And what a sweet review it is. There are points on which I disagree with Hitchens (as there are with Dawkins, too, of course), but I agree that the book is an excellent contribution to the ongoing evolution of secular thought.
I wonder if one of the factors that is making everyone consider this movement the “New Atheism” is a confusion of cause and effect. The cause, the advancement of outspoken atheism, is the same old idea; the effect is different, because we don’t have just one Ingersoll who could be marginalized and humored because he was mostly alone, we have a growing core of literate and uncompromising atheists who can reinforce each others’ message, leading to greater and greater gains. Hitchens and Dawkins, despite differences in politics and perspectives, can find common cause in one thing, at least, and will gladly work together to promote it. And everywhere new groups supporting secularism are springing up and encouraging discussion and criticism of religion.
If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.
Don’t you know Christopher Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq?
“If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.”
Which is exactly, why we non-religious types should be even more worried. Because this is exactly the situation which the followers of these stupid monotheisms can’t stand at all. And there is absolutely no atrocity they won’t commit in the name of their good cause.
PZ, you say, “If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.”
I don’t know that they’ll be worried. More likely, annoyed. Have you noticed how we atheists aren’t offended when our beliefs, (founded upon evidence & rational thought), are questioned, but these supernatural fantasists just hate it when their dumb faith is questioned.
Otherwise, right on, man.
Just to show how stupid the religionists are, (from LiveScience.com):
When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14 percent of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19 percent), God (16 percent) or religion generally (16 percent) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory.
This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28 percent of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81 percent) say that “recent discoveries and advances” in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14 percent say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4 percent say that science has made them less religious.
No, the silly asses won’t be worried, just irritated. And lets give it to ’em. I think the best way is to ridicule their stupid ‘faiths’; logical argument doesn’t have much affect on them, as evidenced by the above quote.
> If I were a follower of one of the
> Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried.
Of course you would. The Abrahamic religions are built upon a foundation of worry. The constant worry is, “better believe, or else I might wind up in hell.” “Better behave in this way, because the Big Angry Sky Man is watching.”
And when people start making lots of good arguments which make them feel compelled to start questioning, the worrying ratchets up, and they have to plug their eyes and ears and run away, put those thoughts out of their minds to quash the worrying down to a somewhat tolerable level.
The poor bastards.
Bible Belt states – the reptilian brain of southern and middle America
LOL
Bumper sticker, anyone?
People of faith fly planes into buildings.
See? A mere seven words, and now we don’t need Hitchens for anything.
.
My own problems with Hitchens are mostly political – his belicose support for the Iraq war, his smear jobs on former allies, his bitching and whining about the lack of corpses in the aftermath of Fallujah. His writings on religion seem to have retained their fire, and survived the degeneration of his prose in recent years. I’ll look up ‘God is Not Great’ with interest.
If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.
(affects Alfred E. Newman pose) I worry about other believers, but speaking only for myself, I do not feel threatened by honest doubt. In fact, I support its expression: let a thousand skeptical flowers bloom. If my faith is true, I have nothing to fear from those flowers. If I am in some manner misled, then let us cull those weeds so that the garden may further flourish.
Scott Hatfield: If only the majority of the religious thought the way you do, I think our world would be in a better place than it is right now. In terms of the weeds in your own garden, allow me to bring the plant food.
Hitchens may have supported the war in Iraq, but he does have a way with words. If you’re reluctant to support someone financially that you disagree with politically, check the book out of a public library.
The September 2007 Vanity Fair has Hitchens comments on his book tour promoting God Is Not Great. Among other things, he notes he was pleasantly surprised by the numbers of people coming out as agnostics or atheists, many of whom thought they were the only ones in town until they saw the crowds at the book signings.
My favorite line as well. Reminded me of Smigel’s SNL Funhouse clip about Santa and Dumbfuckistan (click).
Christian #1 –
It comes as no surprise. Freethought can be as much a pill as a tonic, and there is no rule that we have to agree on all matters of politics and war. He has made his defense of his position, and while I disagree with it, it was a reasonable defense.
Atheism requires no lockstep in all thought.
I’ve been playing mp3’s of Hitchen’s debates on his book tour in the US. While Hitchen writes well, he’s unfortunately not that good in a debate. The religious people were uniformly warmer and friendlier than Hitchens, and Hitchens consistently misses grand opportunties for attack. I wanted to kick him. :-)
Dawkins suffers here, too. He gives a good, funny presentation, but he’s not aggressive enough in a confrontational situation. I doubt Dennett is any better.
Who else is there?
Don’t you know Christopher Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq?
——
Dawkins:
“Finally, there are those critics who can’t resist the ad hominem blow: “Don’t you know Christopher Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq?” But so what? I’m not reviewing his politics, I’m reviewing his book. And what a splendid, boisterously virile broadside of a book it is.”
I read Hitchins and Dawkins and PZ and, standing on their shoulders, stride throughout the country (which is hard when you’re standing on someone else’s shoulders). My righteous wrath spurring me on, I reach down for my big, broad brush to sweep away my ‘enemies’ and then Scott Hatfield shows up, all smart and cogent and respectful and totally ruins it. Thanks a lot.
OK Steve, I was being a leetle mischievous with my post up top.
“OK Steve, I was being a leetle mischievous with my post up top.”
I thought it might have been rather facetious but you never can tell.
“If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried.”
I don’t think so. But don’t get me wrong: I like Dawkins, Hitchens less so, even I don’t agree with them on many things. But don’t forget: There are – give or take – some 1 billion Muslims, something close to the same (or less) Christians, and millions upon millions of Jews. So even if every reader of Dawkins and Hitchens wholeheartedly agreed with them and chose to work together to counter the Abrahamic religions, it would hardly make a difference in terms of diminishing belief in them.
What Dawkins, et al, can, and have, accomplished is to alert and activize (???) many intelligent, influential folks who are concerned with church/state separation issues. They have brought attention to the fact that the fundamentalists are serious and dangerously powerful. I’ve been amazed at how many smart scientists and philosophers had no idea how strong they are.
Religious belief won’t diminish as a result of their efforts, but recognition of the importance of church/state separation certainly has increased. And that is a good thing.
But Dawkins and Hitchens (and Dennett, etc.) are hardly alone. EG, Numerous scholars have debunked the notion that America’s founders were serious theists. They were at most Deists or wooly-headed theists who strongly believed religious sectarianism was a baleful influence on politics. In addition, theologians such as Haught have strongly attacked fundamentalism – especially intelligent design creationism – as worthless from within a religious tradition.
Short version: On the important, practical issue, of re-marginalizing religious extremists in the US and elsewhere, Hawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett are crucial, critical voices. Christianists, Islamists, and “Judaicists” – ie, those adovocating theocracy – should be worried by their influence. And many are.
You have got to be kidding. First of all, that last thing any Christian should ever worry about is an atheistic movement. You probably know that we believe this thing about he who is within us being stronger than he who is in the world. So what I do–what all Christians should do–is look at the new atheist movement with a sort of detached amusement. The way I would watch a below-average Monty Python skit.
From another perspective the so-called new atheistic movement is a bitter disappointment. Movements against Christianity, whether they are atheist movements or heretical cults, can have a positive effect. The Pelagian heresy, for example, forced Christianity to formalize the concept of original sin. Marcion, by establishing his own bible, prompted the church to formalize the canon.
This particular movement is so void of any challenge to Christianity that sadly it is useless for our purposes. You’ve done nothing for us! Now, go back a few years to someone like Bertrand Russell. He presented some formidable challenges to Christian doctrine. He caused us to examine certain doctrines, such as Christ’s own statements concerning the Parousia, more deeply. What substantive challenge has Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins made to Christianity? None whatsoever. Repeating that “it’s very bad” and “many people have died because of religion” and “only dummies believe” is not anything that we haven’t heard before and cetainly nothing we should be worried about.
