The true polemicist is most at home – and I dare argue successful - when taking on the nearly insurmountable presuppositions of society, and in the instant case of Christopher Hitchens and his new work
god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, we find an exemplar. His career work has often focused on taking to task some of the most entrenched beliefs, assumptions and powerful actors in contemporary society. He has been banished from the Left apropos Iraq, and seems to be all the more contented for it. From Kissinger to the Queen, he has established himself as a contrarian who fears no person or issue.
With god is not Great, Hitchens argues that religion is not dead, but dying more every day as science overtakes its place in the world.
“Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation to anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard – or try to turn back – the measurable advances that we have made. Sometimes, true, it will artfully concede them. But this is to offer itself the choice between irrelevance and obstruction, impotence or outright reaction, and, given this choice, it is programmed to select the worse of the two.” (pg. 282).
This anti-religion / anti-theist viewpoint has been a part of Hitchens work for years. This being the case in many ways god is not Great, is a logical extension from the earlier
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice in which Hitchens argues passionately, if loosely, against Mother Teresa being a saintly figure.
With god is not Great, however, Hitchens focuses on underlying tenets of his unbelief and lays out in poignant prose a narrative that forces, at a minimum, a glimmer of free thought in the imagination of the reader.
The Missionary Position was much less thorough and distinctly shorter than god is not Great, which is related both to the subject matter and to the attention to detail offered in the latter. This is not to say that
god is not Great is overly long. Weighing in at 284 pages, its brevity is remarkable, given the complexity of the topic. Hitchens is successful in keeping the work succinct by focusing the narrative, though inherently complex in subject matter, on the four central indictments against religion.
“There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.” (pg. 4).
These four objections to religion are important facets of the overarching argument made by Hitchens, which is that religion is inherently, and oftentimes violently, anti-modernity. No stronger indictment can be levied from a man who holds the Renaissance and its’ resultant confidence in science and reason so highly. The rejection of modernity and science by religion is well illustrated by the myths of creation promulgated by the various faiths. These myths needlessly create a set of complex and patently false explanations for things that are now at least partially explainable in much shorter order by science. Religion’s continued failure to offer a single succinct explanation to the creation and evolution areas of science are prime examples of how religious dogma violates Ockham’s Razor.
“We have come to the realization that we also know something about the future of our system, including the rate of its expansion and the notion of its eventual terminus. However, and crucially, we can now do this while dropping (or even, if you insist, retaining) the idea of god. But in either case, the theory works without that assumption. You can believe in a divine mover if you chose, but it makes no difference at all... Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” (pg. 70).
Hitchens returns time and again to Ockham’s Razor as a method of debunking religious dogma from dinosaurs to human sexuality. I have to concur that my experience in life has yielded a basic belief that unnecessary complexity is often used as a ruse to cover up a weak argument. There are numerous examples to cite for this type of assault on reason by religion, but it brings back a memory I have of a Sunday school class where we were informed that fossils were put on Earth by god to test the faith of his followers. This type of disinformation being implanted in the minds of the young is an attempt to roll us back from modernity to a time when the church controlled the truth. This anti-modern behavior is, however unfortunately, not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. Hitchens points out that nearly all religions make it a point to deny adherents the ability to reason and apply logical discussion to many issues.
“However wicked they may be – (religious statements are) almost always beyond criticism. They consist, like most professions of faith, in merely assuming what has to be proved. Thus, a bald assertion is then followed with the words ‘for this reason,’ as if all the logical work had been done by making the assertion... Scientists have an expression for hypotheses that are utterly useless even for learning from mistakes. They refer to them as ‘not even wrong.’ Most so-called spiritual discourse is of this type.” (pg. 202).
This type of blind faith is the root cause of many people’s disenchantment with religion. The inability to question and to reconcile one’s religion’s dogma with personal experience has created a painful rift in many people’s lives. Dogma dictates what is to be accepted and what is not, leaving little room for free expression or thought. This is not to say that the only groups of people whom stir the pot of oppression are religious, but the direct opposition to the furtherance of human knowledge has been a central tenet of too many religions for too much of the past millennia to ignore.
Hitchen’s advocates for a new Enlightenment, one that is open all of humanity. This new Enlightenment, similar to the one prior, would focus on reason, science and critical thought – with a goal of understanding more. This opportunity to understand who we are, and where we came from has never truly presented itself to so many before. We are the fortunate recipients of years of scientific inquiry by millions of researchers – and though we may not know all – we know and can understand more than we have at any point in history.
“Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry... The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry... the divorce between the sexual life and fear... all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not grasp of everyone.” (pg. 283).
In the end, Hitchens wants humanity to break the chains that are binding its ability to progress as a species. He argues that religion is forcibly trying to roll back the role of science and reason – the key tenets of modernity – in favor of a world defined, once again, by the religious clerics. This return to theocracy is being enabled by a post-modern relativism that fails to stand up against these anti-humanist beliefs and actions. Though I tend to disagree in many areas with the means promoted by Mr. Hitchens in promoting this Enlightenment – I feel little for the paternal methods of enlightenment by war – his views are thought out and impeccably well written. He may be a bit less pragmatic and willing to bend than I, but overall
god is not Great offers an examination of religion that is rooted in historical fact (not a small feet) and through the lens of a true skeptic and contrarian. This should be a clear invitation to all avid believers – For if one is to truly believe, they should be able to read and critique those that criticize their beliefs. Belief should not shield the cerebral cortex from its highest power. Cogito ergo sum.
*
The Economist pointed out in its recent special report on religion the irony in the fact that without the growth in the power of religion – Mr. Hitchens book probably wouldn’t have been publishable.
** A much deserved shout out to
Mel-Anon, whose November 13th post finally got me to edit and post this review -- two weeks later than expected. I am making a firm commitment to get another review up by December 15th.
