Yes, he was an atheist. Yes, he wrote eloquently. But that's about it. He was also personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face about his beliefs (or lack thereof), and spectacularly inconsistent (and incredibly often wrong) about his political positions.
So here is my admittedly contrarian collection of commentaries on Hitch, in the hope that we can come up with a more balanced view of the man and begin a thoughtful discussion about just how much good or bad he has done to atheism, freethought, and political discourse.
* Regarding Christopher, by Katha Pollitt (The Nation)
* When Hitch was wrong he was disastrously wrong, by Alex Pareene (Salon)
* The other Christopher Hitchens, by Kevin Drum (Mother Jones)
* Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths, by Glenn Greenwald (Salon)
* More Paranoid Fantasies on the Right... or Why Christopher Hitchens Needs to Drink Less, by Brian Leiter (Leiter Reports)
* Christopher Hitchens’ unforgivable mistake, by John Cook (Gawker)
It seems inevitable that when a human mind stands above the crowd in its brilliance it burns not as a candle but as a candle burning at both ends. There are many reasons to believe that there are no perfect humans. Christopher was human, and I will not try to justify his blessings on the war. I listened to him talk about the war and its players. Because of Christopher I had to study up on them. No, I do not agree with Christopher on every topic. It would make me a boring fellow.
ReplyDeleteIt's right to say that Christopher was on rare occasion wrong, but it does the writer harm who insists or even pretends that this made Hitchens a bad man or a bad influence on the world.
In the manner of judging the right or wrong of a thing, we can look at the harm that Hitchens brought the world and the good. A balanced view should end with a summary. When I do this I find no real harm in Hitchens' mistakes and great value in his non-mistakes. His mistakes do not change the value that I found in him and his writings.
I'm certain that my summary will not sit well with those of Catholic or Islamic faith, or of any faith. There is far more that we don't know about the leaders that took us to war than what we do know.
Oh, thank you, Massimo! I have been biting my tongue - "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" and all that - whilst listening to the fulsomeness being lavished on this dead person. I wish no-one to contract illnesses of any sort,(although obviously it's going to happen, like death), but neither am I prepared to raise to sainthood a war-supporting mysogynist. Many thanks for a more balanced collection of memoirs.
ReplyDeleteHere's another critical article regarding Hitchens' debating ability. Basically, he's accused of poor scholarship. He's also commonly ranked below William Lane Craig in pure debating ability.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when people criticize Hitchens' position on the Iraq War, I'm left with the impression that they don't actually understand his position. So, here's a good summary.
He died well, but, on balance, didn't live worth a shite.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow could I forget this article.
ReplyDeleteHere's one of mine, Massimo, specific to a certain issue: Hitchens and his brattish propensity to violate no-smoking ordinances: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/12/islamofascism-bigtobacco-hitchens-as.html
ReplyDeleteAnd, a more general "flip side"/"darker side" obit. It's funny, the more Gnu-ish one is as an atheist, the more of an apotheosis Hitch gets.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he like the dying Trajan, thought divinity at deathbed wasn't so good.
OK, here's my other Hitch obit: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/12/flip-side-of-hitchens-was-he-really.html
ReplyDeletemyatheistlife,
ReplyDelete> I'm certain that my summary will not sit well with those of Catholic or Islamic faith, or of any faith. <
It doesn't really sit well with me either. I think on balance Hitchens has done damage to atheism, but that's irrelevant to the damage he has done to the world at large with his support of the Iraq war. Too bad, he started out well when he took on Kissinger.
Paul,
interesting analysis. But I wager that Hitchens has actually done more harm than good, long term, for the atheist movement. He was more like Malcom X than MLK, and I think it was the latter who was far more successful in the struggle for civil rights, because he brought the majority in for the fight.
Moreover, I think it's a disservice to the civil rights movement when atheists make that comparison (I'm talkin broadly now, not your specific comment). Atheists are surely shunned in America, but (thankfully) they never had to suffer the sort of persecution and violence that blacks had to endure (and to some extent still do).
I feel these articles by people who are clearly somewhat irritated that Hitchens was popular are not only entirely missing the point by also committing a fallacy of sorts - one act, decision or any set or character traits do not define the man as a public figure.
ReplyDeleteAll of those articles complain of hagiography and go about dutifully assassinating his character - something quite easy to do. I worry that doing that is nothing more than complaining that the goose who laid the golden egg was an ugly alcoholic.
The first article complains about his drinking and not being interested in women. The second a particular decision. The third the "cult" of Hitchens. The fourth the "canonization" of Hitchens. The fifth for being drunk and on the "right". The last for an "unforgivable mistake".
