Fr. Barron on Christopher Hitchens’ book
January 27, 2008
As much as I enjoy reading Hitch’s articles on politics, he’s an absolute fool when it comes to religion, as are most of the so-called new atheists. Their arguments are feeble, selfish, and unscholarly. Fr. Barron does his deconstruction of God Is Not Great, Hitchens’ screed, below:
January 29, 2008 at 12:47 am
I don’t think either you, nor the pastor here, have read Hitchens’ book. Because Hitchens refutes (specifically, mind you) every single thing the pastor said.
Video 1.) Point me to a specific atheistic text that Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao used to justify, dogmatically, their genocides. Karl Marx? Nope. Marx wrote that religion was the opiate of the people, that it was a necessary thing (not to mention that Marxian theory is economic theory, not atheistic philosophy). The fact is, there ARE no atheistic texts because there IS no atheistic dogma. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god, nothing more. Stalin didn’t justify killing religious people because he was atheistic (and by the way, he killed a lot of atheistic rivals too). He justified killing religious people because they worshiped something other than Stalin. Remember, Stalin set up a cult of worship around his government, even proclaiming agricultural miracles that he himself caused. In simple terms, Stalin was a egomaniac and a sociopath with a lot of power. End of story. Same with the rest of them.
Religious traditions don’t have that kind of excuse. Genocide, racism, and slavery are all written into the Bible. Religious ideas directly motivated slavery and genocide and racism and sexism (although there were other factors, of course).
Video 2.) The pastor’s discussion of Ockham’s razor makes no sense. The acceptance of science and modernity is a late addition to religious thought. Remember, it was none other than the Roman Catholic Church which silenced Galileo’s astronomical discoveries. Scientific ideas DID compete with religious ones, and often! And they still do today! The majority of Americans don’t believe evolution is a fact. This belief is motivated by their religion. The idea of God and the idea of evolution compete. That single counterexample destroys his entire argument.
Video 3.) Criticizing atheists for interpreting the Bible and other religious texts literally is really a red herring. Most religious people on the planet interpret the books literally. This isn’t an argument against the atheists in discussion, it’s an argument against fundamentalist religion. The pastor can’t possibly blame atheists for the state of religious belief on our planet. It’s a sad fact, but fundamentalism rules religious discourse. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, they all write about this extensively.
January 29, 2008 at 8:09 am
Dear Mark;
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I’ll answer your comment paragraph by paragraph.
>I don’t think either you, nor the pastor here, have read Hitchens’ book. >Because Hitchens refutes (specifically, mind you) every single thing the >pastor said.
I won’t speak for the pastor, but my policy is not to comment on things I don’t read. I read it namely because I like Hitchens’ work in general, especially regarding politics and his excellent treatment of Thomas Paine. I’ve heard him speak for five years, and on most topics I find him great to listen to. On religion, he, like most atheists, is ill-informed and spiteful to the point of embarrassment.
>Video 1.) Point me to a specific atheistic text that Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao >used to justify, dogmatically, their genocides. Karl Marx? Nope. Marx wrote >that religion was the opiate of the people, that it was a necessary thing >(not to mention that Marxian theory is economic theory, not atheistic >philosophy). The fact is, there ARE no atheistic texts because there IS no >atheistic dogma. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god, nothing more. >Stalin didn’t justify killing religious people because he was atheistic (and by >the way, he killed a lot of atheistic rivals too). He justified killing religious >people because they worshiped something other than Stalin. Remember, >Stalin set up a cult of worship around his government, even proclaiming >agricultural miracles that he himself caused. In simple terms, Stalin was a >egomaniac and a sociopath with a lot of power. End of story. Same with >the rest of them.
This means little in practical application. There are still many Marxists, Stalinists and Trotskyites, like Hitch, who for all intents and purposes worship the feet of these men. That there is no text pointing to this means little when one sees the devastation these men wreaked.
>Religious traditions don’t have that kind of excuse. Genocide, racism, and >slavery are all written into the Bible. Religious ideas directly motivated >slavery and genocide and racism and sexism (although there were other >factors, of course).
It seems that for all the good Christianity has done, atheists nitpick at those points they find objectionable. It’s happened since the beginning of organized religion, and will always be there. Atheism will pass. Religion will continue. You’re also trying to infer that slavery, genocide and sexism continue today. These were products of their time, and at least on a personal level, those of my denomination (I’m Eastern Orthodox) don’t particularly go big for slavery (I can do my own work), racism (I teach various races who get on quite fine with me, some of whom are Christians themselves) or sexism (otherwise I’d make a lousy date). That there are people who do this makes them criminals in abusing the words of teachings of Christ, nothing else.
