Kinsley on Hitchens

Matt's right that Michael Kinsley's review of God Is Not Great offers some profound insights into how the the media-public intellectual complex works. It's also a textbook example of how that complex works. First, Christopher Hitchens writes a polemic that ranges across religion, religious history, philosophy and science. Then, the editors of the New York Times Book Review decide to commission a review from Michael Kinsley, presumably because both Hitchens and Kinsley are well-known figures in the media-public intellectual world and "Kinsley on Hitchens" has a nice ring to it. Never mind that Kinsley has never evinced any expertise or even any particular interest in the topics and arguments that Hitchens is covering - it's Kinsley on Hitchens! How can they go wrong?

And sure enough, Kinsley has produced a review that, because he's a smart guy and a good writer, has some interesting things to say about Hitchens' career, but has absolutely nothing of interest to say about the book itself. Indeed, the review is essentially a felicitously-written plot summary, which lists some of Hitchens' arguments and deliberately shrugs off analysis. For instance:

The book is full of logical flourishes and conundrums, many of them entertaining to the nonbeliever. How could Christ have died for our sins, when supposedly he also did not die at all? Did the Jews not know that murder and adultery were wrong before they received the Ten Commandments, and if they did know, why was this such a wonderful gift? On a more somber note, how can the “argument from design” (that only some kind of “intelligence” could have designed anything as perfect as a human being) be reconciled with the religious practice of female genital mutilation, which posits that women, at least, as nature creates them, are not so perfect after all? Whether sallies like these give pause to the believer is a question I can’t answer.

But you're reviewing the bloody book! Should they give the believer pause? Has Hitchens devastated religious faith, as he plainly thinks he has? I'm glad he's entertaining - but is he persuasive? Does his book confirm you in your nonbelief, or leave questions unaddressed? Hitchens takes these questions seriously - shouldn't the reviewer, whether an atheist, a believer, or somewhere in between, have the decency to do the same?

Ah, but it's Kinsley on Hitchens. Brilliant!

Update: The line I bolded doesn't appear in the IHT version, which I linked to above, but only in the Times itself.

Comments

Speaking as a believer in the coming kingdom of Christ, I respond to the bolded statement with an emphatic 'no.'

But I believe the bolded statement is a rather arch statement of unbelief.

Posted by Klug | May 12, 2007 10:03 AM

"How could Christ have died for our sins, when supposedly he also did not die at all?"

He did not die at all? Is it possible that Hitchens and Kinsley know so little about Christianity? Its right there in the Nicene Creed! "He suffered, died, and was buried." Hitchens should know better.

I find this amazing. It seems that an athiest's ignorance of Christian theology is directly proportional to the intensity of his unbelief.

Posted by Aaron | May 12, 2007 11:36 AM

Its right there in the Nicene Creed! "He suffered, died, and was buried."

But then he was "resurrected", correct? So he's not "dead", which means he didn't really "die".

Get it?

I thought not.

Posted by Brautigan | May 12, 2007 11:42 AM

Kinsley's article says nothing about Hitchens whose book is a throwback to the 18th century.

Reading Hitchens you would never know that bonafide atheists like Dr Mengele and Nikolai Yezhov murdered millions.

Need one bring up all the Communists and Nazis who also were atheists?

In addition, Hitchen's essentialist concept of rationality is too narrow.

His appeal to classical Greek rationality is not convincing since the Hellenic Greek were among the most superstitious people on the globe.

We do need a conversation on religion but Hitchen's Voltarian approach is not the way to go. It did after all lead to modern totalitarianism.

Better appeal to Kant who thought that we should think of religion within the context of reason and not reason within the context of religion.

Hitchens merely postulates a binary opposition between religion and reason.

Posted by J. Dyer | May 12, 2007 1:42 PM

Re: But then he was "resurrected", correct? So he's not "dead", which means he didn't really "die".

That's a little like saying that since I am not in California now, It must be true that I never was there (when in fact I've been in CA three times).

