God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

[IcarusAngel]

In this book, Christopher Hitchens claims that the god delusion/religion is responsible for a great deal of the evil that exists in the world, but, even more importantly, it is a threat to human survival. It's kind of hard to take seriously the prophesy of human survival from a guy like Hitchens, who supported the Iraq war, which, as Chomsky points out in chapter one of Hegemony or Survival, increases the risk of a nuke being let off by terrorists, increased nuclear proliferation, increased religious fundamentalism, etc., and the Bush administration, which blocked efforts to ban the militarization of space and downplayed bans against biological and chemical weapons in the UN, as well as disregarded torture etc.

That makes him come off as unserious, but ignoring his kooky political theories, I still think he makes rather good points.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religi...78771547&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8961406-5181621?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178771547&sr=8-1)

Agree or disagree? I will say though that, Dawkins, Hitchens really don't have as good of arguments as past atheists like Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, J.P. Sartre, Sagan, et al., but, still, the new arguments are quite refreshing.

So I basically agree, religion has little place in an advanced society.

[RebelDog]

Whilst Hitchens is nothing but a sell-out in political terms, I commend him for his anti-theism but I wouldn't bother with his books.


So I basically agree, religion has little place in an advanced society.

It will have no place in a post-idealist society.

[colonelguppy]

"post-idealist"?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:12 am
"post-idealist"?
Materialist. In other words during the last few decades (years?) of capitalism and during communism.

[Question everything]

Wait is this the Guy who started out as a Marxist then Became a cappie as soon as his books started to sell?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yes.

Not read his book yet, but I'm worried that it'll come off as an emotional attack. Hitchens can never quite hide his loathing of religion and simply use calm rationality.

I hope I'm just being cyncical. It might damage our side otherwise.

-Alex

[Zero]

Hitchens is a great speaker, and does very good anti-theist work.

Outside of those two fields though, I have nothing to complement.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anyone who makes the argument that ideas shape history (for better or for worse) is a most obvious anti-materialist and should be denounced as such by all serious Marxists.

In order to believe that religion is the cause of great evil (or great good, for that matter), you must first accept the idealist premise that [religious] ideas have a great influence on the course of history. I utterly reject this premise.

[LSD]

What I find with Hitchens, and others like him, is rather similar to what I find with libertarians.

While I disagree with many of their conclusions (if not all of them), at the very least I understand the reasoning process by which they came to them and so can construct a refutation.

In some cases, I can even respect them.

But with people like George Bush or Jerry Fallwelll I'm just at a complete loss.

And so, understanding that the world will never be rid of asshole blowhards, my hope for postrevolutionary society is the assholes will be more of the Hitchens variety than of the Fallwell variety.

Because at least with the former, you can engage in something approaching a reasoned debate.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Edric O+May 22, 2007 06:08 am--> (Edric O @ May 22, 2007 06:08 am)Anyone who makes the argument that ideas shape history (for better or for worse) is a most obvious anti-materialist and should be denounced as such by all serious Marxists.

In order to believe that religion is the cause of great evil (or great good, for that matter), you must first accept the idealist premise that [religious] ideas have a great influence on the course of history. I utterly reject this premise.[/b]

You sound like you believe in historicism to some degree. In that case, you have to observe aristocracy, monarchy, feudalism, and so on, and it's essential to understand that religion played a heavy role in these systems -- the predominant role -- all the way up to the enlightenment. But even today, it still is around -- as is mysticism etc. -- and should thus be observed, noting if it is responsible for evil.

I have no problem with people having whatever religious belief they want to, but it's ridiculous to stat that organized religion has been a great source of evil in the world.


Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:00 am
What I find with Hitchens, and others like him, is rather similar to what I find with libertarians.

The difference I suppose is that Hitchens isn't a complete ideologue. He'll take the neocon position, but he'll still be harshly critical of religion and Reagan etc. (two things very important to the neocons, I assume they encourage religion to divert people's attention elsewhere or make it seem that they're fighting "god's will").


[email protected] 22, 2007 07:00 am
While I disagree with many of their conclusions (if not all of them), at the very least I understand the reasoning process by which they came to them and so can construct a refutation.

I agree. I find Libertarian goals worthwhile: freedom from government oppression, the promotion of liberty, freedom and so on. I also understand why they believe their ideology leads to these things, but I think they are mistaken that private property is the source of all freedom or is natural. Nothing indicates that it's natural, and limited government does not necessarily mean freedom -- during colonial times they had limited government, but they were hardly "free" and people were considered as property. Furthermore, by allowing certain individuals to gobble up the land, we see how this leads to consolidation of _power_, not the decentralization of power that Libertarians supposedly want.