Oh, to be sure, there are those scarlet A’s. Those are sooo scary.
tristero, I think you’re undervaluing the effect that the “unholy trinity” of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris is having [Dennett is quite valuable, but far less vocal]. While there is no doubt that relatively few people will be converted from fundamentalism [although it has happened], most hope that the result will be a lessening of the taboo against challenging religion in public. From this, people who are fence-sitters or silent-non-believers will have a legitamate opportunity to jump ship. Further, those decided non-theists who have been apathetic about the state of religious bigotry are being encouraged to stand up and say “enough”! At the end of the day, the greatest victory might be the mobilization of the extant non-theist, many of whom will no longer feel hesitant about admitting their disagreement with theism. I think seeing the [actual] preavelence of atheists on opinion polls will have a substantial sobering effect on people.
I’m surprised no one mentions Victor Stenger here as well. I actually think that I enjoyed his book “God: The Failed Hypothesis” [2007] the best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali also lends a powerful voice to the cause with her work “Infidel”.
Hitchens’ support for the invasion of Iraq is grounded on his personal experiences in the region, the fact that he has travelled widely, and thought hard – whether you agree with him or disagree with him (I disagree) his opinions are not to be dismissed lightly. Unlike 99% of the idiots that I hear posturing about the war in Iraq, Hitchens has made an effort to understand what’s going on in more depth than what’s being handed to him from Fox news or The New York Times. My assessment of the “thinking” from most people I’ve heard talk about the war (on either side) is that they are merely regurgitating what some authoritative-sounding talking head has said.
I’ve listened to Hitchens debate about the war, and I’ve read most of his books (and, again, agree with some and disagree with others) – the scope of his research and knowledge is daunting. Again; one should not take him lightly. For example, before dismissing his views on the Iraq war, you should read his book on Jefferson. What? Yes. Hitchens’ views on dictatorships are best explained there. Unlike most of the shallow boobs you’ll hear ranting in favor of the war (the suckers who bought the WMD story or the evangelicals who think we belong in the middle east because it’s the 9th crusade) Hitchens has consistently adhered to a view of politics that does not shift with the prevailing winds and fashion. You will note that Hitchens has consistently supported intervention against dictatorships; whether they be in Kosovo, Iraq, Sudan, or North Korea.
My point: in an era of sound bite politics, Hitchens’ views probably seem inconsistent because they are deeply rooted in thinking that cannot be reduced to a bon mot on a blog. If you do as I have done and take the time to follow the entirety of his arguments, I think you’ll find that you’ll be a bit uncomfortable if you’ve been dismissing him out of hand. Consider the possibility that it’s yourself who is kneejerking to the sound bites before you write Hitchens off simply because you disagree with him.
My problem with Hitchens is more serious. When I read his stuff, and listen to him speak, I realize that I am dealing with someone who is smarter, more widely travelled, better-read, a better speaker, and a vastly superior writer. I’d love to debate him, but for the same reason that a typical high school chess player would enjoy playing a game against Kasparov. Having your ass handed to you by a master is always interesting.
mjr.
IMO, the rise of militant atheism is more a result than a cause. The fundies controlled the government up until 2006 and made a mess. The theocratic president, Bush is widely unpopular and the theocratic politicians have proven to be astoundingly corrupt, hypocritical, and inept. Xian terrorism and human child sacrifice aren’t too popular either as well as the constant attempts of the cultists to impose their religion on everyone else.
There is definitely a backlash going on in the USA. As to how much and how far it will go, got me. Theocracies got a bad reputation centuries ago for not working well. They fail on arbitrary authoritarianism, corruption, and sectarian conflicts over who gets to pillage the government treasury and keep the goodies.
As to the Abrahamic religions being worried. Probably not. Again IMO, religion seems to be hard wired into the human brain. The Soviet commies spent 50 years ruthlessly oppressing religion without much to show for it. The best one can hope for is strict separation of church and state and a benign form of whatever the prevailing religion is.
Heddle,
Then you’re missing the point. You’re no longer the target. I couldn’t care less that you believe in silly nonsense*. But I will work my hardest to ensure that your children aren’t subjected to nonsense in public schools. I’ll do everything in my power to equip them with the tools of reason and rationality. And, in the grand tradition of Kuhn’s paradigms, you can wither and die and your nonsense can die with you. Your children and their children and their children will hopefully grow up in a world less populated with childish fantasies and fear-based behavior control.
Look on with all the bemused detachment you can muster. The chickens in a slaughterhouse can wax sardonic all they like; it won’t save them from the axe.
*Your silly nonsense does make itself known at the polls. I’ll give it that.
Dennett is quite valuable, but far less vocal
I think Dennett just comes across as too much the academic fuddy-duddy. His TED talk
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/102
came off as obscure and wandering. Dawkins’ are better. I wish they’d invite Hitch. :)
The Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris “axis of atheism” is so effecive because they attack religion in a manner that is compatible yet each comes from a different angle. Dawkins is professorial and scientific, Harris angles in on the moral quagmire of religion, and Hitchens is devastatingly clear about the worldliness of those who preach. Arguing against them, one is pretty much guaranteed to walk into a sucker-punch from any direction at all.
The faithful are used to fighting a single-front war (and right now that mostly manifests itself in the form of nanny nanny boo boo about Darwinism) and are unused to being simultaneously shown to be:
ignorant (Dawkins)
corrupt and stupid (Hitchens)
morally confused (Harris)
If this continues, my guess is that the faithful in the US will utterly “lose it.” All we need is a few more christian whackos to play right into a losing hand. Christian suicide bombers, anyone? ;)
Smug Creationist Alert! heddle, you’re brave, I’ll give you that.
Well, all I can say is that your comments appear laced with fear. Why are you here if the atheistic movement is so meaningless? Add to this an historical comment about Marcion [yes, we know who he is], and deride the atheists with laughter that betrays your defensive narcissism, and voila, you have yourself a small scared creationist.
Mike P: well written.
heddle,
There’s no point in “presenting formidable challenges to Christian doctrine” because the whole thing is just plain wrong.
And if believers could or would accept a challenge they’d just pick up another religion, no the current advancement of atheism is strong and goes against all religions and superstitions. A
heddle writes:
You probably know that we believe this thing about he who is within us being stronger than he who is in the world. So what I do–what all Christians should do–is look at the new atheist movement with a sort of detached amusement. The way I would watch a below-average Monty Python skit.
What’s really a scream about that is that you’ve described a Monty Python skit, all right. In the skit, there’s a bunch of delusional dimwits talking about how they believe that there’s this person inside them who (I can’t even parse your ridiculous drivellings) makes them better… And as the camera zooms back we see that they’re a bunch of nutters in a sanitarium, doped up on thorazine – the subjects of pity (or derision, if you’re as heartless as I am). Christians seem to think that they’ve got some clever thing figured out, and consequently have no idea how stupid they sound to anyone who isn’t a complete nutter.
With apologies to Mark Twain – Christians look at this vast universe, a planet that’s billions of years old, and this huge complex place in which we live, the history of man and beast (and all the “ridiculous” religions that went before them): and they conclude that it’s all about them. That’s somewhat like, proportionally, the top of the crust of paint on a skyscraper concluding that it is, in fact, the reason for the whole skyscraper.
I’d laugh in your face and call you a “fool” but it just doesn’t come across with the right nuanced blend of contempt and humor when you see it written down in ASCII like this. :(
Mike P,
Um, my kids are in public schools, where they get no religious training, nor do they get taught any ID. As it should be. We Baptists virtually invented the modern idea of separation of church and state. I wouldn’t want it any other way.
