{"id":65,"date":"2008-07-11T09:41:59","date_gmt":"2008-07-11T15:41:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.consider.org\/blog\/?p=65"},"modified":"2008-07-11T09:41:59","modified_gmt":"2008-07-11T15:41:59","slug":"hitchens-god-is-not-great-vi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/2008\/07\/hitchens-god-is-not-great-vi\/","title":{"rendered":"Hitchens – God Is Not Great VI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3<\/a>\u00a0<\/h2>\n

This week I return to my extended review of Christopher Hitchens, \u201cGod Is Not Great<\/a>,\u201d Hitchens concludes his first chapter, describing his father\u2019s funeral where he spoke on Philippians 4:8<\/p>\n

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.<\/p>\n

For Hitchens, this is a \u201cSecular injunction\u201d that shines \u201cout from the wasteland of rant and complaint and nonsense and bullying which surrounds it.\u201d (p 12)<\/p>\n

The last part of Hitchens\u2019 comment can only be seen as at best hyperbole.\u00a0 In fact, what immediately precede this passage are injunctions to: rejoice, be gracious, don\u2019t worry, pray, and be thankful, though I guess that these were corrupted by the \u201crant\u201d about prayer. On the other side, what follows this supposedly \u201csecular injunction\u201d is an encouragement to not only think about these things, but to put them into practice.<\/p>\n

Ultimately Hitchens comments make no sense.\u00a0 The immediate context does not support his description of a \u201cwasteland of rant and complaint and nonsense and bullying,\u201d nor does the broader context of the letter, the New Testament, or even the Bible as a whole.\u00a0\u00a0 Such distorted hyperbole may be as red meat to his fellow atheists, to be uncritically swallowed, but it hardly supports his claim that he is representing the rational position.<\/p>\n

His description of this as a secular injunction is likewise problematic.\u00a0 Why is this injunction secular? Is it because the word God does not appear in the passage? The context is certainly not secular. This injunction comes as at the conclusion of the letter, in the passage Paul is summing up what it means to live as true Christians.<\/p>\n

As a side note, I can\u2019t help but wonder if Christians down through the ages had really taken these words to heart, how different the writings of the neo-atheists would have been, as a great deal of their critiques involve Christians who did not live up to the teachings of Bible.<\/p>\n

Still, there are two main problems with Hitchens claim that this is a secular injunction. The first is that some of these words lose their meaning apart from a context that involves God. Granted terms like true and honest have secular meanings, thought it is worth noting that as society has become increasingly secular both of these terms have\u00a0 suffered. For example, it now common among those strongly influenced by secularism to believe that truth is relative, and thus is different from person to person. There is no such thing as absolute truth.<\/p>\n

Terms such as lovely and good report are even more problematic.\u00a0 It would be very difficult to claim that as society has become more secular it has become lovelier, or that it has even exulted the lovely.\u00a0 A survey of modern art would quickly show the opposite.\u00a0 In fact noted the historian Jacques Barzum summed up the last 500 years of the cultural life in Western Civilization in the title of his book as\u00a0From Dawn To Decadence<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Finally, terms such as pure and virtue are inherently moral and thus require a moral context before they have any meaning at all.\u00a0 For example, pure in the context Paul meant is something vastly different that pure in a racial context. In fact I would argue, based on the teachings of the Bible that pure in a racial context is irrelevant and to advocate it is evil.<\/p>\n

In short the injunction itself is meaningless unless given a context or framework in which these terms can be understood. Christians have a clear framework in which to understand this injunction. Secularism has no such clear framework. Secularists are free to fill in the blanks however they see fit.\u00a0 Most do this from the culture in which they live, which in Western cultures means one strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values.<\/p>\n

As such it is very possible that Hitchens and I would have a great deal of agreement as to what this injunction is saying, but where we agreed, it is not because I am adopting a secular framework, but rather because Hitchens views overlap those derived from the Bible.\u00a0 But even if we assume that these terms had some universal meaning apart from Christianity, that would still not make this a secular injunction, for there is the problem why should it be enjoined.\u00a0 What is the secular imperative to embody these attributes? There isn\u2019t any.<\/p>\n

Sure a secular rational in favor could be constructed. But a secular rational against could likewise be constructed. This is because secularism itself is neutral. In fact in the context of evolution, the key imperative would be to survive, and so whenever lying or injustice served the aim of survival, then it should be done. In the Christian context, truth and justice are attributes of God. Since we are created in his image, we should likewise embody these attributes. Not just when it serves our personal interest, but at all times.\u00a0 For as Paul said in the next verse,<\/p>\n

Likewise, keep practicing these things: what you have learned, received, heard, and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you.<\/p>\n

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity<\/a>: a Faith Based on Fact<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Listen to the MP3\u00a0 This week I return to my extended review of Christopher Hitchens, \u201cGod Is Not Great,\u201d Hitchens concludes his first chapter, describing his father\u2019s funeral where he spoke on Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,8,9,14,16],"tags":[123,231,249,295,317,1081],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/consider.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}