Please understand that Hitchens as a public figure was an empowering force for many. Not only for ostracised atheists but also for anybody who is not in the position of those now able to sneer at the "cult" of Hitchens from afar, be it via the press or tediously haughty blogs. The strength and conviction of his arguments lent confidence to those who are intelligent but have never had the opportunity to go to great schools, do PhDs and then had the time to write blogs or put out podcasts.
Hitchens helped fill the ranks of the rational community and gave them the confidence to confront bullshit head on. More so than the majority of people in the increasingly irrelevant trade of journalism have done.
Massimo,
ReplyDelete> I think on balance Hitchens has done damage to atheism <
> I wager that Hitchens has actually done more harm than good, long term, for the atheist movement <
I hope you're aware that the mildly protective and possessive tone you've struck there has a whiff of the ivory tower about it.
In fact, most of the post-mortem hatchet jobs on Hitchens do.
I think the reason for the admiration for Hitch by many atheists is that they are "single issue voters". If some is, as Hitch was, an effective advocate for atheism they don't really care about what their other views might be.
ReplyDeleteI have a question I ask of people to get them to think about their own priorities: There is a person in front of you whose ideas on religion and politics are diametrically opposed to yours. You can change their minds on one or the other. Which do you choose?
Professor, I'm writing to you in the same spirit as I would write Hitchens if I wrote to him about his opinions on the Iraq War; in other words, I love you to death, but you are off your rocker this time (which, like Hitch, doesn't happen very often with you, in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, you are so out of line when you call him a misogynist. One second-rate article in Vanity Fair doesn't not a hater of women make. Yeah, it was buncombe, but saying that men are funnier than women is very different from having a contempt for women. Or did you not ever hear him rail against religion for the oppression of women? And do you have any other basis for your opprobrious remark? I doubt it. I think you owe his wife an apology. ;-)
Secondly, do you not see the irony of referencing Salon.com when criticizing a writer? With the exception of Glenn Greenwald (and the dude that does the advice column), that site is a cesspool of bias, knee-jerk progressivism, and poor-quality writing. I mean, you're gonna hate on Hitchens and then cite Alex Pareene? Talk about someone with idiotic opinions! Except that Pareene doesn't have any opinions of his own; all he has is recycled liberal talking points (I'm a liberal myself, just to clarify) that he regurgitates into bad English. And likewise with most of his coworkers.
Thirdly, I'm no fan of the War in Iraq, but unlike most liberals, I didn't get pissed about his contrary opinion. Why? Because unlike so many of his comrades, he had a damn solid base for his arguments. He made me think. He was no idiot, sir, simply because he disagreed with you. Nor did he do any damage to the world by holding his unpopular opinions and sharing them; he didn't fight the war, now did he? Save that blame for Bush and for Congress. Oh, and be very careful before you accuse someone of doing the world harm by simply sharing their opinions - which beliefs of yours could be called toxic by the same line of reasoning, I wonder? And anyway, before you blast Hitchens for Iraq, ask yourself where the world would be if Hussein were still in power. Don't be dismissive of the question, either; it's very important and I think considering this post, you ought to give an answer.
Fourthly, as far as him being an asshole, look, the world needs assholes. Especially when combatting other assholes - the ones with pernicious ideologies who would like to put the world back in the dark ages, and are actively seeking to do it. I'm sorry, but contemptible things should be treated with contempt, and ridiculous things should be ridiculed. Plain and simple. And religion is nothing if not contemptible and ridiculous. Using good manners with raving, religious demagogues doesn't work. You expose them for the frauds and tyrants that they are. How could it be otherwise - you don't treat evil or stupidity with respect. Go watch any of his debates, or consider the subjects he treats with in his writing. How exactly would you deal with the menace of religion? And anyway, how often have I read scathing critiques on this blog?
As for his "inconsistency" and him being "spectacularly wrong," is that based on anything other than Iraq? If so, do elaborate.
Once again (and I know it doesn't bother you either way, but I want to say it anyway), you're great and I love your blog, but even the smartest can be wrong. Even Hitch. ;-)
Oh, and anyone who ranks Hitch below William Lane Craig in debating ability is a fool! Go watch a video of Craig, and go watch a video of Hitch. Big difference.
