If triangles had gods their god would have 3 sides
This is a quote from a rather interesting book 'God is not great' by Christopher Hitchens. It is a fascinating book where the evils of much of history have been placed squarely at the feet of religion. Even the observations that secular tyrants have existed were outlined as at best not objected to and at worst conspired with by various religions.
It is a good read for those interested in the other side of the theological arguments. There were good and bad points to the book. It was refreshing that it did not delve into the existence or non existence of god, just the effects of religion on the world. He nicely states that he has little objection to religion in its own right if only they would allow non believers to have the same rights. He covers at length the history and current position of religion on non believers of which most people are familiar with in Islam but probably not so familiar with similar writings in Christian texts and the old Testament.
The thing that nagged me about the book is fairly straight forward. He counters the argument of people who are religious doing good by saying that those people and no religious people do good and would do so without the need for religion. I.e. Religion and a belief in a god is not a requirement to do good.
But he does not use the same argument when playing the other way. He states clearly that religion and beliefs are the reason for many bad things. But Chris, sorry to say this but bad deeds do not require religion either. I have no doubt that there are bad people who use religion as a 'tool' to do their evils but this does not mean that the religions are bad. At best you could argue that the existence of religion makes the bad man's task in committing evil deed easier (ultimately its a money and power thing) but again we should use the same argument that perhaps the existence of religion makes doing good easier.
You can't have your cake and eat it and to argue in an imbalanced way can lead to the same accusations that are regularly made against religions and their inability to see all the alternative explanations.
It is a good read for those interested in the other side of the theological arguments. There were good and bad points to the book. It was refreshing that it did not delve into the existence or non existence of god, just the effects of religion on the world. He nicely states that he has little objection to religion in its own right if only they would allow non believers to have the same rights. He covers at length the history and current position of religion on non believers of which most people are familiar with in Islam but probably not so familiar with similar writings in Christian texts and the old Testament.
The thing that nagged me about the book is fairly straight forward. He counters the argument of people who are religious doing good by saying that those people and no religious people do good and would do so without the need for religion. I.e. Religion and a belief in a god is not a requirement to do good.
But he does not use the same argument when playing the other way. He states clearly that religion and beliefs are the reason for many bad things. But Chris, sorry to say this but bad deeds do not require religion either. I have no doubt that there are bad people who use religion as a 'tool' to do their evils but this does not mean that the religions are bad. At best you could argue that the existence of religion makes the bad man's task in committing evil deed easier (ultimately its a money and power thing) but again we should use the same argument that perhaps the existence of religion makes doing good easier.
You can't have your cake and eat it and to argue in an imbalanced way can lead to the same accusations that are regularly made against religions and their inability to see all the alternative explanations.
posted by So long and thanks for all the fish at
2:44 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home