Posted by JonF | May 12, 2007 1:58 PM

Ross totally misses the point here. The reason Kinsley does not evaluate the persuasiveness of Hitchens' argument is because how persuasive it is depends entirely on what your religious faith is. The fact is, no atheist writer-- not Hitchens or anyone else-- is going to convince a devout believer to give up his or her beliefs. Similarly, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and Pope Benedict aren't going to convince atheists and agnostics who have really thought about these things to become Christians.

So you can't evaluate Hitchens' book-- or any argument about religious truth-- on a metric of persuasiveness. Instead, a reviewer must talk about what it means, what its significance is. Kinsley is not the only one to do this; many people have been discussing why, at this moment, there are so many popular atheist tracts, by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as well as Hitchens.

I noticed this once before with Ross-- in a bloggingheads diavlog, he wanted to get into a huge discussion of the morality of abortion with Matt Yglesias, who wanted nothing to do with it. Yglesias understood that positions on abortion are incommensurate. People aren't going to convince each other. (This also gets back to the issue of Ross' puzzlement that liberals didn't want anything to do with Ramesh Ponnuru's "Party of Death".)

This isn't to say that Ross shouldn't express these positions or engage these debates. Obviously, he has every right to do so. But these discussions never end up going anywhere. People who fervently believe that a man named Jesus was the Son of God, and that he came to earth, died, and was resurrected, and that this whole process had something to with absolving humanity for its "sins" (including acts that other people don't even consider wrong, like premarital sex) really can't discuss those beliefs in any deep manner with people who believe those are all a bunch of superstitions.

So Kinsley, rightly, didn't try to rehash that.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 12, 2007 2:07 PM

As Mark Shea is fond of saying, subtract some significant number of IQ points when most of the media try to discuss religion. I'm astonished that someone with a generally acknowledged claim to be a public intellectual can find such jejune arguments as those quoted above to be telling.

Atheists who get the fundamental questions of religion, especially Christianity, are almost always interesting to read and/or talk to. Those who don't almost always are not.

Posted by Maclin Horton | May 12, 2007 2:39 PM

Maclin, which atheists do you have in mind?

Posted by sewing machine & umbrella | May 12, 2007 2:53 PM

That's a super comment, Dilan Esper.

I remain sympathetic to Ross's point that _some_ evaluation of Hitchens' persuasiveness would have been useful-- I mean, "religion is poopy" is substantially less persuasive than, if it were true, "there's no contemperaneous evidence that Jesus existed, only stuff that was written down decades after his death; why would you hide a light under a bushel like that, if God so loves the world, yet those who don't believe are hellfire-bound liars?" Where does Hitchens' case fall?

That said, Dilan, you are surely right that, just as conservatives read Ann Coulter and liberals read Josh Marshall, Hitchens isn't going to be read by devout Christians who then find themselves persuaded. All people, all factions, believe themselves to be open-minded and reasonable, and read the books that validate it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 12, 2007 3:25 PM

The point is why even "die" when he's supposed to have the ability to resurrect anytime he chooses to. You're just focusing on the technicality that he flat-lined for a few days. Big deal! He's immortal. How convenient. He's the "Son of God". Duh. Anybody who cannot possibly be killed wouldn't be afraid of "dying".

The irony is that the whole Christian philosophy is based upon this basic dogma of a supposed immortal being playing upon the legitimate and fundamental fear of death by humans through positing an act of "dying". How taunting and insulting. It's like one wealthy, elite person trying to live a life of poverty for a week just to show that he can do it. In the back of his mind, he knows he'll be back to living in luxury anyway so it's easy. And then he wants to be praised for it! Just accept that and you'll become rich yourself. Jesus indeed! I don't know how anybody couldn't see the ludicrousness of the whole idea.

If I am going to be convinced, there better be something more than burning bushes, turning of water to wine and "dying".

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 12, 2007 6:22 PM

"Ross totally misses the point here. The reason Kinsley does not evaluate the persuasiveness of Hitchens' argument is because how persuasive it is depends entirely on what your religious faith is."

I am as skeptical of religious truth as Hitchen's is, yet I found his argument wanting.

Hitchen's doesn't deploy historical data fairly and he view of Judaism is not the view any one who knows about Jewish history would accept.

