I have seen Christopher Hitchens in interviews many times. It was Hitchens that had the gumption after Jerry Falwell died, to go on air and call him what he was: a hate monger using religion as his aegis. I admired him for that but for all the times I have seen him he always came off as a pompous egomaniac. I read his book reviews in the Atlantic and thought of him as a capable writer, but still with an healthy regard for himself and his abilities.
I must admit though, that upon finishing his book he is one of those rare people whose high opinion of themselves is not vainglorious but merely honest. He is a very capable writer, making a good case for the dissolution of the world’s religions. When I first saw this book I was hesitant to pick it up. The arguments for atheism in popular literature usually run two ways. The first is to merely list a series of historical events in which religion played a major role in travesty. The crusades and the persecution of Galileo usually get top billing, showing the bloodthirstiness and intellectual suppression by religious authorities. This is the most common route and, I daresay, the most honest route.
I say honest, because these two events did happen under the auspices of religious authority. The problem with using them is that they are tired arguments resulting from a history at least 5 centuries ago. The problem with the Crusades as an example depends on the skill of the writer. The Crusades were bloody, that cannot be denied, but since the polemic is usually against Christianity it is misplaced as only the first Crusade can be considerred successful while every subsequent Crusade was a disaster.
The second method is to partake in ad hominem attacks against the faithful. This is the method most often partaken in internet forums as well as popular literature. Using tired arguments that often involve phrases like “prove it” and the ever popular “how come evil still exists in the world?” This is nice only in the respect that forces the faithful to answer the questions that often elude it, but it often degenerates into swill eventually coming to a point where a person like Richard Dawkins wants to call atheists, “brights.”
Fortunately this book did not turn out like that. What Hitchens presents us with is a long narrative on why religion in general, the very concept of it, is not only based on fabrications but also harmful to the population of the world. All the while he maintains intellectual respect for the followers of religions, refraining from calling them stupid or stomping on their specific beliefs as inane or foolish. That’s not exactly clear…he sees the followers of religion as victims, tricked by ancient charlatans into following something that cannot be verified or proven false. In this respect he retains reverance for religious ceremonies and the ideals of its followers. Instead of attacking them, he attacks the theology behind the religion, religion’s ceremonies, and their origins.
Most importantly, while he himself says that, “my particular atheism is a protestant atheism,“ he does not limit himself to attacking Christianity. Something that i have experienced too often when I was a student and professor. It seemed to me that every time I heard the word atheist it was dishonest. It wasn’t atheism the student was espousing it was “a-christianism” or merely heretical christianity. Christianity takes the brunt of most atheistic attacks on religion in this country because it is the number one religion here, and because it seems that most of the atheists that I have encountered are unwilling to attack Judaism for fear of being called antisemitic, Islam for fear of being politically incorrect, or any Eastern religion because they are intellectually unable to do so.
I was delighted to see Hitchens level his attack against all three of the western Monotheisms by attacking their history, origin, and foundation books. Moving from there he levels against Eastern religions using the same methodology. What often gets the East off the hook is that their atrocities are not well known but Hitchens does illuminate them.
Also of great interest is his anticipation of a response that seeks to mention what happens when atheists get into power. Citing the two most popular examples of Hitler and Stalin. This is soundly dealt with and the closing chapter chronicling the difference between intellectual pursuits and the dogmatic opponents that he has had to endure.
I’ll deal with some of the arguments more specifically next post, as well as some reservations I had with the book. As much as I enjoyed it there are some problems. The book does a fine job with regard to the case for atheism. However, I would have changed the title. Obviously chosen for its ability to grab the attention of the casual bookstore customer the book itself does not attack god, rather than it attacks religion. I would have kept the subtitle as the title, but I am pretty sure this was an editorial or marketing choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment