RSS
Religion Under the Lens and Noetic Reluctance
Nathan Jacobson » Reflections on Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great.
Right out of the gate, Christopher Hitchens', God is not Great is at once colorful and poignant, a great pleasure to read. It's also clear that the book benefits from the accounts and extravagant details of Hitchens' many assignments as a journalist in exotic ports of call. Before I read any further, I'm recording how I now see the problem Hitchens addresses: the pervasive ugliness and evil in the name of God and religion. As I read, I want to consider how well my current take on this undeniable reality can bear the weight of Hitchens' experiences, insights, and arguments. The title (God is not Great)
and subtitle (How Religion Poisons Everything) of Hitchens' volume are
immediately provocative. If, in the end, I'm going to be persuaded that
religion ruins everything it touches, is it then rational to conclude
that God is not Great? Or, just that religious people suck? Is there a non-sequitur here? And, is all religion malignant? Or, might there be some rare strains of benign or even benignant religion? As it stands,
if I had tackled the subject in book form, I'd have titled it: Humanity is not Great. How People Poison Everything. Considering the evident fact that human evil, both the trivial and the atrocious, is found in all places and at all times, I'm inclined to think that the blame should be pinned first and foremost on me, myself, and I... and on you as well. The problem with people manifests itself in every human context, whether religious or irreligious. I believe that any judgment on the impact of religion, for well-being and ill, hinges crucially on one's appraisal of the human condition more generally. So, let's begin there...
Christopher Hitchens (Twelve Books, Hachette : May 1, 2007), 307 pages.
Hitchens, one of our great political pugilists, delivers the best of
the recent rash of atheist manifestos. The same contrarian spirit that
makes him delightful reading as a political commentator, even (or
especially) when he's completely wrong, makes him an entertaining
huckster prosecutor once he has God placed in the dock. And can he turn
a phrase!: "monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a
hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the
way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents." Hitchens's one-liners
bear the marks of considerable sparring practice with believers. Yet
few believers will recognize themselves as Hitchens associates all of
them for all time with the worst of history's theocratic and
inquisitional moments. All the same, this is salutary reading as a
means of culling believers' weaker arguments: that faith offers comfort
(false comfort is none at all), or has provided a historical hedge
against fascism (it mostly hasn't), or that "Eastern" religions are
better (nope). The book's real strength is Hitchens's on-the-ground
glimpses of religion's worst face in various war zones and isolated
despotic regimes. But its weakness is its almost fanatical insistence
that religion poisons "everything," which tips over into barely
disguised misanthropy. ~ Publisher's Weekly
Daniel C. Dennett (Penguin : February 6, 2007), 464 pages.
In his characteristically provocative fashion, Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea and director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, calls for a scientific, rational examination of religion that will lead us to understand what purpose religion serves in our culture. Much like E.O. Wilson (In Search of Nature), Robert Wright (The Moral Animal), and Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Dennett explores religion as a cultural phenomenon governed by the processes of evolution and natural selection. Religion survives because it has some kind of beneficial role in human life, yet Dennett argues that it has also played a maleficent role. He elegantly pleads for religions to engage in empirical self-examination to protect future generations from the ignorance so often fostered by religion hiding behind doctrinal smoke screens. Because Dennett offers a tentative proposal for exploring religion as a natural phenomenon, his book is sometimes plagued by generalizations that leave us wanting more ("Only when we can frame a comprehensive view of the many aspects of religion can we formulate defensible policies for how to respond to religions in the future"). Although much of the ground he covers has already been well trod, he clearly throws down a gauntlet to religion. ~ Publishers Weekly
Sam Harris ( W. W. Norton : October 10, 2005), 224 pages.
Sam Harris cranks out blunt, hard-hitting chapters to make his case for
why faith itself is the most dangerous element of modern life. And if
the devil's in the details, then you'll find Satan waiting at the back
of the book in the very substantial notes section where Harris saves
his more esoteric discussions to avoid sidetracking the urgency of his
message. Interestingly, Harris is not just focused on debunking religious faith,
though he makes his compelling arguments with verve and intellectual
clarity. The End of Faith is also a bit of a philosophical
Swiss Army knife. Once he has presented his arguments on why, in an age
of Weapons of Mass Destruction, belief is now a hazard of great
proportions, he focuses on proposing alternate approaches to the
mysteries of life. Harris recognizes the truth of the human condition,
that we fear death, and we often crave "something more" we cannot
easily define, and which is not met by accumulating more material
possessions. But by attempting to provide the cure for the ills it
defines, the book bites off a bit more than it can comfortably chew in
its modest page count (however the rich Bibliography provides more than
enough background for an intrigued reader to follow up for months on
any particular strand of the author' musings.) Harris' heart
is not as much in the latter chapters, though, but in presenting his
main premise. Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with
assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value
on the here and now. And thus the corollary — when death is simply a
door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting
and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do
not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures
instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have
these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt
you, this is your book. ~ Ed Dobeas
