I just finished reading a book by an atheist. He is one of those fellows who competes to be the atheist that Christians most love to hate. His name is Christopher Hitchens. The title of the book was, of course, chosen to be provocative as possible, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
As is my habit, I listened to the audio book. One reviewer had this to say about that.
For maximum snark effect – and this author is a master of the form – listen to Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything in audiobook form. In his British accent, the word “however” is as precisely withering as the flame of a welding torch. (from here)
As the title suggest, the basic thesis of the book is that religion is evil, and if one only gives the matter a superficial consideration, Hitchens is right. Because man is imperfect, everything he touches becomes imperfect and corrupted. Because we are of flesh and blood, there is nothing that we do or believe that is without error or the taint of death. Hence when Hitchens sets out to judge religion, in his search for flaws and imperfections, he must almost inevitably be successful. This is particularly true because Hitchens carelessly lumps all religions together and provides a lopsided view. So it is that in his review, Atheists with Attitude, Anthony Gottlieb observes:
When Hitchens weighs the pros and cons of religion in the recent past, the evidence he provides is sometimes lopsided. He discusses the role of the Dutch Reformed Church in maintaining apartheid in South Africa, but does not mention the role of the Anglican Church in ending it. He attacks some in the Catholic Church, especially Pope Pius XII, for their appeasement of Nazism, but says little about the opposition to Nazism that came from religious communities and institutions. In “Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century,” Jonathan Glover, who is the director of the Center of Medical Law and Ethics at Kings College London, documents such opposition, and writes, “It is striking how many protests against and acts of resistance to atrocity have . . . come from principled religious commitment.” The loss of such commitment, Glover suggests, should be of concern even to nonbelievers. Still, Hitchens succeeds in compiling a list of evils that the faithful, too, should find sobering. Now that so much charitable work is carried out by secular bodies, religious ones have to work harder to keep the moral high ground. For the Catholic Church in particular—with its opposition to contraception, including the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, and the covering up of child abuse by priests—the ledger is not looking good.
Where Hitchens is probably most effective in his self appointed mission to destroy religion is his criticism of the scriptural authority of the Bible and other religious texts. In his review for the Sydney Morning Herald, Matt Buchanan describes Hitchens attack this way.
Hitchens spends about five or so of his 19 chapters dismantling monotheism’s holy books. A quick sampling of the chapter titles gives an idea of his tone: Revelation: the Nightmare of the Old Testament; The “New” Testament exceeds the evil of the “Old” one; The Koran is Borrowed from Christian and Jewish myths; The Tawdriness of the Miraculous and the Decline of Hell.
His method is that of forensic sampling, tweezering out the inconsistencies in narrative, impossibilities of point of view and incriminating omissions (for example, the absence of divine injunctions against slavery or rape in the sacred texts), all the better to ridicule them as transparently the guesswork and wish-thinking of frightened, ignorant peoples. There is much bald assertion – “It goes without saying that none of the gruesome, disordered events described in Exodus ever took place” – but there is good logic, too: would the plagues, he asks, have been attributed to a vengeful God if the germ theory of disease were known at the time?
Next in his sights are “the contradictions and illiteracies” of the New Testament, a “tampered” text engineered to meet the prophecies of the Old Testament. (from here)
When Hitchens criticizes the Bible, he either forgets or ignores the following.
- While many proclaim the Word of God is inspired, no one knows exactly how God inspired the creation of Bible. What we do know is that no other book so old has been so carefully researched, interpreted, translated, and maintained. What we also know is that people have this penchant for putting their own interpretation on things, including the Bible. Sometimes we get so focused on rules we forget the reason for them.
Mark 7:1-8 (Today’s New International Version)
That Which Defiles
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
” ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
- Without glossing over their imperfections, the Bible tells stories about real people. That includes people who did evil acts, and people who did good acts — sometimes the same people. When Hitchens calls King David an “unscrupulous bandit,” he is not telling Christians something they did not already know. But God loved David because David honestly repented of his crimes, including murder and adultery.
