Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Hitchens' flat world
by Father Raymond J. De Souza, National Post
Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=bffaef89-eefb-44fe-aa39-cdfdd7b11cd5
At a certain point in reading God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens' broadside against religion as a false, immoral, man-made construction, I half-expected Hitchens to write that if God were real and omnipotent, and consequently Hitchens so wrong, then God should have arranged things so as to prevent him from writing his book. But the book exists! So God couldn't stop it. And why couldn't he stop it? The simplest answer is that he does not exist!
God is not Great -- lavishly excerpted in the National Post these last four days (the final instalment appearing on the opposite page) -- has lots of arguments like that. Isn't it silly for religious believers to bring themselves before God in certain places when God could see them wherever they are? And why do we need to tell an omniscient God what we need? And what if different believers pray for mutually contradictory things? And didn't you know about inconsistencies in sacred texts? And -- this example must be included because Hitchens is mightily annoyed that religion seeks to restrain the sexual appetite -- why would God create human beings with their hands close to their genitals if he didn't intend for them vigorous onanistic exertions, of which all religions take a dim view? You see, such puzzles can only be solved by realizing that the whole putrid mess is pure fabrication by fraudsters playing upon mankind's "infantile" need for consolations in a harsh world.
Hitchens writes as though he has read deeply in the history of religious thought, but if so he managed to do it without engaging what he has found there. He breezily dismisses the long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom, divine foreknowledge and human uncertainty, divine inspiration and human agency, human nature and the natural law, as insuperable problems that must either be ignored or shielded from the penetrating reason of clever people like Christopher Hitchens.
I'm sorry, was that an ad hominem attack? Hard to resist after reading what is, essentially, a book-length example of same. Hitchens' approach is to romp through history, using his cutting literary style to spoof and mock all the absurdities he finds in the world of religion. If Hitchens met a local vicar with bad breath, religion is to blame for halitosis. It's a fun game, but not really an argument. Hitchens claims that "religion poisons everything" -- including the aftermath of his beloved Iraq War, which was going swimmingly until the mullahs screwed it up--as though without religion history would be free of people doing beastly things.
Despite Hitchens entertaining style, his book quickly becomes tedious. If you are the sort of person who thinks it very clever to respond to, say, an argument defending the role of religious believers in a pluralistic society by shouting, "What about the Crusades?", you will be nodding along with Hitchens in emphatic agreement. If you find such ad historiam arguments tedious, you will be simply nodding off.
Page after page, Hitchens piles one outrage upon another. So convinced is he of the rightness of his conclusion -- "religion poisons everything" -- that he does not blanch from the most breathtaking rearrangements of the facts and terms of debate. With an apparently straight face he excuses the evils of secular regimes, by blaming the Catholic Church for Nazism and classifying North Korea's communist regime as a religious cult. If anti-clerical fascists and atheistic autocrats fall into the camp of religion, then the reader can only wonder why Hitchens doesn't blame the priests for inclement weather.
What then does Hitchens propose as the antidote to the poison of religion? He opts for scientific materialism, the banality of which he tries to hide behind such -- dare we say it? -- "pious" invocations about the sense of wonder induced by photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. It's like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset.
Hitchens inhabits a flat world, devoid of the spirit even broadly understood, and thinks that he can see farther, not realizing that he has razed all the interesting features of the landscape. It is a literally parenthetical comment that exposes the barrenness of Hitchens worldview: "Charles Darwin was born in 1809, on the very same day as Abraham Lincoln, and there is no doubt as to which of them has proved to be the greater 'emancipator.'"
Only in world stripped of all that is distinctively human would Darwin's theories about the evolution of finch beaks provide greater emancipation for the human spirit than Lincoln's sublime words about human dignity, sacrifice and the better angels of our nature. On balance, Lincoln on our destiny is a better bet for a humane world than Darwin on our origins.
"Religion has run out of justifications," Hitchens concludes. "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important." Hitchens is not unlike the zealots he assails, which explains how an obviously intelligent man could write something so embarrassingly stupid.
Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence? Hitchens is so fascinated with what he can see in the skies or in the laboratory that he is blind to the world in which men actually live. Perhaps he thinks that without religion there would be more peace, wisdom and beauty in a world dominated by politics, science, entertainment and industry. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, and good reason to believe that such a flat world would be more brutal to live in.
In the end, I suspect that the principal objection Hitchens has is to the Christian doctrine of original sin, namely that human wickedness, freely chosen, has made our world one in which beastly things are done to us and by us, and that this world needs a redeemer. On the contrary, the world glimpsed through the telescope and microscope is one where there is no room for freedom --asteroids and atoms do not make choices --and therefore no room for sin or sanctity, and no need of a redeemer. Indeed, there is no room even for man, the measure of which cannot be reduced to scientific instruments.
God has no place in the world Hitchens wants, but nobody else has ever lived there either.
© National Post 2007
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=bffaef89-eefb-44fe-aa39-cdfdd7b11cd5
At a certain point in reading God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens' broadside against religion as a false, immoral, man-made construction, I half-expected Hitchens to write that if God were real and omnipotent, and consequently Hitchens so wrong, then God should have arranged things so as to prevent him from writing his book. But the book exists! So God couldn't stop it. And why couldn't he stop it? The simplest answer is that he does not exist!
