God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
In his book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” Christopher Hitchens makes a compelling case against Christianity. His principal argument (which consumes two-thirds of his book), is that religion has caused more harm than good. In support of this position, he offers many examples of the worst atrocities ever committed in the name of religion and does so with almost complete objectivity. I say almost because the author advances his point by implying that religion has caused nothing but evil in the world. His harsh condemnations of both Gandhi and Mother Teresa are obvious examples of his tendency for bias.
No one can reasonably deny the countless horrors that have been done in the name of religion. Not one major religion is without its own history of greed, tyranny, and war. I cannot speak for every religion; I can only attempt to defend what I believe—Christianity.
The first thing we should notice is the major flaw in his argument. As Ravi Zacharias has said, “A worldview should not be judged by its abuse.” It is simply irrational to attribute the actions of a Christian to Christianity if the teachings of Jesus do not justify those actions. It is true that Christians have been responsible for denying people medical treatment (such as victims of HIV), retarding educational progress, the Inquisition, the bombing of abortion clinics, witch-hunts, slavery, and wars. However none of these actions come from the fundamental teachings of Christ.
Hitchens’ argument, although well written, is an argument that is based more in emotion than logic. Of course it is perfectly logical to assert that a religion claiming supreme goodness while being simultaneously responsible for evil is self-defeating. However, Christ spoke against the idea of anyone thinking his or herself supremely good, or even merely good. He stressed this so strongly that he even refused the title for himself. If God is the originator of good, we cannot claim his nature to ourselves. It would be like me, for breathing air, calling myself a tree.
It should be obvious to the reader that each example is an insufficient argument, since they are not supported by the teachings of Christ. However, collectively the insufficiency of each example might be overlooked by a reader bombarded, chapter after chapter, with a vast array of vile atrocities; thus it seems that Hitchens’ strategy is to convince his readers by overwhelming their emotions.
Even though it is illogical to attribute the actions of Christians to Christianity itself, it is perfectly understandable why so many people have exploited the name of Christianity for evil. I could not imagine an ill-intentioned person gaining much influence if he or she did not disguise their intentions behind something good and noble. People only support an evil action when they think it is a means for accomplishing a greater good. It goes against our human nature, as Edgar Alan Poe fantasized, “To do wrong for the wrong sake only.” So, in order to unite people in a campaign for evil, they must first be deceived into believing they are doing it for good. Christianity is an easy target for such a disguise as it so strongly inspires passion, loyalty, and submission among its followers. The positive attributes of Christianity are powerful, and therefore terrible when they are perverted.
Hitchens goes on to argue that religion is not the origin of morality, so it is unnecessary for ethical behavior, regardless of any virtue demonstrated by Christians. A challenge he offers is to name one virtue that, without religion, would fail to present itself naturally in humanity.
This is only an argument against the idea that the knowledge of goodness comes from religion itself. However, I do not know many people who actually believe this to be true. The average educated Christian would say that God, not religion, is the source of good and therefore makes the distinction of evil as anything apart from himself. Religion is merely the means by which we develop an understanding of God. The innate distinction of good and evil comes from our human nature, created by God. Our understanding of God’s nature comes from revelation, from which religion is formed. The differentiation is made in theological terms as general and specific revelation. For example, fundamental morality is a general revelation innately present in the nature of human beings. Specific revelation is the specific order of beliefs, or religion, that give people an understanding of the source of our morality and the way in which we relate to it. The argument asserted by Christians is that without God as the originator of morality, despite our diverse religious views or lack thereof, we would not have the innate sense of a moral law.
The challenge may be similarly proposed for Mr. Hitchens to name one evil behavior that, without religion, would not present itself naturally in humans. After all, Hitchens believes that religion is man-made. So if religion is man-made, aren’t the evils associated with religion man-made? Could the absence of religion truly alter our capacity for evil? Would we be able to remove our prison systems, police departments, or the branches of our military if religion no longer existed? Of course not! One need not invest a great deal of mental energy to realize that people will always possess a capacity for evil. Therefore, if it is true that evil behaviors will naturally present themselves in humans, is it not fair to say that religion is not the source of it? I will grant Mr. Hitchens that religion is not the source of virtue, but he must also accept the same for our vices.
