tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post2770366026693870633..comments2024-03-15T02:42:58.854-04:00Comments on The Hat Rack: Christopher Hitchens - God is Not GreatNathaniel Katzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12852939663324751332noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post-51700218020298429592011-12-27T23:14:41.961-05:002011-12-27T23:14:41.961-05:00I was deeply disappointed with The God Delusion; L...I was deeply disappointed with The God Delusion; Logical Positivism is the only vein Dawkins knows how to tap, even though that, in the realm of actual philosophers, it folds instantly. Still, for the common masses, it seems to make sense, and so it's a drum that can be beaten:<br /><br />I would wonder, if you take the two groups (theists and non-theists) individually, which has a higher percentage of individuals within each set that DO participate in charity/volunteer work/humanitarian aid? I would think that in that study, the Faithful and Unfaithful would be separately gauged, and I think that would be more fair. I'm willing to bet that it would be the faithful, even if that's only because every Sunday there's a man with a white collar shouting that they need to be helping (which, obviously, isn't good rationale).<br /><br />About Russia as a theocracy: see the cult of Joseph Stalin. Wiki it; it's actually a cool read, although we see similar patterns in the late Kim Jong Il's rule. I'm inclined, Nat, to believe that you're onto something: men need some sort of Zarathustrian hierarchy to contextualize their lives and the energy expended during it....<br /><br />I'm not particularly on either side here, but I do I think that an open, honest debate SHOULD be had about this topic. To that point, I did listen to an excellent debate on NPR about this subject, which has more or less informed my stance. It's available through iTunes under the "NPR: Intelligence Squared Debates." The title is, "Would the World be Better Off Without Religion?" I recommend it; it's a pretty intense debate.<br /><br />Like Nat says, it's an interesting discussion that needs to be had, and it doesn't need to be brushed under the rug... but I'd like to see a more intelligent discussion going on. And there is, but for that, you need to climb up into the stratosphere of philosophical discussion... and I don't think I have the wherewithal for that kind of argument.<br /><br />Anyhow, I did enjoy the review. It was quite level-headed, and I agree with a lot of what you said.Travis Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01347719358959701471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post-16146839390724720562011-12-27T21:42:22.419-05:002011-12-27T21:42:22.419-05:00Oh, Dawkins and Hitchens are both clearly men on a...Oh, Dawkins and Hitchens are both clearly men on a mission, though it is a mission that I largely agree with. I see the argument that religion doesn't wholly define a person, and it's certainly true in many cases, and I also wholly agree that books like God is Not Great, The God Delusion, or what have you are completely futile, and yet... I still think it's something that needs to be discussed and is worth arguing. To throw in a Hitchens quote (one that I considered opening the review with, but decided against):<br /><br />"The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning - but not the end - of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning - but by no means the end - of all disputes about the good life and the just city." (p. 12)<br /><br />That seems quite true to me. No, a man's faith does not decide every aspect of him, but it does have a tremendous influence on the way that he thinks and acts. The ways in which we would and should proceed in worlds with and without an objective purpose that's already been handed down to us are very different. So yeah, it's not a question that's going to be answered any time soon, and these specific books will likely have little impact in the end, but I still think it's a discussion too important to be brushed under the rug.<br /><br />I agree with your objections to Hitchens' thesis, though, Travis. Saying that religion does no good in the world is as ludicrous as saying that it does no wrong, and, though Hitchens is reasonable half the time and allows it its good deeds, he spends the other half snatching them back or whittling them away. That being said, as Anton Gully pointed out, doing it as a numbers game is meaningless, since there simply are more believers than non. A far more interesting question, I think, would be the amount of charities done by the groups per capita. Hitchens claims that he thinks it's more atheists that do good than theists, but, really, that's an assertion he doesn't back up in any way and, much as I'd like to know the answer, I've no idea how one could be reached.<br /><br />I disagree with the idea that totalitarian states like Russia are/were theocracies, that seems to be going too far. But I do think that the idea of them being fundamentalist is an interesting idea, at least in the sense that they hold to a set of beliefs just as fervently, and just as potentially irrationally, as any theist. Then again, simply accepting dogma is simply the mark of most men anywhere, no matter their system of governance or faith. Maybe it's not so much which system they're in as it is that most men simply require an overarching, infallible system of some sort, be it religious or political. <br /><br />Of the New Atheists, I've so far read Dawkins (The God Delusion), Hitchens (God is Not Great), and am in the midst of Harris' The End of Faith. On Harris, you do have a point. The variance between chapters is astounding. Some are incredibly interesting, others tedious or even horrific in their dogged insistence. For him, I completely agree with you that's he's as much if not more a fundamentalist than nigh all of those he so rails against, even if he is a fundamentalist with some fascinating thoughts. As to whether I'll review or read more of him once I've finished this book, I've yet to decide.Nathaniel Katzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12852939663324751332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post-85812815497511067362011-12-27T20:07:57.102-05:002011-12-27T20:07:57.102-05:00I'm not disagreeing with you, Travis, but you&...I'm not disagreeing with you, Travis, but you'll find that "religious folk constitute the vast majority of all charity work" in the US. That's simple statistics because the vast majority of the population there claim to follow a religion. <br /><br />Of course Bill Gates, one of the biggest philanthropists in the world and a US citizen, is at best an agnostic.