God is not Great -- lavishly excerpted in the National Post these last four days (the final instalment appearing on the opposite page) -- has lots of arguments like that. Isn't it silly for religious believers to bring themselves before God in certain places when God could see them wherever they are? And why do we need to tell an omniscient God what we need? And what if different believers pray for mutually contradictory things? And didn't you know about inconsistencies in sacred texts? And -- this example must be included because Hitchens is mightily annoyed that religion seeks to restrain the sexual appetite -- why would God create human beings with their hands close to their genitals if he didn't intend for them vigorous onanistic exertions, of which all religions take a dim view? You see, such puzzles can only be solved by realizing that the whole putrid mess is pure fabrication by fraudsters playing upon mankind's "infantile" need for consolations in a harsh world.
Hitchens writes as though he has read deeply in the history of religious thought, but if so he managed to do it without engaging what he has found there. He breezily dismisses the long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom, divine foreknowledge and human uncertainty, divine inspiration and human agency, human nature and the natural law, as insuperable problems that must either be ignored or shielded from the penetrating reason of clever people like Christopher Hitchens.
I'm sorry, was that an ad hominem attack? Hard to resist after reading what is, essentially, a book-length example of same. Hitchens' approach is to romp through history, using his cutting literary style to spoof and mock all the absurdities he finds in the world of religion. If Hitchens met a local vicar with bad breath, religion is to blame for halitosis. It's a fun game, but not really an argument. Hitchens claims that "religion poisons everything" -- including the aftermath of his beloved Iraq War, which was going swimmingly until the mullahs screwed it up--as though without religion history would be free of people doing beastly things.
Despite Hitchens entertaining style, his book quickly becomes tedious. If you are the sort of person who thinks it very clever to respond to, say, an argument defending the role of religious believers in a pluralistic society by shouting, "What about the Crusades?", you will be nodding along with Hitchens in emphatic agreement. If you find such ad historiam arguments tedious, you will be simply nodding off.
Page after page, Hitchens piles one outrage upon another. So convinced is he of the rightness of his conclusion -- "religion poisons everything" -- that he does not blanch from the most breathtaking rearrangements of the facts and terms of debate. With an apparently straight face he excuses the evils of secular regimes, by blaming the Catholic Church for Nazism and classifying North Korea's communist regime as a religious cult. If anti-clerical fascists and atheistic autocrats fall into the camp of religion, then the reader can only wonder why Hitchens doesn't blame the priests for inclement weather.
What then does Hitchens propose as the antidote to the poison of religion? He opts for scientific materialism, the banality of which he tries to hide behind such -- dare we say it? -- "pious" invocations about the sense of wonder induced by photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. It's like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset.
Hitchens inhabits a flat world, devoid of the spirit even broadly understood, and thinks that he can see farther, not realizing that he has razed all the interesting features of the landscape. It is a literally parenthetical comment that exposes the barrenness of Hitchens worldview: "Charles Darwin was born in 1809, on the very same day as Abraham Lincoln, and there is no doubt as to which of them has proved to be the greater 'emancipator.'"
Only in world stripped of all that is distinctively human would Darwin's theories about the evolution of finch beaks provide greater emancipation for the human spirit than Lincoln's sublime words about human dignity, sacrifice and the better angels of our nature. On balance, Lincoln on our destiny is a better bet for a humane world than Darwin on our origins.
"Religion has run out of justifications," Hitchens concludes. "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important." Hitchens is not unlike the zealots he assails, which explains how an obviously intelligent man could write something so embarrassingly stupid.
Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence? Hitchens is so fascinated with what he can see in the skies or in the laboratory that he is blind to the world in which men actually live. Perhaps he thinks that without religion there would be more peace, wisdom and beauty in a world dominated by politics, science, entertainment and industry. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, and good reason to believe that such a flat world would be more brutal to live in.
In the end, I suspect that the principal objection Hitchens has is to the Christian doctrine of original sin, namely that human wickedness, freely chosen, has made our world one in which beastly things are done to us and by us, and that this world needs a redeemer. On the contrary, the world glimpsed through the telescope and microscope is one where there is no room for freedom --asteroids and atoms do not make choices --and therefore no room for sin or sanctity, and no need of a redeemer. Indeed, there is no room even for man, the measure of which cannot be reduced to scientific instruments.
God has no place in the world Hitchens wants, but nobody else has ever lived there either.
© National Post 2007
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 64 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #41404 by pastafarian82 on May 16, 2007 at 5:00 am
Philip1978"Ever since De Souza wrote that disgusting article about the Virginia College attacks I really don't see how he can criticise Hitchens in any way, shape or form"
That was a different De Souza. Dinesh De Souza wrote that article about VTech, not Raymond De Souza.
Other Comments by pastafarian82
3. Comment #41411 by Logicel on May 16, 2007 at 5:08 am
God has no place in the world Hitchens wants, but nobody else has ever lived there either.____
Atheists are pegged as being 10% of the world's population (I think). Therefore that percentage of the world does live without a god. These guys make silly arguments. Consistently.
Other Comments by Logicel
4. Comment #41415 by bokonon on May 16, 2007 at 5:15 am
he is blind to the world in which men actually live
This De Souza is blind to the fact that women occupy this world too it would seem...
