Terry Eagleton wrote about The God Delusion “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” If this is true of Dawkins’ work, and it is, than getting a rough understanding of Christopher Hitchens on religion involves imagining someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is that he once had a night light in the shape of a canary.
Hitchens could have done with reading some introductory books on religion - or, at least, reading some more closely and maybe taking some notes. He quotes Bart Ehrman (who he insists on calling ‘Barton’ repeatedly), but doesn’t seem to understand that the Bible is a collection of books written in specific historical and social contexts: He doesn’t understand why the Torah has “micromanagement of agricultural disputes” or “insanely detailed regulations governing oxes that gore and are gored” (an ox, as well as agriculture in general, being a life or death matter in a subsistence economy) [p. 100]; he believes that the foundation story for the three great monotheistic faiths is Moses (the story of God’s promise to Abraham is much more foundational) [p. 98]; he considers it insulting that the Torah has laws again murder adultery, theft, and perjury, as that would imply that the Jews didn’t know these were wrong before they had the law (which raises the question as to why modern states have laws for things that we all know are wrong) [p. 99]; he thinks that the four Gospels “cannot agree on anything of importance” (they agree on quite a bit, but then, what’s Hitchen’s definition of importance?) [p. 111]; he believes that Q influenced all four Gospels (Q by definition only influences Matthew and Luke) [p. 112]; and so on, and so on, and so on. In fact, I suspect that a wonderful introduction to comparative religion could be written simply by expounding on the errors that Hitchens makes.
I’m not going to do that, though.
Hitchens’ Thesis
Hitchens’ Thesis is conveniently laid out in his subtitle: How Religion Poisons Everything. “Everything” here is a bit strong, since he doesn’t consider religion to poison music, architecture, or literature. At least, not so much that we can’t enjoy them, and Hitchens doesn’t seem to have a terrible problem with certain outward signs of religion. Unfortunately, he never really defines “religion”. Rather, he simply equates it with “totalitarianism”:
Religion even at its meekest has to admit that what it is proposing is a ‘total’ solution, in which faith must be to some extent blind, and in which all aspects of the private and public life must be submitted to a permanent higher supervision. [p. 249]
What of totalitarian systems, such as Stalinism, that are not religious? There aren’t any: “Totalitarian systems, whatever outward form they may take, are fundamentalist and, as we would now say, ‘faith-based’.” [p. 250] A definition - or, at least, an equivocation, of convenience: All religion is totalitarian, and all totalitarianism is religious.
This leads to a bit of a quandary: What to do with those religious people (or even people who just believe in a deity) who aren’t totalitarian? Easy, make them non-religious! Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t violent and totalitarian, thus, “In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.” [p. 176]. Gandhi was religious, and thus totalitarian [pp. 181-184]. Nazism, Stalinism, and other supposedly secular totalitarianisms? Really, really, religious [pp. 229-252].
This basic idea that religion and totalitarianism is the premise of Hitchens’ entire argument, meaning that it isn’t really an argument at all, as the conclusion is that religion is totalitarian. And we all know that you’re not allowed to use a premise to prove itself, right? Right? Remember logic?
Hitchens’ Contradictions
There are two crucial contradictions in Hitchens’ book. First, the claim that “it is useless to look for consistency in the covenants that people believe they have made with god.” [p. 223] doesn’t work too well with the oft repeated claim that “All religions believe/practice…”. Indeed, just a few lines before this claim is the statements, “all religions have expressed a horror of it [menstruation]” [p. 223]. Really? I thought it was useless to look for consistency. Though, perhaps, it is simply useless to look for consistency in this book.
The second contradiction is between the statements: “There is nothing in the modern secular argument that even hints at any ban on religious observance” [p. 247], “…banish all religion from the discourse [on sex]” [p. 283], and, “it has become necessary to know the enemy [religion], and to prepare to fight it” [p. 283]. One wonders how quickly Hitchens would expand the discourse in which Hitchens doesn’t want religion and what the banishment would include. Religious observance often - though not always - includes sharing one’s views on a variety of issues. Banishing religion from some discourse, then, does hint on a ban on religious observance.
