TS January Book of the Month

Way back when, as we decided our Nov/Dec BOTM, we said the second runner up would become our January BOTM.

So, that title is God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

Gee, I actually hated to type that title out, lol, and I'll have to read it with a paper sack over it down here lest I get whooped! Bible Belters do not take kindly to this book! But, I plan on getting it once the holidays are over.

This will serve as the official discussion thread.

Happy reading!!!!!!!

 

QUOTE(MamaKim @ Dec 26 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]546616[/snapback]
Gee, I actually hated to type that title out, lol, and I'll have to read it with a paper sack over it down here lest I get whooped! Bible Belters do not take kindly to this book! But, I plan on getting it once the holidays are over.


I was thinking the same thing. I was wondering if I could hide it in a cupboard in case my mom comes a snoopin'. Living in the Bible Belt, i wonder if there will even be a copy of this in the library. Off to see.

ETA After a check into the library (gotta love the online card catalog), I am not shocked to announce they don't have it. Unfortunately I will can't say for certain I will invest money in a book that is going to question my already shakey relationship with God.

 

I've put it on my hold list, but I am debating with myself about reading it. We'll see how I feel about it if it comes in.

 

QUOTE(jenn- @ Dec 27 2007, 10:43 AM) [snapback]547655[/snapback]
Unfortunately I will can't say for certain I will invest money in a book that is going to question my already shakey relationship with God.



Hmm...sounds like it's a matter of time anyway. Why drag it out? Is it kind of like witnessing a car accident? You can't watch, but you can't NOT watch and you can't UNSEE what you saw?

Maybe you'll realize that your shakey relationship is in fact with RELIGION and not necessarily with God. Maybe you'd actually come out ahead.

 

My Dad has read it, and I'm sure I can borrow his copy, but I have to confess I'm on the fence about reading it. I try to stay away from conversations that involve discussion of god and religion - for both my own sanity and everyone else's blood pressure and peace of mind.

I'm sure the conversations about the book will be fascinating, and I have a feeling that whichever decision I make, I'll regret it! :unsure:

-Karen

 

I think this conversation itself is fascinating.

But if no one's going to read it it might be a bummer of a BOTM.

I already read it last month because I wanted to, and I can definitely say it's a "good book" in that Hitchens is really smart and definitely has done his research (read: read all the major holy books as best he could). But I understand why one might not want to take their thinking to that place. I guess. No, yes, I do.

I definitely do.

 

Like Marie, I've already read it and enjoyed it immensely. And like Sweetpea, I don't think anyone has anything to fear from this book...

I bought my copy in South Carolina last summer.

 

A question for those that have read the book.. Is the theme more of anti- organized religion, or anti- God?

 

Jenn--it's definitely far more anti-organised religion. I don't think he cares one way or the other particularly if people do or do not believe in God...but he cares very much about the extremism which fanatical organised religion can engender.

 

QUOTE(Nifty @ Dec 29 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]550090[/snapback]
Jenn--it's definitely far more anti-organised religion. I don't think he cares one way or the other particularly if people do or do not believe in God...but he cares very much about the extremism which fanatical organised religion can engender.


Thanks for the info. I am still on the fence, but this is a push more to the likely to read side.

 

QUOTE(jenn- @ Dec 29 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]550031[/snapback]
A question for those that have read the book.. Is the theme more of anti- organized religion, or anti- God?


It's not really "anti" God, I don't think. That sounds too hostile. The basic premise is that the idea of God is a man-made one.

 

Are you all still doing it? DH just finished it, so I'm going to start reading it now.

 

To my surprise, my online library browser says my library has this book. Hope it's still not checked out Tuesday morning! (I'm surprised they have it at all, frankly.)

 

If I can dig it out of storage (we are renovating), I'll read it again to freshen my memory!

 

QUOTE(Snittens @ Jan 5 2008, 05:41 PM) [snapback]559030[/snapback]
Are you all still doing it? DH just finished it, so I'm going to start reading it now.


Pretty sure we are. I'm just waiting for ya'll to start discussing!

 

I am definately in...However I got distracted with another book so I'm a bit behind...

 

Yep, I have to finish my Slash book and one other from the library, and then I'll start this one. Our library has it on hand, no copies checked out, so I should be able to get it right away when I'm ready.

 

I have it on my hold list, but it has not come in yet....guess it's a popular book here!!

 

I got it! Now if I can just find some time to read...

 

I should be picking my copy up in a day or so.

 

I picked this up yesterday from the library and boy, did I get some disdainful looks! I probably should have worn dark glasses and a disguise. :lol: I took it to work last night but honestly did not want anyone to see me with it. You have NO idea the atmosphere here in the Bible Belt and how a book like this is looked down upon. I know I shouldn't care but it really bothered me!

 

I know what you mean, Kim. This is kind of what Hitchens refers to when he says that he is more uneasy around very religious people than he would ever be around a secular group. I agree with him. This is the dark side of religion, IMO, when people get that uptight that they intimidate other people who do not share their fervor, or who dare to question, or who dare to even READ something someone writes that might question.

