Finale! Saying Goodbye to Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is a kick to read. At the beginning of this last post on his book, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, I want to make one thing clear about Hitchens: he strikes me as a guy you could debate viciously, and then afterwards go out and have beer with—and he would say, “Great debate! We really mixed it up back there!” He’s the kind of guy you could say to his face, “You ignorant blowhard, you have no idea what you’re talking about!” and if you could back up your point of contention with him with some well-reasoned arguments, he’d love it and respect you for it.

I loved reading his book. Hitchens is hopelessly wrong on most points, and his book is more concerned with winning points on over-the-top bombastic rhetoric than he is at actually getting to the nitty-gritty truth of things, but I’d have to think that if you challenged him on certain points, he’d be impressed and would be willing to talk more. A friend of mine sent me this article by Larry Taunton about his friendship with Christopher Hitchens. I’d encourage you to read it. It is very insightful. Hitchens died a few years back of cancer, in my opinion, the only “real man” of the New Atheist Movement.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/16/my-take-an-evangelical-remembers-his-friend-hitchens/

As a conclusion to reviewing his book, I am going to share a few more quotes from Hitchens regarding (a) C.S. Lewis, (b) Mel Gibson, (c) the Gnostic gospels, and (d) uneducated and poor people. And for the sake of fun, and as a tribute to Hitchens, the gloves are coming off…

Hitchens on C.S. Lewis

In his book, Hitchens criticizes Lewis’ famous “Liar, Lunatic, Lord Argument” argument found in Mere Christianity. I posted a blog about this very thing a few weeks ago. Lewis’ argument is essentially this: people love to say that Jesus was a great teacher, but not really God; but if one really looks at what Jesus said, that is the one thing he can’t be—he can’t simply be a great moral teacher because he claimed to be God. That would mean he was either a liar, a lunatic (the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones), or actually what he claimed, Lord. Those really are the only three options, according to Lewis, a reasonable person can conclude.

Hitchens, of course, disagrees. Not only does he disagree, he lets you know in no uncertain terms just how little regard he has for Lewis. He states, “Least of all do I accept his reasoning, which is so pathetic as to defy description and which takes his two false alternatives as exclusive antitheses, and then uses them to fashion a crude non sequitur” (120). Well then, since Hitchens shows absolutely no tact or respect when engaging with people with whom he does not agree, he will receive none from me. Lewis was one of the brightest minds of the 20^th Century. Hitchens, although certainly bright, comes across more like that smart kid in the back of a class who is more “smart-aleck” than smart, and who thinks he knows more than the professor—therefore, he never takes the time to actually investigate and research. He just scoffs from the back row. Entertaining, for sure—kind of like Donald Trump’s campaign. But at some point you want to turn around and say, “Okay, can you give any specifics? Can you form a real cogent argument, or is the only thing you can do is bluster?”

Hitchens actually puts forth a “fourth option” to the identity of Jesus that does not consist of him being “lord”—Hitchens’ option: Jesus never existed! I’m sorry, but this is perhaps the most ludicrous thing Hitchens says in his entire book. As any self-respecting historian will verify, in addition to the biblical accounts, we have Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, as well as a host of other matters of historical record, that testify to the historical fact that Jesus was a Jew in the early 1st Century, whom some considered to be a prophet, whom some considered to be the Messiah, who was known to perform healings, who was crucified during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers claimed that he rose from the dead.

Those are the historical facts that are beyond dispute. One can doubt whether or not he really did rise from the dead, but it is completely asinine to deny that the man ever existed. I guess Hitchens just has a bit too much whiskey that day he wrote that chapter.

Hitchens on Mel Gibson

You might have heard that in 2004 Mel Gibson did a movie about Jesus: The Passion. Interestingly, before 2004, Gibson was the darling of Hollywood, and often the “sexiest man alive.” But as soon as he made a gritty movie about the crucifixion of Christ, Gibson became a pariah. Since he came out as a sincere Catholic Christian, he became the target of people like Hitchens, who said about Gibson’s movie:

“In 2004, a soap-opera film about the death of Jesus was produced by an Australian fascist and ham actor named Mel Gibson. [The film was] an exercise in sadomasochistic homoeroticism starring a talentless lead actor who was apparently born in Iceland or Minnesota—as being based on the reports of ‘eyewitnesses’” (111).

