I recently came across an interesting article written by Peter Hitchens, on his brother, Christopher- who has recently published a new, controversial book, titled, How God is Not Great. Both of these gents are journalists/writers. Both are known for their strong opinions and editorial pronouncements. But intriguingly, on this issue, both men come down on opposite ends of the spectrum. You see, what’s interesting here is that Peter is as much an avowed believer in God, as his brother, Christopher, is a disbeliever.

As you might imagine, Christopher’s book is causing quite the stir in more than one religious context. Christopher Hitchens uses this book to vent his feelings towards religion and its effect on society. Being that he doesn’t believe in God, the book is of course, despite its title, really a critique of man and religion, not of any form of divine entity.

How interesting to read the perspectives (simply because they are so very different) of two men as outspoken- and well-spoken, as these two. Of course, being that both men were raised in the same family, culture, era, etc… goes to show that this is not a story of one’s sociological upbringing and its impact on religious belief.

For all intents and purposes, both men also seem to be equally intelligent gents. So this really is no more a story of nature, than it is of nurture. For whatever reason, these two have just come down on polar opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to religious belief.

It’s quite interesting to read a brother’s critique of his sibling’s book; especially of a book titled, How God is Not Great. Peter (in case you’re getting confused- he’s the believer) has some unique insight into his brother’s bias against religion- and where it might come from.

To get to the bottom of it though, it seems to me that How God is Not Great is a book that takes pot shots at rather easy targets- sitting ducks if you will. Christopher uses his book to lambaste religion for its negative effects on the collective health of societies. But of course, its easy enough to take shots at certain televangelists, certain radical, militaristic Muslims, certain homicidal cult leaders, and come out looking “right”.

But at the end of the day, this is not much different than pointing a finger at a bad apple or two from any group- and concluding therefore that the entire lot are rotten. That’d be like a Christian writing a book about Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao in the hopes of declaring all atheists to be megalomaniacal murderers of innocent millions. 

You get the point.

The thing is, any philosophy major will tell you that the strategy of debate is to take on the very best, not the very least, of your opponent’s argument. To do otherwise is to suggest that, in the end, you yourself have this sneaking suspicion that your argument just doesn’t match up well against your opponent’s perspective. You aim below the belt in order to confuse the argument in hopes that you’ll snooker both your opponent and your audience. And of course, in the monolog that is a book, it’s rather easy to get away with such a strategy.

As Peter is quick to point out in this article on his brother’s book, it’s interesting that Christopher (who admittedly has no fixed moral anchor to hang his beliefs on) tends to consistently make rather bold, and dare I say, near absolutist statements about life, morality, right and wrong, etc.

Of course this merely begs the question: if your perspective is -by its very nature- a relative one, how can you even begin to suggest that your opinions hold greater weight than another? After all, how can you weigh various options when there is no scale in the first place? From what I’ve read, Christopher has no answer to this, other than do say rather vaguely that evolution is responsible for our current moral milieu.

But of course, we all know that- by its very definition, evolution is itself a very shifting sand. How can one build any kind of timeless moral structure on such a foundation?

Overall though, my point here is not to discredit Christopher’s approach. Others have done a stand-up job of this already. All told, I doubt Christopher is likely to convert too many individuals to atheism with this book. I think this will book will appeal most to those who already hold to an atheistic perspective. But then again- that’s just preaching to the choir, isn’t it? And of course, we Christians are often guilty of this very same thing.

What Christopher Hitchens perhaps doesn’t realize is that many of us, who do in fact believe in God, would wholeheartedly concur that religion is indeed NOT great; often not even helpful. Indeed we might go so far as to say that religion is at the heart of much of the world’s problems. Though underlyingly, it is of course the human condition, and not religion, that fuels these problems.

But we would then add to the discussion that Jesus came to end all of that. The coming of Jesus of Nazareth into the world was in fact the death knell of ALL religion, and the answer to the existential problem of the corrupt human condition.

But I digress… Getting back to the two Hitchens brothers, what I am interested in is the question of how these two –sharing a common genetic background, familial upbringing, societal context, intellectual prowess, etc… come down on such opposite ends of the spectrum on the question of God.

As poets have suggested, the world is filled with enough beauty to suggest a creator to those inclined as such, while simultaneously containing enough pain and chaos to suggest the opposite to those of a different persuasion.

That is to say, in the end, I don’t think this argument will be, or ultimately can be, settled on purely intellectual grounds. I think part of the unfortunate legacy of the modern era is that Christians bought so heavily into the idea that we had to “prove” our perspective to be legitimate by calling on such “objective” evidence.

In today's day and age- that’s not going to happen very often; no more so than an atheist is likely to accomplish the opposite, simply by massaging the intellect with his or her own abstract conceptions of reason.

While reason has its place, these ultimate questions about reality exist on a plane that intersects with, but also supersedes, the material universe and its operations.

That is to say, this is, above all else, a matter of the spirit.

Now, please understand me: I am not therefore calling for a dualistic understanding of reality. As I said, this all intersects in ways that I don’t think any of us do, nor can, fully understand. The mind, the body, the spirit- these are complex, interlocking categories of being.

However, what I am saying is that, in the end, beyond logic and reason and the mysteries of the material universe lies the subject of revelation; the communication between a Creator and his creation.

And when reading the ramblings of these two brothers, or for that matter, of any of us, one cannot possibly begin to understand our differences without seeing the entire conversation through the lens of revelation. We in the Church (Emerging and otherwise) would do well to remember this. To do otherwise would be to not fully learn from our own modernistic mistakes.

Ultimately, the issue of how and when God reaches out to enlighten the heart, mind and spirit - is perhaps the greatest mystery in all the Universe. But it is around this mystery, above all else, by which the very cosmos spins.