>Video 2.) The pastor’s discussion of Ockham’s razor makes no sense. The >acceptance of science and modernity is a late addition to religious >thought. Remember, it was none other than the Roman Catholic Church >which silenced Galileo’s astronomical discoveries. Scientific ideas DID >compete with religious ones, and often! And they still do today! The >majority of Americans don’t believe evolution is a fact. This belief is >motivated by their religion. The idea of God and the idea of evolution >compete. That single counterexample destroys his entire argument.
No, I’d have to disagree with you. First, evolution is a theory, not fact. No one was there for the beginning of the show, so it will remain theory until we die, develop a mode of time travel, or in our case, find out if there indeed is a God who would take the time to answer the mysteries of life. Also, science and the Catholic Church have worked in coexistance for centuries. The same for other forms of Christianity, Islam before the 12th century, Judaism and most forms of religion. It’s the sort of oogum-boogum game that annoys people of faith when it comes to atheists trying to paint their stereotypes on us. Galileo’s case was essentially one of being a loudmouth, with the Pope at the time essentially begging him to behave himself. I implore you to read the following link, if you’d like:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html
>Video 3.) Criticizing atheists for interpreting the Bible and other religious >texts literally is really a red herring. Most religious people on the planet >interpret the books literally. This isn’t an argument against the atheists in >discussion, it’s an argument against fundamentalist religion. The pastor >can’t possibly blame atheists for the state of religious belief on our planet. >It’s a sad fact, but fundamentalism rules religious discourse. Dawkins, >Harris, Hitchens, they all write about this extensively.
Hardly. They have a right to criticize, but the Church (in its various denominations) have been doing that to each other for centuries. You’re simply late to the gamer and coming off as belligerents (not you in particular, Mark, as your arguments seem reasoned). And I agree that the argument should be against fundamental religion. Sadly, you atheists think a Christian is a Christian, and have proven to be woefully ignorant on our differences. Also, these topics rarely, if ever, seem to arise with Judaism or (especially) Islam. I castigate a lot of atheists (minus Hitch) for cowardice, as they know full well their opinions would land them in a chopping block in Riyadh. At least we’ll tolerate the debate.
Dawkins comes off as a bitter crank who some atheists are repulsed by, and Harris has admitted his bias to a form of Hinduism, so he merely hates Christianity while dabbling in his personal philosophy. Fair enough for him.
Again, thanks for the response.
Rudy
January 30, 2008 at 1:21 am
You’re right, these men caused a lot of devastation. It had nothing to do with atheism.
How many people write about valuable Christian influences on the world? Almost every Western historian. How many people learn about valuable Christian influences throughout history? Every school child getting a public education. You’re mistaking the polemical and directed content of these books as complete histories, when they’re not meant to be. And these authors state that they’re not meant to be that, too.
So the nitpicking of religions by atheists will always be there, but atheism will pass. That makes perfect sense.
They do continue today. Genocide in Rwanda. Genocide in Chechnya. Human trafficking is quite common in Asia and Asian minor. Sexism is the most rampant of all of the three, and not just in Islamic countries.
In science, a theory is something that explains the facts. In other words, it unifies and makes sense of facts. A scientific theory is not some wild just-so hypothesis. Scientific theories have predictive power; they take the facts, generate a general principle, and derive other things that must be true if that general principle were true. In simple terms, scientific theories are higher than facts in the scientific method (something that many high school texts get wrong). Facts are merely empirical statements of what is true. Scientific theories explain how facts connect to each other, the underlying principles that generate them, etc. The last bit that’s important is this: scientific theories are falsifiable. If you falsify a prediction that evolutionary theory makes, you’ve falsified evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, since Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species, the case for evolution has only gotten stronger and stronger, not weaker. The evidence for evolution is so massive that it fills libraries and libraries. There’s more evidence for the existence of evolution than there is for the existence of the ancient Romans. That’s how certain biologists are. That’s how much research has been accomplished in the short 150 years since Darwin. It’s unfortunate how truly unwilling people are to recognize this.
Late to the game? You said at the beginning of your posts that atheists have been always been nitpicking religion.
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, all of them really, specifically distinguish between liberals, moderates, and fundamentalists. All of them. I can’t believe you’d make that statement having read the books. You didn’t read them very carefully, apparently.