Oooh, such bold and courageous language!
oxytocin,
Why am I here? Because I find Pharyngula sometimes interesting, sometimes amusing, and sometimes (though less frequently) a source of good fodder for my blog posts. Virtually the same reasons I visit UncommonDescent daily. Now you can, if you like, try to connect nonexistent dots to argue that the fact that I am here actually means I am afraid of the new atheist movement–I suppose that will feed your fantasy that we are simply terrified at sight of someone like Dawkins.
Hugo,
Well, intellectuals like Russell thought differently. They believed, unlike the current state-of-the-art in intellectual atheism, that it would be more interesting to go beyond the rant that “it is plain wrong” and attempt to show that, for example, it wasn’t even self-consistent. Today’s atheists don’t seem to want to work that hard. That’s a pity.
Sorry, folks. We’re just not worried! Maybe you should try harder.
From the review:
What a fine compact condemnation (“last words”) we have here.. a Hitch-worthy piece of wit.
Did anyone else catch the comments?
Book of mormon? Literally true?
Oh my.
I’m still laughing.
Heddle,
Your comments about atheists not trying very hard shows how little you know about the movement [and I would wager that you have not read any of these books]. To argue that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Stenger are nitwits that just decided to throw out some pamphlet on their religious disbelief is laughable.
If you want a discussion on your fairy tales being inconsistent, we leave that to the theologians to show. I recommend Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”. Bertrand Russell lived in a world where respect for Christianity was a given…many today are challenging that very notion.
Many Christians are sour because non-theists are dismissing religious beliefs as unworthy of consideration. This is homologous to the lack of need to disprove Santa, fairies, and leprechauns.
Get over it: you’re not a transcendant sky-spirit for whom the universe was created.
heddle.,
Why, thank you! :)
I’m glad to hear your kids are receiving quality education. Or, at least I hope it’s quality.
Personally, I don’t think you’re afraid, or even that you should be afraid for your faith. Your fear, or lack of it, is a non-issue. I don’t expect Christians to be shaking in their boots. I come from a religious background and I know very well how that mindset inoculates you against arguments that might endanger your faith. Religion builds up an extremely effective defensive mechanism. And why shouldn’t it? You’re convinced that God can do anything. The arguments of simple men are nothing compared to the infinite wisdom of the God; so why sweat it?
So I know you’re not afraid. And I applaud your support for secular public education. But whether you know it or not, you’re fighting a losing battle. By shining a light on religious thinking, atheists show how porous it truly is. Sure, there are myriad gaps your god can still hide in. It’s reasonable to say there will always be somewhere else for him to go. But as people become more educated, fewer and fewer of them will be convinced by your incredible shrinking creator.
Again IMO, religion seems to be hard wired into the human brain.
I really doubt that. If you removed religious indoctrination of the young, how many would choose religion as an adult? I was born an atheist, and was never subjected to parental indoctrination. Guess what, I’m still an atheist.
If it was hard-wired, then how come there are so gosh darned many atheists? Even with the massive indoctrination programs.
I think the formidable challenge the so-called “New Atheists” present isn’t so much specific new attacks against the truth of theism in general or Christianity in particular (most of it has been said before), but pointed arguments against a series of gentleman’s agreements which have grown up around religion in our culture — common assumptions which even many atheists have been known to buy into:
1.) Religion is a force for Good; when people do things which are intolerant, irrational, or violent from your standpoint, that’s because they’ve distorted the meaning of their own religion, and God. You can separate “real” religion from “false” religion that way.
2.) Having Faith is a character asset: therefore, whether a religion is true or not should never be questioned. People of Faith should be respected by being sheltered from any rational dispute: they need to believe because it makes them better people.
3.) Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, or the truth of religions, one way or the other.
To which the outspoken, uppity, vocal, visible, “militant” atheists reply “horsefeathers.” This taboo against speaking out against religion has to end — as Vic Stenger put it, “No More Free Ride.” Time for us to take it seriously and stop condescending down to religious beliefs and believers as if it was all a matter of taste and they were children.
As Benson and Stangroom asked, “Does truth matter?” It should. Welcome theists to the grown up table of debate. That’s proper respect. And welcome atheists to the public forum of acceptable viewpoints. So is that.
I suppose that the clearest thing to a “new” approach is going after that last assumption. God is a hypothesis about a purported fact in the universe: it is not like saying “I believe we should treat each other with love.” And atheists have been emboldened on this front by Creationists, paranormalists, and all those religious and spiritual folk who seem to have forgotten to wave their hands and insist that “science can’t inform us on the probability or likelihood of the existence of a supernatural Life Force Intelligence working behind physical reality, that’s untestable.” Not it’s not. They’ve got their Science Finds God arguments. Discovery Institute. Templeton Foundation.
It’s not “outside of science.” Not really. Original complexity vs. complex from simple. Disembodied Minds vs. mind/brain dependency. The growth of morals and meaning. All a great big black box to all our attempts to know anything about them? Scientific understanding, which connects theory to theory across disciplines, is supposed to just stop at whatever arbitrary point someone thinks is too “special” or “deep” to question or examine?
Nope. Nice try.
And exactly what difference would that make to the usage neo/new?
Now, is old bolder or new bolder?
Sastra writes:
Welcome theists to the grown up table of debate. That’s proper respect.
Great post. One minor nit.
Please, theists, if you’re going to sit at the grown up table, please make sure you bring your evidence along, OK? I know, I know, it seems unfair. After all those years you got a free ride poking and nitpicking at Evolution – we scientists will be far more intellectually honest in assessing your evidence than you’ve been. We’ll even give you Nobel Prizes if you’ve got the goods.
“I thought it might have been rather facetious but you never can tell.”
The fact that it was word-for-word same was a hint.
Among the recent New Atheist (TM) tracts, Hitchens’ is the one I might actually read.
PZ, I think you’re being way too optimistic about the demise of the Abrahamic religions, or more generally, faith and belief not based on evidence.
As has been said by others in this thread and elsewhere, there isn’t all that much new about the new atheist movement. Basic objections to theisim go back to the begining of western philosophy; the ancient Greek philosophers were aware of the problem of evil. That hasn’t brought down faith in the least. In fact, often times the more bad things happen to various people of faith, the more it confirms their faith, and the more they see it as what they need to get through the hard times.
As far as your comment that now we have multipile voices building off of each other, I could have said that about the atheistic side of the existentialist movement. It didn’t bring about the demise of religion.
In conclusion, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
David Puddle says:
Sorry, folks. We’re just not worried! Maybe you should try harder.
The proof, Mr. Puddle, is in the demonstrated behavior of Christians. It is in the behavior of your peers. It is in your sermons. It is in your attempts to hijack our country and make it a theocracy. It is in your fears and your charges and the nihilistic hatreds you spew. It’s in your sock-puppet leaders, like Dobson and Donohue and Medved. It’s why you fight the Theory of Evolution and every other theory that casts some type of aspersion on your moldy old fairy tales.
And no amount of shallow bravado by a meaningless foot-soldier will change the facts or erase your fears.
The last Gallup General Social Survey poll indicated that 90% of the US population were religious, 82% Xian. Atheists make up at most 5-10% of the population. Many of the 10% nonreligious would describe themselves as agnostics. So many atheists compared to what?
You ignored the point about the Russian and Chinese commies oppressing religion for 50 or more years. After all that the populations still have a large proportion of religious.
The most atheistic countries are probably some of the northern european societies. Don’t have the numbers off hand for those, but even these have large numbers of religious.
