Critique of "God is Not Great" by Christoper Hitchens

[Cato]

My only argument is that Christopher has made a truth claim without offering fact and reasoning to support the claim.

Unlike arbitrarily assigning 'enlightenment ideas' to the fourth rung of one person's hierarchy of personal cognitive development? Perfumed and polished bullshit is still bullshit.

[phil-lndn]

OK, your argument sounds correct from that definition. Because the conclusion didn't sit right, I have checked the dictionary definition for "probable", i think it supports my previous definition rather than "as far as we can tell".

probable:
1. likely to occur or prove true
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probable

Look up the definition for probably rather than probable.

probably:
in all likelihood; very likely:

So what does "in all likelihood" mean? 

likelihood:
the state of being likely or probable; probability.

("probably" is just "probable" turned into an adverb with the addition of +ly)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I rather think you miss the whole point of GING, which you might not have done had you taken into account the rest of the title: 'How Religion Poisons Everything'.

Hitchens isn't attempt to disprove religion, or conduct a 'rational analysis' to prove atheism, or even to validate the scientific perspective. Hitchens' main goal is to demonstrate that religious belief is, in and of itself, a bad thing for human beings. He cites sufficient examples of this in order to present what is a very strong case that he's right.

Additionally, the book isn't intended to give a fair shake to the religious viewpoint. It is a polemic, and Hitchens' purpose is to present his viewpoint, and no other: he isn't debating whether religion is good or bad. He is starting with the assumption that religion is bad, and then provides a sort of a case file to show why.

Essentially, I think, your review attempts to take Hitchens to task for writing a polemic, rather than a debate. But when the author intends to write a polemic, a review should be conducted on how well he's done that, not that (as has been said) the author wrote the book you didn't want.

Boru

[phil-lndn]

Simple - because it's not optional. There are billions of pre-rational religious people on the planet.

Unless we are going to somehow wipe out around 2/3rds of the planet's population, we are going to have to find a way to live with them peacefully. 

We already live successfully with lots of primitive dangerous beings. Crocodiles, lions etc. The key to living successfully with dangerous organisms without living in fear is to understand them.

So your options are give up values of the 'enlightenment' (I am still curious to know what exactly about it are obsolete) or kill? I am in no way advocating murder, that is ludicrous.

It must be noted that we do already live in relative peace. We are in fact in one of the most peaceful periods of humanity's history.

The clash of civilisations is a disproven theory if by nothing else than the fact that most conflicts are, by Huntingdon's thesis and definition, intra-civilisational. I would recommend further reading by instrumentalists and de-constructivists on the thesis.Fukuyama's last man is a good start, though I don't necessarily advocate the conclusions.

It seems like your proposal is to capitulate to the distinctly backwards and intolerant ideologies that persist and fester in areas of the world still 'to get along'. Your proposal is not one I would adopt. Rather, just more of what we already do. Develop, advance, evolve.

A further question. Do you give more, less, or equal credence to the un-evidenced hypothesis of universe creation or the null-hypothesis?

I am not advocating giving up the values of the enlightenment, I am advocating transcending but including these values into a new more powerful perspective that's able to understand much much more deeply.

Regarding what is obsolete, I covered in a previous post (posted with a chart of developmental levels)

And no, my proposal is not to capitulate. 

People from more primitive worldviews have very different values and value systems to people from the rational worldview. It's essential to know what these values are, if a world is to be created where different developmental worldviews are able to live together peacefully. With an understanding of the different value systems, I think it may be possible to create such a world. 

It's getting a bit off the topic for this thread, but if you look at the world through a lens of developmental psychology, it's possible to make the argument that many if not most of the wars and fighting on the planet at the present time are clashes between different worldview value systems. If so, understanding those value systems will be a requirement to end the wars.

Universe creation: I'm not interested in any hypothesis that lacks evidence.

[Mr.wizard]

prob·a·bly


/ˈpräbəblē,ˈpräblē/


adverb

adverb: probably




almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
"she would probably never see him again"


synonyms: in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt; archaiclike enough
"I knew I would probably never see her again"

[LadyForCamus]

You were using the question to make an argument.  Questions and arguments are not mutually exclusive.

To clarify in case there is misunderstanding here: I'm not actually making any argument about whether there is, isn't or may be a "god" - I personally consider that topic completely irrelevant.)

Sure you do. [emoji6]

[phil-lndn]

What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

Is there some reason that you need me to restate -your- question? The question that was the sole impetus for your rant about an author in the first place?  

WOW! But how? How can we possibly be sure about that? Given that we are located inside these "plans", how can we possibly see outside of them to know from whence the plans themselves came?