And as for Hitchens attacks being ad hominem... When religious arguments for the continued use and veracity of religion are based upon the ethical merits of religion, there is only one way to argue against this, and that is by attacking the ethical stance of religion...
"Stupid people write supid things, clever people write clever things, but for clever people to write stupid things, that takes religion." (Michael Stirrat)
Other Comments by bokonon
5. Comment #41416 by chrisrkline on May 16, 2007 at 5:17 am
Before everyone jumps in with the "De Souza is an idiot posts", let me add something.De Souza is wrong in many places and unfair, but we should hardly be surprised he would argue the way he does. He feels that Hitchens has unfairly represented him. While I don't see the point in dealing with every bizarre theological argument for why there is evil in the world, it is understandable that De Souza wants us to. There are many liberal moderates (De Souza may not be himself, I don't know) who are equally troubled by Hitchens. Now, I like Hitchens, and I do think that what he writes is important, but I know it does not move my liberal Methodist wife at all. She still likes the social aspects of church, the singing, the working in soup kitchens, the meditative aspects of prayer, etc. Pointing out to her the absurdities of some of her positions is unhelpful. As an argument, I am moved by the fact that God does not answer the prayers of amputees, but needless to say she is not--she is disgusted that people claim that God answered their prayers anyway.
In the end, Hitchens' book may well be a necessary high colonic for religion, but we just should not be too bothered if some fight back.
Other Comments by chrisrkline
6. Comment #41417 by GodlessHeathen on May 16, 2007 at 5:20 am
Hitchens inhabits a flat world, devoid of the spirit even broadly understood, and thinks that he can see farther, not realizing that he has razed all the interesting features of the landscape.What the [expletive] does that mean? The only interesting features of the landscape are those which stem from our imaginations? Is this becollared writer serious, or am I feeling a tug at my leg?
Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
7. Comment #41421 by secularireland on May 16, 2007 at 5:25 am
"Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing?"I know De Souza uses the adjective "unimportant" ironically, but the real irony is that these are actually unimportant questions. The real questions we should, of course, be asking are HOW are we here? HOW is there something instead of nothing. I think there's more chance of finding the answers with an eye to a telescope than with a finger on scripture.
Other Comments by secularireland
8. Comment #41423 by ferfuracious on May 16, 2007 at 5:28 am
"He opts for scientific materialism, the banality of which he tries to hide behind such -- dare we say it? -- "pious" invocations about the sense of wonder induced by photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope. It's like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset."Anyone who can conclude that science is banal must surely be scientifically illiterate. Would De Souza have found religion so appealing if he had had the opportunity to experience the sense of wonder Hitchens describes?
If many people's only contact with science is in high school, then creationists are absolutely spot on when they target schools. This also underlines the importance of Dawkins' ability to communicate that sense of awe in his writing.
Other Comments by ferfuracious
9. Comment #41424 by steve99 on May 16, 2007 at 5:30 am
Father De Sousa needs to get his history right. I am sure Hitchens very deliberately and ironically used the word 'emancipator' in comparing Lincoln and Darwin. Abraham Lincoln is usually thought of as the great slave-freer; the great emancipator. However, his position was ambiguous. In his inaugural speech he said that he had no intention "to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.". His personal views were different, but he was prepared to compromise them for politics, at least for a while.
On the other hand, Darwin was unambiguous on this matter. From Voyage of the Beagle: "I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country [...] It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty."
Christopher Hitchens is clever. Very clever. De Sousa has fallen into the trap, and makes himself look foolish.
Other Comments by steve99
10. Comment #41427 by NMcC on May 16, 2007 at 5:40 am
"Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence?"Blimey, he ran out of deep, meaningful questions very quickly, didn't he?
To which the only response can be:
1) Because our parents copulated.
2) Why should there be nothing rather than something? After all, how many ways are there for there to be nothing? One, I'd have thought. How many ways are there for there to be something? Limitless billions? More than that?
3) Why should there be a 'purpose'?
All in all, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt.
Other Comments by NMcC
11. Comment #41428 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 5:41 am
just what is it that religious people have or do that atheists dont?Being new to the states ive made a few general observations that may be totally biased or incorrect. If 9 of 10 people are religious then statistical chance suggests (well at least in this area) that they also live in a house way bigger than they need, use more water than they need (partly to maintain a nice lawn), eat more food than they need, buy (lots of) stuff that they dont need, spray insecticide all over the place, watch poor quality TV productions (on a HUGE tv) and then maybe go to church on sunday. We are all guilty of some of the above but I see honest to goodness gluttony and misuse of resources at large, it makes me wonder what lessons religion has taught them. Im not sure that being religious is anything more than having this simple thought in your head saying 'i believe in god' and thats it and its no more unique or widereaching than knowing that 'i eat sugary cereal for breakfast' or 'I cut the lawn when the grass is too long' or 'I believe what oprah says' or 'we carve pumpkins in october'.
Of course for some people the religious beliefs push further with consequences but for the majority of people im not sure it does anything atall.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
12. Comment #41431 by Peacebeuponme on May 16, 2007 at 5:50 am
"Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing?"
I know De Souza uses the adjective "unimportant" ironically, but the real irony is that these are actually unimportant questions.
secularireland, thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that. Theologians love to pass materialists off as cold rationalists not facing the deeper questions. The fact is that their lack of understanding is embarrassingly evident by even asking such uninteresting and invalid questions. "How did something come to be?" is interesting and scientists are working on the answer as much as they are able. "Why are we here?" unless asking about the physical processes involved (i.e why=how)is either a non-question or has a different answer for each person based on the interests they have in life (Why de Souza is here seems to be to write drivel in as many newspapers as possible).