<br /><br />Most of the rest of the Western world has considerably higher rates of atheism and more Government funding in their social programs. I'd say religious organisations still run the majority of the actual charities at a local level - but there's less need for it due to the wider social safety net. <br /><br />If you look at international organizations like Amnesty International, say, membership and support will reflect the religious make-up of the local population.<br /><br />Even I'm starting to find Dawkins grating. He is a man on a mission. The rise in so-called atheist fundamentalism in the US probably has a lot more to do with the active cultural bias against atheists there. Something which isn't an issue in Europe. Perversely this means there's more of a market for tub-thumping atheist proselytizing in the States.<br /><br />And to really make it seem like I'm disagreeing for the sake of it, I'll throw this out. Burma.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1666978,00.html" rel="nofollow">Burma's Faceless Leaders</a><br /><br />:PPanicswitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04074225770192887676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post-28089589013201182002011-12-27T17:59:51.746-05:002011-12-27T17:59:51.746-05:00Nat, I’m very pleased with your appraisal of Hitch...Nat, I’m very pleased with your appraisal of Hitchens. Of the “New Atheists,” he is my favorite to read. I find Dawkins grating; his constant reliance on positivism is lame, and his philosophical training is very weak. Sam Harris is a rabble rouser, and not worth the paper he’s printed on, and Daniel Dennett is very hit or miss. Like you said, Hitchens is remarkably flamboyant in his prose, and it can be a lot of fun to read… so long as you understand that what you’re reading is not first-rate philosophy, and doesn’t even pretend to be objectively considerate.<br /><br />One of the immediate problems with Hitchen’s thesis is that, if we consider the facts, religious folk constitute the vast majority of all charity work. The vast majority. And most humanitarian aid programs are religiously founded. Where do you see a non-faith founded homeless shelter, thrift store, or missions program? Even the Peace Corps was founded by Catholics, and that’s an international affair. A fair rebuttal is that much of the religious outreach comes with an attempt at conversion—but, if you talk to many missionary leaders, there are a lot of opinions about whether or not that is right. This variation of opinion alone annihilates Hitchen’s entire point: the religious community is far too broad on any one topic alone to be tossed away. His generalizations are so weak because they are just that.<br /><br />I think that had he made his case not about “religion as a whole” but about “cultic, militant fundamentalism,” he might have been able to do something more with the points he brings up. The reality is that the majority of professing Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever, aren’t “Soldiers for [Insert Religious Icon].” They’re people who have a belief, and it barely, rarely colors who they are. Most of them are evangelists, out there in the world shouting and telling everyone that they’re wrong… Hitchens, however, is. The kind of people he denounces—fundamentalists, people who fight for their way of life, they’re the same kind of person he is. His appraisals of religious believers are awful similar to the appraisals of atheists made by fundamentalists. And, of course, not all atheists are Darwin-thumping rabble rousers, either. They’re people who have a belief, and it barely, rarely colors who they are.<br /><br />This entire argument about Faith vs. Non-Faith is as stupid as the argument about the legality of Homosexual marriage, and people write just as many goddamn books about that, too. People are more complex than the individual components of their identities, but if you listen to these “critics” and “thinkers,” they’ll have you believe you’re simple Theist or Atheist, Hetero or Homo. It’s ignorant, and it makes big, big money. Thus the American subtitle on Hitchens’ book.<br /><br />Anyway, you know my thoughts on this entire argument; I’m a deist, after a fashion, and my beliefs are founded in cosmology and mathematics. I don’t know about dogma, and both theistic and atheistic fundamentalists make me very uncomfortable. <br /><br />Oh, about the totalitarian state being theocratic: the totalitarian state is the only kind of state that has clear foundations in anti-theological thought processes: communism. All of the democratic and commonwealth nations of the world are founded, at least in some part, in a form of religion (with varying degrees of intensity). Interestingly enough, every single totalitarian government does develop a cult of personality. Perhaps when governing so many people it is impossible to have anything short of a state-supported religion, whether it is “official” or not. If religion is the opiate the masses, and the masses have been hooked for as long as there has been a crowd, I don’t particularly see a clear way forward without a spiritual bond between Government and Governed. That’s something to think about.Travis Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01347719358959701471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024708439940556234.post-60310894209339170792011-12-27T17:20:38.561-05:002011-12-27T17:20:38.561-05:00I picked this and his autobiography up in the rece...I picked this and his autobiography up in the recent Kindle sale. I'm looking forward to reading it for the prose, rather than his philosophy. I'm a lifelong atheist and there's little prospect of me changing my opinions on religion and humanism at this late stage.<br /><br />The anecdotal nature of the work is likely because he was writing a book to entertain and stoke controversy in equal measure. That's how he rolled.<br /><br />Specific stories are really the only way to present a work like this, surely. It's impossible to bring scientific method to the table and expect to disprove religion, when the other side can point to their articles of faith, roll their eyes and tell you that all those measurements and facts are very nice but they KNOW they're right. The only way to counter this is with real world examples that can't be described as theoretical or up for debate.<br /><br />It isn't going to change any opinions either way. I guess many atheists just like to have a book that re-affirms their belief. Ironic, no?Panicswitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04074225770192887676noreply@blogger.com