• In total there are 15 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 15 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

When Religion is not poison

#64: Mar. - May 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

When Religion is not poison

Unread post

Below are a few religious scholars and thinkers left out of Hitchens' equation regarding the poison of religion:

Susannah Heschel (Jewish feminist scholar of modern biblical criticism)



James Carroll (writer, activist, former Catholic priest)



Cornel West (writer, professor of philosophy, religion and African American culture)



John Dominic Crossan (writer, professor of historical Jesus studies, former Priest)



Louis Vitale (Franciscan activist, priest and teacher)



Wendell Berry (Protestant Christian farmer/poet)



Richard Cizik (National Association of Evangelicals, Creation Care)

Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: fixed youtube bbcode
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

It's my impression from several things Hitchens says in Chapter One that he would not condemn what these people have to say as poison. The particulars he lists as "poison" in Chapter Two are of quite a different order. Perhaps he does bring this confusion on himself by his rhetoric.
User avatar
seespotrun2008

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
15
Location: Portland, OR
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Unread post

Cool videos. :smile:
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

What is it about these positive religious association which make the topics seem so dry? The message is mixed, on one hand religion is supposed to provide sometime of moral authority and serve as a allegory on the other it is as ineffectual as anything else its associations are thin compared to comparable secular works, and may as I am sure Hitchens points out cause more harm than good. Nothing wrong with some quite prayer but do we really need crosses in the streets or in the presidential office?

Religion its self is contradictory, any benefit it provided has been extracted and converted into secular format. The importance of religion is a private matter and should stay that way, not as some type of publicity spun sentimental cure all for modern problems. Being unable to concede to fact and reality or having willing aptitude to mislead peers with bias should be considered a grave failing and as such prevent a persons rise to eminence based on these mistakenly legitimized pseudo-intellectual opinions. At least on any issue that matters. Society should no longer accept the bible as an answer... to anything...ever.

:book:
User avatar
seespotrun2008

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Graduate Student
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:54 am
15
Location: Portland, OR
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Unread post

What is it about these positive religious association which make the topics seem so dry? The message is mixed, on one hand religion is supposed to provide sometime of moral authority and serve as a allegory on the other it is as ineffectual as anything else.
Religion, as is everything, is a mixture of beauty and repugnance. Some of these speakers are talking more of politics than they are of religion. Perhaps this is a problem, but it is extremely complicated. How much of our decisions and political beliefs come from from our beliefs about where we came from, what our purpose in the world is, if there is a God or not? Religion is not always based in the idea that a God exists. There are Hindus who do not believe in God and yet practice daily rituals. Buddhists do not always believe in God either.

I agree that mixing religion and government is problematic. I have been to sessions of the State Legislature and it is scary how much the beginning of the day feels like a church service. But how far do we go? Where do we draw the boundries? I think that is a constant discussion that we are having in American society. While Dan Barker may have a problem with the fact that he has to get involved to have his voice heard in the government, I would say that that is what our society is about. We all have to be involved to have our voices heard. We are all the government. And living in a democratic republic is a lot of work. Which is why so many people are not involved.
Religion its self is contradictory, any benefit it provided has been extracted and converted into secular format.
Human beings are contradictory. :) Hence, so is religion.
Being unable to concede to fact and reality...
But that is the question. Whose "fact and reality" is the right one?
having willing aptitude to mislead peers with bias should be considered a grave failing and as such prevent a persons rise to eminence based on these mistakenly legitimized pseudo-intellectual opinions. At least on any issue that matters.
I totally disagree. Everyone has a bias. Society does weed out the biases that are not liked. Unfortunately the hurtful biases pass through along with the biases that build us up.
Society should no longer accept the bible as an answer... to anything...ever.
Perhaps not. But I think that people in the society should be able to choose to accept the Bible, another religious book, or no religious book at all, as an answer.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

