This is the
first book that I have read by an atheist since I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why
I not a Christian” in seminary. It is one of a new breed of books by outspoken
atheists. It is probably not one of the most balanced of the lot. One should
probably look at others such as Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” or Sam
Harris” “The End of Faith”. In any event I think that to read some opposing
views from time to time can be stimulating and maybe even useful.
This is not
a book for the faint of heart (or the faint of faith), but if you want your
faith challenged and possibly even strengthened, then give it a go.
The
positive
First of
all, let us freely admit the good points of the book. Hitchens has done
exhaustive work on most of the modern religions. He has catalogued in
distressing detail many of the foibles and outright cruelties of organized
religion over the years. They are indeed multitudinous. If anything he left out
some of the most egregious examples of religious misdeeds in the conquest of
the Americas both in the North (our colonialism) and in the South (the
Conquistadors).
As an
aside, let me recount a meeting that I often have with another friend. From
time to time he confronts me with, “You know Eric, I think that in the history
of religion, more harm has been done than good.” I usually do not argue with
him on this point.
Another
commendable aspect of the book is that Hitchens equally dispenses of all
religions without fear or favour. He even includes in his critique, religions
which he has previously professed, i.e. Judaism.
The
Negative
Having
granted the above points, the book is still disturbingly biased. One should not
take this as an objective and balanced treatment of religion. This is
especially important because Hitchens makes constant appeal to science and
reason. He claims that whereas religion is hopelessly biased and distorts the
truth, his point of view is objective.
1. First of
all let us dwell on the very title of the book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Consider
that word Everything. This
simply means that no good can come out of religion, because it poisons Everything. HItchens has
already staked out his claim in the title of the book. For sure he has lots of
horrific tales of religion, as for example in chapter 2 ‘Religion Kills’, but
really, that it poisons everything?
I suppose
everything should mean everything, should it not? This is a bombastic statement
and the book is full of such bombast.
As a result
of the claim in the title of the book, Hitchens is at his most defensive when
he encounters examples that may show that religion does not in fact ‘poison everything’. When dealing with people
like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Bonheoeffer and some more credible religious
groups (dare I mention various faith groups struggling for peace and justice?),
Hitchens simply decides to downplay or minimize their contributions. When
examples are especially bothersome, it seems as if he decides to just ignore
them all together (i,e. Bishop Tutu, Jimmy Carter).
2. Hitchens
is attacking religion. Religion is the form taken when people organize their
spiritual lives within a structure. The book might have taken a different tack
if he had decided to come to grips with spirituality.
3. Hitchens
constantly brings up the crudest, weirdest and most outrageous examples of
religious behaviour. Granted there are many such examples to draw from, but in
so concentrating on these examples , Hitchens fails to acknowledge the more
lofty and wholesome currents of religious thought and action. For more on this,
see Karen Armstrong’s many writings and her movement to emphasize ‘compassion’
in the world.
4. Hitchens
can not seem to see the evolution in religious thought. Religion can’t be
getting any better, because according to him it is inherently false and must
therefore die, or perhaps get even worse. More sympathetic souls have seen a
growing trend from ancient religious magic (where people believed they could
influence the gods by ritual acts) to a grander view of a religion of awe and
mystery to finally an emerging view of universal ethics, as espoused in a new
understanding of compassion to all and a view of universal human rights. It is
true that lots of remnants of the old warlike, nationalistic, tribal religions
remain and they seem to be still alive and well. In the end it seems to be a
matter of where you to want put your emphasis and how you want to interpret the
world.
5. Hitchens
has very little understanding of the role of mythology. He often takes
religious stories literally and ridicules them. Mythmaking is one of the most
universal traits of mankind. It has ancient roots and is still a feature of
organized human behaviour. Basically all myth finds its origins in the
historical events of a people. The mythical story is then retold in the
community. In this retelling, the values of the community are cemented in the
recurring story. This is in fact one of the strengths of mythology. The story
embodies the community’s values and the mythical story is thus a teaching
device to pass on the community values to succeeding generations. Myths are not
to be taken literally. They are symbolic stories that tell of commonly held
values in a concrete way, but to get lost in the details of the story is as
they say, “to myth the point”.
6.
Historically, secular regimes do not seem to have fared any better than
religious regimes. For example, Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s communist
Russia were not religious, but were capable of horrendous acts. So if religious
regimes have been capable of terrible behaviors, so have secular regimes. What
we have here is a universal human condition. We will somehow have to learn to
control outrageous human behaviour which can lead to a terrible repression of
others. Sometimes this destructive human behaviour can be exacerbated and
enflamed by religion, but sometimes religious impulses can bring out the best
in human consciousness. I think the holy experiment of the founding of the
state of Pennsylvania by the Quakers can be an example of the latter.
7. All
views of God or the divine can be placed in one of four camps:
- The fundamentalists of the world, no matter of what religious
tradition, believe that they have the TRUTH , and only they have the whole
unvarnished truth. All others fall short and really need to be brought into the
fold, or in the worse case be obliterated from the face of the earth.
- The next
grouping of religious viewpoints includes the liberal, moderate believers. Here are the religious
humanists. They are inclined to believe in the presence of the divine, but do
not claim to know all the details of this mystery. They realize that others
perceive the nature of God in their own culturally determined way as well.
- The next group is the religious agnostics.
Their life experience has led them to believe that there probably is no
God. They come up with other explanations for the mysteries of life. Both
liberal religious people and agnostics admit that they cannot ultimately prove
their positions. They are therefore willing to tolerate the various conflicting
views of others.
- Finally
we have the views of the religious
atheists. These people are absolutely sure that there is no God. They
cannot comprehend the foolishness of others who persist in believing in the God
concept.
It should
be noted that religious fundamentalists and atheists have some
traits in common. They are both absolutely sure that they have found eternal
truth about all matters relating to God. Since they have found absolute truth
they a have a very hard time tolerating others who have not yet been
enlightened.
In reading
Chritopher Hitchens I have met a religious atheist. He is dead sure that he is
right and mocks others who hold to the idea of the Divine. I have to admit that
I would prefer conversing with an agnostic, but then the world is made up of
all kinds is it not?
No comments:
Post a Comment