Page 2 of 4

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:10 am
by Frank 013
Thrillwriter
Nevertheless, I still stand by my last paragraph.


That is your opinion and you are entitled to it
Thrillwriter
In retrospect, such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah didn’t miss the boat.


:laugh:

Later

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:09 am
by Dissident Heart
Hitchens is a first-rate intellect and occasionally brilliant writer- perhaps one of the world's brightest minds engaging the public arena of culture, politics, literature and most things human...and he produces a mighty persuasive case against Religion, important and necessary and in some instances courageous and, yes, even brilliant. Religious abuses must be exposed, confronted and held accountable; and Hitchens' work is essential in this process.

And this is not the book, nor is Hitchens the place to go to get beyond the abuses: ie, the terror, ignorance and futility of Religion is all you get with Hitchens. I think it is a collosal error and sheer prejudice that sees only the abuse, and in its narrow minded, rigidly one-sided approach becomes abusive and destructive in its own way...reproducing the intolerance and bigotry it purports to fight against. The complexity and depth of Religion is completely lost in a struggle of black versus white, good versus evil, rational versus irrational puppets on a one-dimensional stage that exists nowhere beyond Hitchens' narrative...except in another similar guise and like-minded binary struggle fought by the same theocrats and fundamentalists he eviscerates across his pages.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:33 am
by Thrillwriter
This is the first book I've read by Hitchens ...
Hitchens is a first-rate intellect and occasionally brilliant writer- perhaps one of the world's brightest minds engaging the public arena of culture, politics, literature and most things human...and he produces a mighty persuasive case against Religion,
Perhaps in another of his works I would like it .. I don't know. I do feel solidly that random examples and lots of nasty words do NOT make a rational case for his interpretations. That is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it nor must I agree with you.

Continuing the discussion of the chapter ... I think maybe religion's original appeal was that it provided means for which people could control their own destiny. In a world where rain and plagues and other natural phenomena were the primary cause of your success or failure in life it's very appealing to think that by saying a prayer or doing a dance that you can influence these events and somehow have a say in what your future will be. However as the times have changed, I think we're far past those concerns. In todays world people look to religion to tell them that they are personally important... that they are not lost in the sea of humans that roam any given society. You are recognized as an individual soul and you have value as such. It used to be your skills and craft had value to society and you were identified and valued by your work, which no one else or very few others could porform... but now, everyone is replacable.. no one person is essential to society... in religion they are given value for their souls.. and just by existing they have a purpose and function to perform in the greater scheme of things... even if that purpose and function remain hidden... it's good enough to know it's there...

What I am basically trying to say is that, I think today, religion is more about giving meaning to your life, and allowing people to have value for something other than their work and skills. Either in this life or the next.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:40 am
by DWill
Hitchens is a take-no-prisioners polemicist, true. I have been trying to suggest, though, that he holds a softer, more tolerant view of religion than he admits explicitly. One indication is his fondness for some things associated with religion. Another is a remarkable statement (which I will try to find and quote later) that, in terms of the information available to them at the time, people who answered the questions of existence in terms of their religion were doing the best they could. This is statement I haven't seen before from atheist authors. It means that they could not have been engaged in error which, had they only chosen, they could have avoided.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:27 pm
by Thrillwriter
DWill wrote:
Hitchens is a take-no-prisioners polemicist, true. I have been trying to suggest, though, that he holds a softer, more tolerant view of religion than he admits explicitly. One indication is his fondness for some things associated with religion.
I'm not bashing the guy. He has his beliefs. Great. All men and women should have something they believe in. However, in one example of his view it is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian , in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."
If this were the fifteenth or sixteenth century where all was governed by the church, I would totally agree. But that is simply not the case. People have the right to believe what they want, how they want, and where they want. How on earth could this be harmful? Harmful to whom? Him? You? the entire population?
I fail to see the soft side in this quotation. However, I am trying to remain open minded and I am willing to see your point of view. I just don't and didn't see a soft side in the first Chapter, much less the entire book. And the above quote confirms my belief. Isn't it our right to choose, right or wrong?
Whose to say religion is harmful to those who pray only. That is all they do. They don't go to church, they don't read the bible, they don't have a specified religion, and yet they believe in a higher power and they prey. How is that harmful?
I think Mr. Hitchens makes assumptions without forethought.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:33 pm
by Dissident Heart
Thrillwriter: I do feel solidly that random examples and lots of nasty words do NOT make a rational case for his interpretations.

