Ch. 19: In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenment
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:40 pm
God is Not Great
Ch. 19: In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenment
Ch. 19: In Conclusion: The Need for a New Enlightenment
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
Thanks for these well chosen quotes Bill, they well encapsulate key messages of the philosophy of GING, if I can call it that (not making CH a GINGist tho, he might not like the allusion to the horde...).DWill wrote:I'll just give a few passages from this short, final chapter--since I admire Hitchens' writing--and ask for any concluding comments anyone might have about the book.
This is simply false, and shows that Hitchens resolutely refuses to see the good message within Christianity because of the power of its evil message. The story of the gospel is an archetype for the question, ‘if a perfect man lived, how would he behave?’ Jesus Christ gives a model for the confrontation between the sense of eternal divine law and human institutions. Finding this message requires a deconstruction of Biblical doctrine, and seems impossible while it is imbedded in the false teachings such as the virgin birth and creationism. Yet Jesus himself indicated, in the parable of the wheat and tares, that such an effort to distinguish between true and false is a distinguishing mark of salvation. The telescope and microscope can help us to accumulate facts, but cannot determine our choice of values. Science should inform our values, but does not come ready made with a narrative of how we should live, a story for which for better or worse people must still look to mythic sources. Hitchens here is showing his mythic prejudice, with the telescope and microscope standing as talismans for the Scientific Enlightenment, a method – and cultural context - that is far from objective regarding moral judgement. It presents the dubious worldview of logical positivism – that there is no meaning outside science – as absolute and objective. Religion does offer important insights into psychology, politics, mythology and history. Discussion should be more about re-basing these insights in a scientific framework, not deprecating their potential to provide explanations."Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers explanations to anything important" (p. 282).
Here, at his rhetorical best, Hitchens ignores the entire Protestant debate regarding salvation by faith. Yes, his criticism of salvation by works is a reasonable critique of popular folk superstition, but the point of religious practices is not that they save us from damnation, but that they are community rituals which can point us towards a deeper understanding. Some rituals are obsolete, especially regarding physical mutilation, but prayer and sacraments can still offer entry points to a useful dialogue about the meaning of faith. Similarly, the idea that religions offer annihilation is based on a misreading of the Bible. Yes, there is strong apocalyptic language in the Christian creed, but the core message is one of planetary transformation, not total destruction.
"Meanwhile, confronted with undreamed-of vistas inside our own evolving cortex, in the farthest reaches of the known universe, and in the proteins and acids which constitute our nature, religion offers either annihilation in the name of god, or else the false promise that if we take a knife to our foreskins, or pray in the right direction, or ingest pieces of wafer, we shall be 'saved.' It is as if someone, offered a delicious and fragrant out-of-season fruit, matured in a painstakingly and lovingly designed hothouse, should throw away the flesh and the pulp and gnaw moodily on the pit" (p. 283).
The ‘corrupt and confected’ sacred texts are themselves central pieces of poetic literature, and themselves contain useful ethical questions and intrinsic merit despite their faults. Yes it is true that treating the Bible as literature does depose fundamentalist interpretations, but it does not ‘depose scrutiny of sacred texts’. Hitchens himself offers some real scrutiny of the Bible in ways that are very informative."Above all, we are in need of a new Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by easy electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone" (p.283.