The Keane Edge


The Keane Edge by Brendan Patrick Keane

Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great" author, is not really an atheist

Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 08:01 PM

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit


In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens objectively describes his terminal illness, and the prospect of a painful death.

This moving conversation is conducted as though under strict orders against sentimentality. It is a mark of his integrity, perhaps, that Hitchens would flay his own circumstance with the coldness he employed to disembowel Mother Theresa.

Christopher Hitchens is known for his war with those amongst us who purport to have special knowledge, unreasonably revealed to them by God. (I am not such a person.)

Hitchens is not an atheist, however. His agnosticism often seems to undo God, but he is admittedly incapable of doing so, merely limited as he is to undoing the legitimacy of divine spokespersons. He reveals his limits in this interview.

As he deals with the awful burden of esophagal cancer spreading through his lymph nodes, he is concerned about rumors of a death bed confession. He is trying to make clear to us what he believes before he is incapable of doing so later-on.

Despite that over-arching political concern, Hitchens' first real philosophical assumption is that the universe exceeds in complexity, full human understanding. And so, uncertainty is inescapable. He did not discover the principle, he must concede to it. He also concedes the possibility of a prime mover.

Atheism is too certain a position for Hitchens, author of the badly titled book God is Not Great. Badly, because it is too declarative, and certain. Where God is a wide-open term used to short-hand the ineffably complex universe, calling it "not great" is the equivalent of saying life is a half-empty glass. He just does not have access to enough information to make that determination.

Just because it's ineffable, doesn't mean people don't try to talk about it. God is the short-hand many use to describe
a) the anthropomorphized tribal father that made "all"
b) or simply, that terribly complex "all."

Either way, "all" is too big for any human head, even one like Hitchens' to wrap around it. So how could he know if it is great or not? If Hitchens can not know all, he cannot know that nature's symmetry prohibits underlying intelligence or even overall "personality."

In the interview it's clear, he's unclear. He is with the uncertain.

Hitchens is determined above-all-else to expose the religious who claim to be representatives of God, as charlatans. He sees these men and women in their stupefying costumes as really "absolutely nude," full of certainty when there is none.

He recognizes no one that has discovered God themselves; nor anyone that has ever received revelation where he has not. To do so would create a class of mammals bearing warrants from God to control less evolved homo sapiens. It is this unsubstantiated nightmare that he holds-out against, nobly on behalf of all he will leave behind.

Hitchens mission against these taxing shepherds subverts his acceptance of new possibilities, however. He cannot know beforehand, what his death will or will not teach him.

I hope Hitchens recovers by whatever miracle or medicine. And I hope for Hitchens that he knows he is loved by the universe, as is my hunch.