- The Bible provides the story of redemption and of the formation and growth of a new faith. What Abraham believed about God and what we believe today as Christians are distinctly different. Even though we might regard Abraham in retrospect as a saintly soul, we would not think his behavior today acceptable. Many of the social conventions unthinkingly accepted by Abraham we would regard as barbaric.
Consider Hitchens treatment of Genesis 22:1-19, when God tested Abraham by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac (see page 206 in Chapter 15). Abraham proceeds about the matter as ordered. Then at the final moment, an angel stays Abraham’s hand, and God provides a ram in place of the boy for the sacrifice. Hitchens finds the whole tale bloody, morbid, and inscrutable. Yet consider the meaning from the point of view of Abraham and his immediate descendants. They lived in a time and place where people sacrificed their children to idols. What the unseen God of Abraham had just made wholly clear is that He did not want the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. He wanted Abraham’s obediance. What kind of obediance? God wanted Abraham’s love, respect, and moral behavior.
Is my interpretation of Genesis 22:1-19 perfect? The best any can do is not perfect. Can Hitchens do better? Can he provide a suitable alternative to religion? He would have us believe that the march of history is with agnostics, atheists, and humanists. Hitchens would have us hold his own beliefs apart from religion and support them as better. For some undefined reason, we are not to consider his religious beliefs as “Hitchens’ religion.” Yet as a practical matter, Hitchens’ atheism is his religion. For a thinking creature, religion is that which serves to give life purpose and direction. Whereas most rely upon their belief in God, Hitchens relies on his reason and science. Although Hitchens calls himself an atheist, that does not mean Hitchens does not have a god. What Hitchens has done is set himself up as his own god. To give his life purpose and direction, Hitchen would have us believe we each need only look to the self for purpose and direction. The wise have already looked within at the self. That they rate as too weak a vessel to rely upon for such a purpose.
When berating Christianity and other religions, does Hitchens ignore the fact that the behavior of agnostics, atheists, and humanists fail even more miserably to meet his standards? No. Instead, using sophistry Hitchens finds a way to blame the moral failures of agnostics, atheists, and humanists on religion. Hitchens would have us believe that he is appealing to our reason, but his book is designed to convince us to hate religion. To that end he cites example after example of wars and fanaticisms supposedly caused by religion. To treat religion this way, as one entity, makes no sense. That is particularly true when one one lumps in even those crimes committed by atheists and doubters.
One last note. When reading Hitchens’ book, consider this irony. Given our nature, even Hitchens must operate within the context of the society that gave him birth and nurtured his growth. When Hitchens condemns religion, he must do so using our shared values, those values we gain from our shared Christian heritage. So when Hitchens calls condemnation on the behavior Christian believers, he unconsciously does so because these Christians fail to adhere to Biblical teachings. As Christians we are judged by the teachings of our faith. With our own example, we provide proof our faith is real or phony.
Not all atheists are extremists.
This guy, however, sounds like an extremely annoying extremist.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I don’t have much patience for extremism.
Extremist? According to Wikipedia’s references, Hitchens styles himself as a radical. So I doubt being called an extremist would bother him much. From his perspective we are too much guided by religious superstition instead of reason. So even though relative to most people Hitchens is extremist, he feels justified because he is guided by reason.
Hmmmmm…..
That’s interesting.
There is a fine line between being a radical and extremist in my eyes. I’m not always sure what that line is, but I have a couple of ideas.
Here’s one example. For the first time in my life, I’ve been labeled a radical. I find this rather funny considering most of what I do to earn this label is sit here in bare feet or bunny slippers, write, blog and once in awhile speak at BOCS meetings. I often get P.O.’d but that doesn’t make me (or anyone else for that matter) radical.
I think it’s the people who are out there raising hell in public that are “radical.” For the most part, I don’t believe being radical fixes a problem, but it can make people people think, “Wow. Why do these folks feel they need to be radical? What’s the underlying issue, and how can we deal with them so they don’t feel they HAVE to be radical?”
Does this guy raise unholy hell? What else does he do besides write provocative and annoying books?