ReplyDelete@Massimo,
ReplyDeleteHow do you do damage to atheism? Seriously. It is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. How can that be damaged? It's not an idea nor a movement. It needs no support. It cannot die or be made stronger. It does not exist. It is in fact the non-existence of something. To damage atheism would require necessarily the strengthening of what it is not. That is not happening. It is not what Hitchens did. No matter what it is imagined that he did do, strengthening what atheism is not is not what he did. If you can see what I mean.
I think that Hitchens leaves behind him a decidedly mixed legacy. There is Hitch as left-wing gadfly, which was the Hitch that many of us leftists had longed admired. There was Hitch as imperialist war monger who became a major celebrity after 9-11. Then, there was Hitch as atheist campaigner, who I suspect is the Hitch that many readers of this blog admire. There is also Hitch as literary critic and the Hitch who left behind a body of more personal writings.
ReplyDeleteScott Hamilton does a pretty good job IMO in summarizing the various Hitches at:
http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-and-end-of.html
At this point, it's not altogether clear which of these Hitches (if any) will survive although Scott I think makes a good case that it might be the Hitch who wrote the more personal writings that might be the one who endures.
myatheistlife,
ReplyDelete> How do you do damage to atheism? Seriously. It is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. How can that be damaged? It's not an idea nor a movement. <
If that were the case, nobody would have any reason within the atheist community (yes, there is one) or movement (yup!) to cheer Hitchens. Atheism as an idea / movement / community can be damaged by people who represent the idea in a way that alienates outsiders, as I think it can be argued Hitchens did.
Michael,
yes, anyone can be wrong, including (gasp!) me ;-) But in this case I think you and others take Hitchens' support for the Iraq war, his misogynism, etc. a bit too lightly (and your blanket condemnation of Salon is most definitely unfair).
First, Hitch has made derogatory remarks about women several times, and being married doesn't mean one is not a misogynist. Second, nobody is criticizing him as a writer, but as a human being on the basis of his public choices. Third, of course he did damage by so publicly supporting the war. Words penned by prominent public figures do damage in a different way from bullets and bombs, but they do it nonetheless (chiefly by helping to justify in the public's opinion those bullets and bombs). Fourth, I respectfully disagree, but the world doesn't need any more assholes. There are far too many of them. And the point of public discourse abut atheism isn't to convert the extremists (they don't respond to either reason or assholism), but to reach out to people in the middle ground (who do respond negatively to assholism).
Robin,
I fail to see in what way my critique smells of ivory tower, particularly considering that I'm one of the least ivory towerish academics I know.The articles aren't about character assassination, they are about a more balanced view of a very public figure, along the very same lines that Hitch did with, say, Mother Theresa. I know that he was empowering to many, but that empowerment has come at a cost for the atheist movement, and at any rate doesn't counterbalance, in my view, the bad he did in other areas, particularly politics.
>Oh, and anyone who ranks Hitch below William Lane Craig in debating ability is a fool! Go watch a video of Craig, and go watch a video of Hitch. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is a purple prose demagogue without a clue. Some people equate flourish and braggadocio with a clever argument while others see a blundering attempt to hide a pathetically bad argument. Take away Hitchens' accent and you're left with Bill O'Reilly.
Try to understand. And cards on table, I'm an atheist.
"Christopher Hitchens has recently passed away"
ReplyDeleteIt is always better to use exact language:
Christopher Hitchens has recently died.
How much good or bad can anyone do to a cause promoting rebellion against God and leading people to forfeit the grace that could be theirs? http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteEid,
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHA!!! Clearly you - and the author of that fatuous article you linked to - have never heard Craig or Hitchens speak. Even I could trump Craig, and I get stage fright. You wanna talk about a purple-prose demagogue? That's Craig. Whatever dude, stew in your own stunted sense of taste and all-too-biased judgment; I'm gonna go respond to someone intelligent now.
Professor,
I would say that you are being one-sided in your critique of the man, as well as over-emphasizing his faults. But before I get into that, let's talk about Salon. No, I was not being unfair. That website has all the integrity of Human Events magazine - spin, knee-jerk bias, childish rants with little substance, and a sub-par prose style that I can only describe as the "Cracked.com style." Most of the articles on that site are written like Internet humor. And Alex Pareene (who, by the way he tries to write, secretly wishes he could be Hitch) is the paragon of what I'm talking about. His articles are nothing more than 500 words or less of continuous bad-mouthing with no informative quality and very little respect for proper argumentation. If I wanted to read a childish bitch-fest, I'd flip through my diary (which I don't bring to the light of day, for a very good reason). If Ann Coulter were a liberal, she'd write for Salon (Mr. Greenwald is an exception; I love that guy). Just look at their whiny objections to his criticism of the Clintons - one of the nastiest pairs of crooks in recent times.
