Christopher Hitchens
I was recently going through my book collection which is getting pretty large these days. I happened to come across a book that was published in 2007 and that I read in 2008. This was my early days of apologetics. The book was written by Christopher Hitchens and titled: God is not Great: How Religion Poisons everything. Ah yes, what a catchy subtitle.
Hitchens was a huge promoter of secularism. However, secularism hasn’t produced the paradise they had promised. From the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution to people marching in Pride parades to show off their harmful lifestyle, it has been a disaster.
But does religion poison everything? When you look at history, most religion has been harmful. I would modify Hitchens’ subtitle to: most religion poisons an awful lot. That’s a title I could live with. In his public speeches and debates, Hitchens would often like to lull his opponents into a religion vs secularism debate. As someone who has studied religions, I certainly wouldn’t fall into this trap.
When I speak about evil religion, I’m not talking about the religious hypocrites that our Lord had to deal with. I’m talking about supreme death cults. For example, the Aztec religion of the Americas. They used to engage in human sacrifice on a grand scale. If Cortes had not conquered them, perhaps it would still be going on today. That religion was certainly poison. But that was 500 years ago, wasn’t it? We wouldn’t do that today, now would we? Less than 100 years ago, followers of the Japanese Emperor worshipping death cult were willing to shed every last drop of Japanese blood instead of surrendering. While the generals wanted to fight, the Emperor wisely surrendered to end the Second World War and renounced his status as a deity. A wise choice on his part. Other examples of religious horror include the Indian practice of Sati where widows were burnt alive. Many other examples could be given.
So yeah, I suppose you could say that I’m not a fan of religion throughout the course of history. Also, as someone who has studied Church history in depth, I see that most of the bad stuff in the history of Catholicism is fables such as Inquisition horrors, supposed anti-Semitism and other stuff. I have a separate post on the Crusades a while back so anyone who wants to can check it out can do so.
I suppose the reason that this Church history is always presented in a bad light is because in Canada and America, we read this history through the lens of British propaganda. We learn history in school through their filter. When we read the primary sources we see something else.
In the final analysis, I’m not far off from Christopher Hitchens. Most religion throughout history has been harmful. In the West, most people grow up with a negative attitude toward religion. If these people did a bit more studying perhaps they would realize that the history of the Church has been pretty benign compared to other alternatives presented throughout history, whether that history be ancient or recent.
I wouldn’t say the Bolshevik revolution was a disaster. The Soviet Union was able industrialize and was able to determined modern army, and was able to improve the living standards of most Russians.
Ironically, I think David Hume actually drew me closer to Islam even though he critiques religion extensively, including Islam. I said before that one important reason why I became a Muslim was that I was tired of being bitter and nihilistic. Islam made me a better person because I was able to ablate a large portion of my bitterness. I really loved the doctrine of the fitrah; people have an intuitive understanding of God that one can choose (have the intention to) follow God and seek to please him (Islam says that he are all born “Muslim”). I really did not want to believe in original sin since that really offered no reason to optimistic. I wanted to believe in human benevolence, sympathy, and gentleness; I did not see that in the Catholic Church when I looked at it historically.
https://conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/david-hume-became-first-modern-humanist/
Of course, not all theists are like Joseph Butler.
Hi Latias,
Regarding your first paragraph, I disagree with so much of what you said but I won’t go into detail since it’s not the point of this post.
“I really did not want to believe in original sin since that really offered no reason to optimistic.”
Original Sin on its own is like that. But God wouldn’t present us with this problem without a solution which is the grace that is given to us through his Son. You’re not looking at both halves of the equation so no wonder it looks dark.
” I wanted to believe in human benevolence, sympathy, and gentleness; I did not see that in the Catholic Church when I looked at it historically. ”
Benevolence, Sympathy and gentleness. Are these not exemplified in the lives of our Saints throughout our history, all of whom believed in original sin?
Thanks for sharing Latias.
God Bless,
Allan
“In the final analysis, I’m not far off from Christopher Hitchens. Most religion throughout history has been harmful.”
You express yourself very well in this article as always. However I am surprised though at your negative view of religion taken in the round. Christopher Hitchens is a polemicist and rhetorician who enjoyed the limelight. Have a look at his brother Peter Hitchens, once an avowed Trotskyite Atheist and now an Anglican (and a gloomy English patriot). (The Brothers Hitchens did not get on by the way.)
“In the West, most people grow up with a negative attitude toward religion. If these people did a bit more studying perhaps they would realize that the history of the Church has been pretty benign compared to other alternatives presented throughout history, whether that history be ancient or recent.”
True. True and then some.