I don't think his work is reducible to simply random examples and derogatory language, but I agree he is not making a simply rational case against Religion. I think his attack against Religion is one stage in a larger war he is waging, and he knows enough about human behavior to understand that defeating an enemy requires much more than simply lining up good reasons and offering persuasive arguments. Part of defeating an enemy involves demoralizing their forces: as well as bolstering the morale of your own troops. Hitchens' violent rhetoric is traumatizing to his foes and invigorating to his allies. It is a propagandistic strategy meant to instigate a fight and humiliate an opponent. Hitchens is a warrior who understands the value of controlling the hearts and minds of an occupied population. He is part of a resistance/revolutionary force in a territory largely occupied by theocratic bullies and facists. There is enormous value in bullying the bully and slapping the tyrant (even if only rhetorically) especially when viewed in broad daylight by the bullied and tyrannized masses. His vitriol and nastiness spark the courage of those otherwise too frightened to speak out or stand up.

And, since his efforts are in denial of the anti-fascistic and liberationary dimensions of Religion...his venom and spite simply throw kerosene on an already apocalyptic fire.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:06 pm
by Thrillwriter
Thank you Dissident Heart.

That actually puts it in a much better perspective for me. I appreciate the time you took to phrase your case and provide an excellent command of the human language to explain it to me so that I can better understand the motive behind the words.

I feel I have a better understanding now. I am much appreciative.
I may even go back and read it again now with an enhanced understanding to the nature of the content of his work.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:56 pm
by DWill
Thrillwriter wrote:
I'm not bashing the guy.
Please don't think that I think you are.
If this were the fifteenth or sixteenth century where all was governed by the church, I would totally agree. But that is simply not the case. People have the right to believe what they want, how they want, and where they want. How on earth could this be harmful? Harmful to whom? Him? You? the entire population?
I fail to see the soft side in this quotation. However, I am trying to remain open minded and I am willing to see your point of view. I just don't and didn't see a soft side in the first Chapter, much less the entire book. And the above quote confirms my belief. Isn't it our right to choose, right or wrong? /quote]
Though the quotation about harmfulness is not from our current book, I take it as representative of his views. "Harmful" is his opinion, I think , of the net effect of individuals practicing religion, an effect on society. His statements are indeed usually strong, but they are his opinions, which we all have the right to examine for their basis in reason. Is there such a basis, or is it all just his personal animus against religion? That's to be decided by each of us. Remember, though, that he doesn't dispute relgion in terms of anyone's right to practice it. He also says, "I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could." (p.12)

Something comes up here that has been mentioned frequently in our arguments about religion, and I think you touch on it indirectly in the last part of your post. We have this singular noun "religion" which allows us to speak as if it were unitary. But we all know it's not one thing essentially but composed of many different aspects. When we attack "religion", then, are we attacking all beliefs labeled as such, all beliefs not labeled as such but not falsifiable, all spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation, and all groups who practice a religion? It isn't very credible that all such things could be problems. Critics of religion should specify what they're objecting to, because otherwise the generality of their reference lessens their credibility a lot in my eyes. I thought one of the strengths of Richard Dawkins book was that he came right out and said that what he was naming as delusional was the standard Christian/Jewish concept of God. Other concepts that one might call God were not targets.

I would say that Hitchens does specify what exactly he doesn't like about religion. Whether he can provide support for "harmfulness" is another matter. And if everything associated with religion turns out to be harmful in his view, I think that would indicate a lack of balanced reasoning.

