A Last Word On Hitchens

[poliphilo]

I spent much of yesterday on Hitchens' website. I think he's doing important work. Someone needs to be knocking religion- and he's good at it. But only up to a point. The debate never gets much more sophisticated than "So where did Cain's wife come from, eh?"  He's a clever person of limited culture- with a layman's understanding of Victorian science- butting against positions that became untenable a hundred and fifty years ago. It's a weary old war and I withdrew from it a while ago, but I'm glad there are still people out there in the field, bashing away.

Comments

[chiller.livejournal.com]

That particular video you linked is great, but generally Hitchens' face makes my slappin' hand twitch.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

He's an arrogant man who has less to be arrogant about than he thinks.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

It is always thus, eh?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

He's an attack dog. Such people have their uses. If he were a person of broader culture and wider sympathies he'd be less effective in his chosen role

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I think he's doing important work. Someone needs to be knocking religion-

This is what I don't get: why?

[chiller.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing because it's responsible for war, child rape, witch beating, the stoning of women, the murder of homosexuals - I could go on.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No, it's an EXCUSE for war, child rape, witch beating/hanging/stoning/burning, and so forth. The responsibility for those things is with the people who did them. The existence of religion doesn't shift the responsibility -- and I believe that, absent THAT excuse, they would have found another one.

[chiller.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you are correct in the last part of that.

But let's remove the EXCUSE, and try them as criminals.

Religion is responsible for...

[methodius.livejournal.com]

Is the record of irreleigion any better? Did such things never happen in Enver Hoxha's Albania? Was that the true earthly paradise?

Re: Religion is responsible for...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Regimes that attempt to suppress religion are by definition tyrannical- and usually powered by some ideology or personality cult that borrows the methods and trappings of religion. I don't regard such regimes as truly secular. The secular state is one that separates church and state. Regimes like Hoxha's don't do that; instead they reinvent the State as a Church- with the "dear leader" as its god-king.

Secular isn't the same thing as irreligious or atheistical. The USA- one of the most religious countries on earth- has a secular constitution.

Re: Religion is responsible for...

[chiller.livejournal.com]

See polipholio's comments about secularism.

Any cult is bad. A Mao cult is no less bad than a Jesus of Mohamed one.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Because religion lies about things that are`too important to lie about.

Because it messes up people's lives in all sorts of ways.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

To your point A: theology is specifically about the metaphysical, and therefore is not subject to physical analysis. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether it is lying or not.

To your point B: while it's quite possible to point to ways in which specific people, and cultures, have been messed up by religion, it is ALSO quite possible to point out ways in which OTHER people, and cultures, have had their lives ENHANCED by religion. I've never seen any real analysis about whether the net effect is positive or negative. Have you?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm talking about religion, not theology. Religions assert all sorts of things as "fact" which we can be fairly certain are untrue- for example that the pope, speaking, ex cathedra, is infallible, or that the Koran is the final and all-sufficient authority on life the universe and everything. The function of theology is to make some sort of philosophical sense of the "revealed" truths of religion- an endeavour bound to result in futility.

I take your point B. Clearly there's no way of quantifying the positive and negative effects of religion. There are times and places in which it has had a civilising effect. Gothic architecture or the crusades- which weighs more? But we're talking about the past- about a time when religion was so closely woven into the fabric of society that it's impossible to separate out. Things changed at the end of the Middle Ages and religion, still clinging to a world view that is no longer credible- has become a drag on the intellectual and spiritual development of humanity.

[loxian.livejournal.com]

Last word, eh?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I spoke too soon....:)

[loxian.livejournal.com]

Oh dear. I really upset somebody. She said she felt as if she'd been stabbed. I'm not venturing into this territory again for a while.

Shame, because I was going to go on about Terry Pratchett and how anti-euthanasia I am next.

[craftyailz.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered who Adam and Eve's sons married - if they were the first people - then their sons were the second people - who was around for them to 'breed' with?

[oakmouse]

Their sisters, most likely.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Who indeed?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The accepted theological answer to this, in Catholicism, almost all branches of Judaism, and in almost all Protestant branches is "what kind of moron takes the stories as literal?"

[craftyailz.livejournal.com]

So the answer is that the bible must not take the bible literally. It is made up of STORIES.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

But once you concede that the scripture on which your faith is based is not to be taken at face value you've pretty much sold the pass.

Cain's wife is only the start of it. The Bible is beset from beginning to end by problems of credibility, consistency, authenticity, historicity and authorship. Start doing textual analysis on it and it crumbles like meringue.

Liberal Christians (and Jews as well, I suppose) tie themselves into knots trying to explain to themselves why they should hold to a faith whose source documents are so deeply compromised.

[trixibelle-net.livejournal.com]

Completely agree with this and your last post as well (I'm getting boring really, aren't I?!). I can't really like Hitchens (or Dawkins) - I feel the battles they pick, the opponents they face, the theories they bash...it's all too easy. Anyone with half a brain can pick holes in religion/belief. But they do make it a fun sport to watch, when one can be bothered to engage.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I believe I prefer Hitchens to Dawkins. Hitchens is angry. He's a bruiser, a bull-dog. Dawkins, on the other hand, comes across as patronising and out of touch.