I’m not aware of any country or culture that doesn’t have a religious component.
I’ve read a few commentators who claim the human mind is a blank slate and religion is imprinted on it. The available data says that isn’t true.
Many people have noticed the same thing and have a variety of explanations. The “hard wiring” isn’t going to be a module between the hypothalamus and cerebellum. Who knows, some say it is an emergent property of social omnivores with tendencies towards falling into groups or tibes with in group conformity.
Sastra,
It may indeed be that the new atheism is making it acceptable for atheists to come out of the closet and for atheists to engage theists more openly and directly. I would argue that in my experience this change, which I think is for the better, is more a matter of degree than of kind. In my lifetime and in this country (US) I have not found it rare to encounter an atheist (Indeed, I was one into adulthood) nor did I witness many examples where atheists were ostracized (at least in my circles) nor did I find it rare for an atheist to challenge my beliefs, nor did I find such challenges as necessarily impolite (although they could be.) The notion that there is some sort of phase transition occurring seems to be a bit of an overstatement. I think this idea of a previous gentleman’s agreement not to challenge religion or someone’s religious beliefs is a myth.
Still, if you want to credit new atheism for opening those doors wider, then I’d agree and applaud the success of Dawkins and company. I’d rather everyone who is really an atheist feel prefectly free to admit they are an atheist rather than to feel compelled to pretend to be a theist.
However, that is not a challenge, formidable or otherwise, to Christianity, and it is not something that is worrisome. It’s a good thing.
I think you are wrong that science can effectively address the God question. The mere existence of theistic evolutionists demonstrates that while “complexity last” might have an effect on the specifics of a believer’s doctrine of creation, it will not have much effect if any on the question of God’s existence.
Instead, good science will continue, as it has always done, to reinforce the scientist-atheist’s belief that nature is beautiful and the scientist-theist’s belief that creation is beautiful.
I LOVE this:
“With characteristic effrontery, he took his tour through the Bible Belt states – the reptilian brain of southern and middle America, rather than the easier pickings of the country’s cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts.”
Perfect metaphor!
Hitchens didn’t just support the war; He’s one of the dozen or half dozen pundits who were instrumental in selling the war to the public. Moreover, he excoriated those who warned against the war as brutally as this book apparently excoriates religious superstition. And he’s never apologized or admitted his errors. Hitchens is as jingoistic and pro-war as any neocon and has admitted he largely agrees with the neocons on foreign policy issues.
Hitchens was not a major figure in the character assassination of Gore back in 2000 but he played a small role. He certainly publically endorsed Bush for reelection in 2004 and was quite nasty in his ‘journalism’ about Kerry.
He’s been misleading to the point of defammation in writing about Sidney Blumenthal (a liberal journalist) and Juan Cole (a liberal middle-eastern studies professor who opposed the war).
Whether all this adds up to dishonesty, phenomenal bad judgment, opportunism or mere alcoholism it ought to call into question the veracity of anything he writes. Hitchens is not trustworthy.
Consider: Why didn’t you ever hear his anti-religious view back when the Religious Right was at the peak of its power?
As the Left becomes better organized and more politically powerful, these celebrity journalists, think-tank intellectuals, establishment personalities and such will suddenly be wanting to sit at the liberal lunch table. Just because they say what we want to hear doesn’t make them friends. The conservative movement was doomed in the long run b/c conservative policies don’t work but it fell apart as quickly as it did and harmed the nation so spectacularly b/c conservatives never could distinguish between opportunists and genuine conservatives. Let’s not make the same mistake.
I would be more outspoken about my disbelief, but I wouldn’t want to hurt His (or Her) feelings if He overheard me. No point in being mean, I always say. And ya gotta watch out for the Omniscience, it’s everywhere!
“If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.”
Paradoxically, religion or any other system of thought or belief is never so strong as when it feels threatened or challenged by those who don’t share the thoughts or beliefs. Would the New Atheists find such a widespread, appreciative audience, or indeed, be moved to write books such as Dawkins’ and Hitchens’, if there weren’t such a resurgence of religiously fueled violence around the world, bible-banging from the U.S. political classes, and the consequent threats to teaching, learning and living based on reason?
Reason’s best arguments to religion IMHO are its fruits (disease prevention and treatment, the beauty of Hubble photos, etc., etc.), which ISTM stand a better chance of acceptance than statements, no matter how true, about what’s wrong with religion.
Of course this doesn’t mean arguments about what’s wrong with religious belief have no place. (I enjoyed Dawkins’ book – haven’t read Hitchens’.) It isn’t the sole raison d’etre of such arguments that they should convert believers into unbelievers. Rather, they have intrinsic value and interest in and of themselves.
You’d be worried? Well, talk to Denyse, because she takes these data–you know, the increased popularity of ever-more aggressive atheist books, the dropping numbers of religious students in college, etc.–as evidence that atheism is on its deathbead. Then again, every time Denyse opens her mouth I start to think it must be opposite day.
I just finished “god IS NOT GREAT” last night. I found it to be a compelling argument against the monotheistic religions that dominate out world. (as well as some others)
While I scoff at Hitchen’s idealism over Iraq, I’m glad he’s sober enough to see through the illusions that most neo-cons and others on the right ignore!
heddle wrote:
That science can address the existence of God, is one of the major themes of many of the newer atheist books. And they put their analysis for why, far better than I can.
Can the “God hypothesis” be formulated clearly enough to see if it fits in with what we have discovered about the nature of reality? Is it a disembodied mind? Does it work through some form of psychokenesis? Can we imagine experiments — or indisputable events — which would strongly support mind/body dualism and the ability of intention alone to act on matter? Would this make God more consistent with what we learn about how reality works? Does the absence indicate an inconsistency? Is this the real heart of supernaturalism — not God specifically, but a Cosmos somehow infused with the properties and values of our own Minds? And is this tendency involved in the structure of how our brains work to understand the world and ourselves?
One of the things I have noticed about the more liberal, reasonable theists and spiritualists is a strong disinclination to define or describe God — pin it down, explain exactly what it is, what it isn’t, what kind of evidence would confirm it, what sort of evidence would disconfirm it. Instead, it’s jumped into a sort of hazy background so one may focus on the more important, more meaningful topics and concerns about God, rather than God itself, as a concept.
This may relate to you claim, above, that science cannot effectively address the God question. That depends. The term is often unclear, and it’s so seldom put as a question. A real question, I mean. A serious one.
lockean writes:
…Hitchens didn’t just support the war; He’s one of the dozen or half dozen pundits who were instrumental in selling the war to the public.
Yep. I didn’t say I agreed with Hitchens; I just suggested that people pigeonhole him at their own risk. He helped sell the war – no questions there – but I am not sure that his reasons were the simplistic ones that you hear on Fox news. That’s all. Nor were Frum and Perle’s, for what that’s worth. There’s a lot more going on there than simple jingoism. In fact, you make it sound as if Hitch is a right-winger, which is an interesting pigeonhole to hammer a former Trotskyite into. :)
Why didn’t you hear Hitchens’ anti-religious views back in the 80’s? Perhaps he was doing other stuff? If I recall, he was more on the political beat then than now. What, are you a conspiracy theorist? Why don’t you ask him?
Obviously, you dislike the guy. I’m pretty sure that he’s someone I’d spend a tremendous amount of time fighting with, myself. And, one other thing I respect about him – he is willing to admit he’s wrong. But, like most of us, it takes hot irons and tongs to pull it out of him. On the other hand, unlike most mere pundits, you’ve got to be impressed with someone who can state clearly that they once were a member of the leftist establishment but realized that they were wrong and here’s why.