Moving back to Hitch, I wonder if you could provide me with some more examples of his alleged misogyny. I read through all six links - three of which were absolute rubbish (Mother Jones? Really?) - and all I could find were his admittedly nasty reaction to the Dixie chicks, and one person's allegation that he was unkind to female interns. Sorry, not a compelling case there. I am no fan of the mistreatment of women because of their womenhood, believe me, but words like "misogynist" are thrown about too indiscriminately. And while I hate to compare rotten apples to compost, I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between contempt for women and condescension towards women. Both are unsanitary and stupid, but the former is much more so. To say that men are funnier than women is to be condescending - it does NOT therefore entail that one will mistreat them. Calling three particular women whom you find repugnant "slags" or "sluts" is pretty crude, but in a world where words like bitch, mother fucker, asshole, douchebag, dickhead, etc., are thrown about as if they were objective concepts and descriptions (such as in Salon, or even on this lovely blog), I think we're missing the point when we try and expunge only SOME of those nasty words. And again, we only have one person's opinion as to his treatment of women at the Nation. I hate to say this, but I find the accusation reasonably suspicious - he didn't exactly leave the on good terms did he? to say nothing of a degree of over-sensitivity and an overlooking of similar treatment of men (how did he - famous for being curt, blunt and impatient - treat male interns?). And no, being married does not make one guiltless of misogyny. It was merely a conclusive flourish to my point - he didn't hate women IMHO, and to say he did does an injustice to his wife.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteAs to the damage he did (not) do to the world by his support for Iraq, look, what was your opinion on how to deal with Hussein? Not just in 2002 and 2003, but also from 1991? Did you share those opinions in any sort of public forum? (If not, we can use another public figure as an example.) What would've been the consequences of not going to war? What were the consequences of leaving him alone in the 90s? How much blood is then on the hands of the WRITERS who maintained such positions? And what of writers who may have opposed intervention in the Balkans in the 90s (which Hitch called for repeatedly - on the side of the Moslems of that region against Christian fascism - way before the US or the UN got involved; only to not finish the job and remove Milosevic)? You are on very, very thin ice when you make that charge of complicity, especially toward one who made their arguments in good faith (which is more than can be said for the Bush administration). And anyway, isn't the ghastliness of the war because of the disgraceful way it was prosecuted? If an administration that wasn't so utterly corrupt and stupid as Bush's was in power, do you think Hussein's removal would've had such terrible consequences? Perhaps the blood is someone else's hands...
As for the secular cause, was his book not a best-seller? I've never read - apart from the Age of Reason - a better call for a godless, enlightened world, nor a better critique of the cancer of religion. He wasn't an asshole to those on the middle ground; to them, he was more of a firefighter in a very crowded and burning building. "Move your ass, folks, before you die!" He "dramatized a shameful condition" (this MLK quote should not be construed as a comparison between the two men), which is exactly what is needed for the apathetic secularists in our society (and there are far too many of them). I think he's done more for our cause, and done a better job at exposing the evil of religion, than you realize. You also might want to consider why he was relatively unknown until 2007. He had very unpopular opinions which needed to be heard and which he didn't mind sharing. Go watch some clips of him on C-SPAN in the 80s and 90s and you'll see what I mean.
Yes, he was a prick who made some serious errors, but to consider the whole man and his whole life, a fair judgment would pronounce him a great individual.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI have debated Craig, and I can assure you that the guy is a polished debater, not easy to humiliate, despite the fact that his arguments are rather thin.
> all I could find were his admittedly nasty reaction to the Dixie chicks, and one person's allegation that he was unkind to female interns. Sorry, not a compelling case there. <
How many cases or anecdotes do you need?
> in a world where words like bitch, mother fucker, asshole, douchebag, dickhead, etc., are thrown about as if they were objective concepts and descriptions <
By whom? I don't think you've ever seen any of that here, or on any reputable blog or news source.
> What would've been the consequences of not going to war? <
Sorry, I'm not going to have that discussion again. I think the war was based on a lie, in turn motivated by an economic calculus, and that for someone like Hitchens - famous for condemning Kissinger realpolitik on ethical grounds - to support it was unconscionable and arguably the worst thing he did in his life.
Massimo:
ReplyDeleteHitchens might not use been the person best fit to sway the majority to our side, but he was part of a movement (the so-called "new atheists") that I think did do two things to help us get to the point where that's even feasible.
