Posted on 06/22/2007 9:07:12 AM PDT by Caleb1411
Books: Notable anti-religion and anti-Christian books of the past year—particularly Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great—make something out of, well, nothing.
Nineteenth-century novelist Gustave Flaubert used to joke about archaeologists discovering a stone tablet signed "God" and reading, "I do not exist." His punch line had an atheist then exclaiming, "See! I told you so!"
These days, nothing stops atheistic caissons from rolling along the bookstore aisles. Maybe that's because atheists on average have small families and lots of discretionary doubloons jingling in their pockets. Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf), Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (Penguin), and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin) all hit bestseller lists during 2006—and a new book, Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (Twelve), has ascended this year.
Last year's trio emerged alongside anti-Christian books purportedly based on hard reporting. Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (Norton) typified the genre's misreporting when she wrote that Christian pregnancy counseling centers "usually" present false or exaggerated information—but there's no indication that she visited even one center, let alone the 3,000 or so that exist throughout the country. (Here's some evidentiary trivia: In four pages about me she makes five clear factual errors, along with many questionable interpretations.)
This year it's the same: a new screed by Chris Hedges has as its title not "Mistaken People" or even "Lying Liars," but American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (Free Press). The genre is old, with new villains appearing as necessary. Ten years ago Frederick Clarkson's Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy stated that the sky was falling, with Promise Keepers as the spearhead of Christian dictatorship.
The ferocity of these books is sometimes astounding. Here, for example, is Dawkins' view of God: "arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Even Publishers Weekly noted concerning The God Delusion, "For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. . . . Even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: 'The biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas' proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense."'
Happily, Alister and Joanna Collicutt McGrath have just come out with an effective response, The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (IVP). The McGraths note, "Until recently, Western atheism had waited patiently, believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded."
The McGraths also point out the folly of believing that if religion were eliminated wars would cease: After all, conflicts often reflect human desires to declare some people as "in" and others as "out," sometimes on the basis of religion, but at other times on the basis of race, ethnicity, tribe, class, gender, or whatever.
Christianity is above all others the religion that seeks kindness to those in the out-group: Jesus told us to love our neighbors and even to love our enemies. When Christians fail to live up to His teachings it's because of sin, not Christianity—and scapegoating religion delays efforts to deal with the real problems of social division.
Scapegoating is also evident in the writing of Sam Harris, who frequently forgets to use reason and instead falls back on words like "preposterous." He asserts certainty about what he admits not knowing: "How the process of evolution got started is still a mystery, but that does not in the least suggest that a deity is likely to be lurking at the bottom of it all."
He complains not only about ignorance but about moral failings: "An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse."
Yet Harris, for all his attacks on Intelligent Design, does not even understand the distinction between macro-evolution—one kind of creature changing into another—and micro-evolution. One of his proofs of theistic obtuseness is that "viruses like HIV, as well as a wide range of harmful bacteria, can be seen evolving right under our noses, developing resistance to antiviral and antibiotic drugs."
The one good aspect of Harris' work is his understanding that theology has consequences: "There is no escaping that fact that a person's religious beliefs uniquely determine what he thinks peace is good for, as well as what he means by a term like 'compassion.'" Harris at least understands that the biblical theology he hates makes obnoxious sense in a way that liberalism does not; given a suffering world, "liberal theology must stand revealed for what it is: the sheerest of mortal pretenses."
Harris also criticizes the niceties of political rhetoric concerning Islam: "The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a fantasy." Too bad he and other atheistic authors are determined to believe that Christianity is inevitably hijacked by hate, and that they pick up support from reviewers like Natalie Angier, who wrote in The New York Times that "Harris writes what a sizeable number of us think, but few are willing to say."
Harris' work has also engendered several Christian responses this year. Doug Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision) points out that Harris uses morally loaded words like "should" and "ought"; Wilson rightly asks Harris, "What is the difference between an imposed morality, an imposed religion, or an imposed secular ought? Why is your imposition to be preferred to any other?"