I do, however, grow tired of people simply trying to dismiss him as a warmonger, or untrustworthy, because they disagree with him on some point or other. In fact, I suspect there is not a single person alive with whom Hitchens does not disagree with on some point or other. :) The reason I posted was not to defend him, but rather to encourage others to read some of this highly intelligent and well-learned man’s other writings. There is obviously a complex person with passionately held beliefs behind that particular curtain.
Dawkins is right that Hitchens’ writing is sometimes too clever by half, but it’s generally so delicious that I’d happily read his grocery list. It’d probably be better than most of what passes for political journalism in the US today.
Movements against Christianity, whether they are atheist movements or heretical cults, can have a positive effect. The Pelagian heresy, for example, forced Christianity to formalize the concept of original sin.
Yikes! That’s exactly backwards. Objectively, the Pelagians were correct. The Christian religion ceased to exist when they were suppressed. (I know that there are people who claim to practice Christianity today, but what they’re actually practicing is a different religion entirely. Strictly speaking, we should call them Antipelagianists.)
That said, it’s really not a huge deal. Christianity and Antipelagianism are equally false. (They both claim that there exists a being who is (1) all-powerful, (2) all-knowing, and (3) wants me, personally, to live my life differently from how I’m living it today. Simple observation proves that no such beings exist.)
“Poster child for atheism?” Hitchins arguments for atheism rise and fall on their merits, not on whether or not he’s a perfectly admirable person. Ditto for science theories and the scientists that promote them. Character is critical only to claims of Special Revelation — “God spoke to me; spirit is working through me; Truth has been revealed to me, and now I reveal it to you.” If you’re a jerk, others will think that unlikely.
I’ve always been irritated by the attitude of so many theists that whether a religion is true or not can be discovered by how “nice” the proponents are. What that usually amounts to in the liberal crowd I run with is a flabby “we all have our own truths.” In less benign circles, it leads to demonizing the opposition, magnifying the virtues of the in-group, and working the No True Scotsman fallacy overtime. It can also lead to converting to whichever church is most likely to bring a casserole over when you’re sick. How seriously should we take such claims for accuracy?
As others have pointed out, Hitchins supports his political arguments with rational arguments. He does not invoke special revelations from Higher Powers. If you try to knock him down, he can’t claim you’re really just mad at God.
“The last Gallup General Social Survey poll indicated that 90% of the US population were religious, 82% Xian. Atheists make up at most 5-10% of the population. Many of the 10% nonreligious would describe themselves as agnostics. So many atheists compared to what?”
—-
That would imply that the Swedish, English (and nearly every other industrialized nation) have a different genetic make up that makes them less inclined to believe creation myths. It seems to me far more likely to be a cultural divide.
The value of a network [of aggressive atheists] is proportional to the square of the number of members in the network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
Equal opportunity analyst Hitchens on islamic, christian and secular behavior:
The subject I raise is pitiful in the light of the ongoing search of the German terrorists, purportedly from the Islamic Jihad Union. But on Hitchens quote I note there is a repeat in progress.
It is involving Denmark this time too but centered on Sweden. Artist Lars Vilks has posted Modoggies, dog caricatures of Mohammad, on his blog. (The context is that currently there is a spontaneous art effort to place so called “rondel dogs” in traffic turnabouts.)
Gates of Vienna covers this. [Note that, trying to wring all the humor he can out of this, Vilks specifically claims that one of the portrayed man-dogs is a swede dressed out as Mohammad.]
The pious religious have issued threats of Al Qaeda and death (and when interrogated by police claimed it is their right), hacked sites discussing the affair, demonstrated against papers publishing about the affair demanding “respect”, and gotten Vilks lectures on culture, science and religion censored in Denmark.
As respect is given, not taken, the papers caving in would instead destroy tolerance between equal opinions and groups. Luckily the editors so far seems to have taken a sober, neutral stance. But as a source on Gates of Vienna puts it:
The appeasers are a t(h)reat wherever they are.
To end on a happier note, I read that there has been a wild release of threatened White-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) in Sweden. Norway has a stable population, and 3 of the 7 released birds are imported from them. This will be a step up in revitalization; the only known free breeding pair is also a prior release.
Equal opportunity analyst Hitchens on islamic, christian and secular behavior:
The subject I raise is pitiful in the light of the ongoing search of the German terrorists, purportedly from the Islamic Jihad Union. But on Hitchens quote I note there is a repeat in progress.
It is involving Denmark this time too but centered on Sweden. Artist Lars Vilks has posted Modoggies, dog caricatures of Mohammad, on his blog. (The context is that currently there is a spontaneous art effort to place so called “rondel dogs” in traffic turnabouts.)
Gates of Vienna covers this. [Note that, trying to wring all the humor he can out of this, Vilks specifically claims that one of the portrayed man-dogs is a swede dressed out as Mohammad.]
The pious religious have issued threats of Al Qaeda and death (and when interrogated by police claimed it is their right), hacked sites discussing the affair, demonstrated against papers publishing about the affair demanding “respect”, and gotten Vilks lectures on culture, science and religion censored in Denmark.
As respect is given, not taken, the papers caving in would instead destroy tolerance between equal opinions and groups. Luckily the editors so far seems to have taken a sober, neutral stance. But as a source on Gates of Vienna puts it:
The appeasers are a t(h)reat wherever they are.
To end on a happier note, I read that there has been a wild release of threatened White-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) in Sweden. Norway has a stable population, and 3 of the 7 released birds are imported from them. This will be a step up in revitalization; the only known free breeding pair is also a prior release.
I’m glad to see PZ give Robert Green Ingersoll his props. I only learned about him relatively lately. And too bad, too, because he comes across in writing as colorful (sometimes florid), witty, humane, intelligent public speaker. Reading some of his ideas and admiring some of his turns of phrase probably would have helped me wake up earlier had a I known about them.
it wasn’t even self-consistent.
Nazism and Velikovskianism is self-consistent. Self-consistency doesn’t mean jack + shit when the premise is flawed.
[Below average MP skit:] “Nobody expects the Heddleian Inquisition!”
Remember, this is the same David Heddle that uses to go ape shit over the multiverse explanation for finetunings. ‘Don’t touch my fine-tunings’ he cries distraught to us, while trying to see nature in his idle designs in the sand.
[Below average MP skit:] “Nobody expects the Heddleian Inquisition!”
Remember, this is the same David Heddle that uses to go ape shit over the multiverse explanation for finetunings. ‘Don’t touch my fine-tunings’ he cries distraught to us, while trying to see nature in his idle designs in the sand.
Scott Hatfield wrote:
Scott Hatfield wrote:
“If only the majority of the religious thought the way you do, I think our world would be in a better place than it is right now.”
??
Are you addressing PZ? I must be missing something here.
Scott, you are a puzzling fellow. What is it about Christianity that you DO support or feel is an asset to the world? I guess I’m wondering *why* you are a Christian? Just really curious.
Marcus,
My post wasn’t specifically directed at you. Yes, Hitchens has certainly written a lot of interesting things over the years, he’s a witty and lively public speaker, and even many neocons at one time had serious things to say. But I think ideas have consequences and pundits should be held responsible for their public pronouncements.
Hitchens claimed that the Iraqi War would reduce the power of religion in the Middle East. Most experts (or those claiming to be experts) think the war has instead increased the power of religion, particularly in Iraq. Hitchens and his ilk are not responsible for the war. The politicians did that. But it ought to make us doubt his judgment on religious matters. Reading what he says about religion is about as useful as reading a grocery list.
