Although it sounds interesting, I am not sure if I will read 'God is not Great. How religion poisons everything' by Christopher Hitchens. He is a very literary man, with whom I often disagree when when I see him on talk shows, but I will say this: He does think, is not one to pull his punches, nor does he suffer fools gently. It sounds like this book is no exception, and I will take a look at it before I decide. If he is really exploring ideas, I might read it. If he is only interested in pushing an agenda, probably I won't.
According to the review by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times, Hitchens begins his book by dismantling the belief in god as in-- Why do we need one? Hitchens claims that was only necessary when the world seemed mysterious and we knew so little about existence. In his opinion, today, to claim a belief in god is for morons, lunatics or liars (that wasn't very nice but I told you he is not).
He wrote, "The human wish to credit good things as miraculous and to charge bad things to another account is apparently universal."
Now there I see his point regarding religions which present this belief in a god who is constantly tweaking things, finding believers vehicles, sending out storms to express displeasure, healing one person, sickening another, deciding on which team will win a football game, etc. Where I can see that is the deity some religions claim is theirs, it doesn't mean there is not a real god out there-- one not performing in the box religions would like.
I have never seen any need to deny the existence of a spiritual creator because of the belief religion is too often destructive. Religions are, after all, the creation of men. Sure they are men claiming divine communication from a god, often have some miracles to attest to that, but in the end, the believer must take another person's word for what happened. Any religious experience could be real or created by the psyche. But none of that makes there not be a creator of it all. Religion could be bad, and there still could be a Divine power. They are not mutually exclusive.
There are a multitude of books about belief in god from many religious vantage points. There are many about evolution (which could still have a creator involved) but less about pure atheism (where there is totally no creator ever). Perhaps there is less market for that.
In 1986, I bought 'The River that Flows Uphill' by William H. Calvin because it was an interesting exploration of rafting down the Grand Canyon while discussing all of life from a biological and evolutionary perspective. The book combines 14 days rafting down the Colorado River with a group of scientists (discussions and events melted together from four such trips) as they explore the canyon as well as the evolution of mankind. The Grand Canyon, with its fossils, layers, truly traveling down through time, is a perfect place for such speculations.
Calvin begins with the big bang, a meeting of energy that led to the creation of matter and takes it through physical and cultural changes it to the big brain which enables the life we have today (sometimes you do wonder about that big brain). I really enjoyed the book for its science, nature and history; but to me, as he works on reasons for say evolving a universal enjoyment and creation of music, he reaches for explanations to avoid believing there is a spiritual director behind it all.
I think it takes more faith to believe in an evolution without a creator than with one. There are more things that just had to happen and you are still left with what exactly was that first burst of energy? From where did it come? To believe this whole universe is happenstance requires more than a bit of faith and manipulation of percentages.
Of course, you have the original dilemma anytime you explore creation from any angle. Somewhere something had to come from nothing but nothing ever does but something had to except nothing ever has-- and around the circle you go. This circling business is something I do enough of in my own life without tacking on the universe.
Back to Kinsley's review, he says Hitchens main purpose, with God is not Great, is to lead others to recognize the damage religions do. Now there I agree. That religion too often keeps people from thinking for themselves, is bad enough; but where it becomes particularly harmful is with something like the death sentence pronounced onto the head of Salman Rushdie for writing a fiction book that dared make fun of Islam. This wasn't a crazed, fringe element, but rather an edict from a major religious leader with others in agreement. Nor were those fringe religious leaders who ordered the killing of the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, and threatened the Danish cartoonists.
Some would argue that no way does Christianity do such things. Except Christianity has and would today if it had extremists in control. Try ridiculing the Pope or one of the leading spiritual leaders of today. Threatening another person's religion or the validity of their religious leaders often leads to violent threats or worse (even in blogs). Religion, which is supposed to be a path to god, too often can become a blockade from god.
(On a personal note, despite what Hitchens may have said about believers being morons, lunatics or liars, I think a belief in god, in a creator, makes more sense than trying to explain how this beautiful, complex, mysterious, nurturing, boundless universe could have come by accident. My belief in god doesn't come because of fear for what it'd mean if there was not. Frankly, if the god that the fundamentalists (of all stripes) believe in just happens to be the real deal, now that would be the scary thought. But that has not been my spiritual experience. And so until the day I have to change my view, when most religions would say it's too late, I will believe as I do. God is there and mystery. I am comfortable with mysteries.)
12 comments:
It is a bit strange to see you talking about ideas in a book you haven't even read yet. Isn't that like me presuming to read your thoughts when I haven't even met you?
Hi anonymous and welcome. Have you been able to read Hitchens' book yet? I have looked in two of my usual sources-- Borders and Costco and have yet to see a copy (country living person here and do not get to the city often).
This blog though was my exploration of a topic, my ideas, not a review of either book mentioned. The NY Times review on Hitchens' book was my catalyst, and it would be a good place to go for a review. Calvins' book is still available on Amazon and there are reviews of it there. I don't know if Hitchens' book is out given often promos start ahead of availability.
