« Papal appointments? | Main | Iraq Casualities »
August 27, 2003
Hitchens takes on the Decalogue
...and makes an ass of himself
Really.
In much the same way, few if any courts in any recorded society have approved the idea of perjury, so the idea that witnesses should tell the truth can scarcely have required a divine spark in order to take root. To how many of its original audience, I mean to say, can this have come with the force of revelation? Then it's a swift wrap-up with a condemnation of adultery (from which humans actually can refrain) and a prohibition upon covetousness (from which they cannot). To insist that people not annex their neighbor's cattle or wife "or anything that is his" might be reasonable, even if it does place the wife in the same category as the cattle, and presumably to that extent diminishes the offense of adultery. But to demand "don't even think about it" is absurd and totalitarian, and furthermore inhibiting to the Protestant spirit of entrepreneurship and competition.One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers.
I don't care what Hitchens thinks about the Ten Commandments, but the superficiality of this collection of words is breathtaking.
And I wonder...people are always saying that Hitchens is anti-Christian. Forget that. Doesn't the publication of a full-scale slash-and-burn attack on the roots of Judaism rouse anyone to call Hitchens for his crude bigotry against Jews?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834558a3969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hitchens takes on the Decalogue:
» Born to Be Bad from Walloworld
Well, not quite. But let's talk about human nature, Terminators, and the eternal question of why God would let people make the "wrong" choice. An excerpt:
Likewise, it must be admitted (though it may be hard for some to do) that the ... [Read More]Tracked on Sep 15, 2003 1:59:54 PM
Comments
Hitchens an "anti-theist". He hates all religions impartially. He's amazingly dim whenever his pen turns to anything pertaining to religious matters, reciting the sort of criticisms one hears in one's sophomore year in high school.
Sin makes you stupid, even when you are as brilliant as Hitchens.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Aug 27, 2003 5:12:48 PM
Increasingly, Hitchens comes across as a bilious old drunk and contrary for the sake of being so. There was a piece about this linked to on Romenesko a few weeks back, from an alt-weekly somewhere.
On the other hand, I thought he was brave to criticize Mother Teresa. (Ducks to miss incoming crockery.) And I will always treasure an observation he made, in a piece about Woody Allen, that you could take any title/lyric/expression that uses the word "heart," substitute "dick" and come up with something much truer.
Woody: "What can I say? The dick wants what it wants." And so on.
The dick is a lonely hunter.
Sorry for lowering the tone, Amy.
Posted by: Nance at Aug 27, 2003 7:32:25 PM
I think St. Jude's appraisal would be pretty right on:
"...waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever." (Jude 12-13 ESV).
Posted by: Oengus Moonbones at Aug 27, 2003 7:47:23 PM
Hitchens believes, as do I, that Christianity and Judaism are nonsense. That doesn't mean he "hates" them.
I don't care what Hitchens thinks about the Ten Commandments, but the superficiality of this collection of words is breathtaking.
What's "superficial" about it? And it sounds to me like you care a great deal what he thinks of the Ten Commandments.
Posted by: J.B. at Aug 27, 2003 8:05:44 PM
Mr. Hitchens conveniently leaves out the great touch and genius in creating in His Image - the gift of free will.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 27, 2003 9:28:15 PM
How does that answer his objection? Why didn't God create us such that we always choose to do good, or at least to make better choices than we do? Presumably, Gandhi and Hitler both had free will, but Gandhi seems to have made better choices than Hitler. Why didn't God create human beings to be more like Gandhi and less like Hitler?
Posted by: J.B. at Aug 27, 2003 9:35:41 PM
J.B.:
If I were God, I would have done things differently. That fact doesn't challenge the truth of His existence, or His revelation.
Posted by: Joe Marier at Aug 27, 2003 10:05:02 PM
The truth of his existence is the very claim at issue. If you wouldn't have done things the way he is supposed to have done them, maybe you should take that as a sign that he isn't really there.
