God Is Not Great discussion

I liked this book but didn’t find anything about it new or particularly revealing. I did find that the book only held criticisms of religion. If criticism was enough then why do even those with the most knowledge of the weaknesses of religion still search for a God? If it was enough to just throw the whole religious world away as a man made mess and rely on science then how does one account for non mechanistic self awareness and the ridiculously complex and mysteriousness of life? Scientific journals and atheistic criticism alone doesn’t satisfy me. But I agree with Hitchens, religion overall is a fabricated mess. What to do?

Derek,

If you want some answers to "If it was enough to just throw the whole religious world away as a man made mess and rely on science then how does one account for non mechanistic self awareness and the ridiculously complex and mysteriousness of life?" Read The God Delusion by Dawkins.

Dawkins. Isn't he the guy who posits (among other possible scenarios) that maybe aliens seeded our planet with life? Aliens! The God Delusion indeed.

Not exactly, Leon. He posits that is the only conceivable scenario in which he finds Intelligent Design plausible, with the caveat that those aliens would then be likely to have undergone a similar process to evolution.

He doesn't think it's true, but as a scientist, he's willing to entertain the possibility should any evidence turn up.

I do not believe that critcism [of religion] is enough, and I think that may be what Hitchens' book is founded on: we must work against the ubiquitous acceptance of and respect for religion. I think that Hitchens' point is that science is not in the business of disproving religion/religious belief etc... and atheistic nor any other type of criticism will change religious minds. I will agree that Hitchens' style is gruff and often obnoxious, but also believe that comes from his frustration with the ongoing 'debate' about topics such as religion. Rather than being criticized, religion ought to be put on the sideline along with many other detrimental social/cultural concepts, and I think that is possibly what Hitchens' point is on the whole.

Why not read "Evidence that demands a verdict"? Go to http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10...

The book is an editorial on religion, what would you posit he do rather than criticize? Are you asking that Hitchens referee global debate along religious lines?

I'm not through the book yet, but I've read Dawkins' books and those of Sam Harris. They're in an untenable position in any case as we defer to the religious leaders and see science and secular leaders as those who come up with cures but not as a possible way to lead one's life.

You lead your life the way you like (your choice), I'm just saying there are more books available on the subject, if one wants to investigate it further.

First off: I am biased, I love Christopher Hitchens! I was a fan way back in the day when he wrote for The Nation. Despite his betrayal of the left, I still love him. Having said that, he does rant and rave. His rants come from a geunine love of humanity. He will attack and berate ANYTHING he sees as destructive to humanity without mercy or apology. As an agnostic I am indebted to him for this book! It forces me to examine the integrity of my own beliefs and ultimately the journey of spiritual exploration has to be a personal one.

I think some of you miss the main points of the book and of Hitchens' argument. 1) all religion is man made; 2) the god of the Bible is patently immoral; 3)being subject to a god is immoral; 4) morality does not come from religion, but from the nature of man; 5) everything can be explained without god--there is absolutely no need for a god. God is an invention of bronze age illiterate herders to explain the world and to subjugate other men. 6) Science really has nothing to do with it. Even if you knew nothing about science, you would not need a god. There is no evidence for it.

Hitchens said that the thing he hoped to achieve is to get people to understand that morality does not come from religion. It is innate. In contrast, religion is amoral and immoral. Without religion there would have been no inquisition, no jihad, and science would be much farther along than it is, and a tremendous amount of horribleness in history would not have occurred.

AS to Dawkins, he is a different matter, although reaching the same conclusion. He is a scientist. Hitchens is a journalist. Dawkins believes (correctly) that everything can be explained through science, and that there is absolutely no need for god.

http://michaelhendersonstheliteraryma...

Have you read Karen Armstrong's "A Case for God"? She does a good job explaining that Dawkins' and Hutchins', as well as other modern athiests' attacks on belief in God, as basically a backlash against evangelical Christianity's unrelenting belief that the scriptures are inerrant as well as literal.

