|
In the
spirit of full disclosure, I should tell you that I consider
myself an agnostic—an agnostic who does not believe in
the Judeo-Christian concept of God, or any concept of god
for that matter. I am faithless. Why don't I consider myself
an Atheist? Because I'm against organized religions (for myself—what
y'all do is up to youse), and when you look at the most outspoken
Atheists, they often come off as being as bombastic and didactic
as the most strident fundamentalists. It's as if Athieism
is a religion, with tenets and preachers, and recruitment
drives.
Take,
for example, Christopher Hitchens. His newish book, God
Is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, is, per
the flap copy, "an elegant argument with the faithful… makes
the ultimate case against religion." So what is this, besides
a recruitment tool for the Atheist religion? And why can't
they produce pamphlets like everyone else?
Of course,
the argument is about as elegant as a gaudily decorated house
in central New Jersey, complete with oversized stone lions
and illuminated tiny David statues. Its ornately confusing
prose more often than not exists solely for the opportunity
for Hitchens to toot his own Gideon's horn. Every chapter
allows Hitchens to tell us how thoughtful, intelligent, brave
and moral he is, despite his godless-heathen status. He tells
us that he would be more likely to run from a group of men
coming from a religious service than from a group of black
men on the subway; that he has had Ayatollahs at his house,
kissing his translated Koran (the good one, he tells us: the
Pickthal translation, in case we don't know which one comes
recommended by Hitchens); and that he almost got kicked in
the shins by a "well-known Democratic pollster" (my money's
on James Carville, although I have to confess that I don't
know exactly what he means by "well-known Democratic pollster")
for saying that there was no historical evidence of Jesus.
But Hitchens stood his ground! And he even offered an apology
in the book to the Dem, for claming that it was more likely
that Mohammad actually lived. He takes that back. He has decided
that they're both apocryphal.
 He
kindly extends this courtesy to his own family (the trumpeting,
not the apologizing). For example, on Halloween 2001, his
fearless daughter went trick or treating for UNICEF, despite
the fact that many God-fearing people forced their children
to stay inside and read scripture, lest they be bombed or
anthraxed or spirited away by witches. He neglects to mention,
of course, that his family lives in a nice, safe, upper-class
neighborhood. But, yeah, go you, little Miss Hitchens, going
out and collecting $25 for UNICEF and not even a thought for
your safety or delicious fun-sized Milky Ways.
He tells
these stories so that he can point out how awful, reactionary,
and violent (implied shin-kicking! That's rough!)
the Jebus-lovers (and Mohammed lovers) are, while he and his
family are the ones who are really following Christ's
teachings, even if Christ is as "real" as Fred Flintstone.
As far
as it being an argument with the faithful—how many people
of faith will read this book? And of the ones who do, will
any have an epiphany, tear off their crosses and scream, "HITCHENS
IS RIGHT"? There is nothing in this tome to convince anyone
to turn away from his faith. Pamphlets are more effective!
Hitchens
devotes lengthy chapters to topics that even casual students
of comparative religion already know, such as how similar
the Koran is to the Old and New Testament and how crazy-ass
the Old Testament God was compared to the New Testament God
(hey, he was going through a rough spot! Give the dude a break!).
Readers of magazines like The Skeptical Inquirer and
The Fortean Times are already well aware of the dubious
nature of miracles, another topic that has an entire chapter
devoted to it. And his arguments—Oy, gevalt. Get
this one: Hitchens asserts that Christ was not noble, because
although he volunteered to die for his fellow man, he didn't
really die, therefore making the sacrifice (and Christ's nobility)
null.
Hitchens
also insists that we're all misinterpreting what Marx meant
when he said religion "is the opium of the people." He claims
that we think Marx said religion was irrelevant. I'm not sure
why Hitchens presumes to know what I think or what you think.
In fact, what Hitchens writes is that this is "probably the
most popular misquotation of modern times," and then he quotes
the whole passage where Marx said, "Religion is the sigh of
the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just
as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium
of the people." He then corrects himself on the next page,
where he says, "So the famous misquotation is not so much
a 'misquotation' but rather a very crude attempt to misinterpret
the philosophical case against religion." It's as if he's
just dumping his thoughts on paper like a blogger, with no
filter and no editing. And he never really explains what the
misinterpretation is, anyway.
|
|
Christopher
Hitchens
photo by Christian Witkin |
Besides
not delivering on the flap copy, the book doesn't have anything
that readers couldn't find more eloquently expressed in any
of the other anti-religion books that have been recently published.
Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Richard Dawkins's
The God Delusion, and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian
Nation are all better choices for people who are interested
in this sort of discourse. Though, let's be honest, no matter
how much I prefer those other books to God Is not Great,
I don't suspect that they will convert any of the faithful,
either. Hitchens is kind enough to insult every one of these
authors in God Is not Great. He obviously doesn't want
readers jumping over into these other books.
My problem
may be more with the flap copy and its extravagant claims
than with Hitchens himself. My brother, Parker, informed me
that Hitchens didn't actually write the book in order to make
the "ultimate case against religion." The book was adapted
from his recent lecture tour, where he debated Christian fundamentalists
and other right-wing extremists. Certainly, in a format where
a mega-church pastor is claiming that only God-fearing people
can be moral, Hitchens's hyperbolic statements make much more
sense. He's simply making obvious arguments against stupid
questions posed by the craziest people. And in that context,
I can more readily accept the over-the-top nature of this
book. But why do I have to find out about these things from
my dear brother? The origins of these essays are not accounted
for anywhere within the book itself.
I certainly
understand why there has been such a rash of anti-religion
books published in the US—a small minority of fundies
have been allowed to determine political discourse in this
country (and the rest of the world), due partially to the
fact that a crazy, Rapture-believing ex-cokehead is our president.
However, I believe that there must be better ways to elevate
the level of political conversation in this country than trying
to make everyone into an Atheist.
It's
useless to attempt to debunk religion with spurious logic,
or even sound logic. Religion is a matter of faith, not science.
Nothing allegedly rational you have to say, Hitchens, will
sway people away from God and their chosen religion. And this
is the problem I have with many Athiests—they are zealots
who believe they are 100% correct, and, like Mormons and Jehovah's
Witnesses, want to spread their gospel. But hey, at least
the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have pamphlets.
(September,
2007)
|
