Family differences: Christopher Hitchens and Peter have disagreed
about politics and about the invasion of Iraq - now they are arguing about God...
Posted on 06/02/2007 8:59:04 PM PDT by rface
Some of you may know that I have a brother, Christopher, who disagrees with me about almost everything.
Some of those who read his books and articles also know that I exist, though they often dislike me. But in general we inhabit separate worlds – in more ways than one.
He is of the Left, lives in the United States and recently became an American citizen. I am of the Right and, after some years in Russia and America, live in the heart of England. Occasionally we clash in public.
Family differences: Christopher Hitchens and Peter have disagreed
about politics and about the invasion of Iraq - now they are arguing about God...
But now, in God Is Not Great, he has written about religion itself, attacking it as a stupid delusion.
This case, I feel, needs an answer. Most of the British elite will applaud, since they see religion as an embarrassing and (worse) unfashionable form of mania.
And I am no less qualified to defend God than Christopher is to attack him, neither of us being experts on the subject.
Christopher is an atheist. I am a believer. He once said in public: "The real difference between Peter and myself is the belief in the supernatural.
"I’m a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."
I don’t feel the same way. I like atheists and enjoy their company, because they agree with me that religion is important.
I liked and enjoyed this book, and recommend it to anybody who is interested in the subject. Like everything Christopher writes, it is often elegant, frequently witty and never stupid or boring.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Certainly history is full of idiots who do idiocies in the name of religion. These are so easy to enumerate that it is scarcely worth the effort. It isn't a disproof of religion to recognize that men sin; it's one of the central tenets of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and a host of others with which I am less familiar. Atheists sin as well. We'd better get used to the idea that human beings are works in progress at the very best of times.
It is the basis of that progress that turns out to be the function of religion. I am unconvinced that atheism isn't nihilism when all is said and done although I treasure my atheist friends. I can wish nothing better for them, as for Christopher, that they be open to the touch of the ineluctable presence of God and that they come to learn that human reason is not the only source of understanding. An atheist by the name of C.S. Lewis did.
On the issue of Peter's disbelief that the invasion of Iraq could result in a better world I am much more aligned with his brother in an emphatic "yes, it did precisely that." It is here that Christopher shows what I suspect to be an underlying ethical if not spiritual development - his insistence that Iraq constituted a difficult but beneficial effort is an opinion firmly based on morality (a rather difficult position for a true atheist to explain although Lord knows Hitch tries it); that is, that effort followed the tenets of freedom, human rights, and the opposition of oppression that his Left claims but does not follow, that Peter acknowledges but does not appear to claim. Here we have IMHO, a clear-eyed and even defiant appreciation for the truth on Christopher's part that Peter does not share.
On the other hand, Peter is certainly correct about Christopher's tendency to equate religion with its abusers and ignore the rest. That is one of the artifices of rhetoric, not of truth, and Christopher is, after all, a brilliant rhetorician. I'm guessing he's also smart enough to know the difference.
I may be entirely wrong about this but it strikes me that Christopher's latest book is a last desperate effort of a formidable intellect to keep the fires of his disbelief alive. If he's lucky it will not succeed. I'll say a prayer to that effect - it'd piss him off.
It was. A religious belief that the state is the highest authority and always knows best, and it was required that everyone adopt that religion. There are places like Japan and Sweden and Norway and such that are irreligious, but they aren't tyrannies. I am tired of Christians suggesting that atheism is bad because of the Soviet Union or Communist China. Those places were societies that happened to be atheistic, not atheistic societies (as some ideal of it). Atheism and liberty are not at all incompatible, and, in fact, go together more than religion and liberty.
The Bible is an R-rated book. The idea that it is appropriate for establishing morality for a society is like saying the same for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie. Christians like to cherry pick things they can twist into niceties by God and ignore everything else, because religion is all about making the believer feel good. It's opium.
Your brother sucks Pete. Why don’t you do us a favor and kick his ass...
http://www.viralvideochart.com/youtube/christopher_hitchens_on_the_death_of_jerry_falwellcnn_360?id=YkAPaEMwyKU
LOL!
Later read.
Note the extreme difference in mien.
Peter’s face is open, looks sincere, a bit peaceful with some happiness visible.
Christopher’s is sort of sullen, angry, more miserable and unhealthy looking.
Anyway, two siblings of the same sex with 5 or more years of age difference statistically have the most sibling rivalry problems, especially if there are only the two of them (no other siblings). It is almost always the older sibling who is jealous of the younger sibling.
Does anyone know the ages of the Hitchens' brothers or if they have other siblings?
No, that's wrong. His greatest trick was getting God to not destroy him utterly, after his insurrection, like God destroyed lots of other things and people in the Bible (he clearly isn't squeamish or slow to rage), and getting God to give him his own kingdom to rule, and getting God to let him interfere at will in the lives of God's second recorded creation (mankind), and getting God to let him hang out in Paradise on Earth to tempt Adam and Eve (I mean, really, would you let someone who basically tried to kill you in your newborn's nursery?), and getting God to let him hang out with God himself (the bet regarding Job).
