Will post comments, thoughts as they come to me, definitely not a full critique, bound to miss some things.
I like Hitchens a lot. It's hard for me not to like him (perhaps that it's from a distance helps). There's something charming about his placid arrogance. I always look forward to his regular slot (first thing Wednesdays) on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Really the only common ground between us is our unwavering support for the global war on terrorists (I can't quite bring myself to attack "isms" the way he can).
About the book, there's not much yet to say. I've really just made it through the first chapter, which is full of grandiose broad brush strokes and sweeping accusations--his attempts to justify with specifics in later chapters should prove engaging. Hitchens writes "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."
Excuse me? I... er, sorry. I was about to mount a counterargument there, but I forgot, Hitchens' objections are "irreducible." Forgive me.
He's served himself a pretty tall order with that paragraph. But on I will read.
Counterbloviations to follow as formed...
No comments:
Post a Comment