There are no givens.  We have a better and well evidenced explanation than "plans" and "from whence they came".  Wonder in one hand, shit in the other.

This is where the word "plans" came into the discussion:

"And we can be as sure as we can probably need be, that neither this enormous explosion that set the universe in motion, (...) nor this amazingly complex  billion year period of evolution, we can be pretty certain it was not designed so that you and i can be meeting in this room, we are not the objects of either of these plans." 

These are Christopher's words, not mine.

If you object to the reasonableness of the use of this word, it's just another criticism of Christopher.

---

prob·a·bly


/ˈpräbəblē,ˈpräblē/


adverb

adverb: probably


almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
"she would probably never see him again"


synonyms: in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt; archaiclike enough
"I knew I would probably never see her again"

OK, so I think i'm sufficiently happy with my original definition of "probably" to leave my original text un-changed. If you consider my definition inaccurate, then perhaps consider your disagreement with my original post a semantic debate over our different understandings of the world "probably".

[phil-lndn]

I rather think you miss the whole point of GING, which you might not have done had you taken into account the rest of the title:  'How Religion Poisons Everything'.  

Hitchens isn't attempt to disprove religion, or conduct a 'rational analysis' to prove atheism, or even to validate the scientific perspective.  Hitchens' main goal is to demonstrate that religious belief is, in and of itself, a bad thing for human beings.  He cites sufficient examples of this in order to present what is a very strong case that he's right.

Additionally, the book isn't intended to give a fair shake to the religious viewpoint.  It is a polemic, and Hitchens' purpose is to present his viewpoint, and no other:  he isn't debating whether religion is good or bad.  He is starting with the assumption that religion is bad, and then provides a sort of a case file to show why.

Essentially, I think, your review attempts to take Hitchens to task for writing a polemic, rather than a debate.  But when the author intends to write a polemic, a review should be conducted on how well he's done that, not that (as has been said) the author wrote the book you didn't want.

Boru

OK - some of this feels like it hits the mark, perhaps I had not sufficiently considered the premise for his book. Although I did give mention in my post that I thought his writing (insofar as achieving what he'd set out to do) was very well done, perhaps it's reasonable to say that I am criticising the book's premise rather than the book itself.

Nevertheless (for the reasons stated in my post) I do not feel he does demonstrate 'How Religion Poisons Everything', I think through a developmental lens, religion looks more like a symptom (of low levels of development) than a cause and I think his inability to see that creates something of a red herring argument that runs throughout the book.

Example: as an experiment, try and use religious beliefs to "poison" someone who is a fully rational thinker. They are immune to such beliefs, it won't work. So in that context, religion poisons nothing, it's just a meaningless old book.

[LadyForCamus]

I rather think you miss the whole point of GING, which you might not have done had you taken into account the rest of the title:  'How Religion Poisons Everything'.  

Hitchens isn't attempt to disprove religion, or conduct a 'rational analysis' to prove atheism, or even to validate the scientific perspective.  Hitchens' main goal is to demonstrate that religious belief is, in and of itself, a bad thing for human beings.  He cites sufficient examples of this in order to present what is a very strong case that he's right.

Additionally, the book isn't intended to give a fair shake to the religious viewpoint.  It is a polemic, and Hitchens' purpose is to present his viewpoint, and no other:  he isn't debating whether religion is good or bad.  He is starting with the assumption that religion is bad, and then provides a sort of a case file to show why.

Essentially, I think, your review attempts to take Hitchens to task for writing a polemic, rather than a debate.  But when the author intends to write a polemic, a review should be conducted on how well he's done that, not that (as has been said) the author wrote the book you didn't want.

Boru

OK - some of this feels like it hits the mark, perhaps I had not sufficiently considered the premise for his book. Although I did give mention in my post that I thought his writing (insofar as achieving what he'd set out to do) was very well done, perhaps it's reasonable to say that I am criticising the book's premise rather than the book itself.

Nevertheless (for the reasons stated in my post) I do not feel he does demonstrate 'How Religion Poisons Everything', I think through a developmental lens, religion looks more like a symptom (of low levels of development) than a cause and I think his inability to see that creates something of a red herring argument that runs throughout the book.

Example: as an experiment, try and use religious beliefs to "poison" someone who is a fully rational thinker. They are immune to such beliefs, it won't work. So in that context, religion poisons nothing, it's just a meaningless old book.

Just curious...why have you registered here at AF.org?

[Homeless Nutter]

No, he wrote exactly the book I had wished for. 

I had a wonderful time criticising it :-)

In other words - you read it with your mind already made up and with an expressed wish to criticise it. Mission accomplished. Now - as far as I'm concerned - you can f*ck right off...