just finished "God is Not Great" by Hitchens

[_marg]

In my opinion, "The Missionary Position" is Hitchen's finest work.

Seconded.

Thirded. It is a very good book.

I perceive you guys as the 3 amigos and when I read E.A.,'s comment yesterday I thought, well all we need now to complete this is a 3rd'ing by Blixa. And sure enough you didn't disappoint. :)

Thanks Sethbag, I didn't realize Hitchens did the audio for the book. You've sold me on getting it.

[_Drifting]

Thirded. It is a very good book.

I perceive you guys as the 3 amigos and when I read E.A.,'s comment yesterday I thought, well all we need now to complete this is a 3rd'ing by Blixa. And sure enough you didn't disappoint. :)

Thanks Sethbag, I didn't realize Hitchens did the audio for the book. You've sold me on getting it.

Being 'thirded by Blixa' sounds like something the Church would confiscate your recommend over...

[_CaliforniaKid]

I read God is Not Great last spring. Then, I read Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, published a few years ago by Yale University Press. in my opinion, both should be read before any conclusions are drawn one way or the other.

I have a copy of the Hart book, but I've glanced at it a couple times and haven't quite been able to bring myself to crack it open and start reading. The title and blurb make it look like the kind of pseudo-philosophical diatribe I so assiduously avoid over at MDD in order to avoid head-explosions.

[Guest]

I read God is Not Great last spring. Then, I read Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, published a few years ago by Yale University Press. in my opinion, both should be read before any conclusions are drawn one way or the other.

I have a copy of the Hart book, but I've glanced at it a couple times and haven't quite been able to bring myself to crack it open and start reading. The title and blurb make it look like the kind of pseudo-philosophical diatribe I so assiduously avoid over at MDD in order to avoid head-explosions.

Well, unlike Hitchens, Hart really is a philosopher. But Hart's book is not a philosophical treatise. Like Hitchen's book, it's a polemical essay based on a review of the evidence. Both books are diatribes. But I think both should be read. You know Hitchens argument. Hart contends that Hitchens is very selective in his evidence and didn't do his homework. in my opinion, this is true. Hitchens's indictment of Christianity is based on a review of the history of the Latin church in the West (Rome and its offshoots). If those churches comprised all of Christianity, then Hitchens would be spot on in his assessment. Unfortunately for Hitchens, there's a whole other history of Christianity centered in the East, where there were no Dark Ages, no inquisitions, no crusades (except for the minor detail that the Fourth Crusade targeted the Eastern Christians), and no need to re-learn about classical civilization from Islam (in fact, the dependency of the West on Islam for the Renaissance in turn depended on the Eastern Christians, as the flowering of learning within Islam that preceded the Renaissance in Europe was the direct result of muslim conquests of Eastern Christian lands, which contained the Byzantine schools and libraries that housed the greek manuscripts the muslim scholars used for their arabic translations). Any fair indictment of Christianity needs to take the Greek church into account.

Hart's book is an interesting read and ought to be read together with Hitchen's book to present a more balanced view about Christian history. Hitchen's point that the Western church was more bad than good is probably correct (though I also agree with Hart that the Dark Ages were not as dark as most people think); Hart's point that the Eastern church is completely left out of this assessment is also correct. The history of Christianity is far more complex than Hitchens lets on. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[_Sethbag]

Seth: I bet hearing Hitchens himself read the book was a lot of fun. I used to have a great deal of respect for Hitch, I loved his old columns and his Mother Teresa book was fine. I parted company with the later Hitch over his misguided and unpleasant politics.

Hitch did say things I didn't agree with him on, but I never could get myself to dislike him over it, and my admiration for him for so many other reasons swamped the things I disagreed with him on. Plus he was just such an interesting guy, whether one liked him or not. At least, I think so. YMMV.

I doubt I'll look at God is Not Great simply for the reason that these kind of issues are not that urgent for me. But if I do, I'll go the audio book route. Thanks for suggesting it.

Yeah, this book is good if one wants to read, or hear someone digging on religion. If one doesn't care about this, then it's not the book for them. Some books I think are better in print, and some books are probably better in audio format, and so far I'm convinced that the Hitchens books fall into the latter category. A year or so ago I listened to Hitch-22 in audio format, and it was the same way. I can't imagine reading Hitch to be as powerful as hearing him utter his own words.

