Obviously the title of this post is a joke. One thing that is clear from Hitchens’ new book: he does not love Jesus. Christopher Hitchens’ book god is not Great, is one book within a wave of recent ardent atheists who make up, what is called, “The New Atheism.” Other authors that have been associated with “The New Atheism” are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lewis Wolpert, Sam Harris, and Victor Stenger. Of them I have only read Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris…and I can honestly say that I am not impressed enough to continue reading their books. They make some good points, but these points have been oft refuted by Christian apologists for decades, since the fall of logical positivism (which was, ironically, spearheaded by Anthony Flew, whose new book, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind will be reviewed tomorrow).
Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, was the first book I read from the school of “The New Atheism.” While he brought up many scientific points, which makes sense because he is a scientist, Hitchens only uses science when it suits his point. Being a journalist and contributing editor to Vanity Fair hardly makes one qualified to write a book on the evils of religion. Perhaps he would have been more qualified to write a book about the evils of consumerism, low self-image brought upon by the advertising and beauty community, or the evils of a free market economy. But, alas, he has chosen to take on organized religion. [To be fair, Hitchens has written academically on literature, so this statement while funny, was a bit of a low blow.]
His book reads much like a 14-year old girl’s rant against her parents for not letting her hang out at parties until 12:00am. It is little more than a 283 page diatribe against an “evil” god who was created by power and blood hungry men to suppress freedom, peace, and sexual deviancy. All the basic arguments against religion are represented. “In the Old Testament God is mean.” “During the Crusades “Christians” killed a lot of people.” “Christianity says homosexuality is wrong.” “9-11 was caused by religious fanatics.” “You can’t prove God exists.” “There are no such things as miracles…” And on and on he goes.
One of the reasons I read the book is not because I am significantly interested in apologetics, but because Hitchens’ book represents, in a much better way than Dawkins’ book, most of the arguments you would hear from your friends or co-workers who deny that there is a God. Many of those people are not going to be privy to the scientific experience that Dawkins is. Rather, they are going to argue based on what they “feel,” what they have heard about the history of Christianity and/or organized religion, and based on the fact that they don’t want to limit their freedoms based on some bearded man in the sky that they can’t prove actually exists. To get an insight into the mind of someone who thinks in those terms, this book is valuable for Christians.
What I find the most interesting not just about Hitchens, but also about “The New Atheism” is that is represents a backwards movement in philosophy. Their work is based on the idea of logical positivism: that is, the belief that only statements that can be proven by empirical observation (i.e. the scientific method and scientific study) can be meaningful and/or true. This viewpoint stems from the Enlightenment and finds its most convincing form in the work of A.J. Ayer (especially his work Language, Truth, and Logic). The problem is that this viewpoint has been destroyed. Even A.J. Ayer has come to disagree with his own work, stating in an essay published in the 1998 collection Great Thinkers on Great Questions that “Logical positivism died a long time ago. I don’t think much of Language, Truth, and Logic is true…I think it is full of mistakes which I spent the last fifty years correcting or trying to correct.”
So these works are written from a philosophical viewpoint that has been completely refuted. If that is not enough to write them off completely (which I think that it is), there is also a great irony in these books: they rail against fundamentalism and show the dangers of all forms of fundamentalism in sharp language using over-statements and hyperbole. By doing this they are presenting a form of atheistic fundamentalism that emulates the fundamentalism they are railing against. Fight fire with fire, fundamentalism with fundamentalism. Perhaps if they were not atheists they would have adhered to Jesus’ teaching from Matthew 7.5: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
So while the book is interesting in that is represents what one would hear from the atheist on the street, Hitchens ultimately fails in that he is adhering to a philosophical and epistemological system that simply does not hold any water. He wants to completely write off the supernatural or anything that cannot be scientifically proven, but he wants to hold on to such things as virtue and love. You cannot scientifically prove love, so you cannot have it both ways. You must either reduce love to a chemical process within the body or admit that their are things that are true but that science cannot prove.
25 January 2008 at 7.09 am
I believe it was NBC that used the “If you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you” campaign to promote reruns during the ‘off-season’ a while back. I can’t help but think of that promotion when I hear of “The New Atheism”. I’ve got to hand it to you Art, you’re more long-winded than I am to keep up with that literature. Are there any recent titles that address or respect the collapse of logical positivism, while still putting together a noteworthy atheistic argument? That would make my reading list.
25 January 2008 at 1.40 pm
Wonderful presuppositional analysis Art. Thanks for the meta-review.
26 January 2008 at 8.36 pm
Hey Arthur,
Thanks for the comments man. I appreciate your advice. Great review on Hitchens book by the way. You talk philosophy really well. It has been a long time since my seminary days! My only complaint that set me off though is your loyalty to the Red Sox. You need to become an Indians fan!
