If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
May 1, 2007
by Dinesh D'Souza

side bar side bar side bar side bar When the French scientist Pierre Laplace first explained his nebular theories to Napoleon, the emperor posed to him a single question. "Where is there room in all this for God?" To which Laplace famously replied, "I have no need for that hypothesis."

Christopher Hitchens invokes Laplace's reply in his new book god is not Great. In a sense, Laplace supplies the central argument for the kind of naturalism that Hitchens espouses. The world can be entirely understood on the basis of natural laws and events. Why call upon God when he is entirely superfluous in order to make sense of the world?

As Hitchens' title suggests, his argument goes further than this. God is not merely unnecessary, he is "not great." The subtitle is even harsher, "How Religion Poisons Everything." Everything? Yes, Hitchens would have us believe that whatever religion touches it corrupts and inflames.

Hitchens is an iconoclast, as is indicated by one of his earlier books, a harshly critical biography of Mother Teresa called The Missionary Position. While I found that book quite foolish and distasteful, I found myself applauding some of Hitchens' pungent rhetoric in this one. There is plenty of room for even Christians to be outraged by some of the things going on in the churches—the blatant money-grubbing, the jaw-dropping hypocrisy, the sex scandals that would make even Hugh Hefner blush—and Hitchens is unsparing in his expose of these offenses.

When Hitchens turns to larger political conflicts, however, his arguments droop. He strains to show that the clash between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland is motivated by religion, without answering the objection that the two groups seem to be fighting not about doctrine but about land and political autonomy. He baptizes the warfare in the Balkans as "religious" rather than "ethnic" cleansing, even though these feuds are rooted in tribe and blood. Religious differences are only incidental.

Hitchens implausibly suggests that if messianic rabbis and mullahs could be kept out of the Palestinian conflict, the issue would have been settled "decades ago." As a mater of fact, both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are largely secular movements and the conflict has always been based on a simple, non-religious question: who owns this land? Hitchens even seeks to portray the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq as a clear strike against religion. In reality the theological differences between Shia and Sunni are non-existent and the real basis of the sectarian warfare is entirely political and power-driven.

The title of Hitchens' book is derived from the Muslims. It is a negation of the Arabic slogan "Allahu Akbar" which means "God is great." Hitchens is, of course, right about the pernicious way in which the radical Muslims use religion to justify their murderous acts of terrorism. But Hitchens never shows that Islam itself is the problem. Most of his anti-religious polemic is in any case directed at Christianity, and here Hitchens is equally ineffective. He doesn't even ponder the central question raised by his title. If he's right that all religions are false and God is a figment of the human imagination, why should imaginary things cause so many problems? Dreams and unicorns don't "poison everything" so why should deities?

Hitchens seeks to place himself squarely in the scientific tradition, arguing that the operations of the universe can be worked out using the theories of Darwin and Einstein and "no divine plan, let alone angelic intervention, is required. Everything works without that assumption." This is a serious point, which gave Napoleon pause and it should us as well. But here too Hitchens does not even begin to sustain Laplace's proposition.

Modern science has discovered that the universe, far from existing eternally, had a beginning. Not only matter but space and time itself came into existence around 15 billion years ago in the fiery burst that scientists term the Big Bang. The laws of physics themselves originated at that point, and those laws were inoperative "before" the founding moment. So what is the secular explanation for how the universe and its laws came into existence? Is there a natural explanation for nature's own origin? If so, what is the evidence for it? Hitchens supplies no such theory and no supporting evidence. His rejection of the God hypothesis seems nothing more than an assertion of atheist dogma.

In recent decades, scientists have found innumerable ways in which our universe—not just our planet but the entire universe—is narrowly tailored to permit life. Change the variables of nature by an infinitesimal amount and this would be a very different universe without observers to perceive and study it. As physicist Freeman Dyson puts it, with an intended mystical touch, the universe behaves as though it knew we were coming! So why are the laws constructed in such a way that we are here to discover them? It's possible that there is a convincing natural explanation, but Hitchens certainly does not produce one. Once again the God hypothesis seems unavoidable.

Now consider man, undoubtedly a product of natural selection, but also possessing qualities such as the ability to tell right from wrong that are unexplained by Darwin and his followers. Neo-Darwinists have labored hard to offer an evolutionary basis for altruism, explaining parental love and loyalty to one's own tribe in terms of Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene." It's an ingenious attempt, but it doesn't account for purely unselfish acts, as when a fellow gives up his seat in the bus to a perfect stranger, or when Mother Teresa devotes herself to improving the lives of the destitute in India. In what way do those actions benefit the selfish genes?

Further, altruism is only one aspect of morality. There is within us all a moral law that speaks to us gently but firmly, urging though not compelling us to do what is right, even when such a course conflicts with our self-interest. If natural selection cannot account for this moral law, where does it come from? I am not saying that science will never explain this, I am saying that science cannot explain it now. It seems much more reasonable, based on existing evidence, to believe that moral laws derive from a divine legislator than to embrace Hitchens' promissory atheism: one day we'll figure out a natural way to account for all this.

Thanks to the astounding discoveries of modern science, I think the God hypothesis has a lot more going for it today than it did in the eighteenth century, when Laplace presented his theories to Napoleon. The appeal of Hitchens is not his scientific rationalism (he is utterly out of his element here) but rather his witty truculence. Hitchens, like Mencken, seems to despise religion, although Mencken was at least candid enough to title one of his books "Prejudices." I like Hitchens, whom I've known for more than two decades, and I wish we had him in the camp of the believers. His latest tract is, well, let's just say it's "not great."