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
13. Comment #41436 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 5:55 am
>Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence?A classic example of inventing questions for the sake of providing answers to them. "Why are we here?" assumes there has to be a reason. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is easily dismissed by the anthropic principle. "What is the purpose of human existance?" assumes there is some overarching purpose. Make up your own purpose, if it makes you happy, but don't invent a magic sky-buddy to blame it on.
The man may not be an idiot, but these questions are the sort a "first year student in a seminary school would wince at".
Other Comments by CJ22
14. Comment #41444 by BaronOchs on May 16, 2007 at 6:07 am
I would ask him to read a book like Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and say whether he still thinks "Scientific Materialism" is banal.Hitchens places a lot of importance on Literature -and the Arts in general- no discussion of that at all here.
Hence, I declare it a straw-man attack.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
15. Comment #41446 by rodviking on May 16, 2007 at 6:11 am
Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Well, what's the problem on saying "I have no idea"? Why should an invented answer be better than recognizing our ignorance?
The author's attempt to characterize Hitchens as some desconstrutivist materialist also reminds me a quote from the unforgettable Richard Feynman:
I have a friend who's an artist and he's some times taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he's kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it's not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure…also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are…why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
Other Comments by rodviking
16. Comment #41450 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 6:17 am
Oh, phasmagigas- you make my blood boil- because you're RIGHT about American's bad habits- all of which I painfully witness every day (I'm an American). The irony of being an American is we mindlessly keep shouting the mantra:"Freedom, Freedom, Freedom...", yet most of us are like brainwashed robots all excercising the same bad habits. Of course the connection of this rant with the R.D. website is it seems to me to be the exact same way about American's over the top religiousness. A learned, un-questioned stamp on our logic centers! Why can we (Americans) so EASILY think out of the box on inventions yet not FAITH?!?!? Real Freedom to me means freedom of thinking, not freedom of gluttony!Other Comments by KRKBAB
17. Comment #41457 by PrimeNumbers on May 16, 2007 at 6:34 am
They forget that nature itself, the boundless infinities of mathematics, the beauty of the universe, are more then enough to inspire us, and make our lives full of wonder. They forget the babies and children and helping others are more than enough to give us meaning in this world. They forget that truth is more powerful than the lie, and that lies don't really comfort, don't reall bring hope, don't really ease suffering. And perhaps neither does truth, but we'll all admit we'd prefer the truth in the end.And that's what's wrong with the objections. Just because they've been living with the sweetest stickiest most rotting sugar in their coffee all their lives, they can't imagine taking coffee without a sweetener and actually how wonderful it tastes once your mouth adjusts to it's bitter nuances.
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
18. Comment #41461 by cassdenata on May 16, 2007 at 6:41 am
I have begun to realize that many of these religious apologists see religion, not as a belief in a personal god, or an afterlife but a manifestation of our culture and our shared mythology. To them, humanity needs some sort of central story to rally around to provide meaning in a blank slate world. To the apologists, without creating a religion, it is simply impossible to answer the deeper questions of life. Religion, though an arbitrary construct, provides the answers, and something better fill the void. I imagine many of the apologists would agree that the current forms of religion are quite imperfect and some may accept that improved replacements are possible. But until that is replaced with something they approve of, the liberal religious apologists will fight any intrusions. This is one aspect that none of recent authors as far as I can tell have tackled in great detail. At least an acknowledgement of this facet would be useful. In listening to Sam Harris' discussion with Oliver McTerney, Oliver kept on telling Sam that he didn't wan't to discuss the fundamentalist set because that was not true christianity. Sam was unable to get out of the mindset of criticizing this set of religious people. What he should have done was turned the tables and asked Oliver, if you have the 'true' conception of god, then what is your perception of god and religion.Other Comments by cassdenata
19. Comment #41464 by mmurray on May 16, 2007 at 6:43 am
Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence?"
42
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
20. Comment #41466 by Russell Blackford on May 16, 2007 at 6:47 am
Another total idiot. I just don't seem to have the patience to put up with it today. The guy doesn't even deserve a limerick.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
21. Comment #41468 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 6:49 am
KRKBAB. I know 'feelings' are subjective but when I drive (I do try to walk when its practical and i am seen as very odd when i walk somewhere!)past one of those huge cookie cutter home complexes with swathes of herbicide and fertiliser drenched lawns and an almost total lack of wildlife (and god forbid a dandelion!!) I get this very empty lost feeling in my stomach (mind). Now religion has nothing to do with it but its amazing how we have come to accept what is the supposed ultimate mode of existence. Its almost like being in the twilight zone, you are lucky to hear a cricket sing in August in such an environment. I just wonder how much prozac is swallowed behind those seasonal plastic wreath adorned doors?. Other Comments by phasmagigas
22. Comment #41471 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2007 at 6:59 am
pastafarian82 I think I ought to explain something to you, I am an idiot! hehehehehe Oh bloody hell, how many times can one arse things up and not LEARN anything! One day, I promise, I will get it right!