So it sounds like this Hitchens guy is of the Ted Turner ilk. Lets deride religious people just because we can.
This thought that we don't need a god to believe in anymore because we are all powerful now and have solved all of life's mysteries is totally arrogant and untrue. Sounds about like some of the European rulers from 500 years ago who were certain that the earth was the center of the universe. There are plenty of mysteries still to solve on our own planet let alone the rest of the universe.
I am sure that things in the Bible or the book from any religion is not exactly how it happened. They are a collection of stories and we cannot even get a newspaper story correct half the time with all of our modern technology. But I believe in God, some kind of supreme being. I am from the benevolent God group not the "9/11 was punishment for unclean living" group.
I do have to disagree with you on one topic though. While many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion by Christians, I would have to say that the Davinci Code ridiculed the Catholic Church pretty badly, (they deserved it) but while they expressed their unhappiness I am pretty sure that they did not put a contract out on Dan Brown or Tom Hanks' lives.
These Muslim extremists are a scary thing to deal with. And while we hear that true Islam is a religion of peace, the study that came out this week from US Muslims that says suicide bombing is justified in some cases is pretty scary. The peaceful ones better get control of the radical ones pretty damn soon or we are going to have world war 3 with these nut jobs complete with internment camps in this country.
Hitchens is nothing like Ted Turner. He's witty, very intelligent and a conservative of the real kind :) He seems mentally stable also. :) At least those are my impressions from reading his essays as well as seeing him on talk programs like Bill Maher.
My concern on reading his book is more that if it rants the whole book, which the review kind of sounded like it might, I just don't want to spend my time reading angry books. I will find out when I finally get my hands on a copy. If I do read it, I will review it here.
As for Christians not doing what is happening in Islam today, that's only true because they don't have extremists in control at themoment. Believe me, all the same types are there if they got power. Back when the church ruled (not just Catholic) you would be killed for saying there was no god. They threatened any genuine scientific results that put in question their view of the Universe-- ie Galileo. And even today, those extremists, who are not in control, do sometimes kill someone over the threat they perceive.
Any religion can go bad with the wrong people in power and a set of believers who follow without thinking.
Thank you for sharing the process you use in selecting what you will read. I think it is good to identify which works are about furthering exploration of mysteries such as how the universe got to be here. It is good to distinguish between works that further thought and which are propaganda with an agenda.
because I wasn't satisfied with my quick attempt to explain who Hitchens was, this is Wikepedia's attempt. He's not any easier to put in a box than god :) Christopher Hitchens
To comment on your comment regarding the followers of religious or other fanatics, I was reading an article yesterday by Sasha Cohen (Borat) of all people about the holocaust and there was a statement in there about how not everyone in Nazi Germany was anti-semitic but that enough of them were apathetic enough to allow the terrible things that went on.
Like the famous quote ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
Since the founding of this nation was based on freedom and getting rid of despotism, hopefully we (the western world) would not let our religious or political leaders do these horrendous things.
Just read the Wikipedia article, other than his religious views I think I like the guy. He pisses off almost everyone.
What is it we are warned about--don't discuss religion or politics in public places. But, I love it when you do. I know nothing of Hitchens or his book, but religions are something man created to make himself/herself safe and in order, I think. Life is largely chaotic and I do believe that most everyone wants to believe in something greater. I have a psychiatrist friend, Jewish by birth, but not practicing religion and in his late years, he says that his patients who practice religion are largely better adjusted than those he sees who have no beliefs. As a young man, he would never have said this; he thought religion was a crutch, a man-made construct to explain the unexplainable. My own belief in God is not unlike yours, Rain, but I do like coming to the spiritual gas pump at least once a week -- for community, more than anything.
Another great essay, Rain. I see a thread of confusion that pops up a couple of times in the comments to your post and almost always is present in any discussion of these matters.
Let's define religion as the man-made constructs, the organizations made up of members who adhere to some stated set of beliefs, and who collectively practice some accepted rituals.
Then religion has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or the entire subject of the existence of god or not. You did a nice job of separating the concept of god from the idea of religion. The more fundamental among us cannot understand that, and cannot fathom the possibility of spirituality without religion.
I am totally at peace and content with my spirituality. I am affiliated with no religion, nor do I feel the need to accept or reject the existence of a creator, a divine being, an omnipotent presence. Whether or not "god" exists would not change the way I live my life, my love and respect for my fellow humans, or where I happen to spend my Sunday mornings.
Oh, by the way, I failed to mention labels. Far too many people feel compelled to identify others and slot them relative to themselves, by applying labels. I do not identify myself as atheist, or agnostic, or any other way. If others are insecure enough to need to hang a tag around my neck, and they have, and will again, a tag that places me somewhere below them on their measure of goodness, let them have at it. I've been hearing such crap all my life and I still don't accept it. That says far more about them than it does about me.
Hitchens is indeed no Ted Turner. He thinks and makes observations most of which I agree with. My God is the God of love,mercy and compassion. That is my theology. They can keep the dogma. Dogma is man made.
Post a Comment