“Reason” is also a little subjective. What is “reason” to one is lack of logic to another. I’ve always maintained that on another planet, 1 + 1 would not necessarily equal two. So how do we know what is fact and what is not?
Only the higher power, whatever you believe that might be, knows. We’re probably only going to know after we die because that is the ultimate test of reason, of “being.” Other than that, we can only guess.
In this case, a little humility might tone this guy down. Or maybe some positive interactions will help.
Of course, he may be just out there to sell books and irritate people. That’s something else all together.
In that case, there’s little chance he will consider other ideas, just as there is little chance radicals who want to continue to be radicals, whether their issues are resolved or not, will change their approach. Some people just thrive on being radicals and will hook onto any cause–real or perceived–to exercise their need.
So what is a radical? I’m not always sure, but I think it has something to do with how you act outside of your writing or thinking.
I would say people who try to represent a cause by being violent, threatening etc. are radicals that are dangerous to society. The rest just get people all upset.
That said, we can always take our conversations, Tom, and put them in a book and irritate ALL sides. Should be a best seller
I know little of other worlds. On this one, in this time, and in this place we call America, I am satisfied 1 + 1 = 2. Why? Have you ever tried to pay your taxes using a different form of math?
It is not my place to judge Hitchens. Is Hitchens too proud and arrogant? The Lord knows, and I am content for Him to worry about it.
To be extreme or radical is not necessarily wrong. Even the most humble can be quite radical. Christ never dressed in pride or gathered wealth to Himself. He gave of himself all He had, but He did make radical demands. He insisted that Peter let Him wash his feet, and that we follow His example. Christ would have us take His yoke upon ourselves. And in time what was once considered radical and extreme became the center of what we now debate.
Hitchens would have us disown Christianity and every other religious belief. Hitchens would make reason our god. Hitchens believes in setting Christianity aside and adhering only to reason as our guiding light. That he deems would be progress, but reason alone would make us frightfully primitive.
What does it mean to believe in reason? The universe is infinitely large and complex, but what we can reason is limited to the finite mind of man. So it is that our Hope rest not in ourselves, but in our Creator and in our Faith in His Charity.
LOL! Tom….
I hope I didn’t come off as trying to judge Hitchens. I’m just forever analyzing, and that can be annoying in itself. I’m constantly trying to figure out what motivates people because most of the time, I have absolutely no idea. I can only go by what I see, and often what I see is indeed terribly annoying.
You are right that Jesus was radical. I guess some people would even think he was a dangerous radical because he upset the social and religious fig cart. It’s amazing when you think about it that all he had to do was talk. He wasn’t violent, though, so that’s okay in my book. And it was clear why he was being radical, which is also good.
Hitchens can disown anything he wants, of course, so long as he isn’t telling anyone else what to do. You know how I feel about people forcing their beliefs on me.
I think people are rather perverse that way. The more they feel they are being forced, the more stubborn and/or angry they become. Would you say that is accurate?
@kgotthardt: “I think people are rather perverse that way. The more they feel they are being forced, the more stubborn and/or angry they become. Would you say that is accurate?”
Personally, I’m tempted to think that’s at least part of the reason why books like God is Not Great and The God Delusion are bestsellers. What it looks like to me is that one side has been pushing for decades, and people got tired of it. As a result, they started pushing back more publicly and more aggressively. I won’t say that’s right or wrong, merely an observation. Thoughts?
Relative to the overall size of the population, the number of books it takes to make a best seller is relatively small. In fact, even though most have a copy of the Bible handy, few actually read it. The same is much more true of Hitchens’ book. So what is significant about actors like Hitchens?
1. People hear the talk and parts of the argument. Hitchens helps to lend credence to the argument that Christianity is superstition and not worthy of careful examination.
Compared to the Bible, Hitchens book is easier to read. While our secular public school system does not sell atheism, it does encourage the notion that religion is superstition and unimportant in the modern era. Unless parents take the trouble, their children will never read the most important document in our history. Instead, they are more likely to read or hear about a book like Hitchens’ and simply think the Bible is not worth the bother.