Posted by J. Dyer | May 12, 2007 6:32 PM

Douthat (and Klein) on Yglesias on Kinsley on Hitchens! Interesting + 1!!!!!

Can a review be recursive? All the media self-referentiality is hurting my head.

Posted by Maureen | May 12, 2007 6:41 PM

From Kinsley’s review:

"The book is full of logical flourishes and conundrums, many of them entertaining to the nonbeliever. How could Christ have died for our sins, when supposedly he also did not die at all? Did the Jews not know that murder and adultery were wrong before they received the Ten Commandments, and if they did know, why was this such a wonderful gift? On a more somber note, how can the “argument from design” (that only some kind of “intelligence” could have designed anything as perfect as a human being) be reconciled with the religious practice of female genital mutilation, which posits that women, at least, as nature creates them, are not so perfect after all?"

These questioned are easily answered and I am not even a believer.

First, the Christian claim of Christ's death is not paradoxical if you believe as they do in the dichotomous existence of the "man/god."

Second, the question did the “Jews not know that murder and adultery were wrong before they received the Ten Commandments," is a historical issue since in antiquity murder was not universally acknowledged to be an evil.

The laws about adultery had more to do with property rights than with the concept of sin and evil.

Moreover, not everyone then or today believes that adultery is wrong. Does Hitchens believe that it is?

Finally, the issue of female mutilation is an issue in Islam a specific religion and he needs to address it in that context.

I am not sure there is such a thing as religion in general as opposed to specific religions and it is telling that from Hitchens’ point of view such a point cannot even be raised.

In addition the question of the scientific veracity of religion is different from the issue of its socio historical significance.

I can think as I do that there is no scientific way of proving the existence of god but still hold that religion has an enormous influence on the evolution of human culture for good and ill. (And no, it wasn’t all ill.)

Posted by J. Dyer | May 12, 2007 6:46 PM

sewing machine & umbrella: above all, Nietzsche.

Posted by Maclin Horton | May 12, 2007 7:10 PM

assuming I understood your question correctly--I took you to mean "which atheists get it?"

Posted by Maclin Horton | May 12, 2007 8:32 PM

Dilan,
To an extent it is true that minds are made up, both about specific issues about abortion and about wider questions of belief and disbelief, but to argue that such questions are not worth entertaining precludes the possibility of the embrace or renunciation of belief. Many of the writers who have penned the most sincere and accessible defenses of the Christian faith began their intellectual lives as atheists or nominally religious (for instance, Whittaker Chambers and G.K. Chesterton - and Sharansky had a similar epiphany as a late-comer to pious Judaism). Yes we get nowhere with the machinations of the arrogant atheist who thinks that in reciting the arguments of G.E. Moore, Richard Dawkins or the skeptics' flavor of the week he is ridiculing believers into embracing reason, or conversely the Christian who thinks that in drawing upon a rather esoteric body of spiritual references he is teaching those agnostics a thing or two. But it does not necessarily follow that conversations about faith or issues arising out of it are fruitless. They just require a degree of appreciation of the arguments of one's opposite number. That way a politician's references to even well-known Biblical stories would not be treated as "coded language for the believer" by a news media who cannot muster among its ranks even a single person capable of "decoding."

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 12, 2007 9:34 PM

In the context Ross used it, I think "persuasive" means "should persuade" rather than "does persuade." Hitchens is an intelligent man and a good debater, so I imagine he has better points than Kinsely relates. But those points neither should nor do persuade.

Posted by Pithlord | May 13, 2007 1:09 AM

Re: The point is why even "die" when he's supposed to have the ability to resurrect anytime he chooses to.

From an Eastern Christian perspective, Christ's death was necessary so he could enter hell (Greek, "hades", an undifferntiated realm of death, not a place of Dantesque torments). Once there his divinity overwhelmed the powers that held sway there (e.g., the Devil) and broke the bonds that held humanity captive, resurrecting all who believed on him. Additionally, the rest of the world can also share that Resurrection and partake of the Divine nature which was joined to humanity in Christ's Person.
I realize you will probably dismiss this as a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo, but it is an answer to your question.

