-"Celestial Dictator"-now thats lovely phrase.