To be honest, I agree with most of what Hitchens has written in his book. The way we differ, of course, is the conclusion made from his argument. Everyone should agree that the examples in his book are terribly wicked actions that should not be tolerated by any rational person. Although, we must be careful not to let our agreement to his challenges trick us into agreeing with his conclusion. The actions are awful, but Christianity is not. A bad Christian does not make Christianity evil, as a bad American does not make America evil. Do not mistake the poison for that which has been poisoned.
Posted on November 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
bravo! well said.
Posted by: robert | November 26, 2007 10:12 AM
Nice job Bobby!
Anyone who quotes Ravi Zacharias pretty much has my attention and respect for at least showing a desire to be thoughtful. I enjoyed your article. I think Hithens is another in a recent lengthening line of athiest that are gettting there panties in a bunch over the growing list of former collegues that are becoming intellectually honest enough to reevaluate their stance on deism, if not Christianity. Anthony Flew being a notable example. A friend of mine made an observation recently that was insightful. He said that in the last 150 years there have 3 key influences on world view.....Marx, Freud and Darwin. Marx (after being responsible for in excess of 63 million deaths) is certainly seen for the hollow philosophy that it is.....freud is a joke in most universities..... and I believe in 20 years we will look back on Darwinism as an antiquated theory that science and reason has surpassed the same way medicine has forsaken bloodletting. Hitchens book is a feeble attempt to rally a dying, anti-intellectual, anti-God philosophy. God simply cannot exsist, otherwise they are accountable to Him.
Thanks Bobby...Keep writing
Brad
Posted by: Brad Hill | November 26, 2007 11:11 AM
Excellent review Mr. Murphy. This is the first time I've heard or read his is "...an argument that is based more in emotion than logic." Very eye opening. Thank you!
Posted by: Ric Booth | November 27, 2007 3:02 PM
I too really enjoyed your review. Most of the time, I have enjoyed Christopher Hitchens as a sort of malcontent. However, I wish arguments involving faith would elevate beyond the good/bad paradigm. It is sad that Hitchens (it seems) couldn't break free of that simplistic monolith.
Posted by: Joye Otto | November 27, 2007 8:43 PM
Well said. For more critique on Hitchens and the "God is Not Great" subject, I recommend the posts on Douglas Wilson's blog (www.dougwils.com/). He also deals with Sam Harris and the rest of the nouveau atheists. He has debated them in the past and does superb job of disarming them epistemologically.
Posted by: Devin | November 27, 2007 9:10 PM
This is a great piece, Bobby.
Hitchens seems to be making the point that actions are what really matters. I might tell you I'm a good person and I don't steal, and I might even believe that about myself, but if I steal, I'm a thief. Intellectually, Christianity is based in Christ's principles...most any Christian would agree.
But Hitchens is ultimately viewing only the actions, he's looking at the thief and saying, "You say stealing is wrong, but you steal..."
I guess I'm just reiterating what you've said. After all, Hitchens doesn't have our same world view, so while his opinion seems completely valid (and I can see how it would to him), it appears absurd to us, viewing things through a different perspective, which is that humanity would be committing these atrocities with or without religion.
Posted by: Jordan | November 28, 2007 11:45 AM
great comments!
I personally have not read Hitchens' book, but have heard the argument from he and other atheists who seem to be getting more and more vocal. Also, I find it interesting to note the anger toward religion as opposed to indifference that I would expect if they truly believe, as an atheist should that there absolutely is no GOD. In that regard ,atheism requires substantial faith which is something atheists blast the religious for posessing. Frances Collins and Brian McLaren speak about this eloquently in their books.
Posted by: Brian Fann | November 29, 2007 3:13 PM
I saw a debate with Mr. Hitchens where they debated the question, "Is Christianity THE Problem?" He brought up many points in the debate that he does in his books: the crime, the death, the violence, the injustice, all done in the name of religion. He expects all Christians to attatch themselves to these evils. His oponent, very suitably, pointed to all the astrocities done in the name of Athiesm and Secularism, namely the mass killing done by Stalin. But Hitchens did not seem eager to place himself in that category and claim responsibility, like he expected all Christians to claim responsibility for the Crusades and the Inquistion, which killed far less people in a longer amount of time. I agree that Hitchens does not rely on logic to prove his point, only emotion. And emotion is not way to make claims about the world and about God.
Posted by: Michael Dallas Miller | November 29, 2007 11:31 PM
Thanks for this review. I've been wondering about this book for some time since it's been on the best seller list for a while. Great conclusion.