Scott
28 January 2008 at 4.00 pm
We showed a live debate last night in church where he was arguing against intelligent design and of course he couldn’t stick to the subject… probably the first and last time that the f-bomb will come through the sound system at Calvary Bible Church in Nassau, Bahamas and I was there for it… what an ass.
28 January 2008 at 9.25 pm
Good post. I feel the same way. Sometimes I worry about listening to atheists: I have enough trouble with doubts as it is. But I listened to a debate with Hitchens on youtube yesterday and was only impressed by the vitriol and venom that he spit out whenever he talked. It’s funny that the word “rant” also came to my mind. His hatred for Christianity is amazing. The thing I found most interesting was how he focussed on the atonement and how immoral and horrible a concept it is. It amazes me how an atheist can have absolute values, but I was even more amazed by the focus on the atonment. It was very strange. I could not help but think that this must be evidence of Satanic influence. Why else would he target the atonment with such venom?
2 February 2008 at 7.11 am
[...] Nice reviews on the new atheism by Art Boulet. 2. Emerging exercise? 3. An emerging church planter reflects on church planting — and on his [...]
5 February 2008 at 8.13 am
Arthur,
Just writing to say that I enjoyed this review article immensely and that, as a card-carrying member of the “Get-thee-behind me, Hitchens” lobby, I’ve done a post in praise of yours at the following URL.
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
wgreen,
I never thought about it that way before, but yes, “the evils of atonement” does have a ring of the Satanic about it. But it may just be that Hitchens is one of those people who’s incapable of admitting he’s ever wrong about anything.
14 February 2008 at 4.45 pm
(Pardon me if I just jump in here …)
I think Mr. Hitchens (& presumably any atheist or materialist “on the street”) would tell you that love is not a thing (like, say, a car) or even a force (like, say, gravity) but rather a word we humans have developed to describe a whole host of emotions which are actually detectable through scientific analysis and instrumentation. I mean, it is what some neuroscientists do everyday – look at how emotions are linked to brain activity. We humans give these emotions names & descriptions, & they are definately based on how we feel, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a material basis.
So, really, I guess I am just unclear about how you’re defining “scientifically proven” in reference to ‘love’. Do you mean, the trademark chemical & neural indicators that are detected when subjects are shown picture of their partner do not constitute proof? I mean, take the notion that our pupils dialate when we see someone we desire; is that not evidence that there is linkage between out body chemistry & what we call love? and which love are you refering to, sexual lust & love for our partner or parental love for our offspring? The two, I think, are distinct …
But to respond to what I think is a main point of your review, atheists & materialists generally do not accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Ideas have to be distinct & falsifiable. You may call that ‘logical positivism’ but I fail to see how that has been undermined. (Maybe the positivism is gone, in which case there is only logic, which I think is a-ok.) How is this not different than what I presume is the burden of proof you live by in every other facet of your life besides you faith tradition (way of knowing? religious life?)? (do I presume too much – I don’t know you personally …)
I’m interested in hearing your responses – Wish I had more time to discuss this with you, but (don’t tell my boss) I’m at work …
14 February 2008 at 4.47 pm
Oh & I love the Red Sox too!
16 February 2008 at 12.46 am
wgreen – very sophisticated critique: “Sometimes I worry about listening to atheists: I have enough trouble with doubts as it is.” But Hitchens only strengthened your faith (i.e., belief without evidence) by giving off strong hints of sulphur. You needn’t listen to him if he’s been inspired by Satan. There, that was easy. Let’s just repress those nagging doubts and call those who point out the obvious – that there is no evidence for your beliefs – satanically inspired. Pretty dangerous stuff, but certainly a faithful old standby of clerical oppressors.
16 February 2008 at 12.56 am
Arthur – you offer no argument in favor of the existence of God other than that it’s a feeling one has: ironically, the very thing you criticize about Hitchens’ unbelief.
‘Rather, they are going to argue based on what they “feel,”’
Certainly, religious believers can do nothing more than that themselves.
Also why do Christians always retreat into something as vague as “…there are things that are true but that science cannot prove”. You presumably believe that these “things” include that a man was born of a virgin, played the lead role at a magical human sacrifice, then came back from the dead. And now we should pray to the zombie! I really cannot imagine what it’s like to believe these things – it must be a bit degrading.
16 February 2008 at 1.35 am
Geoffrey: Always good to come across another Sox fan! I’m looking forward to another great year! Hopefully J.D. Drew and Lugo will wake up this year! J.D. showed some promise in the post-season, so I’m hopeful.
In response to what you wrote, I definitely understand what you are saying. The point I was actually attempting to make (which I might have made quire poorly) was not necessarily about ‘love’ as much as it was about emotions or feelings, i.e. something that is both external from ourselves and the natural order. I was simply using love as an example. Because emotions and feelings are something that are outside of the natural order, they are not something that can be scientifically proven. I can scientifically prove that I am quite happy right now. But I know that I am. Does that make more sense?
