More Ungodly Goodness
Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 27, 2007, 11:27am
If you prefer not to have your theological debates from Nightline, check out an every-so-slightly higher-brow source--excepts from Christopher Hitchens' new book, which Slate offers under the subtle billing: "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Some choice bits:
We [atheists] do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.)
And some sideways snark at C.S. Lewis and Aztecs here:
While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way—one might cite Pascal—and some of it is dreary and absurd—here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis—both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible! The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise.
Untermensch | April 27, 2007, 12:58pm | #
These mighty scholars may have written many evil things or many foolish things, and been laughably ignorant of the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system, let alone the universe, and this is the plain reason why there are no more of them today, and why there will be no more of them tomorrow.
Actually, I though there were no more of them because they died... Faulting people for not knowing what they could not have possibly known in their time? That's like faulting Einstein for being laughably ignorant of the principles of string theory. I hope that those in the future cut us a little more slack than Hitchens cuts those in our past. Whatever position one may take on (a)theism, the tone and tack taken by Hitchens is not going to win any converts either way. This is just plain bad writing.
I hoped the rest of the selections got better.But nope, on the second page of the
Slate article he resurrects the most banal arguments of Christian anti-Muslim writers. Islam isn't a real religion? It's all derivative? Those were arguments made almost a thousand years ago in Christian vs. Muslim debates. They were crude and useless back then. They have not improved with time.
His criticisms of Mormonism include quotes from Joseph Smith that apparently only Hitchens knows about (where does "Either the Al-Koran or the sword" come from) and cheap shots about Smith's lack of knowledge of Arabic grammar (as if Hitchens would not make equally idiotic statements about subjects he knows nothing about too). Many of his "quotes" are unclear in what they mean. His statement that Smith claimed to have “necromantic” powers (I assume here he is quoting Smith, not using scare quotes) is something I have not seen substantiated in
any scholarship on Smith and his relationship to magic (and there is quite a bit that is
far more interesting as fodder for atheists than anything he cites). He cites a court conviction about which there is serious scholarly question (and not just among Mormons), something which basic fact checking would have told him.
These three pages of highlights(!) show him to be a boorish, sloppy writer prone to strident assertions. The show that he can't do basic fact checking. The arguments are shallow compared to those of other atheist writers and he dismisses what religious people have had to say without apparently bothering to actually know what he's dismissing (presumably because he knows
a priori that it’s wrong and therefore not worthy of actually engaging). Not encouraging.
I'm not writing this to argue for or against a particular stance on religion (although I have one), but rather to point out that I think this book probably does more harm than good for the position he espouses. Unless there is more to it (substantively) than what
Slate has posted, it seems that Hitchens really is preaching to the choir (irony intended). The book will only confirm each camp's opinion about the other side as stupid...
H L Mencken | April 27, 2007, 2:45pm | #
After all, no human being really knows anything about the exalted matters with which all religions deal. The most he can do is match his private guess against the guesses of his fellow-men. For any man to say absolutely, in such a field, that this or that is wholly and irrefragably true and this or that is utterly false is simply to talk nonsense. Personally, I have never encountered a religious idea -- and I do not except even the idea of the existence of God -- that was instantly and unchallengeably convincing, as, say, the Copernican astronomy is instantly and unchallengeably convincing. But neither have I ever encountered a religious idea that could be dismissed off-hand as palpably and indubitably false. In even the worst nonsense of such theological mountebanks as Brigham Young and Mrs. Eddy, there is always enough lingering plausibility, or, at all events, possibility, to give the judicious pause. Whatever the weight of the probabilities against it, it nevertheless may be true that man, on his decease, turns into a gaseous vertebrate, and that this vertebrate, if its human larva has engaged in embezzlement, bootlegging, profanity or adultery on this earth, will be boiled for a million years in a cauldron of pitch. My private inclination, due to my defective upbringing, is to doubt it, and to set down any one who believes it as an ass, but it must be plain that I have no means of disproving it.
In view of this uncertainty it seems to me sheer vanity for any man to hold his religious views too firmly, or to submit to any inconvenience on account of them. It is far better, if they happen to offend, to conceal them discreetly, or to change them amiably as the delusions of the majority change. My own views in this department, being wholly skeptical and tolerant, are obnoxious to the subscribers to practically all other views; even atheists sometimes denounce me. At the moment, by an accident of American political history, these dissenters from my theology are forbidden to punish me for not agreeing with them. But at any succeeding moment some group or other among them may seize such power and proceed against me in the immemorial mannner. If it ever happens, I give notice here and now that I shall get converted to their nonsense instantly, and so retire to safety with my right thumb laid against my nose and my fingers waving like wheat in the wind. I'd do it even today, if there were any practical advantage in it. Offer me a box of good Havana cigars, and I engage to submit to baptism by any rite ever heard of, provided it does not expose my gothic nakedness. Make it ten boxes, and I'll agree to be both baptized and confirmed.