Wilson notes Harris' fondness for Eastern religions, and in particular the "utter non-violence" of the Jains in India. Letter from a Christian Citizen correctly notes that "Devout Jains will wear a mask to avoid breathing in and thereby killing any insect," and then asks whether Harris would commend evangelicals who "forsook the use of antibiotics because of the genocidal devastation it was causing to the microbes within."
Wilson also points out that the litany of religious folks fighting each other that Harris recites "is beside the point. We don't believe that religion is the answer. We believe Christ is the answer." Harris' list of religious messes merely confirms "one of the basic tents of the Christian faith, which is that the human race is all screwed up."
And what about this year's champion screed, offered by Christopher Hitchens? His scorn—"monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents"—oozes off every page of God Is Not Great, with its extraordinary subtitle, How Religion Poisons Everything.
"Everything"? That sounds improbable. Are 1.3 billion Muslims all murderers? Might Christianity have produced 50 percent evil and 50 percent good? If not, how about 40 percent good? Thirty percent? Twenty percent? Ten percent? Will not Hitchens relent from his anger if we can find 5 percent that's good?
God Is Not Great has received extraordinary publicity, including an adulatory review in The New York Times, so it's worth going page by page to see what Hitchens is selling and many atheists are buying:
*On Page 4 he writes that religion produces a "maximum of servility." Islam, maybe, but were Abraham, Moses, and Job servile when they argued with God?
*On Page 5 he writes, "No statistic will ever find that without [religious] blandishments and threats [atheists] commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful." Prison Fellowship and other organizations can show that prisoners who go through evangelical programs have much lower recidivism—committing new crimes after release from prison, leading to new sentences—than others.
*On Page 7 he writes, "Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago." Leaving aside the inspiration millions get from daily Bible reading, what about Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches, with all their biblical imagery? Or Pope John Paul II, whose words inspired many people to rise up against Communism in Eastern Europe?
*On Page 17 he writes that religion "does not have the confidence in its own various preachings even to allow coexistence between different faiths." At the annual March for Life in Washington tens of thousands of Catholics and Protestants walk side by side along with individuals from Jews for Life, Buddhists for Life, and so on.
*n Page 32 he writes, "The nineteen suicide murderers of New York and Washington and Pennsylvania were beyond any doubt the most sincere believers on those planes." Todd Beamer, the man who said "Let's roll" on United Flight 93, and made sure it didn't crash into the U.S. Capitol, was a strong Christian believer. So were others who died, stopping the terrorists, when Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.
Hitchens of course thinks the Bible is nonsense (see also "The world according to Hitch," June 3, 2006). On Page 102 he writes, "It goes without saying that none of the gruesome, disordered events described in Exodus ever took place." Without saying. A slam dunk. On Page 103: "All the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded." On Page 104: All five books of Moses are "an ill-carpentered fiction."
Such pronouncements were repeatedly made in the 19th century, but again and again biblical accounts considered mythical back then have gained new archeological support. For example, scholars at one point said that the Hittites described in the Bible did not exist, nor did rulers such as Belshazzar of Babylon or Sargon of Assyria. Archeologists now have records of all those civilizations and reigns.
Many brilliant people have spent lifetimes studying these writings that Hitchens so blithely dismisses. Princeton's Robert Wilson, who knew 26 ancient languages and dialects and so could read just about all that remains from the ancient Near East, was impressed with the accuracy of those accounts that Hitchens wishes to discard.
Coming to the present, Hitchens on Page 160 calls "the whole racket of American evangelism . . . a heartless con." Hmm. WORLD for two decades has reported stories around this country of compassionate evangelicals who must be dumb, because they've spent their lives in a racket that's yielded them almost no money. They've adopted hard-to-place children, built AIDs orphanages in Africa, helped addicts and alcoholics to turn their lives around, transformed the lives of teens who were heading into drugs and crime, and much besides.
