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).
I've never been a big Shmuley Boteach fan. He's been "Michael Jackson's rabbi," has written a book on "kosher sex," and at one time attacked Fundamentalist Protestantism as having absolutely nothing in common while co-authoring a book with a "new age" personality on how much Judaism and the "new age" allegedly do have in common (in fairness, he later came to praise Fundamentalist Protestants for their defense of Biblical morality).
Boteach is a maverick, and I'm still not going to join his fan club (I suspect he's still going to come out of left field a lot). But I'll tell you this much: my opinion of him just when up a great deal!
For taking this stand, yeyasher kochakha, Shmuley Boteach!
“When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” -G.K. Chesterton
“I Don’t Believe in Atheists.” -Chris Hedges
Well, I'm no teenager so I don't snigger about them. I think of them more as big time sinners. And if you're embarrassed to be a conservative, Hillary wants you.
I was amazed that when science came up neither of them knew enough to be able to discuss it at any level.
That's a shame because this is where Hitchens' arguments break down.
Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Privileged Planet
Yes, that’s the guy.
I’m reading his book now. Finished the intro. and the first chapter. It’s very good so far, as good as his `Why Orwell Matters’.
But his photo in the back could be a lot better. He looks slightly demented, or maybe it’s just a `lazy eye’.
Quite nicely put joebuck, thanks for posting it.
I listened to some of the program when Hitchens was on Hugh Hewitt's program. Hugh was posing questions and allowing Hitchen's to respond, but he wouldn't give a rebuttal. I was a little disappointed as well. It would have been better if he had Lee Strobel on as he was a one time atheist that now knows the truth and uses science to dispell evolution. That would have been a great debate.
I agree 100% Joe Buck, well stated! I'm ashamed to say my bible verse recall ability has gotten rusty, but there is a passage that sums it up that those that do not believe will not know the truth of God or even understand the Bible until God reveals it to them. They will be blind to the truth literally and figuratively. Hitchens could word by word dissect the bible, but without the discernment from the Holy Spirit his understanding or lack therof, would be fruitless until God reveals it to him. I pray that those like Hitchens aren't too far removed from God to ever find Him or hear Him. I guess we could only hope he may humble himself at some point and truly know there IS a God.
"CH: Very well, and I wish great luck to your friends, and there are many other Christians I know who do marvelous work in North Korea, for example, where the people are trying to escape from a prison slave state there, and also for keeping the issue of Darfur in front of the public. I think the Evangelical movement deserves a great deal of credit.
How very intolerant of Hitchens!
bttt
Ah, another one of those clever responses that make FR such a great place lately: “Don’t agree with me? You must be a liberal!”
How about the poster who called Christopher Hitchens did his research before calling someone a “homo” like a teenager would, with no evidence? I don’t have any problem with calling a spade a spade, but when you call someone something with no evidence, just making a personal attack, you’re not speaking like a conservative.
Go ahead, keep making conservatives look like teenagers sniggering about simple mistakes.
It’s a simple mistake to call someone gay when it’s easy to google it and find out otherwise? Otherwise, yes, I will keep calling out people when they say things that are demonstrably false, because that kind of talk harms the conservative movement.
bookmark for later
I beat you to it and I did it with dignity.
This is horrific, but not much different from partial birth abortion. If one takes a purely logical and not spiritual and religious view of life a lot of people will need to die as a matter of convenience and efficiency and it does not take a Hitler to start the process.
The problem with using Hawking as an example of what supposedly might have happened under a non-Judeo-Christian regime, is that Hawking was perfectly healthy at birth, and continued to be so well into adulthood. Nobody would have wanted to euthanize him.
He is an exceptional man, not only for his brainpower, but because he has lived with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) for decades longer than about 99% of other sufferers.
The author also makes the typical assumption that only alternative to a Christian society is to live in some sort of atheistic dictatorship. Several countries in Western Europe can barely be called Christian these days, including Scandinavia and the UK. In fact, most of those societies have been overwhelmingly secular for decades now. Yet somehow democracy continues to thrive in those places despite all the scare stories you hear from the Christian fundamentalists in the US.
That being said, the Hitchen's central aversion to religion in general brings to mind the T. S. Elliot quote:
"The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time; so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and to save the world from suicide."Hitchens, as child of socialism, still attempts, while facing the collapse of communism, to apply the same Marxist dialectic and scientific rationality to all questions.
T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture
As conservatives, our first regard is to recognize the value of what we have inherited in western civilization. Hitchens begins without that predisposition and goes greatly astray.
Ex-stalinists Whittaker Chambers and Frank Meyers both came to admire the Permanent Things and became conservatives. Some, like Hitchens, just retreat to Trotsky and retrench the dogma. I am reading an intersting book on the myth of Che and his actual impact on decimating Cuba. It is revealing how many fawning quotes of reverence Che has had offered for him over the years by Chris Hitchens.
It is not necessary to be anti-religion, even if one is a non-believer, to understand the dangers of pure rationality to good government. Hayek is the perfect example.
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.