Re: Anybody who cannot possibly be killed wouldn't be afraid of "dying".

You are assuming that Jesus could contain Divine knowledge directly in human form. But the Bible makes the point he "emptied himself" of the fullness of his divinity and really was a human being and as such had human limitations. That's the point of the cry from the Cross: "Why hast thou forsaken me?" There's doubt and fear in that cry. Moreover crucifixion really was a ghastly, excruciating way to die and even if you knew you would rise again, would you go to the Cross with an easy, blithe heart?

Posted by JonF | May 13, 2007 2:28 PM

Ross totally misses the point here. The reason Kinsley does not evaluate the persuasiveness of Hitchens' argument is because how persuasive it is depends entirely on what your religious faith is.

Obviously this cannot be true, since people convert to and from various religions, and change their views within a particular religion (e.g. converting from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, or from R.C. to Eastern Orthodox), all the time.

The idea that everyone is "fixed" in their views of religion (or of morality) is simply false as an empirical matter. It also is an abandonment of (old-fashioned) liberal political philosophy, which requires the assumptions that truth can be apprehended via reason, and that other human beings can be persuaded via rational discourse to change their position.

The reason liberals don't like to discuss the morality of abortion with people like Ross & Ramesh is not that they think they can't win the argument: it's because they know they are wrong as a matter of reason. If it were not so, we would have seen some attempts to demonstrate how Ponnuru's arguments are flawed.

Posted by Mike S. | May 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Mike S.:

If you really believe that pro-choicers all KNOW abortion is morally wrong but espouse it anyway, you really haven't talked to any pro-choicers.

Mike S. and Anonymous Conservative:

I agree that people convert for various reasons-- in both directions. But I don't think that anyone converts simply because they hear an argument and are persuaded, as they might decide to support or oppose estate tax repeal. Adult conversions to religious faith from nonbelief tend to be some sort of mystical experience, while conversions to agnosticism / atheism tend to be a gradual process as the believer finds they can no longer accept the central tenets of the faith. In neither situation do polemics have much to do with things.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 14, 2007 12:27 AM

"I realize you will probably dismiss this as a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo."

Yeah, thanks.

"You are assuming that Jesus could contain Divine knowledge directly in human form."

Surely, a human being supposedly able to spontaneously preach new knowledge in the temple as a child, suddenly address his mother as "woman", perform miracles, defy all laws of physics, talk about his father in heaven, and know of things that are going to happen to him and other people well before they happen is aware of his "divine nature" and, as such, his omnipotence and perfection should supercede any human limitation.

"Moreover crucifixion really was a ghatly, excruciating way to die and even if you knew you would rise again, would you go to the Cross with an easy, blithe heart?"

Yep, given what I said above, crucifixion should feel like papercut. To feel otherwise would be an absolute insult to millions of other mortals who have sufferred humongously greater insults and injuries througout history without the benefit of divine nature. "God", being perfect in nature, is never fallible and should actually be able to withstand anything, including suffering; no matter the magnitude.

Well, I'd see how, as any other human would, he'd feel the same terror and physical pain at that particular time but, to put it in perspective, gawd, I am the alpha and the omega! I created the universe and could just as easily destroy it at will. I come down to some tiny planet in human form to teach and save people - nevermind that I am thousands of years too late as millions of them have already died and gone to hell already anyway and that my own "Father" was guilty of the same childish selfishness himself - and I am concerned about "dying" for 3 days?! The utter contradiction, randomness and arbitrariness of it all. I just don't buy it.

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 14, 2007 3:01 AM

Re: Surely, a human being supposedly able to spontaneously preach new knowledge in the temple as a child, suddenly address his mother as "woman", perform miracles, defy all laws of physics, talk about his father in heaven, and know of things that are going to happen to him and other people well before they happen is aware of his "divine nature" and, as such, his omnipotence and perfection should supercede any human limitation.

Let's say I could transform myself into a cat. I would then have a cat's brains and a cat's senses. I have to believe that a feline CNS apparatus would not be capable of supporting the full range of human mentality (thoughI would probably gain some things a human brian cannot support).
When Christian theology insists that Jesus was fully human that means he was limited as humans are.