In responding to Hitchens and mini-Hitchenses, it's also worth noting the leadership of Christians over the centuries in setting up hospitals and schools. Historians such as Jonathan Hill of Oxford, Alvin Schmidt of Illinois College, and Rodney Stark of Baylor have described the long-term effect of Jesus telling his followers to love their neighbors as themselves.
The evangelical tendency to help others, not poison them, has even attracted the attention of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who calls America's evangelicals "the newest internationalists" for fighting sexual trafficking in Eastern Europe and slavery in Sudan. As Jewish leader Michael Horowitz has put it, evangelicals "led the way in taking on the slavery issue of our time—the annual trafficking of millions of women and children into lives of sexual bondage . . . led the way in organizing a campaign to end a growing epidemic of prison rape."
Horowitz concluded his message to evangelicals this way: "As you define your human rights successes as central to who you are and what you've done, it will no longer be possible for those who fear your faith to crudely caricature you or to ignore the virtue that Christian activism brings to American life and the world at large." Spoken too soon, because authors like Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and especially Hitchens, despite all the evidence, still proclaim that religion, or Christianity in particular, poisons everything.
Well, I don't consider myself responsible for what they think, say, or do. We don't all sit down together at atheist conferences (yes, I know a few do) to decide what we collectively believe in, or don't believe in.
I don't support the inclusion of anything in science classes that doesn't have empirical evidence behind it. If you can prove God exists, then great. Use the scientific method, put your findings up for peer review, then teach it in school.
I am bothered by the apparent ease with which your mind holds so many contradictions:
You have no idea what my mind holds, so you shouldn't presume to be bothered by it. I have never supported the suppression of anyone's religion and the support the free exercise thereof. If you had ever read Hitchens, I think you would find that everyone believing exactly as he does is the last thing he would advocate.
How about everyone thinking for themselves? I have no problem with it, do you?
You say: “If condemning 3 billion people in Asia to eternal damnation because they haven’t converted to your religion makes sense to you, then I’m sure you never will get it.”
Excellent point.
God’s message to mankind is NOT the peculiar theologies of the various creeds. It is the guidance on how we treat our fellow humans.
Those eager to announce that persons following different theologies are going to Hell want to believe they are members of a select club. Such a belief contradicts the concept of a wise and compassionate God.
I don't support the inclusion of anything in science classes that doesn't have empirical evidence behind it. If you can prove God exists, then great. Use the scientific method, put your findings up for peer review, then teach it in school.
So then, G-d used evolution to create the world, but he didn't "guide" it? If this is how your mind operates, then it is full of contradictions. I can understand G-d being behind evolution, or not being behind evolution, but to insist that he "used evolution" to create the universe while attacking those who teach this in the classroom as "creationists" is illogical. If He did He did, and if He didn't He didn't. Or is that too simplistic for your "advanced" eighteenth century enlightenment rationalist mind?
The invocation of the definition of science is flawed. First, definitions can change over time (Newton certainly considered theology to be science), and to say that science is defined by scientists is to engage in tautology.
Reality is reality. Who ever said that only that which can be confirmed by the scientific method can exist? Have you ever tested "thou shalt not kill" by the scientific method? Or even whether or not George Washington ever existed? If there is a G-d who has communicated with man via Revelation, what He has so communicated is certainly just as true as anything confirmable by the scientific method.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that entire history of the world only ONE religion was founded publicly by the Invisible, Unincarnate G-d speaking directly to perhaps over three million people at once? Perhaps you were unaware of the fact that no other religion in the history of the world has ever even had the audacity to make this claim?
Don't tell me . . . you can't believe in a historical event because "that isn't science!" I bet you accept a great deal of non-supernatural historical facts on faith, however.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you. It's enough that you people's belief that all human thought is merely biochemical reactions in the brain while knowing full well that this makes "free thought" impossible!