Posted by: Jordan | November 30, 2007 7:03 PM
Wow! This review is fantastic! It is one of the best discussions of the "New Atheists" arguments without resorting to refering to the vile acts commited by atheists (such as Stalin), in order to "prove" that Christianity is not as "bad" as they say it is.
Let's just be humble and admit the sins of our ancestors.
Posted by: Guy | December 1, 2007 9:28 AM
Bobby,
I have always thought you were a very intelligent, sensitive, insightful, spiritual person, and this article is yet more proof of this. It has been my pleasure to have worked with you and to know you as a friend. I believe you will go far in this world and be a great inspiration to others. I have been blessed to have a connection to your life and to have witnessed your growth in God!
Posted by: Debbie Winston | December 1, 2007 11:12 PM
For a christian discussing the attrocities of their own religion observed first hand see An account of the destruction of the Indies, by Bartholomew de las Casas. To the commenters, I encourage eveyrone not to call atheists silly so quickly. And neither should you call marx, freud, or darwin idiots. And please as christians don't try and speak for christianity. Isn't that the problem in the first place. thank you for the review.
Posted by: Jesse | December 2, 2007 2:11 PM
I really enjoyed this review. I only recently heard of Chris Hitchens and was very troubled by him. He has gotten a lot of TV face time recently, and that has troubled me also. Hitchens passes himself off as an intellectual when his ideas, if he didn't shout his debaters down or insult them into submission, would be cast aside like every other piece of intellectually dishonest work, but since he is charismatic he gets his ideas out there. Unfortunately, silence isn't an acceptable response, because in this case silence would be seen as submission. Your argument Mr Murphy is in someways similar to and adds a bit to the discussion that I have seen in debates with Hitchens, well-articulated argument here, with plenty of restraint that is lacking in this response.
Posted by: Joshua Riley | December 3, 2007 5:04 AM
I'm so late in responding, but I thought I would jump in nonetheless.
First of all, Brad, I believe you were the one in your follow up email condemning Marx, Freud and Darwin. You said Marx is responsible for 63 million deaths. However, as Bobby stated earlier, if Christianity is not responsible for the abuse, than Marx is not responsible for the people who abused his theories.
Secondly, in my opinion these great minds who had the boldness to theorize such as Darwin and Freud, who are far from dead in universities,(another generalization by Brad) but are being used as a spring board to more enlightened and different approaches to science and anthropology. Darwin once thought like a dogmatic evangelical, however once he took his journey and started becoming a naturalist, could not refuse to begin making sense of the micro and macro changes that had and were occurring. He's added much to the intellectual community and to hear you say he's extinguished is like hearing people say God is dead in Europe. At least Darwin and Freud, who I'm not qualified to speak on, are trying to make sense of the puzzle pieces we do have. They were never trying to leave God out of the equation, but trying to minimize the leaps of faith, while literalistic preachers of the bible were trying to suspend logic and reason and increase the leaps of faith toward belief in the genesis story. Does anyone realize the amount of energy and emotion these men put toward their study? Of course not, because their intellectual thinkers and us evangelicals have been taught this key phrase. God. What is God? Define God for me? If anything goes wrong just say this word. God. If anything goes right, just say God.
Bobby, it's so funny to hear you say Christianity should not be responsible for it's abuse. Meanwhile, are you going to take responsibility for the good it's done?
Bobby, if God is not responsible for evil, who is? I assume you will respond humans, but then again, that's religion talking not you. The whole concept of sin is nothing but a power hungry concept people have used to control masses, manipulate God and make a "religious" system to keep people feeling guilty and coming back to give money.
Bobby, has religion ever helped you understand God more? Could you give me some examples of this? I'm glad I know of Jesus Christ, but I learned of him through oral reading and sharing. I never needed to become part of a religous system to hear about him.
No, I don't think if you took religion away you would need jails any less, but I do think by abolishing religion people could begin having a healthy and universalistic approach to God. An d if that means they may not need the Christian religion, than they will be just fine. Ask the Native Americans if they minded?????
Again, Mr Hitchens, like many other thinkers, are tired of the masquerading, tired of the religious antics and the mixing with politics. We all need a break.. I think what's important to remember is the first Christians did not claim that title. They were labeled Christians because they imitated the free thinking Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the reverse is now true.
Posted by: Caleb Springer | December 13, 2007 4:25 PM
Upon reading Caleb's comment, I was reminded of this portion of C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity":
"I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America."
Posted by: Michael Emerson | January 1, 2008 11:11 AM