seespotrun2008 wrote:
Religion its self is contradictory, any benefit it provided has been extracted and converted into secular format.
Human beings are contradictory. :) Hence, so is religion.
Right, so religions claim to higher moral legitimacy is fundamentally flawed/false.
seespotrun2008 wrote:
Being unable to concede to fact and reality...
But that is the question. Whose "fact and reality" is the right one?
I don't know if "fact and reality" is all that subjective other than to varying degrees of comprehension. Of course it is but does it need to be? It's like a law, the law is written down all interpretation must stem from the basic writ, you can't legally start making up your own rules. If fact and reality is established what good is an institution that attempts to legitimize what amounts to grave disinformation? (i.e. there is a god)
seespotrun2008 wrote:
having willing aptitude to mislead peers with bias should be considered a grave failing and as such prevent a persons rise to eminence based on these mistakenly legitimized pseudo-intellectual opinions. At least on any issue that matters.
I totally disagree. Everyone has a bias. Society does weed out the biases that are not liked. Unfortunately the hurtful biases pass through along with the biases that build us up.
And so having a willing aptitude to mislead is acceptable because strong opinions are natural? If someone were spreading disinformation would you shrug and say "Oh well, they are just naturally spreading their bias," as if it doesn't matter? I don't think that normalizing some supposedly negative aspect of bias, outside of certain applications of it, is appropriate. Obviously everyone has opinions, does that mean that it is acceptable for strangely irrational ones to go unchallenged?
seespotrun2008 wrote:
Society should no longer accept the bible as an answer... to anything...ever.
Perhaps not. But I think that people in the society should be able to choose to accept the Bible, another religious book, or no religious book at all, as an answer.
In the privacy of their own homes and churches.

:book:
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

I would argue (as I think that Hitchens might) that the above videos are a result of cultural humanitarian in spite of the original biblical messages, not because of them.

Later
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Frank 013 wrote:I would argue (as I think that Hitchens might) that the above videos are a result of cultural humanitarian in spite of the original biblical messages, not because of them.
Hitchens might argue this way, I'm not sure. But is there a possible logical fallacy in the thinking? The question seems to go begging: if the message from the religion spokesman is not harmful, then it must not have anything to do with religion. The answer is assumed but not substantiated.

Hitchens appears to see religion as a kind of force multiplier in a negative sense. He mentions tribalism, racism, and aggression as negative forces in themselves, but I think he sees religions as adding a strong impetus to these. If it is reasonable to extrapolate this, I think it rings true. Religion is often an intensifier of built-in human drives that usually have unfortunate consequences (but not always).

Somewhat in line with seespotrun's statement that religion is both beautiful and deplorable, could it also be that religion can be a force multiplier in the other direction? Thinking of the example of American slavery, we have religious justifications of the institution of slavery, but also I believe a considerable contribution to the abolition of slavery from evangelicals. Would it be claimed that their conviction had no relation to how they saw their religious duty? If, so, on what basis? There is a similar relationship observed with the much later civil rights movement. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that the bigots were in the grip of religion, while the enlightened ones in a different religious camp were humanistic despite religion. Or so I speculate.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Unread post

DWill
Hitchens might argue this way, I'm not sure. But is there a possible logical fallacy in the thinking? The question seems to go begging: if the message from the religion spokesman is not harmful, then it must not have anything to do with religion. The answer is assumed but not substantiated.
What I am saying is that the most literal readings of the material from the Koran, Torah and Christian bible are not moral in a modern sense. We as a society are moving away from the old behavior and the above religions (for the most part) are responding in kind by reinterpreting the older text to coincide with our evolving and improving humanity.

This cannot be a result of the biblical texts because their messages do not contain our modern morality.

In spite of this we advanced in our way of thinking, (who knows how much those religions slowed us down though) thankfully most religions are following along (albeit at a slower pace) and some people seem to be sensing the hypocritical nature of certain religious beliefs.

For example: Religious people when confronted with the irrational nature of their beliefs, take the stance that “We should have the right to believe whatever we want and no one should interfere with that right” and “people should be tolerant of others lifestyles and belief choices” in nearly the same breath they claim that Gays should not have the right to marry.

This is not a fringe group either; some 60+ percent of American Christians believe this.

What is hopeful is that the religions seem to be loosing ground in this country, at approximately .1 percent per year.

At any rate, it is our separation from the literal tenets in the biblical text that allows us to become more humanitarian, not the other way around. Weather it is through reinterpretation or simply a choice to live apart from those obsolete beliefs does not seem to matter much; simply that we have chosen better options for our societies is hopeful in most respects.

But there is still much work to be done.

Later
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Thanks, I found your first paragraph helped me understand your point of view. On the subject of religion's popularity, a recent large study (which I haven't yet found out more about) reported that "only" 76% of Americans polled identified themselves as Christians, down by 10% from the first such survey in 1991. The report said that these Christians were more likely to "non-denominational", which probably means of the more fundamentalist type. Somewhat fewer of us are Christian, but more Christians have adopted conservative religion, which mirrors the greatly increased influence that the Christian right has had in public life.
Post Reply

Return to “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - by Christopher Hitchens”