Re: Yep, given what I said above, crucifixion should feel like papercut.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Pain is pain and agony is agony no matter who is suffering it. Good grief.

Re: God", being perfect in nature, is never fallible and should actually be able to withstand anything, including suffering; no matter the magnitude.

God is perfect, etc Elsewhere and Forever (that is, beyond the domain of real and created Space-Time). In the Here and Now everything is finite and limited. That's a requirement for finite, discrete existence.

Posted by JonF | May 14, 2007 1:18 PM

"Let's say I could transform myself into a cat. I would then have a cat's brains and a cat's senses. I have to believe that a feline CNS apparatus would not be capable of supporting the full range of human mentality (thoughI would probably gain some things a human brian cannot support).
When Christian theology insists that Jesus was fully human that means he was limited as humans are."

You're only rehashing your argument that I've already debunked. Somebody who was capable of all the things I enumerated and more couldn't possibly be "just human".

"I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Pain is pain and agony is agony no matter who is suffering it. Good grief."

No. What is more nonsense is your insistence that mortals are up to the same standards of pain tolerance as a "divine being".

"God is perfect, etc Elsewhere and Forever (that is, beyond the domain of real and created Space-Time). In the Here and Now everything is finite and limited. That's a requirement for finite, discrete existence."

To answer would be to do rehashing myself. Just read my previous answers.

Bottomline: Unless you find some way to fundamentally explain how somebody like Jesus Christ who is claimed to have done all the things said about him in the Bible was "just human" and not hide behind what "Christian theology insists", this debate is only going to go in circles.

The simple fact that you're not able to do so explains how this dogma's inner contradiction keeps it from holding itself up.

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 14, 2007 2:14 PM

Dr. Feelgood. If God could do all of the things you describe, couldn't he also become human and allow himself to feel pain? This problem has been discussed before, as you might imagine. In fact, there are libraries filled with scriptural exegeses on the mystery of Christ's dual nature. (here is a link to a brief outline of the Catholic treatment of the Incarnation: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm) In the end, the Church treats it as just that, a mystery. Some of us find this mystery both bewildering and powerfully beautiful. If you don't, so be it. I encourage you to continue working on it.

Furthermore, you are sort of proving a point made by several commenters. You obviously have a limited knowledge of Christian theology, yet your tone is very high handed. You seem to think that your clever little insight is some sort of "new idea." Don't you think it likely that over the last 2000 years Christianity has produced some pretty smart people who might have considered your argument?

Posted by Aaron | May 14, 2007 6:09 PM

Aaron,

"In the end, the Church treats it as just that, a mystery."

What I would prefer to say euphemism for utter hogwash. Yeah, I expected this exact answer because I knew it couldn't be answered. It is a very convenient way to claim mystery beyond the capability of human knowledge when the answer is very simple but, because of great fear of the unknown, difficult to accept.

"Furthermore, you are sort of proving a point made by several commenters. You obviously have a limited knowledge of Christian theology, yet your tone is very high handed. You seem to think that your clever little insight is some sort of "new idea." Don't you think it likely that over the last 2000 years Christianity has produced some pretty smart people who might have considered your argument?"

Ditto. You seem to think that your clever little smart alecky way of dodging the question by making some ad hominem personal attack and hiding behind ideas set by "Christian theology" you claim to know so much about (pray tell where? aside from Googling past internet discussions) advances your argument. Why you put "new idea" in quotation beats the hell out of me. It sure didn't come from me. Nor have I ever claimed it in other words.

To put it in your own words, "don't you think it likely that over the last 2000 years Christianity has produced some pretty smart people who might have considered your argument"? Definitely yes, and you sure are not one of them.

We'll just have to agree that this matter requires a leap of faith beyond logic and reason that I, as many others who have studied, are studying and trying to advance science, am not willing to take. If not, then present your thesis.
Spare me the attack when you betray yourself to be the exact thing you see. Or shut the fuck up.