2. The Bible sets a difficult standard of moral behavior. Whether you believe in Christianity or not, the Bible provides time tested wisdom that is worth understanding. When people cannot meet a difficult standard, they have the choice of either examining and correcting their own faults or rejecting the standard itself. Hitchens provides an easy excuse for doing the latter.
Ineely, though I’m tired and probably don’t have anything meaningful to add to this conversation at the moment, I will say I think what you are describing is the pendulum effect.
The more people push on either end, the harder and further the pendulum swings to the other.
Rinse and repeat.
It’s like that with everything–politics, religion, educational trends, etc.
This is the stuff true radicalism is born of. We wouldn’t need to be radical or extreme if we could all meet in the middle somewhere and maintain some balance. We don’t have to stagnate in the middle and stop the pendulum completely, but we do need to just chill.
But as I said before….human beings are rather perverse. So the pendulum continues to swing harder and harder.
I would love to continue this conversation tomorrow when hopefully, I will have part of my brain back.
Regarding this quote–
“Here’s one example. For the first time in my life, I’ve been labeled a radical. I find this rather funny considering most of what I do to earn this label is sit here in bare feet or bunny slippers, write, blog and once in awhile speak at BOCS meetings. I often get P.O.’d but that doesn’t make me (or anyone else for that matter) radical.”
Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com–
Radical: favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
Extremist: a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters; a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
Moderate: a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, esp. in politics or religion.
Uh-hmmm…(clearing throat)…
See my thoughts on Sen. C. and immigration.
Rather moderate, wouldn’t you say?
OFL, I’m not sure I agree with you that public schools encourage atheism. From the time children are small, they are taught about Puritans, freedom of religion, the importance of churches in early settlements, traditional songs and “one nation under God.”
Additionally, many schools offer comparative religion classes at least at the high school level. I wish our county did. Or do they? I don’t think they do.
I’ll go further to say that even suggesting that public schools “encourage atheism” is outright silly. If anything, they tend to encourage even the most extremist sects of Christianity while censoring and suppressing everything else they don’t like: other religious groups, skeptic/atheist student groups, and so forth.
If only because of the religiosity of our society, all public schools should offer some kind of comparative religions course. While my high school didn’t offer a nominal “comparative religions” class, it did offer a world cultures class, but it functioned the same way. In it, we learned quite a lot about other world religions, including Islam (which was especially important considering the fact that this was late 2001 and the early half of 2002).
Then again, perhaps that would be encouraging atheism. It did kind of set me on a running start.
Oh. Looks like OFL didn’t say that at all. Nevermind, then. Sorry, OFL! My bad…
kgotthardt – You are not sure you agree about atheism being taught in the public schools? Well, I did not say it was. What I said is that the public school system encourages the notion that religion is superstition and unimportant in the modern era.
At best, the public school system peddles multiculturalism, the belief that all religions are equally valid and worthy of our respect. Given that Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, multiculturalism undermines respect for the Bible. How can all religions be equally valid? Since each religion is distinctly different — teaching different beliefs — the public school system undermines giving the matter of religion any serious consideration.
OFL, you said: “At best, the public school system peddles multiculturalism, the belief that all religions are equally valid and worthy of our respect. Given that Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God, multiculturalism undermines respect for the Bible. How can all religions be equally valid?”
I don’t know why you think schools teach that religion is superstition given what I mention above. If it were superstition, why spend so much time on it? World history requires studies of culture, and part of culture is religion. We can’t get away from religion when it comes to education. That doesn’t mean we have to preach, however.
I think more of what schools are teaching and should teach is that each person should be respected no matter what his/her beliefs may be, and it’s important to know what those beliefs are. If we have to work and play well together, we can’t play religious-on-upmanship.
Which religion is “right” is a matter of perspective because we all believe we have “the one, true religion.” We can dispute it all day long, but if we do it too much (outside of blogs and such) it becomes forcing it down our throats. Then the pendulum swing begins all over again.
We used to sing this song in church, “They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love.” That should suffice in the workplace, in school and in other public places where separation of church and state must prevail.