Posted by: J.B. at Aug 27, 2003 10:10:42 PM
JB: "Why didn't God create us such that we always choose to do good, or at least to make better choices than we do?"
Let's suppose that somehow or another God made his existence incontrovertibly known to you personally -- say he suddenly opened up the sky, reached down and tapped your shoulder, getting your attention -- now supposing all that, tell us, would you then choose to love Him? Would you then choose to obey Him? Would you repent?
If everything that is good is in God, yet you decided you didn't want him, thought your way was better than His, and decided to say to Him "No, I don't want you, go away!" (in which case you would have refused all that is good). Now suppose, after getting your attention many, many times, He finally responds to your adamant refusals by answering back, "Very well then, your will be done; I will leave you alone for ever."
Then would you still continue to blame Him?
Posted by: Oengus Moonbones at Aug 27, 2003 11:13:55 PM
Oengus:
Let's suppose that somehow or another God made his existence incontrovertibly known to you personally -- say he suddenly opened up the sky, reached down and tapped your shoulder, getting your attention -- now supposing all that, tell us, would you then choose to love Him? Would you then choose to obey Him? Would you repent?
I don't know. I doubt that God, if he exists, cares whether anyone loves him, or would expect anyone to obey him. Those do not seem to be likely characteristics of a Supreme Being. Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he died and found out that God does exist after all. His answer: "Why didn't you give us any evidence?" I think that's a good question.
If everything that is good is in God, yet you decided you didn't want him, thought your way was better than His, and decided to say to Him "No, I don't want you, go away!" (in which case you would have refused all that is good). Now suppose, after getting your attention many, many times, He finally responds to your adamant refusals by answering back, "Very well then, your will be done; I will leave you alone for ever." Then would you still continue to blame Him?
I'm asking why, if God does exist, and he is omnipotent, and he is benevolent, he created us such that we are so prone to break his rules, and then punishes us for doing so? Why didn't he make us more like Gandhi? If he didn't have an answer, I would think him cruel. I don't see how such action is consistent with a God of love and justice. As Hitchens says, setting us up to break the rules and then blaming us when we do is a sign of madness or despotism. That's one reason why I don't believe in the God of Christianity.
Posted by: J.B. at Aug 27, 2003 11:43:17 PM
JB:
If you think it's nonsense, then stop reading Catholic blogs. Why would anyone bother to spend time on something they believed was nonsense? I wouldn't. It seems an odd way to spend one's time.
And by the way, J.B., I've banned you, and for one simple reason: you leave a fake email address, which is your right, I suppose, but given the fact that you come here and are deliberately provocative and contemptuous of the whole rationale behind this blog, and then leave no means by which to contact you, either by me, or by others who might want to respond to your questions privately, you make it possible to dominate threads with your agenda (because people can't take the discussion with you off to email).
And you really should know that a person who defends atheism but does not have the courage to reveal his or her authentic identity is not a very good advertisement for the integrity of those beliefs. Not at all.
Posted by: Amy at Aug 27, 2003 11:56:59 PM
Wrestling with the problem of God and the existence of evil continues: a sign that, at the very least, humankind is still thinking about the nature of God.
God, however, needs no defense. St. Augustine spent most of his life struggling with this problem. He came to a certain level of self-certitude on the issue [i.e., it's Adam's fault], but his explanations don't make sense to everyone. Next time you're in a serious discussion with Eastern Catholics, ask them about how they see the Augustinian notion of original sin and its lasting effects.
Hitchens, who is undegoing a personal transition from liberal to conservative on some political issues, just doesn't believe in revelation or the transcendent. I just don't think I would have enough common ground with him to have any dialogue at all. I certainly wouldn't look to him to explain the origins of the Decalogue.
Posted by: Jim at Aug 28, 2003 6:37:43 AM
Yes, Hitchens is dim, bilious etc. But I can't help giving him my attention. He's amusing in his assininity. Really. Sort of a novelty act, though he is starting to border on the pathetic.