WTF does this have to do with anything? Should someone not voice their opinions if someone, somewhere threatens them? Is someone a coward for voicing opinions in a free country that they wouldn’t voice in a country that threatened to torture them for those opinions? NO. That’s a seriously idiotic comment.
Did it ever occur to you that these authors discuss Christianity so much because they know it best? Both come from countries where Christians make up the majority. I can guarantee you that Harris doesn’t hold to Hinduism. In fact, here’s a quote:
From here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html
January 30, 2008 at 6:19 am
>You’re right, these men caused a lot of >devastation. It had nothing to do with atheism.
It is a byproduct of an irrational hatred of Christianity (and other religions) that played a part in the slaughter of these people. I’d implore you to take a trip to the Balkans (I lived there for years), Russia and even Spain to see what fanaticism atheists were fueled with in carrying out these massacres.
>How many people write about valuable Christian >influences on the world? Almost every Western >historian. How many people learn about valuable >Christian influences throughout history? Every >school child getting a public education. You’re >mistaking the polemical and directed content of >these books as complete histories, when they’re >not meant to be.
Then it seems to me both of us are talking past each other for some reason.
>And these authors state that they’re not meant >to be that, too.
What they say and what many read don’t seem to be in concert with each other. You may say I’m being blind to it, but I’d say the same about their reading of our texts.
>So the nitpicking of religions by atheists will >always be there, but atheism will pass. That >makes perfect sense.
There will always be criticism, but faith wins out of bleak ranting.
>They do continue today. Genocide in Rwanda. >Genocide in Chechnya. Human trafficking is quite >common in Asia and Asian minor. Sexism is the >most rampant of all of the three, and not just >in Islamic countries.
And it goes against the teaching of Christianity. You are mistaking Judaism in the context of its time with what has happened since.
>In science, a theory is something that explains >the facts. In other words, it unifies and makes >sense of facts. A scientific theory is not some >wild just-so hypothesis. Scientific theories >have predictive power; they take the facts, >generate a general principle, and derive other >things that must be true if that general >principle were true.
It is still an educated guess dressed up as fact. Nothing more.
>In simple terms, scientific
>theories are higher than facts in the scientific >method (something that many high school texts >get wrong).
I’ll sympathize here. I’m a historian by training, and the books are almost always abysmal. One doesn’t get to have real fun in education until one is freed from those infernal and interminably boring texts.
>Facts are merely empirical
>statements of what is true. Scientific theories >explain how facts connect to each other, the >underlying principles that generate them, etc. >The last bit that’s important is this: >scientific theories are falsifiable. If you >falsify a prediction that evolutionary theory >makes, you’ve falsified evolutionary theory.
Agreed.
>Unfortunately, since Darwin’s publication of the >Origin of Species, the case for evolution has >only gotten stronger and stronger, not weaker. >The evidence for evolution is so massive that it >fills libraries and libraries. There’s more >evidence for the existence of evolution than >there is for the existence of the ancient >Romans. That’s how certain biologists are. >That’s how much research has been accomplished >in the short 150 years since Darwin. It’s >unfortunate how truly unwilling people are to >recognize this.
And it seems that there is willful blindness to those many scientists who say Darwin promoted bunkum. Both sides are essentially excommunicating each other for being “blind.” Both sides take stabs in the dark. I, for one, have little problem with evolution. I believe in process, absolutely. The one thing science never answers is what happened prior to that Big Bang (God’s finger-snap, whatever you wish to call it).
>Late to the game? You said at the beginning of >your posts that atheists have been always been >nitpicking religion.
I’m stating a fact that they are doing this. I am also stating that we do it to ourselves all the time.
>Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, all of them really, >specifically distinguish between liberals, >moderates, and fundamentalists. All of them. I >can’t believe you’d make that statement having >read the books. You didn’t read them very >carefully, apparently.
I read them carefully. That you don’t like what I came up with in my reading is a different kettle of fish.
>WTF does this have to do with anything?
Actually, it has a lot to do with it from my standpoint.
>Should someone not voice their opinions if >someone, somewhere threatens them?
We have the luxury to do so. But if you’re against religion, the atheists there should be doing their part to “stand up” against the mullahs and imams mixing their interpretations of religion, science and law together. I rarely see it.
>Is someone a coward for voicing opinions in a >free country that they wouldn’t voice in a >country that threatened to torture them for >those opinions?
You might not think so, but your ilk would gain more respect by doing so.
>NO. That’s a seriously idiotic comment.
Actually, it proves that atheism is just a Westernism tolerated by Christianity that will pass. It’ll probably never gain traction anywhere else in the world, and will pass away like other hopeless and hate-filled ideas. Again, with the exception of Hitch, few atheists would dare open their mouth in a place where they’d get punked.