I feel like that much too often in my new community, which BTW is NOT in the deep South or Bible belt. This extreme religiosity has spread like a virus all over the midwest and south, and I think books like Hitchen's book are partly a response to that. He doesn't feel that this wave of fundamentalism is benign. Other writers have written on the same theme (Sam HArris, for example).

You have felt that intimidation and felt the need to hide the book. I feel it every day in my community, which both frightens and infuriates me. I think it is important for free thinkers, especially free thinkers who are nOT atheist, to read these books and to challenge this growing oppression of free expression.

 

I was nervous about checking this book out, but actually I just took my stack of books up and the librarian checked me out and didn't raise an eyebrow. It has been checked out 8 times before I checked it out. I was surprised our library even had it, because I have often had to buy books I want to read myself if they are not coming from a Christian perspective.

I am finding Hitchens an easier read than either Dawkins or Harris. Dawkins goes into much greater detail scientifically, and Harris goes into much greater historical detail. This book (I am about a third of the way through it) may be a better starting place for studying this viewpoint because of that.

He is very plainspoken, though. People who are not used to hearing someone be very direct with a dissenting opinion may find that unsettling. I have read essays calling both him and Dawkins "shrill" on the subject, but I think that's inaccurate. Neither one is "shrill," but neither one tiptoes around how he really feels on the subject.

 

I agree with you there, Ruby. I think part of the reason for that plain-spokenness is because he is trying to leap over the tremendous societal pressure we have to give religious belief a free pass in society; he is trying to make us question our knee-jerk respect for anything that is claimed under the umbrella of religious belief.

Sam Harris was the first person I'd read who floated the notion that automatic "respect" for religion was inappropriate and even dangerous. Beforre reading him, I thought I was just a lone weirdo in the universe! :laughing: Since then, I've read several authors who make very convincing arguments for suspending the unexamined respect for religion. They urge people to understand completely what religions stand for and what they (if taken to their logical conclusion; ie if their ultimate goals/aims are achieved) would bring to the world. It isn't a pretty picture, IMO, and I find I agree now with Hitchens, et al. Religious belief does not deserve respect just because it is religious belief. Various practitioners of religion can earn society's respect by being genuinely good people who actually work to make the world a better place for all mankind. But, the truth is, most religious dogma and Holy Books urge people toward a quite different goal. It is only the moving away from the roots of religion since the Enlightenment which has allowed some denominations to become a much more positive force in the world. This is not due to their bedrock theology, it is in spite of it; it is due to the infuence of enlightened thinking and skepticism and science upon the better minds who still retain a belief in God and in the ability of organised religion to be a positive social force.

I agree with Ruby in that Hitchens is quite easy to read. He approaches the question of religious influence in society from a sort of regular person's point of view (albeit a world traveller and writer). He's not talking about evolution of religion in some impenetrable scientific way like Dawkins and Dennett, he isn't worrying about imminent global Christian jihad or politcal-cultural destruction like Sam Harris; he is talking about how religion poisons ordinary everyday life for just about all of us, whether we are religious or not, because of its pervasive influence in our culture. I suspect that Hitchens probably does agree with Dawkins and Harris on many points, but Hitchens is more of a fatalist and observer than an agitator for change, which is why I think he's written this book.

I think he's saying, "Look, even if you think these other guys are over the top, you have to see that life is curtailed within religious parameters everywhere in the world, and even the non-religious are forced, either by politeness or by intimidation, to conform to their rules and to be silent and "respectful" about ideology which can be harmful to human beings. This isn't a good thing.".

At least, that's my take on it, in a nutshell!

 

So far, I cannot say I agree with the place he is coming from (atheism) but he has brought up points that I (and others) have made all along: religion (not God) is man-made. Religion is man's interpretation of God. When you look at all the different civilzations over the centuries and their deities, there are always some common threads. I think Hitchens does a superb job of delineating the commonalities of all religion. More later, I'm only a few chapters into the book. (The porcine chapter was enjoyable!)

 

I just picked up my Dad's copy last night - with a snow day today, perhaps I'll get a chance to start reading during nap time! From the posts so far, it sounds as if many of you are finding it quite interesting.

-Karen

 

QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 14 2008, 07:40 AM) [snapback]571296[/snapback]
(The porcine chapter was enjoyable!)


I thought the origin of the charcuterie plate was fascinating. Always interested to get a new bit of food history.

I marked off a lot of stuff in the book to discuss here. I'll relook at the first couple chapters tonight.

In general, not suprisingly, I found that in almost all instances I totally agreed with Hitchens and appreciated his thoroughness in his research. I learned a lot from him, and even found myself reading the Bible recently as follow-up. I had no idea Abraham lived to 192.