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 14, 2007 7:16 PM

"Dr. Feelgood"
Does it make you feel better to clumsily attack what you perceive to be the flaws in Christian doctrine? You're the personification of the arrogant atheist asshole, the reason why America would sooner elect a Mormon or someone with a pseudo-Muslim upbringing than an atheist.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 14, 2007 10:25 PM

Anonymous Conservative,

Why don't you present arguments that prove your case to be flawless instead of taking the same predictable tack that your kind takes when pushed to a corner, which is to yet again make ad hominem, personal accusations (although, having read your preceding comment above, I wouldn't have expected for you to go as low as name-calling)? And while you're at it, why not make your case against Mormons and "pseudo-Muslims" or name-your-religion-of-choice getting elected to office? And how America even got into the equation? Your baseless presumptions and obvious bigotry don't even take into account the possibility that who you are talking to and the topic does not even have anything to with such country.

And to answer your question, no. At least not as much as when I listen to Aretha's song though. (Wink=)

Sigh! Why is it that people only seem to think "high-mindedness" and "arrogance" when they don't agree with the ideas. Just a rhetorical question.

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 14, 2007 11:10 PM

I find it amazing that people in this day and age still believe in these silly creation myths.

Let me throw a question out: Aside from the small percentage of converts, the vast majority of those born to Muslims will be Muslim; the vast majority of those born to practicing Christians will be Christian. The vast majority of those born to Hindus will be Hindi, and so on.

Therefore, the vast majority of those on this board patiently explaining away the absurdities of their particular brand of mythology would have been Muslims had they, by chance, been born 7000 miles to the East.

And what do you do with this knowledge? Of the, say, 25 Christians here banging away, 23 of you would have adopted or "chosen" whatever random religion you found yourselves born into. How does this not unavoidably point you to the conclusion that religion is an ancient (and, I'd say, tired) cultural artifact and not some kind of grand true way that is happily ignored - with no consequence - by the great portion of the globe?

Posted by Slippery Pete | May 15, 2007 1:20 PM

Slippery Pete:

Ah, but you must remember that the religious beliefs -- and I'm using the term in an uncommon way, but advisedly -- of most atheists, secularists, free-thinkers, and other nigh-on synonymous aggregations would also have been radically different had they been born and raised in other places and/or times.

True enough: Of any 25 persons who are forbidden or discouraged from believing Proposition X and strongly pressured to either believe Proposition Y, or shut up about it, a large majority will unquestioningly default to Proposition Y so they can get on with their lives and their jobs. This is illustrated profoundly by the strong presence of atheism and political leftism on college campuses and among college faculty: Probably the most parochial and intellectually xenophobic groupthink-incubator on the planet.

One advantage of the knowingly religious over the knowingly irreligious in modern society is that the pious man knows he has a philosophy, a cosmology, an ethical system, and a set of practices for transmitting them to future generations. He knows they are subject to competition and criticism; he knows that he may have personally misunderstood them; he knows he may have been taught them with some inadmixture of error.

Your own style illustrates that you yourself hold views and practices which serve as your religion -- though it would take some investigation to learn if they are as internally and externally consistent as those of the traditional major faiths -- but because of the prejudices endemic to your surroundings, your instinct is to view them in some entirely different category. This is a logic error, but a frightfully common one, and you're in excellent company. A fish doesn't often know that he's all wet. And Christopher Hitchens is one of the more passionate evangelists around.

Posted by R.C. | May 15, 2007 2:07 PM

Anonymous Conservative:

Bad form, sir. "Always stand ready to defend [apologeia: by logic] the hope that is in you, but with grace and reverence [emphasis mine, though one can argue it's consistent with the tone of the original words]." Your reply to the good doctor lacks a certain graciousness.

I don't know what you think of St. Paul in general, but his admonishment is worthy of consideration (I should probably say, "useful for instruction") no matter what one's beliefs. Don't you agree?

Posted by R.C. | May 15, 2007 2:14 PM

Hate to disappoint you, but I don't work in an academic setting, but in the defense industry. And here you spent so much energy reaching beyond speculation to conclusion based on one data point. Sorry about that.

