Debates about God
I watched or listened to two debates about religion between Christopher Hitchens, whose new book I recently read (actually I listened to it while commuting in my car), and Al Sharptan and Marvin Olasky. In both cases, I thought that the proponent of religion put on a remarkably weak case. Al Sharpton refused to even try to defend anything in scripture, which is remarkable considering he is known as the reverend Al Sharpton. He appeared to concede all of the attacks on the various holy books by Hitchens and only retorted that none of this disproves the existence of God. Since no one is going to prove either the existence or non-existence of God, this line of attack is extremely weak and pathetic. It also makes one wonder exactly what kind of reverend Al is. He came off as a deist rather than a leader in a Christian church. In the case of Olasky, his attack on Hitchens consisted of a list of people he knew who were inspired by Christianity to commit their lives to doing good. According to Olasky, Hitchens has a very weak case because these examples show that Religion does not poison everything, as claimed by the subtitle of his book. After all, if 10 or 20% of the time, religion inspires people to commit acts of kindness and charity does not this prove that religion does not poison everything. Again, this is a rather lame defense of religion. Instead of pointing out the truth or greatness of it, all he can do is proclaim that it's not 100% bad. Playing off the grandiose nature of Hitchen's title does little to inspire confidence in the nature of religion.
I enjoyed listening to Hitchen's book, which the author narrated. I also get a kick out of Hitchens. I generally agreed with it. He could have shown a little sympathy for the religious impulse that seems so ubiquitous in humanity. There must be some evolutionary need for religion since almost every human civilization that has arisen on our planet contains some form of it. However, many times in his book, I found myself agreeing with his outrage. In one instance, I had been think about the shocking story of Abraham who is praised for being willing to sacrifice his son on God's orders. What kind of sick religion would hold up the willingness to kill your own son as some kind of virtue? It sounds like something a cult or a totalitarian regime would make up in order to inculcate total obedience in their followers. I don't see how it can be denied that much of the content of the bible is ignored by many Christians because what it says is shocking to our consciences. People who take the holy books literally are considered to be extremists or, in the case of Islamists, terrorists. What does this say about religion that the people who take it at face value are so destructive?
I enjoyed listening to Hitchen's book, which the author narrated. I also get a kick out of Hitchens. I generally agreed with it. He could have shown a little sympathy for the religious impulse that seems so ubiquitous in humanity. There must be some evolutionary need for religion since almost every human civilization that has arisen on our planet contains some form of it. However, many times in his book, I found myself agreeing with his outrage. In one instance, I had been think about the shocking story of Abraham who is praised for being willing to sacrifice his son on God's orders. What kind of sick religion would hold up the willingness to kill your own son as some kind of virtue? It sounds like something a cult or a totalitarian regime would make up in order to inculcate total obedience in their followers. I don't see how it can be denied that much of the content of the bible is ignored by many Christians because what it says is shocking to our consciences. People who take the holy books literally are considered to be extremists or, in the case of Islamists, terrorists. What does this say about religion that the people who take it at face value are so destructive?
posted by netsroht at 1:35 PM
0 comments
