A man known as CH

My friend Danial (a.k.a. The Mr. G-nome Project, Hotlanta Marathoner, and one day Dr. Christian (seriously he will be a Doctor and his last name is Christian)), sent me this link for Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He asked what I thought of him and what he taught. I wanted to provide some answer, but I also wanted to post it because we as Christians do need to give some thought to what critiques and arguments are brought against us and what we believe. I broke it down into 5 sections

1. His Basis
2. His Argument
3. Some holes
4. A Christian Response
5. Your Response

So here goes, Let's see what we can make of it all:

The Basis for his argument

Mr. Hitchens is from England. To study European history can at times be like studying what went wrong with the church and why. From European Christianity we find the Crusades, corrupt churches, wars between Christians, and other unlovely mistakes we (or at least those who also claimed Christ in some capacity) have made. We cannot run from this or ignore it. We as the church must face it.

Therefore, when Mr. Hitchens sees religious as a corrupting and essentially violent entity in cultures, we cannot skirt the issue. His land land tells the stories. So it is understandable why he or Richard Dawkins or whoever assumes that religion equals violence. So that is where he comes from and why he comes at it the way he does. Europe is an interesting creature in this sense.

His Argument

The way he argues against religions in general is through morality. The argument throughout is essentially we would be better people, a better society, and a better world without religion. You might liken it to a poison or delusion.

In this argument, he has a big picture and a small picture.

The big picture is this:
Human history has existed for 100,000 to 250,000 years (he presupposes an evolutionary timetable, which makes sense because he believes in evolution). However God only started interacting with humans 3,000 years ago. Therefore for the first 97,000 years heaven watched with indifference while death, rape, and wars spread throughout the land. Then when God did get involved, he chose a backwards people; moved them to a land where they would propagate racism and genocide at his command. (This is part of common history of all three major monotheistic religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). And this is from where we were supposed to have learned about morality and moral sense. If this is his plan, this God is cruel, wasteful, and indifferent. How is morality supposed to come from that.

His micro argument is thus:
Morality does not necessarily need God at the foundation. It is innate. The basis for all morality should be based on 2 things. First, morality must be individualistic or concerned for the individual. Second, morality should be based on our instinct in caring for children (e.g. if you saw a child running into traffic you should know what to do).

He then talks about religion cannot be a moral compass because so many awful things are done to INDIVIDUALS in the name of RELIGIOUS MORALITY. For instance, in Yemen a girl recently died giving birth to a child that was stillborn. The girl was married off at 9 years old. Mohammed also married a 9 year old. Abraham tried to kill Isaac. He also mutilated his genitals, along with his all the males in his household. See how cruel men act toward INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN in the name of religion. That is not a compass for morality.

So those are his 2 arguments. He then goes into a question time, which I think is much more telling then his actual presentation.

The main question he is asked to answer is, Is there capacity for good in religion? (I am going to skip to the part when he talks about Martin Luther King Jr. because it is then that things get interesting.)

The moderator: the closest Mr. Hitchens gets to praising a religious persons' morality is Martin Luther King Jr. MLK led a nonviolent resistance based on biblical teaching. He helped a peopled enslaved to become free by following moral teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

CH: If he had truly based his movement on Biblical teaching, he would have called his followers to kill or enslave anyone who got in there way. He based his ideas on Moses. Moses led a people into a land that they might steal it and destroy the people there. Therefore, MLK (if he had really been true to his Biblical imagery) would have also acted in this way.

Mod: But he was basing the morals on Matthew 5-7, not on Moses.

(I skip a bit to keep the flow of the argument)

CH: if he had truly based his movement on the Sermon on the Mount, he would have called his followers to not worry about tomorrow. If tomorrow doesn't matter then investments, your family, and education do not matter. Tomorrow doesn't matter because the end of the world is imminent. Therefore live by the Golden Rule because the world is about to end. Besides the Golden rule and the morality of the Sermon on the Mount don't work.

Mod: But they worked for MLK. Nonviolent resistance did work.

CH: MLK was just lucky. It wasn't the method. Besides if you polled people in that time you would have found that close to 100% of secularists were in favor of voting rights for African Americans, while close to 100% of Christians were against it (Oh Boy).



Then finally the last section of the interview, the Mod asks, Why then do people seek refuge in religion (if it is a poison to society and individuals)?

CH: People need a spiritual experience. people need to find some higher fulfillment. Instead of turning to religion, intellectuals and artists should fulfill people's spiritual needs by creating art, music, or books, apart or free from religion. For example this building (the building he was in, I assume it wasn't a beat up old factory, but a decent piece of architecture). This building shows the ingenuity of the human mind and might. Therefore, we should fulfill our spiritual needs with it.

Also we can look to the natural world, that can also be "worshiped." Looks at the cosmos in wonder and awe.

Then we can rebuild society in a form apart from religion based on the moral and political writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire (didn't they already try that), and so on.

