I have an article in the January issue of Portland Monthly--it's a conversation with Christopher Hitchens, the well-known British atheist whose big book is God Is Not Great. (Someone quipped that his book title is just one word too long.) If you want to check it out, go to their web site, and then go to "Current Issue." Or try the following link: www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/book-and-talks/articles/religion-god-0110/
I also had dinner with Hitchens and around a dozen others on Tuesday evening after his talk at Portland Arts and Lectures. He must be one of the most articulate people on the planet, and there is great pleasure in watching his mind play with words and entertain with turns of irony. However, Hitchens is as well known for his drinking as he is for his wit, and as the evening wore on, I found he became more and more acerbic and insulting. The man is brilliant, but not wise; clever, but not deep; and a fundamentalist, in regard to religion, rejecting any form of liberal Christianity as bogus religion, not to be respected.
Hitchens clearly has never studied theology, and most of the comments he made concerning the Bible, Jesus, salvation, etc., were shockingly naive. Where he has something to offer, of course, is his critique of religion and society, and all of the horrors and nonsense done in the name of religion, which I have no argument with. It's not exactly news that the Inquisition was a bad thing. And that Catholic priests shouldn't abuse altar boys. And (his particular nemesis) jihadists shouldn't blow up innocent civilians.
Hitchens is the ultimate intellectual "bad boy." He performs. He "debates." He entertains. All of which he does very well. But this should not be confused with thoughtful discourse.
Share this
I enjoyed reading the interview, thank you. However, I don't take your comments here very well. Just because you claim his (implied excessive) drinking is well known doesn't mean you should use it against him. Why is he not wise and not deep? The interview says otherwise to me.
He rejects any supernatural claims of religion. You seem to agree with this. What exactly is wrong with his rejection?
As for theology, I think it is spot on for him to say "God is the ground of being" has no meaning at all. Do you agree?
Finally, I'm tired of people accusing Hitchens and other atheists of being theologically naive. First, they know that there are more sophisticated believers such as yourself, but their naive critiques address what the vast majority of believers actually believe. You can't fault them for directly addressing what is standard Christian theology. Second, studying theology has no bearing on whether someone is correct or not. In fact, it more likely causes error than not. Even if you limit the field to only certain theologians, it is still an argument from authority. What is your case against him?
Your interview has lots of examples of his thoughtful discourse. What would you say is the opposite?
I find it astonishing that Hitchens knows more about what it means to be Christian than you. He is most certainly correct that you are not a "Christian in any meaningful sense", and I have much greater respect for him, as he clearly knows what he believes and why he believes it. Shamefully, you apparently do not, and yet you are arrogantly critical of those who do and who can clearly communicate their own beliefs without appealing to esoteric wording in order to mask clearly outrageous ignorance of a book they hold to be the foundation of their belief.
His question to you bear repeating. "Faith in what?"
"Someone quipped that his book title is just one word too long."
The extra word being "Great."
In my mind Utilitarian Universalism is not a bogus religion in a different sense than other religions are since it has a dogma: that fundamentalist and moderate Christianity are wrong. It's dogma is small and true, so it is less bogus than most.
However, it is not Christianity, even though it accepts liberal Christianity (Classical Utilitarianism, etc.) along with liberal Islam and liberal Buddhism, etc.. Its claims to be Christian are uniquely bogus.
"...as the evening wore on, I found he became more and more acerbic and insulting."
Funny you should mention it, that reminds me of your post.
I think you were brave to take him on, Marilyn. Being UU, I was incensed at his characterization of your religion, but I remember our experience at All Souls NYC when in 2002 or 3 he spoke in support of invading Iraq. When the person who invited him was unable to escort him, it fell to me, and he was all sweetness and light with me and the minister who was presiding.
But then he mounted the pulpit (I'm not sure who arranged that; usually political speakers are given a podium downstairs) and started bloviating. A French TV crew showed up, and he was really speaking to them over our heads. I'll never forget his pointing an angry finger at the camera and proclaiming, "Jacques Chirac is a pimp for Saddam Hussein!" I think it's the only time I've ever heard the p word from our pulpit. I hope it's the last.
Marilyn... You are no Christian. As a matter of fact, please go ahead and return your Christian card.
If you don't believe in Biblical truth, how do you know anything you believe is true?
I would have thought that as an educated woman you would realize that one cannot think Jesus was a "good man" if you thought he wasn't God. Mary... He CLAIMED he was God.
And you even questions if God even EXISTS in the interview... Who's the atheist here?
Ma'am, you're no Christian but you have succeeded in convincing me you are a postmodern heretic.