Wow—that’s pretty harsh. This is perhaps the best example of propagandist bomb-throwing in the entire book. A lot of people objected to the movie for being too gory. But I have to say that those people, Hitchens included, obviously have no idea just how bloody and brutal actual Roman crucifixion was. Was Gibson’s film too gory? Perhaps a bit, but the fact is he was much closer to the reality of crucifixion than any other film I have seen. I for one still think it was a very solid movie and very well done.

I have to ask, though, how in the world does Hitch consider The Passion to be “homoerotic”? To even think that Gibson’s film could ever be seen as “homoerotic” is unbelievable. What can one say to that? I can say, “Gee, Hitch finds The Passion to be homoerotic….that just proves he is a sadomasochistic homosexual who likes to rape children!” But I would then be essentially slandering Hitchens by taking something he said and completely distorting it, wouldn’t I? Sure, my comment could be considered “edgy,” but it would have no connection to reality—the same goes for Hitchens’ “homoerotic” comment.

As far as calling Gibson a fascist…that is ridiculous. One can say that Gibson clearly has made some anti-Semitic comments, and one can infer that he harbors some anti-Semitic feelings at some level, and it is blatantly clear that Gibson has battled alcoholism for years—the man has problems, sure.  But in what way does the film display fascism? Fascism is a political ideology, as is Communism, Democracy, etc. Or does Hitchens not even realize this fundamental difference in definitions between anti-Semitism and Fascism? It is slander, pure and simple. It is taking Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic comments and then saying Gibson has a poster of Hitler in his room. Hitchens’ remarks should just be dismissed as sophomoric.

Hitchens on the Gnostic Gospels

Hitchens makes the claim that the Gnostic gospels “…were of the same period and provenance as many of the subsequently canonical and ‘authorized’ Gospels” (112). Hitchens’ claim here is provably false. There are only two options here: either he is completely ignorant of the historical record, or else he is purposely misrepresenting the facts. The documents at Nag Hammadi, otherwise known as “Gnostic gospels,” were written anywhere between the 3rd-6th centuries after Christ; the earliest of these is purported to be the Gospel of Thomas, which was, by all accounts, possibly written somewhere in the 2nd century (130-180 AD). This means that the earliest of these texts were 100-150 years after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. The canonical gospels, on the other hand, were written around 70 AD (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), and 90 AD (John): 40-60 years later. Does this sound like “the same period” to you?

This is the same mentality seen in Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code, and many Gnostic gospel scholars who try to gain credibility (and a few bucks in book sales as well). Now, if you want to learn about Gnostic teachings in the 4rd-6^th centuries, have at it. But don’t be fooled into thinking these documents have any historical reliability when it comes to the early Church and the life of Christ. They just don’t. Unfortunately, some have tried to turn them into legitimate alternatives to the Synoptic Gospels, and thereby have tried to de-legitimatize the traditional Christian faith. Well, the historical facts aren’t on the Gnostic gospels’ side. If you don’t value history, the Gnostic gospels are for you. But if you think historical reliability and facts matter, don’t bother with them, and don’t believe Hitchens.

Hitchens the Elitist

Finally, Hitchens reveals himself to be a true elitist when he says, “It is hardly a surprise if religions choose to address themselves first to the majority who are poor and bewildered and uneducated” (115). Well, once again, he is factually wrong. The fact is most ancient religions supported the king and the rich and powerful, at the expense of the poor. Christianity is unique in that it was, from the very start, a movement that started among the poor, the slaves, and women. In that case, Christianity is the surprise religion. Having said that, at the same time, some of the most influential and leading philosophical minds of the early centuries after Christ were, in fact, Christian thinkers like Origen, Augustine, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom—the list can go on.

Hitchens’ statement actually reveals more about him than it does Christianity. He seems to be the one who looks down on the poor, the needy, and the uneducated. He’d actually fit in nicely with the elites of the Roman Empire or of the Enlightenment. That being said, if a poor man took issue with him and challenged him on a few points, something tells me Hitchens would probably buy him lunch in order to have a good debate over drinks.

In any case, Hitchens’ book is certainly engaging, to be sure. I almost think that he doesn’t really believe most of what he says. I want to think he’s just saying it to tick Christians off and to try to get them to be “man enough” to argue with him. Let’s face it, a good hot-blooded debate where the proverbial fists fly can often be quite good. I say, challenge yourself, read his book, and form you argument against him where you think he’s wrong. I guarantee you’ll learn something.