Akira MacKenzie | April 27, 2007, 3:00pm | #
Sean:
You and the Rabbi are making the mistake in thinking that an atheist would be less inclined to disbelieve in a God, if that deity were sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows as the believers do. We don't. There is no more evidence for the existence of a kind God than there is for a wrathful one, just as there was never ever evidence for Zeus, Shiva, Ishtar, Ra, Izanagi, Cernunnus, and all the other gods of the past.
The problem isn't just "God" here, it's belief in he supernatural that is the problem with humanity. All manner of superstitious shit is accepted a fact. Sylvia Browne and John "The Biggest Douche In The Universe" Edward get's to bilk the public of millions by pretending to speak to the dead while hit TV shows are made about mediums and ghost whisperers. Millions of people believe that prayer, crystals, or "homeopathic" remedies will cure disease while mistrusting treatments derived from evidence and scientific testing. Over half the American people believe that the Earth was created in six calender days and that humanity's progenitors were created with divine breath and mud and lived in garden with a talking snake.
Religion is just a very large part (perhaps the largest) of a very grave human problem: Credulity.
Here are the facts. Deal with them. Those who can't should give Dr. Kevorkian a call so those who can don't have to listen to your whining:
*When you die. You are dead. No heaven. No Hell. No reincarnation. That's it. What you mistake for a "soul" and "free will" are nothing more than a organic computer programmed by millions of years of evolutionary trial-and-error that you keep between your ears.
Further more, there is no cosmic judge, jury, or executioner. No "sin" or "redemption." Beyond this existence, there is no "justice." Ultimately the "guilty" CAN get away with and the "innocent" CAN be wrongly punished.
*Eventually humanity will become extinct, either fading away entirely, or evolve into some other species. The Sun will die and the Earth with it taking everything that we were with it. Ultimately the universe itself will die and unless Stephen Hawkings or some future cosmologist finds more information in that arena, it will be end of everything.
Take that reality for what it is, because it's the only one anyone is going to get.
Akira MacKenzie | April 27, 2007, 6:02pm | #
Why the hate? What's it accomplish for you?
I don't know if I would call it "hate" as I would "disappointment."
We humans boast about our rationality and our accomplishments. We landed a man on the moon, virtually eliminated small pox and polio, created Coca Cola, and we created the largest, most successful nation in human history based upon (largely) individual rights.
That said, we've got a significant portion of Americans believe that the sex lives of this nation's citizens are the business of the state, that all American's must acknowledge and finance the worship of a particular deity (or any), that Bronze Age creation myths should be taught as science, and who voted for a President who sends U.S. troops into an Iraqi meat grinder because his God told him to.
After all that history and politics have taught us, and despite the half-hearted reassurances that things will get better after 2008, I want to open up the damn window and scream GORRAM IT! WE OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER THAN THIS!
Now I grew up a very conservative Catholic, yet despite it all, there was something in neural web that kept saying bothering me. Eventualy the so-called miracles, the Gospels, the homilies, and everything else the priests and my father said began to make less and less sense. When I went to college, I was exposed to many new people and ideas, many of which contradicted my religious upbringing. I discovered that is was alright to doubt, so I started to do so in earnest. Eventually I because an atheist.
Of course, I quickly learned that such a decision gets you branded a pariah in this country. Originally I made the mistake that all you had to do was present the evidence to people and they would come around. Just like I did: How can people NOT see things this way? It's rational. One point logically follows from another. Why can't anyone see that "faith" is a non sequitor? Didn't I just give them the evidence to so why it couldn't' happen that way? What do you mean "God works in mysterious ways?" How can you believe God is all good when... etc. etc. etc.
It's like banging me head against the wall. There are times I want to shout, COME ON PEOPLE! THE ANSWER IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT? However, I now realize it's a moot point. They can't see.
They don't want to see.
And that's what burns me up about the faithful most of all; Willful ignorance. While it is humanity's fate to die out one day, I don't believe--not for an instant--that we can make what time mankind has left worthwhile as long as willfully ignore reality which is what religion does. Western history has had one Dark Age already, and I care not to see another in my life time if the Dobsons or the Robinsons (who I believe are far more mainstream than most people would admit) get their way.
We have shown ourselves to be a species with great potential. I really and truly believe that if we did not squander our resources (time, money, effort) on maintaining mysticism and supernaturalism we can accomplish so much more.
That's why I'm disappointed in the faithful.