Posted by: Ellyn von Huben at Aug 28, 2003 6:50:33 AM
Dear JB,
Why didn't he make us more like Gandhi?
God created each of us with the capacity to be like Gandhi, like Francis of Assisi, like Caesar Chavez, etc. We are free to choose. If I had to be make the right choice each time I was faced with one, I would not really have a choice.
Your sensitivity to the evil and the problem that poses for belief in an omnipotent, loving God puts you in good company, as many have wrestled with this "problem of evil". I think it is a real conundrum for any thinking person. But it is not without solution. Many look at the evil that exists in the world and say "How could be God real?". The evil seems to surprise them. For my part, I look at the selfless virtue of the saints, and wonder "How could God not be real?" because it is the good that men do that surprises me.
Peace.
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Aug 28, 2003 7:02:02 AM
Hitchens' real problem with the Decalogue is that nasty first commandment. Truly obeying it would force him to foresake his one true god: himself.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Aug 28, 2003 7:04:46 AM
I like to read Christopher Hitchens' articles because of the care and effort he usually puts into his work, but this article is so trivial I don't even find it offensive. It really does make me wonder whether he just had to dash something off to pay his bar bills!
Posted by: TomM at Aug 28, 2003 7:04:51 AM
I suppose an analyst could have a field day with the notions here expressed about one's idea of God. Most of the objections to His existence seem not to take a Trinitarian view but of a father/God, judge, creator, punisher without connection to the human struggle. How hard it still is to see the Father through the image of the Son Who gave all - so God doesn't care?? oft times this comes through some fear that one is not perfect enough and probably through one's own early experiences of life or the expectations of the culture around him. We can never view God through the prism of life experiences or others' reflections alone without prayer and it may be what is thought of as the harshness of God that is really His Mercy that brings us down on our knees to begin such prayer!
Posted by: Chris at Aug 28, 2003 8:05:20 AM
What amazes me is that Hitchens still gets published. The Atlantic Monthly runs his stuff, but not as much since his pro-communist piece about three years ago.
Posted by: Mark Windsor at Aug 28, 2003 8:19:58 AM
What's curious to me about Hitchens is how inconsistent he is -- unlike, say, Mark Shea (or most wingers), who reliably cheer or jeer, with nothing much else to offer. Hitchens' offerings are generally provocative, even principled (his take on Clinton), insightful (his views on the Middle East or American politics) and always oh-so-British (his tone). He's got a lot to offer.
But every now and then (perhaps because he IS British), he's simply puerile. There are legit complaints and criticisms to make about how and why folks get canonized, including Mother Theresa, or the Decalogue itself. But Hitchens somehow can't resist saying stuff like "that's the trouble with missionaries; you're never sure of their position", as he did of Mother Theresa. What's up with THAT?
One thing he misses about the Ten Commandments is perhaps the most important theologically historical thing about 'em, which is their political purpose. When Moses led the former slaves out of Egypt, they didn't have much in common: neither ethnicity, nor religion, nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever that the slaves who fled Pharoah had anything in common with the Hebrews who had gone to live in Egypt hundreds of years before. So the Ten Commandments were a statement of identity: Who are "we", wandering around the desert? We are the people who follow these commandments. That's not a small thing for a bunch of refugees moving through a small-ish peninsula for forty years, while all the original captives died out. When Joshua led 'em to take the Promised Land from the Canaanites, the Israelites knew who they were.
Just as Moses got his monotheism from Jethro of Midian, so the modern notion of a civic faith derives from Moses. Not a small thing -- and without parallel in ancient times, so far as I know.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 28, 2003 9:34:52 AM
And the Decalogue served well in separating them out from the Canaanite culture they encountered with its child sacrifice, ritual polytheism and orgiastic fertility cult worship.
