Hitchens Rationality of Atheism - Essay Example

Part Hitchen's Rationality of Atheism Section Hitchen's Points for Atheism In God is not Great, Hitchen's points out that the religions of the world could not explain many of the modern scientific theories and inventions. Some of the major theoreticians including Stephen Hawkins, Evolution of Time, highlight the way the evolution of the universe has taken shape. And that puts the story of creation in the dark. Same holds true about the discovery of human genome mapping and the way the gene has evolved itself from the animals. This brings the human race closer to the animals and also brings all the human beings on to the same platform. And this puts the entire question of creation as proscribed by the religions a tall claim. Religion has been a major promoter of violence through out the world. Every one of the religions has fought their own 'crusades' for their own sacred places. How, he argues, is that there is difference between on location and the other on the surface of the earth He cites numerous examples where this has happened all over the world in the name of religions, be it Catholics, Hindus, Muslims or Jews. Similarly, the mad faiths people have on the religions have led them to take to unwanted assumptions and blind faiths. He quotes Heinrich Heine, 'In dark ages people are guided by religion, as in a pitch black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and the paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men for guides'. Most of the religions, according to him, promise punishments for sexual expletives any person might involve in. If sex is abhorred why was it that God had to have it at all God who was the all powerful creator, could have easily redesigned the entire evolution if he did not want human race to indulge in something like that. According to him, the 'creators' of religions, man, have done it to their advantage and to subjugate half of the human population to their control. And most of the monotheistic religions, preach that human beings are sinners and that they need to supplicate to God every day as under a monarch. Faiths in religion, religious dogmas and in astrology are all badly placed. Aristotle pointed out that twins do not have the same future whereas as per astrology they should be having almost similar future. All these arguments are presented by the author in support of atheism. Section 2: Critique of Hitchen's God is not Great. Your perception and evaluation of Hitchen's argument seems to be on the wrong premise. Hitchen declares himself as anti-theist and not atheist to start with. Though the title talks of God, in his book he is not presenting himself as a person anti to God. Therefore, we need not look for evidence in the book for arguments anti to God. As an anti-theism person, he is opposing the practices of theism as we know it. Theism and the dogmas of theism are laid down millenniums back and to say that they fit into the current situation does not belong to the scientific thinking. I think the litmus test has been wrongly applied and the perception of the author has not been taken into consideration. Applying the rule 1, denial of what is known is irrational, we could easily see and the author establishes starting from a number of scientific principles how the religious dogmas have criticized and crucified people who stood up with new ideas. Whether it is that earth goes round the sun or that witch craft does not exist, the principles of the religious theism did not allow reconsideration of their thoughts. It denied the known facts of the case. There are number of cases where Hitchen substantiates, theism has denied known scientific facts. Theism fails in the first test itself. Theism fails in the second test too. Whether it is the crusades or the creation of Israel at the end of the Second World War, theism has only created death and destruction in the name of religion. The belief in what is preached by theism has not led the people to rational living is what is the argument of Hitchen. The author does not argue and say there is no God. He only says that the God as espoused by theistic religions is not great! God is not Great and not God does not Exist! However, usage of the rules have been right though the data taken for the analysis of the rules have been those in favor of the result needed rather than something that has been presented with more emphasis. In the case of Gandhi and King, they are modifiers of theistic principles laid down in their theistic religions to suit the needs of the society which is exactly what the author of the book under review calls for. There are hundreds of letters to King by his theistic establishment admonishing his stand and Gandhi was killed by his own theist believers because he went against their practices and faith. Therefore, all the premises are not held true. Part 2: Layman's Case for Religious Experience as Evidence of God's Existence Section 1: Letters to Doubting Thomas. In these letters Layman takes the pen of Zachary a Philosopher who explains the existence of God in layman's terms to his friend and answer seeker, Thomas. While these letters try to identify and explain the Christian faith and the belief systems, they also incorporate the modern philosophical thinking into it. The letters start with a readable comparison of Naturalism or atheism and bring up the existence of God as a supporting requirement for the purpose of a solution to many questions raised by atheists. One of the very first arguments placed by Layman is in bringing out 'a contingent truth'. He argues that if there is a being that is said to be contingent if and only if every proposition affirming its existence is a contingent truth (p 85). Since humans are contingent truths, he argues successfully, that God is also a contingent being. The only difference between the God and the human is that, while human is finite, God is infinite. For the unlimited universe to exist there should be at least one contingent truth that is not finite. And therefore, God is infinite. His argument on philosophical truth structure is convincing. He also goes on to prove that God is perfect not only infinite and also omnipotent. He proposes a 'theistic hypothesis' for God: 'There is exactly one entity that is perfectly, morally good and almighty and that exists of necessity'. (p 12). This the author, gradually proves through out the book, at various stages. He confirms that God exists of necessity since without God the entire Universe and all its creations will cease to exist. Layman also emphasizes that God does not owe its existence to any one and there fore is self existing. This makes God a being that creates itself and to remain infinite. The author makes use of the Aquina's analysis of finite beings. In this analysis, Aquina's says that there are two components of every finite being. And that is, to say, there is an essence and there is an existence for every finite object. Whereas essence is the one that is inside the being that makes it what it is, existence is the actual existence of the being. By arguing in line with the philosophies of the modern times, the author has produced a veritable argument in support of the existence of God. He reinforces his thoughts with the existing concepts and quotes from the Bible. Section 2: In defense of Layman's argument The analysis is in defense of the Layman's argument and appears more a presentation of your personal view rather than the right application of the Golden Rule. While the parallel of extra terrestrials makes use of a person who does not have any knowledge on the technology as well as on scientific principles, the same does not hold ground in the religious example provided. Whether it is Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha, the person who gave the principles is not some one ignorant. Jesus was a much respected person. Mohammed was also equally so. There cannot be any doubts on the Moses. Mohammed was a judge and had his revelations in between. In the case of Jesus too, he was held under high esteem by the people who were with him and who believed him. Therefore, the argument in this current case does not provide a parallel that exactly matches with the requirement. Secondly, many of the scientific principles do not go well with the religious proposals of the yesterdays. By definition, God is the omnipotent personality and controls every action that happens across the Universe. Then by definition, a person cannot experience Him if He does not want them to. Existence of God is experienced by people at the right opportunity and time decided by God. People who believe in God have experienced Him and therefore, they believe in Him. For those, who have not experienced Him, it means that God has not yet decided to give them the experience to realize Him. Read More