Flashman: The point of this post was not to put forth reasons to belief in God. The point of the post was to give my reflections on reading Hitchens’ book. There are numerous books written that put forth excellent and compelling reasons for belief in God. I do not pretend to fool myself into thinking that I could write better than, say, C.S. Lewis or Timothy Keller or N.T. Wright. Apologetics and philosophy are not my primary research interest. This post was just my reflections, not a defense of the faith. Take it for what its worth.
And if you belief there is such things in the world as emotions (like I just wrote about above), then you belief in somethings that cannot be scientifically proven. I don’t see why one thing that cannot be scientifically proven (emotions) are more rational to believe in that other things (the virgin birth). At the end of the day, we believe in both of them by faith, whether or not we want to admit that.
I do admit that I accept that by faith. Do you admit that you believe in emotions by faith, when they cannot be scientifically proven?
17 February 2008 at 8.57 pm
Arthur,
First, I should apologize for the rather strident and rude tone of my post above – I found your very reasonable response a bit embarassing. I was guilty of something I find very irritating in these online boards – people writing things anonymously that they wouldn’t dream of saying to someone’s face. I was also a bit rude to wgreen. Perhaps I was satanically inspired. Seriously though, my apology is genuine.
In answer to your question, “Do you admit that you believe in emotions by faith, when they cannot be scientifically proven?”
I have years of direct experience of my own emotions. I know very well when I’m relaxed, elated, pissed off, sad, etc. I’ve also seen evidence of almost everyone I’ve ever met experiencing and demonstrating emotions. This may not be scientific evidence, but it’s my own experience.
I have, however, positively no experience with or evidence of the existence of a deity. Moreover, it’s a rather small thing to take it on faith that I’m feeling angry, say. Maybe it can’t be scientifically proven (though I’m almost certain that some kind of brain imaging device would show certain areas of my brain ‘lighting up’ as you would expect them to). But that’s really not that outlandish a claim to take on faith. Almost every person on the planet could provide at least testimonial evidence that they’d experienced emotions. Indeed, I’d imagine that almost every human who has ever lived, if resurrected, could attest to the same thing.
However, it’s a much, much larger thing to ask people to take it on faith that God exists, is supervising you, will potentially punish you for eternity after you die for acting on instincts that presumably he endowed you with, etc. Also that Jesus was born of a virgin, was resurrected, etc. Hitchens isn’t perfect, but I think he’s right to claim that the burden of proof – let’s say, even testimonial proof, not scientific – lies with those who would ask us to accept claims that are so extraordinary.
17 February 2008 at 10.43 pm
Flashman: I appreciate your humility. I know from experience that rhetoric online can come across a bit harsh, especially on topics such as this. I didn’t think your tone or rhetoric was as harsh as you might have, so no offense was taken on my side. I always love talking through issues such as this and always try to read people’s writings in the best light possible.
I think your last comment was fair and balanced (pardon the allusion to the Fox News Network!). I think you are right in saying that emotions are easier to take on faith because they are something that all humans experience.
I both appreciate and agree with this statement as well:
Hitchens isn’t perfect, but I think he’s right to claim that the burden of proof – let’s say, even testimonial proof, not scientific – lies with those who would ask us to accept claims that are so extraordinary.
I agree that extraordinary claims need corresponding extraordinary evidence. This is where I would turn the conversation towards the validity of the claims in the Bible regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I know that this is not the best ‘tactic’ in this debate, but the reason I would turn to the Bible is because, in all honesty, the Bible is where I found my faith. I was an agnostic until I was 20. When I was first turned towards the Christian religion I devoured books on Scripture and the validity of the claims it makes. That is what, ultimately, lead me to believe in God.
Again, I want to point out that many others are more qualified to speak on these matters than myself. I don’t want to stop this conversation because I find it very exciting and informing, if not for the both of us, at least for me! I can point you towards books that people have written on the topic of the validity of Scripture if you are interested.
Again, I don’t want to stop this conversation and seem like I’m reverting to fideism, but I have to be honest about my beliefs and that they do rest on the Bible. Does that make sense?
17 February 2008 at 11.06 pm
Works for me – thanks for the reply.
14 April 2008 at 5.22 pm
[...] member of what has been dubbed “The New Atheism.” As much as I disagree with his work (here is my brief review of one of his book) and cringe when I hear him speak, I enjoy listening to [...]
24 October 2008 at 2.25 pm
[...] Hitchens (pictured on left), author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (which I quasi-reviewed here) will be debating Doug Wilson (pictured on right), author of numerous books as well as the blog [...]