There are fairy tales that have fewer plot holes than the stories of God and Lucifer turned Satan. This is crazier than a fairy tale about Bush having Osama bin Laden be his Secretary of Defense.
Hey Christopher Hitchens...”Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised. And His greatness is unsearchable”. Psalm 145:3
PS. The name ‘Christopher means “Christ bearer”. Hopefully you will see the Light before it’s lights out on you!
Christopher Hitchens is a vile man. No commentator is more vicious and self-righteous in attacking others, often on the occasion of their deaths, as he has done with Ronald Reagan, Mother Theresa, John Paul II, and Jerry Falwell.
I agree !!!
They only look like plot holes to you now, since you don't know the whole story. Nobody does, yet; it's still being written.
And as for fairy tales, you can find them in just about every area of life, from the state lotteries to St. Gore's Book of Warmin', from J F'n Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" to Rosie O'Donut's rantings about fire not melting steel.
The problem is that people are fallible, and are often led by the nose by their desires. Empricism is often an effective check on this, until prestige, grant funding, and intellectual pride come in; and in the meantime empiricism is unable to validate completely (notice the lack of split infinitive) the humanities, history, or the supernatural.
In the meantime, Christopher is an officious prick, and too obviously impressed with his own intellect--like William F. Buckley, but always trying to catch his readers' eye as if to say, "Boy! Wasn't that clever of me!"
If I want insightful, funny sociopolitical commentary I will read Mark Steyn.
Cheers!
I may be entirely wrong about this but it strikes me that Christopher's latest book is a last desperate effort of a formidable intellect to keep the fires of his disbelief alive. If he's lucky it will not succeed. I'll say a prayer to that effect - it'd piss him off.
I enjoyed your post more than I enjoyed the article!
“I may be entirely wrong about this but it strikes me that Christopher’s latest book is a last desperate effort of a formidable intellect to keep the fires of his disbelief alive. If he’s lucky it will not succeed. I’ll say a prayer to that effect - it’d piss him off.”
I am pretty sure you are, in fact, entirely wrong. It always strikes me as odd that believers presume that non-believers are struggling with their denial of religious “truth” and will eventually succumb to belief in God. How anyone can read Christopher’s book as a “desperate effort” to keep his disbelief alive is beyond me.
It also puzzles me that believers so often think their praying for the “lost soul” of the non-believer will “piss him off,” to use your expression. I suspect most non-believers, like myself, see it as humerous, but desperate effort to keep belief alive.
God created everything, including, of course, Satan. God messed up on that one. But then we shouldn’t expect God to be infallible.
Having created Satan, God cannot destroy him. But then we shouldn’t expect God to be omnipotent.
I suspect God cannot find Satan to destroy him, because Satan is cleverer than God. But then we shouldn’t expect God to be omniscient, or omnipresent.
Frankly, as I read posts on this board about God, I’ve come to the conclusion that we simply expect too much from him. Nobody’s perfect, after all.
I once saw an interview of the older brother with Judith Regan.
He discussed his mother’s suicide when he was young (grade school age; his brother was still a toddler, so it didn’t affect him as much).
I suspect his anger against God for his mother’s death might be behind his anger against religion.
I usually pray to God for him whenever I read about his latest tirade against religion or believers.
My adopted son had a similar deep and smouldering anger against me and God for his mother’s death (when he was age 10). I don’t know if he ever got completely over his anger, but up to age 21 he never recognized the reason he was angry all the time.
Oh, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that that’s the other thing I’ve never understood. Why do believers presume to know that non-believers are “angry at God”? Non-believers, like myself, are not angry at God. We just don’t believe there is a God. I hope that helps clarify your misunderstanding.
Christopher just got a huge; albeit 'not unkind' poke in the ribs from his brother Peter. Perhaps it will move Christopher to a more enlightened position on 'religion' per se; as might other criticisms offered. . .though I imagine he has heard a great many, while confirmed in his atheism. So, perhaps not. . .
. . .and while I am not sure he would admit an error in any of his atheistic premises - if he should decide he made one - Christopher's intellectual honesty has me believing he probably would; if only eventually.
Oh, not so odd at all - I did cite C.S. Lewis as an example of this. As for non-believers struggling with anything, I doubt, unfortunately, that it is a general condition. Most I've met are perfectly comfortable with non-belief. But I do not think Hitchens is such an individual, for precisely the reasons I mentioned.
I don't wish to come off as condescending and if I did so I apologize, but Hitchens' case isn't only my opinion. I'd refer you to Martin Amis's letter to him in Koba The Dread: Laughter And The 20 Million - Amis knows him personally and describes his belief that Hitchens is only slightly short of a major political epiphany to follow his moral one. I do not think it much of a stretch to suggest that might be a religious epiphany as well.
As far as a "desperate effort to keep belief alive," I am afraid that I find that slightly humorous. It doesn't require a great deal of effort, and no desperation at all. It's easy - all you have to do is open your eyes. I respect your preference for non-belief more than you know because I shared it for a very long time.
The results of their 'feedback' seems fairly clear here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.