Maybe his combative style of argument converts religious people into secular people. I really don’t know. I certainly prefer Hitchens arguing against religion than arguing for religion. At least he’s momentarily on the right side (IMO) but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Our country would be better off without a class of celebrity pundits who keep bloviating on TV regardless of how catastrophically destructive their analyses and predictions turn out. I like Hitchens just fine when he retires. I’ll write great memoirs.
heddle wrote:
“in my lifetime and in this country (US) I have not found it rare to encounter an atheist (Indeed, I was one into adulthood)”
I’m calling shenanigans. I don’t believe you. I have never met a theist who claimed she “used to be an atheist” but then became a theist in adulthood who was actually telling the unvarnished truth. It’s a puerile rhetorical ploy to give one’s self “street cred” as someone who “carefully considered the evidence” and came to a “reasoned” conclusion that God exists. No dice.
I could be wrong, of course, not knowing you personally. But I think it’s highly likely you’re just being dishonest.
Oops. That last sentence was supposed to read, “I’ll bet he’ll write great memoirs.”
I don’t want to sit at the Left Wing lunch counter, either. Politics is a substitute religion for too many on the extreme ends of the political spectrum, anyhow. I have been mocked and denounced for being an unbeliever in Marx and/or Adam Smith approximately as often as being an unbeliever in other deities. (This probably says something about the company I keep, but I still think some wider truth is reflected in there).
Hitchens’ loonyness on various political points notwithstanding, I find his frankness in confronting religion refreshing.
There’s (yet another) piece in today’s Guardian on that arrogant atheist Dawkins, who needs ‘a crash course in the anthropology of religion’:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2007/09/the_smallest_signs_of_retreat.html
Josh,
Then you need to get out more. At every church I’ve belonged to, I’d say roughly 10% is made up of those who became believers as adults. (Caveat: I am not making any fine distinction between unbeliever and atheist.) Of course, you can simple keep responding “they’re all liars, even when they present their testimonies to other believers.” This approach would have the virtue of keeping you near the top in terms of the intellectual challenges of theism presented by today’s atheists.
The problem with C. Hitchens IMHO is that he is too close to the miserably rotten neocon ideology.
On matters of atheism I’d stick with Dawkins…
I think they are, I’m just not sure that they should be. Religion is far from the only doltish thing that people believe in, and conspiracy theories abound without convincing evidence, from the JFK assassination, to UFO visitations, and on to the twin towers “conspiracy” (the left seems more vulnerable to that one, even if most of the left does not espouse its nonsense).
I think, though, that there can be no harm in Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ books (yes, the religionists should not be thought to be internally limited in their response, however this is not Iran, and they will be externally limited for the foreseeable future). Dawkins used the scientific perspective to show how religion fails, Hitchens takes up the more literary and philosophical reasons for its failures.
They’re both vulnerable in attacking the Bible for making things up to “fulfill prophecy”. It is easy to defend the Bible like other ancient sources on the basis that they really didn’t have the historical, literary, and scientific knowledge that we do now, and faulting the Bible for not adhering to the standards of historians is not wholly fair to that book. I am not going to fault Herodotus for not being a modern historian, nor should the Bible writers be held to today’s standards. That said, Herodotus, Athenaeus, Diogenes Laertius, Pliny, and a whole host of other ancient writers were rather more honest in their reporting than were the Bible writers, for the obvious reasons (in short, more secular).
So I’m not actually faulting Hitchens there, because why shouldn’t we note how poorly the Bible stacks up to even a decent newspaper today? I’m just noting the kinds of objections which may be raised, as well as pointing out that they aren’t really very good objections in this context.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Oxytocin,
“While there is no doubt that relatively few people will be converted from fundamentalism [although it has happened], most hope that the result will be a lessening of the taboo against challenging religion in public…At the end of the day, the greatest victory might be the mobilization of the extant non-theist, many of whom will no longer feel hesitant about admitting their disagreement with theism”
We agree. I couch it simply in terms of people who are concerned about church/state separation. It is quite possible to be a theist, a non-theist, or an atheist – to name three of many possibilities – and be passionately opposed to theocracy. The original impetus for church/state separation in the US came from the Baptists.
So I don’t think I’m underestimating Dawkins, et al’s influence, which is considerable. However, they have had very little influence over most folks’ belief in God. Which when you get right down to it isn’t important one way or the other as long as they don’t try to inflict their beliefs on everyone else.
heddle, I’d be willing to bet that what you were was an “unconsidered atheist”; that is, you never gave religion a thought at all until your great conversion, and therefore said that you were an atheist before that. Awhile back there was great discussion on making labels for categories of atheism, to separate those who never thought about it from those who have spent a lot of time and have some darned good, solid reasons for being atheists. Of the latter, there are very few later conversions.
As for not being worried, then why is it that my pastor spends sermon time almost every week talking about how we’re fighting the forces of darkness, and secularism is taking over, and we have to fight back because this is a WAR FOR HUMANITY?
What? 10% of all Baptists are former Atheists?
What do they use for recruiting? ECSTASY!? Free bourbon?
Carlie,
Maybe you are right–but the bible makes no fine-grained distinctions, so neither do I. There are just believers and unbelievers, and I just take atheist as a synonym for unbeliever. I don’t even distinguish between agnostic and atheist.
As for you pastor, I could not say. He preaches every week about a war for humanity? I would advise him to follow the model of Paul. Which is to preach the gospel, not fight secularism or any other ism. And I would advise him that Christianity is not a dualistic religion of good vs. evil. That fight is over: the good guys won. He should be reminded.
#22
Marcus, that’s why it’s a bit scary and gives me a pause that even after “trying to understand in more depth” Hitchens came out in favor of Iraq war. You don’t have to be a genius to conclude that the Iraq war was stupid and wrong.
Heddle: Oh, the folly of simple labels…I guess from our POV, you’re an atheist when it comes to Zeus, or Ganesh, or Shiva. So you’re a “non-believer” just as we are…I guess that means that you can sympathize with us. You must have some ironclad reasons why Hinduism is a “false” doctrine while yours is infalible. Sigh. It must be nice to lives in a world of simple dichotomies.
Also, nice to know that you have the gumption to advise other people’s pastors. I can feel the warm waves of your wisdom across the continent. And thank you for reminding us of your smugness with your last statement. I hadn’t had a dose of smug all afternoon.
Heddle is an atheist, Heddle is an atheist. Nyah nyah.
Welcome to the Unbelievers club.
“And I would advise him that Christianity is not a dualistic religion of good vs. evil. That fight is over: the good guys won.”
Really? What happened as a result of Christianity’s success looks more like the triumph of perfect transcendental evil to me.
He’s referring to the happy ending of Christ returning to Earth and, in his wisdom and mercy, smiting the categorical non-believers. I think the Christian happy ending differs somewhat from mine, since I prefer less blood and evisceration.
…it is truly the case that the end of days story COULD NOT have been written by a human being. Just not possible, it’s so perfect.
Marcus, that’s why it’s a bit scary and gives me a pause that even after “trying to understand in more depth” Hitchens came out in favor of Iraq war. You don’t have to be a genius to conclude that the Iraq war was stupid and wrong.
Ouch!! You’ve got a great point there.
Perhaps one of the reasons that I’m waffling so loudly and publicly on this issue is because it cuts a wee bit close to my own bones for comfort. I supported regime change in Iraq, myself, until the uber-retard in the White House decided that banging things with a hammer was the only option remaining to him.
I a speech Hitchens gave in Denver a couple years ago, and he described how, following Gulf War #1, he went to Iraq and Kurdistan and witnessed them digging up some of the mass graves left by Saddam’s crackdown; I believe that happened right before he went to Kosovo. He was obviously deeply affected by both of those experiences; I strongly suspect that his attempt to mentally deal with the contradictions of Bosnia had a lot to do with his decision to savage religion as motivator for a great deal of the evil in the world.
