The Bowdoin Orient

Part one of a two-part reaction to Christopher Hitchens's Common Hour talk on Friday, March 28.

As author of this column, I feel compelled to respond to Christopher Hitchens's Common Hour last Friday. If you are not familiar with him, Hitchens recently published "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." During Common Hour, Hitchens gave a brief summary of his dislike for religion. He also gave a challenge he believes is unanswerable: "Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." Hitchens claimed his challenge has been unmet. A simple Google search shows his provocation has been considered by religious authors, and I would encourage those who have further questions to pursue such rebuttals. However, for this work, I wish to respond to Hitchens on my own.

I apologize in advance for my focus on Christianity throughout the remainder of this piece even though Hitchens attacks theism in general. It would not surprise me at all if people of other faiths have had similar experiences with their beliefs as I have had with Christianity. However, as a Christian, I am most familiar with its theology and have had personal experiences that I will use to defend theism in general.

I will admit that, at first, Hitchens' challenge stumped me. My mind went to altruistic deeds. I know of religious individuals who have started hospitals or orphanages in the name of their faith. However, such endeavors have been performed in the name of humanism by non-believers. It seemed that, at face value, any altruistic action could be made by either party. Then it hit me.

Tom Skinner was an African-American high school football player. In the middle of a game, he was blind-sided by a Caucasian opponent. The white competitor then kicked him, and added insult to injury, shouting, "You dirty black n-----, I'll teach you a thing or two!" Skinner retells his next move: "Under normal circumstances the old Tom Skinner would have jumped up and pulverized this white boy. But instead, I got up from the ground and found myself looking this fellow in the face. A smile broke across my face and I said to him, 'You know, because of Jesus Christ, I love you anyway.' I was a new person! Here was Tom Skinner who, six weeks before, would have tried to kill this white bigot, barehanded." The white player left the field, threw his helmet down, and could not play for the rest of the game.

Hitchens's challenge asks the wrong question. He contrasts atheists and theists. However, he dismisses the difference religion can make in the life of an individual. This point does not necessarily refute his challenge, but shows Hitchens needs to look at religion in a different light. Skinner was literally a different person after he became a Christian. The idea of being "born again," stated by Jesus in John's gospel, is not mere rhetoric. It was dramatically demonstrated in Skinner's actions on the football field. This act of grace on the field demonstrates that there are actions that individuals as believers would not do as non-believers.

C.S. Lewis, arguably the best-known Christian thinker of the Twentieth Century, is a perfect example of one who acted quite differently after his conversion because of God's grace. "The Question of God," written by Harvard psychiatrist Armand Nicholi, contrasts Lewis's two lives, before and after his discovery of God's grace. As a child, Lewis lost his mother and had a difficult relationship with his father. As a result, he tended to be a bitter individual, avoiding relationships. After he became a Christian, Lewis became a new person, opening up his life to others. Like Skinner, Lewis the non-believer acted completely differently than Lewis the believer.

I experienced a similar change. I grew up in a church, but I distinctly remember the first time the Christian doctrine of grace actually made sense to me the summer after my sophomore year of college. I used to be a very bitter person. Since then, because of the recognition of God's grace, I have experienced an improved ability to forgive. Consequently, every relationship I have is different. My junior year, others said I literally changed before their eyes as they watched me become a better friend, son, brother, etc.

Wait a minute, Hitchens may say. There are plenty of atheists that behave much better than theistic Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. In fact, if anyone knows me, a theist, they might argue I am still an intense individual who is harder to deal with than their atheist friends. So, how can religion help that much when there are people without it that behave better than people with it?

C.S. Lewis provides a reply in "Mere Christianity." He says, imagine how the theist would behave if he did not have his religion. My point is not, I'm a theist therefore I'm better than you. My point is, observe the lives of Skinner, Lewis, and me, and see how God has changed them for the better. Still far from perfect, our actions as believers are much better than they would be had we remained non-believers.

I will be the first to acknowledge that religion can be used as a means for ignoble ends. I am not trying to defend the Crusades or the Inquisition. Had Hitchens's thesis been "religion is a political poison," I may have been more inclined to agree. In fact, I agree with much of Hitchens's criticism of mixing faith and politics. I would add that secularism is not perfect either. Any system, religious or secular, has the potential for perversion.

Yet, when we consider religion and steer away from politics, one sees a different picture than the one Hitchens tries to paint. Rather than a poison, one observes individuals' lives changed by faith for the better. Did religion poison Skinner's actions on the football field? Has Christianity ruined my relationships? Did God corrupt C.S. Lewis' life?

Hitchens still may reply yes, but atheists still have no problem being just as moral as theists. If that works for Hitchens, fine. But, testimony shows, people of all faiths find meaning to act in moral ways they would never dream of had they been non-believers. Remember Tom Skinner. What does that make us theists? "Delusional," as atheist Richard Dawkins would argue? Perhaps; the vast majority of the world could be wrong. However, because God can be neither proved nor disproved, death will probably provide the only definitive answer to this debate.

However, if Hitchens or Dawkins were to ever wrong either Skinner or me, he should be grateful for the forgiveness he would receive because of our religious "delusions." If there are ways to better people's lives, why not pursue them? If combining religion and politics is the problem, that issue should be addressed separately rather than claiming religion poisons everything. Contrary to poison, religion can serve as a much-needed antidote to improve our lives.

• IN OPINION THIS WEEK...
• Editorial: Our Challenge
• Benefit of the Doubt: America’s new, dangerous tyranny of the supermajority
• The Cold, Hardt, Truth: One thing is certain: Americans need health care reform
• Bowdoin’s hard alcohol ban creates more problems than it solves
• The president is down, but not out
• The iPad: Good-looking, poorly named, and possibly transformative
• Democrats should take responsibility for their failed agenda
• Marx, the environment, and the implications of global warming
• Letter To The Editor: The E-Board only spends money on what is necessary
• Letter To The Editor: Article brings back memories of bands of Bowdoin past