update on christopher hitchens, tony blair debate
I wasn't sure whether to just update my original post on the Christopher Hitchens, Tony Blair debate on religion this weekend or make a separate post so I've done both.
First up Deano who's a frequent and articulate poster to the Bad Science forums where I picked up on this story commented on my post after I did a quick blogpimp on the thread - the forums are linked halfway down the right, the thread in question is in the Meaningless Banter forum and is called 'Christopher Hitchens vs Blair on religion'. Have a read, there are some really interesting contributions that make my efforts look a bit poor.
Anyway Deano's comment was,
These are very good points which I felt should be reflected in the original post.
It also occurred to me that I significantly simplified and crudened the positions of both Hitchens and Blair. More so in the case of Hitchens who appeared to have more arguments at his disposal than Blair.
To mention just a few Hitchens spoke about the circumcision [genital mutilation] of children, the repression of women, the use of religious texts to justify territorial claims, and the support of churches for terrible crimes as in Rwanda.
I'd also like to mention Clifford Longley's conribution to the debate on Radio 4's Thought for the Day this morning who in his discussion of the debate made the unpleasant suggestion that the role of religion is not to make people better but to save souls. His words, 'Christianity doesn't exist to make the world a better place. It exists to make men and women righteous in the sight of God, in other words to get souls into heaven.' See here for the full transcript if you have the stomach for it.
If this really is the view of the majority of the believers of the majority of religions then it's no wonder they feel that non-believers and other religions pose an existential threat.
It strikes me as a position which removes morality from religion altogether and only bolsters Hitchens' argument that religion justifies the most monstrous actions.
If this is not clear enough Longley cited Cardinal Newman in his support with the famous and revolting statement that it would be better:
The quote was also used by Hitchens in his opening to show the twisted mentality of religious thought.
I don't know about you but I find Newman's words pretty disgusting. Longley uses the quote to justify his claim that Newman would have voted against the motion that religion is a force for good in the world. I can see the logic of this but the morality of it eludes me. But then I guess that was Longley's point.
First up Deano who's a frequent and articulate poster to the Bad Science forums where I picked up on this story commented on my post after I did a quick blogpimp on the thread - the forums are linked halfway down the right, the thread in question is in the Meaningless Banter forum and is called 'Christopher Hitchens vs Blair on religion'. Have a read, there are some really interesting contributions that make my efforts look a bit poor.
Anyway Deano's comment was,
You say there are other reasons than religion why people go to war. This is no
doubt true, but doesn't undermine Hitchen's point that religion provides another
and unnecessary reason. The promise of eternal life, and demonisation of your
enemies makes 'holy war' especially toxic.
On the charity point -
Blair claimed the campaign for debt relief for Africa was something churches
should be given credit for. That conveniently ignores the fact that the campaign
was secular in nature, and was supported and led by people of no faith, as well
as the religious. The fact that the capitalists that happily lent money to
African dictators in the first place no doubt included observant Christians and
Jews is also conveniently overlooked.
These are very good points which I felt should be reflected in the original post.
It also occurred to me that I significantly simplified and crudened the positions of both Hitchens and Blair. More so in the case of Hitchens who appeared to have more arguments at his disposal than Blair.
To mention just a few Hitchens spoke about the circumcision [genital mutilation] of children, the repression of women, the use of religious texts to justify territorial claims, and the support of churches for terrible crimes as in Rwanda.
I'd also like to mention Clifford Longley's conribution to the debate on Radio 4's Thought for the Day this morning who in his discussion of the debate made the unpleasant suggestion that the role of religion is not to make people better but to save souls. His words, 'Christianity doesn't exist to make the world a better place. It exists to make men and women righteous in the sight of God, in other words to get souls into heaven.' See here for the full transcript if you have the stomach for it.
If this really is the view of the majority of the believers of the majority of religions then it's no wonder they feel that non-believers and other religions pose an existential threat.
It strikes me as a position which removes morality from religion altogether and only bolsters Hitchens' argument that religion justifies the most monstrous actions.
If this is not clear enough Longley cited Cardinal Newman in his support with the famous and revolting statement that it would be better:
for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of
starvation in extreme agony, than that one soul should tell one wilful untruth,
or steal one poor farthing without excuse.
The quote was also used by Hitchens in his opening to show the twisted mentality of religious thought.
I don't know about you but I find Newman's words pretty disgusting. Longley uses the quote to justify his claim that Newman would have voted against the motion that religion is a force for good in the world. I can see the logic of this but the morality of it eludes me. But then I guess that was Longley's point.
Comments