Hitchens – God Is Not Great XXVII
Listen to the MP3
Chapter sixteen of Christopher Hitchens book “God Is Not Great,” deals with a question, one now routinely raised by the neo-atheists, of whether religion is child abuse. Hitchens starts with, “the imponderably large question. How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?” (pg 217) Of course one could also ask the equally imponderably large question, how can we know how many children found comfort and joy in their faith?
I would suspect that it was far larger, but either way what Hitchens question once again reveals is the illogical nature of his approach, particularly how Hitchens attempts to jump from antidotal stories to grand universal conclusions. As a result the reader is often left agreeing with Hitchens condemnation of particular practices yet puzzled as to how this affects even Christianity in general, much less religion as a whole.
To see the problem consider the fact that all the hype surrounding Global Warming is causing many children to be worried some to the point of losing sleep and having nightmares. Now it would be quite reasonable to question the amount and types of information we are exposing our children to when it comes to the issues such as Global Warming. Yet if we were to apply Hitchens reasoning to this, we would conclude that we should not teach our children about science at all.
Still Hitchens argument get even stranger. As examples of immoral teaching inflicted on children Hitchens points to abortion. It is to his credit that Hitchens acknowledges the fetus to be an “unborn child” and not just a mass of flesh, and he is also correct that “this only opens the argument rather than closes it.” (pg 221) But from this he moves to justify abortion by pointing to the fact that there are miscarriages as if abortions were just another type of miscarriage. Frankly this would be like pointing to the fact some children die naturally before reaching adulthood and thus infanticide is just another form of infant mortality.
To make matters even worse Hitchens attempts to justify his view by pointing to evolution. Hitchens claims, “in utero we see a microcosm of nature and evolution itself. In the first place we begin as tiny forms that are amphibian, before gradually developing lungs and brains.” (pg 221) At first I did not fault Hitchens here. This myth was invented by Haeckel who deliberately distorted his drawing of the embryo to show a progress that in reality does not happen. While this has been known to be false for over a century, it continue to appear in textbooks, and so I was willing to give Hitchens a pass on this one.
But later in the book, Hitchens mentions Jonathan Wells and his book, Icons of Evolution, which details this fraud. Whether Hitchens’ rejection of Wells’ book is based on having read it, of if he just reflexively rejected it simply because it was critical of evolution is unclear. But either way he has no excuse for continuing to spread such a myth.
But things get even worse for Hitchens goes on to write concerning evolution, “the system is fairly pitiless in eliminating those who never had a very good chance of surviving in the first place.” When talking about natural processes, this is one thing but when this is used to justify family planning it comes dangerously close, if not to, eugenics. Ultimately there is a very strange paradox in this argument that Hitchens seems to be completely unaware of, for one of the major pieces of evidence that religion is child abuse that he gives is that religion opposes killing children in the womb.
From there he move to “the mutilation of infant genitalia.” While he attempt to equate the male and female circumcision, there is hardly any equation as they have different purposes and results. Female circumcision is really an attempt to eliminate any pleasure from sex. In addition, it is a social custom found in Northern Africa more than a religion custom, though it is often linked to Islam as that is the dominate religion in the area. But it is found among non-Muslims in the area, and is generally not practiced by Muslims outside of the area except among those who have immigrated. So the common link would be the culture for the area more than religion.
When it comes to male circumcision, there things are hardly as clear as Hitchens states. While there is a clearly Jewish injunction to be circumcised, there is no such Christian injunction as Acts 15 makes clear. As for the secular reasons for circumcision, the best one can really say is that this is a hotly debated topic. While Hitchens writes concerning the secular reasons for circumcision that, “Medicine has exploded these claims” (pg 226), a quick web search took me to the Mayo Clinic and a page to help parents with the pros and cons.
In the end Hitchens’ claim that Religion is Child Abuse like the previous claims is seriously flawed. However, his use of myth as if it were science, his flirting with eugenics type reasoning, and his strange claim that opposing abortion is an example of child abuse make this chapter one of his worse. If this chapter were indicative of secular rational thought, it would itself be a strong argument for religion. But in the end he simply fails to make his case.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
