The rather petulant subtitle that Christopher Hitchens has given his (rather petulantly titled) God is Not Great is How Religion Poisons Everything. Naturally one would not expect him to have squandered any greater labor of thought on the dust jacket than on the disturbingly bewildered text that careens so drunkenly across its pages - reeling up against a missed logical connection here, steadying itself against a historical error there, stumbling everywhere over all those damned conceptual confusions littering the carpet - but one does still have to wonder how he expects any reflective reader to interpret such a phrase. Does he really mean precisely everything? Would that apply, then - confining ourselves just to things Christian - to ancient and medieval hospitals, leper asylums, orphanages, almshouses, and hostels? To the golden rule, "Love thine enemies," "Judge not lest ye be judged," prophetic admonitions against oppressing the poor, and commands to feed the clothe and comfort those in need? To the music of Palestrina and Bach, Michelangelo's Pieta, "ah! bright wings," San Marco's mosaics, the Bible of Amiens, and all that gorgeous blue stained glass at Chartres? To the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and contemporary efforts to liberate Sudanese slaves? And so on and so on? Surely it cannot be the case that, if only purged of the toxin of faith, these things would be even better than they are; were it not for faith, it seems fairly obvious, most of them would have no existence at all. And since none of these things would seem to fall outside the general category of "everything," it must be that Hitchens means (assuming he means anything at all) that they fall outside the more specific category of "religion." This would, at any rate, be in keeping with one of the rhetorical strategies especially favored in New Atheist circles: one labels anything one dislikes - even if it is found in a purely secular setting - "religion" (thus, for example, all the twentieth-century totalitarianisms are "political religions" for which secularists need take no responsibility), while simultaneously claiming that everything good, in the arts, morality, or any other sphere - even if it emerges within an entirely religious setting - has only an accidental association with religious belief and is really, in fact, common human property (so, for example, the impulse toward charity will doubtless spring up wherever an "enlightened: society takes root). By the same token, every injustice that seems to follow from a secularist principle is obviously an abuse of that principle, while any evil that comes wrapped in a cassock is unquestionably an undiluted expression of religion's very essence.
- David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions
A Rambler on Rhetoric, Religion & Reading
Friday, September 11, 2009
Reaction to Delusions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Since I think I'm the only reader, I might as well become the only poster. If the passage cited isn't enough, I strongly recommend you pick up and read a copy of David Bentley Hart's _Atheist Delusions_, published by Yale University Press. You'll be glad you did because Hart is a grand stylist and a sharply logical critic of what he calls the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.
You are not the only reader, I check out everything new that you post, even if a lot of it makes me like I am in over my head.
On this topic though I do have some disagreement. Hart does make a good point in saying how much religion has done for humanity, such as hospitals, asylums, and so on, but when he states that none of these things would have any existence at all without religion, I do take offense.
I think it shows a great lack of faith in humanity to state that without religion man would be incapable of performing acts of kindness towards each other. Religion gave man the ability and motivation to act out these good deeds, but man was not incapable of them without religion.
Ryan,
Glad to know there's a reader out there, and glad to know it's you.
I don't think his argument is precisely that humans would not have made these things without religion. Instead, I think it's more a historical argument that they did make all these things through religion. And that religion was a driving force in the shape of these things. Indeed, most of the book is a historical argument about what Hart calls the Christian revolution, by which he means a transformation in our conception and understanding of human nature. You're right that humans might have come to all these things without religion, but that's not what Hart thinks happened.
Thanks for commenting and reading.
David,
I've finally decided to make a contribution to your blog.
I wanted to recommend an excerpt from a debate between Dinesh D'souza and Christopher Hitchens. (You should also check out some of the other, complete debates as they seem relevant to this topic.)
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boH_tJ0mCrU
Do you think atheists should have to answer for the actions of Stalin, Pal Pot, etc.? It seems that Christians are unfairly blamed for all of the world's problems, while atheists get off scratch free.
(I'm sorry if you're offended that I recommended the work of someone who served in the Reagan administration.)
-Dan Gore
I read you blog and I also appreciated Dan's video link contribution. Just so you know you have readers.
Post a Comment