One of the points that he made which he was extremely passionate about is that he feels there is only one legitimate and worthwhile government in Iraq; a secular democracy – and that’s Iraqi Kurdistan. Again, I do not say I agree with him about everything but the view he voiced is that the rest of Iraq is heading for the big swirling water, but Kudistan is worth saving. Shades of the domino theory.. He may have a point. And, when he continues to say that our real enemy in the middle east is the House of Saud, I think he has more than just a good point.
The new political correctness is to be against the war in Iraq. Well, I’m against it too (just to make sure we’re all clear on that).. Unfortunately, our new-found repugnance with the military option is also making us unable to cope with what has become an insanely complicated mess. On one hand, we have our Crusader-in-Chief, whose approach is basically to keep shouting “I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! I’m STILL right!” and – what? The left needs an answer that’s more effective than hand-wringing and knee-jerking. I don’t have it, of course. But we’re not going to get anywhere as long as we’re just sh*tcanning people because they’re on the right, or left, or supported the war, or didn’t. In that respect, we’re being just about as stupid as the Iraqi government – which can’t decide which buttock is in charge.
Anyhow… I wince when I hear people describe Hitchens as a “neocon” because that tells me that they actually have read very little of his writing and are going by the sound-bites. Hitchens is a “neocon”? Only if Thomas Jefferson was, too. Because as far as I can tell Hitchens’ political thinking these days appears to be guided a lot by WWTJD?
I’m not defending him and I’m not saying he’s right (or wrong). I just suspect that those of you here who are dismissing him are, largely, ignorant of his actual political views. To say that I highly recommend “Why Orwell Matters” and “The Missionary Position” and (of course) “Thomas Jefferson” would be a huge understatement. His politics are largely those of someone who is vehemently and utterly opposed to dictatorship regardless of where and who. Personally, I can’t argue with that.
Josh#61: For what it’s worth, I know at least one person who I’m sure was a quite-serious atheist and became a quite-serious Christian, and one who I think did the same (but I’m not certain of how serious his atheism was), both around age 20. Both of them very intelligent and pretty thoughtful people, so Carlie’s diagnosis of “unconsidered atheism” doesn’t sound altogether plausible for them.
So far as I know, neither of them makes any attempt to use “I used to be an atheist” as any sort of credibility-enhancing ploy.
(I made the reverse transition myself at age 36, which I think means I have no axe to grind here — though I get a bit annoyed when, as sometimes happens, people say things like “if you fell away then obviously you were never really a Christian in the first place”.)
Speaking as a liberal, Hitchens is an asshole.
Speaking as an atheist, he’s our asshole.
Speaking as a rationalist (which is why I’m both a liberal and an atheist), Hitchens is a human, who’s sometimes disastrously wrong and sometimes exactly right.
IMO, the rise of militant atheism is more a result than a cause. The fundies controlled the government up until 2006 and made a mess. The theocratic president, Bush is widely unpopular and the theocratic politicians have proven to be astoundingly corrupt, hypocritical, and inept. Xian terrorism and human child sacrifice aren’t too popular either as well as the constant attempts of the cultists to impose their religion on everyone else.
There is definitely a backlash going on in the USA. As to how much and how far it will go, got me. Theocracies got a bad reputation centuries ago for not working well. They fail on arbitrary authoritarianism, corruption, and sectarian conflicts over who gets to pillage the government treasury and keep the goodies.
As to the Abrahamic religions being worried. Probably not. Again IMO, religion seems to be hard wired into the human brain. The Soviet commies spent 50 years ruthlessly oppressing religion without much to show for it. The best one can hope for is strict separation of church and state and
oyunlar
g,
Why get annoyed? Being a Christian, to a Christian, is the same thing as having eternal life. Since, as an atheist, you no longer believe in such a thing as eternal life, why would it bother you that someone says you never really were what you claim doesn’t exist? I would think you’d agree.
Though FTK is a haughty, witless troll, I’d like these questions answered as well. I hope Scott is honing his response as I type.
Re:”The New Atheism”.
I attribute the apparently sudden emergence of a vocal, uncompromising group of outspoken atheists becoming something of a cohesive movement to the internet.
We were always out there. But it was singularly unhealthy to let your employer, your in-laws, even most of your friends to know that you were not “a person of faith”. We had no way to form a community, no safe way to exchange views and find others of our ilk.
Then al gore invented the intert00bz. Suddenly, like minded people, whether they like to wear diapers and high heels or if they were godless secular humanists, were able to find each other, and groups were able to find groups, and suddenly a community could emerge. And now?
Now my employer knows my views. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are respected speakers. Oh sure, the pushback from the religious community is strong, but just like the Luddites, they can smash their share of sock frames on their way to being a historical footnote, but they cannot hold back science and rational thought. And as it becomes more and more socially acceptable to be an atheist, as it becomes less toxic to question the primitive mindlessness of dogma and mythology, our ranks will only grow.
One generation? Two? Certainly no more than three, and the tyranny of the abrahamic religions will be at an end.
Of course, if a combination of pollution, global warming and warfare drives civilization back to a primitive agrarian society, then all bets are off. A new set of religions will assert itself so that we might try to achieve better crop yields.
mikey
Scott Hatfield (#9):
I agree with you. Religion to me, sorry for the analogy but I can’t think of any other way to describe this, is like a fetish. It’s not for me but whatever people decide to do in their own homes or in places specifically for those purposes really isn’t my business. Whatever gets people through life.
Unlike a lot of people here, I don’t think that the love of God is the problem, it’s the love of the love of God. The overly godly don’t want to have doubts, they want to go to church and believe like everyone else. They want to be part of that community and they want their lives to have a purpose. I can picture them getting more angry than people who really do believe when confronted with evidence about evolution, etc. because they may hate those feelings in themselves. It’s kind of like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig fighting so hard against gays.
Hopefully that made sense, I’m not particularly good at explaining things…
Why should they try harder to disprove and belief? If you have faith-fine but please don’t act like one needs to ‘try’ harder. When the world finally decides on one God and everyone agrees upon what God said then we can talk about honest effort. Until then it’s a virtual whack a mole.
If you or I believe great! But lets not pretend their is any evidence that makes that belief less fideistic.
It doesn’t really matter, but in truth he was a Christian. He is telling you so. So the truth matters not what other people say.
From nearly every pew across the land on any given weekend legions of preachers tell their flocks about the evil in the world and how only Christians can be the light.
Well given that every poll shows people know little about what they actually profess to believe, even fewer have ever read the bible, and as Barna shows religion has virtually no effect on how people actually live I think the above is simply bullshit.
People say all kinds of things. Atheists tend to get that way from inspectionand introspection whereas the other end seems arrived at much more superficially and culturally.
Scott has it wrong. Skepticism isn’t flowers that bloom – it’s the pruning shears and digging forks that rip the weeds out of the fertile soil.
You’ve never exposed your faith to skepticism, Scott. Faith is the diametric opposite to skepticism – if you’d so exposed it, you would no longer have faith. As for your religion, no honest and intelligent person can profess to be a Christian AND genuinely acknowledge the merits of skepticism, because you have to abolish skepticism to maintain belief in that absurd and impossible creed.
I’ve been trying to remember the name of a book I once read several reviews for — it dealt with a study of conversions from atheist to theist, and from theist to atheist. It was written from a neutral, scholarly perspective, and they cited legitimate examples of both. The authors were interested in the actual process of religious conversion, and whether it differed depending on which way you went.
My recollection is that they said the change from atheist to theist tended to be much more sudden than the other way around. Most former atheists cited some sort of mystical experience, or epiphany, or sense of contact with the Divine. Their views would shift quickly, due to an inner conviction which came from their personal experience.