First, their out-front writings and speaking engagements put atheism on the forefront of the Western world's consciousness, and created the space for more widespread conversations on religion (like this one!) that were not happening here beforehand. Second, their public work encouraged many apathetic secularists and fence sitters to be more assertive and engage with the problem of religious dogmatism.
I think both of these were productive first steps toward getting a majority to embrace secular thinking. And I think these two points can be accepted whether or not you agree with their arguments, or how they stated their arguments. But I'll wait to hear your response :)
That said, I agree with you that there is simply no way to defend his -- or almost anyone's -- support for the Iraq war.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeletefirst off, all of the linked essays criticize the other aspects of Hitchens' writing and public advocacy, not his part in the New Atheism.
Second, for an allegedly evidence-drive community I hear a lot of claims about all the good that the New Atheists have done, with precious little backing up in terms of data. Are we seriously arguing that atheism wasn't widely discussed before the Hitchens-Dawkins-Harris-Dennett books? And on what evidential grounds are you asserting that more fence sitters have been drawn inside the movement rather than repelled by the NA's rhetoric?
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteYes, I know. I was replying to your comment that Hitchens has done more harm than good for atheism.
As for your second point, two responses:
First, certainly atheism was being discussed long before the arrival of the New Atheists, but on such a widespread and popular scale? The NA all had best-selling books, major TV and magazine appearances, and auditoriums packed with sometimes thousands of people.
Second, I do not have empirical data on how many more people became active in secular ongoings either from an apathetic or fence-sitting position because of the NAs. I only have anecdotes. That does give me some reason to question my arguments. I'd be interested to talk with organization leaders at CFI, AA, AHA, etc, to see if and how how their membership and donation levels have changed over the past 10-15 years.
Michael,
ReplyDeletenobody doubts that the NA have had an impact. The question is whether it was an overall positive one. Anecdotes, as you know, are self-selective, and even membership / donations to atheist organizations is not the right indicator. It may very well be that the NA were successful in getting atheists to be more active, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the perception of atheism among the general public. Judging from this: http://goo.gl/igz41 we ain't doing too well...
I suspect the popularity of the so-called New Atheists stems more from a pre-existing general trend toward atheism than from the quality of the New Atheists themselves.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find the NAs (with the possible exception of Dennett) to be superficial at best. Certainly Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens present philosophically unsophisticated and (at times) downright horrible arguments on behalf of atheism.
I rather hope the NAs have not influenced too many people. It is unfortunate that philosophers of religion like Michael Martin, Kai Nielsen, Paul Draper, J.L. Mackey, J.J.C. Smart, Ullin Price, Keith Parsons, Evan Fales, Graham Oppy, or Jordan Howard Sobel, to name only a few, are not more popular than the NA (a misnomer if there ever was one).
I read Katha Pollitt's article recently and I thought of responding to it directly, but I'd rather do so here.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I have always been against the Iraq war, Hitchen's experiences with the Kurds notwithstanding.
But having said that, it was precisely because I disagreed with Hitchens that I was drawn to him long ago when he wrote for the Nation. Not being a Leftist myself, I still wanted to read their best writers to test my own confirmation bias and see if I was missing something. Subscribing to The Nation and The American Prospect was one way to do this. In this context, I always found his writing to be among the best and the most challenging.
Thus, when Hitch went to the other side and renounced "socialism" (his word) and endorsed the Iraq War, I was especially interested in what he had to say. Recall this all preceded Hitchens jumping on the New Atheist bandwagon.
So you see, I am not the least bit offended when we disagreed. For me, it made him all the more interesting.
Michael Martin, Kai Neilsen, et al are great -- but can we really expect the general public to buy and read their books? I'm not saying Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris made philosophically sound arguments. But the general public isn't proneto consume philosophically dense ones, either.
ReplyDeleteMassimo, good point.
ReplyDeleteThough for a skeptical take on that study, see here:
http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/12/04/when-atheists-get-it-wrong-atheists-arent-less-trusted-than-rapists/
Michael,
ReplyDeletethanks for the link, but there are issues there. First, the claim of the article is that atheists are *as* distrusted as rapists, not more. Which is perfectly compatible with the overlap in the error bars. Second, the author invokes a ceiling effect for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And even if there was one, atheists would still be much less trusted than the other groups, which is still a problem.
Still, I wonder: is it possible that the NAs served to confirm the public's negative perception of atheists in the short term while at the same time helping atheists out in the long run by emboldening them to organize and fight the perceptions via religious criticism? That is, the goal of the NAs was foremost to increase critical discussion on religious belief, not to change the public's perception of atheists. Yet wouldn't the latter be served by the former?