Conclusion
Hitchens is not familiar with either the primary or secondary literature on religion, Biblical studies, Quranic Studies, theology (especially twentieth century theology), sociology of religion, psychology of religion, anthropology of religion, and so forth. While a complete knowledge of the literature isn’t remotely necessary for writing on religion, the number of errors that Hitchens makes on basic ideas betrays a near-complete ignorance of the subject on which he writes. His thesis is self-fulfilling and, simply, bad logic. Overall, this book is simply not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. That alone would be enough to get him an F if this were for a class. But, he compounds is sins by not citing most of his major points, including this gem:
The chance that someone’s secular or freethinking opinion would cause him or her to denounce the whole injustice was extremely high. The chance that someone’s religious belief would cause him or her to take a stand against slavery and racism was statistically quite small. But the chance that someone’s religious belief would cause him or her to uphold slavery and racism was statistically extremely high, and the latter fact helps us to understand why the victory of simple justice took so long to bring about.
I suspect that this statement is patently false. After all, most Africans in America were religious and, presumably, against their own slavery and the slavery of people like them. But, if it is true, then cite your damned sources!
So, let’s see, an F, plus failure to cite source. Wow! and F minus!
Since you made it to the end of a rather long post, go enjoy this digest of god is not Great
Great review, I’ve taken the liberty of linking to it here
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
Thanks for a great review. Its absurd that this kind of sloppy writing is taken so seriously.
Actually, Hitchens’ main argument is that religion is man-made. I suppose that all that talk of cattle and the concerns of subsistence farming is simply one of the give-away signs.
The contradicitons that he talks about are within the various religions, it is not a lack of consistency across the religions that he bemoans.
That said, there are some glaring errors in the book. The one that has had most commentators shaking their head at is the one of Hassidic Jews having sex through a hole in a sheet.
Well of course religion is man made, who or what else made it up? A perfect basis for a book then, unless you know of some sheep or goats that have confessed to being the culprits. Talking of “glaring errors” don’t forget that the bible and quran are so full of them as to make the Janet & John childrens story books seem like literary masterpieces in comparison.
“After all, most Africans in America were religious and, presumably, against their own slavery and the slavery of people like them.”
Hitchens was obviously talking about religious American slaveholders and the religious men who argued for slavery.
Also, your arguments on Hitch’s supposed contradictions are extremely weak. If the only “consistency” between religions that could find is that they all think menstruation is horrible then we have problems, my friend.
Saying that we have “to fight” religion is not at all the same as saying religious observance should be banned. We have to fight back against religion because it imposes itself on us, that’s all he’s saying.
It always amusing me when people talk freely of how Hitchens would receive an F if this were a college paper. Why? Are you an academic yourself? Hitchens already blew through Oxford and that was 30 years ago. He has since taught at several graduate schools in America and co-written books with Chomsky and Said. Regardless of whether you agree with the book, if God is not Great had been handed in anonymously as something’s thesis, I think it’s a fair to say that most profs would simply have been blown away by the sheer high level of writing and depth of knowledge.
If Warfield is correct here, he puts himself in quite an awkward position.
I think it is fair to say that Hitchens knows more about religion than Warfield does of Hitchens. So following Warfield’s own thesis, how could he possibly have written this piece and expect to be taken seriously?
Does Warfield really consider himself more qualified than Hitchens to speak of religion? Following his thesis, what are Warfield’s credentials regarding this subject? Does he also imply that only Bishops and priests allowed to speak of christianity? Of course he quotes approvingly of Eagleton’s review of Dawkins’s book. It is quite possibly the least insightful review I have seen of that book (it made me question Eagleton’s worth, I used to be a fan) and the specific part Warfield mentions is of course the most embarrassing part of it.
Warfield:
“Hitchens is not familiar with either the primary or secondary literature on religion, Biblical studies, Quranic Studies, theology (especially twentieth century theology), sociology of religion, psychology of religion, anthropology of religion, and so forth. ”
Where is the evidence to this? Warfield expect us to believe this, er, on faith? Just take his word for it?
I don’t think it’s recommended to critique someone’s work for being simpleminded, filled with errors, un-scholarly and out of depth by using even sloppier ideas, more mistakes, less knowledge and less evidence. And this in a two page review of a 300-page book.
Drivel.
A sure sign of a good book is that you like it more the older you get.
I noticed that this is not the first time you write about this topic. Why have you decided to touch it again?
?????????? ????, ?? ?? ????? ?????, ?? ??????????? ? ??? ?????. ?? ????????? ? ??? ??? ??????, ??? ?? ??????.
???????? ????????, ???? ????????? ????????????, ??? ??????? ??????????? ??????????.
?????? ??????????, ???????? ???????????.
It’s always so interesting to me that the main criticism religious folk have against atheists is that they are arrogant. Had a mind like Hitchens been applied to the support of god-fearing-ness, then I’m sure he would have been hailed as a brilliant and pious man.