Posted by: Christine at Aug 28, 2003 9:55:44 AM
If I were God, I would have done things differently. That fact doesn't challenge the truth of His existence, or His revelation.
Uh, yeah, if you believe in the first place. As I said over at Mark Shea's blog, if you don't, the picture changes dramatically. That must be obvious.
It's all about the premise. Everything flows from that. If you don't believe--put yourself in those shoes for a moment--what does the world look like? What is your view of believers? What is your view of moral codes based on an ancient fantasy?
Premise, premise, premise.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Aug 28, 2003 10:51:39 AM
Um, technically, no: I don't think the Canaanites can have child sacrifice pinned on 'em. The Bible attributes that not to Baal, but to Moloch, which came after -- and if memory serves, the Moloch murders developed alongside the Israelites, and was not imposed on 'em nor invented by the Canaanites . (Right?)
And no, Rake, it doesn't depend on the premise, which is why I posted about the political significance of the Commandments.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 28, 2003 11:48:55 AM
So the Ten Commandments were a statement of identity: Who are "we", wandering around the desert? We are the people who follow these commandments.
Commandments created by... God.
Premise.
Life-giving water for believers. Cruel, ridiculous fable for atheists.
I think what's sometimes lacking is an act of imagination on the part of Catholics, Christians, or members of other faiths.
What does the world look like if you don't believe?
If you lack that faith, is Hitchens' general outlook really that absurd?
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Aug 28, 2003 12:14:17 PM
Americanist,
I didn't SAY child sacrifice was INVENTED by the Canaanites -- please see Psalm 106 which refers to the blood of "sons and daughters" sacrificed to the idols of Canaan.
Many extrabiblical Jewish sources speak about the sacrificial practices of the Canaanites.
Posted by: Christine at Aug 28, 2003 12:24:16 PM
Rake, you're confused. The escaped slaves whom Moses led into the desert had no unifying creed nor any other particular cohesion: THAT's my premise. If you're disputing it, kindly say so. What unified 'em, before the Ten Commandments? What made 'em ONE people, and not just a mob of refugees?
My evidence is the function the Ten Commandments played. Moses went to the mountaintop (twice) and came back with the 15, oops, the 10 Commandments, and announced that "we" -- the new community he was leading -- are the folks who follow "these".
I'm not arguing about the content, or even the origin of the Decalogue. I'm simply noting their function.
And you're not. You're so hung up on the illogic that the premise of the Ten Commandments HAS to be their divine origin that you don't examine your own premise.
My conclusion stems from my premise (that the escaped slaves had no unifying instrument before the Decalogue) and the evidence (that the Ten Commandments was the instrument around which Moses -- not to mention the later addition of Aaron and the priests, notably the war crimes against Korah -- unified the Israelites). The theologically historical significance of the Ten Commandments is political -- they created a civic faith for a new people, which was linked to "their" origin.
Capisce?
As for the human sacrifice thing: I stand by what I said. Human sacrifice wasn't unheard of, of course: Abraham and Isaac is a pretty scary story in context. (It fascinates me how many sunday schools teach that Abraham agreed, which he didn't. The way the story goes, Abraham called God's bluff.) But it is reasonable to read Psalm 106 not as referring to human sacrifice but as blaming those backsliding Israelites who worshipped Baal for their own deaths at the hands of the priests -- what we would now call blaming the victim, much the way Korah was killed when the earth swallowed him up, along with his followers. The actual child sacrifice (that is, parents killing children) described in the Bible is Moloch, and that came later. (Right? I could be wrong, ya know.)
I just think it's a bit much to consider the Israelites -- BECAUSE of the Ten Commandments -- as somehow more civilized and humane than the folks around 'em. That sorta conveniently ignores the betrayal (of the Midianites), genocide (Canaanites, Amalekites) and sundry enslavements which they did, even after getting the Decalogue -- and with the APPROVAL of Jehovah, no less.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Aug 28, 2003 12:44:11 PM
