Apostrophe S

 I know, I know. I’ve been on this nonreligious studies kick lately. What can I say. A lot of good books have been written about atheism lately.

Hitchens book is no exception. While he’s much more of an ass than either Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Hitchens brings up many of the same points. He, however, does not merely shrug off religion as an unnecessary byproduct of a social species. No, he finds it to be much more sinister. Hitchens argument is that religion is the true root of all evil. He cites instance after instance of death and violence at the hands of the religious zealot, both in remote history and modern times. He picks on Christianity quite a bit but leaves no faith undisturbed. He even finds examples of violent Buddhist monks. He attacks Mother Teresa and Ghandi as hypocritical and ineffectual.

Hitchens spends about half of the book poking fun at people who see the world as more than chemistry in action. He spends the other half making serious accusations against particular faiths and even particular religious figures.

What I do appreciate about Harris, Dawkins and now Hitchens is that they all emphasize not the importance of rejecting religion and adopting atheism, but of encouraging free thought and not accepting “because it’s always been that way” as an answer. This is the most important lesson I’ve learned from these and other “new atheism” writers. Yes, it’s true that most religious practice and even faith itself doesn’t stand up to the test of critical thinking. But that’s not the point. The point is that everyone should decide what they think for themselves based on the best evidence that they can find or be shown. And even the most fundamental Christian can’t argue with that logic.

Of all the ridiculous things that Hitchens hammers on, the one that stands out the most to me is the attack on faith. Faith by its very definition is believing in something despite lack of or even contradictory evidence. What purpose does this serve? If you think something is true, and yet there is overwhelming evidence that it is actually false, what virtue is there in continuing to think it is true? And the obvious follow up to that question is why try to convince others to think it is true as well?

Agh. Anyway, it was a good book. Great for starting conversations, that’s for sure.

This book is part of the Open Books project I’m working on.