I just finished listening to Hitchens read his memoir on CD and it really is a must. As for this book, well...it's Hitchens. He's an amazing writer and journalist. He brings up some very good points about the horrible crimes committed in the name of religion. But I also think he mixes religion and faith in God and speaks about them, at times, as though they were the same thing.

Hitchens is brilliant, and he's dying. Our world will miss him. Getting to hear him read his own work has been a unique thrill.

Mike

Shade Tree Writings: The Site

These new atheists are trying to sell us a utopia. They are against fundamentalist Christians, because both groups are equally fundamental: one believes that religion - their religion - is the answer to everything, the other that science will eradicate human evil once and for all.

Science and fundamentalist religion are trying to solve the most ancient human of mysteries> Human Evil - one says that once you are reborn, you are freed from sin, that you can virtually be sinless in this world if you try hard enough. The other, that with rational thinking one can control its most irrational urges. Both are self-delusions.

Human evil is a mystery. You may solve one injustice, one immoral thing in our society, and five more will arise from it. There is no rational or mythological utopia, there's just everyday reality, with good things, and bad things. We may have advances in science, but we are stagnating when it comes to moral advancement, every single day of human history underlines that idea.

In the meantime the rest of us - who live between these two sects - are trying to cope with everyday life, reality, the mysteries of the Universe, the complexity and flaws of human nature, and the pursue of a healthy spirituality, that unites mankind, instead of dividing it.

I thought the book started well, but then he started attacking Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc... and the argument became increasingly incoherent.

I read Hitchens for the Hitchslaps. I don't think of Gandhi and Mother Teresa as evil but I do appreciate someone willing to point out that neither were saints. Over the years, I've had less of a desire for anti-religion and I'm perfectly happy with science books where the author reports on what is currently known and what is being looked into. Neurology and cosmology seem to be my main focuses lately.

Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel books are absolute drivel so I doubt I'll be reading Karen Armstrong anytime soon.

He not only said they weren't saints, he blamed Gandhi for the violence between India and Pakistan. It's been a while since I read the book, so I forget what he had against Mother Teresa but it went far beyond being a flawed human being. Of the few books of his that I've read I've noticed his tendency to make wild accusations without much evidence to back them up. Does anyone remember when he accused Bill Clinton of rape? It appeared as a casual reference in one of his books and then was never mentioned again. I think some people are too quick to put him on a pedestal, especially since his death, as a great intellectual when a lot of his work is rather sloppy.

Well, Mother Teresa was indeed a hypocrite and an enemy of the poor. His arguments are sound, so if you don't remember them, you can't really claim they aren't true. If you want his full investigation on it, read the book he dedicated to the myth that she was a saint called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Or, as far as Bill Clinton is concerned, he wrote an entire book detailing his opinions on the man called No One Left to Lie to: The Values of the Worst Family.

That's the one that accused Clinton of rape. I won't make the mistake of reading it again. As to the nun, I have no opinion of her nor did I make claims about her one way or the other. I only said the book lost me around the time he started throwing around some pretty wild assertions. I think I backed that up enough with the Clinton and the Gandhi thing.

No, you have only shown that you've ignored his arguments. Do you know who Juanita Broaddrick is? How about Gennifer Flowers or Kathleen Willey? You have yet to show how anything he has said is an assertion.

Well, he asserted that Clinton committed rape in the book you mentioned. In God is not great he asserted that Gandhi was the cause of the rift in southern Asia. He made a lot of assertions in that book, and I didn't buy all of his arguments. Now, don't get me wrong, I respected him for speaking his mind and as an iconoclast, but I don't think he was the great intellectual the media and his fans make him out to be. (with an almost religious fervor I might add.)

"Well, he asserted that Clinton committed rape in the book you mentioned."

Which is not unfounded or "wild" but based on the testimony of several different women.

"In God is not great he asserted that Gandhi was the cause of the rift in southern Asia."

Which he expounds upon in Love, Poverty, and War: Journeys and Essays. It is also detailed in the book Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Gandhi was a racist. This is fact and is based on his own words, where he has called black people kaffirs (niggers), and an uncivilized and uneducated people. He says black people's "sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” Also, “A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.” Etc. etc. He wrote dozens of articles inciting the Indian people against black people.

