Hitchens: wrong, wrong, wrong.
June 13, 2007, 3:29 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Some of you nonsubscribers out there (for shame!) may have noticed that we had placed Eugene McCarraher’s review of Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great behind the subscriber-only firewall. Well, we decided that it was far too good to hide under a bushel, so now the piece is free to the masses. Have a look. This is also a great opportunity for those who haven’t yet come into the Commonweal-subscriber fold to see what they’ve been missing. So what are you waiting for? Sign up now for our risk-free Web-only offer, which includes both hard copies of the magazine and complete Web access–just $17. Cheap!
The book review is a tour de force. I’d pay to see Eugene McCarraher debate Hitchens if someone could bring such a face-off to fruition. It would be better than the Yankees vs. the Red Sox.
And I almost forgot…It’s not every fortnight we see the f-bomb get dropped in Commonweal. :)
Tony nihilism — yes, Hitchins made the kind of mistake that supporters of Hitler did when he sold his soul to the meretricious Tony Blair — these are shameful mistakes that can never be lived down, and about which both Tony and Christopher remain insultingly unapologetic (as we saw in Tony’s hysterical onslaught on the Press a few days ago). In a way it is easier to deal with an atheist nihilist like Christopher than one who simpers in dulcet pseudo-Christian sophistries like the abominable Mr Blair. Thank God the British have seen through him at last and have firmly and politely shown him the door; poor America has to live with the even more abominable Mr Bush for eighteen (18) more long months.
Regrettably, Professor McCarraher’s scholarly understanding of religion does not reflect the retail version of Christianity that most people profess and that Hitchens takes aim at.
For example, Professor McCarraher points out that “creationism” is bad science-because it’s bad theology.” Leaving aside the notion that, science is not good if it doesn’t accord with theology, the fact is that 45% of the population in this country believes in this “bad theology”..
Professor McCarraher then states that scientists professing Christianity have been out front in debunking creationism and intelligent design. While that’s true, it hasn’t deterred the fundamentalists, who spend millions on creationist propaganda, such as the Creation Museum, and support efforts to force the thinly disguised religious dogma of intelligent design into science curricula.
What’s more, nothing is better at getting Christians to the voting booth than a referendum forbidding same-sex marriage. (In that regard, it’s ironic that the Johnson and Tushnet pieces challenging the scriptural injunctions against homosexuality appear in the same issue.) So when Hitchens says that all he asks of his religious friends is that they “leave me alone”, I’m afraid he has a point.
Joseph–
Perhaps it is nothing more than unfounded speculation, but there have been stories in Britain that Tony Blair will be converting to Catholicism, the religion of his wife, after he leaves office. That no doubt wouldn’t change your opinion of Blair, but it may change Hitchens’s opinion of him.
The rather fair New Yorker review made Mr. Manetti’s point as well. Apparently, Terry Eagleton commented that Richard Dawkin’s book made theological errors that would make a first year theology student blush. However, the review noted that many religious people also make theological errors that would make a first year theology student blush, and cited some rather entertaining (or depressing) examples that were culled from various polls. Like: some astounding percentage (more than half) of people who consider themselves Christians don’t know who authored the Sermon on the Mount. (The review was actually pretty informative all the way round and worth reading.)
But really, I see two main problems with Mr. Hitchens’ project (as well as any general effort to counter it):
1. If God and religion are man-made so by extension are all deeds whether done in “the name of” religion or otherwise. If the human condition created God to defend the indefensible, what would stop it from creating some other excuse? And thus, for instance, communism or some other “ism” that doesn’t depend on God could also elicit the worst that humans can offer — you can’t reject God’s existence but blame “religion” for everything done in God’s name. Your main argument is really with the human condition.
2. Those who counter that lots of good stuff have been done by religious people are also missing the point — you can’t recognize the power of religion and then deflect the ill done in its name solely as a “distortion or aberration.” I don’t think the historical record supports you. The Catholic Church does this constantly in reference to, for instance, anti-semitism, and it’s infuriating. Moreover, religion is so diverse, it’s really hard to say that religion writ large is a net positive force — there are lots of religious traditions, for instance, that fuse religion and nationalism, thus marrying religion to the cause of national glory rather than serving as a check by promoting universal human values. Religions that define themselves by exclusion, not inclusion. Do those religions count?
So Hitchens has my sympathy insofar as he is trying to say that it is unfair and just wrong to automatically elevate the “divine” values borne of religion over more humanly derived values and principles that make humans live in peace and treat each other well.
I strongly disagree with the point that Mr. Manetti raises. The fact that on occasion even Commonweal readers may find themselves appalled by their own co-religionists is beside the point. The intention of Hitchens is to discredit ALL religious believers, not just the ones who espouse a political programme he opposes. All are tarred with the same brush. That’s exactly the point of making a “big argument” against religion per se. Books like this legitimate discrimination against religious persons — in leadership, in the academy, and in social life.
But the point of the comments of many people (including President Bush) is to give a much greater degree of respect to someone who claims religious imprimatur for his or her ideas, no matter how unjust or alien to our own principles. Any believer, it seems, is better than any non-believer. Rationally, we know this isn’t true, but we often fail to examine the consequences of proceeding in our arguments and our thoughts as if it were. Hitchens is heavy handed, I mean he’s always heavy handed and others miss the mark as well, but those who are atheists or who just aren’t sufficiently steeped in their own religious currents often find their ideas and beliefs marginalized solely because they aren’t offered up as divinely inspired. This is what he means by wanting to be left alone.