ReplyDeleteSorry for some of the above typos, I'm still getting used to this iPad :)
ReplyDeleteMichael, yes, it is certainly possible. Is it happening? Do we have any evidence? And is the broader goal of criticizing religion and making atheism acceptable actually served by this kind of activism? Incidentally, I'm just now working on a post on this broader topic, stay tuned...
ReplyDelete>Michael Martin, Kai Neilsen, et al are great -- but can we really expect the general public to buy and read their books? I'm not saying Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris made philosophically sound arguments. But the general public isn't proneto consume philosophically dense ones, either.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think the New Atheist movement should be supplanted by the Skeptic/Rationality movement. The former movement is too specialized and encroaches in more nuanced philosophical territory. The latter movement advocates for a broader toolbox and the beginnings of a firm philosophical foundation. Would you rather give someone The God Delusion or The Demon-Haunted World? Which movement do you think will attract more brain power? More positive public attention?
The Demon-Haunted World, hands down.
ReplyDeleteThe Demon Haunted World, hands down. Or Why I am Not a Christian, by B. Russell. Or Letters From The Earth, by M. Twain. The Age of Reason, by T. Paine. The Necessity of Atheism, by Percy Bysshe Shelley. And so on...
ReplyDeleteI felt immense sympathy for Hitch because of his cancer, but I have to say that I don't even think he was an eloquent writer. He always seemed to work with a belletristic touch. I think he wanted to talk serious philosophy and sound like a novelist all at the same time. It unfortunately does not work that way, or at least it didn't in his case. There are different styles for different tasks. I for one rate Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker as for more skilled at the act of writing.
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
ReplyDelete>I fail to see in what way my critique smells of ivory tower, particularly considering that I'm one of the least ivory towerish academics I know.<
I can certainly believe that you are one of the least ivory towerish academics you know, but your previous form doesn't prevent you from being mistaken in this case. Your claim to knowledge regarding whether Hitchens was good or bad for "atheism" or the "atheist movement" as a whole is where I detect a tone of ivory towerish... ness. I'm sure atheism can struggle on regardless of whether one of it's legion was a bit of a shit (or not). Please also realise that the whole idea of a tangible "atheist movement" is a thoroughly Americentric idea - and in my view a flawed way to deal with theistic 'movements'. This is because it paints socially concerned atheists as if they are just another group - equivalent to the corporatist theistic groups - competing for market share in people's minds.
>The articles aren't about character assassination, they are about a more balanced view of a very public figure, along the very same lines that Hitch did with, say, Mother Theresa.<
I say this is a case of false balance. Plus the crass, personal nature of the articles linked really stinks.
>I know that he was empowering to many, but that empowerment has come at a cost for the atheist movement<
Presuming to know what is a good for a "movement" of people who don't believe in something really strikes me as being quite bizarre, as I explained above.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteRe "... can we really expect the general public to buy and read their books?"
No, certainly not. But in large measure the NAs' readership, primarily those who purport to take a scientific world view seriously, are not the general public. Skeptics and self-identified, intellectually informed atheists / agnostics / freethinkers / secular humanists really ought to go beyond the pale of the NAs and engage *good* philosophy of religion / epistemology / philosophy of science, etc.
Most of the philosophers I have mentioned have encapsulated their thoughts in less rigorous media such as books rather than more technical papers. So, there really is no excuse why a skeptic, atheist, agnostic, etc., should not engage the best that is on offer.
Several comments to various thoughts above.
ReplyDeleteFirst, among classical humanistic atheist reads, let's put Sidney Hook in there, too. Related to that, tho less liberal than Hitchens gave the appearance of being, I suspect Hitch was ... a *poseur* already in the mid-90s.
Or Paul Kurtz. (Just how "Gnu" will CFI be in another decade, anyway?)
Second, @Michael, in just the last year (as well as in spots in his new essays collection), he claims women are physically incapable of humor, on grounds that sound like Pop Ev Psych tripe. Maybe you're not searching hard enough?
Third, @Michael2, Old Man Bush was more circumspect on Iraq. As for "what to do with Hussein," will you, in another decade, have enough courage, and moral honesty, to wonder, "what to do with Maliki," or, even worse, "what to do with Moqtada al-Sadr"? If not, then shut up. It's a red herring, first, and second, makes the unsupportable presuppostion that what we did will turn out best for Iraq, or for the U.S.