But so they would consider themselves a "unique wonder". How would that limit the influence of God?
Del Tackett amazes me. He cuts through all the PC baloney with such precise logic. Folks, this is a wonderful course to introduce to your neighbors, families or churches.
“A point that often gets overlooked in a world full of Benny Hinns and Jan Crouches. Most churches and most Pastors are hard working and frugal”
Thank you.
The materialistic pastors stand out because they are unusual. Most live modest home lives.
I've never tested "love" either, but I believe in it. However, love cannot be proven scientifically, which is why they don't teach love and relationships in science class.
If you really believe in "thinking for ourselves," then kindly stop ridiculing people who don't agree with you.
Are you being serious? Who's ridicluing who here? You've insulted me 2 or 3 times in one post; I'm supposedly stuck in an 18th century mindset because I don't believe in bronze age deities and creation myths. You seem to think that I have some sort of stake in your opinions and spiritual beliefs, which I don't. Please, keep believing in your publicly founded, unincarnate, God, and quit pretending that I care that you do.
Christians believe we have all, to some extent, rebelled against God. The consequence is eternal separation from God, in a place void of God's goodness, which would indeed be Hell. God loves us, but being perfect, he must also be just. Our perfect God must also set a high standard, namely perfection. And none of us are perfect.
Yet, God found a way to balance both his love and need for justice. He sent his own perfect Son to die in our place. We deserved eternal death, but Jesus stood in our place and paid that sin debt for us. We need only to ask forgiveness and accept Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf to be able to enter God’s perfect heaven.
You say “Jesus appear(s) as a narcissist and sadist of the first order,” even though Jesus' main purpose here on earth was dedicated to saving sinners.
That’s like a drowning man accusing a life ring of being unreasonable for being the only floating object around.
Nicely stated. After all, it's "God so loved the world that He sent His only Son. . ." He wasn't obligated to save us from the consequences of our rebellion, but He paid the supreme price to do so.
Not quite. It's not theology; it's the acceptance of a Person who's God's appointed means of salvation, freely offered to anyone who's willing to accept Him.
Keats5 (post 89) has summed up God's offer succintly and ably.
I'm not an atheist, but you never win someone over to your point of view by insulting them and being hostile. It's better to be kind and lead by example, especially in instances like this. You can't argue someone into believing the way you believe.
“Nothing turns me off from religion more than the behavior of Christians in threads about Atheism.”
Bump to that. A Christ whose most basic commandments they so obviously ignore cannot have possibly been much of an influence, based on the statements of so many of them here.
...I’m not a Christian...
Um....I’m not a Jew either....
No - Not a Muslim - guess again (and stop stereotyping me please.)
Bogus threats from an idiot don’t mean much to me and I doubt they mean much to the mods.
My understanding of not believing in Jesus is that you will not be with Jesus in the afterlife. This is considered Hell. But since you don’t believe in anything, that’s what you will get when you die. Nothing.
Its highly possible that this is true, that we will get what we really want in our afterlife. And with the scientific evidence pointing more and more to design, I’m very comfortable with my belief in God.
Its the constant attacks by the God-haters, calling us stupid and so forth, despite the overwhelming evidence for design in nature (and the complete scientific failure of darwinism and the copernican principle) that provoke this backlash. You do know its perfectly OK to smear feces on statues of Jesus, and other Christian symbols, but how dare you say anything negative toward a transvestite marching in the gay pride parade with its pants down.
Hitchens agrees that Deism is reasonable. IMO Theism is also reasonable.
It’s religion he’s railing about...or maybe the human flaw expressed through religion.
That flaw being people turning their faith into fact, and their belief into certainty.
Another fallacy born of lumping all faiths together.
Virtually none of them ever intended to merge into the rest. Most of them contain explicit imperatives to try to convince others of their views, just like even this atheist Hitchens feels he must concerning his views. When Hitchens points his finger he forgets to notice the other four pointed back at himself.
Are you sure that's wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.