August 20, 2007

HITCH ALMIGHTY:

Atheist Tracts: God, they're predictable (Harvey Mansfield, 08/13/2007, Weekly Standard)

In our time, religion, having lost its power to censor and dominate, still retains its ability, in America especially, to compete for adherents in our democracy of ideas. So to reduce the influence of religion, it is politically necessary to attack it in the private sphere as well as in the public square. This suggests that the distinction between public and private, dear to our common liberalism, is sometimes a challenge to maintain.

If religion, then, cannot be defended merely on

the ground that it is private, what might be said in its behalf for the public good? We know from behavioral studies that, to the embarrassment of atheists, believers, or at least churchgoers, are better citizens--more active and law-abiding--than those who spend Sunday morning reading the New York Times. But why should this be so? And is it really true that atheists, with their newfound aggressiveness, are not public-spirited?

A person of faith might respond to the atheists that God's providence rules, but His mind is unknown to us. We might hope or guess or infer that God gives us freedom to make mistakes, to sin, to offend God, even to expound atheism--but we could not be sure of this. Our uncertainty as to God's intentions preserves the distance between man and God and prevents us from claiming imperiously that we know what God wants to happen. From this negative conclusion one might move to the positive inference that in leaving us free, God leaves us to choose and, to make choice effective, leaves us to choose not merely this or that detail of our lives, but a way of life comprehensively in politics.

But surely not just any politics, arbitrarily posited. We must have a politics that aims at justice. The atheists say that God is unjust because He allows injustice to exist, to thrive. Worse than that, God is complicit in injustice. The reason why "God is not great," in Christopher Hitchens's book title, is that God allows himself to be used, hence diminished, by His believers. Note that the atheist Hitchens, like a believer, wants God to be great. A God of limited powers is not God; God must be omnipotent to ensure that justice triumphs in the world. Hitchens doesn't believe in God, but that is because he does believe in justice. Justice must be realizable if the reproach to God is that He is unjust.


The atheist complain is not that there is no God--by their raging against Him they demonstrate their belief--but that He is not who they want Him to be. When Mr. Hitchens grows up he'll accept the God who is.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 20, 2007 8:13 PM
Comments

That line about atheists reading the Times on Sunday reminded me of that great Evelyn Waugh character who created a magazine called, The Godless Sunday At Home.

Would Hitchens believe in God if none of us spit on the sidewalk because we were all acting under the imperius curse? (apologies to J.K. Rowling)

Talk about facism!

Posted by: Randall Voth at August 21, 2007 12:20 AM

Well, at least Hitch (as far as I know) doesn't actually go around claiming that he's an atheist because he's so much smarter than the rest of us. What is a bit surprising is that someone so erudite doesn't realize that there's nothing that he says or feels that wasn't considered perfectly natural (albeit often painful to struggle against) by the writers of the Old Testament. And that one of their answers--dude, you don't have a clue what God's up to--still holds today. Unless you think you're so much smarter than the rest of us...

Posted by: b at August 21, 2007 1:18 PM
« VIRTUOUS CYCLE: | Main | WHICH RAISES A TROUBLING QUESTION: »