Christopher Hitchens on Q & A

[JimDocker]

* What is new about atheism today compared to the past?

* What is dogmatic about atheism today compared to the past?

I don't believe there is anything new about atheism today. The dogmatism stems from people like Hitchens that seems to hate believers.

The following is from a US journalist, Chauncy Mabe in December 2007.

In 2005 I wrote a column for the Sun-Sentinel in which I declared the atheism I had come to, by fear and trembling, after a lifetime of fairly serious Christian observance.
Earlier this year the brilliant social critic, journalist and self-described “contrarian,” Christopher Hitchens, enjoyed a surprise best seller with his atheist manifesto, God Is Not Great. Its success, and that of other writers of similar water, such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, suggests either there are a lot of unbelievers in this most religious of Western nations, or else a backlash has at last arrived against the Religious Right that has dominated much of American discourse since the early 1980s.
All this leaves me even more bemused, especially as I find myself rising to defend believers -- something I thought I’d never do.
Or maybe it’s just that I can’t abide Christopher Hitchens. Really, for all his nimbleness of mind and entertaining writing style, Hitchen’s brand of atheism manages to embody many of the worst attributes of the believers he condemns.
God Is Not Great does put forth some respectable arguments for the atheistic position. But it also displays an arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and willful intolerance that would sound right at home coming from the pulpit of some suburban mega church or backwoods snake handling congregation, or what have you.
Hitchens most resembles what he reviles in a certain triumphalism that dehumanizes his opponents. It is not enough that his targets be proved wrong, they must be obliterated, rhetorically speaking.
There is much that Hitchens says in his attacks on religion that I wholeheartedly agree with. And the man can write.
But I have to wonder if anyone who so obviously worships himself can actually be considered a true atheist…?

 

[Chief]

I don't believe there is anything new about atheism today. The dogmatism stems from people like Hitchens that seems to hate believers.

It is more a hatred for the ills that believers and blind belief bring to the world.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

And that article is, again, simply attacking the tone while agreeing with the arguments.

 

[Chief]

Meh. Reminds me of people who have just discovered Triple J and begin to lambast mainstream radio listeners for "listening to shit music that isn't real" or whatever.

There is an element of fan-boy in every movement that gains popularity.

Anti-theism.

Arguing that theism is doing more and more damage to our society is not dogma. It is, according to the evidence, fact.

Urging people to take responsibility for the state of their society by taking a stand against damaging influences is not dogma either.

So I've still not seen anything new or dogmatic in this "Dogmatic New Atheism" people talk about.

 

[Suspense]

There is an element of fan-boy in every movement that gains popularity.


Arguing that theism is doing more and more damage to our society is not dogma. It is, according to the evidence, fact.

Urging people to take responsibility for the state of their society by taking a stand against damaging influences is not dogma either.

So I've still not seen anything new or dogmatic in this "Dogmatic New Atheism" people talk about.

Sure it is.

Dogmatic adherence to the principles of empiricism.
Dogmatic adherence to the principles of positivism.
Dogmatic adherence to the principles of humanism.
Dogmatic adherence to the principles of social morality.
Dogmatic adherence to the principles of logic.
etc.

If this adherence isn't dogmatic, then prove empiricism.

 

[Chief]

Dogmatic would imply adherence in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Show evidence to the contrary.

 

[Suspense]

Dogmatic would imply adherence in the face of evidence to the contrary.

No, it wouldn't.

dogma - An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.

dogmatic - characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence (once again, assuming empirical evidence, right?) to the contrary or not.

 

[JimDocker]

It is more a hatred for the ills that believers and blind belief bring to the world.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

And that article is, again, simply attacking the tone while agreeing with the arguments.

Hitchens does not just attack blind believers. He seems to have no time for anybody that believes. I agree with many of his arguments and as I said earlier, he is a very clever man. He could learn a little humility though.

 

[Chief]

No, it wouldn't.

dogma - An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.

dogmatic - characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence (once again, assuming empirical evidence, right?) to the contrary or not.

The first definition mentions evidence. Twice.

The second talks about proof.

You just backed up MY argument, dude.

 

[Suspense]

The first definition mentions evidence. Twice.

The second talks about proof.

You just backed up MY argument, dude.

Not quite.

You asserted that dogmatism requires "adherence in the face of evidence to the contrary". My definitions did not support that at all and that it mentions evidence/proof actually confirms my point.

Take the "Dogmatic adherence to the principles of empiricism" statement for example and check it against the definition:

An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion - CHECK
especially one considered to be absolutely true - CHECK
regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it.- CHECK

What evidence is there that supports the truth claims of empiricism? If there is none, then adherence to it is dogmatic by definition. You assert that empiricism is, in a sense, self-validating, in that as there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true. But when you refer to evidence you still refer to empirical evidence thus begging the question re; the truth claims of empiricism.

 

[simpleton]

What evidence is there that supports the truth claims of empiricism?

It's predictive success.

On another note tonight's Q and A was terrible compared with the intelligent comments from Christopher Hitchens and Waleed Aly last week. The incoherency of Todd Sampson and Germaine Greer along with the sycophantic audience and Tony Jones made it almost unwatchable.

 

[DeanoT]

It's predictive success.

On another note tonight's Q and A was terrible compared with the intelligent comments from Christopher Hitchens and Waleed Aly last week. The incoherency of Todd Sampson and Germaine Greer along with the sycophantic audience and Tony Jones made it almost unwatchable.

