Posted on 07/01/2007 8:10:54 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Christopher Hitchens's rancorous attack against religion, God Is Not Great, is the number-one book in America. Three years ago he and I debated religion in New York City (the debate is available on my Web site). I looked forward to the debate because I had always admired Hitchens's iconoclastic mind and barbed pen.
In our debate, he did not disappoint. He began with a typically acerbic attack against religion, saying that Stephen Hawking had more wisdom in his tiny little finger than all the pages of the Bible combined.
When my turn came, I responded that the great, wheelchair-bound physicist was fortunate that religion rather than evolution had influenced British morality. I had hosted Hawking at Oxford for a lecture a few years earlier, and found him to be a man who loved babies. Our daughter Rochel Leah had just been born, and Hawking insisted on holding her in his withered arms by having his wife wrap them around the infant.
He is a very incapacitated man, and some evolutionary biologists maintain that a life like his should never have been preserved in the first place.
Whereas the Bible establishes the infinite value of every human life, healthy or diseased, no less an authority than Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of DNA, suggested that babies should be considered alive only two days after birth, during which time they could be examined for defects. If defects were found that were sufficiently deleterious, the infant could presumably be eliminated with impunity because it had not yet become alive.
Similarly, Crick proposed redefining death as occurring at a predetermined age such as 80 or 85, at which time the person would automatically be declared dead and all his property pass on to his heirs.
THANKFULLY for Prof. Hawking, the society he lived in embraced biblical morality and rejected the establishment of survival of the fittest as a moral principle. Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, but that does not mean he should not have been given the medical care by which he survives and continues to enrich humanity with his genius.
And for all his own brilliance, this is where Hitchens goes seriously astray. Without the Bible, how would we even know what good and evil are? Through science? Like the idea of Prof. Bently Glass, who suggested that the notions of good and evil be completely divorced from their moral connotations and redefined as what is good or bad for the development of a species? Would we then justify the elimination of carriers of disease or the mentally defective, the interbreeding of which might be "bad" for the health of the species?
Hitler used this very argument as the rationale for his program of euthanasia for the mentally infirm, saying, "In nature there is no pity for the lesser creatures when they are destroyed so that the fittest may survive. Going against nature brings ruin to man... and is a sin against the will of the eternal Creator. It is only Jewish impudence to demand that we overcome nature."
In his book, Hitchens mocks the Ten Commandments. Didn't the ancient Israelites already know that thievery and murder were wrong? Quite right. Mankind would have easily legislated much of the morality contained in the Bible even without God.
But then the whole point of the Ten Commandments is the establishment of absolute, divine morality. These are not laws legislated by man and subject, therefore, to human tampering. They are the absolute rules that dare never be changed - at any time, at any place, under any circumstances.
Hitler also believed in "Do not murder." But it was his law that had been legislated, and it was therefore he who determined to whom it applied and to whom it did not. Indeed, Hitchens overlooks that the world's foremost genocides have all been committed by secular, atheistic regimes that maintained the right to determine which lives were worth preserving, and which worth discarding.
Hitler murdered at least 12 million. Stalin, another 30 million. Mao, perhaps 40 million. And Pol Pot killed one third of all Cambodians in the mid 1970s. The number of people killed by the secular atheist regimes of the 20th century dwarfs by far those killed in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history.
WITH ITS famous pronouncement that all humans are created in the image of God, the Bible establishes the absolute equality of all humankind, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. Charles Darwin, however, thought differently, "The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
According to Sir Arthur Keith, Britain's leading evolutionary scientist of the mid-20th century, Hitler's ideas of a master race were the direct product of evolutionary thinking. Keith wrote:
"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produced the only real basis for a national policy... The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter... The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution... war is the necessary outcome of Darwin's theory."
Thomas Huxley, the man most responsible for the widespread acceptance of evolution, remarked, "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man." In fact, after evolutionary theory was posited in 1859, questions of whether blacks were even of the same species as whites changed to questions of whether or not Africans could survive competition against Europeans.
The momentous answer was a resounding no. The African was the inferior because he represented the "missing link" between ape and man, according to the evolutionists.
So before Hitchens claims, as he does in his subtitle, that Religion Poisons Everything, he might stop to consider that the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible that he treads on with such glee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer's latest book is Shalom in the Home. He is also author of Moses of Oxford, which includes lengthy discussions of his debates on evolution with Prof. Richard Dawkins at Oxford (www.shmuley.com).
Is this the same author that wrote “No One Left To Lie To”?
Hitchens is terribly intolerant.
Narcissim is never a pretty thing to see, Hitchens falls upon the idea that somehow Atheism demands morality, or even common decency of it’s adherents, and that is simply not true, Atheism fills mass graves and cemeteries faster then any other philosophy of mankind that has ever been created.
God is indeed Great, it is mankind that is not.
Hitchens is a pudgy lush.
The Rabbi is spot on.
The difference between the atheist / communist world
and the Judeo Christan world.
Here is what sets most totalitarian from Democratic society’s apart.
The communists have no respect for human life.
The Islamists appear to have even less.
Hitchens is a very surprising lefty. He is one of the very few on the left who actually to this day — DEFENDS Bush’s decision to depose Saddam and stabilize Iraq.
But then I guess he has a motive as his latest book suggests -— HE HATES ALL RELIGION.
How do you know what is "good or bad for the species" without a definition of good or bad yet? In any event, "what is good or bad for the development of the species" is ultimately a philosophical question, incapable of being quantified. This is a pretty poor attempt to define good and evil.
Arthur Allen Leff >> Hitchens.
Atheists never consider the ethical and moral implications of a godless world. God provides the moral center to the Universe (along with everything else ;) )
And that is how you come to tossing malformed babies and the infirm off of cliffs. Indeed, it is exactly how the NAZI's defined good and evil, based on what was best for "their" species.
“Hitchens is a pudgy lush.”
And he needs a shave most days, but that is beside the point, he is making an pseudo-intellectual argument, not campaigning to be on the cover of “Health and Fitness”.
Teh problem is he can not seem to see past anything but himself, as if he is his own God and Master..a little Ozymandais:
” ‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’ Nothing else remains except bare, empty desert stretching around the ruined statue.”
as it always shall be, we are transients, no more no less.
You are abolutely right. Prof. Glass’ ethics lead straight to the gas camps of Treblinka and the killinlg fields of Cambodia. Toss in the Gulag and Mao’s cultural revolution and one begins to see a pattern.
Hey, I know him, I gave that guy 2 dollars outside of Walmart the other day...he said he was out of gas but I think he needed money for alcohol...LOL!
But then I guess he has a motive as his latest book suggests -— HE HATES ALL RELIGION."
Hitchens is not that hard to understand. Hitchens is a homo. But he is not a stupid homo. He hates religion and G-d because he thinks, falsely, that their admonition against his sexual predilection are why he is so angry and unhappy. But he also sees the communist left for the murderous fanatics they are. Hitchens is no more complicated than that.
In other words they're totally blinded by their own arrogant willful ignorance.
You’re thinking of Andrew Sullivan. Hitchens is married with a child, I believe.
I’m no Hitchens fan, but the slight problem with your deduction that Hitchens is a homo is that it requires you to argue away his marriages and children. But go ahead, keep making conservatives look like teenagers sniggering about “homos.”
I believe you are right. I stand corrected.
For the record, I am a Hitchens fan (even when I believed, falsely (see above), that he was a homo. And it is not "sniggering." The "gay rights" movement is part of the left wing battering ram designed to smash American culture.
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.