As the author of the piece, permit me to weigh in.
Bill calls it a “tour de force.” I want to affirm his impeccably good taste.
Barbara: I agree with you that talking about “religion” in general is useless. Particularity is essential. As for religious people trying to defend religion from charges about its atrocities by pointing to all the good it’s done, I actually agreed with Hitchens that this isn’t the best sort of retort. What I countered with was the idea that the ability to identify an atrocity — and therefore an “aberration,” as you somewhat dismissively put it — comes from within a religious tradition itself.
As for Hitchens wanting to be “left alone,” you’re misinterpreting what he means. He means what he says — he doesn’t want religious reasons given in public discourse. It’s true that Bush and the media are reflexively deferential to religious people — witness all the nonsense that was spoken about that ludicrous Jerry Falwell — but I also don’t think that secularists are “marginalized.” That’s ridiculous. Bill Maher’s show is a hit on HBO, and Hitchens is on the best-seller list. If that’s “marginalization,” I’d love to see notoriety.
Well, it does depend on the forum. Non-religious people are marginalized in political discourse. It’s inconceivable that a person seeking public office would admit that he or she is a true non-believer.
Although many atheists are better than certain religious people does not show that religion is bad in itself. The authenticity or validity of religion is what drives so many opportunists and charlatans to it. There is no religion without its Scribes and Pharisees.
Yet Paul’s words still ring true; if Christ is not risen then we are pitiful people indeed.
The ideal of humanism is already in religion. One just has to beware of false prophets.
No matter what humanists say, goodness is always suspect that does not draw from God.
Wanting to be left alone means more than ‘removing religious reasons from public discourse’. It’s a response to a political reality in which organized religion seeks to enlist the coercive power of the state in support of religious dogma.
In that regard, doesn’t anyone remember the Terry Schiavo media circus? Religious conservatives and other political opportunists had enough muscle to yank the President of the United States and Congress back into session just to pass a special law designed to thwart the removal of life support.
To me, that exercise in raw political clout cannot be dismissed as a mere instance of ‘excessive deference to religion’.
Barbara:
“It’s inconceivable that a person seeking public office would admit that he or she is a true non-believer. ”
Fortney “Pete” Stark, a California congressman representing the 13th district (non-urban) is one of the best of the liberal politicians in California. He recently “came out” as an atheist. Granted, he wasn’t running for re-election at the time, but when he does run again, I doubt that his atheism will amount to a hill of beans in that election.
He is an excellent lawmaker and deserves to be re-elected, irrespective of in what he does or does not believe.
Overall an excellent review, although I was a bit surprised to see Hitchens’ excoriation of Mother Teresa implicitly praised as an example of his “keen and pugnacious intelligence,” while his support of the Iraq War was classified as part of his “orgy of self-aggrandizement.”
The British are spewing Blair out of their mouths: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2657085.ece
If he comes to Rome, let it be like Tannhauser, in sackcloth and ashes.
I believe the review’s verdict (“Hitchens no longer merits our attention or respect”) premature and overly harsh.
In the reviewer’s judgment Hitchens was once a courageous and electrifying writer, producing masterpieces of political analysis and moral commentary. He opposed capitalism and the first war in Iraq and skewered such rogues as Henry Kissinger and Mother Teresa.
But now the reviewer tells us Hitchens has gone over to the dark side. No longer hostile to capitalism and now a supporter of the current war in Iraq, he has been lured by the rewards of middlebrow punditry and now is at home with the suburban moral imagination and the interests of corporate executives with their “machinery of reinforcement.” It’s quite an indictment, in my view an indefensible one unless the reviewer can claim rare skills in assessing the motives of others.
An alternate view is that the early Hitchens was not so stupendously exciting that his alleged decline calls for wholesale re-evaluation. He was certainly an interesting and provocative writer then (though earthbound) and he remains interesting now, a view shared by critics on all parts of the political spectrum. His adherence to atheism has not changed. If the left ignores him in the future I would not be surprised. Perhaps they were too infatuated with his earlier Trotsky-inspired fireworks. Those who surmount their disappointment might still expect to learn from his commentary in the future.
I’m sure “all parts of the political spectrum” find Hitchens interesting — more’s the pity, and I’m simply arguing that they shouldn’t. If you’re unconvinced, c’est la vie.
I, for one, am not infatuated with his Trotskyite past, nor do I expect to learn much of anything from someone who, even today, still claims that there are WMDs in Iraq.
Henry Kissinger IS a rogue, and he has a long global trail of corpses to prove it: in Vietnam, in Cyprus, in Chile. As for Mother Teresa, I wouldn’t call her a “rogue,” but there’s plenty of evidence — independent of Hitchens’ work, I should add — to substantiate her unseemly hob-knobbing with dictators like Hrothy of Albania, Duvalier in Haiti, and Marcos in the Philippines. She also chastised the people of Ireland not to legalize divorce, then turned around and said that Princess Di’s divorce from Prince Charles was a good thing. Perseverence is fine for the commoners, I guess.