Hitch was a neocon, who along with the even more bloodthirsty neocon Sam Harris, puts the lie to PZ Myers' claim that there are no conservative Gnu Atheists.
Refute that, Michael.
Gadly:
ReplyDeleteHarris is your idea of a conservative? He's a pro-gay-rights pro-abortion feminist atheist who supports wealth redistribution and the abolition of the death penalty.
I tended to see Hitch as the quintessential rhetorician, or put less favourably, the quintessential clever arguer. I think his contrarianism was healthy in small doses even when it was wrong, but his ability to convince practically anybody of practically anything always made me nervous.
ReplyDeleteI suspect his ability to argue for whatever position he wished might have backfired on him, as sometimes he may have ended up convincing himself of his own near-sophistries. I am very ambivalent about the man. I am sure he convinced many people to be atheists, which ceteris paribus is good. I'm not sure he convinced them for the right reasons, however. And his atheism was often overly political, having less to do with rationality than with his rather weird obsession with "fascistic" tendencies in religious thought.
...Yeah, very ambivalent. But I wish he weren't dead.
What exactly makes Hitchens struggle 'valiant'? The fact that he didn't just lay down and die? He struggled because it is the nature of life to struggle. No valor in there that I can see.
ReplyDeleteAs for how one feels about Hitchens that would probably depend on where you stand on the goals and methods of atheism. If you feel the goal was eradication of all religion and the best method aggressive confrontation and argument then I imagine you'll mourn him a great deal, and if you feel that reformation of religious thought should be the goal and engagement should be the method then you'd mourn him a bit less.
Personally I found his view on the Iraq war indefensible and his tobacco and alcohol consumption habits distasteful. He was like all of us a pie chart of good and bad.
Robin,
ReplyDelete> Your claim to knowledge regarding whether Hitchens was good or bad for "atheism" or the "atheist movement" as a whole is where I detect a tone of ivory towerish... ness. <
I didn't claim to *know* that. I am simply, I think reasonably, skeptical of claims (being ut forth without evidence) that he was good for the movement / community.
> realise that the whole idea of a tangible "atheist movement" is a thoroughly Americentric idea <
I don't think so. There are atheist and freethinkers organizations the world over, and there is certainly a community of loosely connected people with somewhat overlapping goals - which is all that human communities are.
> the crass, personal nature of the articles linked really stinks. <
Seriously? Have you actually read Hitch? Tak about crass and personal...
> Presuming to know what is a good for a "movement" of people who don't believe in something really strikes me as being quite bizarre <
I don't see why. There is no "presumption" here, only evidence based on a lot of personal interactions, activism in the movement for now 15 years, and a lot of reading.
The Greenwald piece is idiotic. "The GREATEST POLITICAL CRIME OF THE CENTURY!!" was to support the Iraq war ... far greater than to, e.g., execute it. What?
ReplyDeleteAnd THE GREATEST X OF THE CENTURY is rather less great when X turns out to involve an adjective and a whole nest of weasels.
Greenwald's upset is because he sees Hitchens as an apostate. That is the "crime" he's really speaking of.
And when you write on the New Atheists - FWIW. I have sat in pubs with atheists who know a bit of philosophy and lamented The God Delusion. It's irritatingly philosophically simplistic, and I agree with every word. (god is not Great does much better on actually accounting for the beliefs of those it opposes, for example.)
ReplyDeleteBut the important thing is that it works. It's got a track record of deconversions - the effect it was intended to have. Theists warn other theists against even reading it, and give them talking points to use when it's brought up.
It is most amusing to ask said theists if they've read it. When they say they haven't, I offer to email them a PDF so they can speak in an informed manner of it. Their faces inevitably fall at this point.
That is: philosophical robustness isn't actually everything. Sheer invective and effectiveness is worth taking into account.
Ritchie, there are other neocons who are at least somewhat socially liberal, albeit not as much as Harris. Neocon usually refers to foreign policy thinking only. Joe Lieberman, for example, is also pro-choice, and "reasonable" on women's rights and gay issues, among other things.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDelete> The God Delusion ... the important thing is that it works. It's got a track record of deconversions <
Oh? Can you actually cite statistics here? I don't know whether it did, or how many times it did, or - more importantly - how many "net" deconversions we got (surely someone also got pissed off and moved from the fence to the religion column). But I am getting a bit frustrated by widespread claims of what works (or doesn't work) being made without evidence by a community of allegedly and fiercely evidence-based people. What we do know from psychological research is that being confrontational usually turns off people, but even there I don't know that there are data specifically appropriate to the case at hand.