53 comments

Next Page 1 of 4 pages
The confusion arises because agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief. I believe that when most people refer to themselves as agnostic they mean to say that they believe it more likely than not that a god exists but that it is impossible to know anything about that god. It would be more accurate for most of these self identified agnostics to refer to themselves as deists. In this way it is possible to be agnostic without being an atheist although this is a very fine line to walk. As Colbert says, "Agnostics are just atheists without balls". One does not have to be certain that no god exists to be called an atheist however. One only needs not to be persuaded that there should be any likelihood of a god existing to be called an atheist and Hitchens certainly falls into this category. Hitchens' acceptance of the possibility that a god exists, even if that possibility lies somewhere on the order of one in a trillion, is merely a matter of intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. In the question of the Abrahamic god, Yahweh, he is certain enough to deny that posssibility outright even in the threat of eternal damnation. If that level of certainty doesn't qualify one as an atheist then I don't know what would.
Eilonnw: You incorrectly says "To be an agnostic is to be an atheist." You make this mistake because you inherently know that agnosticism can be defended: no clerics, no religion, no defined God. Atheism goes a step further and affirms nothingness as origin. It's a subtle but crucial difference to understanding that atheism purports to know something just as preposterously as the theist.
You clearly have no idea what an atheist is. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist. When you say you don't know, you then don't believe, and that's what atheism is. Hitchens says he is an atheist, shame on your for putting words into his mouth and trying to portray him for what he is not. Hitchens understands all too well what the atheist position is, a lack of belief. He doesn't have to prove God does not exist, he does not have the burden of proof. You are just as bad as people begging for Hitchens to make a death bed confession. How about you don't make stupid assumptions about what people believe and accept what they say.
biodaedo: An atheist and theist answer this question differently: What started the universe? Theists say God. Atheists say nothing. Belief does not mean religion. Belief means you think something true for which you have no proof. Hitchens concedes his uncertainty. That is not atheism.
You're just trying to force atheism into being a belief system because it makes you feel good. I've met people like you before, you're a dime a dozen. Atheism in its broadest sense is not a belief system, period. If atheism is a religion, not-collecting-stamps defaults as a real hobby. My not having belief in your god does not mean I actively believe it does not exist. If this were the case, you could make anyone religious by inventing a concept on the spot (like the flying spaghetti monster) and simply because they obviously have no belief in something that they've never heard of, doesn't mean they already hold the belief that it does not exist. Your stance is insane. Allow me to illustrate a little further, for your simple mind. The Higgs Boson Particle is currently only theoretical. No one knows whether or not it exists. If you believe that the higgs boson particle exists, you're like a theist. But if you don't have belief in the existence of the higgs boson, it does not mean that you actively believe it does not exist. This is atheism. Only a strong atheist would say, "i believe the higgs boson particle does not exist." With respect to the higgs boson particle, all of us should be Agnostic Atheists, meaning that we lack belief in its existence because there is no evidence (atheist), but at the same time, we do not make claims to knowing whether or not it exists (agnostic). It is the only reasonable stance to take given a current atmosphere of there being no evidence for it. And believe me Brendan, no one is twisting language here, although that does happen all the time, it's how words change in meaning and connotation. Research atheism, genuinely do it. Or else, shut up.
BrendanPKeane: Calling atheism a religious relief is like calling baldness a hair color. This is a fairly popular atheist quote, but it doesn't sound like you complete grasp the concept.
biodaedo: You are only correct if we twist language, as you must do by creating "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" in order to alter the definition of atheism so that it no longer represents a belief, a stance, an undefendable position.
Hi BrendanPKeane: I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong about the definition of atheism. Atheism, in its most broadest sense, is quite simply the "lack of belief" definition. There are atheists who actively make the claim and believe that there are no gods, and those are called "strong atheists." Read more about atheism as a philosophy in any academic book, or hell, even wikipedia, before spewing your ignorance much more. Peace
BarkingToad: You make a common mistake. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is in fact, a belief. It is belief in "nothing" to explain the universal philosophical problem of First Cause. Theists answer "God." Atheists answer "nothing." Hitchens explicitly states he does not dismiss the possibility of a First Cause and is so not a true atheist. Try to focus your rebuttal on the important mistake you make where you illogically argue that atheism is a belief-system based on "disblief" versus "belief."
Obviously, you have no idea what the word "atheist" means. Atheism is "the lack of belief in any god or gods". Agnosticism is "the lack of knowledge concerning gods", possibly "the claim that knowledge concerning gods is by definition impossible". As such, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. As an agnostic atheist, I take offense at your display of ignorance. Hitchens does not believe in any gods, therefore, he is an atheist. To claim that he is not is simply a lie. Looking forward to your apology.
leftbehind81: You may reject the problem of causality, but it is an inherent problem that makes the Big Bang theory so interesting or "circular" to use your word. Hitchens is anti-clerical and refutes all illustrations (gods) of the phenomenon outside understanding, including origin.
Hitchens isn't even dead yet, and the Christians are already lying that he isn't an atheist, just like they have lied about "death bed conversions" of people like Charles Darwin, etc. Atheism is defined as disbelief in gods. Hitchens doesn't believe in gods. He's an atheist. It takes a dishonest theist to intentionally misprepresent something as simple as this. Why is the mere existence of atheists such a threat to an individual theist? If you are going to comment on atheism, at least learn what the word means. There are agnostic atheists, and there are gnostic atheists, just like there are agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. This isn't rocket science.
They aren't the same, they answer two different questions. It's possible for someone to be both, for someone to be either, and for someone else to be neither. Atheism means a person doesn't believe any gods exist. Theism means a person believes one or more gods exist. Agnosticism means a person doesn't think it's possible to be certain (to test) if the god or gods in question exist or not. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. There are some, but not many strong atheists. There are agnostic theists. And there are theists who are certain their god exists and it's provable. Most people who identify as merely agnostic are probably agnostic atheists. But not all of them, I am sure there are agnostic deists and agnostic theists who identify as agnostics. And possibly even impartial agnostics.
Babblefish... lots of intellectual pride spinning in meaningless circles; congratulations! You've convinced yourselves not to be held accountable (la, la, la, la... the house is not burning down, the house is not burning down, the house is...) Christopher Hitchens looks frightened; I hope he will at last abandon his pride and admit to God what he has always known... God is indeed great. If you love your neighbor, pray that God will lead Mr. Hitchins by grace through faith - who knows, we may celebrate with him in Heaven.
@Brendan, First let me say that the "first cause" argument I reject outright simply because it is a circular argument. It is a lot like the intelligent design argument, if the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an even more complex entity then wouldn't that in turn mean that entity is so complex that it in turn would have to be created by an even more complex entity? And then that one an even more complex entity and so on. In other words, God would need a bigger God to have created him under this logic. I am sorry, this isn't an answer. You can use the term 'God' to refer to many things, and in doing so you more and more confuse the meaning of the word. God could refer to an ancient greek God, or perhaps to the Buddha, or maybe even Lao Tzu or maybe you could incorrectly call the Tao a 'God'. But if we do that then what are we really talking about when we talk about God? Each of these concepts of God are quiet different. You might agree that it is far easier to argue against the existence of a greek god then for instance the christian God. And i would say that it is even harder to argue against the very abstract idea of a Tao then the Christian God. To avoid these confusions I have to insist that the western word 'God' actually refers to the historical western God. That is the monotheistic judeo-christian God refereed to in the Bible and described theologically as all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. This is the God, that Hitchens objects to, not an abstract idea.
Next Page 1 of 4 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail