Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forum“God is not great”: Christopher Hitchens is not a liar (article)
From Salon.com. Full piece, chock full of lots of good stuff, is here.
A new book says the famed atheist thinker's writing on religion is intellectually sloppy. It gets Hitch wrong
By Carlo Dellora
Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 09:30 AM CDT
Christopher Hitchens (Credit: AP/Chad Rachman)
Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at Christopher Hitchens and there are many a boring style is not one of them. Despite some controversial positions and persuasions, his writing was always exciting, entertaining and engaging. Regrettably, the same cannot be said for Curtis White. In an excerpt from his recent book "The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers" published in Salon last week, White accuses the "notorious" Hitchens of some of journalisms worst crimes lying, dishonesty, shamefulness and an all-round lack of "decency." However, while running through a litany of examples apparently highlighting Hitchens' intellectual turpitude, White manages something remarkable. Rather than convicting Hitch of "telling less than he knew or ought to have known," White shows how it is in fact he who is literarily lazy, inconsistent and mendacious.
...
White's next point comes just as expected with the appeal to the moderate. Like many before him have done, White suggests that Hitchens' visceral resentment for all religions ignores "an important source for correcting the very real shortcomings of fundamentalism." In a subtle reworking of the stale "why focus on the extremists argument" White suggests that only by accepting religion can society attempt to redress its excesses. Hitchens has consistently refuted this line of argument, contending that even seemingly moderate religions are in essence a kind of extremism as they reject the most basic forms of reason and instead trust a faith that praises an unseen creator and runs counter to most objective notions of reality. Furthermore, Hitchens saw moderates as facilitators of the abhorrent extremist brand of religiosity that threatens abortion clinics and blinds "adulterous" women with acid. When the Danish cartoon controversy erupted in 2005 Hitchens was shocked to see that moderate adherents to Christianity and Islam spent their time decrying the cartoons but not the violence itself, ignoring the murderous mobs who had taken to the streets in reply. This was illustrative of a broader issue, namely, that moderate religiosity provides a plinth upon which a firebrand version of any faith can be constructed, moderation in essence creating the environment necessary for extremism to thrive.
It is here that White finally comes to the point that he and many others like him have been making for at least the last decade that the "new-atheist" movement is just another religion. A contention that echoes the twist at the end of the mediocre Hollywood blockbuster, atheism is religion. White asserts that Hitchens' reliance on enlightenment reason is a metaphysical claim and tantamount to the faith-based logic of the religiously inclined. White asks: "What is 'reason' for Hitchens? Your guess is as good as mine. Is it the rules of logic? Is it the scientific method? Is it Thomas Paine's common sense? Some combination of the above?"
Yes, here White is correct. We should understand what made up Hitchens' irreligious principles and ethical framework. How can we possibly be expected to trust a man who decries religion yet offers very little in the way of a description or framework of ethics as an alternative? Except, he does. On the very same page, in the very same paragraph that White quotes, Hitchens succinctly and brilliantly outlines his own version of an ethical and principled kind of reason: "Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."
All emphases above added by yours truly.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)religionistas over on Religion had pretty much ripped White to shreds as a hack and intellectually bankrupt. The usual cast of idiots had proclaimed White's piece as a "great read" or something to that effect, but I'm sure they'll give no such accolades to this one (if they even bother to look at it).
onager
(9,356 posts)You're right. I saw the usual clique of robo-posters in Religion, proclaiming that they only smelt the scent of roses and fairy-water arising from White's steaming pile.
This was my favorite Hitchens quote from the OP above: "We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason."
Or we should, anyway, IMO. But as I've griped before, atheism does not necessarily lead to skepticism. And vice versa. Roaming around the Internetz, I've met atheists who believe in ghosts and psychics, and religious believers who are perfectly OK with Darwin and DNA but still believe a Supreme Creator Of The Universe cares deeply about their personal lives.
I'd think a rigorously applied "general skepticism" should lead you away from religion, in the end. Or conversely, once you've decided Santa/God doesn't exist, that would lead to general skepticism about ghosts and psychics etc.
Well, obviously I'd think very wrong. The human ability to compartmentalize this stuff is really amazing.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)usual stinging and witty retorts are diminished after that transition.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's because Dawkins is a mild mannered even nerdy, quiet (compared to the religious) Englishman, not the rabid, confrontational extremist religionistas like to pretend he is. AND he still destroys their ideas utterly.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Even when he's quiet, polite and friendly. Never raises his voice, never gets sarcastic.
Maybe logic and science are "angry" and "militant".
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)It's bad enough that believers quote-mined Hitchens while he was alive, but my advice to Curtis White is if he can't make a valid point without blatantly misrepresenting the very plain written words of someone who's no longer with us, it might be time for him to consider a different profession.
stone space
(6,498 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And nothing else. There is no need to know anything at all about him other than he was a war monger....he always was and never ever changed his views. It was his singular purpose for existence.