>Did it ever occur to you that these authors >discuss Christianity so much because they know >it best? Both come from countries where >Christians make up the majority.
Of course, but there’s little excuse for them to be ignorant of the others. Again, to Hitchens’ credit, he has contact with the Muslim world and, though he hates religion, he’s been quite good with people over there who are indeed religious, especially in Kurdistan.
>I can guarantee you that Harris doesn’t hold to >Hinduism.
I stand corrected on Harris. He had mentioned his interest in Hinduism on a radio show where he did a very long interview, and conducted himself well enough for me to be interested to look at his work.
I’m afraid this will end like all conversations between believers and atheists: we’ll have to agree to disagree. But grant me one thing: at least I’m not chasing you around with a Bible in hand.
January 31, 2008 at 3:05 am
That’s exactly what I said. You’re missing my point, which is that atheism and anti-theism are not the same thing. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Anti-theism is contempt for theism. That an anti-theistic, atheistic person killed many religious people doesn’t put a bad light on atheism. There were many communist atheists during the same period who actively opposed Stalin’s policies (when and where they could).
They state that their books aren’t a complete history, and then go on to talk only about specific aspects of history. Which part isn’t in concert? The only problem here is that you’re gleaning a message which isn’t there.
Which is different from me gleaning a message from the Bible that obviously is there, and has obviously contributed hugely to social mores on slavery and genocide. The Bible condones, in plain black and white, all of the things I previously mentioned. It never says explicitly, “These are stories meant to be taken in context. We don’t mean to say that God really advocates all of this stuff.” That belief is strictly a product of modernity. Literalism, as I’ve said previously, has always been the most prominent reading of the Bible.
That’s because faith isn’t accountable to evidence, by definition. As you have just done, the faithful will simply declare victory without any argument.
In other words, “It was okay back then; God just changed his mind.”
Nope. As I said, scientific theories have predictive power. In other words, scientific theories themselves produce facts which we previously did not have. Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted that massive bodies could bend light around them. It was only later that we confirmed that prediction. Educated guess? Perhaps. But there’s a LOT of education behind it. Characterizing it as a “guess” is really stretching it.
Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, except in the very vaguest of senses. So that’s really a non sequiter. As for your first statement, I’m afraid you’re incorrect. Many, many, many, many scientists and mathematicians have taken time out of their busy research schedules to not only buy and read books by Intelligent Design people, but to publish responses to them. These are people who have dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed scientific papers, with hundreds of citations from other professionals. If you take a look at some of the ID people, say Behe or Dembski, you’ll see very quickly how inconsequential they are to modern science. They don’t contribute anything. They don’t even research ID. Despite their many criticisms of scientists for not taking them seriously, isn’t it strange that they themselves don’t research the stuff they espouse?
LOL, this is nonsense. Almost every interview I’ve ever watched this stuff is discussed. It’s discussed in their books. It’s discussed in their op-eds. I’m afraid that you’re not paying attention.
Committing suicide usually isn’t respected by Christians. That’s an odd statement.
Pot, meet kettle. Where, sir, do you live? Obviously you have access to blogs, so you don’t live in Saudi Arabia (where blogs are censored). Oh, I see. You’re speaking on behalf of all of your brave Christian martyrs. You’re claiming their pain for yourself. Talk about cowardice. Reminds me of George Bush talking about American soldiers.
No, just the usual right-wing, religious rhetoric.
January 31, 2008 at 6:05 am
It’s sad to see you spit dribble here, Jon. Atheists want to have it both ways, in that they wish to pretend their atheism is “just a disbelief in any god” while happily vilifying a faith that has done more for humanity than anything else has. You’re right in one sense: we cannot prove or disprove the notion of God. This is sheerly an act of faith. Something that you’re free to agree or disagree with. No one is forcing you to be anything you don’t wish to be.
As to the second to the last paragraph where you showed your lack of tact and ignorance, I lived in the Balkans for 15 years during the worst of it before coming here, so if you’re seeking “bravery” credentials, I’ve got them. It’s something your ilk will never possess, sadly, despite the “brave” comments you make from a comfy college.
January 31, 2008 at 6:13 am
One more think, Jon. Learn to debate with tact. The moment you act like a spoiled smart-ass who just discovered atheism and figures he can provoke a fight, the more your lack of credibility will show. It’s one of the reasons why, despite some interesting arguments and press coverage by sympathetic sorts, you guys come off looking like creeps.