Some Holes and Questionable quotes

1. He hides behind petty insults. I think he and others like him (Richard Dawkins) are overly insulting towards religion to sell books. He shocks everyone by saying that religion poisons everything. But then he later backs off it for a more tolerant, as long as religion doesn't bother me, then it is ok (stupid, but ok). It is a plain shock tactic, just like Rush Limbough, Glen Beck, Howard Stern, and Kieth Olbermann use. It is an effective way to get attention and sell books.
   
2. Revealed truth is from epileptics and schizophrenics living in the desert.
3. If you believe in God, you are as stupid or delusional as a Fascist and Nazi (both are totalitarian authority).
4. During his whole question and answer time about MLK is terribly sloppy and contradictory. For instance he claimed that close to 100% of secularists were for emancipation and 100% of Christians were against it. Really. Does that make sense. Again shock tactics.
5. His method throughout is to equalize all religions as the same and then chooses the worst stories to prove how immoral religion is. But if I equalized all philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre, Plato, Confucius, and so on, then chose their worst teachings, people would rightly cry foul. There are differences and intricacies between religions. You can't just group them all as one. It is unfair to them and to yourself. It is a big intellectual mistake.
6. A morality based on "instincts" will not carry you too far, because there is little instinctual consensus of morality. (For instance, when my wife worked with inner city kids, she found that mothers taught their young daughters how to give oral sex in order to put off them getting pregnant. These were caring mothers. These were their instincts.) It will either lead you to social and cultural elitism or ignoring ills of different cultures. If you base morals only on instincts, when you look to different cultures that you disagree with, you may end up looking at them as unenlightened fools. Or you may do the live and let live, ignoring terrible social practices in different societies. Judgmental intolerance, based on your consensus on instinctual morality, or no justice. This is where it can and will lead.
7. He refuses to admit that religion or religious people do anything good or unselfish in the name of religion. This simply is not true. "Religion" has brought good and bad into the land. We can't just negate it all.
8. He wants to pretend to have all the answers. But in reality no one does, even if you confidently tell people that you do have it all figured out.
9. Here I think is one of the most important points for our culture. In our Western Individualistic culture we believe morality is only what we do that affects others. And it is true that is part of morality, but that is not all of it. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity explains morality in these terms. Think of a group of ships sailing across the ocean to deliver some supplies. There are 3 things they must do to have a successful mission. 1. They must not run into each other and sink each other. 2. They must work internally so they do no sink themselves. 3. They must follow the directions given to them, so that if they are to sail from Portugal to New York and they set sail from Portugal and end up in Rio, they have not successfully completed their mission. In the same way, we cannot run into other and sink them (murder). Also a part of morality is not sinking ourselves. Doing drugs is immoral because it ruins you. Or doing something that leads you to the despair of suicide is very sad and also immoral. Furthermore (something atheists would disagree with) not following God's leading and directions for life is also immoral. If we are told that we must worship him first and foremost and we do not, then this is immoral. Best illustration I have ever read about morality.

There are a few quick holes I noticed as I listened to them program.

A Christian Response

What is a Christian response to some of these arguments.

Christianity is not based morality. In fact, Jesus teaches us that if we are to come to him, we must see ourselves as poor and needing help. That means we have to leave our morality at the door. We cannot say, Lord I know I need your help, but look how good I really am, or look how smart I am. When we come to him, we come poor, needy, and foolish. We do not bring any of our own righteousness to the table.

Let's think back to Genesis. When Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to cover themselves with fig leaves. Their guilt and shame, nakedness and exposure blocked by man's attempts. These fig leaves did nothing for them. They represent our attempts to cover our shame, guilt, loneliness, and needs. They do nothing for us. In order to be truly covered, God in his graciousness killed an animal and clothed them in the skin. We are also covered, clothed in righteous, bright robes. But these robes called for sacrifice as well. Jesus is the one who clothes us with his righteousness. We cannot do it ourselves.

If you listen closely to Mr. Hitchens, his solution to the problems of the world are through our attempts, technology, and wits. But these are all fig leaves. They cannot cover the our shame. They cannot meet or cover our basic spiritual needs. We need God to help us. Even though we messed things up, he looks to help us. That is his grace. That is the good news.

Your Response to CH or the one who throws these arguments at you

Remember the gospel is not just an intellectual exercise. If it was all in our minds then all we as Christians would have to do is argument with people until they become Christians. But this is not the case. Man is more than his mind. There are more potholes on the road to God than just the mind. Give answers as best you can. Tell them about Jesus and what he has done for you and the whole world. ALSO...

Pray for them. Prayer is such a strong tool we as Christians have because God is stronger than we humans. He moves and acts. Trust in him for how he works and how he moves. Trust in his Sovereignty and his Graciousness. Trust in him and pray. Don't give up on this person or Mr. Hitchens. Keep praying for them that they might find the good news to be good news. Think long term and keep praying.