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:57 pm
by DWill
Thrillwriter wrote:I'm not bashing the guy.
Please don't think that I think you are.
If this were the fifteenth or sixteenth century where all was governed by the church, I would totally agree. But that is simply not the case. People have the right to believe what they want, how they want, and where they want. How on earth could this be harmful? Harmful to whom? Him? You? the entire population?
I fail to see the soft side in this quotation. However, I am trying to remain open minded and I am willing to see your point of view. I just don't and didn't see a soft side in the first Chapter, much less the entire book. And the above quote confirms my belief. Isn't it our right to choose, right or wrong?
Though the quotation about harmfulness is not from our current book, I take it as representative of his views. "Harmful" is his opinion, I think , of the net effect of individuals practicing religion, an effect on society. His statements are indeed usually strong, but they are his opinions, which we all have the right to examine for their basis in reason. Is there such a basis, or is it all just his personal animus against religion? That's to be decided by each of us. Remember, though, that he doesn't dispute relgion in terms of anyone's right to practice it. He also says, "I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could." (p.12)

Something comes up here that has been mentioned frequently in our arguments about religion, and I think you touch on it indirectly in the last part of your post. We have this singular noun "religion" which allows us to speak as if it were unitary. But we all know it's not one thing essentially but composed of many different aspects. When we attack "religion", then, are we attacking all beliefs labeled as such, all beliefs not labeled as such but not falsifiable, all spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation, and all groups who practice a religion? It isn't very credible that all such things could be problems. Critics of religion should specify what they're objecting to, because otherwise the generality of their reference lessens their credibility a lot in my eyes. I thought one of the strengths of Richard Dawkins book was that he came right out and said that what he was naming as delusional was the standard Christian/Jewish concept of God. Other concepts that one might call God were not targets.

I would say that Hitchens does specify what exactly he doesn't like about religion. Whether he can provide support for "harmfulness" is another matter. And if everything associated with religion turns out to be harmful in his view, I think that would indicate a lack of balanced reasoning.[/quote]

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:00 pm
by DWill
DWill wrote:
Thrillwriter wrote:I'm not bashing the guy.
Please don't think that I think you are.
If this were the fifteenth or sixteenth century where all was governed by the church, I would totally agree. But that is simply not the case. People have the right to believe what they want, how they want, and where they want. How on earth could this be harmful? Harmful to whom? Him? You? the entire population?
I fail to see the soft side in this quotation. However, I am trying to remain open minded and I am willing to see your point of view. I just don't and didn't see a soft side in the first Chapter, much less the entire book. And the above quote confirms my belief. Isn't it our right to choose, right or wrong?
Though the quotation about harmfulness is not from our current book, I take it as representative of his views. "Harmful" is his opinion, I think , of the net effect of individuals practicing religion, an effect on society. His statements are indeed usually strong, but they are his opinions, which we all have the right to examine for their basis in reason. Is there such a basis, or is it all just his personal animus against religion? That's to be decided by each of us. Remember, though, that he doesn't dispute relgion in terms of anyone's right to practice it. He also says, "I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could." (p.12)

Something comes up here that has been mentioned frequently in our arguments about religion, and I think you touch on it indirectly in the last part of your post. We have this singular noun "religion" which allows us to speak as if it were unitary. But we all know it's not one thing essentially but composed of many different aspects. When we attack "religion", then, are we attacking all beliefs labeled as such, all beliefs not labeled as such but not falsifiable, all spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation, and all groups who practice a religion? It isn't very credible that all such things could be problems. Critics of religion should specify what they're objecting to, because otherwise the generality of their reference lessens their credibility a lot in my eyes. I thought one of the strengths of Richard Dawkins book was that he came right out and said that what he was naming as delusional was the standard Christian/Jewish concept of God. Other concepts that one might call God were not targets.

I would say that Hitchens does specify what exactly he doesn't like about religion. Whether he can provide support for "harmfulness" is another matter. And if everything associated with religion turns out to be harmful in his view, I think that would indicate a lack of balanced reasoning.