I think their "history" is a bit off as well -- they claim certain intellectuals as their own when there is clear disagreement, they claim property is part of human nature but ignore almost all of history up until Locke, etc.

They do have good tactics though and I admire their opposition to imperialism, which they're united on.


But with people like George Bush or Jerry Fallwelll I'm just at a complete loss.

And so, understanding that the world will never be rid of asshole blowhards, my hope for postrevolutionary society is the assholes will be more of the Hitchens variety than of the Fallwell variety.

Agreed. Far right-wingers like Robertson or right-wing imperialists are usually too far gone to be "saved." That's why so few people ever switch from far-right to left.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+--> (IcarusAngel)You sound like you believe in historicism to some degree. In that case, you have to observe aristocracy, monarchy, feudalism, and so on, and it's essential to understand that religion played a heavy role in these systems -- the predominant role -- all the way up to the enlightenment.[/b]
Of course. It is obvious that religious fundamentalism has been historically associated with feudalism. But you have to be careful when jumping from correlation to causation. Hitchens believes that religious fundamentalism caused feudalism (to some extent). I believe the reverse: feudalism caused religious fundamentalism (to some extent). Religion does not shape socio-economic systems. Rather, socio-economic systems shape religion and its role in people's lives. Religion is the effect, not the cause.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I find Libertarian goals worthwhile: freedom from government oppression, the promotion of liberty, freedom and so on. I also understand why they believe their ideology leads to these things, but I think they are mistaken that private property is the source of all freedom or is natural. Nothing indicates that it's natural, and limited government does not necessarily mean freedom -- during colonial times they had limited government, but they were hardly "free" and people were considered as property. Furthermore, by allowing certain individuals to gobble up the land, we see how this leads to consolidation of _power_, not the decentralization of power that Libertarians supposedly want.
In my experience, libertarians are not lovers of liberty who have been misguided into believing that property provides that liberty. On the contrary - they are ultra-reactionary lovers of property who use the notion of "liberty" as a convenient excuse to support their propertarian agenda.

Libertarians do not start from the question "What will best promote liberty?". They start from the question "What will best promote private property?" I consider them worse than fascists (because fascists are merely stupid, whereas libertarians are evil).


IcarusAngel
They do have good tactics though and I admire their opposition to imperialism, which they're united on.
They are not at all opposed to economic imperialism and ruthless corporate exploitation of the Third World.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, my problem with Hitchens is that he is pretty cocksure in his atheist beliefs and interpretation, but it is my opinion that thinking people in general should "question everything" (Dawkins) and that you can't entirely certain of everything, which is the only thing you can be certain of (Russell). If physics and psychology are to be believed, or really science in general, then things are not as we see them and we should always keep an open mind.


Originally posted by Edric O+May 23, 2007 07:03 am--> (Edric O @ May 23, 2007 07:03 am)In my experience, libertarians are not lovers of liberty who have been misguided into believing that property provides that liberty. On the contrary - they are ultra-reactionary lovers of property who use the notion of "liberty" as a convenient excuse to support their propertarian agenda.[/b]

A lot of their beliefs on property simply branches out from their idea of self-ownership, which is that nobody has the right to harm you as an individual or anybody else. Property is merely a way to protect this philosophy against any "force" against your person, the only time they support government or outside intervention in the matter.

So I think some of them are legitimate, while others use it as a weak excuse to defend "their" resources.


Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 23, 2007 07:03 am
Libertarians do not start from the question "What will best promote liberty?". They start from the question "What will best promote private property?" I consider them worse than fascists (because fascists are merely stupid, whereas libertarians are evil).

A position I once held. I used to believe Libertarians were than fascist, but I don't see how a Christian communist can say that. Fascists have no problem with outright murdering political dissidents -- socialists, communists, atheists, whoever gets in their way -- whereas many Libertarians are against this because it violates their belief of self-ownership. Fascists are also imperialist whereas Libertarians want to keep their ideology at home and most have no interest in forcing it on other countries. Some even believe in allow socialists to establish their societies, or competing societies in the same country/state. Fascists would never allow that and thus are far worse.


Edric [email protected] 23, 2007 07:03 am
They are not at all opposed to economic imperialism and ruthless corporate exploitation of the Third World.

Most libertarians are opposed to economic imperialism as it violates the NAP, and, furthermore, is being pushed by large bureaucracies that are combination of corporatism and massive government.

Even the Libertarian Party platform calls for the repeal/withdrawal of NAFTA/WTO etc., so this is incorrect.