Responses to The Celebritization of Charity:

Wow, what an insightful article by Dr. Robert Paul! Madonna's recent visit to Malawi had international press coverage while the orphanage did want a quiet, secret visit according to the local papers. Every day I see poverty all around. Because I am white I have many outstretched hands asking for money. I have to make a choice to keep beggars poor today (not giving) or help them develop a life of dependency (giving). I also see corruption on the local levels where some administrators pocket money earmarked for the poor, or chief's in villages selling clothing, maize and fertilizer that was given as charity to people of the village. Helping poor people to help themselves is the answer. Not only is Dr. Paul correct on the subject of charity, he is correct on the spiritual subject of Jesus. Jesus did not come to hand out money to the poor. He came to give them the eternal riches of heaven through his suffering, death and resurrection. Now he promises to give his children their daily bread here and the riches of heaven forever. Thanks for the insight! - Missionary Mark Johnston, Malawi, Africa

Thank you for an article that really touched on why "something about this doesn't sit right." I happened to watch the episode on charity night this past week, (though I am not a regular viewer of American Idol) and like Dr. Paul, something about it didn't sit right, however, I was happy that so many were willing to help. This article really touched on the core problem of poverty and what Jesus is really calling us to do. Thank you tothesource! - Anonymous

Thanks for this on-target editorial. Right now, our organization, Project TeamWork, continues to recruit and use volunteers - just regular men, women, and students to help rebuild after Hurricane Katrina destroyed 50% of the homes in Biloxi, Mississippi. Just in our own ministry, we've witnessed over 8,000 volunteers in the last 18 months come help rebuild. How interesting that the majority of these volunteers are just run of the mill Christians, not celebrities, most not wealthy. They give one week at a time, and give all they can. Multiply our 8,000 times all the Christian organizations that are recruiting and rebuilding; with approximately four more years to go on this project, that's a lot of regular joe's and jane's. And although you won't see them on the cover of People, they are the real heroes! - BJ Behnken President, Project TeamWork

Good God... Get a LIFE! Don't you have anything else to worry about? Just be glad someone is doing something to help these poor people! Their motives don't matter.. what matters is getting food and medicine to those who need it. By YOUR attitutude in this letter it sounds like YOU are the one who is being sanctimonious and condescending.... - A Reader

Talk about food for thought! I had never given much thought to who or how money was raised for charity, but I must say, Dr. Robert S. Paul’s article today left me thinking. I work for Mobile Loaves & Fishes, a 501(c)(3) charity based in Austin, Texas, that “provides food, clothing, and dignity” to our brothers and sisters in need.” Several times we have had individuals who have sought to “secularize” us. Our communities are Christian churches and universities, and we have withstood the onslaught of those who would have us stop mentioning God or Christ because it might “offend” someone. I am also on the School Board for Round Rock Independent School District. We were informed last week by the Administration that there would no longer be an invocation at the graduations for our 5 high schools because someone might be offended. The Board members (all except 1) objected very vocally and long, however, it is considered an administrative prerogative and we cannot change that. I am brining up the issue of having an invocation at the beginning of each Board meeting—that IS something the Board can do! Maybe we as a nation need to be more concerned with offending God than offending other people! Please keep fighting the good fight and know that there are others of us quietly but strongly fighting with you in the trenches of political correctness. God bless you. YSIC, - Vivian Sullivan

Very refreshing to read Dr Paul's well thought out commentary especially after reading the previous week's cheap shot which I found offensive and digraceful. - M M sherbrooke Que

I believe that when you give, it should be done in a private manner, not announcing to the world how much you are giving. Giving is an act of obedience to God, not a way to show the world how “good” you are. - Sonia Kuppinger

Thanks for your article on charity and the need for human input as well as dollars. When our doctor son told us he was going to Uganda as a volunteer, we (his parents) were more than a bit concerned. He said it was his obligation. I see that he is correct. Now we pray for his safety as well as his success. - Gerald Schroeder

Dr. Paul, I truly appreciated your article, as you have put your finger on something that I too was feeling but could not quite articulate. The church has, for two millennia, been suffering alongside the poor selflessly, without any public fanfare, receiving only the rewards that the Lord himself gives. This is in stark contrast with the self-congratulatory nature of the Hollywood-ization of charity. Are we now supposed to think that Madonna, who publicly and regularly mocks our Savior by posing on a mirrored cross, is now some sort of saint because she has made a few trips (I'm quite sure in lavish comfort) to Africa and adopted a couple of children (skirting their laws by the way)? While this is, as you say, all well and good, her long career of serving as the poster child for sacrilegious and blasphemous behavior has, in my opinion, will far outweigh the influence of her trifles into charity. I think if these celebrities are serious, they should, as Christians have done for centuries, deny themselves, take up a cross and die for the sake of the poor, and stop mocking those who for centuries have been, for the most part, the only one's who have truly cared for the poor. Then and only then will they have true credibility beyond the current fad. Thanks again for your excellent article. - Frank Markow PH.D.

Thank you for an outstanding article! I for one am sick and tired of egotistical celebrities who love the "blowing of trumpets" everytime they do a good deed, which is frequently a PR stunt to mask an otherwise hedonistic lifestyle. And lets not forget that when these multi-millionaire gods consult with attorney's and publicists re their donation, the actual percentage of their income donated, could probably be equated to about 50 cents out of the pocket of the average wage earner. It's a heart issue and "where your treasure is; there will your heart be also." Where is their heart truly settled? That is the real issue. - Barry Hershey, PA
Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
top
left links right
•National Day of Prayer 2007 - To see this year's proclamations, select your state from the drop down menu.
 
bottom
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dinesh D'Souza
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, What's So Great About America, and The Enemy at Home.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

web metrics