Apologies,
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
23. Comment #41472 by Peacebeuponme on May 16, 2007 at 7:00 am
rodviking - I think Bertrand Russell made the same point, that his appreciation of beauty is enhanced by the deeper understanding of the make-up/workings of a particular thing.Dawkins' description of various creatures throughout The Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale make hagfish, bats, nematode worms and Manatees more beautiful than an artist could in my opinion.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
24. Comment #41480 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 7:11 am
The National Post is generally pretty bad anyway, but this article is right up there with some of the worst. Lines like,Hitchens writes as though he has read deeply in the history of religious thought, but if so he managed to do it without engaging what he has found there. He breezily dismisses the long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom, divine foreknowledge and human uncertainty, divine inspiration and human agency, human nature and the natural law, as insuperable problems that must either be ignored or shielded from the penetrating reason of clever people like Christopher Hitchens.
...I find to be terribly amusing. Whether or not CH is fluent in, for example, the "long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom", is irrelvant. God doesn't exist, and it makes absolutely no difference what anyone has said about "divine power". This article is, amongst other things, yet another example of the criticism of RD/SH/CH/others based on their supposed ignorance of theology. But what difference does theology make if God doesn't exist? It becomes scatterbrained philosophy, at best.
I also liked,
Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence? Hitchens is so fascinated with what he can see in the skies or in the laboratory that he is blind to the world in which men actually live. Perhaps he thinks that without religion there would be more peace, wisdom and beauty in a world dominated by politics, science, entertainment and industry. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, and good reason to believe that such a flat world would be more brutal to live in.
I'm reminded of Sam Harris' musings about not wanting to live in a world in which he was not 6 feet tall (I'm 6'2", so I must be one of the 'chosen ones'.
Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? These are surely relevant questions, but we must admit the possibility that we simply "are", for no good reason at all. And besides, these are questions that can be examined without deference to a non-existant god.
Whether god exists or not makes no difference to us; if he exists (ahh, but in what form?), then we are here because god wants us to be; if he does not exist, the fact still remains that we are here, perhaps for no good reason. Either way, I love the way the air smells after a rain storm; why must I invent a god to help "explain" why this should be so?
I would add, however, that one of the faults I find with CH's book is that he spends too much time focused on the evil-doings of religion, and doesn't deal sufficiently (as RD and SH have done) with the fact that there is no evidence for god. Someone needs to point all of this out, to be sure, but it seems CH has chosen to look at the "morality" of religion vs. the fact that none of it is actually true. Both valid points, but I find the latter to be the far superior argument. Until such time that evidence is proffered in support of god's existence, there is no good reason to practice any particular religion, no matter how good it makes one feel.
Other Comments by edge100
25. Comment #41487 by PeterK on May 16, 2007 at 7:20 am
De Souza is simply yet another theologian writer squirming awkwardly attempting to defend his vested interest. Of course, to an atheist reader the poorly-defended appeals are easily found as fallacious arguments, but will no doubt appease his followers--and that's who he's writing to. However, after reading so many poorly-defended critiques of these attacks on religion, one must think that eventually their followers tank of support will simply run out of fuel. We must be persistent, and we must be patient. What is real will eventually be recognized.Other Comments by PeterK
26. Comment #41491 by phasmagigas on May 16, 2007 at 7:27 am
re the flat world. Appreciating nature with an acceptance of evolution is far more rewarding than that without (that doesnt occlude god of course, its a rejection of evolution not an acceptance of god that I find most disturbing).Walking through a flower meadow in May the creationist can admire all the pretty flowers and butterflies (they may even see the newly hatched grasshoppers if they look carefully enough) but they will miss the opportunity to imagine the generational changes that have preceeded each and every individual phenotype in front of them, the mental tree of life that you can imagine connecting those grasshoppers to the butterflies and then to meadow plants themselves, the development of each and every strategy and behaviour presented before yourself in that incredible 'tangled bank' just meters from your home (if you are lucky enough). A creationist would reject all those thoughts or more likely not have thought about them atall but then the most common question people pose to me when i admire an insect is 'what use are wasps?'. I love that question.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
27. Comment #41501 by severalspeciesof on May 16, 2007 at 7:49 am
"if God were real and omnipotent, and consequently Hitchens so wrong, then God should have arranged things so as to prevent him from writing his book. But the book exists! So God couldn't stop it. And why couldn't he stop it? The simplest answer is that he does not exist!"When I read that, my first thought was, "Isn't that kind of like what the theists do, but only in reverse?" Sort of: "We exist, therefore a god exists!"
And doesn't De Souza's trite argument against Hitchens become not-so-trite but actually closer to the truth than De Souza imagines?
1. De Souza's God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.
2. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, then God could have created the best possible world, knew how to create the best possible world, and chose to create the best possible world.
3. If God could have created the best possible world, knew how to create the best possible world, and chose to create the best possible world, then God did create the best possible world.
