Let me start by saying that I found it amazing that I actually agreed with Hitchens on several points in this book. Indeed someone needed to discuss the "dark side" of organized religion and what religions have done throughout history. Besides covering those specific topics, Hitchens, who did command a great amount of knowledge of history and current events, he was a journalist of renown, manages to not only expose typical recycled arguments but sheds new light on many topics.
For example he shows how even someone like Mother Theresa might not have been the most honorable person ever to walk the planet. He also refutes the argument that secularism/non-religious societies are why we had people such as Stalin and Hitler. These two parts show how Hitchens had such a brilliant command of history.
The core of Hitchens' message that I got from his book was that he certainly did not think religion should have any power in secular society, in other words a total separation of church and state based on the dreams of the Founding Fathers. I would have to agree with him on this point since I do like the way our country is set up, and really admire what the Founders were trying to do with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At one point in the book Hitchens makes it clear that he doesn't care what people personally believe just as long as they don't try forcing these beliefs onto other people. Again I would have to agree with him on this point. He then goes on to show all these examples from history when religious people or faiths have had total control over civilizations and the negative side effects to such a situation. Now I would have to say that there are plenty examples where religious people and groups have done noble things, and indeed Hitchens discusses these persons and thus would not have denied this fact. However I think it is important for him to point out all the negative elements as I doubt many people, including myself, actually knew this information.
Now here is where I disagree with Hitchens. The nature of religion and scriptures. I think Hitchens really takes exception to literalists of religious texts and as a result his book really targets a specific group/percentage of religious people. In my opinion I really few organized religious people has being members of three camps of thought.
1. "The Sunday Church going type"-This group, and this goes for any religion by the way, are people that go to their house of worship when the need to, for example Friday, Saturday or Sunday and that is about it. They are Christian by name or when asked on a survey they check Muslim. These people are typically raised in the religion they practice. In other words their religion is important to them but it is something that has been so ingrained that it is just something they do, take for granted or is simply that is just a percentage of who they are as a whole. Religion might not be the most important thing to them.
2. The convinced devotee- These are people, raised or converted, that are very passionate about their religion. They live it and are very happy and convinced that their religion is perfect for them on a personal level. They might actually think that other religions or points of view posses core truths that are very similar to their own faith. You know, the type of people you see at a interfaith meeting. They might not view their scripture literally, but might see it as a metaphor or allegory.
3. The Dogmatist- These are the type of religious people who not only believe their religion is the ONLY correct path but everyone else is either terribly mistaken and/or going to Hell. Truth has only been conceived by one religion, the rest are totally full of shit. There is also no way their religion has anything "wrong" with it, it is totally perfect from the beginning to the current moment. Oh, and you better believe they read their scripture literally, all of it.
Now in my humble opinion I think Hitchens had a huge beef with the third type of religious people. These are the people, as his examples throughout the books how, that would probably do very negative things to society if they were in control and had access to the codes......
Having said all the above, I would have to say that I view the nature of religion and scripture as expressions of the human psyche, very much along the lines of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. They are not meant to be taken literally 100% of the time. There are deeper meanings to them then just surface readings which most people usually do. Perhaps this should be a fourth category of religious people? Perhaps..... Due to my views on the subject I find that I can both agree and disagree with Hitchens' points and positions throughout his book. Yes on a domestic/societal level I agree with him a lot, but when it comes to personal beliefs and importance of religion and scripture of our species, I would have to disagree with him.
I think Hitchens simply wanted human society to evolve and keep going with the tradition of the Enlightenment and the ideology of the Founding Fathers. Separation of Church and State and not a mixture of the two. I certainly would have to agree with him on all of these points. However he cites Sigmund Freud a lot and I have to say I really go with Carl Jung more when it comes to understanding religion in a psychological context.
All in all I really do think this is a book that everyone interested in the history of religion should read, regardless of ones personal background. You will learn a lot, it might challenge your beliefs, but isn't that healthy? Even if you come out of it, as I did, still thinking that religion is an important driving force for our species, you will probably appreciate the journey.
1 comments:
Disagree with him about Stalin. Yep, lots of evidence Nazi's were not exactly making atheism a central tennant of their ideology, not at all. Infact I coudl easily argue they promote bloody attachement to religion, even if religion wasn't as direct inspiration of Nazis.
At the same time, I disagree that athiesm had nothing to do with the likes of Lenin, stalin etc.
Not only is athiesm almost CENTRAL to Marxism, but the communist regimes drilled it into peoples heads. Oh yes, hordes of eastern europians greatly embraced religion after the fall of the soviet union, but it wasn't without actual forced suppression of religion in not just a modern sense of a secular government. It was in the education system, and if John Lennox is to be trusted in his debate with Richard Dawkins, drilled into the heads of children from the very beginnign. People who lived under these regimes say similar things however.
The arguement used that atheism can be just as destructive as religion isn't that Stalin was INSPIRED by athiesm, rather that it can be used as a smoke screen for terrorism and oppression just like Islam is a smoke screen for teh saudi monarchy to do whatever the hell they want.
Post a Comment