Funny how I hear a lot of people saying “I’m no fan of Hitchens, but…”
Yes, there’s a lot not to like about Christopher Hitchens. He was for the Iraq War, he acts boorish on chat shows, and one gets the impression that if he were to do the voicework on his own audiobooks, half of it would be incomprehensibly slurrred.
But the guy writes like a champ, and so I’m glad to see him add his weight to the recent wave of New Atheist books. Check the Slate excerpt from ‘God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’.
The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the “meaning” of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what “he” demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.
The other excepts, in which he deals with Islam and Mormonism summarily, are worth a read.
9 May 2007 at 10:34 am
Holding up the Mormonism extract as an example of Hitchen’s skill and integrity as a writer/researcher would be a supremely bad idea.
Really Daniel, I don’t get how you could endorse it when it’s riddled with so many basic factual errors. Hell, he even invented his own Smith quotes in order to set the desired tone.
If that extract is representative of the general depth and accuracy of the book, how can anybody take it seriously?
9 May 2007 at 3:50 pm
I don’t have a problem with the history here. I don’t see the point in arguing over the details of a fraud. Knowing that is enough. I am a little worried however of why he may be writing an article at the begining of the republican fight for nomination that is so clearly trying to link Mormonism with Islam. I’m never too trusting of his motives.
10 May 2007 at 12:00 am
“If that extract is representative of the general depth and accuracy of the book, how can anybody take it seriously?”
Dunno – people take the Bible and the Koran seriously and they are considerably less factual and accurate. This type of charlatanry has been going on for centuries. It’s simply astonishing that people are still so gullible as to believe in it.
10 May 2007 at 1:23 am
“Religion is man-made.”
I’m not sure why that should be the most radical criticism of religion. It’s true, but it’s nothing new. Of course religion is man-made. It’s our feeble self-righteous attempt to look good before God. But there’s a big big difference between having ‘religion’ and having a relationship with God, and for God’s sake that’s what Jesus was saying two thousand years ago, isn’t it? Certainly we can’t go around pretending to know everything, but launching an attack on religion, even one so ‘radical’ and ‘devastating’ as Hitchen’s, is hardly the stuff to bring faith down with.
10 May 2007 at 4:41 am
amy: You’re saying that religions are human attempts to understand God. Well and good.
But religions themselves make no such tentative claims. Religions say “Here is a set of doctrines that are true, and if you don’t believe them, there will be consequences for you in the hereafter.” (Unless you’re a Unitarian or something.)
You couldn’t have Christianity without insisting that Jesus was the only way to God, and that the Bible was true. Which is to say that Jesus and the Bible come from God, and are not man-made. So much for all that tentativity.
alarik: Which quote did you think was invented? Not seeing the factual errors, either. You don’t like Brodie, or something?
10 May 2007 at 6:59 am
I don’t have a problem with Brodie, except for the fact that I ended up sneezing a lot whenever I read her book (the library’s copy is kind of old and dusty). Hitchins makes some claims about her work though that I doubt she’d ever make herself.
Trying to keep this short: I thought perhaps he’d invented the Smith-Mohammed quotes, because they’re damn near impossible to find. Found them eventually though: he’s quoting Brodie who’s quoting Thomas Marsh who is alledgely quoting Smith. Not usually thrown about much though because they’re pretty dubious.
I’m pretty sure he made up the necromancy quote re: the 1826 trial, since there’s absolutely nothing like it in any of the associated documents. He also completely misattributes the “disorderly person” quote.
If anyone can find the source for the “satanic verses” bit with regards to the lost pages, I’ll be surprised. Never seen anything like it attributed to Smith.
As for factual errors, take your pick:
He completely screws up the 1826 “trial” (it was a preliminary misdemeanor hearing, there was no guilty verdict, the charge was glass-looking and Smith didn’t ‘admit’ to defrauding anyone at all. He certainly wasn’t ‘convicted’ of anything.)
He muddles the details of the Urim and Thummin and the bits about who was/wasn’t allowed to see the plates.
He says Brodie was trying to give the “kindest possible interpretation” and was a neutral party (which she certainly never claimed).
He messes up the details of Martin Harris’ involvement (his wife never ‘challenged’ Smith over the lost pages and the Isaiah 29 story is backwards)
He makes really odd claims about Ethan Smith’s works (if Joseph was going to quote Isaiah, it’s smarter to assume he used the Bible, why the hell would he use Ethan Smith’s work?)
He completely screws up baptism for the dead (temples give out weekly quotas that we “pray in”?)
There are lots of other little details that are mixed up or just plain wrong. Hell, I’m suprised he didn’t go off talking about Jupiter Talismans, Danites and Solomon Spaulding manuscripts.
Seriously, you’re welcome to this guy. I wouldn’t want him playing for my team.
11 May 2007 at 2:34 am
“Religion is manmade.”
Exactly. It serves a purpose, and that is to give an explanation of chaos. If no one had religion, there are a whole lot of things that cannot be explained. Or rather, could not be explained when each religion was invented. So, whatever religion or science you believe in, it is an attempt to organise life so that you do not become overwhelmed by everything out there. Even Atheism is a kind of religion because in discrediting religious arguments, you are supporting your own ideas about the world.
And if you happen to believe in the religions, so be it. Obviously the ideas, or need for belief are strong enough to perpetuate belief for millennia.
Kylie F