4. If God did create the best possible world, then this is the best possible world.
5. This is not the best possible world, since mankind needs redeeming.
6. Therefore, God did not chose to create the best possible world, and therefore God is not great.
"What God Wants, God Gets God Help Us All" -R. Rogers
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
28. Comment #41536 by Didaktylos on May 16, 2007 at 8:55 am
Mr Stork - if you don't wish to be treated as a crane, don't flock with the cranes !!!Other Comments by Didaktylos
29. Comment #41547 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 9:33 am
Wow, I believe this is called a boiling point. First Harris, then Dennett, then Dawkins, and now Hitchens, and its hit the boiling point. Now they are mad, frustrated, because their faith has been sucessfully challenged in main stream. They started by ignoring, then ridicule, then discussion, now they just yell and claim its all wrong wrong wrong! Its totally laughable in my opinion. I love watching this reaction become more and more vitrolic as the fundys claim is atheists being rude and violent and angry. Its actually funny, I expected Dawkins book to create this reaction, not Hitchens. I expected Hitchens release to be more of a piggy backer, but instead, its created its on maelstrom from the religious community to the point where they now say things like "the book was redundant and boring and nonsensicle and played out" yet they continue to argue and rail against his book. That is a sign that its really hitting a cord in the fundy community. And being a former fundy myself, I can tell you I know some fundys that aren't taking these books lightly. Talking with a few online, they believe that their faith is under attack, that these people seek to dismantle and eliminate religion from the face of the earth. You know what I tell them? DAMN RIGHT! Other Comments by konquererz
30. Comment #41550 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 9:40 am
konquererz, I agree. This is clearly a movement that has been noticed by many religious people. I've never seen so many media reports about atheism and challenging faith. This is truly fantastic.I disagree that Hitchens is more than a piggy-backer here, however. I find Hitchens book to be a significantly weaker attack on religion than either TGD or Harris' two books. CH does point out some important issues, and everything he's saying is true. But I feel that RD and SH have hit the central theme with more force; namely, that there is no good reason to believe in god, and not simply that belief in god is bad for us, which seems to be, in the main, CH's tact.
Other Comments by edge100
31. Comment #41557 by konquererz on May 16, 2007 at 9:50 am
I still think Hitchens is a piggy backer, but he serves the purpose to continue the attack on superstition and challenging people to think for themselves, rationally, even when the arguement is decidedly weaker than say, The End of Faith, or The God Delusion. But I think he hit a different nerve and created a different wound. He went from "theres no good reason to believe in god" to "believing in god is poison to humanity" which is much harsher than either Harris or Dawkins. Other Comments by konquererz
32. Comment #41559 by oskorei on May 16, 2007 at 9:54 am
"Hitchens inhabits a flat world, devoid of the spirit even broadly understood, and thinks that he can see farther, not realizing that he has razed all the interesting features of the landscape."If evolutionary biology, inflationary cosmology, M-theory, branes, astrobiology, algorithmic complexity and a slew of other "features of the landscape" do not seem to be exciting to Father De Souza, I can only conclude that he has a not-very-exciting mind, and leads a rather blinkered existence. Can't restrain myself: what a stupid piece of shite!;)
Other Comments by oskorei
33. Comment #41566 by Dianelos Georgoudis on May 16, 2007 at 10:02 am
ferfuracious:Scientific materialism is not he same thing as science. In fact science would have evolved exactly as it did even if scientific materialism is wrong.
BNcC:
You misunderstand the questions; for example "Why we are here?" does not ask for the physical process that explains the existence of our bodies. In fact you misunderstand the whole issue at hand. Virtually all people, axiomatically if you will, believe that there must be meaning and purpose in our lives. To simply answer "here is no meaning and purpose in our lives unless we create them ourselves" is tantamount to affirming nihilism, and, believe me, atheists do not want to claim that atheism is a nihilistic worldview. In fact atheist philosophers go to great lengths to explain how meaning and purpose exist in an atheist world.
phasmagigas:
You make a good point. It's a fact that the most religious society in the world today is also the most wasteful, not to mention the most aggressive in its external policy (where the ethical dictum "a hundred eyes for an eye" appears to be the norm). Still, what goes for the goose goes for the gander. When atheists are confronted with the fact that the worse crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by atheist regimes the standard answer is that it was not atheism but other factors that moved these regimes to commit these crimes (a correct answer albeit one that is arguably not conclusive). By the same measure, the capitalistic system, the culture of consumption and the glorification of wealth, the military power, the fact that Americans tend to vote with their wallets, the fact that the democratic system itself tends to punish politicians who care too much for the long run – are all better explanations for America's wastefulness and aggressiveness than religion. The question to ponder is this: If American society were less religious and more atheistic would it be more or less wasteful and aggressive?
cassdenata:
If, to use John Hick's phrase, the world is religiously ambiguous then people can reasonably hold both religious and non religious worldviews. (They can't reasonably hold fundamentalist religious worldviews but that's another matter.) I think De Souza's point is this: That to hold a non religious worldview, especially one of the type expounded by Hitchens in his book, is to assume an emotionally and intellectually uninteresting and ignoble human condition (a flat world). The deeper point may be a version of Pascal's wager: That even if God does not exist to assume a religious worldview (as we reasonably can) is conducive to a more fulfilling and humane life.