I could tell you my personal story but anecdotes prove nothing. There's a more basic error you're making. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a philosophy. There is not an atheist culture. There are no atheist doctrines or guidelines, dogmas or holy books.

I belong to no atheist organization and never will (though I'm aware a few exist, God knows why, but regardless they are on the fringe).

Atheism is nothing but absence of belief in any deity or the supernatural. Assuming you're a practicing Christian and that this precludes your belief in Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and wiccanism, then you and I are maybe 99% identical in our beliefs: You are an atheist with regard to all but one religion, and I'm just that one religion better than you. Virtually the same.

Finally, I'll point out your embarrassing confusion about the difference between theism and ethics. If you do not realize they are not the same thing, you're going to keep embarrassing yourself. It's sad but not surprising that this country (assuming you're American - just a guess) produces so many Christians who are as incapable of imagining an ethics absent a theology as you are. For example, you refer to my "religion" when I've already told you I don't have one. Unless you want to demote your god to nothing more than an ethical system (something less than the Alpha and the Omega), I suspect that's a comment you'll want to reconsider.

Posted by Slippery Pete | May 15, 2007 2:23 PM

R.C.
While the "you'll catch more flies with honey" line or its Roman Catholic analogue is generally appropriate, there is something uniquely irritating about someone who arrogates to himself the role of myth-destroyer and iconoclast, particularly when he does so clumsily. For few atheists or agnostics are quite so sporting when you point out to them that the vast majority of their moral heritage is simply purloined from the Judeo-Christian tradition with the deity lopped off.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 15, 2007 2:48 PM

R.C.

Well said. I'm reminded of this anytime I hear Bill Maher rant about religion on his HBO show. One moment he talks about global warming as if it were the end of days, and then immediately segues into rant about believers in the apocalypse.

Indeed, this week Maher did a skit as an evangligcal weatherman, who blamed calamity around the country on sin. Yet, isn't that what most global warm-ongers do: blame weather calamities on the human sin of industrial progress?

I'm sure Maher would defend his position as supported by science, and I agree there are scientific principals that support the view that human activity can in some measure contribute to higher temperatures. But his extreme conviction that the human contribution to these complex processes necessarily translates into calamity, I think, is based simply on his own faith-based belief about man paying for his comeuppance. How different is that from those who believe sin is the cause of natural disasters?

Posted by edhesq | May 15, 2007 5:26 PM

All religion is crap.

Posted by pouffiassei | May 15, 2007 5:49 PM

All religions, including atheism, are crap.

Posted by Michael Andreyakovich | May 15, 2007 6:09 PM

So. How about that Hitchens review, eh?

Jesus

Posted by lex | May 15, 2007 7:46 PM

re the Ten Commandments: keep in mind that at the time they were given, the Israelites had been living in Egypt for centuries, and many had gone native (the "golden calf" just one example). The Lord was not saying anything new, but was reciting anew his expectations of them, after rescuing them from their bondage.

It wasn't "adultery is wrong; who knew?" It was more like, "You're not in Egypt anymore. My house; my rules. Don't say you weren't warned." They were enforced, without pity.

For forty years they lived away from cities, subsisting day to day on manna, those who perpetually whined about the creature comforts of Egypt eventually dying out in favor of a new, (somewhat) more obedient generation that didn't have the old ways to yearn for.

Most reformations are a return to first principles, and that's why the Ten Commandments were given to Israel.

Posted by sulla | May 15, 2007 8:04 PM

Anonymous, trust me, the feeling is mutual. If you’re so secure in the correctness of your belief, you wouldn’t need to keep resorting to your unfortunate tactics. You say "clumsily", I say using just plain old common sense (not “new insight”) instead of the presumptuous reference-your-favorite-philosopher way that you might prefer. I see no need to keep reciting what some European guys from the 13th and whatever centuries (who knew nothing about the biomolecular mechanics of protein synthesis, genetic mutation and cross-over during meiosis I) thought during their time when even 6-year-olds now could see through the crap that is the Bible. What’s really irritating you is that the burden of proof is in your corner and it’s hard. We don’t have to prove anything. Your perception of someone being a “myth-destroyer” and “iconoclast” is based on the premise that we all believe there is such thing to be destroyed to begin with. But we don’t. Myths and icons are only considered so by those who believe them and in them. Again, the burden is not at my end. How could I even consider Christian doctrine to be “flawed” when the historicity of Jesus Christ is itself highly disputable? If it’s all just been a pile of manure all the while then hell yeah, it’s not “flawed” all right!

