Book Review: Hitchens is not great....

While I was perusing editorial pages on Slate, one of my favorite, and regular online reads, I bumped into an article titled "Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion" (read). This happens to be a topic of interest to me for mainly two reasons: one - I know very little about Mormonism (other than knowledge of dubious pedigree gleaned from one particularly mean-spirited although hilarious episode of South Park), and  - two -  my ignorance of the subject would soon be inconvenient, as one of the major presidential candidates is a Mormon. So, becoming better informed seemed like a good plan. The article, as well as other two Slate published (one of Islam and one on negative effects of religion), happened to be excerpts from the book, and since they were interesting, I decided to read the whole thing. 

The book is smart but smug; its calculatedly baiting title is an annoying marketing ploy; it is unapologetically vitriolic in its tone, often to the detriment of its arguments; it is sickeningly wrenching in its pointed descriptions of unabated cruelty inflicted throughout human history in the name of too-numerous gods, all presumably good; it is quite erudite and meticulous in its literary analysis of the scriptures; it is well written but not very easy to read. Whether one agrees with its arguments or not, is another matter, altogether. The book has several weaknesses, and two are particularly apparent.

First, within his conceptual framework, when Hitchens says "religion" he really means denominations that are fundamentalist/absolutist and that actively compete on political arena with secular powers (e.g., Islam and Roman Catholicism). Such religions often see their scriptures as historically and legalistically literal and god-inspired, assume that those who profess other ideologies (regardless of their moral merit) will be eternally condemned, and treat the expansion of their own brands of ideology (and its imposition in the guise of "universal" or "natual" moral law on non-believers) as a goal that fully justifies the means; most often, alas, that means any means necessary. These are also religions that frequently and fervently advocate against even the most promissing scientific advances if they somehow conflict with their world view (e.g., oppose the idea that he Earth is round not flat, persecute the promoters of the heliocentric theory, advocate against use of condoms in fighting the spread of AIDS, lobby to ban stem-cell research and in-vitro fertilization, etc.), and attempt to undermine the progress of human rights and equality movements (e.g., by defending the institution of slavery, denying equal treatment of women, refusing to condemn atrocities commited on  non-believers, advocating against equal treatment under the law for gays, etc.).

But Hitchens all-too-conveniently and somewhat conspicuously leaves religious liberal moderates out of his lengthy discussion. This is a troubling omission, since I would assume that most of Hitchens's readers (i.e., those who actually read the book, not just criticize it based on their visceral reaction to its title) will either be atheists, cautious   sceptics, or followers of moderate, liberal Christian denominations (e.g., many mainstream protestant churches), i.e., people whose religion is less restrictive, less focused on narrowly defined doctrinal and theological issues, and most often simply provides an ideological point of reference and network structure for social work, including promotion of equality and fairness, defense of human rights, and practice of social justice. Such religious denominations would of course not escape Hitchens's criticism on many grounds, and he would still see them as "irrational superstitions," but their consideration would, nonetheless, undermine the central motif in his book, i.e., the title claim that "religion poisons everything." Such religious groups actually do not have noticeably harmful effects and, quite to the contrary, set out to remedy, in whatever measure possible, many injustices so widespread in contemporary society. So what to make of them? Hitchens is cryptically silent on the topic. In this respect I prefer Sam Harris's approach in his elegantly succinct and eloquent "Letter to a Christian Nation" where he explains in some detail (p. 47) that "all religions might function as placebos. As descriptions of the universe, they could be utterly false but, nevertheless, useful." He acknowledges that such understanding of religion is typical of "religious liberals and religious moderates," and although later he explains why he vigorously disapproves of such "liberal" religiousness (and one may agree, or not, with his arguments), at least he doesn't avoid the issue altogether, as Hitchens does.