severalspeciesof:
I have a problem with your #5. First of all, even though Christianity's official Augustine dogma says so, theism does not entail that humankind needs redeeming. For example the so-called Irenaean theodicy says that the world does not need redeeming because it is not in a fallen state. Rather, according to that theodicy, the world is a place for humanity's self-transcendence. (And Christ's ministry was not redemptive but educational: to show the path towards that self-transcendence.) Secondly, even if humankind needs redeeming it does not follow that this is not the best possible world. Remember that we must think which is the best possible world from the point of view of its creator and not from our point of view – and it is not quite clear to me why a world where humankind needs redeeming cannot be the best possible world from the point of view of God. To argue the contrary you should know what God's values and motivations *must* be, and that's not easy to argue conclusively.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
34. Comment #41581 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 11:01 am
PHASMAGIGAS- I'm the only one in my "hood" to use a non-motorized "reel" style push lawnmower. I'm probably the only atheist in my neighborhood, too. Is there a connection?! maybe.My neighbors are Jehovah's Wintnesses. There actually very nice neighbors. However, they once commented that they noticed how environmentally aware my wife and I were. Then they said they were "concerned" also, but that god ultimately was calling the shots or something to that effect. Yuk! What a horrible attitude. Nothing like passing the resposibility to a fictional entity. Plus, if the world is going to end- why bother taking care of it!?!?
Other Comments by KRKBAB
35. Comment #41589 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 11:18 am
DIANELOS GEORGOUDIS- We (atheists) don't give a flying *uck what "Christianity's official dogma" states, and as far as we're concerned, there is no "creator" of the world. By the way, Danielos, me thinks there is more than one world. Be gone and go preach to your choir. Since it appears you have lots of book knowledge and a decent vocabulary, your "choir" will be quite proud of you.Other Comments by KRKBAB
36. Comment #41604 by severalspeciesof on May 16, 2007 at 11:43 am
Dianelos Georgoudis:You are correct that theism does not entail that humankind needs redeeming, but notice my reference to "De Souza's God". And I disagree with the notion that Christ's ministry was purely educational, according to the New Testament. Any brief reading of those texts clearly allude to Christ as Redeemer, or a Sacrificial Lamb.
And "it is not quite clear to me why a world where humankind needs redeeming cannot be the best possible world from the point of view of God" clearly indicates that AT THIS POINT in time, the world is NOT the best possible world, otherwise no redemption would be needed, and we would no longer need to be 'saved" (via De Souza's God). I'll even use your own argument to back up mine (and then I'll call that part a draw): "To argue the contrary you should know what God's values and motivations *must* be, and that's not easy to argue conclusively."
Plus, it has become apparent that we are both arguing from the assumption that God (any God) exists, to which I'll point out that I do not find any evidence that De Souza's God exists.
Hope this clears things up a bit (but to be honest, I doubt it).
(I tried posting this before, but the network from where I was, was bogged down, so it appears that it didn't get through. My apologies if this is redundant)
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
37. Comment #41607 by arildno on May 16, 2007 at 11:45 am
These types of comment ire me:"Only in world stripped of all that is distinctively human would Darwin's theories about the evolution of finch beaks provide greater emancipation for the human spirit than Lincoln's sublime words about human dignity, sacrifice and the better angels of our nature. On balance, Lincoln on our destiny is a better bet for a humane world than Darwin on our origins."
Abe Lincoln's views were hardly original, even though highly commendable.
The utter contempt for the natural sciences and scientists that permeates this article is one of the pillars of modern religious faith.
They HAVE TO trivialize the natural sciences, and their importance in human life, because they are necessarily anti-thetical to the whisperings of the religious mind parasite.
They have to trivialize the capacity for delight at natural wonders, the curiosity towards what exist, the diligence in the scientist's search for truth, his honesty in making clear to others what he has found, and his humility shown in the readiness of giving up his theory if either facts turn up against it, or another scientist defeat it by a logical chain of reasoning.
That is, the most spiritual of men are derailed by the religionists as "banal", because they don't regard the religionist personal fantasies as particularly important in their lives.
What utter arrogance, from the religionists.
Other Comments by arildno
38. Comment #41612 by CJ22 on May 16, 2007 at 11:52 am
KRKBAB please don't bite the theists, unless you really want a forum full of people agreeing with each other ;) Other Comments by CJ22
39. Comment #41638 by drbreakfast on May 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Yet another example of a theist not really addressing the real issue. They love to trot out the "well, there must have been something to create all of this and science cannot explain how the universe came into being," and then go to the "therefore God exist" assumption. Only to be followed by, the argument that "Stalin's atheist state committed its unspeakable acts because it believed that there would be no accounting to God." And thus the implication is, "humans need religion."As to their first rebuttal, they can never admit that it is equally possible that the universe could have always existed just as "God" allegedly always existed. So, at best, they can only arrgue on this point that it's a draw.
It is clear that things may occur without any intelligence behind it at all. No one plans car accidents, yet they happen every day, merely by reason of a collection of random things and events interacting within the same time and space. (Unless, of course, the accident was within "God's Divine Plan").
As to the second rebuttal argument, Hitler's regime was filled with Christians, and yet they supported mass murder of "undesirables." Did they not fear "God's" wrath? Indeed, how about all those Catholic priests molesting young boys? Somehow "the knowledge" of "Judgment Day" did not come into their minds at the time. Um.
But, yes, despite the very weak rebuttal arguments against the taking an atheist view, the believers still proclaim "God(s)" as self evident.
Why, oh why, can they not get just a little more creative?
Other Comments by drbreakfast
40. Comment #41639 by ksskidude on May 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I think that theist's and believers in the supernatural are just different than we are, "we" being atheist. I guess what I am saying is; that just like a certain percentage of the population is always going to be gay, so is a certain percentage always going to be intelligent. Obviously we are in the minority of people who think about things rationally and logically. De Souza is understandably upset at Hitchens, and is fearful of what Hitchens writes is true. But it is very clear that De Souza is unable to put it all together and see things as they truly are revealed.