Moreover, I referred to molecular genetics due to the fact that those who insist that biological evolution is still a matter of “believing” and not a matter of fact have absolutely no good understanding of its basic mechanics, which, I would wager, describe those who are in the attack mode. A mountain of evidence has been gathered, is gaining even more ground exponentially as I write to cement this fact and has made us understand how it all works on the biomolecular level and beyond. To this end, there is no more debate. While you gather here and ponder on your thousand-year-old mysteries, theologies and philosophies, let me get back to my present, practical, scientific work that is actually benefitting even yourselves. It’s been quite interesting.

Posted by Dr. Feelgood | May 15, 2007 10:12 PM

Atheism is not a religion, Andreyakovich. That's like saying up is down or black is white. No, by definition, it is not.

Posted by Slippery Pete | May 16, 2007 11:11 AM

"But you're reviewing the bloody book! Should they give the believer pause? Has Hitchens devastated religious faith, as he plainly thinks he has? I'm glad he's entertaining - but is he persuasive? Does his book confirm you in your nonbelief, or leave questions unaddressed? Hitchens takes these questions seriously - shouldn't the reviewer, whether an atheist, a believer, or somewhere in between, have the decency to do the same?"

Dilan Esper's comments were very good, but it's not just the case that Kinsley knows that questions like "give the believer pause?" and "devastate religious faith?" are almost unintelligible. To the extent that Douthat wants Kinsley to assign a grade to Hitchens' take on these age-old questions ("is he persuasive?," does he "leave questions unaddressed?"), Kinsley tells you everything you need to know:

"All the logical sallies don't exactly add up to a sustained argument, because Hitchens thinks a sustained argument shouldn't even be necessary and yet wouldn't be sufficient. To him, it's blindingly obvious .... [if people] continue to believe in the unbelievable, or say they do, they are morons, lunatics or liars."

Hitchens doesn't make a sustained argument for atheism and thinks believers are morons, lunatics or liars. But was he persuasive? Hmmm....

Really, Kinsley has the decency to tell you *more* than you need to know:

"Although Hitchens's title refers to God, his real energy is in the subtitle: 'religion poisons everything.' Disproving the existence of God (at least to his own satisfaction and, frankly, to mine) is just the beginning for Hitchens. In fact, it sometimes seems as if existence is just one of the bones he wants to pick with God - and not even the most important. If God would just leave the world alone, Hitchens would be glad to let him exist, quietly, in retirement somewhere."

There's a light-hearted quality to Kinsley's summation of Hitchens' effort, but Kinsley isn't taking him seriously? Huh? I followed the link from DeLong to Egregious Moderation to here expecting something halfway worthwhile. I think DeLong's demand curve for Kinsley-bashing is just ever-so-slightly on the inelastic side....

There was, actually, one flaw in this review, in that I think the bit about Hitchens possibly being on a trajectory for the Hoover Institution is a bit too much Kinsley's own joke on his audience.

Posted by anon\portly | May 20, 2007 3:59 PM

"Indeed, this week Maher did a skit as an evangligcal weatherman, who blamed calamity around the country on sin. Yet, isn't that what most global warm-ongers do: blame weather calamities on the human sin of industrial progress?"

edhesq

Um, just to remind you, global-warming is a scientific theory, based on a sh*tload of data and basic scientific principles, which was strong enough to convince a lot of skeptical experts.

The meaning of 'industrial society is dumping enough CO2 into the atmosphere to alter the climate' is far different from any religious meaning.

I find it amazing how much freudian projection some people display. I don't see people looking at the law of gravity and saying that it has religious implications.

Posted by Barry | May 31, 2007 11:05 AM