Criticism of Hitchens
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:34 am
David Aikman wrote a book against the "Big 4" atheist authors called The Delusion of Disbelief. It's not a bad book, in my opinion; it doesn't paint any of the four writers as without merits or admirable character traits. Obviously, though, it is a strong attack against atheism. In the book, he singles out Hitchens as the most extreme and uncompromising in his hatred of religion. This is interesting to me because, so far at least, I see Hitchens making allowances for some of what goes under the banner of religion, while at the same time being merciless on problems that I think anyone should condemn. It is Hitchens' streetfighter attitude seen in the title and subtitle of his book and in some of his no-holds-barred statements that masks what I would call the true reasonableness of his argument against religion. I say this having read less than half the book, so it's possible I might need to revise that view.
Aikman himself cites Hitchens' dissent from Dawkins' and Dennett's proposal to rename atheists "brights." Hitchens wrote that that would be to imply without any evidence that atheists are inherently brighter than backward religious people. That is not the thought of a knee-jerk anti-religion guy.
Aikman's summary of Hitchens is that he is the one among the four writers who is most resistant to saying that religion has been responsible for any good throughout history. Hitchens says, according to Aikman, that anything apparently valuable coming out of religion occurred despite religion, not because of it. This does seem to be a common view among atheists, and it might be later on in the book that Hitchens expresses it. I would point to a few statement Hitchens has made in just the first chapter of the book that tell me that he does not see religion's role and value in these black-and-white terms. There are other significant statements in this vein in the later chapters that I'll try to cite during the discussions.
1. He cites his teacher and religious instructor, Mrs. Jean Watts, as a "good, sincere, simple woman, of stable and decent faith."(p. 1)
2. Religion has "mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism." (p. 7).
3. "Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contact with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman." (p. 7)
4. "Some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way--one might cite Pascal." (p. 7)
5. "I trust that if you met me, you would not necessarily know that this is my view. I have sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind....I think that if I went back to Devon, where Mrs. Watts has her unvisited tomb, I would surely find myself sitting quietly in the back of some old Celtic or Saxon church." (p. 11)
6. "I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all places, but my particular atheism is a Protestant atheism. It is with the splendid liturgy of the King James Bible and the Cranmer prayer book....that I first disagreed. When my father died....I gave the address from the pulpit and selected as my text a verse from the epistle of Saul of Tarsus." (p. 12)
Aikman himself cites Hitchens' dissent from Dawkins' and Dennett's proposal to rename atheists "brights." Hitchens wrote that that would be to imply without any evidence that atheists are inherently brighter than backward religious people. That is not the thought of a knee-jerk anti-religion guy.
Aikman's summary of Hitchens is that he is the one among the four writers who is most resistant to saying that religion has been responsible for any good throughout history. Hitchens says, according to Aikman, that anything apparently valuable coming out of religion occurred despite religion, not because of it. This does seem to be a common view among atheists, and it might be later on in the book that Hitchens expresses it. I would point to a few statement Hitchens has made in just the first chapter of the book that tell me that he does not see religion's role and value in these black-and-white terms. There are other significant statements in this vein in the later chapters that I'll try to cite during the discussions.
1. He cites his teacher and religious instructor, Mrs. Jean Watts, as a "good, sincere, simple woman, of stable and decent faith."(p. 1)
2. Religion has "mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism." (p. 7).
3. "Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contact with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman." (p. 7)
4. "Some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way--one might cite Pascal." (p. 7)
5. "I trust that if you met me, you would not necessarily know that this is my view. I have sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind....I think that if I went back to Devon, where Mrs. Watts has her unvisited tomb, I would surely find myself sitting quietly in the back of some old Celtic or Saxon church." (p. 11)
6. "I now know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all places, but my particular atheism is a Protestant atheism. It is with the splendid liturgy of the King James Bible and the Cranmer prayer book....that I first disagreed. When my father died....I gave the address from the pulpit and selected as my text a verse from the epistle of Saul of Tarsus." (p. 12)