Christopher Hitchens vs. God
Christopher Hitchens goes to war against religion–on a recent episode of Radio Open Source: “Religion does not say that there is a mystery. Religion says there is an answer to a mystery.” It’s an interesting observation, but, I think, wrong.
–on a For a hyper-rationalist, Hitchens resorts to a lot of irrational attacks. If nothing else, his caustic approach is probably not winning many converts.
Although he refuses to admit it, I think his problem is really with fundamentalists, not with religion. By taking such a polemical approach, though, he is probably selling more books.
Check out his appearance on the show, as well as the follow-up on a later show (and comments).
Radio Open Source is a rare example of a successful melding of old and new media. Often traditional media efforts to create a web-based “community” around an existing show fall flat. Open Source was started as a multimedia show, though, and maybe that’s why it works.
Steve Laniel May 23
All of the modern arguments for atheism are just really not working. (I’m thinking here of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett.) They lack rhetorical punch, for one thing; they think they’re more contrarian than they are. Atheism is just not a shocking position anymore. But also they ignore the wide array of religions, and mostly seem to have Christianity in mind. And they have the religions of the last couple hundred years in mind; they never seem particularly well-versed in religious history from, say, Tang-dynasty China. If they were better religious scholars, I’d respect them more. Then Dennett and Dawkins spread a thin lacquer of unconvincing theory over top of it all. They’re splendid biologists, and at some level their theories probably work, but they’re anti-empirical.
All this said, I’m in no way religious. I just don’t think that Dennett, Dawkins or Hitchens are the right people to make the argument for their side.
Simon May 23
Well the forward to the book sure makes it sound like he dislikes the sloppy irrational thinking that accompanies most (all?) religions.
Personally I think religion is very peculiar, it is just some outgrowth of our social instinct.
Steve should check out Jennifer Hecht books, if he want a review with more scope of different religions, and schools of thought.
Geoff May 27
Re Steve’s comment:
The modern argument for scientific atheism is, at its core, that there is no convincing evidence or empirical reason to believe in any sort of god or gods, whether Christian, pagan, or something else. I agree that there is nothing shocking here, but why should the atheist’s position be shocking?
Secondly, why should an atheist be well versed in religious history? Why should he/she be a religious scholar at all? An atheist has not necessarily taken the position of atheism because he/she was once religious and is now not. In fact, an atheist may well have never been religious, and might look upon religion as a strange superstition, much the way a skeptical person might view paranormal claims like astrology or psychic powers. I don’t think there’s any imperative on the atheist to defend his/her position in terms of religion.
I’ve read neither Dawkins’s nor Hitchens’s books, and I admit that I’d not even heard of Dennett (I just looked him up; call me schooled), so I’m not arguing for, nor am I even entirely clear on, the specifics of their positions. I don’t know the reasons why you say that they’re anti-empirical, but it seems to me that empiricism is fundamental to atheism.
Finally, I think the current groundswell of strong and vocal atheism is a reaction to the religious right and the growing ultra-conservative Christian political and social movement in our country. Do we want “intelligent design†taught as science in our public school classrooms? Is it right that so called museums are opening that teach creationism under the guise of science (See Ken Ham’s creationmuseum.org)? According to this CBS poll, more than half of people in this country reject evolution. That’s scary — though it’s good to see that there are slightly fewer people who think this now (51%) than did in ’04 (55%). I think that it’s important for outspoken atheists and agnostics to be in the public eye.
Steve Laniel May 27
If belief in God had much at all to do with empirical facts, this would be a damning argument. Inasmuch as Christianity has often fought against, say, the Copernican view of the world, it’s a response to the empirical content of Christianity. Indeed, I think a lot of the anti-“religious” arguing is anti-Catholic arguing. It’s rather sad that the Reformation happened, or Catholicism probably wouldn’t be attacked so stridently for its anti-scientific views. On this point, see Kuhn’s “Copernican Revolution.”
Please explain how empiricism has anything to say about Jesus’s belief that eternal salvation can only come through complete submission to the will of God.
As for why atheism should be shocking: it shouldn’t, but Dennett and particularly Hitchens think they’re contrarians. A lot of what’s frustrating in their tone is their belief that they’re saying something shocking.
For the same reason that someone who attacks all of science has a responsibility to be well-versed in scientific practice and history.
I’m quite sure you’re right. And this is where some understanding of religion generally, and non-fundamentalist Christianity more specifically, would come in handy. The prominent atheists are really arguing against fundamentalist Christianity. In particular they’re arguing against the strand of fundamentalist Christianity that believes in Creationism as against natural selection. If they made clear that this is what they were arguing against, I’d have no problem with it. But they extend their argument beyond plausibility when they claim that biology has anything to say about *all* religion. And their ignorance of religion only adds insult to injury.
Geoff Jun 7
The problem with this is that you’re presupposing the existence of God. Empiricism would say only that there is no compelling evidence that an eternal soul exists, let alone a need for its salvation through God.
I found this quote today, and was reminded of this discussion.
Thanks to Bronze Dog