Western Civilisation = Christianity. In more recent times it has been modified by a secular liberalism that can only flourish whist Christian values retain their influence. If Christian values eventually no longer dominate in our societies, then liberals will find that things are not to their liking. (God forbid that that will happen.)
Hi Christopher,
Let’s be fair with Christopher here. It was his publisher that tagged on the subtitle. Obviously his book is an attack on the three Abrahamic religions, although when you look at them compared to some of the examples I’ve given plus many others, they’re not that bad.
I have to admit that I’ve never read a Peter Hitchens book. Seems odd for someone with my views.
Thanks for sharing Christopher.
God Bless,
Allan
I’ve listened to a good deal of Htichens’ debates and public dialogues, I hope someday I’ll have time for his books. He seemed much more sophisticated than Richard Dawkins. My favorite part of Hitchens’ legacy is “Hitchens’ razor” (though I prefer the original “What is freely asserted is freely dismissed”).
Hi Orangehunter,
His books are interesting. He has a very unique writings style no matter what he’s writings about. Even his articles in Vanity Fair have his brand name all over them. A very good writer.
God Bless,
Allan
Definitely more sophisticated than the rather snobbish and superior Dawkins (an expert in biology but his professional qualifications are no help when it comes to philosophy). Hitchens has a certain degree of charm and possessed considerable intelligence, so much so that he was asked by John Paul II to act as Devil’s Advocate when the Church was discussing the canonisation of Mother Theresa.
I have heard him take apart Islam in a brilliant way, but I have also heard him be taken apart by William Lane Craig in debate – there was no contest. When he was stuck in a debate he would sometimes resort to avoid the issue by distraction.
So much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say about religion sprang only from emotion. I liked him in spite of his hostility to Christianity and I imagine he would have been good company (although I cannot imagine having anything to say that would have interested him).
He was one of those men that you just have to have around the place stirring things up, and that provoke you so that you think and try to come up with an answer. (John Lennon was a lightweight version of that.) A gadfly. He still has his ardent devotees, who seem to be rabid atheists. I think he deserved a better following than that.
Christopher and Orangehunter,
Here’s a post the two of you might want to check out.
http://allanruhl.com/the-faith-of-christopher-hitchens/#more-432
Interesting. I have watched and heard a lot of the late Christopher Hitchens. He is a great Lost Soul. Blessed with many gifts, and not least adored by a load of enthusiastic fanboys who do him little credit.
I have just bought “The Rage Against God” by Peter Hitchens. This is a man I admire very much for his insight and his intellect, although as an Englishmen his pessimistic outlook for our country (and, let’s face it, which has achieved so much for civilisation) makes me very uncomfortable indeed.
Allan,
Early days of apologetics?
Who were you defending against, and what were you defending? Were you more interested in history, or doctrines such as the necessity of baptism, biblical evidence of the Eucharist, and monergism/synergism?
—
Any reason why Catholics tend to like Jordan Peterson and Christopher Hitchens as opposed to philosophers such as David Hume? Hume was officially banned.
Hi Latias,
At that point I was only debating atheists and defending generic Christian theism. I wasn’t defending any doctrine accept for the Trinity because around that point, I started to date a girl from a non-Trinitarian restorationist group called the Two by two’s – Google them. I didn’t really get into doctrinal issues aside from the Trinity until 2010 which is the same year I started following the work of James White. That’s when I re-read the Quran. I had previously read it back in 2003.
As for Hitchens and Peterson, they’re probably more popular than Hume because they’re contemporary whereas Hume is a character of the past long gone. He’s not on Youtube and doesn’t have any books on the New York Times Bestseller list. That’s my opinion anyway.
God Bless,
Allan
Just to clarify, I to thought that the Japanese generals were ready to fight and die to the last military and civilian man, woman and child. Hence, the atomic bombs were necessary to force their surrender and prevent much greater bloodshed.
However, Stefan Molyneux introduced me to a fact I did not know before: The Japanese generals were ready to surrender, with very few conditions such as being allowed to keep the Emperor. The Allies refused, retorting ‘unconditional surrender or bust’.
The kicker? After the atomic bombs and the unconditional surrender of the Japanese… The Allies let them keep their Emperor.
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth
So why such a waste of life? Doubtless, the evil of the Japanese (especially in Asia) was due for divine repayment. But geopolitically, America wanted to warn Russia about who was the new global boss.
as salaamu alaykum,
I think the Magic intercepts revealed that the Japanese were willing to surrender, and hoped to use the CCCP to mediate between them so as the Japanese would get a fairly decent deal.
The Japanese already lost, but they were willing to use threat of bloodshed (when defending the Home Islands as the Imperial Japanese Navy practically had no offensive operational capability in the Pacific) to gain some concessions.
Yes, it was most likely to intimidate the CCCP.