Reflection: "god is NOT great" by Christopher Hitchens
I’m a member of two book groups at the moment, both at my local independent bookstore, Little Shop of Stories. One of the groups, Guys Who Read just read, god is NOT great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. I jumped at the opportunity to read and discuss the book in a non-churchy environment, and though the turnout tonight wasn’t all that great, we had a more than worthwhile discussion.
Hitchens’ book–unlike many of us expected–was not about proofs about God or really about much theology at all. The book read like more of a polemic, not against God, but against religion.
Hitchens pulls out every negative example about anything religious he can think of (true or false), and posits that since some of these things having to do with religion are quite negative, then God must not exist and religion must be ultimately a power for evil.
Hitchens’ approach is not that of a careful philosopher able to describe her opponent’s position and anticipate refutations. Rather Hitchens arrogantly dismisses all religion and those who espouse them without a whiff of respect, intellectual humility, or willingness to consider different viewpoints.
Now I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy the book, nor that I never agreed with Hitchens. In fact, I found myself nodding in agreement more than I anticipated. You see Hitchens kept making points that he figured would make me think God didn’t exist, or that religion was stupid, but really they just confirmed my previous thinking that God is mysterious and calls us to think deeply; that indeed, religion can quickly become too much about people and too little about God.
For example, Hitchens decries some Christians groups’ opposition to the HPV vaccine that prevents cervical cancer. He seems to suggest that since some groups of Christians oppose the vaccine (because they think it encourages pre-marrital sex), that all religions are inept and deluded. News flash: I’m a Christian, and I support the vaccine…oh, and I’m not alone. And so he goes, on and on about evolution–which I think I worked out one morning in 3rd grade sunday school–and about slavery, and the crusades, and, well, you get the picture.
He sets up false logic that just doesn’t follow for most mainliners, “Either the Gospels are in some sense literal truth, or the whole thing is essentially a fraud and perhaps an immoral one at that.” p. 120
I don’t know what he might mean by “literal truth,” but to anyone who has read the Bible, the implication that the four gospels describe the story of Jesus in different ways isn’t exactly a faith challenging claim. I doubt it leads many to think of Christianity as a fraud. But Hitchens then goes further–though without any explanation–writing ever so briefly that in fact Jesus the human never existed at all.
All this said, I actually enjoyed reading the book (well, at least the first 200 pages). Sometimes I feel a bit sheltered in my Christian seminary life, and I really appreciated considering another perspective. And heck, at least his arrogance was entertaining from time to time.
Book group was pretty solid too, discussing my personal faith with a former Jew and now atheist who wants to believe but can’t. The frank, probing, respective conversation reminded me of my two favorite pastoral visits last year.
On both occasions I arrived to a warm welcome, and minutes later the (former) church member was describing how he now espoused a staunch atheism. The ensuing conversations were the most honest, forthright, and deep of any one-time visit in which I’d ever been privileged to take part.
So I don’t really not recommend the book, but I don’t exactly recommend it either. For thinking Christians, it’s not a book to be scared of, but really nothing much to get worked up about either. That said, if you have the opportunity to discuss it with a diverse group, I’d recommend the read for what the discussion might bring.
Connect Online
I love this post! have a nice day! thanks a lot!
Hello… nice blog you got here… I have a new developed software for you… and I have provided a demo… visit my blog now!
Hey man,
Before I get started, could you delete the posts from A Piece of idea and PlokmasterBloggingTools? Those posts were left here by a spam-bot. It’s a new technology where people set up a blog, then use a web-crawler to post in a couple of thousand other blog posts. Each post contains a link back to the original blog.
All those thousands of links pointing back to the original blog ups it’s relative value with the Google search algorithm, and Google winds up thinking that blog is pretty important. Then that blog only has to send a few links to the real focus – maybe a car sales marketing website – and suddenly that car sales marketing website gets bumped up a couple of hundred notches in the Google Search algorithm.
If you do ever get a vauge response like that on your blog, get rid of it. It’s one of the worst kinds of spam, because they’re trying to break Google – and the internet pretty much runs on good search engines nowadays.
————————————
Right, now that that’s out of the way…
In regards to your take on Hitchens, you’re in essence correct. Hitchens is not a philosopher. He doesn’t even try to set up a philosophical proof against the existence of God. And you’re right to say it read like a polemic. It is a polemic.
I can’t remember if Hitchens explicity mentions this or not, but the argument of the book is that God did not make man – instead, man made God. Hitchen’s litany of all the ways in which religious power has been abused is really just a matter of compiling the charge-sheet to try and back up the case that man invented God as the means of gaining power over other men, and then gaining the ability to abuse that power with impunity.
So I have to object when you give even mild criticism to the book on the grounds that it doesn’t read like a work of a philosophy. That’s a bit like criticising a dog on the grounds that it isn’t a cat.
Sometimes you get great works of philosophy that are to the mind what a sumptuous and extravagant meal is to the gourmet . Each course is perfectly prepared and presented, the rise and fall of the flavors exites the tongue, and it all comes together in a general theme to delight the taste of the mind.
Gourmet food is all well and good. But sometimes you just want to sink your teeth into a nasty, greasy fast-food burger. For me, a tripple cheeseburger from Burger King usually hits the spot in a way that no amount of caviar ever could. Hitchens is like more like a burger than caviar, but he’s no less of a writer because of it.
If you want a more philosophical example of atheistic writing, give Breaking the Spell a try. Dennett starts off sounding like the most harmless old fuddy-duddy you could ever come across. He just gives the impression of mildly – and almost boringly – stating the obvious. By the time you realize he’s making an argument, it’s too late.
They’re odd fishes, these neo-atheists. They seem utterly unable to distinguish between faith and fundamentalism. I read through Letter to a Christian Nation last year, and while Sam Harris is slightly less polemic than Hitchens, I was still amazed at just what a skewed picture of faith he presented.
Good discussion.
For more lively bible AND sabbath discussion , join me at
http://www.adventistonline.com
or
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_186.htm
See you there..God be with you…
You guys missed the point. Hitchens doesn’t try to DISPROVE the existence of god, he says explicitly that you can disprove him, he says there is no evidence for one. If you’re going to use the (non) argument that our existence is proof there is a god, you still have a great deal of work ahead of you to DEMONSTRATE that this is the case. Whereas, I can propose a number of more elegant explanations (big bang, evolution etc..) that are well supported by evidence. That’s (one) point he makes: God is unnecessary and superfluous to requirements, we need to dispense with him.
Hitchens decries some in the administration (Bush) who are motivated by religious belief on HPV. He did not say all he said some and he did not mention Christian groups. Your account is misleading.
David Williams has a skewed picture of Sam Harris. He has explained that atheists have to deal with various degrees of belief.