[_Sethbag]

Note that Hitchens isn't saying that all religion poisons everything all the time. He's providing what he views as a general overview of the kinds of poisoning that religion (generally, as taken from examples of various religions at various times) has done to the peoples affected, and what this has meant for our world.

I can agree with him, while also seeing that Thomas S. Monson bringing cookies to a widow was a kindly act, and that he didn't thereby poison anything, assuming the cookies were baked in a hygienic environment. :-)

[_Blixa]

Thirded. It is a very good book.

I perceive you guys as the 3 amigos and when I read E.A.,'s comment yesterday I thought, well all we need now to complete this is a 3rd'ing by Blixa. And sure enough you didn't disappoint. :)

Well, thanks for the smiley, marg.

But truthfully, EA, Stak and I make a pretty odd trio. Both EA and Stak are far better read than myself in many areas. And our areas of disagreement are at least as plentiful as our agreements; that might not be obviously apparent because of the central topic of this board. But Stak once started a thread with these sharp differences in mind, hoping to draw both EA and I out with counter arguments. Unfortunately that thread--on pornography--collapsed under the weight of mostly male juvenilia and convinced me to never attempt discussion of that topic here again.

I admit, though, that I do like both of them because I always learn from their posts: they both take the time--much more than myself---to present conceptually rich responses. But they're not the only posters who do this, nor the only posters I learn from. I like reading people who genuinely seem to embrace thinking and I think there is a significant, as far as message boards go, amount of those here.

Hitchen's Mother Teresa book was good. I didn't find his later work as compelling, mostly because of his embrace of a politics I find abhorrent. Seth's OP reminded me of the old Vanity Fair columns I once enjoyed so I decided to pitch in with my two cents.

[_marg]

Gee thanks Blixa for informing me of how much you admire EA and Stak and why you enjoy reading this board. That was so fascinating. It appears to be a common theme in many of the posts I've read by you to inform why you like reading this board.

I too enjoy posters who embrace thinking especially when I get to see their critical thinking applied to an issue..and there is a back and forth discussion carried on respectfully with intellectual honesty among the participants.

by the way with regards to critical thinking, when Stak said "In my opinion, "The Missionary Position" is Hitchen's finest work." and not a comment about the Hitchen's book this thread was about ..I assumed he'd read "God is not Great" and in critically evaluating them ..for whatever reason thought The Missionary Position to be a better book. I would have preferred instead of a one liner a bit of explanation but hey..it's only a message board. And when EA seconded that I assumed the same with EA that he'd read "God is not Great" and again thought The Missionary position" is better book. And then you agree with both those two. But later you mentioned you haven't read God is Not Great and you don't intend to...though you might possibly listen to the audio.

You gave me wrong impression Blixa. If you haven't read "God is Not Great" you aren't in a position to agree with the statement that the "The Missionary Position" is Hitchen's finest work.

by the way I've purchased the audio and have been enjoying it. And I was very pleased because it's the first time I've downloaded a book from audible.com. It turns out my husband who shares an interest in skepticism can download this book on his devices, which he has done.

[_Panopticon]

Hitchens wrote a book about Mother Theresa and her missionaries of charity. He called the book The Missionary Position. Disgusting. He was a mean spirited individual and a disrespectful person toward religion.

Criticism is often mistaken for being mean spirited. I, for one, think that Hitchens had some valid points against Mother Theresa. Yes - she officially taught compassion, but she also had a twisted, Catholic view of suffering, almost bordering on a fetish.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hitchen's point that the Western church was more bad than good is probably correct (though I also agree with Hart that the Dark Ages were not as dark as most people think); Hart's point that the Eastern church is completely left out of this assessment is also correct. The history of Christianity is far more complex than Hitchens lets on. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Having recently done some study of Christian interactions with Jews, Muslims, and heretics in the middle ages, it's my considered opinion that the dark ages were pretty effing dark, at least in much of Europe. (Not that there's any truth to the Protestant conceit that the darkness ended with the Reformation.)

It's true that the East wasn't quite as dark as the West, but I'd argue that religious dogmatism played a large role in Byzantium's decline and eventual collapse. See Philip Jenkins's recent book The Jesus Wars for a case in point. If Hart's argument is that religion didn't poison the East, then he must be talking about a different East than the one Jenkins described.