So basically, the only thing you've done here is assert that Hitchens makes a lot of assertions. Feel free to call it an opinion based on a large amount of evidence with which you reject, and I will not object.

MethuselasChild wrote: "Dawkins. Isn't he the guy who posits (among other possible scenarios) that maybe aliens seeded our planet with life? Aliens!"

His point was that Earth being seeded from life elsewhere (a meteor perhaps) is still a more credible hypothesis than saying "God did it," which is a non-answer and explains nothing.

no criticism isnt enough and Hitch never thought it was, that why he was so active in debates and doing what he could to get the word out to people to think critical.

God is Not Great is meant to be an almost call to action, to make those people think about why religion and is bad and to put this knowledge in the minds and hands of "new atheists" and even believers or people on the fence.

if you read this book, then you no doubt walked away with some new knowledge you didnt know and some new information you can discuss among others.

Yeah, I think his evidence was pretty flimsy just as I think your evidence about Gandhi is flimsy. You say those were his words but how do I know the quote is his and wasn't taken out of context? I could say that you printed the n- word in a blog post and use that to show that you are a racist. It is true strictly speaking but I don't think it would be intellectually honest or accurate. Now I don't expect either one of us is likely to prove anything to the other in a chat room, but in a book there is a chance to make a good case. I thought hitch made a poor case against Clinton when I read that book, and while I was sympathetic to his religious argument, he went off the rails in my opinion.

Dan, I thought it was certainly an interesting read and worth talking about. It was also a brave book and deserves credit for that.

Christamar wrote: "Dan, I thought it was certainly an interesting read and worth talking about. It was also a brave book and deserves credit for that."

no matter what someone thinks about his argument, or what he believes, he did a great job getting a much needed conversation started.

i personally miss his writings in Vanity Fair and I will miss seeing him debate. He was a much needed force in the world.

Christamar wrote: "You say those were his words but how do I know the quote is his and wasn't taken out of context?"

Lol, those quotes were taken from the The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 5-8/1924. Check for yourself if they are taken out of context or not.

Will, so you say you've read gandhi's collected works and you believe they prove he is a racist? Is this a correct assertion? I will have to read the book to see for myself. Until then, you must forgive me if I remain skeptical.

Dan, although I was not a fan of Hitchen's writing I am sympathetic to your loss. I trust that other atheists will step forward and make more effective (in my opinion) arguments.

No, I have not read it from cover to cover, but I've read those quotes and many others from it when I flipped through it in Barnes and Noble.

I appreciate your skepticism. That's never a bad thing.

"I trust that other atheists will step forward and make more effective (in my opinion) arguments."

Hmmm, I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Effective arguments for what? The atheists position is fairly simple: "where is the evidence?"

What more needs to be said? Anything else is just building upon this and pointing out that not only is there no evidence for, but plenty of evidence against.

Dan, I will definitely put it on my reading list. I've always been curious to know about the guy.

Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion. I was afraid I would be the only one here.

Hitchens made the argument that all the world's ills were the fault of religion. In the course of making his arguments he brought in all the things we've been arguing about and more. This was the evidence i had problems with. As a pantheist or as Dawkins calls it a " sexed up atheist" I am sympathetic to arguments against super natural deities. Perhaps hitch carried to such an extreme in order to stir up the pot and serve as a call to arms as Dan said. In this he may have been successful.

I think you have a misunderstanding of Hitchens argument. He in no way blames all of the world's ills on religion, but he blames religion for always bringing about ill. There is a major difference.

I remain skeptical of the assertion that religion always brings about ill.

thats not the argument, its that does the bad outweigh the good, and more importantly, the good that comes from religion, is it any different or better than the good that comes from secular society?

the harm caused by religion is generally specific to religion and not found outside in the secular world.

"the harm caused by religion is generally specific to religion and not found outside in the secular world."

what's the difference between your statement and the bigoted view of Christianity: "Everybody who has not met his/her personal savior, the Jesus Christ will burn in hell for eternity?" Dividing the world into secular and religious is non-sense.