Fair enough - I have anecdote, not data.
ReplyDeleteI applaud your intend to present a balanced view of Christopher Hitchens work and life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, labelling the man as "[...] personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face[...]" etc, hardly helps your case.
Favio,
ReplyDelete> labelling the man as "[...] personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face[...]" etc, hardly helps your case <
Except that these "labels" actually correspond to the documented behavior by the man, they are not just unfounded accusations.
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me, on a personal note mention that where the NA did not need to convince me in my atheism their popularity made me realize that I was not alone and to finally “come out of the closet”. I think that Hitch and the others if nothing else made atheism visible to the public in a way it was not before, be that positive or negative.
Second; you will find errors in my reasoning and my command of the English language...I am not a philosopher and neither a linguist or a statistician
But I have something to say about a comment of yours
“ But I am getting a bit frustrated by widespread claims of what works (or doesn't work) being made without evidence by a community of allegedly and fiercely evidence-based people”
I have to say say I agree with your initial sentiment but I think you are mixing apples with oranges here. The atheist community is not “ a community of allegedly and fiercely evidence-based people”. The atheist community consist of a mixed bag of ragtag ideas about the non-existence of a deity, all the way through the spectrum of conspiracy theories and believers of the supernatural minus a deity to rational atheists with a skeptical approach to life....and to use one of your favorite expressions there is no clear demarcation line in-between the different groups. What I mean is that we can not assume when talking about atheists that they will have a skeptical approach to life nor that skeptics will have an atheistic one
We can probably assume that most of the people reading this blog in the first place are or ought to be rational atheists celebrating scientific skepticism and one can only stop by and be amazed at the power of anecdotes.
A sort of broad reflection after reading the comments here
ReplyDeleteI will leave the discussion of politics to people who are more suited for it but as to the question of advocacy for atheism.....I have to agree with Massimo. As much as many of us salivates over a good repartee on Youtube or a particular “Hitchslap” or the barbed commentary in an article or a book. And as much as that gives us that particular Ra-Ra feeling as an atheist, and however much you wish you could swing a verbal barb with such accuracy, eloquence and sting....for a moment imagine what it looks like from the other side. Sure some it needed to be said and probably just as rudely as it was delivered but definitely not all of it.
Hitchens and the others gave atheism a voice and as much as I believe that was needed that type of visibility also comes with a responsibility to represent that community in a fair way, Hitchens did not always take on that mantel when debating or writing....he was representing his own convictions, and I think he should but......being one of the few faces for atheism in the media he also had in my mind a responsibility to the community that I think often was poorly served by the delivery he made
What a load of rubbish, from someone I otherwise admire so... So, Hitchens was inconsistent? How? Please show me this. His view on religion derived from the main theme of his life; always standing up against totalitarianism and fascism. His "style" was precisely what was needed, as someone who refuses to take bullying and actually stand up against it. But we both know why Prof. Pigliucci wasn't such a big fan: The war in Iraq. Well... Hitchens has defended HIS views and reasons behind his stance several times and utterly destroyed every single argument against it. He was the person who made me personally change my mind, from a staunch, anti-war activist to a fierce supporter of the intervention, and I challenge anyone here to give me argument against the intervention that I can't easily destroy.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for being consistent... Prof. Pigliucci accuses Mr. Hitchens for attacking fellow writers... Has anyone read Prof. Pigliuccis writing on, say, Ayn Rand? As for ridiculing his opponents... Did anyone read Prof. Pigliuccis blog on his debate with William Lane Craig? Where he said he "wiped the floor with him"? One of the morons commentating here wrote: "jeremybeeDec 25, 2011 11:42 AM
He died well, but, on balance, didn't live worth a shite."
This about a man who was in Czechoslovakia before any other journalist, writing about the dangers of the communists. This about a man who actually went to all Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran, Poland, North Korea etc, actually living and risking his life in the danger to be able to report back on it. This is a man who vehemently stood up against every single dictatorship that existed in his life time, and often risked his life in doing so. From protecting his friend Salman Rushdie to supporting Jalal Talabani and assisting him in his early days as a critique of Saddams, Hitchens devoted his life to freedom. If that is not the life lived to its best, I don't know what is. Certainly not a twat, ignoramus, commentating on things he knows about. And for Prof. Pigliucci... Maybe you should be careful with your a) sources, and b) nonsense. Hitchens has done more for the liberation of women than you or anyone you've ever met has done or will do. And his style of debating was superior to most others, although I agree that he lost to WLC. But then again, so did Prof. Pigliucci. Twice.