Agree it was very ordinary. I don't think the audience could agree which side of the fence they were on, as they seemed to applaud every minor point made, even if it contradicted the one just made.

Todd Sampson is a nuff-nuff of the highest order. Holding the positions he does, then agree to attend a show such as Q&A, admit he knows nothing about politics, then try to engage in political point scoring with global warming doubters is like watching a 13 year old in a debating contest.

 

[Ted38]

It's predictive success.

On another note tonight's Q and A was terrible compared with the intelligent comments from Christopher Hitchens and Waleed Aly last week. The incoherency of Todd Sampson and Germaine Greer along with the sycophantic audience and Tony Jones made it almost unwatchable.

You forgot to mention that unapologetic Howard arselicker Albrechtson.

 

[Ted38]

What a brilliant, intelligent realist is Christopher Hitchens. His ability to debunk religious bullshit is refreshing and entertaining, should be more like him.

 

[JimDocker]

All religious belief is blind.

It's good to see you have an open mind. No blind adherence to anything there.

 

[Clay Davis]

Arguing that theism is doing more and more damage to our society is not dogma. It is, according to the evidence, fact.

That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

 

[evo]

That's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

I don't see how it is 'post hoc'.A number of thinkers have been arguing theism is socially harmful (generally speaking) for centuries.

As chief and I have tried to point out, none of this is 'new'.

 

[Clay Davis]

I don't see how it is 'post hoc'.A number of thinkers have been arguing theism is socially harmful (generally speaking) for centuries.

As chief and I have tried to point out, none of this is 'new'.

Of course it is.

People do bad things in the name of religion.
Hence, religion is bad.

This isn't the case. People do bad things for their own reasons. Religion (or system of belief otherwise) is their justification.

It is not a causal relationship.

 

[evo]

Of course it is.

People do bad things in the name of religion.
Hence, religion is bad.

This isn't the case. People do bad things for their own reasons. Religion (or system of belief otherwise) is their justification.

It is not a causal relationship.

Well, I'm sorry but there are many people who would disagree with that claim. And some of them are even lurned.

 

[Clay Davis]

Well, I'm sorry but there are many people who would disagree with that claim. And some of them are even lurned.

I don't see how religion is any worse than any other system of thought adhered to rigidly. Lysenkoism killed more people in the 20th century than any religion.

The problem lies with so many people desiring to be easily led. Even if people decided to no longer believe in a god (or more), this wouldn't change anything.

 

[Sloth]

Of course it is.

People do bad things in the name of religion.
Hence, religion is bad.

This isn't the case. People do bad things for their own reasons. Religion (or system of belief otherwise) is their justification.

No, not in the name of. Religion teaches people to do bad things. Commands them actually.

 

[evo]

I don't see how religion is any worse than any other system of thought adhered to rigidly.

Well guys like Hitch would agree with you. That is his central argument!

Lysenkoism killed more people in the 20th century than any religion.

Good point. But I would like to add that death toll is not the only measure of 'harm'.

Besides, it is not very flattering to religion to say "Well at least it is not as bad as Stalinism and Maoism."

The problem lies with so many people desiring to be easily led.

Agree! So why not begin a critique of that by focussing on the biggest sheep shearing shed known to man: Abrahamic religion?

Even if people decided to no longer believe in a god (or more), this wouldn't change anything.

Disagree. I see a move from faith based dogma to reason a positive step for humanity.

 

[Clay Davis]

No, not in the name of. Religion teaches people to do bad things. Commands them actually.

Not all religions. Some do, but Hitchens et al aren't arguing against those religions specifically. They are arguing against all beliefs in god(s).

I know people who aren't religious as such, but do believe that when people die they go to some other place. I'm quite happy with the rot in the ground theory, myself. But if the belief that a recently departed loved one still exists in some form comforts them, who is anyone to castigate them for that?

In my opinion, religion's major purpose is only to placate the fear in the knowledge that you will one day cease to exist. Perfectly understandable.

 

[Clay Davis]

Well guys like Hitch would agree with you. That is his central argument!

Hitch, maybe. Dawkins certainly not.

Good point. But I would like to add that death toll is not the only measure of 'harm'.

It's the ultimate one, ain't it?

Besides, it is not very flattering to religion to say "Well at least it is not as bad as Stalinism and Maoism."

Haha, touché.

Agree! So why not begin a critique of that by focussing on the biggest sheep shearing shed known to man: Abrahamic religion?

I'm fine with them being attacked. But it's erroneous to say they're the cause of all the world's ills.

Disagree. I see a move from faith based dogma to reason a positive step for humanity.

See, I think we all have faith in some part, even if it isn't in the supernatural. I have faith that Freo will win a premiership in my lifetime. That's why I pay ridiculous sums of money to make sure I can watch it unfold. Completely irrational belief though.

 

[Suspense]

We cannot tolerate the otters! Their Science is flawed! Their answer to the Great Question is different from ours. The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason!

The problem, if one were to assert that one exists, is intolerence, not the "truth value" of either opposing propositions. If a theist is intolerant of other views, then it is their act of being intolerant that is at fault, not their theist beliefs. Vice versa with atheists. The problem with the antitheists is that they fall into the same group as the fundamentalist theists. They seem to think that the ill caused by fundamentalist theists gives them the rise to be fundamentalist in their opposition towards theism, when really, they're just hypocrites and w***ers.

No! Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.

 

[evo]

I'm fine with them being attacked. But it's erroneous to say they're the cause of all the world's ills.

At bottom it isn't really about religion.