Secularist have to deal with their own demons, before pointing to other ills of society, like:

social-Darwinism - we have seen how that turned out in Russia and Germany
the atomic bomb - death of many innocent civilians, including women and children
WW2 - death of 60 billion people, thanks to "scientific" breakthroughs
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all atheists - and their grand deeds

... all of the above are achievements of the age of Enlightenment.

Religion is a good thing for good people, and a bad thing for bad people - as a great theologian of the 20th century pointed it out. And that is available for science, too. So please spare me of the "religion is bad, science is good" rhetoric.

I'm waiting for someone to pick up hitch's argument about Stalin, Mao etc... That was another part where I thought the book went off the rails.

István-attila wrote: "social-Darwinism - we have seen how that turned out in Russia and Germany
the atomic bomb - death of many innocent civilians, including women and children
WW2 - death of 60 billion people, thanks to "scientific" breakthroughs
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all atheists - and their grand deeds"

1. Social-Darwinism is a modern invention that has as much to do with atheism as socialism.
2. The Atomic Bomb wasn't dropped in the name of atheism, and it was a natural development from studying how the world works. Humans will always find weapons they can use against other people because we are animals and therefore sometimes think with our baser instincts.
3. Nonsensical. For starters, 60 million people died, not 60 billion. WW2 happens with or without scientific advancement, and it is a FACT that the atomic bomb ENDED WW2. Do you know how many died from the bombs? About 140,000 people (.2% of the total casualties). That means 59,860,000 people were dead from the war before the bomb was dropped. Hmmmmmm I think I see poor logic on your part.
4. Cult of Personality. None of their deeds done "in the name of atheism," they just happened to be atheists who were also psychopathic bullies. There is nothing to draw from their atheism (which is a "non-position;" an answer to the question, "is there evidence for or do you think that a God exists?") that would result in their actions. There is no dogma, no scripture, nothing for atheists to draw their ideologies from.

I love your hypocrisy, though. You demean science at the same time you log onto your computer provided by science and forgo rational thinking for poor arguments.

"Religion is a good thing for good people, and a bad thing for bad people"

Sounds delightful, but how is it good for good people? What can religion provide to good people that can't be provided otherwise?

The belief, yes, I said belief, that you can virtually get away with anything you have done in this life, after you're dead is the new opium of the people. And that's exactly what Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao thought.

I don't demean science, I just say that it has not made us better morally. Look at what is happening in the United States, the jewel of the Enlightenment - Fascism, ACTA, Citizens United, Occupy Wall-Street, and so on. Science makes life easier, but it does not make people better. There's no scientific utopia, which these new-atheists say we will reach once we get rid of religion - as Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett are suggesting.

Or look at what is going on in the Middle-East. The US is preparing to trash the third country, after it has destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan - all in the name of democracy, free will, civil rights... Killing innocent civilians for implementing a utopia, while people back home are starting to live in a third world country. The situation in Iraq is disastrous - the country is split in three, with innocent civilians caught in the middle in a total anarchy (now that's what I call democracy). The situation in Afghanistan isn't better.

60 million (sorry for the billion) people died because we have mechanized warfare - thanks to the progress of science. Tell me a conflict until 1940 in which 30 million people have died in a 5 year span (~2 billion people on the Globe in 1920, 1 billion until the ~1820s).

And the argument with the computer - com'n... that's rubbish, I would be saying to you the same things if we would have met in a public square, at an open debate. Wait! We have those things, they are called Shopping Malls in the modern world :)

So now you're argument is that wars happen, and more people die from wars because of scientific advancement, and you dare say you aren't demeaning science? If this were true, would not the wars started SINCE WW2 have a greater number of casualties? After all, science is still progressing. Your logic is terribly flawed. These wars were not started by science, they were started by politicians with great power. The reason so many died in WW2 is because nearly every country of power was involved. Your conclusions do not follow from your arguments.

The United States is still a very, very religious nation, and indeed embraces faith more so than science, and we see this as our children are growing up less and less educated in America. 63 percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 cannot even locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East. Other countries are passing us by in science and education. Scientists are leaving America in droves to pursue science in countries where science is better funded. This "Enlightenment" in America that you speak of is non-existent.