Harley | April 28, 2007, 1:58pm | #
Akira was raised conservative Catholic, that explains a lot. The most ardent atheists are usually the kind that were raised in a very religious household. They were told to be ashamed of their genitals and to hate faggots and when they got older and realized how stupid it was, they decided to become atheist. The problem is they still carry their zeal over from their religious days. At one time they would shake their head and refuse to except Evolution as fact or would accept that the non-religious have ever contributed anything of value, now they refuse to believe that religion doesn't always lead to Crusades and suicide bombings.
Hey, I'm an atheist and I grew up in a household with an agnostic mother and a mostly non-religious Christian father. Another person who had a lot influence on me was my Grandma who was very skeptical (although not an atheist) of religion and superstition. I never had religion forced on me and I was always taught to look at religion from an intellectual standpoint.
Does religion always lead to violence and closed minds? No. Judaism has a history of intellectualism and philosophy. The Reform Church and the United Church of Christ openly accept homosexuals and fight religious intervention in science. Buddhism is hardly dogmatic or inherently violent. And when is the last time you saw some Taoists holding signs saying "The Universe Hates Fags"? The problem is not religion in and of itself, but rather dogma in all its forms.
What about Communist attempts to wipe out religion? Remember all the historic churches destroyed? Remember priceless artwork burned? Remember clergymen shot? What about how the Soviets refused to teach Evolution because competition and survival of the fittest sounded a little too much like capitalism? Sounds pretty dogmatic to me. Not all atheists support that, shit, a vast majority don't. But it is an example of atheists killing people to further their own beliefs. Wanting to stamp out religion using anything other than facts, data, and logical arguing is inherently dangerous. Just don't act like their are no atheists willing to kill or distort science to further their (ir)religious beliefs.
As for Hitler being an atheist, the arguments for him being one are not about his entire life, but rather during the war years. Most of the quotes supporting his Christianity are during the 20s and 30s. It seems that in the late 30s Hitler became convinced that all religion was a "Jewish fairy tale" and decided to bring back Germanic paganism after the war. He felt it would be better suited for the society he envisioned (it was purely for political purposes, not religious ones). The Nazi top brass was made up of a weird mixture of Catholics, neo-pagans, and atheists with each group having their own reasons for supporting Nazism. Does it matter if Hitler was atheist, Christian, or pagan? No, it does not. Because the Holocaust and war were conducted for reasons that had nothing to do with religion. He hated Jews and wanted to expand Germany. Simple as that. He used every method possible to incited hatred for the Jews including "They killed Jesus", "They control all the banks", "They eat infants", "They are Communists", and pseudoscience claiming that Jews were the vermin of the human race. He covered his based to make sure that no matter what your beliefs were, you had a reason to hate and fear Jews. Hitler wanted what he wanted and would have done/said anything to get it.
-Harley
plunge | April 30, 2007, 11:35am | #
"But it is an example of atheists killing people to further their own beliefs."
There are no "atheist" beliefs that tie atheists to each other or to people like Stalin and Mao. Atheism is the LACK of a specific belief: theism. It isn't a core set of ideas shared amongst all unbelievers.
"Wanting to stamp out religion using anything other than facts, data, and logical arguing is inherently dangerous."
Agreed.
"Just don't act like their are no atheists willing to kill or distort science to further their (ir)religious beliefs."
Of course there are. NOT being religious doesn't mean that you can't be a jerk, or violent, or a woman, or a baseball player, or anything other than not being religious. But again, the attempt to paint atheism as some sort of unifying philosophy that has to answer for those who try to do bad things is even less coherent than trying to condemn all religion for the act of a few sects of one particular religion. At least the latter has some potential for a grain of truth, even if in practice there rarely anything worthwhile to such criticisms. There is no potential for that in "atheism" because there is nothing that makes atheists have likeminded views on anything. We are an outgroup, not a membership with specific beliefs.
"As for Hitler being an atheist, the arguments for him being one are not about his entire life, but rather during the war years."
Look, for the last time, the argument that Hitler was an atheist is just stupid. He wasn't. Even in his final days he still believed in God, it just had by then apparently ceased to be the Christian God. For every quote you can find with him declaring many Christian beliefs to be fairy tales (and note that this is silly, since many CHRISTIANS believe many of these stories are mythical too) we find him still ranting about God's great purpose for himself and Germany.
"Because the Holocaust and war were conducted for reasons that had nothing to do with religion."
Again, this is far far too weak of a statement. The antisemitism Hitler was drenched in and, perhaps more importantly, effectively played upon was Christian in origin, with a long long pedigree. Nazism was larger than just Hitler, and in the rank and file, religion had a HECK of a lot to do with things. Read "On the Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther, and you will find a virtual blueprint of the development of Holocaust policies. Antisemitism is one of the great historical sins of Christian society which, to its credit, virtually every Christian denomination outgrew and repudiated (in part because of what Hitler did).
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