 

I was quite fascinated by the chapters on the eastern philosophical religions. These are often barely touched upon. They seem no more immune to the corrupting allure of power than western religions, despite the peacenik way they are often represented in the mainstream American press. I won't say I was pleased to be given so many examples of this, but it makes the book more well-rounded. Books by atheists often focus primarily on the Abrahamic tradition.

 

Just picked up my copy last night....I have some catching up to do.

 

QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 14 2008, 09:29 AM) [snapback]571488[/snapback]
I thought the origin of the charcuterie plate was fascinating. Always interested to get a new bit of food history.

I marked off a lot of stuff in the book to discuss here. I'll relook at the first couple chapters tonight.

In general, not suprisingly, I found that in almost all instances I totally agreed with Hitchens and appreciated his thoroughness in his research. I learned a lot from him, and even found myself reading the Bible recently as follow-up. I had no idea Abraham lived to 192.



Marie, I can't wait to start discussing the stuff you marked off! :banana: I hardly know where to start, myself! Although, this statement in chapter one is one I find in Hitchens and not in Dawson, Harris, et al.:

"Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say, but will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask, because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it." (Hitchens, Christopher, God is Not Great,p.12, Twelve Books(Hachette Book Group, USA), NY., 2007)


One of my biggest criticisms of Sam Harris was his insistence that religion should be eradicated from the world. While I think he is right in theory, in practice it will not work because many, if not most, people clearly still need religion or something like it. Even when their rational minds know that the claims of religion are false, coercive, even cruel and sadistic, they cling to it and to the idea of "faith" for some reason. For several reasons, I think, but all stemming from the fact that our evolution is in no way complete and our brains/emotions/moral development is a long way from complete. I think Hitchens is absolutely correct in his assessment of the fears and dreads which lie behind religious belief, and I find I like his book better than most Atheists' books because he has acknowledged that, while like John Lennon he may wish for a world without religion, he is realistic enough to know that the people of the world are just not ready for it.

Let me clarify that I in no way mean that the people of the world need religion to stay on the right path to moral goodness; like Hitchens I believe that religion more often leads to immorality than uprightness. Instead, I think his suggestion that it is a primitive and fear-based need is closer to the mark. I think it is a psychological need, possibly even a form of mental illness, unique to our species.

I hope this post can get the ball rolling!

 

Actually, I agree with you (and Hitchens) on that point. Since there are no cultures (at least as yet discovered) without religion, there must be something that most humans have driving the need. (I say most because I don't have it. I never have had it, even as a child. I don't have that "emptiness" that people talk about.) I have read some studies of brain scans indicating that there is a part of the brain that really lights up during prayer/meditation, and that it is better developed in some people and less developed in others. (As Bart said to Lisa, "Welcome to 'the Others'!")

Most of the religious people I know personally are lovely people. The problem seems to happen at a higher level. If we could just find some way for "live and let live" to apply fully, that would be great. A problem that prevents that is when people, who are tribal by nature, use religion as an ideological expression of tribalism. A really obvious example of this is the whole problem in Ireland. People are killing each other and teaching their children to hate others over a different interpretation of the same religion.

I also don't think religion is necessary to create morality/ethics. In some Michael Schermer book or other he discussed a test that determined that humans are all pretty much the same morally when it comes down to it. People of any given religion were no more or less likely to commit and/or rationalize crimes than irreligious people. And most people excuse themselves on the basis of being a "good person," as in: "I am a good person, so if I did XYZ, it must have been necessary, and therefore not bad." At the extreme end, people who commit murders will excuse themselves in this fashion--"she drove me to it," and other such explanations.

I think the urge people have toward reverence is a good thing. The urge to control other people, not so much. <_<

 

QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 15 2008, 02:50 PM) [snapback]573704[/snapback]
I also don't think religion is necessary to create morality/ethics.


I read with interest this article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "The Moral Instinct." If morality is instinctual, why would man need to create religion for this end?

 

wow, great points Ruby and Marie! I can't wait to discuss further! I have to go pick up at school right now, but I'l be back!

 

QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 14 2008, 04:40 AM) [snapback]571296[/snapback]
When you look at all the different civilzations over the centuries and their deities, there are always some common threads. I think Hitchens does a superb job of delineating the commonalities of all religion.



For folks who are interested in this line of thinking, I would HIGHLY recommend anything by Joseph Campbell. I absolutely loved HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES. THE POWER OF MYTH is a book which recounts the PBS interviews Bill Moyers conducted with Campbell regarding the common threads among various beliefs. Most libraries should have DVD versions of this television series available for patrons.

I feel that most folks, religious or not, would appreciate Campbell's work (read: I did not find him preaching one version over another; simply stating historical facts and commonalities).

Boy, I have some catching up to do! I"ll have to weigh in on some of the other comments made when I have some time tonight.

 

Great article, thanks for posting it. I actually got Steven Pinker's latest linguistics book for Christmas. And that reminds me to get my Joseph Campbell back from my niece, who is never going to read it anyway!