"Sounds delightful, but how is it good for good people? What can religion provide to good people that can't be provided otherwise?"

Ask them:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/76...

István-attila wrote: ""Sounds delightful, but how is it good for good people? What can religion provide to good people that can't be provided otherwise?"

Ask them:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/76......"

1. That link does not provide even ONE reference I can check the facts on.
2. This argument relies on the premise that being happy under a delusion is better than not being AS happy without any delusions. Example: Take a Muslim woman, she is very happy in her faith, and it is her faith that she draws her happiness from. Now, take a Catholic man, he is very happy in his faith, and it is from his faith that he draws his happiness from. Now, at least one of them (and I would argue both) are under a delusion; after all, they cannot both be right. So, how is that a good thing that one is happy, but delusional. Isn't the truth better?
3. I would posit that the faithful feel more obligated to say they are happier because of their faith.

I see we are living on two distant planets. It is not about "in the name of science"! It is by using scientific progress to make better weapons of mass destruction. Which returns to my main idea: Science in the hands of wrong people leads to bad things, science in the hand of good people leads to good things. And that's available for religion, too.

Some bad people have used religion to justify their horrible acts. As some people have used science to justify their atrocities - just look up what Hitler tried to do with the numb and handicap in the name of science.

And now you're going to disagree with me, because in your perfect, but utopistic (as in "ou" + "topos" - no such land) world this definition of reality - religion and science are morally neutral (they are good things in the had of good people, and bad things in the hand of bad people) does not fit in your worldview, thus leading to what psychologist call cognitive dissonance in your brain.

And that still doesn't answer my question: What can religion provide to good people that can't be provided otherwise? Are you saying these people who are religious and happy could not learn happiness otherwise? Is it not possible to be without faith and still be happy? Even if religious people were generally happier, that still doesn't make it a good thing. Have you heard of cult suicides? These people thought by killing themselves they would enter heaven or a better place. Surely this made them happy, right?

"religion and science are morally neutral (they are good things in the had of good people, and bad things in the hand of bad people) does not fit in your worldview, thus leading to what psychologist call cognitive dissonance in your brain."

No, I would agree with this in the same way I would say that apples are a good thing in the hands of good people (feeding the hungry) and bad in the hands of bad people (throwing them at people's heads). In other words, you can say this about anything. The argument here is that religion produces ill FAR more than it produces good, as science produces good FAR more than it produces bad.

It doesn't make it a good thing, because religion is morally neutral - but with a healthy spirituality one can accomplish great things, lead a simple life, be more compassionate, learn to take life's punches easily, and so on.

As K. Armstrong put it - if your faith makes you a better, more compassionate person - than that's a good faith. If it raises walls around you, divides people, than you have a bad faith.

But this bigotry of secularist, who say that religion is a bad thing, and it has to be eradicated, bugs me... It's the same attitude that fundamentalists/dominionists use, when they say that we will live in a better world once all of us will follow the god that they show us.

There is no such thing as a better world - human evil can not be eradicated. Knowledge or religion does not make a person better in every single case.

I know countless people who think about themselves that they are better persons, just because they read countless books, but in reality they are cold hearted, I would'n put my life in their hands. As I know many people who think they are "special" just because they have accepted Jesus in their heart. It's the same bigotry... No wonder religious and secular fundamentalists don't get along pretty well.

I hope I have made myself clear.

"The argument here is that religion produces ill FAR more than it produces good, as science produces good FAR more than it produces bad."

Please show me some empirical evidence for that :)

I can hear the voice of a fundamentalist saying the same thing about religion.

Pitting science against religion does a disservice to science. If your goal is to promote science it is best not to ailienate large swaths of the world population who might be open to new ideas but still cling to cultural traditions. If you believe in God you can believe God have you a brain.

I don't promote science, I promote reality, which includes religion and science, among other things. And people have the right not to believe in the values of the industrialised countries (just look at what is happening in Egypt).