Here again one sees the gigantic man-made fallacy that informs our “Genesis” story. How can it be proven in one paragraph that this book was written by ignorant men and not by any god? Because man is given “dominion” over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia — the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new ‘Eden’ — was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood, it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had “dominion” over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity.
– Christopher Hitchens, “god is not Great”
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Awesome
While I will not purport to think that Genesis is literal (I will also not purport otherwise). Certainly this man realizes (if he is indeed scientific) that this not proof of anything. I don’t see how he could even think of it as evidence. In fact, the words were completely wasted.
I will say this again. When people demand that it is either science or religion, science will lose. Ultimately someone (misguided as they are) will take it upon themselves to kill off the issue. So, I only ask that everyone who wishes to use science in this way be careful and mindful of the consequences.
You seem to have misunderstood Hitchens’ point. It wasn’t that Genesis is wrong (though it is), but that Genesis betrays its non-divine origins by having only local knowledge. Much like even Jesus seemed to think that diseases were caused by demons instead of germs… wouldn’t the son of God know better?
As to the rest of your comment, science only “loses” in theocratic societies (which, ironically, still need science-invented weapons to torture and kill dissenters, as those societies always do). But this is not a case of science versus religion, but of reality. If religion’s claims contradict reality, then religion is wrong, and only stubborn wishful thinkers refuse to see it, or come up with excuses like “yes, but it is still right in a spiritual way“.
I understood what he was saying and understand the localized argument full well. I just think his conclusion is incorrect. If it was inspired by God should He have mentioned the furthest reaches of the universe? It wasn’t necessary for what was being done, so why bother.
As for Jesus and germs. Well, he appeared to be healing people. The ability to heal would indicate to me an acceptable level of knowledge.
Reality, now were talking. None of know reality. And you are correct about the killing of dissenters. Let’s try and avoid that as much as possible shall we.
How did you go from the lack of mention of anything non-local to “furthest reaches of the universe”? You’re attempting to turn it into a straw-man argument.
Efrique.
I understand what you are saying but feel differently. My point was something more like this:
- Neither of the things Mr Hitchens mentions is relevant to the main point of Genesis. Which isn’t to explain how everything came to be.
- If Australia had been mentioned in Genesis it probably wouldn’t matter to Mr. Hitchens at all. He would most likely have just moved on to “Well, if it was … it should contain references to our solar system, etc.” This is evidenced by his request for the inclusion of information that would have had no bearing on the people involved.
- Also, the Hebrew words translated as “In the beginning” could lead to a fascinating study and might have potential meanings other than “the beginning of time”. Just like the word translated as “Adam” can be translated as man or human instead of being thought of as a man’s name.
Yes, there are still many people that demand Genesis be interpreted literally. Interestingly enough, there is another group of people that is willing to say “six days doesn’t mean six of our days” but still translate everything else as literally as possible. I even know many people that are aware of the fact that the word translated as “Adam” can mean man or human but still insist on understanding it as the real name of the first human.
That, does not mean that the book is wrong. It may very well mean that their understanding of it is incorrect and that they are not looking at it for the main lesson being offered but it does not mean the book is wrong.
For example, one the sixth day he is said to have made man. Well, if his days were about a billion years, that might work out ok. Not that I believe it but, you get the idea I hope.
Now you’re definitely putting words in his mouth and arguing with things he didn’t say, instead of engaging with the argument.
In fact, if Australia, or things that made it unique (unknown to the ancient Hebrews and indeed, to the peoples they got the two incompatible Genesis creation stories from) had nevertheless been clearly described, it would utterly destroy Hitchens non-local argument for Genesis being the work of man, rather than the inspired word of an omniscient being. Hitchens would have different arguments, but the existence of non-local information would be support for the view that it was divinely inspired.
Efrique,
You are correct, that evidence would thoroughly destroy it. My points are:
1. That we would not expect to find references to things that do not have any bearing on the people the story is being told for and/or is not needed for the purpose of the story.
2. That I do not think it would make him change his mind about the existence of God (or even come close).
Point #1 is a direct attack on the argument.
While point # 2 is not part of the argument directly, it goes to whether there would be any possible reason for the “missing” information to be included.
My statements about “in the beginning”, if one researched them and found them to hold up, could (not would) easily refute both sides. Dinosaurs would have come and gone but, also, the literalists would have to at least admit the potential for things to have existed before man.
Once again, the book contains room for an interpretation that the majority of followers will not respect. Go figure ;>
One other question, in the past did you post here under a different name?
Not to my recollection (though it’s remotely possible I did at one point and forgot). Why?
If God thought that the story would only be heard/read by that one small group of people long ago, perhaps. But that’s hardly consistent with omniscience; if God understood that people would be reading it later, why inspire stories that, as time goes on, appear to be contradicted more and more by what we find out that the ancients didn’t know? Did God wish to become increasingly hard to accept?
You may be right; I can’t speak for him. But that’s hardly relevant to the validity of the argument. [Hitchens is someone who I would, no doubt, personally despise - I certainly find his political arguments vile (and he no doubt would despise me in turn and have no compunction in telling me so). None of my personal distaste affects the worth of his arguments.]
Indeed, that one thing probably wouldn’t change my mind either - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if there was a clear description of a platypus, say, as being in a large southern continent, that would lead me to wonder how that could occur. Obviously one tries simple explanations first - was there an ancient trade route? If after a careful search no plausible reason could be found, it would remain as an unexplained anomaly. It could contribute if it were part of a pattern of extraordinary unexplained anomalies. There are many places where clear, unequivocal clues could have been inserted but were not. If a good proportion of those were otherwise, it would be part of a much more convincing whole. Even a substantial reduction in the blatant contradictions would help (not least so that believers could spend less time trying to explain why Mary’s husband has two different fathers, for a short example).
I don’t see how it matters whether God thought it would be read by others. That information would simply be out of place and serve only to dilute if not completely destroy the actual purpose of the writing.
If you are interesting in clear unequivocal clues you may find two books interesting:
The Case For Christ and Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
I would start with the first as it does a very good job of considering much of the historical evidence for Christianity.
How would that dilute or destroy the actual purpose of the writing? How could God’s using the text to show his omniscience have a negative effect on the writing? God showed omniscience in NO way that would stand up to even common sense thinking. In fact, the EMOTIONAL REACTIONS that he has to people’s actions in the Bible strongly imply that he is occasionally surprised by people’s actions…which would not be possible if he is omniscient. And don’t bring up the free will argument. If he gave us free will that just means that one god’s often touted qualities, omniscience, is simply not true. He’s almost omniscient.
And we know that iron chariots can stop him, so he’s certainly not omnipotent, either.