Former theists, on the other hand, tended to relate personal tales about a long, slow rational process of skeptical questioning, leading from various stages of belief and eventually ending up with naturalism. Sometimes it would take years or even decades.
Wish I could remember the title.
Forthekids, for some reason you wrote:
What you are missing is that the quoted words are not Scott addressing PZ, but oxytocin (comment 10) addressing Scott (comment 9). Is your browser not working properly?
Heddel, it would seem that a few of the posters above are actually calling your bluff.
So how about putting some of your cards on the table face up. What exactly was the evidence that turned you from a rational, critically thinking, observer of the universe into a person of faith and a believer in a supreme being? Bolt of lightning, talking burning bush or did the Almighty take you into his personal confidence? Inquiring minds might like to know. As a middle aged man who has been an atheist for most of his life, ever since I reached the age of reason so to speak, (pun intended). My personal experience is quite the opposite of yours and therefore I also highly doubt your sincerity. Or perhaps I should say I doubt the depths of your convictions.
“What you are missing is that the quoted words are not Scott addressing PZ, but oxytocin (comment 10) addressing Scott (comment 9). Is your browser not working properly?”
Sorry, I was skimming through these comments fairly quickly and I missed that.
But, I’m still really curious about the answer. I’ve been wondering for a while now, but I haven’t asked because I figured he wouldn’t want to talk about it with *me*. I’m not exactly respected in this neck of the woods, so I’ve just been wondering about that question from a distance…
“What you are missing is that the quoted words are not Scott addressing PZ, but oxytocin (comment 10) addressing Scott (comment 9). Is your browser not working properly?”
Sorry…I was skimming through the comments fairly quickly and missed that. I’m still really curious about the answer though. I’ve been wondering about that question for some times now. I’ve just never asked because I just figured he wouldn’t want to talke to *me* about it. Obviously, I’m not respected in this neck of the woods, so I’ve been wondering from a distance…
Sorry about the double post…having a hell of a time trying to get my posts through here today.
no doubt you’ll start to claim some of your posts are being censored, like you did on PT.
will you NEVER stop whining about persecution, when you yourself censor your own blog ruthlessly, just like all the other creationists with blogs?
give your lies the rest for once, would ya?
Alas, the American faithful are (feel) embattled on numerous fronts, with the currently hottest combats involving those icky faggosexuals and, secondarily, the baby-butchering feminists; “Hollywood” (i.e., sex in entertainment) and other threats to “the family” (read: patriarchy) are also important theaters (so to speak) for them. NB: They’re winning their crusade against legal abortion, and have pretty much defeated comprehensive sex education everywhere in the US.
Doing battle with Darwinists is a very small sideshow in the hyperchristian Carnival.
Lockean: As for Hitchens, it’s worth noting that he did emit his provocative critiques of Mother Teresa, the “Hell’s Angel” documentary and Missionary Position book, in the mid-’90s, so it makes little sense to see him as a mere opportunist riding someone else’s bandwagon. As a professional loose cannon, his political judgment is often as bad as his denunciations are witty, but he’s not just a me-too culture vulture.
Fair enough, Pierce.
I vaguely recall Hitchens saying something at one point about Bush serving secularism despite his (Bush’s) personal religiosity, which ironically may turn out to be true, if not for the reasons Hitchens thought.
heddle exuded: “The way I would watch a below-average Monty Python skit.”
Religion, Politics, Science; all fair game, but you sir have now gone one step too far in maligning the mighty Python. I find it deeply offensive that, in what is still, after all, basically a Python-worshipping country, that you could suggest the comic messiah, our lord John Cleese, ever made a below-average skit.
Have at you!
Boy, there are some real winners in the comments section. The first guy doesn’t even know what delusion means.
Marcus @50:
you make it sound as if Hitch is a right-winger, which is an interesting pigeonhole to hammer a former Trotskyite into. :)
No need for the smiley; there’s nothing at all odd about that pigeonhole. Lots of right wing tools are former trots, not least neocon doyen Irving Kristol.
(Josh @61 might wish to note that at least two of those linked ex-trots later underwent religious conversion. Seeing that Hitchens has elected to follow in their footsteps in other ways, perhaps we should steel ourselves for his eventual walk to the altar.)
Good Lord, Icky, get a grip. I think the reason I was having trouble is because there were too many people posting at the same time. There was a little message something to that effect. I didn’t say a word about censorship.
Fernando Magyar
Isn’t it obvious? Dylan went electric. ‘Nuff said.
“I supported regime change in Iraq, myself, until the uber-retard in the White House decided that banging things with a hammer was the only option remaining to him.”
Marcus is very much like his hero C. Hitchens: always ready to sacrifice other people’s blood for a noble cause.
David Heddle on why he believes in a supreme being:
“Isn’t it obvious? Dylan went electric.”
What a coincidence! That’s exactly why I believe in Euterpe.
Wait, what’s this about Dylan going electric? Damn; wish I’d known that earlier. I shall now have to reexamine my entire metaphysics.
Not surprising, though. For a while there, when Spinal Tap went free jazz, I worshipped Osiris.
lockean #44 says, “Hitchens is not trustworthy.”
Persuasively put, yes, perhaps…
I’ll continue to selectively agree with what I judge is worthy of agreement in what Hitchens or anybody else says, and disagree with what I don’t, as I think others ought to in order to remain masters of their own minds.
That, at the very least, ought to be a major part of what all of this controversy is about: the preservation of personal autonomy. I do not like bandwagons, whatever group or ideology they consolidate. Nobody can deny the obvious efficacies organization brings, but there is a strength in decentralization of common opinion, when that consilience has been arrived at independently by each (say, on the basis of empirical evidence), that is commonly overlooked or undervalued to everyone’s detriment.
I may agree with much Hitchens says, even though I may marvel at the mental gymnastics required that incongruously leads that same mind to what I’d consider hogwash. As sharp and quick he may be, he’s a fallible human, just like the rest of us.
But I don’t have to trust OR distrust him. He’s not a statesman holding some office who is dictating policy that can physically affect lives. He’s just a writer expressing his opinions for people to reflect on. It might inspire favorably, or it may revolt; either way it shouldn’t bother them as long as they realize they don’t have to let it.
I’ll take what I like and shove the rest. I wish more people could judge the merits of ideas themselves rather than judging the ideas by the merits of the man. The person posing the idea or opinion should be irrelevant to the whether the idea is sound or not.
While we may certainly admire or loathe a particular person for their opinions, determining the merit of an idea shouldn’t be based on some popularity contest to see who lumbers around on stage with the biggest load of charm and charisma in their diapers.
While I’m at it, because the issue seems to swirl up so often in a flurry of stinging dust-devil confusion, this also explains why those who so SELFISHLY identify their SELVES with their beliefs are so quick to charge critics of personal ridiculing THEM ad hominem-wise. It is nothing of the sort.
Sure, their are lapses that are genuinely ad hominem, but most of the criticism is aimed properly at the ideas. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet and any others who have sounded out have ALL been quite wrongly accused of “personal attacks” by those who have invested so much of their being in a mere belief system. (Interestingly enough, the charge itself has a distinctly ad-hominem flavour).
But if one attacks a BELIEF (essentially, simply an “idea system”), one cannot help but bruise egos that carelessly get in the way. One should never think that it is improper to take ideas to task just because of a risk of hurting the feelings of those who cleave to them like a child clutching an innertube terrified of learning to float unassisted and swim in the great ocean of natural reality.
ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
In spite of my english trouale,I am trying to read and understand your writing.
And ı am following frequently.I hope that you will be with us together with much more scharings.
I hope that your success will go on.