Other Comments by ksskidude
41. Comment #41647 by poppythinks on May 16, 2007 at 1:30 pm
'It's like saying that the ultimate questions of life and death that religion grapples with can be set aside by watching the sunset' says father souzawhich 'ultimate' questions might these be, father souza?
most of us can actually see the sun, and the awesome spectacles of rising and setting. not to mention its function as a primary source of life on earth......
you can't possibly be suggesting that 'questions' which concern religion are more important, or even comparable to observing the sunset and discovering the physical reality of life and death.
so father souza, you and your lot 'grapple' with the world of make-believe, while we engage with nature and all its pleasures......
Other Comments by poppythinks
42. Comment #41651 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm
CJ22- point WELL taken. Asking him to preach to his choir would leave us preaching to our choir. Not good. America should have a dialoge with Iran: atheists should communicate with theists. (related only in concept)I really don't like when theists cloak there messages in OVERLY wordy and intellectual emails designed to engage us in a wild goose chase. To engage in his comments is to validate his theist presumptions, unless I read into it too much. On another note- all the talk about whether R.D, S.H. or C.H. has the best style for the atheist argument: variety is a wonderful thing for getting out information to all segments of society. I happen to like all three, even though they all have their strong and weak points. Daniel Dennett's writings are not for me, but apparently a lot of people do take to his approach. The fact is, the more angles at which the pitfalls of faith can be brought into the public forum, the better. It clearly shows that atheism is finally becoming an engaging topic. I must be careful not to alienate the theists- especially the ones that speak with-out demonizing atheists.Other Comments by KRKBAB
43. Comment #41653 by CanadAdam on May 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm
There's a new Hitchens debate online from May 14th. Click the 'audio podcast' link.http://www.lbjfutureforum.org/events/events_details.cfm?ID=110
The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky
A Debate on Religion and Politics
Other Comments by CanadAdam
44. Comment #41655 by bluebird on May 16, 2007 at 1:45 pm
RE: posts #40,41Succinct; our thoughts too.
Other Comments by bluebird
45. Comment #41660 by Bayle on May 16, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Does anyone else fear that reading these vapid chauvinistic religious apologist book reviews is going to make them dumber?Other Comments by Bayle
46. Comment #41669 by Gordon Brown on May 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Here is yet more evidence that these religious dunderheads, completely stymied by ratiocination and logic, find nothing better than to resort to aesthetic arguments: "Hitchens lives in a flat world...", "Scientific materialism is banal...", ad nauseum. We've heard it all before; remember Alvin Plantinga's description of "Dawkins' unlovely naturalism"?I agree with several others who have already posted here and elsewhere: If only these jerks would find a more creative way to defend their faith...
Other Comments by Gordon Brown
47. Comment #41687 by the great teapot on May 16, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I agree with him, science deals with all the quetions which can be answered by reason alone.Religion takes over where intelligence gets off.
Other Comments by the great teapot
48. Comment #41689 by FXR on May 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm
As far as I'm concerned the problem is not religion per se but organised religionism. With that little shift things become a little clearer. Organised religionism relying on intangible claims of supernatural whoopee's has consistently allowed flawed, ignorant, conniving, deluded and even downright perverted men to gain positions of power. Organised religionism circumvents any sort of democratic process.Of all the organised religions the Catholic Church can only be described as the longest case of psychological gangrene in history.
You will notice that "Father" De Souza" has used a strategy becoming more and more common when the foot soldiers of the Vatican sally forth to meet their accusers, he hides behind the word "Christianity". The Vatican has for some time drawn this word over itself like a cloak.
The Catholic Church represents no more than the prosperity of lies.
Sir William Robinson
Hitchens is mightily annoyed that religion seeks to restrain the sexual appetite -- why would God create human beings with their hands close to their genitals if he didn't intend for them vigorous onanistic exertions, of which all religions take a dim view?
I'm sure every night catholic priests all over the world are glad the god thing didn't put their hands anywhere else (if only they could keep them to themselves).
As to why are we all here?
Because we're not all there!
Other Comments by FXR
49. Comment #41697 by D'Arcy on May 16, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Father de Zouza, at a certain point you had a very correct expectation:At a certain point in reading God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens' broadside against religion as a false, immoral, man-made construction, I half-expected Hitchens to write that if God were real and omnipotent, and consequently Hitchens so wrong, then God should have arranged things so as to prevent him from writing his book. But the book exists! So God couldn't stop it. And why couldn't he stop it? The simplest answer is that he does not exist!
Shame that your previous mental training then turned to auto pilot to navigate you away from these heretical areas.
But the book exists against your (& God's?) will, so will he strike Hitchens down? Will we have to wait for the next episode of Judgement Day for Sinners? Keep watching viewers!
Other Comments by D'Arcy
50. Comment #41713 by CanadAdam on May 16, 2007 at 4:30 pm
here is Father De Souza's email if anyone wants to pass some comments along:rjdesouza@sympatico.ca
Other Comments by CanadAdam
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #41400 by Philip1978 on May 16, 2007 at 4:54 am
Other Comments by Philip1978