tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8067437590195622185..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Massimo's Picks, special Hitchens editionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53753525094301863062012-01-25T23:02:57.084-05:002012-01-25T23:02:57.084-05:00What a load of rubbish, from someone I otherwise a...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. <br />Now, 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<br /> He died well, but, on balance, didn't live worth a shite."<br />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.AmirPars_https://www.blogger.com/profile/17113509635216966756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28868028546615474542011-12-28T10:28:48.623-05:002011-12-28T10:28:48.623-05:00A sort of broad reflection after reading the comme...A sort of broad reflection after reading the comments here<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />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 madeMr Mickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13376160434456328005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9115509257952436932011-12-28T10:07:34.642-05:002011-12-28T10:07:34.642-05:00Massimo,
First let me, on a personal note mention...Massimo,<br /><br />First 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. <br /><br />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<br /><br />But I have something to say about a comment of yours<br /><br />“ 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”<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.Mr Mickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13376160434456328005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40409659289339013532011-12-28T08:44:59.237-05:002011-12-28T08:44:59.237-05:00Favio,
> labelling the man as "[...] per...Favio,<br /><br />> labelling the man as "[...] personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face[...]" etc, hardly helps your case <<br /><br />Except that these "labels" actually correspond to the documented behavior by the man, they are not just unfounded accusations.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37183042361773626992011-12-28T08:22:26.636-05:002011-12-28T08:22:26.636-05:00I applaud your intend to present a balanced view o...I applaud your intend to present a balanced view of Christopher Hitchens work and life.<br /><br />However, labelling the man as "[...] personally abusive (particularly, it appears, toward fellow writers), misogynist, obnoxiously in your face[...]" etc, hardly helps your case.FBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146881636937508659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5882153973686445872011-12-27T17:57:46.020-05:002011-12-27T17:57:46.020-05:00Fair enough - I have anecdote, not data.Fair enough - I have anecdote, not data.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90497122509684576072011-12-27T17:54:15.179-05:002011-12-27T17:54:15.179-05:00David,
> The God Delusion ... the important th...David,<br /><br />> The God Delusion ... the important thing is that it works. It's got a track record of deconversions <<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46140399604712518542011-12-27T17:12:45.186-05:002011-12-27T17:12:45.186-05:00Ritchie, there are other neocons who are at least ...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.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15980566303613227512011-12-27T16:40:46.260-05:002011-12-27T16:40:46.260-05:00And when you write on the New Atheists - FWIW. I h...And when you write on the New Atheists - FWIW. I have sat in pubs with atheists who know a bit of philosophy and lamented <i>The God Delusion</i>. It's irritatingly philosophically simplistic, and I agree with every word. (<i>god is not Great</i> does much better on actually accounting for the beliefs of those it opposes, for example.)<br /><br />But the important thing is that it <i>works</i>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />That is: philosophical robustness isn't actually everything. Sheer invective and effectiveness is worth taking into account.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3811410444009860402011-12-27T16:10:54.303-05:002011-12-27T16:10:54.303-05:00The Greenwald piece is idiotic. "The GREATEST...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. <i>What?</i><br /><br />And THE GREATEST X OF THE CENTURY is rather less great when X turns out to involve an adjective and a whole nest of weasels.<br /><br />Greenwald's upset is because he sees Hitchens as an <i>apostate</i>. That is the "crime" he's really speaking of.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49532600748870779642011-12-27T09:00:30.010-05:002011-12-27T09:00:30.010-05:00Robin,
> Your claim to knowledge regarding whe...Robin,<br /><br />> 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. <<br /><br />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.<br /><br />> realise that the whole idea of a tangible "atheist movement" is a thoroughly Americentric idea <<br /><br />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.<br /><br />> the crass, personal nature of the articles linked really stinks. <<br /><br />Seriously? Have you actually read Hitch? Tak about crass and personal...<br /><br />> 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 <<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67248714952178889152011-12-27T08:40:40.102-05:002011-12-27T08:40:40.102-05:00What exactly makes Hitchens struggle 'valiant&...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.<br /><br />As 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. <br /><br />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.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57577375477469960212011-12-26T23:48:13.416-05:002011-12-26T23:48:13.416-05:00I tended to see Hitch as the quintessential rhetor...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.<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />...Yeah, very ambivalent. But I wish he weren't dead.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79876236155896247802011-12-26T23:13:50.759-05:002011-12-26T23:13:50.759-05:00Gadly:
Harris is your idea of a conservative? He&...Gadly:<br /><br />Harris 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.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28571062527706730662011-12-26T22:24:10.037-05:002011-12-26T22:24:10.037-05:00Several comments to various thoughts above.
First...Several comments to various thoughts above.<br /><br />First, 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. <br /><br />Or Paul Kurtz. (Just how "Gnu" will CFI be in another decade, anyway?)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Refute that, Michael.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39805899402429661212011-12-26T20:13:00.547-05:002011-12-26T20:13:00.547-05:00Michael,
Re "... can we really expect the ge...Michael,<br /><br />Re "... can we really expect the general public to buy and read their books?" <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12710524717350784042011-12-26T19:31:41.576-05:002011-12-26T19:31:41.576-05:00Massimo,
>I fail to see in what way my critiqu...Massimo,<br /><br />>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.<<br /><br />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.<br /><br />>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.<<br /><br />I say this is a case of false balance. Plus the crass, personal nature of the articles linked really stinks.<br /><br />>I know that he was empowering to many, but that empowerment has come at a cost for the atheist movement<<br /><br />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.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00055701170560201758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44391576464357408522011-12-26T18:48:36.707-05:002011-12-26T18:48:36.707-05:00I felt immense sympathy for Hitch because of his c...I 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.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83964834194730722162011-12-26T17:30:09.289-05:002011-12-26T17:30:09.289-05:00The Demon Haunted World, hands down. Or Why I am N...The 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...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8893504670689423152011-12-26T17:21:40.314-05:002011-12-26T17:21:40.314-05:00The Demon-Haunted World, hands down.The Demon-Haunted World, hands down.Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19421011689903134482011-12-26T17:09:33.544-05:002011-12-26T17:09:33.544-05:00>Michael Martin, Kai Neilsen, et al are great -...>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.<br /><br />This 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?JoshJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13232627951659106765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80712418900944252272011-12-26T16:55:39.943-05:002011-12-26T16:55:39.943-05:00Michael, yes, it is certainly possible. Is it happ...Michael, 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...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55203719497519473072011-12-26T16:41:13.379-05:002011-12-26T16:41:13.379-05:00Sorry for some of the above typos, I'm still g...Sorry for some of the above typos, I'm still getting used to this iPad :)Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19407774870303405732011-12-26T16:36:49.334-05:002011-12-26T16:36:49.334-05:00Still, I wonder: is it possible that the NAs serve...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?Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27050544648399961742011-12-26T16:32:06.112-05:002011-12-26T16:32:06.112-05:00Michael,
thanks for the link, but there are issue...Michael,<br /><br />thanks 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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com