The second flaw in Hitchens's reasoning is his unwillingness to consider a possibility that religion is a scientifically explainable, and biologically necessary, evolutionary adaptation of the human brain (Harris mentions that possibility in passing, but quickly discards it, claiming that this adaptation, once possibly useful, is no longer needed, although he doesn't say why). Sure, such understanding of religion would still mean that it is a product of human psyche, but religion, as a theoretical framework for organizing one's concept of the universe would be seen as nature-made (or evolution-made), and not at all as man-made, as Hitchens so often likes to point out. So as not to weaken his own arguments, Hitchens chooses not to acknowledge the interesting, recent lessons learned from neurotheology, well summarized for popular audiences in such best-selling books such as "Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief" by Newberg and D'Aquili. This is a strategic mistake: I think Hitchens's argumennts would not suffer for the inclusion of such possibility, but without it, the integrity of his intellectual enterprise is undermined.

Overall, I am certainly glad I read Hitchens's treatise, although admittedly its vitriolic uncompromising tone would make it a less-than-pleasant read for any deeply religious person. The book could be much improved with a more toned-down, less strident tone. Still, the book has provided me with lots of "food for thought" on a topic that never ceases to fascinate me.

Comments

[Chris]

Jerzy/George, the author of this blog, should be doing some professional book criticism. This is a more cerebral and analytical a review than most of those contained in the Sunday newspapers. Very informative. I'm going to have a closer look at this book.

[anon]

The fact that we have the technological capabilities to perform certain procedures, doesn't mean that we should, or the fact that certain religions oppose them, mean that a believer should leave the faith. Atheist authors such as Christopher Hitchens will form a caricature of believers as people who are lost in the dark ages because they are the ones who usually oppose "progress." But how can you say that stem-cell research and in-vitro fertilization are forms of progress? You would most likely argue that they offer benefits to society, but these procedures devalue and dehumanize a person - how can you then defend human rights? I guess certain researchers and scientists will always fail to recognize the importance of ethics in medical science. Please check out the following article on the opposing viewpoint on people of faith "imposing" their views in matters of science: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_3.asp

Atheists will blame religion for many, if not most of the problems of the world. Ad nauseum. If you want to play the blame game, you cannot deny the atrocities performed by atheistic societies. The famous rebuttal that these actions were not performed in the name of there not existing a God does not work if you have any knowledge of the conditions in the USSR. The USSR was based on a systematic negation of God. People of faith - primarily those with strong religious affiliation such as nuns and priests - were persecuted; nuns were thrown into jail cells with prostitutes and priests were sent to forced labor camps. Soviet propaganda (such as tv ads) would present believers in God as murderers. In actuality it was the atheistic gov't that ordered the death of millions of people, and would often deny it or blame the Nazis (ex: Polish officers murdered in Katyn).
But atheists will, of course, perform the act of revisionist history and always attribute horrible actions to the religion of a person, and of course oppose believers doing the same to atheist through nonsensical arguments.
I, however, would prefer to dismiss forming implications on the motivations of people. It is not the religion that is at fault, but the abuse of it, as done by certain politicians and people. Atheists will point to one of GWB's "justifications" of the Iraq War - that God told him to do it, and forget all of the other "reasons" (as they have broken down in the past years, GWB has, much to the dismay of the faithful, returned to religious rhetoric to build support for the war). I'm sure that then Polish president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, an atheist, was motivated to send Polish troops to Iraq solely on the grounds that Bush had claimed that God told him to invade Iraq. (sarcasm)

With an organized ideology, there will be flaws and opponents. If God really is as the religious traditions portray him, then He exceeds religious interpretation and fundamentalism (on both ends - theist and atheist) should not be advocated. Religion offers a way, albeit imperfect, to find God. As a Catholic, I am able to find God through prayer and following Christ's example, who offered a testimony of God's love. He never left anything written himself, but he entrusted that those who knew him would spread his message of compassion.

If you have any questions, please email me at splendoroftruth@gmail.com

[anon]

a discussion of ethics and religion in Spanish:http://www.yoinfluyo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8262&Itemid=41